Month: September 2007

Saturday Night At The Movies

Death of a lens man

By Dennis Hartley

You know what “they” say- it always comes in threes. First, we suffered the recent loss of two masters of world cinema, Ingmar Bergman and Michelangelo Antonioni. Then, on July 21, we lost someone with perhaps a bit less name recognition but certainly no less importance. I am referring to one of American filmdom’s most respected and influential cinematographers, Laszlo Kovacs. This week, we’ll take a look at some “must see” films from this craftsman’s prolific 50-year career.

Kovacs’ journey to the United States from his native Hungary plays like a nail-biting Cold War thriller. When the Hungarian Revolution exploded on the streets of Budapest in 1956, the young Kovacs, together with fellow student and longtime pal Vilmos Zsigmond (yes, THAT Vilmos Zsigmond!), boldly documented the ensuing events with a hidden camera (on loan from their school). The two budding film makers then risked life and limb to smuggle the resulting 30,000 feet of footage across the Austrian border. Both men subsequently sought and won political asylum in the U.S. in 1957. (BTW, there is a forthcoming documentary entitled “Laszlo & Vilmos: The Story of Two Refugees Who Changed the Look of American Cinema”).

The cinematography style of Kovacs and Zsigmond was quite literally borne from revolution; and it certainly revolutionized American cinema in the 1970’s with a signature “look” (sometimes referred to as “poetic realism”).

Hands down, the film that put Kovacs on the map was “Easy Rider” (1969). The dialog (along with the mutton chops, fringe vests and love beads) may not have dated so well, but thanks to his exemplary DP work, those now iconic images of expansive American landscapes and the endless gray ribbons that traverse them remain the quintessential touchstone for all subsequent American “road” movies, from “Vanishing Point”, “Two-Lane Blacktop” and “Badlands”, through “Lost in America”, “Thelma & Louise” and “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas”, all the way up to the recent “Little Miss Sunshine”.

I’m not sure what his feelings were about this (or if he even cared), but in the course of his long and illustrious career, it’s interesting that Kovacs never once snagged an Oscar (although he was nominated a few times). His friend Zsigmond fared better with the Academy; likely because to tended to work on higher profile films, whilst Kovacs gravitated more toward artistic and/or independent projects (at least through the period leading up to “Ghostbusters ”, the biggest box office hit he ever collaborated on).

Ironically, the final film that Kovacs is credited on prior to his death was a 2006 project with his old friend Zsigmond, a documentary that was produced to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Hungarian Revolution called “Torn from the Flag”. In an artistic sense, you could say that he came full circle. Poetic realism, indeed.

Here’s a cinematic Whitman’s sampler (if you will) from the Kovacs resume:

Hell’s Angels on Wheels (1967)-“Easy Rider” wasn’t the first foray into the 60’s biker scene for Kovacs and Jack Nicholson; this cult film/guilty pleasure from director Richard Rush (“The Stuntman”) may well have been the warm-up. Separated from the rest of the era’s grind house grist by Nicholson’s charisma and the skillful work from director Rush and DP Kovacs. Adam Roarke lives!

Targets (1968)-Director Peter Bogdanovich’s impressive debut and the first of many collaborations with DP Kovacs. Bogdanovich created a minor classic with this low-budget wonder about an aging horror movie star (Boris Karloff, not such a stretch) who is destined to cross paths with a seemingly “normal” young man who is about to go totally Charles Whitman on his sleepy community. This film presaged the likes of “Taxi Driver”, “The Stepfather” and “Falling Down” in its depiction of the “disenfranchised white male who finally snaps and goes on a killing spree” theme. A real sleeper.

Five Easy Pieces (1970)-“You see THIS sign?!” “Easy Rider” collaborators Kovacs, director Bob Rafelson and star Jack Nicholson were reunited for what is arguably the defining road movie of the 70’s. Nicholson fully realized what we now think of as the iconic “Jack” persona in this character study about a disillusioned, classically-trained piano player from a moneyed family, working a soulless blue-collar job and teetering on the verge of an existential meltdown. Karen Black (Oh! The voluptuous horror!) gives outstanding support as his long-suffering waitress girlfriend. Kovacs makes excellent use of the verdant, rain-soaked milieu of the Pacific Northwest. No substitutions!

What’s Up, Doc? (1972)- Another Bogdanovich-Kovacs collaboration, this hysterically funny homage to Hollywood’s golden age of screwball comedies (think “Bringing Up Baby”) features wonderful tongue-in-cheek performances from Ryan O’Neal and Barbara Streisand. Kovacs works his usual DP magic with the luminous San Francisco locale.

The King of Marvin Gardens(1972)-The Rafelson-Nicholson-Kovacs triumvirate hits yet another one out of the park in this intense neo-noir character study about a cynical radio talk show host (Nicholson) who attempts to save his low-life con artist brother (Bruce Dern) from himself, only to become embroiled in one of his sleazy schemes. Ellen Burstyn gives one of the best performances by an actress EVER, period. Kovacs expertly wrings every possible drop of noir atmosphere from the grim, gray Atlantic City locale. A brilliant work of art, any way you slice it. They don’t make ‘em like this anymore.

Paper Moon (1973)-The true test of a cinematographer’s mettle is how well he or she can work in black and white; and Kovacs passes the “shadows and light” test with, er, flying colors in this Bogdanovich film about a Depression-era bible salesman/con artist (Ryan O’Neal) and his precocious young sidekick (40 year-old midget Tatum O’Neal).

Shampoo (1975)-Sex and politics (and more sex) are mercilessly skewered (along with the shallow SoCal lifestyle) in Hal Ashby’s classic satire. Warren Beatty (who co-scripted with Robert Towne) plays a restless, over-sexed hairdresser with commitment “issues” (Oy, having to choose one “favorite” between Lee Grant, Goldie Hawn and Julie Christie would give anyone such tsuris!) Beatty allegedly based his character on his close friend (and hairdresser to the stars) Jay Sebring, one of the victims of the grisly Tate-LaBianca slayings in 1969. This was one of the earliest films to step back and openly satirize the 60’s counterculture zeitgeist with the hindsight of historical detachment. Kovacs gives the L.A. backdrop an appropriately soft, gauzy look that perfectly matched the protagonist’s fuzzily vague approach to dealing with adult responsibilities.

Heart Beat (1980)-John Byrum’s slightly flawed but fascinating take on the relationship between beat writer Jack Kerouac (John Heard), Carolyn Cassady (Sissy Spacek) and Neal Cassady (Nick Nolte) over a 20-year period. Hmm, a character study about restless people, non-conformity and going On The Road-who ya gonna call? Why, Laszlo Kovacs, natch! (Byrum wasn’t dumb). A low-budget sleeper ripe for rediscovery.

Frances (1982)-Speaking of non conformists. The sad story of how the bright, headstrong and politically outspoken actress Frances Farmer transitioned from a promising young Hollywood starlet in the 1940’s to a lobotomized mental patient, dying in near-obscurity is dramatized in this absorbing biopic from director Graeme Clifford. Jessica Lange throws herself into the role with complete abandonment and fearless passion, providing a compelling impetus for staying with this otherwise overlong film. Kovac’s sharp DP work drenches the dark, tragic tale in haunting, gothic atmosphere.

Shattered (1991)-Kovacs teams up with action director Wolfgang Petersen. Tom Berenger and Greta Scacchi steam up the screen in this Hitchcockian tale of a man attempting to piece his life back together after suffering amnesia following a serious auto accident (or was it an accident?). Sure, this plot has been done to death, but the attractive leads, taut direction and the dynamic lens work by Kovacs make it a worthwhile watch.

Also-for additional back story of the American film renaissance of the 1970’s, I highly recommend the documentary “Easy Riders, Raging Bulls” (Kovacs is a featured interviewee.)

Requirements

by digby

Seven years in the White House and he’s still as stupid as the day he was installed:

Oops, Bush did it again. After telling Australia’s deputy prime minister that “We’re kicking ass” in Iraq, U.S. President George W. Bush made two more of his characteristic verbal blunders at the APEC summit in Sydney.

In a speech this morning, Bush welcomed business leaders to the OPEC meeting, not the APEC meeting.

[…]

As he continued his speech, Bush recalled how Australian Prime Minister John Howard had gone to Iraq last year to visit “Austrian troops.” Actually, there are no Austrian troops in Iraq, but there are 1,500 Australian military personnel in and around Mesopotamia.

With anyone else, it would be seen as a slip of the tongue, jet lag, whatever. But with him, you really don’t know if he knew where he was or the difference between Austria and Australia. He’s that dumb.

And the even more awful news is that the Republicans seem to be trying to nominate someone of equal or greater stupidity and intellectual laziness. From Steve Benen:

Freshly minted GOP White House hopeful Fred Thompson puzzled Iowans yesterday by insisting an Al Qaeda smoking ban was one reason freedom-loving Iraqis bolted to the U.S. side.

“They said, ‘You gotta quit smoking,’” Thompson explained to a questioner asking about progress in Iraq during a town hall-style meeting. […]

Thompson’s tale of a smokers’ revolt baffled some in the audience of about 150 who came to decide whether the former Tennessee senator is ready for prime time.

“I don’t know what that was about,” said Jim Moran, 72, who had driven from nearby McCook Lake, S.D.

Thompson’s been getting a lot of that lately.

Just from the last couple of days:

* He’s having trouble explaining his position on Social Security, despite his assertion that the issue is one of the reasons he’s running for president.

* Thompson dismissed the significance of Osama bin Laden, describing him as “more symbolism than anything else.”

* He believes “we better figure out a way” to combat al Qaeda. Not that he necessarily knows how, of course, only that “we better figure out a way.”

* Thompson proposed a bizarre constitutional amendment on gay marriage yesterday, and argued that “zero” state legislatures “have affirmatively approved gay marriage,” a claim that happens to be wrong.

And then there’s Mr “Dazzle ’em with bullshit” Giuliani:

MR. VANDEHEI: Mayor Giuliani, this question comes from Eric Taylor (sp) from California. He wants to know, what is the difference between a Sunni and a Shi’a Muslim?

MR. GIULIANI: The difference is the descendant of Mohammed. The Sunnis believe that Mohammed’s — the caliphate should be selected, and the Shi’ites believe that it should be by descent. And then, of course, there was a slaughter of Shi’ites in the early part of the history of Islam, and it has infected a lot of the history of Islam, which is really very unfortunate.

And Mr. “All those ragheads are out to get us!” Romney:

MR. ROMNEY: … I don’t want to buy into the Democratic pitch, that this is all about one person, Osama bin Laden. Because after we get him, there’s going to be another and another. This is about Shi’a and Sunni. This is about Hezbollah and Hamas and al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. This is the worldwide jihadist effort to try and cause the collapse of all moderate Islamic governments and replace them with a caliphate.

And, last but not least, there are these three geniuses:

Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado and Mike Huckabee, former Arkansas governor, all expressed disbelief in evolution. Huckabee later told reporters, according to The New York Times, that “If you want to believe that you and your family came from apes, I’ll accept that”

Even the bloodthirsty McCain, who has less tendency to spout mind-bogglingly idiotic comments, can sound as stupid as the rest of them at times:

In a small, mirror-paneled room guarded by a Secret Service agent and packed with some of the city’s wealthiest and most influential political donors, Mr. McCain got right to the point.

“One of the things I would do if I were President would be to sit the Shiites and the Sunnis down and say, ‘Stop the bullshit,'” said Mr. McCain, according to Shirley Cloyes DioGuardi, an invitee, and two other guests.

I think it has to be said that the pervasiveness of this idiocy can’t be a coincidence. Republican voters must want it or the GOP wouldn’t insist that all their candidates be morons..

Let’s hope there are far fewer Republican voters this time out. The world really can’t take much more of this.

.

Calling Statistics Geeks

by tristero

[UPDATED}

I think I’m pretty good at comprehending statistical information for a layperson. A long time ago I took a grad level course in stats and ruined the curve because my test grades were 20 points higher than the next student’s.* But for the life of me, I can’t square the data displayed on the charts accompanying this article with Michael Gordon’s interpretation:

The most comprehensive and up-to-date military statistics show that American forces have made some headway toward a crucial goal of protecting the Iraqi population. Data on car bombs, suicide attacks, civilian casualties and other measures of the bloodshed in Iraq indicate that violence has been on the decline, though the levels generally remain higher than in 2004 and 2005.

However, what I see, if one looks at trends longer than a few months, is no significant decline but rather that, at best, the “surge” has prevented things from getting worse. The only improvement appears to be a decline in sectarian attacks (the last graph), but it is unclear from the data in that chart whether the drop off represents a longer trend. I talking in general here, obviously. There just doesn’t seem to be significant changes pre/post “surge.”

Anyone knowledgeable about stats care to comment and educate me/us? BTW, ad hominem remarks about Michael Gordon won’t be terribly helpful. The issue is not his biases, which we all know. What I’d like to know, instead, is whether the conclusions he draws in the paragraph quoted are reasonable ones based upon the evidence he presents. Likewise, I’m aware of the “correlation does not necessarily equal causation” fallacy which Gordon flirts with. In this case, tho, I think it is very reasonable to assume that additional military power might “cause” decreased numbers of attacks. I just don’t see them; the improvements, except as noted above, seem to be mostly temporary fluctuations.

As far as I can tell, he is stretching to be optimistic. If so, his follow up question is utterly disingenuous:

Can the drop be sustained over the coming months, especially with the approach of Ramadan, the Islamic holy month in which violence has often increased?

because it implies an improvement that is illusory but which, nevertheless, might be useful to try to sustain.

I’m serious. I’m puzzled and hope that someone who really, really knows how to study statistical data might want to take a moment and weigh in.

—

[UPDATE: Thanks, folks, for a very interesting discussion. From what I gather, the data are displayed in ways that make it difficult to compare apples to apples, and that many of you have doubts about the integrity of the data. Even assuming the data are accurate and honestly presented, I gather that none of you think “the surge” has accomplished very much.

As it happens, The Times agrees with you; they don’t share Gordon’s optimism and they sent additional reporters to Baghdad to get second opinions:

To study the full effects of the troop increase at ground level, reporters for The New York Times repeatedly visited at least 20 neighborhoods in Baghdad and its surrounding belts , interviewing more than 150 Iraq residents, in addition to sectarian militia members, Americans patrolling the city and Iraqi officials. They found that the additional troops had slowed, but far from stopped, Iraq’s still-burning civil war. Baghdad remains a city where sectarian violence can flare at any moment, and where the central government is becoming less reliable and relevant as Shiite or Sunni vigilantes demand submission to their own brand of law.

“These improvements in the face of the general devastation look small and insignificant because the devastation is so much bigger,” said Haidar Minathar, an Iraqi author, actor and director. He added that the security gains “have no great influence.”

The troop increase was meant to create conditions that could lead from improved security in Baghdad to national reconciliation to a strong central government to American military withdrawal. In recent weeks, President Bush and his commanders have shifted their emphasis to new alliances with tribal leaders that have improved security in Diyala Province, the Sunni Triangle and other Sunni areas, most notably Anbar Province.

This, not Baghdad, was the area Mr. Bush conspicuously chose to visit this week.

But when he announced Jan. 10 his plan to add 20,000 to 30,000 troops to Iraq, Mr. Bush emphasized that Baghdad was the linchpin for creating a stable Iraq.]

[UPDATE: Josh finds Gordon overly credulous in accepting the numbers from the military and recc’ds this WaPo article for another point of view. ]

*[UPDATE: Perhaps I should explain that it was a class for clinical psychology grad students who, if this class was any indication, are pretty …challenged… when it came to grasping quantitative data. But they had other virtues. Many of the students, I’m sure, have gone on to become superb psychologists.]

Biddle

by tristero

[UPDATE: In comments, r4d20 believes that I have misunderstood Biddle and believe him to be “pro-surge.” In re-reading my post, perhaps I should have clearly stated that I do not think Biddle is for or against “the surge” nor is his position one way or the other the point I wish to address here.

Rather I think Biddle fails to engage with any real seriousness the arguments he discusses that are “pro-surge” and by failing to do so, concludes from them that “the surge” is in his word, “defensible.” That simply isn’t so, if these are the only arguments in support of “the surge” – and they are. In fact, these arguments are quite preposterous. It is Biddle’s failure to engage responsibly these incredibly bad arguments, and therby enhancing their status, that I strongly object to. That, and only that, is the point of this post: he has mistaken an utterly indefensible – indeed, ridiculous – argument for a reasonable one.]

Yglesias draws our attention to Stephen Biddle’s prepared remarks before the House Armed Services entitled, “Evaluating Options for Partial Withdrawals of US Forces from Iraq”. It’s a short paper and worth a read, but not because his analysis is worthy of the enormous respect Matt feels, as apparently do others, for Biddle. Instead, it will provide you a sense of how truly inadequate the thinking of the foreign policy establishment is when dealing with contemporary realities, even in the twilight of the neo-cons. It gives one pause to realize that a genuine mediocrity like Biddle is, given the current state of the establishment, not by any means the most muddle-headed thinker accorded “enormous respect” and prestigious appointments.

Biddle commits a wince-inducing, undergraduate level mistake in reasoning. He fails, either due to intellectual limitations, political calculation or both, to responsibly and plainly evaluate the likely (and unlikely) consequences of American foreign policy and military initiatives. One would think that to evaluate such likelihoods are part of the job description for a respected foreign policy intellectual. But, just like Bush and the liberal hawks did during 2002/03, Biddle places wildly inappropriate emphasis on what he mistakenly deems real probabilities, chances that maybe, just maybe – hey, y’never know!- things will work out for the best:

Of course, continued pursuit of stability via negotiation in Iraq is inherently a long shot at this point – certainly the odds are well below the 25 percent success rate for such attempts historically. But to jump from this historical observation to a claim that the chances are zero is very hard to sustain analytically. A more reasonable prognosis is a small – but non-zero – chance of success.

And sure enough, Biddle continues down the well-intentioned path to probabilistic Hell:

A long shot gamble is never an attractive option, but it can make sense if the costs of failure are high. And failure in Iraq could pose grave risks to American interests.

This is specious reasoning of the most basic kind and the reason why so many of us are in despair over the future of our country.

For Biddle has completely neglected the crucial step of quantifying, in some reasonable way, what that “non-zero” chance of success of “stability via negotiation” might be. Less than 25%, definitely, how much less? Could he mean 5%? One would think that is probably too low to make the chance worth discussing but that’s exactly the percentage of “success” that convinced George Packer to get all gung-ho for Bush/Iraq when Packer’s pal, Makiya was talking up an invasion. (A “triumph of hope over experience.” Yep, Makiya said that, the sonofabitch.)

But hold on. To some Bushies, as we know, a 1% chance is plenty good odds. Are those the odds Biddle’s talking about here? I can’t see any reason why Biddle couldn’t be thought actually to be entertaining such a low probability of “success.” He is after all predicting 100,000 troops for 20 years in Iraq. A one percent chance might just be what he thinks it has.

In fact, I would argue that given the present level of negotiating skills in the governments of Iraq and in the US – which can charitably be described as “laughable” – the real odds of “stability via negotiation” are well below 1%. I’d say it is far more likely that there really was a spaceship behind Hale-Bopp.

Now most of us when contemplating 1% odds or less would say, “Ok, that really means it’s unlikely to happen before the universe experiences heat-death. That’s what we’re talking about here” and not waste any more time. But that’s not the impression Biddle creates. Remember: even odds of less than 1% are still “non-zero!” And by describing such hopeless odds in a vague manner – the odds of success are small, a long shot, but non-zero – Biddle provides the opening for a scoundrel like Dick Cheney to create plenty of nasty mischief. Hey! Y’never know! It just might work. And that’s how they sold Bush/Iraq to people dumb enough to fall for such sloppy thinking.

“Non-zero” is authoritative-sounding claptrap. And Biddle’s remarks are full of it. Sure, there are times you have to take enormous risks, but not with my child’s life you don’t when they are barely above 0%. And if he has kids, I’ll bet not with Biddle’s either. But that’s not the worst of his nonsense about the chances of desired outcomes :

Civil wars such as Iraq’s often take a decade or more to burn themselves out. With some luck, Iraq’s war could do this without spreading (and astute US policy could increase the chance of this, albeit only at the margin).

With some luck?!!??? Did Biddle actually write, “With some luck?” Let’s get this boy a Mojo Hand, as the old Muddy Waters song goes, maybe that’ll help the margin (note: he sang about it, but in interviews, it became quite clear that Muddy was far too sophisticated to believe that the Mojo Hand, let alone a belief in luck, could be of much help when wrestling with the blues. And that’s why Mr. Morganfield was never employed by the Council on Foreign Relations. True story.).

But wait! Biddle’s only just begun:

The result could be a regionwide version of the Iran-Iraq War some time in the next decade, but with some of the combatants (especially Iran) having probable access to weapons of mass destruction by that time. Of course nothing about Iraq is a certainty, and the probability of regionalization is not 1.0.

What, “not even 1” wasn’t pompous enough? But hey! Y’never know! Sensing an opportunity, the Kurds just might decide that the stability of the world depends upon their not declaring their independence, thereby precipitating a war with Turkey. It really could happen, maybe, if we all close our eyes and wish for hope to triumph over experience!

And then, Biddle goes over the rainbow:

None of these prospects are certainties. But during the Cold War we worried enough about a very small risk of nuclear aggression by the Soviet Union to spend untold billions to reduce that small risk to an even smaller one. By comparison, the danger that we could catalyze an eventual regional war in the Mideast by failure in Iraq seems much more realistic.

You read that right. Biddle is arguing that because we wasted an obscene amount of money during the Cold War, we should do likewise today. Oh, and dig that “catylyze!” He’s gotta be a smart guy with that kind of vocab.

Furthermore, Biddle’s analysis, especially of the surge, is so embedded within the Bush administration’s simplistic framework as to be worthless. For example:

If one defines failure as the total withdrawal of American forces from an unstable Iraq…

This is Bush-style definition, which equates withdrawal – under realistic scenarios: after all, into the long forseeable future, Iraq will be dangerously unstable – with failure. But, dear old Occam’s Razor needn’t be terribly sharp to realize that it’s quite clear withdrawal is not by any means a necessary component of failure. And surely “failure in Iraq” is better defined as the creation of a self-perpetuating Hobbesian State of Nature with no conceivable hope of amelioration for a generation, no matter what actions the US takes. That accurately defines the dreadful status quo in Iraq. And so, stay or withdraw, Bush has failed. Miserably.

And so on. Yes, Biddle makes a fairly convincing case against “partial withdrawals” from Iraq but, as Matt discusses, Biddle fails to realize that based upon his own analysis the case for the surge is fatally weak. That he would fail to do so is in keeping with his rather limited skills as an analyst.

However, while I have a serious problem with Biddle’s analysis of proposals for dealing with Iraq, his clear-headed, bluntly declarative description of the mind-boggling catastrophe that Iraq is presently suffering leads the reader to an inescable first step required to have a chance of moving forward. Quite inadvertently, Biddle advances an exceedingly compelling case for the immediate impeachment and removal from office of Dick Cheney and George W. Bush, among others.*

The Iraq fiasco, let us not forget, was caused entirely by the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq with no casus belli and exacerbated by the inevitable consequences of governance by the kind of mentally misbegotten leaders who would take proposals for such an invasion seriously. By doing so, perpetrating what they themselves admitted was a “war of choice” – ie, an avoidable war – Bush and Cheney have immeasurably increased the already immense number of grave dangers the United States will have to face in the 21st century. By providing a brief, damning precis of the current, truly awful reality on the ground in Iraq, Biddle’s brief remarks – for all their serious problems – make the sheer depth of Bush et al’s culpability infuriatingly clear. Equally clear is that the United States cannot hope to construct a workable Iraq policy as long as such criminally incompetent people are in power.

—

*Whether impeachment is politically feasible is an entirely different issue.

“Serious” Expert Journalist Joins “Serious” Neocon Think Tank

by digby

…to do “serious” work on national security. I assume

NEW YORK Judith Miller, the former New York Times reporter who left the paper amid tumult over her role in the Plame/CIA leak case, has accepted a position at the the conservative Manhattan Institute in New York City.

[…]

It quoted a release from her: “The Manhattan Institute is doing pioneering work in policing and counter-terrorism. As an adjunct fellow, I hope to continue writing about how best to enhance national security and public safety without sacrificing our freedom and civil liberties.”

Yes, the Manhattan Institute is certainly known for its advocacy of civil liberties going all the way back to its founder, former CIA chief William Casey. It’s the perfect place for her.

.

Exactly

by tristero

Krugman:

Voters are exasperated with the Democrats, not because they think Congressional leaders are too liberal, but because they don’t see Congress doing anything to stop the war.

ADVISE and Consent

by digby

When the Democrats in congress wonder why we civil libertarians get so testy about allowing the Bush administration unfettered power to spy on its own citizens, this is why. When they aren’t gaming the system or plotting dirty tricks, they are screwing everything up so badly that innocent people inevitably get caught up in matters over which they have no control:

The Homeland Security Department scrapped an ambitious anti-terrorism data-mining tool after investigators found it was tested with information about real people without required privacy safeguards.

The department has spent $42 million since 2003 developing the software tool known as ADVISE, the Analysis, Dissemination, Visualization, Insight and Semantic Enhancement program, at the Lawrence Livermore and Pacific Northwest national laboratories. It was intended for wide use by DHS components, including immigration, customs, border protection, biological defense and its intelligence office.

Pilot tests of the program were quietly suspended in March after Congress’ Government Accountability Office warned that “the ADVISE tool could misidentify or erroneously associate an individual with undesirable activity such as fraud, crime or terrorism.”

Since then, Homeland Security’s inspector general and the DHS privacy office discovered that tests used live data about real people rather than made-up data for one to two years without meeting privacy requirements. The inspector general also said ADVISE was poorly planned, time-consuming for analysts to use and lacked adequate justifications.

DHS spokesman Russ Knocke told The Associated Press on Wednesday the project was being dropped.

[…]

The GAO said in March that DHS should notify the public about how an individual’s personal information would be verified, used and protected before ADVISE was implemented on live data.

I wonder if anyone’s going to ask why they used real people’s information instead of making them up as they were required to do? And what’s been done with the data?

Seriously, even if you were to grant that these people are filled with integrity and would never use such information for nefarious purposes, how can anyone trust them not to make the kinds of mistakes that can ruin innocent people’s lives? It’s true that much of the necessity for civil liberties springs from a very healthy mistrust of government authority, but that’s not the only reason. Nobody’s perfect and the stakes are much to high to allow any police agencies to operate in secret and without any kind of check on their power — they screw up.

.

Stupid, Arrogant … and Creepy

by digby

He added, “I’ve never run a race where I thought I wouldn’t win. I thought we were gonna hold the House and the Senate in ’06. I thought we’d lose nine or ten seats, and I thought we’d be one or two up in the Senate.”

Bush had held that view, almost manic in its optimism, all the way up to election day, in defiance of all available polling data. At the very mention of such data, his face began to curdle. “I understand you can’t let polls tell you what to think,” he declared

Huh? So they aren’t even useful to tell you what the public is thinking? (This piece, by Sidney Blumenthal says it all.) He believes that you can’t let evidence inform you. He really is faith based. Je suis la vérité.

“I understand you can’t let polls tell you what to think,” he declared—one of his most frequently expressed sentiments, but now he went further: “And part of being a leader is: people watch you. I walk in that hall, I say to those commanders—well, guess what would happen if I walk in and say, ‘Well, maybe it’s not worth it.’ When I’m out in the public”—and now he was fully animated, yanked out of his slouch and his eyes clenched like little blue fists—”I fully understand that the enemy watches me, the Iraqis are watching me, the troops watch me, and the people watch me.

Yes and they are watching a man so far out of his depth that it’s frightening the hell out of everybody. Apparently, he also “thinks” that his job requires him to stubbornly cling to every decision that’s made no matter what, because “everybody in the world is watching” and they might sense weakness if he even asks for another opinion. He’s a mental midget.

I do realize that I loathe Bush on a visceral level and always have, so I can’t say that my impressions of him as person are particularly objective. He is a personality type I can’t stand — his privileged, macho arrogance and nasty, sophomoric social game of primitive dominance are about the least appealing characteristics I can think of in a man. Even if he weren’t a complete idiot, which he is, he’d still be an asshole.

But I’ve always wondered if the (dwindling) Bush cult really believed what they were saying when they said this man was brilliant and brave or if they were just caught up in the moment. I don’t suppose we’ll ever know. But whenever I read these “intimate” portraits of him, I’m always struck by the fact that he comes off even worse than I, who already loathe him, expect him to. These are ostensibly fair observers who were chosen by him and who were granted access because they weren’t hostile. Yet, the portrait they paint is of a shockingly stupid, shallow conceited man who may even be delusional. What do you suppose someone who wasn’t friendly would write?

(And needless to say, all these recent portraits show a man who is unrecognizable as the hero of Bob Woodward’s “Bush At War.” That hasn’t yet been adequately explained by him or anyone else.)

And, by the way, Barbara Bush raised a spoiled, disgusting pig:

George W. Bush slipped a piece of cheese into his mouth. “Let’s order first.” He took a quick glance at the day’s menu prepared for him and his guest, saw nothing on it he cared for, and announced to the steward, “I’ll have a hot dog. Low fat hot dog.”

[…]

His hot dog arrived. Bush ate rapidly, with a sort of voracious disinterest. He was a man who required comfort and routine. Food, for him, was fuel and familiarity. It was not a thing to reflect on.

“The job of the president,” he continued, through an ample wad of bread and sausage, “is to think strategically so that you can accomplish big objectives. As opposed to playing mini-ball. You can’t play mini-ball with the influence we have and expect there to be peace. You’ve gotta think, think BIG. The Iranian issue,” he said as bread crumbs tumbled out of his mouth and onto his chin,

That moment with Tony Blair and the dinner roll wasn’t unusual. That’s how he always eats. Ugh.

Update: His comments certainly don’t do anything to calm the Iran talk, do they? It’s clear he’ll do it if Uncle Dick decides it’s time to go. I think the only thing stopping them is the military. (And that’s what Seymour Hersh has been reporting for almost two years.) The thought actually occurred to me today that maybe the generals are bogging the military down in Iraq on purpose. In this administration anything is possible.

.

“We Don’t Do Body Counts”

by digby

When General Tommy Franks uttered those words back in 2003, I don’t think this is what people thought he meant by it:

The U.S. military’s claim that violence has decreased sharply in Iraq in recent months has come under scrutiny from many experts within and outside the government, who contend that some of the underlying statistics are questionable and selectively ignore negative trends.

Reductions in violence form the centerpiece of the Bush administration’s claim that its war strategy is working. In congressional testimony Monday, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, is expected to cite a 75 percent decrease in sectarian attacks. According to senior U.S. military officials in Baghdad, overall attacks in Iraq were down to 960 a week in August, compared with 1,700 a week in June, and civilian casualties had fallen 17 percent between December 2006 and last month. Unofficial Iraqi figures show a similar decrease.

Others who have looked at the full range of U.S. government statistics on violence, however, accuse the military of cherry-picking positive indicators and caution that the numbers — most of which are classified — are often confusing and contradictory. “Let’s just say that there are several different sources within the administration on violence, and those sources do not agree,” Comptroller General David Walker told Congress on Tuesday in releasing a new Government Accountability Office report on Iraq.

Senior U.S. officers in Baghdad disputed the accuracy and conclusions of the largely negative GAO report, which they said had adopted a flawed counting methodology used by the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency. Many of those conclusions were also reflected in last month’s pessimistic National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq.

The intelligence community has its own problems with military calculations. Intelligence analysts computing aggregate levels of violence against civilians for the NIE puzzled over how the military designated attacks as combat, sectarian or criminal, according to one senior intelligence official in Washington. “If a bullet went through the back of the head, it’s sectarian,” the official said. “If it went through the front, it’s criminal.”

There was a lot of chatter a couple of weeks ago about Bush’s Vietnam analogy, but I think one of things that never quite made it into the discussion was the single most obvious comparison: cooking the books. In Vietnam the vaunted “body count” was inflated because they needed a way of showing “progress” in the middle of a civil war which the US was basically prolonging for its own reasons and in Iraq they are are underreporting the body count for essentially the same purpose. It’s possible they even think they are observing “lessons learned” by lying in the opposite fashion — they’re that thick.

This report from A Man Called Petraeus will be a little bit more sophisticated and blatantly political than the old five o’clock follies, but there’s not much difference in intent. And surprisingly, there is a good deal of contradictory information coming from other government sources. But when you get down to it, it’s quite clear, as it was then, that the administration and the military are lying to the people about a “war” they can see with their own eyes and know in their own hearts isn’t worth fighting. I can hardly believe we are doing it again in my lifetime.

I am a baby boomer and I’m not especially ashamed of it. We had a good time and we improved the world, we really did, in some substantial and important ways. (If you youngsters had known just how repressive and disgusting it was before we came along and wrecked the place, you’d thank us.) Having said that, I can only be grateful that we will not be running things for very much longer. My generation is intent upon fighting the same battles over and over and over again, amongst ourselves mostly, although we’ve dragged the next generation into our nonsense too. Perhaps those coming up behind will be a little bit wiser and actually learn some lessons from our experience. As a group, we certainly haven’t been able to.

Here’s a word of wisdom for the kids: When it comes to wars, no mulligans. It’s just not a good idea.

.

It Also Helps If You Wear Socks To A Job Interview

by tristero

A pearl of wisdom from the folks who thought Mitzi Gaynor was the hottest music act of 1964:

Most conservatives are starting to realize that learning to navigate the modern world of the Internet is not only necessary, but also a great return on investment,’