Get LISNews via email! Enter Your Email Address:
Un día para mucho. Imaginese lo que puede suceder en tres meses.
I leave the translation as an exercise for the reader.
Many Americans don't realize that many European newspapers are affiliated with or even published by political parties. According to commentor Encolpio, El Pais belongs to PRISA, a group in the pocket of the Socialists (PSOE).
Found via The Command Post.
UPDATE: Barcepundit confirms PRISA's ties to the Socialists.
The crux of the issue, however, is this. "Assault weapon" does not denote a natural kind. There is not, in other words, some clear definition of what is and is not an assault weapon by which we can tell whether or not some novel firearm fits the criteria. Instead, the ban is on a fairly ad hoc collection of firearms. This has the benefit of maintaining the legality of a variety of widely used long guns, but it comes at the cost of making the ban entirely pointless. Slight alterations to banned guns rendered them legal, or people can substitute a similar, but legal, model for a banned one. ...
Fundamentally, crime control would be much better served by stepping away from this sensational, but ultimately unimportant, corner of the gun regulation universe. The main bit of federal gun regulation right now is aimed at the notion that there are certain classes of persons -- in particular, convicted felons -- who should not be allowed to own firearms. The logic behind this is very clear. At the end of the day, I'd feel much safer standing next to a law-abiding citizens [sic] carrying an assault weapon than to a recently recently felon holding some other more menacing sort of gun. If you keep "assault weapons," and pistols, and hunting rifles, and whatever other kind of firearm you care to name out of the hands of criminals, you'll have accomplished the vast majority of what gun regulation can achieve on the crime control front. (Probably not a great deal, incidentally, but that's another story).
Commenting on Yglesias's post, Mark Kleiman writes:
Matt Yglesias thinks the assault weapons ban is silly, bad politics, and irrelevant to crime control. He goes on to say that "gun control" focused on weapons, rather than on individuals, is likely to be a mistake both substantively and politically. ...
I entirely agree with the latter point. The evidence that crime can be prevented by restricting weapons availability to those without prior criminal histories simply isn't there. (That even applies to concealed-carry permits.) [emphasis mine--ChuckB]
Yglesias also has a follow-up post on the relative merits of further efforts to control crime versus efforts to mend the healthcare system.
Captain Ed points to a Channel NewsAsia report on an article appearing in the German daily Die Welt, claiming that western intelligence services have evidence that Syria tested its chemical weapons on Sudanese living in the Darfur region, as part of Syrian-Sudanese cooperation in chemical warfare. Here is my translation of the article.
UPDATE: Expatica has a story in which German intelligence sources apparently express skepticism about the reports, saying they know nothing about such reports.
Syria tests chemical weapons on Sudanese
Intelligence services: dozens of victims
by Jacques Schuster
[translated by Chuck Bearden]
Berlin - Syrian units employed chemical weapons against the black African population of Darfur in June of this year. The action, in which dozens of people were killed, was carried out with the agreement of the Sudanese government. Western intelligence services have reached this conclusion. They are supported by eyewitness reports that have been published in various Arab media outlets.
According to the documents of western intelligence agencies in possession of die Welt, Syrian officers met in May of this year with representatives of the Sudanese army in a suburb of Khartoum. Their conversations dealt with how to expand military cooperation. According to intelligence information, the Syrian delegation offered Sudan closer cooperation with respect to chemical warfare. According to the sources, it was suggested that the effects of chemical weapons be investigated on rebels of the Sudan People's Libaration Army (SPLA). Because Khartoum was engaged in peace negotiations with the rebels in May, the Sudanese delegation apparently recommended testing the weapons on the black African population. To that end, at least five airplanes of the Syrian civilian airline Syrian Arab Airlines flew from Damascus to Khartoum, carrying specialists from the Syrian academy for chemical warfare with technical equipment on board.
It cannot be precisely determined when the use [of the chemical weapons] in Darfur began. However, in an article on the Arabic website "Ilaf" from August 2, Sudanese eyewitnesses tell of strange goings-on in Khartoum's Al-Fashr Hospital. In June, dozens of frozen corpses were quite suddenly brought to the hospital. They displayed mysterious injuries over their whole bodies. After a short time, Sudanese soldiers blocked off a wing of the hospital. If one is to believe the witnesses, access was thereafter permitted only to an unknown team of Syrian doctors. After [some] days, Sudanese forces removed the bodies.
Military experts have for some time possessed information about Sudanese-Syrian cooperation in the area of chemical weapons research. Reports continue to surface from Syrian opposition figures of chemical weapons tests on prisoners.
Article appeared on Wednesday, September 15, 2004
Story in the WaPo: Expert Cited by CBS Says He Didn't Authenticate Papers.
The story starts off:
The lead expert retained by CBS News to examine disputed memos from President Bush's former squadron commander in the National Guard said yesterday that he examined only the late officer's signature and made no attempt to authenticate the documents themselves.
"There's no way that I, as a document expert, can authenticate them," Marcel Matley said in a telephone interview from San Francisco. The main reason, he said, is that they are "copies" that are "far removed" from the originals.
The story, which seems based on sound reporting, cites three classes of evidence that tell against the memos:
The one expert noted by the story as supporing CBS & Rather, Bill Glennon, contends that "IBM electric typewriters in use in 1972 could produce superscripts and proportional spacing similar to those used in the disputed documents." Note that this is a weak claim. In order to support the claim of the documents' authenticity, it must be shown that a typewriter of that era could produce a memo that matches the CBS documents at least as closely as the efforts to mimic them in Word (e.g. see here).
Here is another, more specific claim on the other side:
Thomas Phinney, program manager for fonts for the Adobe company in Seattle, which helped to develop the modern Times New Roman font, disputed Glennon's statement to CBS. He said "fairly extensive testing" had convinced him that the fonts and formatting used in the CBS documents could not have been produced by the most sophisticated IBM typewriters in use in 1972, including the Selectric and the Executive. He said the two systems used fonts of different widths.
Let's see how this pans out.
Joseph Newcomer, who describes himself as "one of the pioneers of electronic typesetting":
First off, before I start getting a lot of the wrong kind of mail: I am not a fan of George Bush. But I am even less a fan of attempts to commit fraud, and particularly by a complete and utter failure of those we entrust to ensure that if the news is at least accurate. I know it is asking far too much to expect the news to be unbiased. But the people involved should not actually lie to us, or promulgate lies created by hoaxers, through their own incompetence. ...
The probability that any technology in existence in 1972 would be capable of producing a document that is nearly pixel-compatible with Microsoftâ€™s Times New Roman font and the formatting of Microsoft Word, and that such technology was in casual use at the Texas Air National Guard, is so vanishingly small as to be indistinguishable from zero.
Via INDC Journal, where Bill is doing yeoman work on this story.
Eamonn Fitzgerald, daily Irish blogger living in Munich, reminds us of what people who take the initiative in the face of unexpected events can accomplish.
I pray to God that I will have such presence of mind and courage as the passengers of United flight 93 demonstrated on 9/11/2001, should I find myself in an analogous situation.
NY Post editorial on Dan Rather's on-air defense of the memos he used in his 60 Minutes show on Bush's alleged preferential treatment in getting into the National Guard. Here's a good bit on Rather's use of experts:
Rather did interview a handwriting specialist, Marcel Matley--who asserted the signatures were real, but who never addressed the possibility that a genuine signature could have been scanned into a computer to produce a forgery.
Nor did Rather ask him about that.
Matley was, however, the sole "expert" to appear last night. Nobody else lent a name--or reputation--to substantiate the original CBS report.
This was consistent with CBS' steadfast refusal since Wednesday to disclose the names of experts it said had verified the documents' authenticity.
Here's the deal: when serious questions are raised about the genuineness of the evidence used to back up a claim, Rather's/CBS's answer is "Take our word for it! You don't need to verify. You don't need to know the names or qualifications of the experts we used. Our word should be good enough for you." If Rather were a scientist defending his research, this approach would be tantamount to denying the need for his results to be repeatable in order to be considered valid
(Above links via Wizbang. These links are not offered an argument against his qualifications (although an examination of his CV bear on them)).
In an article titled "Authenticity backed on Bush documents", Boston Globe reporters Francie Latour and Michael Rezendes report that they interviewed forensic document examiner Philip Bouffard, who concluded that the documents could have been prepared on an IBM Selectric Composer of that time.
However, Bouffard claims in an interview with INDC Journal that the Boston Globe reporters misquoted him:
What the Boston Globe did now sort of pisses me off, because now I have people calling me and e-mailing me, and calling me names, saying that I changed my mind. I did not change my mind at all! ...
All I'd done is say, 'Hey I want to look into it.' Please correct that damn impression!" ...
"What I said to them was, I got new information about possible Selectric fonts and (Air Force) documents that indicated a Selectric machine could have been available, and I needed to do more analysis and consider it. [emphasis mine--ChuckB]
He goes on to say that, as they examine the evidence further, he and colleagues believe that there are many things that tell against the idea that the document was written on a typewriter.
Interestingly enough, Walt's hometown paper, the San Francisco Chronicle, picked up the Globe story, but printed it with the noticably more modest title "Further scrutiny lessens doubts on Bush memos".
Ben Barnes is the former Texas House Speaker who claimed on 60 Minutes to have helped W get a spot in the Texas National Guard at the request of a friend of the Bush family. Many also believe him to be the source of the documents used by Dan Rather in the 60 Minutes story.
His daughter, Amy Barnes, speaking on a talk show on WBAP, alleges that her father told her in 2000 that he didn't get Bush out of the Vietnam War (ostensibly by getting him into the Guard). She asserts that her father is lying, and that he is doing so opportunistically, both to support Kerry and to garner attention for a book he is writing.
Of course, it may turn out that Amy Barnes is lying and that Ben Barnes is telling the truth. Or it may be that the woman who called in isn't really Amy Barnes (though that seems unlikely to me).
According to The Command Post, Amy Barnes was to appear on Sean Hannity's radio show, but a publicist for her father "called Hannityâ€™s screener and cancelled the interview - purportedly on her behalf. Very fishy stuff." No kidding.
One of the odd things about the complex of events arising out of 9/11 is that there have been a number of "defections" from the standard left anti-American and anti-war camps. A good example of this in the blog world is Harry's Place. Harry and his co-conspirators are pretty clearly socialist and social democratic in their politics, as you can see from this and this posting. Yet they also object strenuously to what they call "the unconscionable, knee-jerk anti-Americanism that characterizes much of what passes for political debate in Euro-centric circles these past 36 months." One of today's posts on their blog is titled Letter from America, and it contains the text of Alistair Cooke's letter from America from December 2002. Here is the conclusion of that letter:
And so thus in a speech at Harvard General Marshall came to plead for the rescue of Europe from hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos.
An unwilling Congress - scared of the huge, conquering Soviet army and its threat to western Europe - was barely convinced by passionate testimony from Dean Acheson.
General Marshall followed. He was a dull, monotonous speaker - an unheroic, middle-sized, stolid, plain soldier.
But what won them over to vote a staggering $13bn investment was simply his presence. It was the presence of character.
I don't believe there's a statue of General Marshall in Europe.
There ought to be as a reminder of the American aim to restore the fabric of European life, of its giving Europe 50 years of peace in which to go it alone, to become prosperous, to forge a common economy and in other ways to be free to challenge and even despise its old benefactor across the ocean.
"Bush documents may be fakes"
The 32-year-old documents that were used on the TV program "60 Minutes" to show that George W. Bush refused to carry out orders while he was in the National Guard may turn out to be fakes. That is the opinion of typography experts.
Erik Tornes [by-line]
On Wednesday's edition of "60 Minutes", documents from 1972 were used to support allegations that President Bush had received help to get into the National Guard, which was considered a way to avoid the Vietnam War. The documents also assert that Bush refused to undergo the annual physical test that was necessary to maintain one's status as a pilot.
There was speculation Thursday on many websites that the documents could be fakes. The writing in the documents that "60 Minutes" says are authentic is very similar to the writing you get when you type in the same text with the font (typeface) Times New Roman in Microsoft Word.
Three typographic experts tell CNSNews that they are skeptical about the documents, among other reasons because it uses a proportional font, which was not common at the beginning of the 1970s. Furthermore, there are characteristics in the documents that one can also find in Microsoft Word [sic the style].
None of the three experts could tell directly which font was used in the documents from 1972 or 1973. None of them could conclude that the documents were falsified--or that they were genuine.
But Allan Haley at Agfa Monotype in Wilmington told CNS that "it was highly unusual for an organization, even the Air Force, to have proportional fonts".
In one of the documents, a raised font is used for the letters "th" ("111th F.I.S"). All three of the typographical experts took note of that.
"That wouldn't likely have been possible with a typewriter (...) from that time", says John Collins, vice president at Bitstream, Inc.
"It is extremely surprising to see a letter with that date (May 4, 1972) with that kind of typography. There is no doubt that it is surprising. Does that cause you to conclude that it is a fake? No. But it does make you raise your eyebrows", says Collins.
The experts allow that the documents could have been written on a type of IBM typewriter that came onto the market in the first half of the 1970s.
"They had proportional fonts. But they weren't very widespread", says Haley, who adds that he has some doubt as to whether it would have been possible to get raised letters [superscript] on that typewriter, as it was done withe letters "th".
The man who signed the documents, Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian, is dead. "60 Mintues" has not revealed how they came into possession of the documents, but the program says that they have been in contact with a writing expert and a document expert who believe that the documents are genuine.
[Note: it's not clear if the "writing expert" mentioned in the final paragraph is a handwriting expert or a typography expert.]
The debate rages on the Internet as to whether or not the documents used by "60 Minutes" are genuine. This is a facsimile from the website littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/
Are these real or fake? I just don't know what to think any more.
From the list of comments on a Matthew Yglesias post on Arnold's childhood experiences:
What Schwarzenegger really means, as all Republicans mean when they raise the spector of Socialism, is that they will abolish the I.R.S., defund Medicare and, generally speaking, destroy our government because they don't want to pay taxes.
Mind reading? No, just reading their position papers. [Funny, you wouldn't know that this was the problem from what conservatives like Andrew Sullivan are saying--ChuckB]
By the way, as an armed liberal, getting rid of all comments sections on blogs serves my purposes well, because I want conversation to end so that we can get to the real, bloody fight on American soil against the unAmerican filth in today's Republican Party.
Posted by: John Thullen | September 4, 2004 10:52 AM
I'm not posting the following for any partisan reason--in fact, I'm not sure that it reflects all that well on the White House. I just think it is interesting. From The Independent:
Michael Howard last night accused George Bush of seeking to protect Tony Blair in an extraordinary row sparked by news that the Tory leader has been banned from the White House.
Mr Howard hit back after it emerged that his calls for Mr Blair to stand down over the Iraq war have enraged the US President. The simmering feud was laid bare yesterday as it emerged that Karl Rove, Mr Bush's most powerful official, told the Tory leader that he "could forget about meeting the President".
Mr Howard last night launched an unprecedented attack on Mr Bush. "If some people in the White House, in their desire to protect Mr Blair, think I am too tough on Mr Blair or too critical of him, they are entitled to their opinion. But I shall continue to do my job as I see fit," he said.
Some say of Bush '43 that he prizes loyalty more than most other qualities, including ideological purity. Perhaps this row is evidence of that.
I don't know all the details, but I'm not sure I like the "scorched earth" rhetoric from Rove.
Via the ChicagoBoyz.
Syria May Face U.N. Resolution (WaPo):
UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 1 -- The United States and France introduced a Security Council resolution Wednesday demanding that 20,000 Syrian troops "withdraw without delay" from Lebanon and that Syria stop meddling in the country's November elections. It threatens to consider unspecified "additional measures" against Syria to ensure compliance.
The resolution reflects mounting frustration by Washington and Paris that Syria is seeking to rewrite Lebanon's constitution to guarantee that the country's pro-Syrian leader, President Emile Lahoud, can remain in power after his six-year term ends on Nov. 24.
"The sovereignty and integrity of Lebanon has been taken from it by Syria," said John C. Danforth, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
A media research organization called Media Tenor has a cute Slant-o-meter illustrating the coverage of the two candidates by ABC, NBC, CBS, and FoxNews. Be sure to read the text below for a description of how they arrived at this measure. I have to wonder why only Brit Hume's show was considered on FoxNews. Are the other shows in that time not news shows at all? I don't know. I'm just not familiar enough with their programming.
Note that the gap between the coverage of Kerry and Bush is greater on NBC (in Kerry's favor by ca. 30%) than on FoxNews (in Bush's favor by 20%). Note also that FoxNews treats Kerry better than either ABC or CBS.
Hard to know what it all means, but it's interesting nonetheless.
Interesting article comparing W's SAT and academic record with Al Gore's. Here's an excerpt:
Not only did Bush academically outperform the "intellectually superior" Gore, Bush scored a higher verbal SAT score than Rhodes scholar and former Democratic presidential candidate Bill Bradley, with Bush scoring 566 to Bradley's 485. True, Gore scored a higher verbal SAT at 625, but the "smart, engaged, and qualified" former vice president scored only 59 points higher than the allegedly intellectually deficient Bush.
Stupidity, it appears, flows from the ideological eye of the beholder. Reporters constantly asked the late JFK Jr. when he intended to run for president. The Kennedy glow never dimmed even when he flunked the New York bar twice before finally passing it. Recently in Los Angeles, leftist candidate Antonio Villaraigosa ran unsuccessfully for mayor of Los Angeles. Villaraigosa took and flunked the California bar four times, never passing it. Yet because of Villaraigosa's ethnicity, his opponents â€“ fearing a charge of racism â€“ refused to raise the issue.
Will Kerry release his scores? ;-)
Via Ann Althouse. And check out the pithy riposte she received under "Another Update".
The two McDonald's commercials for their "Chicken Selects." One has a woman in a stocking cap sitting on a sofa in a rather formal-looking living room, defending her chicken from invisible (imaginary?) foes. The other shows a man at a workplace copier, telling all in sight to back off and keep their paws off of his chicken. Both are utterly assinine.