The Senate Report On the CIA Reminds Me of A Movie

There's been a lot of debate about the use of the CIA's interrogation techniques, in the wake of the Senate Intelligence Committee's Report. It's been a chance for everyone to re-litigate the entire issue of whether we tortured detainees, and there's been some good debate on this.

It's certainly an open question, and anyone who conclusively comes down either way without acknowledging the other side may have a point is not a grown-up. This debate about torture is a debate about where you draw the line on what can and what cannot be done to captured combatants in war. Reasonable minds can disagree.

However, what really upsets me about this report has nothing to do with the issue of torture. What I find completely revolting about this report is the the fact that the main findings of the committee are essentially that the CIA didn't tell them about all this, and they are shocked, shocked to find out that gambling is going on in Rick's. But that's not the movie reference I thought of.

Essentially, this report is some Senators trying to avoid the fact that they asked the CIA to do whatever it took to avoid another 9/11. Do you remember how America was after 9/11? I do. 

Everyone was looking at the smoking rubble of the twin towers, a crater in Pennsylvania, and a hole in the side of the Pentagon and saying: We cannot let this happen again. You guys in the CIA need to take the gloves off and make sure this doesn't happen again. Keep the country safe. Stop playing nice - go after these people. Do everything you can.

People who weren't openly saying this were silently happy to go along with those who were. Not a single representative of the people rose up to say Well, wait. Maybe we don't need to change how we deal with the bad guys just because they did something bad to us.

Accordingly, the CIA started turning up the heat - as they were asked to do. They didn't do this on their own accord. We the people, through our elected representatives, asked them to do this. The Senate Intelligence Committee was briefed on exactly what the CIA was doing. And now, they're trying to say: Hey, I didn't intend for you to be mean to those poor souls! I wanted you to do everything possible to keep us safe while being perfect gentlemen! I have no culpability for these things that you did!

I know. Politicians evading their responsibility seems so farfetched. In any event, this whole thing reminded me of the end of Clear and Present Danger. In the movie, the President gets very upset when a Columbian drug cartel kills a personal friend of his who was laundering money for them (and stealing a little bit for himself). Therefore, the President tells his Chief of Staff to get the CIA to start really going after the drug cartel. The CIA basically does what it is told and starts really hurting the cartel - killing people and breaking things.

Eventually, the President decides he's had enough of the operation, simply says it should go away like "It never happened", and hangs all the men out to dry, who are then killed by the cartel. Ryan is neck deep in the whole thing and eventually goes to confront the President. Here's the scene:

The President tries to tell Ryan that he is "just becoming aware" of the certain things that happened, and that he "never ordered any" strike against the cartel. Ryan, having no patience for the cutesy little game of plausible deniability, tells the President: I will not have you dishonor their memories by pretending you had nothing to do with it.

That's the note that the Senate Report strikes for me. They're trying to pretend that they had nothing to do with the CIA's methods, when it's crystal clear that they asked the CIA to take the gloves off. Specifically, the WaPo had an editorial pointing this out:

On May 26, 2002, Feinstein was quoted in the New York Times saying that the attacks of 9/11 were a real awakening and that it would no longer be “business as usual.” The attacks, she said, let us know “that the threat is profound” and “that we have to do some things that historically we have not wanted to do to protect ourselves.”

This report is a purely political document, and its intent is to allow the authors to engage in some moral preening. They're simply engaging in a political act to curry favor with their constituents now that the existential threat from terrorism is a distant memory, and the people who swallow this report are doing the same thing.

I accept that we did some brutal things to people. We the people, asked the CIA to do exactly that. Maybe we made a decision in a moment of weakness that some of us regret. That's fine. However, it's just a damn lie for the Committee to say that they didn't know what was going on.

They all knew and approved. We The People all knew and approved. If you feel regret for what happened, that's fine. If you're ok with what we did, that's fine, too. But for goodness sake, take some responsibility for your actions.

Mozilla CEO Forced To Resign Because of His Personal Beliefs

Mozilla's CEO has resigned, due to public pressure for him do to so.

Now, what could have been so horrible of a personal belief that he was forced to resign from the company that he helped found? Was he a closet-Nazi? Did he believe in aliens? Was he a devil worshipper? Did he belong to the KKK?

No, it wasn't any of these. Apparently, he was driven out of his job - essentially fired - because he had the audacity to donate $1,000.00 (back in 2008) in support of California's Proposition 8, which was a ballot measure that would have banned gay marriage in the state until it was struck down by the Supreme Court in June.

Let me repeat that. He donated some money to a political cause that was on a ballot measure. For that, he was hounded out of his job.

We're really reaching a dangerous point with this kind of nonsense. The guy was basically cast out because his political beliefs weren't in line with the Approved Beliefs of the left. But I guess a congratulations is due to the gay activists who now have their bloody scalp. They succeeded in having a guy lose his job because he had the temerity to disagree with them.

Can you imagine the outrage if a conservative employer had summarily fired a couple dozen employees simply because they were leftists? I'm guessing that Eich might have saved his job if he had recanted his private beliefs and simply confessed to now personally supporting gay marriage.

I guess the heretics have to be purged though. That's the way to conduct a society, right? Remind me again, which people are in favor of tolerance and diversity?

Rocky Balboa Is Smarter Than Norman Ornstein

I'll admit, I don't have a degree in math. I don't excel at it. I don't particularly enjoy it. My forte lies in other things. I have the utmost respect for my friends who are engineers or have hard science degrees. Much like fire, poisonous snakes, and VX gas, I have a healthy respect for math.

The second you don't respect this, it kills you.

Accordingly, I don't try to mess around with math without making darn sure that I'm doing it correctly and following the rules.

Some goof named Norman Ornstein doesn't excel at math either. There's nothing wrong with that. The problem is that he doesn't have the same healthy respect for math that I do. When you don't have a healthy respect for something that you can't control, you get into trouble.

Norman Ornstein got himself into trouble with math. Here, see if you can spot the problem:

The first iteration of KidSave, in simple terms, was this: Each year, for every one of the 4 million newborns in America, the federal government would put $1,000 in a designated savings account. The payment would be financed by using 1 percent of annual payroll-tax revenues. Then, for the first five years of a child's life, the $500 child tax credit would be added to that account, with a subsidy for poor people who pay no income. The accounts would be administered the same way as the federal employees' Thrift Savings Plan...under the initial KidSave proposal, the funds could not be withdrawn until age 65, when, through the miracle of compound interest, they would represent a hefty nest egg. At 5 percent annual growth, an individual would have almost $700,000.

Since I'm not Euler, I'm going to break this down a bit. The Federal government is going to give every baby a $1,000 in an account. Then each year (for five years) the feds drop $500 more dollars into the account. So on the child's fifth birthday, they'll have $3,500.00 of principal. (and maybe a little interest over those five years) With me so far? So we're maybe at $4,100.00 with the interest at year five.

As an aside, who the heck gets a 5% rate of return? If you know anywhere that guarantees a 5% rate of return these days, send me an e-mail. Banks around here are paying less than 1%. But let's just leave that aside. Assume that your old buddy Ornstein has a magical bank that pays 5%. If you put your $4,100.00 in there, at the end of sixty years, will you have "almost $700,000.00"?

No. No, you will not.

Hint, it's not even close. Not. Even. Close. The link above has the more detailed fisking.

If you're a "math person" (or just have some common sense) you'll immediately realize that you can't take $4,100.00 and turn it into "almost $700,000" with a 5% interest rate over sixty years. It's just not possible. Perhaps the best line of the piece above is as follows:

I am no finance guy, but it was immediately obvious to me that Ornstein’s numbers are ridiculous. If you could turn $3,500 into $700,000 in 60 years at 5%, I wouldn’t be practicing law these days. As Rocky said to his two goldfish, “If you guys could sing and dance, I wouldn’t be doin’ this.” Money, unfortunately, does not sing and dance as hypothesized by Ornstein.

Yo, how's about some compound interest?

Math. It doesn't care about your good intentions. It's just going to do its thing. So show some respect, sucker. Also, for all y'all out there defending Obamacare, I have news for you. Math is coming.

Fiscal Cliff Negotiations

Ok, fine. I'm giving up on the the "no politics" rule. President Obama finally came out with his offer to solve the fiscal cliff "problem" that Congress created. It's not really a problem, because that's what everyone agreed would happen. Both houses of Congress and the president all agreed on this horrible event. Let's not forget that. In any event, here's Obama's opening bid:

Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner presented the House speaker, John A. Boehner, a detailed proposal on Thursday to avert the year-end fiscal crisis with $1.6 trillion in tax increases over 10 years, $50 billion in immediate stimulus spending, home mortgage refinancing and a permanent end to Congressional control over statutory borrowing limits.

Ok. Taxes go up, we spend more, and Congress can't control how much we borrow anymore. Wait, what? I get that Obama wants to start with taxes, but he wants to now have more stimulus spending, and Congress won't be allowed to control the debt ceiling anymore. Is this plan supposed to reduce the deficit? I don't really get this at all, except that I'm pretty sure the Republicans are going to cave on this eventually. Here is what I expect to happen:

We'll have moderately long negotiations, lots of bluster, and right before the cliff hits, the Republicans agree to tax increases on high earners, more spending, and some theoretical cuts to be named later...maybe. The GOP will say "This was the best deal we could get". The economy will continue to suck, and the GOP will get blamed for not having even higher tax cuts and more stimulus spending.

Here is what I would do if I were in charge of the Republicans. I like to call it the "Joshua" strategy. (You'll see why a the end.) I know the economy is going to suck as long as we keep spending and taxing. I know the media and the Democrats (but I repeat myself) are going to blame me for it. Either way, if I agree to a deal or not, the economy is going to stay in this horrible shape or get worse. The only question is how do I not be held responsible for the cratering value of the dollar, the higher taxes, inflation, and high unemployment.

Let it Burn.

I tell Obama in a public press conference that I am against raising taxes on anyone, and I am against spending more Federal spending. However, I tell him that I am going to give him everything he wants without asking anything in return. He wants taxes? However much he wants on whatever income levels...fine. He wants more Federal spending? Sure. Spend as much as you like. Heck, even have a budget. Or not. Either way, he can simply write down what he wants to do, I'm going to say "Sure, pal. You can do whatever you want, but I'm telling you now that it's not going to work. Don't come crying to me later."

All the GOP members vote "Present", and the bill can pass through the house and senate with universal Democrat support. Obama signs it and everything will be peachy. Or it will burn, and then we get back to basics.

Watch the video below. If you don't know this movie, stop reading my blog, go watch the movie and come back. I'll wait.

Strange game, this "politics". The only winning move is not to play.

If Star Wars Launched a Law Firm

Pretty funny. He's not mentioned in the article, but I think Han-Solo would be one of your friends who is a wildly successful solo-practitioner.

I think R2-D2 would be the best personal injury lawyer. He’s brash and confident. He can take on foes much bigger than him. He’ll look into the jury box and play a holo-recording of an injured client saying, “Help me, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you’re my only hope.”

The article totally pegs Obi-Wan. He's an old Constitutional Law professor.

South Carolina in the College World Series

I've been trying to think up a good way to explain how hard it is to defeat the South Carolina Gamecocks in the College World Series. Every time you think you've punched them right in the mouth, they hit you back twice as hard. Every time you knock them down, they're right back up. Every time you think you've killed them, they come back.

They never get tired, they never give up. They keep playing hard every pitch until you get tired and make a mistake. BAM! Then they strike.

They have the uncanny ability to turn the double play when they need it, get a strikeout when they need it, or get a hit at the right time. They're confident, loose, easy with a laugh, and calmly zen-like in their focus on the field. They're dangerous in the post-season. Dangerous, deadly, dream killers, these boys. How dangerous are they?

[Click for photo representation of the Gamecocks in the College World Series]

TPM Compares the Tea Party to the Godfather

Thomas Lane at TPM has an article comparing the Tea Party to the Godfather. Specifically, Lane alludes to the scene in which Woltz wakes up with his racehorse's head in his bed after he refuses to do a favor for the Don. (Relevant video here.) Basically, I guess Lane's point is that the Tea Party was so extreme, they were willing to default (cut off the racehorse's head) if they didn't get less government (Johnny Fontane's movie deal). The movie producer - Woltz (the Democrats) first refuses to deal, but after he sees the extent the other side is willing to go to, he relents. As someone with a PhD in movie metaphors, I analyze below the jump: