Why Brian Williams Lied About His Combat Experience

"Every man thinks meanly of himself for not having been a soldier, or not having been at sea."

Samuel Johnson said that. By the way, h/t to Ace for bringing that quote to mind.

By now, we all know that Brian Williams lied about being in a helicopter that was shot down during the Iraq war. Here's a video of Williams lying about the event, in detail, to David Letterman. I have been thinking about why he lied about this event. People defending Williams have tossed out this "memory is complicated" idea, in an attempt to let him off the hook. For instance, people are saying things like:

"He was in the helicopter in the sense that we are all in the helicopter. We are the ones who misremember. Misremember, conflate."

What? We are all in the helicopter? What is that even supposed to mean? Memory isn't complicated. You're either in a helicopter that was shot down, or you were in another helicopter an hour behind. It's not that complicated. Next time you get caught in a lie, try out the ol' "memory is complicated" line and let me know how that goes for you.

Look, people. sometimes, the simplest answer is the right answer. Here, I think the simple answer is correct: Brian Williams wanted to portray himself as as badass. So he made up a story.

Williams has been a journalist - a news reader - for his entire career. He's never been a soldier. He's never been one of the rough men standing ready in the night to visit violence upon people. However, he's reported on them, so he's been around them a lot.

I can relate to this. I'm a lawyer, but that makes me kind of the odd-ball in my family and extended family. Every single adult male in my family before me was in the military, and was deployed overseas to combat. Everyone.

My dad was in the Army as a doctor in an 93rd Evac Unit in the first Gulf war. My uncle was in the Army and was a tank commander in the first Gulf war, in addition to other deployments. My other uncle flew helicopters in Vietnam. My late grandfather was special forces in WWII, fighting at Anzio, among other places. My brother in law flew helicopters in the second gulf war. I can keep going back to the Civil War, but I think you get the idea.

Me? I'm just a lawyer. I'm not saying that anyone makes me feel bad about it (they don't), but sometimes I feel guilty about it on my own. Yeah, I know that being a lawyer is an honorable profession, and it's kind of interesting, but it's not exactly the same thing as being deployed to a combat area. I'm kind of the opposite of Lt. Dan.

So I'm kind of in the same boat as Williams. We're both guys who have been around military guys to a great extent, but we're not in the club. We're never going to be in the club. We don't have the bond that those men have, and we're never going to have it. Not that there's anything wrong with being a lawyer or a news reader; both are perfectly legitimate careers.

Here's what happened. I think Williams did a lot of reporting on military issues, and he got to know military men. I think he truly admires them. I think Williams admired these military men that he was around so much, he wanted to be part of their group so badly, that he made up this story so he could fit in - so he could be one of the guys. Who doesn't want to be one of the guys?

Essentially, I think Brian Williams lied for one of the oldest and most common reasons of all: He lied so people would think he's cool. I think deep down, he felt uncool standing next to these military men. Their actions held up a mirror to him, and he looked at his own job of reading the news and felt like he didn't measure up.

He certainly doesn't measure up now. Those who are dishonorable certainly aren't part of the club.

King Abdullah Quotes Clint Eastwood in "Unforgiven"

You know how it's always comforting to know that big, important world leaders are kind of like us regular folks? If you're a normal American guy, using movie quotes is a fun way to express yourself , make a point, and just generally relate to your friends who've also seen the movie.

Apparently, the King of Jordan likes to quote movies to make points, too.

Members of the House Armed Services Committee met with Jordan's King Abdullah Tuesday not long after news broke that ISIS had burned to death a Jordanian pilot captured in the fight against the terrorist group. In a private session with lawmakers, the king showed an extraordinary measure of anger — anger which he expressed by citing American movie icon Clint Eastwood.

"He said there is going to be retribution like ISIS hasn't seen," said Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter Jr., a Marine Corps veteran of two tours in Iraq and one in Afghanistan, who was in the meeting with the king. "He [King Abdullah] mentioned 'Unforgiven' and he mentioned Clint Eastwood, and he actually quoted a part of the movie."

Hunter would not say which part of "Unforgiven" the king quoted, but noted it was where Eastwood's character describes how he is going to deliver his retribution. There is a scene in the picture in which Eastwood's character, William Munny, says, "Any man I see out there, I'm gonna kill him. Any son of a bitch takes a shot at me, I'm not only going to kill him, I'm going to kill his wife and all his friends and burn his damn house down."

You know, I think me an ol' King Abdullah would get along alright.

Update: According to Wikipedia: King Abdullah has listed his hobbies as sky diving, rally racing, scuba diving, football, and science fiction. He also likes motorcycles and has toured a Harley Davidson plant in California.

Oh, and not for nothing, he's got a good lookin' wife, as well.

School Principal: Let's Bring a Can of Soup to a Gunfight

Here, take one of these.

A school principal in Alabama has decided that the way to deal with an armed school shooter threat is to hit him with a can of soup?

As a result of school shootings through the United States and discussing with law enforcement on the best procedure to follow to keep our students safe, we are enhancing our procedure for intruders.

The procedure will be the same as we have done in the past with the addition of arming our students with a canned food item. We realize this may seem odd; however, it is a practice that would catch an intruder off-guard. The canned food item could stun the intruder or even knock him out until the police arrive. The canned food item will give the students a sense of empowerment to protect themselves and will make them feel secure in case an intruder enters their classroom.

I can almost picture the meeting where the principal came up with this idea. She was sitting there in the meeting, and then exclaimed: Hey, I watched a rerun of Crocodile Dundee on TBS last night, and I have a great idea! Let's throw cans of soup at any school shooter! It totally works, y'all!

Seriously? We're now "arming our students with a canned food item"? I guess it's the theory that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good student with a Campbell's Soup can.

This is what passes for smart policy in our public schools these days. If you want to make students feel safe, how about put an armed police officer in the school? And when I say "armed" I mean with a firearm, not with a can of Chicken Noodle.

It's too bad the school principal didn't watch The Untouchables.

Happy Birthday to My Wonderful Wife!

I am happy to announce that today is Mrs. Permanent Press' birthday! She is a wonderful wife and mother to our children, and I've been lucky enough to be able to keep her around for more than ten years of marriage.

Because she is more gracious than most people, she has seen fit to overlook my many flaws. I am thankful for everyday that we are together, and I am proud to wish her a hearty Happy Birthday!

Here's looking at you, kid.

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.

Congratulations to Clemson and Advice to Gamecock Fans

My three year old son is starting to learn to play games. He loves games. Right now, one of his favorite games is "Go Fish", which he calls "Go Fishing". Every time I say "go fish", he says "No, Daddy, it's go fishing".

When he first started to play Go Fish a/k/a Go Fishing, we let him win almost every time. Now, I'm letting him win about 2/3 of the time because he got really upset the first time I beat him. He didn't understand the concept that he could lose the game, and he didn't like it. However, I explained to him that you don't always win, and it was important to not get upset when you lose.

Now, my son is starting to take losing in a much more mature way. This is good, because he's going to grow up a Gamecock fan, and he needs to understand that losing is something you deal with on a regular basis. Which brings me to the Carolina/Clemson game.

Although I would have certainly like to see Carolina win yesterday, I can easily say that Clemson was the better team yesterday. It really wasn't even close. I know lots of you Clemson fans who are very happy that their team came out on top. I would probably guess that this win was sweeter for many Clemson fans specifically because of the last five years.

I give my Clemson friends a hard time, but it's all in good fun. If you can't trade a little paint over a college football rivalry game, then what's the point? Accordingly, you won't hear me complaining when my Clemson friends enjoy this win. That's the whole point of being a fan. For those of you who are Carolina fans, remember to be a gracious loser.

No one likes to lose, but without the struggle winning doesn't mean much. Winning this rivalry game is hard. But it's the "hard" that makes it great.

Congratulations to Clemson. Enjoy the win this year. But don't slack up, we'll be coming for you again next year. (Hopefully, with a better defense!)

The President Is Going to Cut Down a Law or Two Tomorrow

"You know what would be the BEST, most constructive, reaction? For the House to pre-empt the president’s executive action by passing the comprehensive immigration reform that the Senate sent over to it." -Brad Warthen

Sure, I agree. We all like rational stuff. Even if the House doesn't like the current Senate bill, they can always amend it, or just pass their own. What are they waiting for?

Maybe they're waiting for the new Congress to be sworn in. Maybe they're waiting for Christmas. Either way, it doesn't matter why Congress is choosing not to act; that's entirely beside the point. If the President doesn't like the lack of immigration reform bills in the Congress, maybe his party should start winning some elections. Or maybe the President could have done something for the two years he had a super-majority in Congress.

But all of this talk about the President's action and the Congress' reaction also misses the point of this being bad precedent.

The President shouldn't do what he's about to do. There's no broad public support for it. It's against the specific will of the majority of the legislative branch. The legal basis is unsound. There's no national crisis at hand that cries out for drastic action. In fact, the President is actually creating a crisis with this defiant move. It's also not a permanent fix, either. It's theater. But it's theater that sets a horrible precedent of cutting down laws by Presidential order.

But you know...I don't put 100% of the blame on the President. I blame us. The entire Democratic party is thrilled at the idea of this executive action, and it is actively encouraging him to do this. A little less than half of the electorate is excusing the means because they like the end result. There's plenty of blame to go around. The President is going to announce that he's going to ignore some laws tomorrow, and it won't really register for much of the citizenry here in our young little republic.

At the end of the day, we have to have laws that mean things. If the law can just be altered (and non-enforcement is altering the law) then what is left? I know I use this clip all the time, but it's relevant once again.

You start cutting down a little bit of the law here, a little bit of the law there, and pretty soon, a cold wind is blowing, and the Devil will turn 'round on you. Where do you hide then?

Headlines for November 17, 2014

It's cold, rainy, and foggy out there today. Good Scottish weather.

I was going to have a trial today, but the case settled just before we started picking a jury. Consequently, you get a blog post. (Lucky you!)

Looking around, here are some of the headlines that caught my attention today and over the weekend:

1. South Carolina beat Florida in overtime which got the Florida head coach fired. What's really interesting is whether South Carolina will now offer the former Florida head coach a job as a defensive assistant.

2. A doctor who was transported from West Africa to a Nebraska hospital has died of ebola. Apparently, he got to the US just recently, and it looks like he was in a pretty advanced stage of the disease before he got here.

3. One of the scientists who helped land the Rosetta probe on a comet wore a shirt that offended some people. If you're over 13 and offended by someone's shirt, you're a weak-minded moron. Get a grip, people. It's a shirt. You people are worse than the preacher in Footloose.

Other than that, what else you got?

"We Must Declare War Upon War"

Said President Obama at the UN, today. That's an actual quote. He actually said that. Really.

My reaction to declaring "war on war".

First of all, that's just a weird construction. War on war? Huh? That sounds like something out of Dr. Strangelove.

As to the substance, it's a naive and silly idea to try and declare war on war because you're never going to win the War on War.

There are always going to be aggressive nations/groups who ultimately decide to use force of arms against others. This will always be the case. To try and "end war" is like trying to "end sadness". It ain't gonna happen.

The problem is that in almost all things, President Obama sees the world as he wants to see it, and not how it actually is.

Look at me, Michael Barbaro

If you didn't already see this, Joe Biden used the word "shylock" in a speech the other day, which triggered a little backlash. I don't care about that. This isn't a piece about how Joe Biden is an idiot. You already know that. That would be like writing a blog post about the sun rising in the east. It ain't exactly breaking news.

However, the really intelligent people who report for the New York Times had this to say:

Raise your hand if you were not familiar with the word "Shylock" before it became a controversy in past 24 hours?

— Michael Barbaro (@mikiebarb) September 17, 2014

Ok, so maybe Mr. Barbaro doesn't have a passing familiarity with The Merchant of Venice. That's somewhat surprising, but fine. I guess they don't teach that kind of esoteric stuff at fancy ivy league colleges anymore.

I love that this reporter at the New York Times, who I'm sure, considers himself smarter and more worldly than us morons down in South Carolina doesn't know the word "shylock". I find that truly hilarious.

Here's the thing. I get that maybe Mr. Barbaro isn't up on his Billy Shakes, but how is that he hasn't seen the movie Get Shorty, either? That's just an unforgivable sin. There's no excuse for not seeing this movie that came out in the John Travolta renaissance. The entire movie is about...a shylock.

Here's a great scene:

If you haven't seen this movie, your homework assignment is to go watch it this weekend.

Look at me, Michael Barbaro. Look at me.

Scotland Saying Goodbye to the UK?

Apparently, Scotland might be voting to leave the United Kingdom soon. As far-fetched as that may sound to us Americans, the prospect has London worried to the extent that London has apparently offered some concessions of "extensive new powers" to Scotland if they stay.

I don't know if Scotland should leave or stay. I haven't really done any research other than to watch Braveheart. Apparently, the Scots and English don't really get along, so I guess that has something to do with it.

However, this talk of London offering Scotland new powers kind of reminded me of this line, from when the English King talks about bribing the Scottish nobles to betray Wallace:

I gave Mornay double his lands in Scotland and matching estates in England. Lochlan turned for...much less.

Anyone really have a strong opinion on Scotland staying or going? I can't really say that I do. Have the decided who will claim James Bond? This seems to be an important issue.

Hey guys? I think Russia and Ukraine are at war.

I was going to try and make a joke, but there's not really anything funny about this.

Ukraine said its artillery partly destroyed a Russian armoured column that entered its territory overnight and said its forces came under shellfire from Russia on Friday in what appeared to be a major military escalation between the ex-Soviet states.

Yeah...armored columns going "poof" tend to indicate something more than a minor disagreement. I wonder what Fred Thompson's character in The Hunt for Red October would say about this.

Poland Has Lost That Lovin' Feeling

Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski says the country's strong alliance with the U.S. "isn't worth anything" and is "even harmful because it creates a false sense of security."

Didn't the Polish used to be some of our stanchest allies? Apparently, they've lost that lovin' feeling.

I'm pretty sure that President Obama promised to "restore out standing in the world" or something like that. So what's up with getting dissed by the Polish Foreign Minister? I guess stiffing them on the ABM deal and botching the Ukraine thing hasn't helped.

Does this mean the Polish tell jokes about us now? Because that's not acceptable.

IRS: We've "lost" more of the e-mails that you've asked us about. Totes Sorry!

If you didn't already know, the IRS has stated that they "lost" about two years worth of Lois Lerner's e-mails that the House of Representatives had subpoenaed. Because her computer "crashed".

Oops. We all make mistakes!

I mean, it's impossible that any sort of backup or retrieval could happen. I mean, computers are just magical things that no one really understands. Sometimes bad stuff just happens, right? I know, it's convenient that it just so happens these were e-mails that would possibly prove a criminal conspiracy, but I guess anything's possible, right?

Well, it just so happens that the IRS has now claimed that six more employees who were the target of a Congressional inquiry have all lost their e-mail as well - all in computer crashes. Essentially, they've lost another submarine.

This is simply not plausible. It's not plausible that seven different people, who all happened to be under investigation, all lost their e-mail in the same way, and there's no way to retrieve the e-mails.

We lawyers have a word for this. When you destroy or lose evidence in a civil case, it's called "spoliation". If you lose or destroy evidence, the trial court takes a negative inference against you, and then you lose the darn case. In my practice, I've had trial courts hold opposing parties accountable for destroyed digital information by taking a negative inference against them.

But the IRS is claiming that all this just accidentally happened. They're not criminal; they're just incompetent.

They ought to subpoena every single IT administrator at the IRS and question them under oath.

Ramius Killed Political Officer Putin Last Night in VA-7

Over on Facebook where I'm a newbie, Brad referred to Eric Cantor as the one time "zampolit" who kept Boehner in line, and how it was somehow fitting that Cantor would lose to a Tea Party challenger.

When I read the word zampolit, the first thing I thought of was of Political Officer Putin, who was similarly taken by a rouge agent, who then changed the standard orders.

The Tea Party is burning the orders from Moscow.

I think my attempt at humor works quite poetically, as Ramius killed Putin, and then covers it up by claiming he slipped on some....tea.

Watch out for that tea, Eric.

Everything always comes back to The Hunt For Red October.

True Detective Meets Family Circus...and Dazed and Confused

How did I miss this? I appreciate Doug Ross for bringing this to my attention.

In other True Dectective funny stuff, I came across this as well.

And scene.

As Usual, Obama is "Madder than hell" About the VA Scandal

So what?

Apparently, he's "madder than hell" about this scandal. Whatever happened to "no drama Obama" by the way? I haven't seen that guy in a long time.

Ever notice how Obama is always mad as a hornet about some scandal that eventually disappears down the memory hole? When the IRS targeting of tea party groups came to light, he was angry about that, too. Until he decided not to be. The failed rollout of his signature domestic policy? Yeah, he was angry about that also. You know, the convenient thing about being angry or "mad as hell" is that you don't have to say that you're sorry. Being mad shifts the blame to someone else - the people you are mad at. It's obviously not your fault - it's the fault of your anger's target.

Scandal Crisis Management from Obama.

Step 1: When confronted with a scandal, show outrage. Demand accountability and punishment.

Step 2: Initiate investigation. During the investigation, no comments are made about the scandal, so as not to prejudice the ongoing investigation.

Step 3: After awhile, respond to all questions about the scandal as "old news".

Crisis solved. Seriously though, has he ever gotten to the bottom of anything that he's madder than hell about? The buck stops nowhere.

If you didn't know any better, it's almost like Obama isn't really participating in his administration, but he's just a detached observer, who comes in after the fact and gets upset that everything is being messed up. Charles Krauthammer made this same point.

“He acts as if––it was the same with the IRS, eavesdropping on the AP, and all the other scandals, the Obamacare launch––he stumbled upon the presidency and discovered all this horrible stuff is happening. He’s in charge of these departments. At some point, you’ve gotta ask, ‘Where has he been, and where is the competence, the elementary competence, he promised when he ran in 2008?’”

OUT: I have competence in governing.
IN: I'm mad as hell about incompetence I had nothing to do with and just found out about in the newspaper.

Charleston Woman Threatened to "Shoot Everyone" Over Stale Cinnamon Bun

What does she think this is, Pulp Fiction?

A customer at a Mount Pleasant restaurant threatened to "shoot everyone" after arguing over a stale cinnamon bun she was served, a witness said...Witnesses told police that three women were ahead of them in line when one of them began yelling at an employee that the Cinnabon cinnamon bun she was served was not fresh. The witness said the employee yelled back at the customer that there was only one left.

Don't mess with people's cinnamon buns, y'all.

Ben Affleck Banned from Vegas Casino

Not for cheating, mind you - just for basically being too good at blackjack.

Hey - he is known for being tough.

What Are You Prepared to Do About it?

Russia has occupied the Crimea, and it is looking towards the rest of Ukraine. The West hasn't responded yet, and the longer the West waits, the weaker it looks. The weaker it looks, the more likely it is that Russia will take more.

The question to the West is: What are you prepared to do? I'm not sure any of our current leaders are prepared to do much.