Non-sequiturs, etc.

As I read reporting on the news, politics, science, and all manner of subjects it is quite amazing to me to see so many of what I consider to be untruthful, inaccurate, illogical, and sometimes even nonsensical items... replete with non-sequiturs, leaps of logic, full of misunderstandings (sometimes unintentional, sometimes perhaps intentional), etc. Here are a few examples:

 

I. Apparently a new subject for litigation is the 'follow' and 'block' functionality of various social media vehicles such as Twitter, Facebook, etc., see: Trump’s Not the Only One Blocking Constituents on Twitter.

Apparently a number of people are annoyed at various politicians have 'blocked' them after they "voiced dissent." They are claiming that "losing this form of access to public officials violates constituents’ First Amendment rights to free speech and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." In fact, they supposedly claim that "it’s akin to being thrown out of a town hall meeting for holding up a protest sign."

The Executive Director of The Knight Institute said "Though the architects of the Constitution surely didn’t contemplate presidential Twitter accounts, they understood that the president must not be allowed to banish views from public discourse simply because he finds them objectionable,” 

Hmm, I'm not exactly sure how blocking someone on Twitter (note: I routinely block all accounts that 'follow' me that appear to be bots, purveyors of MLM, and other accounts that do not appear to be "real"people... and since there are so many of these I have blocked hundreds of accounts!) in any way abridges their access to public discourse. Hell, it does not even stop their use of Twitter, it just means that they don't show up in the blocker's timeline! And, after having been blocked by others, one may not to able to follow them, but one can still go and look at their tweets any time he/she feels like it, via direct navigation to the blocker's feed...

Apparently some folks not only want to vent their frustration on Twitter/Facebook, they also expect the person they are venting at to be obliged to see/read their tweets/posts (at least if they are an elected representative).  That seems to be quite a stretch!

II. Next up is this article: 'Trump Administration Returns Copies of Report on C.I.A. Torture to Congress.' It would have you believe that the Trump administration is working to deep-six Congress' "torture report" by conspiring with the Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Apparently, "The Senate Intelligence Committee, which was run by Democrats when the executive summary was released, sent copies of the entire report to at least eight federal agencies, asking that they incorporate it into their records — a move that would have made the documents subject to requests under the Freedom of Information Act. That law, which allows citizens, the news media and other groups to request access to information held by the federal government, does not apply to congressional records..."

Contrast the scummy Republicans (working to let the report "remain hidden") with the virtuous Democrats (working to make sure that the report becomes available to the general public). One small problem with this characterization... the President referred to in the first paragraph, the one fighting a "pitched battle over how the history is told" is President Obama, and he was on the side of keeping the report a secret. Had he been on the side of disclosure, the report could have been declassified and released! Something you would never understand from this article, which, while recounting factual details, at the very least has glossed over a significant part of the truth!



III. On to the next article, 'This is what would happen if North Korea launched a real attack.' The article begins as follows:

"President Trump would have “maybe 10 minutes” to decide whether to launch a retaliatory strike against North Korea — should it ever fire a missile that’s capable of reaching the US mainland, experts say. 

Speaking to the Associated Press about what would happen in the event of a nuclear strike from the North, scientist David Wright, of the UCS Global Security Program, and rocket analyst Markus Schiller, of ST Analytics in Germany, described how the drama would unfold. 

“The timelines are short,” Wright explained. “Even for long-range missiles, there are a lot of steps that go into detecting the launch and figuring out what it is, leaving the president with maybe 10 minutes to decide whether to launch a retaliatory strike.” 

So, according to this expert the President has "maybe ten minutes to decide whether to launch a retaliatory strike" on being informed of a North Korean ballistic missile launch (once they have a credible, working missile that is)!  What a load of codswallop!  Say North Korea launches a nuclear-tipped ICBM, say even a half dozen... why exactly does the President have only 10 minutes to make a decision? He could wait an hour, a day., a week, a month... and then order a retaliatory strike.

Now if it was a case of hundreds of ICBMs coming from Russia, then there may be a very short timetable, because it could be case of "use them or lose them!" Even in such a scenario, given the nuclear triad with resources around the globe, it is highly likely that the U.S. could absorb an attack.. and still maintain a second-strike capability, even if you buy the 'end-of-life-as-we know-it EMP' scenarios!

The bottom line? The 'only ten minutes to respond to a North Korean nuclear missile' meme is risible, and the so-called 'expert' should be ashamed of peddling such nonsense!


IV.  On to the latest leaked NSA document on Russian "hacking" of the U.S. presidential "election" as detailed by an article published by The Intercept. 

One problem with this article was its use of multiple, different characterizations of exactly what the scope of the attack consisted of. In the article this was variously characterized as  a "cyber effort against elements of the U.S. election and voting infrastructure" and "...Russian hacking may have breached at least some elements of the voting system..." and also "...targeting voter registration software..." among others.

Another problem is the article simultaneously included a number of (mild) reassurances from the leaked document (e.g."unknown whether the aforementioned spear-phishing deployment successfully compromised all the intended victims, and what potential data from the victim could have been exfiltrated") with various speculations from "experts" about worst-case scenarios. However, at least The Intercept covered it all, clearly doing a better job than much of the other reporting which lost all nuance and turned it into "The Russians hacked the elections"

Random chart - the press

Source: Democrats, Republicans now split on support for watchdog role

Random chart

Source: Arab Media Outlook 2009 - 2013

Blurring fact and opinion...

My co-blogger, Tosk, has already penned an entry (The 'theft' of the Iranian election) that complained that "those attempting to understand what has transpired are ill-served by the pap that most of the media is serving up!" Although some days have passed and more is known re what happened, the media still are doing a very poor job in providing clarity and facts re the issue and most often opinion is paraded as fact. Two examples: one from the 'mainstream media' Christian Science Monitor, the other from the blogs, in this case The Daily Kos (see both below).

When this blogger first ran across the Christian Science Monitor article (the CSM usually being an excellent source of information) and saw the title, he was hopeful... at last, what is known! Unfortunately it turned out to mostly be the opinions of a single "expert." 'Known' turned out to be a pastiche of unsupported claims, beliefs, opinions, and expectations (see relevant brown-highlighted sections below). Facts were remarkable only by their absence.

The single Daily Kos diary entry made two mutually-exclusive claims. It initially started out with the claim that the Iranian regime had never actually bothered counting votes since "the fix" was in... Remember, no counts were made! Yet barely a few paragraphs later it reveals to us the real elections numbers... Hmm, so apparently the votes really may have been secretly counted! Bah, this blogger finds it hard to give much credence to a report that completely contradicts itself in this fashion!

The bottom line: there are many reasons to suspect electoral fraud; the circumstances leading up to, during, and after the elections had many irregularities and were hardly the model of transparency; and the entire electoral system works within unique constraints that make it less than ideal (e.g. vetted and approved candidates, etc.) However, most sources (traditional news or otherwise) are not providing anything factual for folks to "know" the truth here, and most people are left to assume the correctness of their preconceived notions...

From the Christian Science Monitor:

Was Iran's election rigged? Here's what is known so far

In the biggest presidential election turnout in the history of the Islamic Republic, some 85 percent of Iran's electorate went to the polls last Friday and gave incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a landslide victory.

Or did they?

Defeated challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi claims that the official result of 62.6 percent for Mr. Ahmadinejad and just 33.7 percent for him was a "dangerous charade," and has called for a new election. His newspaper, Kalameh Sabz, reported that more than 10 million votes were missing personal identification numbers that made the votes untraceable. He also says some polling stations closed prematurely, preventing some voters from casting ballots.

Many others also suspect the legitimacy of the vote, for a number of reasons:

Results from 39.2 million handwritten ballots came much more swiftly than in previous votes, emerging within hours. Detailed election data typically released has not been made public.

Iran's Supreme Leader sanctioned Ahmadinejad's victory after a day, instead of the customary three.

Ahmadinejad made a surprisingly strong showing in wealthier cities, where he is known to have less support, and in the ethnic strongholds of his rivals. Results from cities and rural areas normally vary, but this time were remarkably consistent.

Farideh Farhi of the University of Hawaii, whose decades of studying Iran has included poring over data from Iranian elections, says the result was "pulled out of a hat." Here's why.

Monitor: How does this election compare to past votes in Iran?

Ms. Farhi: My personal feeling is that Ahmadinejad could not have gotten anything more than 10 million. And I really do have the data from previous elections, each district, how they voted, each province, to make comparisons with these numbers that the Ministry of Interior have come out.

I am convinced that they just pulled it out of their hats. They certainly didn't pull it out of ballot [boxes] or even stuffed ballots, they just made up numbers and are putting it out. It just doesn't make sense.

I do take the numbers of the Interior Ministry very seriously. I pore over them every election. I did it last time in the parliamentary election, to determine the orientations and what they mean. I always do that.

In this election, I am not even going to spend time on this, because of all the [problems].

Monitor: Weren't there party monitors at the polling stations, to watch the count?

Farhi: There were party monitors, and the boxes were all counted, and there were records made, and the information was relayed to the Interior Ministry on a piecemeal basis.

But at one point, immediately after the polls were closed, a very few people, without the presence of any monitoring mechanism, started giving out these numbers. And that's why I think this was brazen manipulation.

It wasn't that they only wanted Ahmadinejad to win. They also wanted to make a case that we can do anything we want to do. And they were, I argue, very much interested in demoralizing this 20 to 30 percent extra voters that are coming in.

They simply are not interested in these people continuing to be interested in politics in Iran. The want them to become demoralized and cynical, because their participation in the Iranian electoral process is extremely destructive for the [Islamic] system ...

What they have not counted on, of course, is a group of people that they essentially think of, for lack of a better word, Westernized wishy-washy liberals, who never stand for anything, would actually be upset that this election was stolen in such a brazen way.

They assumed: 'Ah, you know, we go into the streets, we yell at them, and a couple of shots and they go home and close their doors.'

They knew that they were a minority, and that's why they tried to pull this off. They thought they could bully people, through violence. And they may ultimately be correct. But it seems they have underestimated, not only the crowds, but Mr. Mousavi.

Other red flags

Analysts expected a closer race, if not a reverse of that result, after a final surge in cities across Iran galvanized a large anti-Ahmadinejad vote.

Secret Iranian government polls reported by Newsweek earlier this month estimated that Mousavi would win 16 to 18 million votes, and Ahmadinejad just 6 to 8 million. Those polls found that even the Revolutionary Guard and Iran's "vast intelligence apparatus seem to have come around to this position: a large majority of them also plan to vote for Mousavi," Newsweek reported.

Earlier polls appeared to indicate a stronger showing for Ahmadinejad, who – though under fire for poor economic performance, a surge of inflation, and unemployment – had made 60 visits to Iran's provinces handing out cash and development projects.

The final "official" figures, however, gave Ahmadinejad 24.5 million votes, and Mousavi 13.2 million. That result was a shock for many Iranians and analysts.

The powerful Guardian Council will now be investigating irregularities. Daily protests, riots, and violence have marred the aftermath, and Iran's supreme religious leader Ayatollah Sayed Ali Khamenei – who had very quickly pronounced Ahmadinejad's victory "divine" – on Tuesday called for national unity.

But could there have been the widespread fraud? And what does the perception of a stolen vote mean for the hundreds of thousands of Mousavi supporters – and tens of thousands of Ahmadinejad loyalists – who have taken to the streets?

Farhi says of the 11 million new Iranian voters, she "simply, simply cannot believe" that Ahmadinejad could have won 8 million of them.

"The history of the Islamic Republic is that they never vote for status quo, they always vote for change," says Farhi. "I know people who entered this electoral process, who never voted in the Islamic Republic, and they came in and voted simply against Ahmadinejad." (Ed note: historically every standing Iranian President has been re-elected i.e maintenance of the status quo, at least in terms of persoin in charge)

From The Daily Kos:

Let me bring you up to date. Every single agency, in and outside of Iran, and practically everyone who knows anything about the nation has declared this thing a Sham. The vote wasn't stolen, the vote wasn't EVEN COUNTED. It was invented. This coup has been bought around by the guard, and supported by the Ayatollah. The actions take are indefensible, and a group of hardline radicals are ignoring the will of the Iranian people.

Even now the phone lines and internet connections have gone eerily dead, alongside the electricity for the entire city of Tehran. The police is out looking for Satellites, and communications from Iranians on Twitter, Facebook and through blogs have totally died out.

Make no doubt about it. Tehran is under martial law.

From the streets I have updates, a friend in Iran is a sports journalist for the immensely popular national football team. Due to the nature of his reporting, he has been practically ignored, and free to switch his reporting over to covering these events.

This is what he is telling me about what he has heard.

* 1. The Green protesters have taken over at least two police stations in north of Tehran, the Guards are trying to take back the buildings.

* 2. University dormitories across Iran have been attacked by the Revolutionary Guards.

* 3. The building of the ministry of Industry, and a major telecommunication center, have been set on fire.

* 4. Sharif University's professors have resigned on mass.

* 5. Unrest in Rasht, Tabriz, Isfahan, Shiraz and every other major city.

Meanwhile supporters are saying that Mousavi has asked people to form near his campaign offices at 12:30 today. His supporters now consider him President. Others are reporting this is a police trap. Very well may be.

Mousavi is no lightweight. He has held back out of care for his country, and his people. But let us not ignore the facts. Mousavi was Prime Minister during the Iraq-Iran War, and he knows HOW to run a campaign.

If Mousavi want's it and I hope he does, this revolution is on, and the National Guard will fall to the hands of the people.

Meanwhile inside Government Officials are leaking the REAL election numbers.

Unofficial news - reports leaked results from Interior Ministry:
Eligible voters: 49,322,412
Votes cast: 42,026,078
Spoilt votes: 38,716
Mir Hossein Mousavi: 19,075,623
Mehdi Karoubi: 13,387,104
Mahmoud Ahmadi-nejad (incumbent): 5,698,417
Mohsen Rezaei (conservative candidate): 3,754,218

Keep this rec'd and keep Iran in your thoughts.

Down with the Dictator, Down with the Ayatollah. Allaho Ackbar!

Random thoughts...

1. In the February 11th entry, 'Rhetorical questions...', this blogger wondered re the multiple calls to make the shareholders of institutions that get government aid in this downturn "take a haircut." Per Paul Krugman we apparently have the following choice: rescue the banks either by "(a) giving a HUGE handout to current stockholders or (b) effectively taking ownership on the part of we, the people."

One problem with this and much other discussion on this topic is the unstated but implied notions that these are completely two separate groups, and that the shareholders who own bank shares are responsible for the current state of affairs and don't deserve 'bailing out.' Unfortunately, all (millions if not tens of millions, via ownership of mutual funds, 'direct' and via pension funds) of these shareholders are tax-payers and most are not the "fat cats' that excite popular outrage... Politicians can posture re saving taxpayers at the expense of shareholders with relative impunity, because most people think of themselves as 'taxpayers' rather than as 'shareholders,' even though they are both.

OK, so consider taxpayer Suzy Q. Public. Every day she hears from the politicians the false dichotomy - the government needs to pour billions into these institutions to make them whole, and to protect SQP the shareholders need to "take a haircut" (because otherwise they would be given a huge handout). Well, post haircut the value of SQP's wealth and retirement funds are reduced, and even if the banks eventually pay back the entirety of the loans they received plus interest, SQP is unlikely to see one penny of this money. On the other hand, without the haircut the value of SQP's retirement increases as the financial institutions recover... (Note: we are assuming for both scenarios that the government bailout succeeds in turning the economy around) Why does it have to be an either/or (shareholders win vs. taxpayers win) rather than sum-sum?

2. Israel mulls releasing uprising leader to Abbas - So Israel would prefer to negotiate with a man they sentenced to 5 life terms for murder than with any Hamas leaders in Gaza? Other than Fatah and the Palestinian Authority being more compliant than Hamas, what else could account for this?

3. 'Axelrod: Effects of stimulus will be seen soon'- Having passed the "stimulus" package the discussion moves on to how effective it will be, something this blogger regards as a somewhat sterile argument. How will anyone know if the stimulus "works?" Proponents will claim success no matter who happens. Things turn around in the next 12-24 months... thank goodness for the perspicacity of those who proposed and passed the stimulus! The economy continues to be in recession and unemployment continues to rise... thank goodness for the perspicacity of those who proposed and passed the stimulus, because without it things would have been worse! A "no-lose" set of circumstances (note: the Obama team was smart enough to say they would save or create 4 million jobs... one can always claim jobs were 'saved', no matter what happens!) The opposite for opponents.

4. NYPD learns lessons from Mumbai terrorist attack that killed 174 -The NYPD is conducting drills based on lessons learned from the recent terrorist attacks on Mumbai. Good move. The article goes on to say that the new training was ordered "... because in the Mumbai incident, casualties mounted as local police were outgunned and unable to engage the terrorists..." Hah, no lessons to learn here. Of course the Mumbai police were outgunned! Most ordinary Mumbai police are "armed" (if you can call it that!) only with lathis, 6 to 8 foot iron-tipped canes (generally bamboo). And their main use of these is in lathi charges on unarmed civilians.

Press freedom rankings (RSF)

Reports Without Borders (Reporters Sans Frontieres) has released its 2008 world press freedom index. At the top - Iceland, Luxemburg, Norway (see above). The U.S.A comes in at 36th. At the bottom - Turkmenistan, North Korea, Eritrea (see below)

Only peace protects freedoms in post-9/11 world
Reporters Without Borders - Wikipedia
Mideast Suffers Heavy Press Repression, Survey Shows
Media group: War threatens press freedom in 2008

"The Reporters Without Borders index measures the state of press freedom in the world. It reflects the degree of freedom that journalists and news organisations enjoy in each country, and the efforts made by the authorities to respect and ensure respect for this freedom. A score and a position is assigned to each country in the final ranking. They are complementary indicators that together assess the state of press freedom. A country can change position from year to year even if its score stays the same, and vice versa. This ranking reflects the situation during a specific period. It is based solely on events between 1 September 2007 and 1 September 2008. It does not look at human rights violations in general, just press freedom violations. To compile this index, Reporters Without Borders prepared a questionnaire with
criteria that assess the state of press freedom in each country. It includes every kind of violation directly affecting journalists (such as murders, imprisonment, physical attacks and threats) and news media (censorship, confiscation of newspaper issues, searches and harassment). Ánd it includes the degree of impunity enjoyed by those responsible for these press freedom violations. It also measures the level of self-censorship in each country and the ability of the media to investigate and criticise. Financial pressure, which is increasingly common, is also assessed and incorporated into the final score. The questionnaire takes account of the legal framework for the media (including penalties for press offences, the existence of a state monopoly for certain kinds of media and how the media are regulated) and the level of independence of the public media. It also reflects violations of the free flow of information on the Internet. Reporters Without Borders has taken account not only of abuses attributable to the state, but also those by armed militias, clandestine organisations and pressure groups. The questionnaire was sent to Reporters Without Borders’ partner organisations (18 freedom of expression groups in all five continents), to its network of 130 correspondents around the world, and to journalists, researchers, jurists and human rights activists. A scale devised by the organisation was then used to give a countryscore to each questionnaire. The 173 countries ranked are those for which Reporters Without Borders received completed questionnaires from a number of independent sources. Some countries were not included because of a lack of reliable, confirmed data. Where countries tied, they are listed in alphabetical order. The index should in no way be taken as an indication of the quality of the press in the countries concerned."

What generosity!

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak pardoned a newspaper editor who had been sentenced to jail for "... publishing false information about the president..." thereby causing harm to the country's economy. The paper had speculated on the state of Mubarak's health. According to the Middle East News Service, MENA, "... as part of the president's efforts to foster freedom of the press in Egypt..."

What generosity of spirit! This after Mubarak earlier fingered "illegitimate movements" (i.e. the Muslim Brotherhood) for spreading the rumors, and while his wife, first lady Suzanne Mubarak, appeared on TV to say said that journalists who published rumors deserved to be punished. And has on the books laws that allow this, and pliant courts that enforce them.. What a democrat!

Egypt president pardons news editor sentenced to jail
Mubarak Gives Presidential Pardon to Egyptian Journalist

Projection?

Some goof from the Associated Press wrote an article condemning the McCain campaign, and more specifically vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, for inserting "... another potential appeal to racism..." See 'Analysis: Palin's words carry racial tinge.'

OK, the writer fusses about her attack on Senator Obama's ties with Bill Ayers (former Weather Underground member, current Chicago mover and shaker despite being unrepentant re his youthful activities). No problem... the extent and depth of those ties can and should be debated. However, the writer accuses Palin of covert racism on the grounds that a) she ties Obama to a terrorist, and, b) "In a post-Sept. 11 America, terrorists are envisioned as dark-skinned radical Muslims, not the homegrown anarchists of Ayers' day 40 years ago..." Ergo, racism.

What nonsense. Palin accused Obama of "palling around with terrorists who would target their own country..." Doesn't seem to this blogger to be a reference to foreigners, OBL and/or radical Muslims... Perhaps the writer is projecting here, he seems to be the only one equating terrorism with swarthy foreigners! Is this bibulous patter what passes for serious reportage these days?

This blogger has one question - by putting the words 'racially tinged' in the headline and then claiming a "... potential appeal to racism..." what exactly is the purpose of the word potential? So, is it covert racism, or could it be "potentially" seen as racism by some, or is this just a weasel word that allows the writer to weigh in one side of the debate, while giving himself an escape hatch through which he can scuttle if called out on this arrant nonsense? Looks like it is probably the latter - the writer gives himself away by including a gratuitous swipe at Senator McCain for supporting "... a pork-laden Wall Street bailout plan ..." The last time this blogger looked Senator Obama also supported the bailout plan (and in fact his campaign was at pains to make the case that his support convinced more representatives to vote "yea" than the efforts of McCain!)

And finally, what exactly is the problem with McCain/Palin saying "... "This is not a man who sees America like you and I see America..." This blogger believes that this is the official position of Obama/Biden, and that their supporters would respond to this by saying "Hell yes!"

Anthrax reckoning??

Over six and a half years after the anthrax attacks in the U.S. this week Steven Hatfill settled his suit with the U.S. Department of Justice. The government is to make a one-time payment to Hatfill of $2.825 million, as well as provide him an annuity that will pay him $150,000 each year for the next 20 years. No apparent progress has been made in identifying the person or persons responsible for the attacks that lead to five deaths.

The news media kept fairly quiet about this development, no doubt not wishing to remind the public of yet another occasion when the government, media, and others chasing the almighty news cycle conspired to destroy a person’s life by printing leaks, innuendo, etc. (think 1996 and Richard Jewell). No one has come out looking good in this entire imbroglio (e.g. see OPED28 from September 2002, reprinted below).

Steven Hatfill – Wikipedia
Steven J. Hatfill – NYT
U.S. to pay $5.8M to settle scientist Hatfill's anthrax suit

OPED28 Empty Suits on TV (September 2002 reprint)

Steven Hatfill has been in the news recently, as the only visible suspect in the FBI's "Amerithrax" investigation. Investigated by the FBI, he has been hounded by the press which has been egged on by leaks... Hatfill is fighting back, holding two press conferences to denounce John Ashcroft for declaring him a "person of interest", and to bitterly complain that the government has made his life a wasteland. During his second press conference Hatfill made specific allegations against the investigators e.g. blasting FBI profiling by alleging that the FBI had profiled the Unabomber as a "well-dressed, blue-collar, man," specifically alleging that 2 FBI investigators had told his girlfriend that he (Hatfill) had murdered 5 people and that the FBI had evidence of this, etc., etc. Watching the coverage on the various TV news channels it was amazing to see the vacuousness of the coverage, both by the on-air "talent" and by their "experts."

On MSNBC, expert Candace Long, a former FBI profiler, was asked about the implications of Hatfill's allegations. Rather than addressing anything substantive, this 'expert' caviled about who made the erroneous Unabomber profile (apparently it was a consultant and not a FBI profiler....), then said about Hatfill's allegations, "..until it's proven I'll have to assume it's false..."

On Fox (?) the expert was Skip Brandon, former FBI deputy assistant director for international terrorism. When asked specifically for a reaction to Hatfill's statement about what was allegedly said to his girlfriend, this "expert" also did not address the issue, preferring instead to engage in a non-sequitur, ad hominem attack on Hatfill (making a snide remark that Hatfill was trying to stretch out his 15 minutes of fame while proclaiming that he valued his privacy...). Instead of calling him on this, the "talent" volunteered his view that Hatfill was engaged in triple hearsay (".. he says that his girlfriend says that the FBI agents said...")

It's amazing how easily the news anchors shrugged off this story. Possible official malfeasance evidently is of small interest to them. And the "experts" that these channels use apparently have their own agendas. No longer active FBI, they ply their wares as "experts," but apparently have blinders on. How could any right-minded person not agree that if even some of Hatfill's allegations are true, that an investigation is called for? And that if any of them were to be corroborated, that corrective action would need to be taken? Subject to the 'ifs' being confirmed, it would seem that even ex-FBI should understand this. But apparently not, which by extension makes you wonder about the other experts, ex-generals, ex-CIA, etc. that the TV news channels trot out to explain the war on drugs, the war on terror, the coming war with Iraq, etc.

Visit the following links for a two part series in The Weekly Standard addressing the question "Why are so many people eager to believe that this man is the anthrax killer?" (one of the more balanced and comprehensive articles available), or do a Google search...

The hunting of Steven J. Hatfill - part I
The hunting of Steven J Hatfill - part II

Note: at the end of OPED28 this blogger idly wondered re the reliability of other “experts” including those opining on Iraq. Little did he know the full extent of the story, as we found out when it was revealed that many of the "retired" brass appearing as experts on Iraq were merely channeling Pentagon talking points!