Just Mailing it In

...

Ok, sure.  There's a whole lot we don't know, and a whole bunch more we'll never be told.  But if we are to take this latest "terror" attack at face value, there's a lot that's pretty hard to understand.  As we understand it at this point, explosive devices (that's 'bombs' to you and me, but maybe not to Obama) were sent via UPS from Yemen to targets in the US including a Chicago Synagogue.  Man.  That's a whole lot of lame, right there, in one sad sentence.  Ok, quick disclaimer.  I'm glad the attack was disrupted, and I want these assholes to lose, but as a fan of operational efficiency, I have to give this a D-, where the explosive underpants guy was just an F.

Let's just set aside for a moment the obvious questions one might want to ask about a package sent from Yemen to a Synagogue in Chicago.  I'm pretty sure that's a shipment that was flagged for additional security, and if for some inexplicable reason it was not, it is now.  That, as they sing endlessly in the commercial, is Logistics.  The only advantage that mailing a bomb in a box from Yemen has over a more traditional terrorist attack is that it is safe.  Now, I don't know about you, but when I listen to the American Political Right these terrorists are brilliant, lethal, they can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with.  They don't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And they absolutely will not stop, ever. But safe?  They told me they WANT to die, to die in jihad is something something something.  And, of course, it's all bullshit.

Nobody wants to be caught.  You can convince people to die for your cause, but it's important to remember that most of the 9/11 hijackers had no idea they were on a one way mission.  But its another thing entirely to sit in Yemen and put a ninety dollar bomb on UPS and say, hey, let's see what happens.  That's pathetic.  Dudes.  You'll have to engage America from American soil, and you'll have to be willing to die or spend your life in prison.  But beyond that, the tactics available are obvious.

I'm going to assume two things here.  One, even at this point, they don't have trustworthy operators on US soil, and two, they want to carry out a real attack, not just some symbolic threat.  So, first, getting your operators to US territory.  The one thing the jihadis have, and really, the only thing they need is money.  Money will get them everything else.  Come on, they HAVE to know this, don't they?  Having trouble getting operators on US shores?  The North Koreans will happily make you a Cambodian or Thai or even  Japanese passport for US dollars.  You can buy virtually everything you need IN the US, weapons, ammunition, operational gear, communications gear, surveillance gear.  You can buy Norinco AKs that are not difficult to convert to full auto.  If you need to bring in specialized equipment, pre-built suicide vests, grenades, RPGs, Semtex, detonators, you can easily pay the Mexican cartels to bring it in.  And weapons and explosives are cheap.  If your shipment gets interdicted, hey, it was a cash transaction, just try it again.

If you game it out from the terrorists viewpoint, it's pretty easy to figure out how to approach it.  And there are a million variations, from Canada to Montana transfers to freighters offloading off a deserted Oregon beach.  But they chose, instead, to cross their fingers and ask that eternal question "What can Brown do for you?"  There's really only two possibilities at this point.  Either they are WAY smarter than we think, and they are walking a fine line of keeping the American population fearful without actually DOING something that might invite massive retaliation, or they are just hopeless, so beaten down by years of relentless American violence and vigilance that they just don't have a Plan B.  It's hard to know, but given what we've seen, we have to arrive at two simultaneous conclusions.  One, it's harder to attack America than it looks.  And two, they may not realize how vulnerable we are to a few coordinated, small bore attacks.  As long as they think they have to bring down giant skyscrapers to make a point, we're safer than we think...



UPDATE:
We have now been informed that the bomb was built into a small desktop laser printer, with the toner cartridge packed with PETN explosive and wired to a cellular phone.  Now, I have no idea what systems UPS has in place, but you can buy a laser printer in Chicago for less than $100.00.  I can think of NO scenario where it would make any sense to ship one from Yemen to the US.  Shipments like this, that are unreasonable on their face, certainly should require some additional security, it seems to me.

The additional question is why a cell phone detonator instead of just rigging the package to explode when opened?  Wouldn't someone have to be quite nearby to actually observe the delivery in order to time the detonation correctly?  That's got to be extremely difficult to coordinate.

...

Bicameral Disorder

...

The midterms are almost upon us.  Widely expected to be a major Republican victory, the combination of a weak economy with high unemployment, an unusually large Democratic majority and a long history of losses for the President's party in the midterm election will likely result in a Republican majority in the House of Representatives.  There's even a slim possibility that the Republicans will win BOTH houses of congress.  Democratic activists are panicked by the very thought of these outcomes, fearful of what might come to pass with only the veto pen of their 'post partisan' President, Barack Obama standing between wingnut legislators and the future.  And with Obama's history of preemptive capitulation, they find cold comfort there.

But perhaps this concern is overblown.  Certainly, the combination of an extreme far-right Congressional majority whose overheated rhetoric leaves them unable to compromise on anything and a President who's entire relationship with the legislature is predicated on compromise or outright surrender might, in theory, lead to some fairly unpleasant consequences.  But the American political system has evolved a firebreak, a body thats function might best be described as 'sand in the gears', a group of individuals so invested in the status quo, so dedicated to personal aggrandizement over public policy, so unwilling to take any political risk that it seems their true role is to actually prevent any real legislative accomplishment.

Yep.  I'm talking about the United States Senate.  A legislative body that has, over time, evolved a set of rules giving any one of the 100 Senators the power to bring virtually any governmental function to a halt.  From secret holds to objections to unanimous consent to the filibuster, they have placed 100 powerful people with outsized egos in complete control of every last bit of American governance.  In the last two years, the House of Representatives has passed no less than 420 bills that the Senate never even took up. Cap and Trade, Jobs, additional Stimulus, a veritable smorgasbord of important, progressive legislation passed the house, in some cases on extremely contentious votes not without political risk, only to die in the self-absorbed funhouse mirror that is the US Senate.

So, with the Senate fully committed to preening in front of the cameras and refusing to do anything that might appear to be capable of altering the status quo, the concern that some nefarious or destructive legislation might be sent to the White House for the President's signature or veto is somewhat farfetched. Of course, with the number and complexity of the problems facing us, this kind of institutional inaction cannot really be seen as a sort of 'benign neglect'.  Rather, all the problems will get worse as they go unaddressed, new problems will develop without hope of a solution, and regular people will suffer as the delivery of government services becomes increasingly difficult.

But it should provide some peace of mind in January, when you see this new crop of arguably insane, ignorant extreme right wing fundamentalists take their seats as United States Senators and Congressmen and women.  For all their frightening rhetoric, they will be confronted and stymied by the same institutional dysfunction that so seriously constrained the actions of President Obama and Speaker Pelosi.  In a very real sense, it no longer matters who controls congress - the Senate is a truly bi-partisan catastrophe.
...

It's the Bullpen, Stupid

...

Long, majestic home runs arcing dramatically through the night sky.  Steely - eyed hitters fouling off pitch after pitch.  Grim - faced starting pitchers, trying to stay one step ahead of hitters as they face the lineup for the third time.  Brilliant defensive plays of balletic athleticism.  The perfect sacrifice bunt, the timely stolen base, a well - executed hit and run.  These are the things that win ball games.

But they are not, however, the things that win series.  A best-of-seven series is a very special thing.  The longest series a Major League team plays against a single opponent throughout the regular season is four, and four-game series' are rare.  The vast majority are three.  And while baseball insiders speak of "winning series", it's not something that gets talked about a great deal from April to October.  But then, in the win-or-go-home playoffs, it becomes all about winning a series.  But not a three game series.  Not even a four game series.  Suddenly, players and managers are asked to figure out how to win four out of seven - against the same team.  More than any other time in baseball, tactics are supplanted by strategy.  Winning the game is no longer an end unto itself - rather, winning games becomes the means to an end - winning the series.

The 162 game season is a crucible, a brutal proving ground not just for talent and skill, but for consistency, athleticism and not a little bit of luck.  Teams that make it into the playoffs may not be the teams you'd expect to be there, but are more often than not teams that deserve to be there.  Lineups, batting order, pitching rotation, things that are set for mundane reasons during the summer become the strategic decisions that can make a champion, or end the dream.

And very often, when the starters get pounded, when the hitters take an 0 for 4, when the infielders hands turn to stone, it comes down to the bullpens.  Just as games are won or lost in the seventh, eighth and ninth innings, series are won or lost in the bullpen.  Whether your team is clinging to a slim lead, or is hoping to come from behind, the outcome depends on the odd breed of people who sit on a bench in the outfield, half watching the game and playing silly games to amuse themselves until the call comes down.

So it's been kind of funny.  The analysts have talked about the Giants starters, the Rangers bats, trade-offs in hitting and defense, managerial acumen, team speed - everything you think about when the important thing is to win the game.  Left out of the conversation, whether by force of habit or lack or recognition, is the relief corps.  Which, this year, is odd.  Because if you try to think about the Giants - Rangers World Series in these more traditional terms - Giants pitching, Rangers hitting, Bochy and Washington - you arrive at no conclusions at all.  It's just circular, the questions leading nowhere but back to themselves.

But if you look at the bullpens - the Giants amazing, record setting collection of power arms, guile and experience, the Rangers patchwork quilt of very good, but inconsistent relief pitchers, you easily arrive at an obvious, if somewhat surprising conclusion:  From the very outset, the Texas Rangers were going to have a very hard time winning this series.
...

Eighteen and Life to Go

...

Omar Khadr was fifteen years old that July day outside of Khost, Afghanistan in 2002 when American soldiers and Afghan mercenaries attacked the family compound.  After a lengthy firefight, the compound was strafed by Apache helicopter gunships, bombed by F16s and then a pair of A-10s made the rubble bounce. Most of the residents were killed in the aerial bombardment, but young Omar found himself alive in the rubble as the American troops assaulted down the alley.  In an exchange of grenades, he was struck by shrapnel and blinded in one eye, kneeling in the dust surrounded by collapsed walls.  An American soldier shot him twice in the back as he cleared the alley.

All that summer at Baghram he was tormented, deprived of care and forced to work.  He was interrogated repeatedly, under various forms of abuse, threat and coercion.  In the fall, a few days after turning sixteen, he was transferred to Guantanamo Bay.  Having been born in Toronto, the Canadian Cabinet and Court demanded their government ask the US to treat Khadr the way US and Canadian law required them to treat minors, but in those post 9-11, pre Iraq invasion early days of the Bush Administration, the Canadian government was silent.  As was the world.

Over the next eight years the US has struggled to deal with the debacle they had created.  They charged this child soldier with war crimes, although no one could quite explain how it was that in this one isolated case, killing a soldier on the battlefield was a war crime.  The original explanation, that he was not in uniform, was quickly muted when the prosecutors were asked what uniform the Northern Alliance mercenaries were wearing when they fought alongside US troops in the battles to depose the Taliban government.

There was no obvious way to try him, as the evidence he provided came during or after abusive and coercive interrogations.  The US found itself holding a child soldier, something that is universally considered to be unacceptable, for a war crime that didn't seem to actually BE a war crime, on evidence that couldn't be admitted in a trial.  The obvious thing to do here is to let the kid go, give him a couple million dollars in compensation and deport him to Canada.  But in the US, if there's any overarching unwritten rule of governance, it is this:  "Never Admit You Were Wrong".

So they held Omar Khadr in Guantanamo Bay for years, devising one new legal system after another, trying to come up with the impossible:  A way to try Omar Khadr for war crimes that would guarantee a conviction and still look legitimate in the eyes of the world.  As the years passed and the young man became an adult, he waited for the US to decide his fate.  And though it took many years, the Americans finally became convinced that there was simply no way to convict this former child soldier without using tactics that would have looked very similar to the old Soviet "show trials".  So they played their very last card.  They would threaten to just hold him forever, essentially taking his entire life away, if he didn't plead guilty.  The utterly indefensible war crimes charges went away, and he ultimately pled to murder and terrorism charges.  He would serve eight more years, seven of them in Canada.

The whole process has been ugly, stupid and unnecessary.  Nobody came out whole.  Khadr lost his sight, his innocence and decades of his life, the US lost any credibility it might have had as it stumbles through the legacy of repeated human rights violations under the Bush/Cheney Administration, the Canadians have been absent, and human rights organizations have been powerless to affect the process.  It's a demonstration of everything that's wrong with the American response to 9/11, from using armies and air forces against terrorists to throwing everything we believed about civil liberties, due process and the rule of law out the window to manipulating the judicial system itself to try to control the outcome has been not just wrong, but completely counterproductive.

What has been accomplished by bringing the full might of America to bear on Omar Khadr?  After we bombed him, blew him up, blinded him, shot him twice, tortured him and held him without due process for the best part of a decade, did we really need to show him once more how powerful we are?  Where is the line, where Justice crosses over into Vengeance?  Where is the threshold, where we decide that the things we believe, the things we ARE, have become insufficient, our lives more desperately important than the lofty ideals of a great nation?  When did we decide that Patrick Henry was a crazed extremist, and we would accept any amount of indignity, any level of injustice, any act of corrupt power our government might choose to commit, if only they might keep us safe?  Is there NO amount of risk we are willing to take on in the name of our Democratic principles?

In the Stygian blackness at the bottom of 21st century America, Omar Khadr was the last, best canary we had.  There for any and all to see, he's telling us time is running out.  If not already too late, it's a long way back to the air and sunlight of a fearlessly free America.  Is anybody watching?
...

Don't Take the World Serious!

...

And in a turn of events so unlikely as to have been predicted by absolutely NOBODY, the National League will be represented in the 2010 World Series by none other than that perennial powerhouse, the San Francisco Giants.  As recently as June, sports talk radio in the bay area was filled with the keening lamentations of the fan base, calling for the head of Sabean, the public flogging of Bochy and a trade of whatever it might take to get a real power hitter that might come up with two on and one out and do ANYTHING other than hit a two-hopper to second.  The pitching rich Giants did what they were expected to do, keeping opponents at bay while scoring runs rarely and inconsistently.  Many one-run games were decided in the late innings.  But oddly, many of those late-inning heroics came from the Giants.  First Uribe, then Burrell, then Posey, then Torres, one after another somebody stepped into the glare of the spotlight and simply refused to lose.  It was a season of amazing highs and lows, of heroics followed by squandered chances, every night adding to the epic torture of a team unlike any we'd ever seen.

We knew they were pretty good.  We knew they were fun to watch.  But we also knew they couldn't win with these hitters.  We knew it was going to be another couple years, watching them pitch their hearts out, only to lose a few too many torturous one-run games in the late innings.  But a couple unexpected things happened to this team on the way to another third place finish.  First, Aubrey Huff and Pat Burrell took over the clubhouse, and showed a bunch of kids and last-place castoffs how to play like a big leaguer.  The bullpen, almost invisible behind the ups and downs of one of the most remarkable starting rotations in modern baseball history, decided that they could be even better than the starters - and then they proved it.  Brian Wilson provided a highly unusual kind of spiritual leadership, always leading from the front, never taking a step backward - call it the Church of Fearlessness.  And then, against all odds, or perhaps inevitably, the San Diego Padres, who spent the whole year leading the division, never losing three in a row, never having to absorb a crippling injury or lineup gone cold, suddenly collapsed in one of the great late - season train wrecks of all time, losing ten in a row, their confidence and in the end, their chance to play in the post-season.

Much will be written about this team.  The way they were assembled, piece by piece, on the fly, from the waiver wire, from the trading deadline, from the couch at home.  The way they came together, an unlikely chemistry that welcomed each new piece, that absorbed players like the Borg, that created a sense of family, an unwillingness to quit, and finally, an unlikely but lovable League Champion team.  The TV will tell the easy stories, of Posey and Molina, of Aubrey Huff and Freddy Sanchez, of Pat Burrell and Jose Guillen, of the 32 year old overnight sensation Andres Torres, the struggles of the beloved Panda and inexplicable magic that is Cody Ross.  But that's not the whole story.  That's not even the real story.  That's a fiction, a legend, built on bedrock truths and outlandish personalities and all the little stories from a grueling 162 game season.  People around the nation will see this team, the smiles, the bonds, the outrageous characters and the larger than life personalities, and they will very likely embrace them, for they are something rare and fine.  But I hope, in watching a team of misfits and castoffs play for all the marbles, they don't miss that other part.  That flinty stare from Pat Burrell, that steely determination from Aubrey Huff, that once-in-a-generation grace of Buster Posey, that competitive fire that is Licecum and Cain, and that utter mad fearlessness of Brian Wilson.  There is more to this team than the stories and anecdotes you'll hear from Joe Buck and Tim McCarver.  To watch them play together is to understand the timelessness and elegance of baseball, and to remember why we love this game.

...

Vote for Me! Why? Uh, Oh! Because I'm Delusional and Incompetent!!

...

With the election just days away, debate season is in full swing.  As difficult as they are to watch, they are providing us with insights we've been unable to gain previously, particularly into the mind of the Teabagger candidates and the affirmative reasons they believe they should be elected to statewide or national office.  Up until this point, they commonly provided their messaging only through friendly news outlets, social media and paid advertisements.  As such, there was no demand or requirement that they state their qualifications for office or provide any insight into their policy agenda.  They were able to make their case on the basis of vague generalities and platitudes (smaller government, low taxes, free markets, the constitution) and negative statements about their opponents and their opponents party leadership.

But now they find themselves on the dais, at the mercy of debate moderators who prefer that they answer the question that was actually asked, in some detail if possible.  Now it's true that it's very difficult, even, in some cases, impossible to make them provide an actual policy position, but you can draw some conclusions from their dogwhistle responses.  Privatization?  No, no, certainly not.  Personalization.  Not just health care repeal, but repeal and replacement with something even better.  Something unspecified, but something, for sure.

Things become clearer, however, when they start to talk about their core beliefs.  Not just clearer, but frightening.  Frightening because virtually ALL their core beliefs are demonstrably false, and belief in them is delusional and often paranoid.  Not a single Teabagger candidate believes global warming science.  Every single last one thinks it's natural, cyclical, sunspots or some other natural process.  Many state fearlessly that it is a hoax, perpetrated by thousands of scientists and researchers from every corner of the globe, for vague but nefarious purposes of world domination.  Or something.  They all believe some version of the theory that reducing tax revenue actually increases government revenue.  This process goes broadly unexplained, except that it's predicated upon incentives and economic growth.  Sure, a second grader could easily demonstrate that the math doesn't work, but they solve this problem by avoiding any discussion of the math.  They tell you they'll cut the deficit by reducing "non-defense discretionary spending", without mentioning (or even, in some cases, actually understanding) that this amounts to 15% of the Budget, a little over $500 Billion, and includes things we really don't want to cut like the FBI, NIH, Centers for Disease Control and NASA.  They'll tell you that government regulation unnecessarily impedes private enterprise, without apparent concern for consumer, employee and environmental health and welfare.

But by far the most egregious, and paradoxically the most broadly accepted at face value, is the statement that they are not politicians, not "insiders", not experienced in public policy like the elitist technocrats that have brought us to this precipitous point.  If only people would spend some time thinking about how stupid and incoherent this actually is.  The claim is, essentially, that your primary qualification for the job is that you are entirely unqualified for the job.  No doubt a key part of the general anti-intellectualism so common among American movement conservatives, this feeds into a classic "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" allegory, a widely believed fiction that a "regular guy" can go to Washington with nothing but good old common sense and set things right.  In no other endeavor is this a persuasive argument.  You certainly wouldn't select a doctor on this basis, or an auto mechanic, or even a landscaper.  Companies screen candidates carefully in order to determine their true qualifications for a position.  Why would we assume that professional politician is a job that requires essentially no skills?  No understanding of economics, of law, of policy?  No negotiation, conflict management or managerial skills?  No experience in project management, arcane procedure or budgetary processes?  Why on earth would we allow a candidate to claim these were the fundamental basis for his or her qualifications for office?  It's not just insane, it's absurd.

But that's what they're telling us.  They're telling us that they don't actually have a plan, but trust them.  They're telling us they believe ridiculous, incoherent and impossible things but that shouldn't disqualify them from election.  And they're telling us that the fact that they are utterly unqualified for the office they seek not only shouldn't disqualify them from being elected, but indeed is precisely the reason they SHOULD be elected.

Between Senate procedure and the Teabaggers, American politics has become something approaching farce, a laughable circus of idiots and charlatans.  I'd be lying if I told you it didn't make me fear for my future, but even so, I can't help but laugh at their antics.
...

Giants vs. Phillies Game Six - Eternal Hope Struggles Against the Lessons of History

...

It was never a realistic hope to close out the series in San Francisco.  The hope was there, certainly, but it was a hope driven by a general lack of confidence.  If they could just pull out that one last win at home, there would be no return to Philadelphia, no desperate need to win one out of two, no looming fear of watching it all slip away.

The Giants are not that good a baseball team.  The Phillies are.  The Phillies have been to the World Series the last two years, while the Giants set tee times and took their kids on vacation.  The Giants have the pitching, but they don't have the bats.  The Phillies have both, in abundance.  The Giants had to massively overachieve just to get to where they are, while the Phillies had to underachieve to find themselves on the brink of elimination.

Game 6.  Sanchez vs. Oswalt.  But that's not the real matchup.  Oh, if the Giants are to have any chance at all, Jonathan Sanchez will have to be great, putting up zeros and keeping his pitch count low.  But this is going to be all about the Giants hitters.  The size of their hearts, their ability to get good pitches from Oswalt and not miss them when they do.  This is about Torres, Huff, Burrell and Uribe.  Freddie Sanchez and Buster Posey we know about - but if they once again are asked to serve in the role (along with the inexplicable Cody Ross) of the Giants offense, we'll be having this same conversation again tomorrow before a Game 7 with all the momentum in the Phillies dugout.

Certainly, the Giants fan can take hope from the last time they faced Roy Oswalt.  With Lidge and the rest of the Phillies bullpen regulars sitting and watching, Oswalt demanded the ball from Charley Manuel, and went out and quickly and efficiently lost the game.  An optimist would say that now, not only is Oswalt left to question his ability to get the Giants out when it matters most, but the rest of the Phillies relief corps is left wondering why the manager has so little confidence in them he left them on the bench and rolled his number 2 starter out there in the ninth.

But that's what we're presented with today.  Sure, it could be a blowout, either way.  Heaven knows we're due for one in this grinding, torturous low scoring series.  And if it is, well, so be it.  More likely, the pitching will be great once again.  And that's when it will come down to beating the Phillies the only way there is to win baseball games in the real world:  By scoring more runs than they do.
...