NY Times Can't See Their Own Arrogance

The Times did an article today discussing the criticism and response to their story about using banking data to track terrorists. It was titled "Bush Says Report on Bank Data Was Disgraceful" and written by Sheryl Gay Stolberg.

In other circumstances, following comments would be laughable

"...The executive editor of The Times, Bill Keller, said in an e-mail statement on Monday evening that the decision to publish had been "a hard call." But Mr. Keller noted that since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Bush administration has "embarked on a number of broad, secret programs aimed at combating terrorism, often without seeking new legal authority or submitting to the usual oversight."

He added, "I think it would be arrogant for us to pre-empt the work of Congress and the courts by deciding these programs are perfectly legal and abuse-proof, based entirely on the word of the government."..."

Then the last line of the article reads "...Administration officials have held classified briefings about the banking program for some members of Congress and the Sept. 11 commission..."

You can't have it both ways. Either these programs are properly classified, valuable part of the war effort, or they are the illegal and abused actions of an out of control executive. Since Congress was briefed, we cannot assume the latter, so it must be the former.

Mr. Keller, I agree with you. It would be arrogrant to pre-empt the work of Congress, by unilaterally deciding that these programs are illegal or abused. That's exactly what you have done.

So you are arrogant at best. A traitor, most likely. And an enemy intelligence operative at worst.



Vamos a Villa de Barro, (Mudville)

Here's a list of magazines I won't buy

American Photo, Boating, Car and Driver, Cycle World, ELLE, ELLE Decor, ELLEgirl, Flying, For Me, Home, Metropolitan Home, Popular Photography & Imaging, Premiere, Road & Track, Road & Track Road Gear, Road & Track Speed, Shock, Sound & Vision, Woman's Day and Woman's Day Special Interest Publications.

These are all published by Hachette Filipacchi Media U.S., Inc., a subsidiary of Hachette Filipacchi Médias S.A., a wholly owned subsidiary of Lagardère SCA.

So why won't I buy them?... because HFM is owned by a French company? No, good guess, but, no.

Because they stole Michael Yon's picture, and by thumbing their nose at him (picture the Frenchmen in Monty Python's Holy Grail farting in our general direction) they are thumbing their noses at America's warriors.

Fuck them.


head on back to Mudville

Worse than Tokyo Rose or Berlin Betty? The NY Times

A letter I just sent off to my US Representative...

"I'm writing to urge you to ask for hearings, a full investigation and criminal prosecution where warranted of the New York Times' disclosure of several classified war efforts. The most recent example was the disclosure of our effort to monitor enemy financial transactions through the international banking system. As a retired intelligence operative myself, I am sure that these disclosures have harmed our war effort by revealing important sources and methods. Earlier disclosures dealt with programs to monitor enemy communications with one terminal in the US, and rendition programs.

Pending hearings, I ask that you take action to revoke the NY Times press credentials for house activities. They have shown poor judgement at best, criminality and treason at worst."

Regards

UPDATE (6/27/2006): The Times did an article today discussing the criticism and response, titled "Bush Says Report on Bank Data Was Disgraceful" and written by Sheryl Gay Stolberg.

In other circumstances, following comments would be laughable

"...The executive editor of The Times, Bill Keller, said in an e-mail statement on Monday evening that the decision to publish had been "a hard call." But Mr. Keller noted that since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Bush administration has "embarked on a number of broad, secret programs aimed at combating terrorism, often without seeking new legal authority or submitting to the usual oversight."

He added, "I think it would be arrogant for us to pre-empt the work of Congress and the courts by deciding these programs are perfectly legal and abuse-proof, based entirely on the word of the government."..."

Then the last line of the article reads "...Administration officials have held classified briefings about the banking program for some members of Congress and the Sept. 11 commission..."

You can't have it both ways. Either these programs are properly classified, valuable part of the war effort, or they are the illegal and abused actions of an out of control executive. Since Congress was briefed, we cannot assume the latter, so it must be the former.

Mr. Keller, I agree with you. It would be arrogrant to pre-empt the work of Congress, by unilaterally deciding that these programs are illegal or abused. That's exactly what you have done.

So you are arrogant at best. A traitor, most likely. And an enemy intelligence operative at worst.

A Response to Terror Apologists....

I'm still hearing in the press those who are looking for the "root causes" of Islamic terrorism. They say that by identifying and addressing these causes, we can defeat the terrorists. They sometimes differ on their identification - poverty; US foreign policy; Israel; humiliation of Muslims, etc.

This is a good academic... even practical approach: define and control your input variables, and the output will change. The argument would make a six sigma consultant proud.

While this scientific approach works well in manufacturing and sometimes even sociology, it doesn't apply here.

Why not? Because I reject entirely the idea that the wholesale slaughter of civilians is an acceptable response to whatever "root causes" can be identified. The (Islamist) arguments can be well reasoned and logical. But, like the Nazis well reasoned, logical arguments for extermination of the Jews, they are, at their core morally bankrupt.

Asking the question, "why do they attack us" assumes that there might be some acceptable answer. There is not. Therefore we must reject the question as the vacant intellectual exercise that is is.


Head back to Mudville

Are Hotels.com Guest Reviews and Ratings Faked?

It seemed a routine internet transaction. My cheapo flight reservations through London had left my wife, daughter, and a friend with a 12 hour layover in Gatwick. No problem, but longer than I want them sitting in an airport at night after a hard day of travel and a 9 hour flight in front of them. So I do a search to find a place to stay. The review on the hotels.com site said it was a 3-star hotel, and that 1 of 1 guests had recommended it. It was given an overall rating of 4.0 on a 5.0 scale. I made a reservation through hotels.com for an overnight stay at the Best Western Gatwick Worth Hotel.




Well the hotel wasn't that great. So when I get my customer feedback survey from Hotels.com, I diligently fill it out. Maybe I can save the next guest the trouble. I marked the survey honestly, some high, some low. Here are the comments I made
"Clean sheets, but nothing else
For me, room cleanliness is my most important criteria. This hotel did not meet it. Dirty carpets, candy wrappers on the floor, hair in the tub. Yuck! At least the sheets were clean. There were three of us for a $160 3-person room. After paying 16 pounds for the after hours taxi, then 3 pounds each for the morning shuttle back to Gatwick (I had assumed the shuttle would be free - most US hotel shuttles are), we were pretty close to what it would have cost for the Sofitel in the Airport."

Like a good consumer and web denizen, I send off my review. Wait a week and check the site, knowing that now it should show "1 of 2 guests recommend this hotel, average rating 2.5"

Surprise. It's not there.

Now I drop an email to customer service to ask why. They tell me that to post a review on a hotel, go to tripadvisor.com. So I go there. Guess what, 16 reviews on the place, average score is 2.5.

Something's wrong here. So I call hotels.com and find out that my survey review was "for internal use." So where did the review on the site come from? Dunno. There's no link from your page to the reviews at tripadvisor.com, how am I supposed to know beforehand to go there? Dunno, send another note to customer service.

So here's the situation. There are "Guest Reviews" on the hotels.com website. But if you're a guest, there is no way to submit a review. So where do they come from? My line of reasoning would lead me to believe that someone is making them up. Faking them in other words.

Bottom line for now, use tripadvisor.com to check ratings. Stay away from hotels.com until they can demonstrate that they have an honest ratings system.

UPDATE 7/11/2006: Tripadvisor has posted my review. The hotel has now dropped to a 2-star rating. Has the hotels.com rating changed? Nope. They've still got the 4.0 fake rating up there.

Head on back to Mudville