Pensacola's Sopranos Mystery

Last night the final episode of the six-year series The Sopranos aired on HBO. USA Today's Robert Bianco covered the cultural event. His report appears to have been repeated by many of mega-media Gannett Corp.'s wholly-owned children, including the Pensacola News Journal.

The Pensacola paper gave it front-page coverage, with an assist by "News Journal writer Thyrie Bland" who "contributed to this report." What did the regrettably-named Ms. Bland contribute? The grumblings of "Pensacola resident Ray Mayer, 50" who -- so we are told -- "was not impressed."

"It just ended ... very poorly," Mayer said. "It left you hanging. It left you up in the air. It was quite a let down. It just ended like it wasn't the end of the show."

So, just who is this "Ray Mayer, 50" and why should we care? A local TV critic? UWF drama coach? Budding Gulf Breeze screen writer working his way through Pensacola Junior College? One of Troy Moon's bar habitues? Thyrie Bland's boyfriend? A Bay area mobster?

Who knows? Ms. Bland isn't saying. For all we are told, Mr. Mayer might as well be that uniquitous "anonymous source" Beltway journalists are quoting all the time when they want to look like they are superior to the rest of us. All we know for sure is this Mayer fellow was so stunned "he had to watch the ending" twice.

It's no wonder dead tree journalism is in trouble. Adding "local flavor" like this to someone else's cookie-cutter synopsis can be outsourced to India as easily as tweaking software or running a call center.

Are You Scooter Libby?

UPDATED BELOW

Our favorite satirist, Jon Swift, has posted an emotional plea demanding judicial immunity for the rich:

What has always made America different from other countries is that every citizen has an equal opportunity to become rich or, at least, to inherit great wealth. That is the American dream. That is why most Americans oppose high taxes for the wealthy and death taxes because they know that someday they might be well off themselves.

But the tragic saga of Paris Hilton has shattered that dream. How can we possibly have faith in the American system of justice when we see that despite having access to the best lawyers money can buy, Paris Hilton can be treated so cruelly? What hope do we have for the future when we see that even if we become a wealthy celebrity, we might still be subject to the harsh vagaries of the law.

First they came for Paris Hilton and I did not speak up because I was not Paris Hilton.

Well, I am speaking up now because I am Paris Hilton!

Makes you wonder, who could be next? As America declines into a nation of laws that snares the rich and powerful as well as the poor, will we stoop so low as to hold high government officials accountable for their criminal acts, too? Someone, say, like the chief aide to the Vice-president of the United States?

Is there no one left who will speak up for the rich and powerful? Oh, wait. Thank goodness! Yes, there will always be Bob Novak and David Broder.

UPDATE I
JUNE 11 pm

Good grief! As Glenn Greenwald effectively shows, Time Magazine's Joe Klein is channeling Jon Swift. He just doesn't know it's supposed to be satire:

In a post entitled "Thoughts on Sentencing," Klein actually argues -- seriously -- that it is imperative for the public interest that Paris Hilton receive jail time because "it is exemplary: It sends the message . . .that even rich twits can't avoid the law," but: [quoting Klein]

"I have a different feeling about Libby. His "perjury"--not telling the truth about which reporters he talked to--would never be considered significant enough to reach trial, much less sentencing, much less time in stir if he weren't Dick Cheney's hatchet man. . . ."

To this, Greenwald has a sharply reasoned and well-documented response that exposes Joe Klein's article for the contemptible nonsense it is. No, more than nonsense -- Klein's article is a revolting example of the propensity of so many national journalists "to make any assertions, no matter how fact-free, in service" of Washington D.C.'s "Beltway" power-brokers.

Argues Greenwald --

There are many reasons why the political press fails to investigate and uncover real wrongdoing on the part of the government, but a leading reason is that they do not see lawbreaking as genuinely wrong or the lawbreakers as corrupt. These are their friends and colleagues -- their socioeconomic peers and, with increasing and disturbing frequency, their spouses and family memebers -- and while Important Bush Officials might be "guilty" of engaging in harmless and perfectly accepted political "hardball," they are never genuinely bad people engaged in genuinely bad acts. And they certainly do not belong in criminal courtrooms or prison.

It is so painfully revealing, though equally unsurprising, to read one of our most prestigious pundits, the Leading Liberal in Time Magazine, argue that Paris Hilton should be imprisoned as an example of the stern rule of law that prevails in our country but convicted felon Lewis Libby -- who deliberately lied under oath to the Grand Jury and as part of an FBI investigation -- should be set free. Or that George Bush's spying on Americans in violation of the criminal law is a matter of mere political controversy which Democrats ought steadfastly to avoid. There is no class of people more defensive of the prerogatives of political power than our "journalist" class, even though, in a healthy and functioning democracy, the exact opposite would be true.

Greenwald nails it. But Jon Swift is funnier.

UPDATE II

Christy Hardin Smith, a former prosecutor, has more about the Greenwald-Klein divide over at Firedog Lake.

Balad of the Vanities

Shorter Atrios, who shortens Michael Hirsh: "[T]he main reason we stay in Iraq is because of the vanities of incompetent people."

GITMO: Meeting Ourselves in History

Scott Horton published a post two days ago that is worthy of framing and hanging on the wall: "The Gavel of Liberty," he titled it. We won't say anything more except you should read it to the very end.

Bush's 'Stomach Ache'

Apparently, George W. Bush tied on "a stomach ache" while meeting privately with French president Nicolas Sarkozy last night. Afterwards, he couldn't make the press conference, so Sarkozy had to soldier on alone but Bush will be better "later in the day," spokesman Dan Bartlett assures us.

No wonder Florida's own Sinfonian calls him "Drunky McStagger."

UPDATE

Yahoo News caught a snapshot of the stomach bug:

More binge drinking photos here.

The Man for the Job

As the president's point man on Iraq, [Lt. Gen. Douglas] Lute would be charged with helping to ensure that Iraqis can achieve those goals. But he expressed doubt about whether the Iraqis have the ability to change and whether the United States has the ability to force them to do so. "I have reservations about just how much leverage we can apply on a system that is not very capable right now," he said.

-- Washington Post, June 8, 2007

Testing Presidential Candidates

When it comes to those farcical questions being put to presidential candidates during televised debates by TV personalities masquerading as real journalists, Jon Swift makes more sense than Britt Hume and Wolf Blitzer combined:

In this week's Democratic presidential debate Wolf Blitzer asked the candidates to raise their hands if they would take out Osama Bin Laden even if innocent civilians would be killed. Asking for a show of hands is an even more economical way of quizzing candidates than limiting them to 30-second soundbites. In the future the networks might consider limiting all debates to 20 yes-or-no questions that can be answered with a show of hands, which would spare us from having to listen to them speak.

Swift also is right to caution the candidates, themselves, that they shouldn't fall for Britt Hume's trap by being too ready to imitate the macho fictional character, Jack Bauer, on the television series 24.

[I]n the disappointing finale to 24, we learned that Jack Bauer is tired of single-handedly saving America from terrorists and showed a dangerous streak of mushy compassion and self-interest. It seems he cared more about saving his girlfriend and his 16-year-old nephew this season than he did about protecting America. Sure, it would be great to have a President who was willing to torture his own brother or shoot one of his colleagues in order to prevent a terrorist attack, but I think we need to ask for a bit more from our presidential candidates.

On whom, then, should a wannabe U.S. president model himself if he wants to impress the American electorate? Jon Swift has the answer -- and a number of questions to be posed at least as intelligent as those the national news media has been asking.

Oh, My! Oman!

Why Now? has the essence of it.

UPDATE

BBC:

An unusually powerful cyclone has begun battering the coast of Oman with winds of 160mph (260 km/h) and large waves.
* * *
The most powerful part of the storm was expected to hit Oman on Thursday, before moving north across the Gulf to Iran.

Reports say Cyclone Gonu is expected to be the strongest to hit the Arabian Peninsula since records started in 1945.

While crossing the Indian Ocean on Monday it reached the equivalent of a Category Five hurricane - the highest category available.

Al Jazeera:

A powerful cyclone has hit the coast of Oman, forcing thousands to leave their homes as well as disrupting oil and gas exports.
* * *
Ahmad al-Harthi, director of the meteorology department, said: "Oman is normally affected by tropical cyclones from time to time, but this is one of the severest since the 1977 storm, bearing in mind we have records going back to 1890."

A weather service official said the cyclone could cause more damage as it was expected to sweep northwards along the heavily populated coast.

The centre of the storm is expected to hit land in southeastern Iran, possibly disrupting shipping through the Gulf.

Omanet:

Lt General Al Maamari said Gonu posed a major threat to low-lying areas as well as population centres along the coast between Ras al Hadd and Ras Madrakah. Masirah’s plains, where two-third of the Island’s roughly 7,000 residents live, are also at risk.

Masirah’s plains, where two-third of the Island’s roughly 7,000 residents live, are also at risk.

Pooty-Poot

Scott Horton has some timely and disturbing insights into the relationship between George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin. And some revealing comparisons.

About "Pooty-Poot," Horton writes:

He inherited a nation brimming with the promise of freedom, and did much to put that spirit back in the box. But he brought order to the treasury. And he established the indubitable dominance of the Kremlin over the “subjects of the Federation” which previously had driven a strong centrifugal force in Russia’s body politic. Putin aimed to clean-up the house of Russia so as to lay the foundations for its re-emergence on the international stage as a great power. He saw, brilliantly, the utility of energy policy as the essential foreign policy lever by which this could be achieved. Putin will be seen in the future as a cold fish, but also as a leader who did much to restore Russia to a position of prominence in the world.

About Bush, Horton says this:

Bush has conducted a six-year demolition derby for America. He inherited a paramount power in the world, enjoying unchallenged prestige and power. And after six years, he has brought American approval in the world to its historical nadir. His experiments in the Middle East have been catastrophic failures, leading to the likely rise of a new regional hegemon: Iran. The American military is a shambles, and his own former commander in Iraq, Ricardo Sanchez, now speaks openly of “defeat.” And America’s old claim of moral superiority, what has come of that? Bush has proudly embraced the values and techniques of the institutions with which Putin is associated– and indeed, it seems that he has approved a number of techniques which are coarser, cruder still than anything the NKVD or KGB used. America’s “soul” has been dragged into the gutter. Internally, Bush has challenged the Constitution and assumed a rule as dictatorship–like Putin, in the end he finds the law to be a nuisance.

In comparison?

Bush’s soul, it turns out, is remarkably like Putin’s. The difference between them is simple: competence. Putin is unquestionably competent. And the hallmark of team Bush is their gross incompetence in virtually everything they touch.

To sum up:

We’re cruising towards another Cold War, and Bush, instead of demonstrating intelligence and concern, appears utterly clueless. This is going to be dangerous. We’ve arrived at the point at which the James Bakers and Brent Scowcrofts are indispensable – but they’ve been banished from a court in which the jester sits as king.

Citizens Seeks Time-Out

Paige St. John is reporting that Citizens Property Insurance lawyer Curtis Hutchins thinks the best way to clean up the state-owned insurance company's backlog of 3,510 unresolved hurricane claims is to change the law and time-bar them. Incredible.

Maybe Hutchins has forgotten: nearly a thousand of those pending claims are bogged down in a series of class action lawsuits that Citizens actually started when it sued a disabled Perdido Key couple for making a claim. It's anyone's guess how much more time was lost when Citizens embarked on a secondary strategy of delaying pending claims cases while it shopped for more favorable judges.

Citizens Property habitually blames its own failings on the law, or on its customers, or on individual judges, or on Mother Nature, or on anyone else it can dream up. Never on its own incompetence, willful indifference, unethical, and even criminal behavior.

It's past time for to hold Citizens Property Insurance accountable for its own chronic mismanagement.

Word of Four Letters Dept.

First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press... ."

NY Times, June 4:

Monday... a federal appeals panel struck down the government policy that allows stations and networks to be fined if they broadcast shows containing obscene language.
* * *
The case involved findings that the networks had violated the indecency rules for comments by Cher and Nicole Richie on the Billboard Music Awards, the use of expletives by the character Andy Sipowicz on “NYPD Blue” and a comment on “The Early Show” by a contestant from CBS’s reality show “Survivor.”

Kevin J. Martin, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, in an official Government press release:

If we can’t restrict the use of the words “fuck” and “shit” during prime time, Hollywood will be able to say anything they want, whenever they want.

Say, what?

Wonks' Weekend Debate

We were too busy enjoying real life this past weekend to spend time watching television, so we didn't even think about sitting in on the second of eleventy-seven presidential debates to be held over the next 17 months. But Florida's own Bark Bark, Woof Woof has highlights -- if you're interested.

Digby says you might be but only if, poor soul, you're obsessed with following presidential media and money issues. Prof. Juan Cole summarizes what each of the candidates said we should do about Iraq, followed by his daily depressing news summary from that accursed corner of the globe.

Firedog Lake's Scarecrow focuses on how Hillary did. Somewhat surprisingly, that relentlessly snarky blog was impressed -- until the "ugly moment" when she "missed an opportunity to improve her own image and her party’s ability to confront terrorism" by attacking John Edwards with "the most poisonous of the Bush/Cheney talking points."

That moment may add a little fuel to the fires about to be ignited by NY Times reporters Jeff Gerth and Don Van Atta Jr. Their new book "Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton" is being published this week. Yesterday's Sunday Times Magazine leads off with an interesting and reasonably balanced 8,100 word excerpt from the book detailing Hillary's complex and evolving position on the war in Iraq.

We came away from it concluding that it is both a strength and a weakness of Hillary's mercurial and evolving positions on the war that her thinking pretty closely mirrors the mercurial and evolving positions of a majority of Americans. Almost all of you were for it before turning against it, right?

The part we like best describes how a truly grass roots organization, Code Pink, after many months of trying at last was invited to meet with Hillary in person. This was 'way back in March, 2003 when opposing the war might have made a real difference:

Suddenly, big walnut doors were thrown open and Clinton, dressed in a bright blue coat on top of a black pants suit, strode into the room. The women rose quickly from their chairs and applauded. Clinton thanked them and paid homage to the group’s trademark.

“I like pink tulips,” she said with a smile.

Clinton then addressed the obvious gap between Code Pink’s position on the war and her own. “I disagree on an aspect of those concerns,” she said. Clinton then asked if the group had a spokeswoman.

A tall woman approached the table. Medea Benjamin introduced herself and thanked Clinton for taking the time to meet with them.

Benjamin, a veteran of causes on the left, explained to Clinton that she had recently led a delegation to Baghdad. Clinton nodded but said nothing. “We know that you’re a wonderful woman,” Benjamin told the senator, “and that deep down, we really think you agree with us.”

Business being business, the Code Pink leader then cut to the chase. “There are two ways to go,” she intoned. Her group could give Clinton a pink badge of courage if she supported their position. If not, the group was prepared to give her a pink slip.

Clinton struck a conciliatory note.

“I admire your willingness to speak out on behalf of the women and children of Iraq,” she said.

When asked by one of the women why the United States took on the responsibility to disarm a country like Iraq, Clinton replied that without “U.S. leadership” there would not “be a willingness to take on very difficult problems” because of the “attitudes of many people in the world community today.” She cited her husband’s muscular foreign-policy actions, at times taken unilaterally, as a precedent for the Bush administration’s intervention in Iraq. “I’m talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo, where my husband could not get a U.N. resolution to save the Kosovar Albanians” from the ethnic-cleansing policies of Slobodan Milosevic, Clinton told the women. “We had to do it alone.”

Another Code Pink member then asked Clinton if she believed that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein, Clinton replied, had “such a proven track record” that he could only be described as having “an obsession with weapons of mass destruction.” She then seemed to suggest, but did not explicitly say, that she had read all the secret intelligence reports on Iraq available to senators. “I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information and the intelligence that I had available,” she said. Clinton told the Code Pink protesters that she had also done her homework by “talking with people” she trusted.

Then Clinton turned to leave. “Sorry, guys,” she added.

But before she could make her exit, a Code Pink member told her, “I heard that you were willing to give up the life of innocent people in Iraq to find Saddam Hussein, so I just want to give you my pink slip.” The woman then tried to shove a pink undergarment in Clinton’s hand.

Clinton backed off and shot a look of fury at the woman. “I’m the senator from New York,” Clinton snapped, wagging a finger at her. “I will never put my people’s security at risk. I resent that.”

And there you have it -- a politician who is awash with familiar human strengths and weaknesses.

• humor ("I like pink tulips");
  
• honesty ("I disagree on an aspect of those concerns");
  
• an instinct for conciliation ("I admire your willingness to speak out on behalf of the women and children of Iraq");
  
• an instinct for dissembling ("She then seemed to suggest, but did not explicitly say, that she had read all the secret intelligence reports on Iraq available to senators.");
  
• cold, sober realism ("without 'U.S. leadership' there would not 'be a willingness to take on very difficult problems' because of the 'attitudes of many people in the world community today.'");
  
• knowledgeableness ("Saddam... could only be described as having 'an obsession with weapons of mass destruction'");
  
• forthrightness ("'Sorry, guys,' she added");
  
• anger ("Clinton backed off and shot a look of fury at the woman");
  
• pettiness ("I’m the senator from New York,” Clinton snapped, wagging a finger at her... I resent that"); and
  
• resolve ("I will never put my people’s security at risk").

Hard to say if Hillary did herself any good last night. Americans, or so at least three Republican candidates suppose, don't want a president imbued with human strengths and weaknesses. They think we prefer people who haven't evolved.

T.S. Barry A Bust

Tropical Storm Barry, the second named storm of the year, weakened to a "weather maker" without tropical characteristics Saturday.

Barry made landfall in the Tampa Bay area around 10 a.m. according to Daniel Brown, a meteorologist at the National Hurricane Center.

"The landfall in a case like this is kind of insignificant," Brown said.

Brown said some showers and thunderstorms could redevelop across the central and southern Florida peninsula and that there could be a few isolated tornadoes as the storm moves northward.

The storm's winds were forecast to weaken further as it moves north, but it is expected to bring rain all along the Atlantic seaboard, reaching South Carolina by Sunday morning and New England by Monday.

'Nuff said.

T.S. Barry: "Hello, Hurricane Season"

Not to worry, Why Not? tells us, even if you live in the "armpit of Florida." We need the rain.

The National Hurricane Center says:

THE ASSOCIATED UPPER-LEVEL FLOW IS VERY DIFLUENT... AND THUS THERE IS A CHANCE FOR A CONVECTIVE FLARE-UP NEAR THE CENTER BEFORE LANDFALL. AFTER LANDFALL...BARRY IS EXPECTED TO LOSE TROPICAL CHARACTERISTICS AS IT MOVES INTO THE WESTERLIES.

Someone at NHC needs a spell-checker:

dif·flu·ent (adj.) [dif LOO uhnt] 1. tending to flow off or away. 2. easily dissolving.

Nelson's Torture Vote

Florida's senior U.S. Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) is taking a drubbing over at Firedog Lake for opposing a Senate Intelligence Committee proposal "to defund CIA torture methods." Scott Shane of the New York Times reports on last week's secret vote:

The Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday questioned the continuing value of the Central Intelligence Agency’s secret interrogation program for terrorism suspects, suggesting that international condemnation and the obstacles it has created to criminal prosecution may outweigh its worth in gathering information.

The committee rejected by one vote a Democratic proposal that would essentially have cut money for the program by banning harsh interrogation techniques except in dire emergencies, a committee report revealed.
* * *
But the committee stopped short of using its budget authority to shut down the program. In a closed session on May 23, two Democrats, Senators Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Dianne Feinstein of California, proposed barring spending on interrogation techniques that go beyond the Army Field Manual, which bans physical pressure or pain. Under their proposal, the only exception would have been when the president determined “that an individual has information about a specific and imminent threat.”

The amendment failed when Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat of Florida, joined all the Republicans in voting no.

That seems to be the bad news. But some wonder if that judgment may be premature. Over at Bakinization, Prof. Marty Lederman's main article gives additional details about the committee's action. Democrats (including Nelson) and two Republicans did authorize a Committee Report that includes these comments:

The fiscal year 2008 intelligence authorization bill is the first passed by the Committee in which all members were briefed on the CIA’s detention and interrogation program. While the program has been briefed from its outset to the Committee’s Chairman and Vice Chairman, the Administration’s decision to withhold the program’s existence from the full Committee membership for five years was unfortunate in that it unnecessarily hindered congressional oversight of the program.

Significant legal issues about the CIA detention and interrogation program remain unresolved. The Department of Justice has not produced a review of aspects of the program since the Supreme Court’s Hamdan decision and the passage into law of the Detainee Treatment Act in 2005 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006. The Committee urges prompt completion of such a legal review as soon as possible, regardless of whether the program is currently being used. The Committee expects that such review will be provided to the Committee as a part of its ongoing oversight of the program.
* * *
More than five years after the decision to start the program, however, the Committee believes that consideration should be given to whether it is the best means to obtain a full and reliable intelligence debriefing of a detainee. Both Congress and the Administration must continue to evaluate whether having a separate CIA detention program that operates under different interrogation rules than those applicable to military and law enforcement officers is necessary, lawful, and in the best interests of the United States.[emphasis added]

So, a more charitable view is that Nelson has just received his first briefing about the details of the Bush administration's torture-and-rendition program from 2001 to 2005. But no one on the committee yet knows what, if any, changes have been wrought since "the passage into law of the Detainee Treatment Act in 2005 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006."

Nelson, no doubt, will say he needs more information before voting for a bill that would essentially de-fund "harsh interrogation techniques except in dire emergencies." Or, it's theoretically possible that driven by cold, calculated logic Nelson might say that since available reports like this, this, this and, most recently, this suggest torture really doesn't work it shouldn't be funded even for "dire emergencies."

One thing Sen. Nelson won't be saying is that he voted the way he did to keep himself in the running as a viable "tough guy" on the short list of vice-presidential picks for just about every Democrat running for president in '08.