How do you solve a problem like MARINA?

Of all the NSA stories vying for your attention, the most interesting may be Marcy Wheeler's.

First, you must understand that Section 215 of the Patriot Act provides the legal justification for collecting cell phone metadata -- by which we mean the records of who called whom at which time. You may want to read Slate's short explanation of 215. You will also want to reference this very recent story from NBC:

The Patriot Act provision, known as Section 215, allows the FBI to require the production of business records and any other “tangible things” -- including “books, records, papers, documents and other items,” for an authorized terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation.

In contrast to standard grand jury subpoenas, material obtained under both Section 215 orders and national security letters must be turned over under so-called “gag orders” that forbid the business or institution that receives the order from notifying its customers or publicly referring to the matter.

The second thing you need to know is that the present scandal was all about an NSA project to collect this metadata daily.

Third: Marcy reminds us that the cell phone carriers already have this stuff. They store metadata in-house for years and years. In a sense, they've been doing the NSA's job all along.

So why would No Such Agency want daily updates? Why not leave the metadata on the servers of Verizon (or whomever), and ask for it as needed?

Well, they tried a system like that between 2002-2006.

A few years ago, there was a now-forgotten mini-brouhaha about that program, because the WP got hold of an Inspector General's report from 2007. The WP story prompted Marcy to write a few earlier posts, like this one.

Why did the 2002-2006 system go wrong? Because it was horribly abused.

The problems — that that we know about from the unclassified report (there are secret and TS/SCI versions which probably have bigger horrors) — include:

* FBI General Counsel had no apparent knowledge of 17% of the searches

* Thousands of searches never got recorded

* FBI lied to the telecoms about how urgent the information was to get the information

* FBI did an unknown number of sneak peeks into the data to see if there was something worth getting formally

Altogether, the unclassified IG Report described 26 abuses that should have been reported to then (and once again, since Chuck Hagel became Defense Secretary) inoperable Intelligence Oversight Board.

That includes the tracking of journalist call records in at least three cases (one of which I suspect is James Risen).

In short, it violated many legal principles. And that’s just the stuff that actually got recorded and showed up in an unclassified report.

In another piece, Marcy wrote:

Rather than using a subpoena or a National Security Letter to get phone records from them (both of which would have required a higher level of review), the FBI basically gave them a boilerplate letters saying it was an emergency (thus the “exigent”) and could they please give the FBI the phone data; the FBI promised grand jury subpoenas to follow. Only, in many cases, these weren’t emergencies, they never sent the grand jury subpoenas, and many weren’t even associated with investigations into international terrorism. In other words, FBI massively abused this system to get phone data without necessary oversight.

Marcy believes that the mess uncovered in 2006-2007 prompted the NSA to come up with a scheme to collect metadata silently, automatically and covertly. That way, there would be no need to worry about National Security Letters and all of that other difficult stuff.

Frankly, I'm not sure that Marcy has the chronology quite right.

This above-cited NBC story says that the FBI's use of 215 "exploded" after 2006. But a new problem arose: Though the feds were sending out tons of "National Security Letters" (requests for data), the telecommunication companies stopped co-operating.

Why? In large measure, methinks, because those corporations were being sued by various parties who were pissed off when they learned that private companies were turning over their records to Uncle. If you want to know more about those lawsuits, start with this data dump provided by the Electronic Frontiers Foundation.

If you scan that data dump, you'll find that it takes us to the 2009-2010 period. At that time...

...the FBI was using the Section 215 requests to obtain a broad array of records. For example, a top-secret FISC order disclosed last week by the Guardian showed that the FBI had used a single Section 215 request to direct Verizon to turn over "all call detail records or telephony metadata" of its customers for a three month period, literally millions of records.

So now we have a new chronology.

And y'know what? I'm starting to think that this chronology also gets everything wrong. At this point, we need to step back and ask one simple question: Just when did the "collect all metadata" project truly begin?

You see, back in 2006, USA Today revealed this program was already in existence even then.

"It's the largest database ever assembled in the world," said one person, who, like the others who agreed to talk about the NSA's activities, declined to be identified by name or affiliation. The agency's goal is "to create a database of every call ever made" within the nation's borders, this person added.

For the customers of these companies, it means that the government has detailed records of calls they made — across town or across the country — to family members, co-workers, business contacts and others.

Isn't it odd how everyone has forgotten this key news story, published seven years ago?

We now know that the database is called MARINA, which I hope was not named after Oswald's widow, because if there's one lady who doesn't need any more weird covert shit in her life, it's she.

In order to access the stored data sets, the NSA needs to have a real tangible reason. It's hard to believe this because the law seems to preclude them from collecting the data in bulk without a significant investigative purpose, but that law has been interpreted by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to relate only to the way in which the data is used.

That is, the NSA can collect the data so long as there is a good chance that it might need it for some future investigation.

This brings us back to that old NSA dodge: They insist that merely collecting the information isn't wiretapping. By this logic, it's okay to steal a painting from a museum as long as you don't look at it.

So. How do you solve a problem like MARINA? It really is a will-o-the-wisp. You can't pin it down.

When did MARINA begin? 2010, 2006, 2001 -- or long before?

If MARINA existed in 2006 or earlier (as USA Today reported), then why was the FBI doing all of that abusive crap outlined in the 2007 IG report? Why was the FBI trying to pry information from the telecommunications companies at that time? Why didn't FBI agents just pop on over to Fort Meade, knock on the NSA's door, and ask for a cup of metadata? Odd thought: Did the FBI even know about MARINA? Why would you create a thing like MARINA if you aren't going to let the FBI make use of it?

This stuff's freakin' impossible for an outsider to get his head around...!

JFK stuff. (Just a little!)

You're sick of seeing the initials "JFK," right? I understand. Honest, I really do. There was a lot of crap published about the JFK assassination on the 50th anniversary. But some genuinely good material has come out as well...

Shocking indeed.  Jim DiEugenio has offered a masterful dissection of Phil Shenon's A Cruel and Shocking Act. I could not read more than ten consecutive pages of Shenon's deceptive book without retching, and I am glad that Jim did this task.

One oddity of Shenon's work is his habit of pretending that something old and much-discussed is actually a new discovery. Why does he do that? At any rate, if you read Jim's in-depth review, you may be particularly intrigued to learn the details of Jack Ruby's highly dubious polygraph test, as well as the circumstances surrounding Marina's testimony.

Identification. It's official: "Maurice Bishop" was David Atlee Phillips. Why is this important? Because...

A) Phillips (who died in 1988) was a CIA guy working for James Angleton.

B)  "Maurice Bishop" was the nomme de guerre of the CIA contact who "ran" Cuban exile leader Antonio Veciana.

C) Veciana (who is still alive at this writing) saw Lee Harvey Oswald working with "Bishop."

D) Phillips rigged up all sorts of false evidence designed to convey he impression that Oswald killed JFK at the behest of the Russians and/or the Cubans. (Shenon's book derives, in large part, from Phillips' deceptions.)

E) After decades of denial, Phillips (when close to death) tearfully confessed to his brother that he was in Dallas on the day of the assassination. Phillips also admitted, late in life, that a faction within the American intelligence community planned the murder.

Is nailing down the Phillips/"Bishop" identification important? You bet your ass it is. Veciana has no motive to concoct a story about Oswald and Phillips working together.

Conversations. Alan Dale has produced a series of excellent interviews with researchers. The production quality may be a little questionable, but the chat is fascinating. I particularly recommend the dialogues with Sherry Feister and David Talbot (one of the founders of Salon).

Lee Harvey MacBeth

Although I'm a little late to the party, I'd like to recommend this diary by "snafu" at Daily Kos. It concerns Jesse MacBeth, an alleged former Army Ranger testifying to atrocities committed by the American military in Iraq. Apparently, he never was an actual Ranger, and thus probably concocted the atrocities.

Michelle Malkin referred to MacBeth as "the latest cause celebre of the anti-war Left..." even though the name remained unfamiliar to nearly every actual member of the anti-war movement until the right-wingers started screaming about the man's perfidy. What inroads had he, in fact, made? His name appeared in a largely-ignored DU thread (even there, he was treated with some suspicion), and a Socialist website paid attention to his claims. MacBeth had associated himself with Iraq Veterans Against the War, and even used their logo in a video:

IVAW does not in any way endorse Jesse MacBeth or any of his accounts involving military service. He -- and he alone -- is responsible for them. IVAW was not aware of the creation of the video program featuring MacBeth, and did not authorize use of our logo in the program.

The timing of the widespread circulation of the MacBeth video interestingly coincides with the ongoing military investigation of the recent Marine massacre of two dozen civilians (including women and children) in Haditha, – what is being termed as an atrocity by one member of Congress (R). MacBeth’s false statements unfortunately have played into the hands of those who would deny that any atrocities whatsoever are occurring in Iraq.

IVAW hints at, but does not directly ask, the key question: Is Macbeth a fantasist, or is he a plant?

We have good reason to suspect the latter. While most progressives have never heard of the guy, he has loomed large in the demonology of the rightists. On cue and en masse, they have scrutinized every detail of the man's existence the way a Biblical scholar might study every jot and tittle of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

I would note that MacBeth first surfaced in 2004, in a completely separate incident in Arizona which served the purposes of right-wing propagandists:

In early March, a young veteran of the war in Iraq, Jesse MacBeth, 20 years old, was banned from Coffee Plantation, where he had he was enjoying a drink that he had bought. His crime? He was dressed in his informal military uniform, which had insignia on it, and he was told by the owner that he could not sit at the table dressed in it, that it was offensive.

MacBeth launched a very public "protest" of the store, whose manager denied that he had ever asked the man to leave. Obviously, the entire incident was staged to create the impression that America-hating "liberals" in a college town spit on American soldiers. (An unfounded rumor with a similar theme targeted Starbucks.)

I can go on, but perhaps I need not. Those of you who have done a little reading in parapolitical history will recognise the pattern: MacBeth is doing the Lee Harvey Oswald "thing."

Oswald pretended to be a leading member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, even though he never befriended or associated with any American left-wingers, and even though all of his actual associates were anti-Soviet White Russians and spooks like George de Mohrenschildt. (Even Marina, I am told, came from a family that had supported the Whites.) In a well-known incident, Oswald passed out copies of a "Fair Play" pamphlet -- copies which came from an early printing of that pamphlet, the entirety of which had been purchased by the CIA. MacBeth's coffeehouse antics cannot help but remind us of LHO's staged fracas with anti-Castro activist Carlos Bringuer: "Hit me, Carlos."

MacBeth' s motive? He seems to have used a credit card fraudulently in 2004. A criminal case makes him susceptible to manipulation. Maybe he made a deal.

Or maybe he really is just an attention-seeker. It's possible -- but that's not the way I would bet. The timing of this imbroglio seems far too convenient. MacBeth's false claims threaten to drown out the very real atrocity tales coming from Iraq. The whiff of greasepaint persuades me that we are witnessing theater. Young MacBeth should feel grateful that he was exposed early on, before he found himself playing the role of "Patsy" in a far more elaborate drama. I wonder how many other Oswalds are out there right now...?

Maxwell murder: Addendum

A couple of posts ago, I gave the title of the Gordon Thomas/Martin Dillon book on the Maxwell controversy as The Assassination of Robert Maxwell. In America, the title is Robert Maxwell: Israel's Superspy: The Life and Murder of a Media Mogul

As I said before, the book rewards study, but examine it with caution. Thomas and Dillon include a number of howlers. For example, they write that the former Marina Oswald testified to the Warren Commission that John Tower was involved in the JFK assassination conspiracy. Nonsense; she did no such thing.

The book also delves into the PROMIS software imbroglio. You may already know about that controversy; if not, a little Googling should provide reams of material of varying quality. Maxwell appears to have been involved in selling the much-vaunted software to governmental agencies around the world. Israeli engineers had, we are told, placed a "backdoor" into the code, allowing Mosad to gain remote access to sensitive material. Alas, about ten years ago the PROMIS story became a lint trap for occult speculation. Wacky conspiracy buffs spread all sorts of tales: The software could be used to facilitate CIA mind control, to communicate with the space people, to engineer the New World Order's great gun round-up (always scheduled for "some time next year" -- or so runs the story I've heard since I was a kid), and to do god-knows-what-else. So much nonsense began to pile up that I soon hoped never to hear the name "PROMIS" again.

Thomas relates a tale to the effect that the Mossad had placed a chip into the software, in order to facilitate eavesdropping. When I first heard that claim in the early 90s, the obvious question occurred to me: How the hell do you put a chip "into" software? Thomas and Dillon don't provide an answer.

The most extraordinary aspects of their book concern former senator John Tower. The writers allege that Tower sold his services to Maxwell, providing the publisher with an entrance into places he might not otherwise have accessed -- Sandia labs, for example. These sales pitches were conducted of behalf of the Mossad. Tower died in a plane crash that a number of people found suspicious; the book claims that Tower had to go for the same reason Maxwell did.

Obviously, a conspiracy theory of this sort requires good sourcing; Thomas's phobic attitude toward footnotes makes the reader scream in frustration. The authors claim that one of their primary sources was John O'Neill, the former FBI terror expert who died in the World trade Center disaster. O'Neill has become something of a hero to many, yet this aspect of his career has gone almost entirely undiscussed. (Try a Google search linking the names of O'Neill, Maxwell and Tower.)

The book even prints a lengthy and startling O'Neill quote stating that the murder of John Tower had White House approval. (The death occurred in 1991, during the first Bush presidency.) I presume that an audiotape lies behind this quotation -- if so, we should be given the chance to hear it.

Maxwell's daughter Isabel, who used to run an Israeli internet company, has denounced Thomas and Dillon as sloppy sensationalists. Public access to original source material will render irelevant any negative opinions of the authors; the speaker, not the scribe, is what matters.

Is there a secret tape of Newt saying shocking things about Trump and Russia?

This is a long-ish post about anonymous sources.

Many respected mainstream writers have used them. Lately, though, non-mainstream writers have made some very startling claims based (they say) on information from unnamed insiders. And that's a problem.

Consider, for example, the case of Watergate's Deep Throat, the most famous anonymous source of all time. Everyone knows that Throat turned out to be FBI man Mark Felt, who "came out" a few years before his death in 2008. There are solid reasons to suspect that Woodward cultivated other sources whom he has never identified -- sources who worked for a Certain Interesting Agency. (See here, here and here.) Woodward's description of Throat -- a lanky, chain-smoking, hard-drinking "former military man with intellectual proclivities" -- describes Jim Angleton one hell of a lot better than it describes Mark Felt.

The tale of Throat exemplifies one of the main problems with anonymous sourcing: Even after the story has reached a resolution, mysteries may linger. After the Big Reveal, nobody subjected Felt to some much-needed intensive questioning because he was quite elderly.

Still, Woodward and Bernstein were not indulging in "fake news" when they wrote their Throat-based stories (even though Nixon might have used that term if it was in circulation at the time). The famous duo's reportage turned out to be accurate, even if they did keep the Agency in the shadows. They revealed the name of their source to their editor, Ben Bradlee, and reportedly to a few other people (including the remarkable J. Stanley Pottinger).

Most importantly: Woodward and Bernstein worked for a reputable journalistic institution which has never been inclined to publish anything likely to result in a libel case. The WP must be careful because it has sufficiently deep pockets to justify a lawsuit.

The same cannot be said of some of today's storytellers.

Take, for example, this remarkable headline in The Palmer Report, a repository for all of the wilder Trumpgate claims made on any given day:

Report: FBI has recordings of Newt Gingrich setting up Trump-Russia meetings during campaign

A headline like that would raise the eyebrows of anyone not named Mona Lisa. But what is the basis for this claim? It traces back to a writer who goes by the handle Puesto Loco, which, according to Google Translate, means "put out crazy." Not a pseudonym likely to inspire confidence.

Here's his tweet:

JUST IN:
FBI has Sept, 2016 tapes of Newt Gingrich setting up multiple Team Trump/Russia meetings with Kislyak et al. (reliable source)

And here's the photo montage he put together:

Not many hours later, Mr. Loco tweeted another big claim:

Sources tell me there's enough House GOPers who've pledged that if Trump fires Mueller & Ryan interferes rehiring him, Ryan will be ousted.

This assertion also comes with a photo montage:

I wouldn't dismiss the possibility that the Germans "have something" on Trump. But I do have a simple question: What is Merkel's motive for keeping the secrets of Ryan, McConnell and Trump at this stage of the game?

Here's an even better question: Why would we be learning this tidbit from a little-known tweeter who calls himself Puesto Loco? Why would an insider divulge such important material to that guy, and not to the Washington Post or the NYT or even Buzzfeed? It just don't add up!

Here's how Mr. Loco describes himself:

Military Anchor Baby - My Mom never saw the irony in calling me a Son-of-a-Bitch. GOP fascism is destroying my country.

He gives his location as "Florida Central West Coast." (Incidentally, CIA personnel often retire to Central Florida, though usually on the east coast.) Mr. Loco offers another photo montage which bears on the very problem under discussion in this post:

While I'm hardly in a position to dismiss all conspiracy theories, the problems on display here should be obvious:

1. Someone displaying this level of concern about credibility should not have chosen "Puesto Loco" as his nomme-de-net.

2. Although I remain fascinated by her, Louise Mensch has so thoroughly damaged her reputation by this point that even the Palmer Report won't link to her anymore. You can't blame spooks for that situation; she did it to herself. Besides, Mensch loves spooks. She's a spook fangirl.

3. I've read a lot about Allen Dulles. Maybe I'm forgetting something, but I'm pretty sure that he never said anything about demonizing the term "conspiracy theory." However: As any student of the JFK assassination knows, Dulles' CIA pioneered the technique of using sensationalized claims to hide the truth. It is legitimate to suspect that this technique is still in use.

About a week ago, Puesto Loco and Louise Mensch separately offered the same scoop -- a claimed linkage between Paul Ryan and Wikileaks. (I've seen no evidence to back this scenario.) As we've seen, Mr. Loco has risen to the defense of Louise Mensch. And yet, just yesterday, Mensch accused Mr. Loco of being...

Oh hell. Do I even need to say it? This is Louise Mensch we're talking about...

For example puesto loco tweets many true things but is also Russian intelligence.

As are so, so many others. Louise, since you are very free with paranoid accusations, how about one for little ol' me?

Look, I'll help you out. Here's the incontrovertible proof of my perfidy: I've read War and Peace. I like Tarkovsky's films. As a teen, I once traveled 40 miles by bus in the rain to see a double bill of Potemkin and October. I've met Marina Oswald Porter. I picked up a few Russian words from A Clockwork Orange. I occasionally drink vodka. When it comes to heavy metal, I'll take Khatchaturian's Third Symphony over Metallica any day.

(Betcha didn't know that Aram Khatchaturian invented heavy metal in 1947. Someone should re-score that piece for electric guitar instead of organ.)

And yet I don't think that Mensch is a disinformation agent, at least not a witting one.

True, there's a lot of evidence against her: Her friendship with the vile Milo Yiannopoulos, her work for the even viler Rupert Murdoch, her pre-election paranoid fantasias directed at Hillary Clinton, her vaguely pro-Trump pre-election tweets (issued under the name Louise Bagshawe), her membership in the same Tory party that supplies Cambridge Analytica with so many top employees, her generally divisive behavior, and -- of course -- her many unlikely scoops based on intel from nameless insiders who, for some unfathomable reason, would rather talk to her than to (say) Michael Isikoff or Kurt Eichenwald.

One could also cite her propensity to spook-bait fellow anti-Trumpers. Yet this is precisely the factor which inclines me to think that she is sincere: A professional disinformationist would make a greater effort to maintain credibility -- and would strive to be liked.

Hm. I suppose that a similar argument could be made in favor of Puesto Loco. Wouldn't a witting agent be more likely to call himself "Muy cuerdo" or something like that?

And then there's John Schindler, perhaps the best-known of the "spooks against Trump." Surprisingly few people recall this remarkable piece from May 26, in which Schindler discusses a secret meeting between NSA Director Mike Rogers and key employees:

This week’s town hall event, which was broadcast to agency facilities worldwide, was therefore met with surprise and anticipation by the NSA workforce, and Rogers did not disappoint. I have spoken with several NSA officials who witnessed the director’s talk and I’m reporting their firsthand accounts, which corroborate each other, on condition of anonymity.

In his town hall talk, Rogers reportedly admitted that President Trump asked him to discredit the FBI and James Comey, which the admiral flatly refused to do. As Rogers explained, he informed the commander in chief, “I know you won’t like it, but I have to tell what I have seen”—a probable reference to specific intelligence establishing collusion between the Kremlin and Team Trump.

Rogers then added that such SIGINT exists, and it is damning. He stated, “There is no question that we [meaning NSA] have evidence of election involvement and questionable contacts with the Russians.” Although Rogers did not cite the specific intelligence he was referring to, agency officials with direct knowledge have informed me that DIRNSA was obviously referring to a series of SIGINT reports from 2016 based on intercepts of communications between known Russian intelligence officials and key members of Trump’s campaign, in which they discussed methods of damaging Hillary Clinton.

NSA employees walked out of the town hall impressed by the director’s forthright discussion of his interactions with the Trump administration, particularly with how Rogers insisted that he had no desire to “politicize” the situation beyond what the president has already done. America’s spies are unaccustomed to playing partisan politics as Trump has apparently asked them to do, and it appears that the White House’s ham-fisted effort to get NSA to attack the FBI and its credibility was a serious mistake.

It’s therefore high time for the House and Senate intelligence committees to invite Admiral Rogers to talk to them about what transpired with the White House. It’s evident that DIRNSA has something important to say.

Here's the thing: Since Schindler wrote those words, Rogers has testified to Congress. And he played Johnny Tightlips, at least in the open session. If, in the closed session, he had said anything this startling and damning, we probably would have received some indication by now.

I mean, what would be the purpose of continued secrecy? And why the hell would Comey (who supposedly has all of the NSA's juiciest material) keep these SIGINT reports under wraps?

Schindler wants us to believe that a whole bunch of NSA guys and a whole bunch of congressfolk (of both parties) and the former FBI Director have absolutely damning evidence that Trump conspired with Russians. Yet instead of using this evidence, they all prefer to let Trump continue to hang on to the nuclear launch codes.

Does that make sense to you?

Reality Winner revealed that the NSA possesses evidence of Russian interference with our voting systems. We didn't get that from Admiral Rogers. Why not? Keeping a thing like that secret from the American public is, in and of itself, an act of collusion with Russia.

Yes, the NSA is traditionally the most secretive of agencies, and Rogers is no doubt an extremely circumspect individual. I know all that. But I don't care. If Russia has hacked our vote, then we need to know. Period. No excuses. On rare occasions, secrecy is tantamount to complicity.

Here's a more sensible theory: NSA chieftain Mike Rogers, like former DIA chieftain Michael Flynn, is on Team Trump -- which explains why the NSA keeps Trump's dirty secrets. 

No, I can't prove that theory -- but I can point to this overlooked nugget from Rachel Maddow:

Maddow began her conspiratorial suggestion by first noting how highly publicized Trump’s transition was, specifically when it came to who was coming in and out of the golden elevators. But she noted that nine days after the election, a serving Obama administration official made a surprise visit to Trump Tower. It was Admiral Mike Rogers.

She pointed to an NBC News report that showed Rogers “took a personal day” to visit the president-elect and to an NPR report that Rogers never told the sitting president (aka President Obama) that he was going to meet with Trump. Maddow then seemed to agree with The Wall Street Journal‘s report that Rogers was seeking a promotion to become the Director of National Intelligence (a job that ultimately went to Dan Coats).

Maddow was relishing a WaPo report that came out days later that then-DNI James Clapper and then-Secretary of Defense Ash Carter urged then-President Obama to fire Rogers from the NSA.

Before moving on to Rogers’s testimony, Maddow concluded by saying that this was a “very strange story.”

Indeed! Please note: Maddow's story cannot be reconciled with Schindler's tale, at least not easily.

So: Did Schindler's sources tell him the truth about what Rogers said? What about Mr. Loco's sources? Ms. Mensch's?

The best way to hide a Hershey's Kiss is in a pile of horseshit.

And here's the BAD news...

The Republicans were routed last night. And today, we learn that Judy Miller and the NYT are parting ways. (Check out that photo of Judy! She's doing her best Oliver-Reed-as-Bill-Sykes impression. GRRRRRRR!!)

"Not fair," cries a friend to this site. "I come here for bad news."

You want to hear depressing things? I am your obedient servant. Let's make the topic misanthropic...

Terror. First and foremost, of course, is the terror attack in Jordan. I should have much more to say about this outrage at a later time; right now, the story is fresh, and bloggers are searching for those little-known-but-telling details.

American war crimes. The U.S. Army admits that it uses white phosphorus as a weapon, according to this Daily Kos diarist. Remember: This stuff rained down on women and children. Innocents burned in an unquenchable fire. Under the terms of the convention we signed, "any toxic chemical, regardless of its origin, is considered as a chemical weapon unless it is used for purposes that are not prohibited." You can see the ultra-gruesome visual evidence here. (You prefer to avert your eyes? Rest assured that everyone in the Arab world is looking at these horrors.)

Disaster. In Pakistan, the earthquake created three million homeless people, and a large percentage of them don't even have tents. Winters can be miserable in that part of the world. You'd think that aiding Pakistan would help the U.S. win those proverbial hearts and minds, but our leaders prefer to let 'em freeze.

You owe more than you know. The deficits run up by George W. Bush are now equal to the debts incurred by every previous administration combined. W has run up a $1.5 TRILLION bill.

Torture. The Bushies say they don't do it and would never do it -- and that's why they must be allowed to do it. For some reason, this double-talk still makes sense to millions of Americans...

Achmed Chalabi is being rehabilitated. He's in America, we are told, to see Treasury Secretary John Snow. One problem: Snow's in India. And he'll be there for a while.

Lying about history. Disinformationists are making yet another effort to peddle the KGB-shot-JFK theory. The article even references Michael Eddowes' old book, which alleged that Oswald disappeared in Russia and was replaced by a double. He must have been an awfully convincing double, since he seems to have fooled Marina -- not to mention Oswald's mother and brother. I guess Ruby, Bannister and Ferrie were all commies. Puh-leeze -- how many times do we have to stake this vampire?

Bird flu: This article argues that the threat to humans is real -- in fact, we may be in for a repeat of the 1918 pandemic.

Speaking of the 1918 pandemic: Vials filled with that old-but-deadly disease are being shipped around the country. Shipped how, you ask? Heh heh. They're going out via Fed-Ex and DHL. Do you have any idea how easy it would be for a terrorist to knock over a Fed-Ex delivery truck?

Ohio. An election reform measure failed in this state, despite the anti-conservative mood in the rest of the nation. In other words, the powers-that-be put a "clean elections" measure on the ballot -- so people could vote on it. Can you see the flaw? Think about it verrrrrry carefully...

Bye-bye civil liberties. W has created a private army of FBI agents under his personal control. (Careful, George: That trick can backfire. Remember the Janissaries? No, I guess you wouldn't have read about them...) Not only that: Within a couple of years, your driver's license will contain a microchip which will allow the feds to track you down wherever you go. Imagine what the righties would say if Clinton tried that shit...

On a lighter note: Congressman Brad Sherman -- who counts yours truly among his constituents -- tried to meet someone via an online dating service. The lady who attracted his interest decided to blast (slightly) embarrassing details of his correspondence across the media. Her behavior was not at all cricket. Sherman's a decent Democrat who deserves better.

And finally: According to our old pal Artie Schopenhauer -- Schope, as I call him -- reality consists of the blind will to live, even though the essential characteristic of human existence is pain. Love is a hallucination; progress is a hoax. Only suicide can alleviate our daily misery.

There. Unhappy now?

Accuse me of optimism again and I'll hit you with more.