Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Quick Hits
Posted by: Jon Henke on Thursday, February 02, 2006

18 megabytes of silence?
Fitzgerald, who is fighting Libby's request, said in a letter to Libby's lawyers that many e-mails from Cheney's office at the time of the Plame leak in 2003 have been deleted contrary to White House policy.
Rose Mary's Digital Stretch? I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that, before Bush reaches the end of his term, Dick Cheney will leave office. And we will be better off for it.

Divider


In his first ruling, Sam Alito sides with a black death row inmate and against the Government. Ted Kennedy's head explodes.

Divider


The GAO has completed an investigation of Katrina mismanagement...
Responsibility for the government's bungled response to Hurricane Katrina extends widely but begins at the top of the Bush administration, which failed before the storm to name a White House, homeland security or other senior aide to take command of disaster relief, congressional investigators reported yesterday.

Four years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, administration officials did not establish a clear chain of command for the domestic emergency; disregarded early warnings of a Category 5 hurricane inundating New Orleans and southeast Louisiana; and did not ensure that cities and states had adequate plans and training before the Aug. 29 storm, according to the Government Accountability Office.
Whatever failures occurred down the chain of command, the fact is that the Federal government is responsible for overseeing, coordinating and pre-planning responses, including at the state level. And they bungled it, before and after the Hurricane.

Of course, the administration would have had a lot less to bungle had government not been subsidizing dangerous behaviour and obscuring risk for so many decades.

Divider


And speaking of which, Anatole Kaletsky makes a great follow-up point in the London Times...

Show/Hide
Indeed.

Divider



So everybody knows, the Capitol Police have admitted that they were unequivocably wrong...
"We've asked the U.S. attorney's office to drop the charge against Sheehan," [Capitol Police Chief] Gainer said later. "Our interactions both with her and Beverly Young were inappropriate." He said he will clarify rules about disruption to remind officers that "simply having a T-shirt on" does not constitute lawbreaking.

Glad that's cleared up. Still, two more things could stand a little attention:
  1. Rep. Bill Young, who is angry about his wife's ejection, and potentially considering legal action against the Capitol Police, said his wife was wrongly ejected, but...
    Young said he wouldn't be so mad if it were just Sheehan. "I totally disagree with everything she stands for," he said. But by removing his wife, Gainer's officers clearly "acted precipitously," Young said.
    This solon — this bastion of dispassionate justice — gets to vote on federal laws.


  2. Glenn Greenwald rounds up links to bloggers who were insisting that Sheehan "broke the law" and were "calling for all sorts of punishments to be imposed on Rep. Lynn Woolsey" and asks "When does the "self-correcting" blogosphere start to self-correct?"

    Sounds like a good question. I hope he follows up.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
While the whole kerfluffle was quite amusing in my eyes, this little tidbit strikes me as possibly Dowdified:
Young said he wouldn’t be so mad if it were just Sheehan. "I totally disagree with everything she stands for," he said. But by removing his wife, Gainer’s officers clearly "acted precipitously," Young said.
How does the quoted material equate to the lead-in sentence? Did Rep. Young really suggest that it was OK for Sheehan but not for his wife? Stranger and more hypocritical things have certainly been utter before by Congress men and women, but if he really did say that, why not quote him?
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://
pre-planning responses, including at the state level

Remind me then why we have state governments in that case.

 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
18 megabytes of silence?
Fitzgerald, who is fighting Libby’s request, said in a letter to Libby’s lawyers that many e-mails from Cheney’s office at the time of the Plame leak in 2003 have been deleted contrary to White House policy.
Rose Mary’s Digital Stretch? I’m going to go out on a limb and predict that, before Bush reaches the end of his term, Dick Cheney will leave office. And we will be better off for it.
[Your emphasis retained]. That’s not at all what the Fitzgerald letter said (see second to last para. in Exhibit C):
We are aware of no evidence pertinent to the charges against defendant Libbywhich has been destroyed. In an abundance of caution, we advise you that we have learned that not all email of the Office of Vice President and the Executive Office of President for certain time periods in 2003 was preserved through the normal archiving process on the White House computer system.
[Epmphasis added]. There’s a big difference between "deleted" and not being "preserved through the normal archiving process." Keep in mind, as well, that this was a response letter regarding defense requests for discovery materials. Fitzgerald is telling defense counsel that he doesn’t have what they’re asking for, but he’s not vouching for the sloppy archiving of the White House email system managers.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://
This solon — this bastion of dispassionate justice
I think it’s worthwhile to cut Young a little slack on the dispassionate angle the day after his wife was ejected, no? We’re not all Vulcans...
 
Written By: Jody
URL: polyscifi.blogspot.com
I tend to agree, MichiaelW;

I’ve been on a number of reconstructive situations in E-mail recovery for legal purposes... and while my comments are limited legal constraints, I can say some things about what we find as a matter of routine in these cases, which may or may not apply here.

1: Many times files get lost or over-written due to rapidly changing E-mail retention policies. The people designing such systems are often not the people actually responsible for the physical rotation of the tapes, and mistakes in procedure happen as a result, particularly in the first few months following a retention policy change.

2: In one case I was involved with, the in house requirement came down to have all e-mail backuptapes saved forever. Apparently, the change was made in an attempt at CYA for any future legal actions. Sure enough, 6 months after this policy was implimented, (At some fairly healthy expense... SDLT’s an LTO’s are NOT cheap) the clients were court ordered to restore all files from dates extending a year and a half back into the taped files... when the IT area only could come up with about 6 months worth of tapes.... that’s when the policy change happened.

3: There are holes in every backup system ever devised. Most backup runs happen in the wee hours. The backup system thereby can only grab copies of what is on the server’s drive at that hour. If someone gets mail during the day, and for example erases it after reading it, that mail won’t make it to the backup tape. Remember; such systems were created to backup what the customer wanted to KEEP, not all the mail that’s come through the system.

Invoking Nixon’s a bit over the top.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
"...the fact is that the Federal government is responsible for overseeing, coordinating and pre-planning responses, including at the state level."

I would have thought:

The People would be responsible for preparing for disaster by having enough food nd water for 72 hrs or more...

Local Government would have been responsible for planning and executing responses since they know their towns and cities better than people sitting in DC offices...

The State government would be responsible for coordinating...

The Federal government would only need to provide what the State could not handle, for example Navy/Coast Guard rescue efforts. "Overseeing, coordinating and pre-planning responses" should not be the Federal government’s job.
 
Written By: dvorak
URL: http://
FYI and OT:
Boehner wins GOP House leadership position.

Some congratulations should go the hosts of this site for generating enough noise to deny Blunt an outright majority. After the first round of voting, the Shadegg voters apparently supported Boehner.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://
Come on Mkultra and Cindy, please show us the doom and gloom with Alito’s first opinion on the SCOTUS. I thought this guy was all about destroying the Bill of Rights and reflexively voting in favor of the state?

Crickets. All I hear are crickets.

 
Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
“Rep. Bill Young, ... said his wife was wrongly ejected, but...
This solon — this bastion of dispassionate justice — gets to vote on federal laws.”
First, what dispassionate writer would be decrying any solon for not being a bastion of dispassionate justice? Solons are not judges. We all know the cast of characters who vote on federal laws; Rep. Young is definitely a bush-leaguer from that perspective. So what is the problem here? Why are not the same juices that stir the indignation in a writer about the civil rights of Ms. Sheehan also stirred by Ms. Young? Were the facts of their treatment so different? Not from a civil rights standpoint. What could it be? Ah, yes. Ms. Young supports President Bush. Mr. Young is standing up for Ms. Young. Therefore Mr. Young’s remarks can morally be Dowdified in order to make them say what will make him the [racist, no]... [bigoted, no]... [imperialist, oh heavens, no]... [well, maybe...no]... [conservative...Closed Minded Conservative ..Close Minded Civil Rights Resistant Conservative – that’s it!] that he must be for being against what Cindy stands for. BDS? Well, it does come to mind. I’m just sayin’...
 
Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://
This has cracked me up all day with each visit to QandO -
In his first ruling, Sam Alito sides with a black death row inmate and against the Government. Ted Kennedy’s head explodes.
Can you just imagine the look on his (TK’s) face? Ahh yes, the fat embarassing drunk form the Commonwealth. Man I am glad I left that state 11 years ago.
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
I think it’s worthwhile to cut Young a little slack on the dispassionate angle the day after his wife was ejected, no? We’re not all Vulcans...
Nah!
If Young had simply left it to, “She... was doing... what the president said we should all do,” […], “because she had on a shirt that someone didn’t like... she was kicked out of this gallery.” It would have been completely appropriate, and dare I say Jon would applaud Young for standing up for free speech,
But since…
Young said he wouldn’t be so mad if it were just Sheehan. "I totally disagree with everything she stands for," he said. But by removing his wife, Gainer’s officers clearly "acted precipitously," Young said.
He advocates freedom of speech that only he agrees with. And since Young is a member of Congress, he deserves no such sympathy.
Why are not the same juices that stir the indignation in a writer about the civil rights of Ms. Sheehan also stirred by Ms. Young? Were the facts of their treatment so different? Not from a civil rights standpoint. What could it be? Ah, yes. Ms. Young supports President Bush.
That’s not the point, Bob. At least from my perspective. If Rep. Bill Young stands for free speech, then he should stand for ALL free speech. Young’s protestations should not have included Cindy Sheehan.

Sorry.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
You aren’t the least bit skeptical of the story, Pogue? If that is indeed what Rep. Young said (that it was OK for Cindy but not for is wife), by all means lambast away. But why not quote him expressing that sentiment?
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://
“If Rep. Bill Young stands for free speech, then he should stand for ALL free speech. Young’s protestations should not have included Cindy Sheehan. Sorry.”

Yes, I too am sorry. I guess I just don’t understand “liberal lalaland” well enough. If one uses common sense one knows that, feeling as he does about Ms. Sheehan....let’s pause right there. Are you saying that Rep. Young has no right to feel the way he does about Ms. Sheehan? Some oath of office binds him? Some basic status as a human being? Well, assuming that he has a perfect right to his opinion of her and that he has a perfect right to express it (for whatever motive) does common sense tell you that he might take pains to make it clear that his protestations about the treatment of his wife should in no way be interpreted as standing up for Ms. Sheehan? Other than in liberal lalaland, are his choices limited to remaining silent or speaking for all demonstrators everywhere? If you happened to defend a right winger on some issue, would you want all the right wingers to quote you endlessly about other right wingers that you had no intention of supporting?
Had Mr. Young not made any reference to Ms. Sheehan, how long do you suppose the left would have waited to howl about the similarities (exactly the opposite position that Jon has taken, but then he got to pick) between Ms. Sheehan’s situation and his defense of Ms. Young? One assumes that in that case Jon might quote Mr. Young accurately. For Mr. Mahone and Jon it’s Gotcha or Gotcha.
Or perhaps we are in liberal lalaland and liberals get to make rules that what one says must apply to whatever group or individuals their rules say it must apply to and if you can’t say what you wish to say and include the group or individual they define, then you will be pilloried if you speak.
By all means howl at what Mr. Young [actually] said. Leave the First Amendment out of it.
 
Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://
Rep. Bill Young on The O’Reilly Factor, 2/2/06
I disagree with Cindy’s message, by the way. I feel strongly about the loss of her son, but I disagree strongly with her message, but if she was behaving herself as my wife was she should have been accorded the same privileges as my wife. And she was, they were both kicked out.
So there seems to be some discrepancy there. So jumping down his throat may have been premature.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
"I would have thought: [...] "Overseeing, coordinating and pre-planning responses" should not be the Federal government’s job."
(shrug) You would have been wrong.
So there seems to be some discrepancy there. So jumping down his throat may have been premature.
Those are different quotes. I’d hope that he’s had time to reconsider his initial response.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Those are different quotes. I’d hope that he’s had time to reconsider his initial response.
No. One’s a quote, the other’s a paraphrase (allegedly). I have yet to see a quote where Rep. Young suggested that Sheehan and Mrs. Young should have been accorded different treatment.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://
Those are different quotes. I’d hope that he’s had time to reconsider his initial response
You’re right. Which initiates a discrepancy. And you’re probably right; he probably had time to think about it.
Which is good.

No. One’s a quote, the other’s a paraphrase (allegedly).
We’ll I haven’t, yet, seen the quote in print from a reputable source. But I have heard about it from a reputable source elsewhere… and from Jon, indeed a reputable source.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Jon is not a source, Pogue. The article he referenced in the NY Daily News is the source.

The reason you haven’t seen a quote anywhere from Mr. Young expressing the sentiment attributed to him is probably because he said no such thing. I could be wrong, and I’ll eat my share of crow if I am, but I find it more than a bit distasteful when alleged motives and opinions are attributed to people by supposedly straight-news reporters.
"When does the "self-correcting" blogosphere start to self-correct?"
Sounds like a good question. I hope he follows up.
Indeed. You could start by doing here, Jon.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://
I had to search some for a suitable comment.
“There are three basic sizes of crickets: pinhead (newborn), small, and large (adult). Smaller animals eat the smaller sizes. The larger the animal, the further down this list they can go for food choices.
P = pinheads- from about 2 mm at birth to 9 mm or so
S = small crickets - from about 1 to 2 cm
L = large crickets - from about 2 to 4 cm (not including ovipositor; females are larger)”
 
Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://
Jon is not a source, Pogue.
Well, not in the traditional sense, no. I visit QandO primarily for entertainment, but discovering "news" is not an uncommon encounter. Over time, I have found Jon post stories and information from reputable sources, therefore I find Jon to be very resourceful.

That’s what I meant.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Huh!?!
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Shhhhhhhh. We’re listening to the crickets.
 
Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider