Funny, I thought everybody knew about fake soldiers. Seems to not be so.

Perhaps it has something to do with so many people being so unfamiliar with the military that they will believe anybody (sometimes anybody except a real soldier) saying anything about the military?

One would think that Senator Harry Reid would know better. Apparently not.

The whole thing in this flap is, well, the usual. Rush Limbaugh spoke about "phony soldiers", i.e., soldiers and civilians making up military experience. They keep getting caught and others keep following with the same stupid lies and schemes. So, certain Leftists have decided to call this "soldiers speaking out against the war". Aren't there enough real soldiers who have not lied about their records speaking out against the war? Why does the Left insist on this fiction for the proven liars in their ranks?

Apparently Senator Harry Reid can not tell the difference between honest service members and fake war heroes by sending Senator Harkin out to attack Rush Limbaugh. There must be Democrats in the Senate who have not lied about their military records, arent there?

2007

Note: Made more updates on 2 October 2007. Can't believe I left this stuff out, but we did cover a lot of ground in an hour.

It is no secret to anybody who knows me in person, or reads any of my online journals, that I am a big fan of writer and public speaker Christopher Hitchens. Other than Richard Petty, there is no public figure that I would prefer to chat with over a beer and I got my chance yesterday afternoon.

The setting was at King Street Blues, at the bar, in the Crystal City Underground around 3:00 PM. I was having a Yuengling, wearing jeans, a button-up shirt and a Richard Petty #43 ball cap waiting for the Kansas Motor Speedway Busch race to start. A fellow in jeans and an open-collar dress shirt sat down on a stool to my immediate right with an open magazine. First glance was that he was yet another person I had never met there before, but he bore a resemblance to Christopher Hitchens. Then he ordered a drink from Mike the bartender and I recognized the voice. Quickly I asked, "excuse me, Mr. Hitchens?" He replied "yes?" And I asked if he would be there for a few moments, he said yes and I added that I had to go across the street to get a book I would like him to autograph. I dashed down the hallway, which slowed to a brisk walk when my back reminded me that I am not a teenager any more.

I was trying to remember where my copy of "Why Orwell Matters" was stashed. The condo is decorated in modern twelve-year-old-boy, so everything is where it is, not exactly where I would expect or remember. Pulling out an under-bed storage tub, I was close. Found a copy of "The Trial of Henry Kissinger" next to a copy of Ann Coulter's "Slander". Searched a bit more but still no joy, so I trotted back across the street with the Kissinger book, a notebook for an autograph for my son and a Sharpie.

When I got to the bar Mr. Hitchens had stepped away and Mike asked me who the man was. I told him he was a famous author and speaker, he is on MSNBC frequently as a guest, other stuff, but Mike was not familiar with him.

When Mr. Hitchens returned I explained to him that I was looking for my copy of "Why Orwell Matters" and all I found was the Kissinger book, which I did not like quite as much as the Orwell book. He said he did not like it very much either and really did not like writing it. "Imagine having to spend months on end with a sort such as him (ed. something like that), it was dreadful." He prefers to autograph with his own pen and has a unique date notation.

"So, are you here for the conference?" he asked. "What conference, this is my neighborhood, I have a condo across the street?" I replied.

"Really? You bought these books some time ago?"

"Well, yes Sir, I have been a fan of yours for quite a few years." Forgot to mention that he was the only writer I could stand at "The Nation" when he was writing there. Anyway, this seemed to bring some surprise to him that a random fan spotted him in a neighborhood bar and already owned a book to get autographed.

Mentioned that I met Brina Lamb once and told a bit of the linked story and he nodded like he already knew how it would turn out. He did seem a bit surprized at Mr. Lamb being accompanied by a tall woman. Not sure why.

"When I was living in Reston, VA I saw you and David Reiff on C-SPAN when you were both speaking at the Miami Book Festival. After the segment was over I went strait to Barnes & Noble and got your Orwell book and one by Mr. Reiff."

CH: "Wow, you have a very good memory. What did you get of David's?"

Me: "A Bed for the Night" I think is the title.

CH: "Yes, that is quite good."

Me: "Yea, I liked the way he got all over Noam Chomsky right away." Mr. Hitchens kind of giggled at that. "I did find a copy of one of Ann Coulter's books when I was looking for your books. You guys are pals or something aren't you?"

CH: "No, but we were on the stage together for something when we were both on the same side of an issue. But, no, I don't particularly like her." So much for my good memory, lol. There were a few more like that.

Somewhere around this point I made a quip like "Who are you rooting for in this Mynmar/Burma thing?" and he covered most of the first paragraph from his Slate story, published a few days later. He also mentioned the illegality of the name change, where I asked about the particulars of changing a country name, leading to the Sri Lanka portion at the link. I finally confessed that I was just getting used to Campuchia becoming Cambodia again and my only original objection was that if one of those Beatles was for Campuchia then I was against it since the only Beatle I liked was George Harrison. He brough ought a pretty good laugh at that and we both prefer to say Burma.

CH: "Oh, well at the Crown Plaza, at the convention, they have several of my books for sale and I will be autographing at 5:30."

Me: "What convention is it?"

CH: "The Atheist's Convention."

[laughing] "OH! Okay, well I am on the opposite side of that issue from you, but that's okay. If I get a chance to stop over there I will, I doubt that I will burst into flames or anything. But there is an event at the WW II Memorial that I wanted to see at 5:30."

"Really? What is the occasion?" he asked. "I can't remember, I got an e-mail at work and it sounded interesting enough to remember, so I am going to check it out." I said.

Neither of us could remember what would be commemorated on 29 September and I had even forgotten that FDR had declared open warfare at sea with Germany on 11 September, 1941. I just tried to look it up as I write this, will have to give an update when I review my e-mail at work tomorrow.

He said he did not really like that memorial very much; sharing my impression that is has such a "cold" feel and presence.

I mentioned reason magazine, that I read frequently, and thought that they did not really like his work that much. This would be the second big "senior moment" for me. He asked if I know Nick Gillespie and he knows Nick, that he gets along great with the reason staff. Loves the magazine and he is very much libertarian, or libertarian leaning anyway. (I e-mailed an earlier version of this to Nick and he liked it too)

I must have been thinking of one or two of their writers who does not appreciate Mr. Hitchens that much, or the commentators in the 'blog, and said as much. I think that I added that I fuss with their staff about their anti-war stance and I think he gave a nod of agreement.

There was also some mention of unions, but I keep forgetting how it came up. I mentioned my position of not caring what 'club' someone joined, they just were not going to use it as a bargaining item with me as a manager, but I am not even a people manager so it really does not matter. He mentioned having a differing opinion but we took off on another tangent at that point.

Mentioning the recent defacement of the Vietnam Memorial, he turned and asked me with surprise what had happened. It was the only bit of the conversation that I detected "alarm" in his voice. "Someone squirted brake fluid across the panels."

CH: "What does that do to the marble?"

Me: "It soaks in and stains the stone. It is also very bad on paint. If you want to ruin someone's paint job, just squirt brake fluid on it and it will be ruined soon."

CH: "Who would do something like that?"

Me:"Idunno, but I saw about half of the likely suspects marching down Pennsylvania Avenue a couple of weeks ago."

CH: [I forgot exactly what he said here, but we went off on the tangent of teenage boys He told of an incident in California where Synagogues and Jewish cemeteries were desecrated with Swastikas, but the little delinquents had no idea of the connotation. They just knew it would draw attention. Also, some young man who burned down an important building in the 2nd century BC because he wanted his name remembered forever.]

Me: "I am guessing it was an English or Journalism major." [trying not to reviel my inner evil grin]

CH: "Or it could be like that fellow at Virginia Tech."

Me: "Exactly! He was an English Major!"

CH: "Really?"

Me: "Oh yes, those people need to be watched!" [I think I detected a bit of a smile then when he caugh me going over-the-top]

We talked a little bit about the PV1 Scott Thomas Beauchamp thing at "The New Republic" and he asked what was going on with that. I filled him in about the Private being busted again, to PV1, I think for revealing his deployment dates and location on his online journal and his wife leaving TNR for Time. I also mentioned that experience I had with Eve Fairbanks, fake date and all, and that the Private Beauchamp tales sounded like they had the same editor as Fairbanks. Could not let that go without mentioning how I became a 'hybrid driver', of course ;)

I also mentioned Fairbanks's story from Yale where she said she met Mr. Hitchens at a speaking event and said he was "really drunk" as I rolled my eyes. He rolled his too and I mentioned that her using a typical Leftist slam against him should have alerted me that this reporter was up to something, but I still thought we were on a date rather than on an article interview.

Somewhere in there the french and irish infected the conversation. I mentioned the thing I said to Eve Fairbanks when she brought up the irish and I said: "You speak of them as if they were human." Then we exchanged a few irish jokes and had a good laugh.

We chatted about our sons a bit too. His is one year younger than mine and he is considering military service. He is in graduate school now. I mentioned my son's defense contracting background and desire to enter ROTC during law school to become a JAG officer. I should have mentioned that business about people saying folks like us don't "send our sons to war", even though they are too old to send to their rooms, but I do recall Mr. Hitchens writing as much around the same time I was saying it. He did say that we don't look old enough to have boys that old. That got a chuckle from me.

He ran over to the Starbucks and grabbed a short cup of something and returned, commenting on how pretty Ethiopian women are. I said: "Yea, they are hot and they stay hot even after you feed them, as opposed to so many other women." He giggled at that.

We talked about travel, he asked me if I had a passport. I did not go into the detail of how I have had one for ages because I keep thinking I am going to work overseas, but he noted that Americans have a very low rate of passport possession. I did mention that I had not yet used mine for travel, but there is so much of my own country I have not seen yet that it was not a big deal to me. He did reveal something then, that i will keep secret until he writes about it. As soon as he reveals the item I will point it out and edit this.

He also expressed admiration for George Stephanopolis for getting President Clinton to greet Salmon Rushdie at the White House. Hitchens still does not like Clinton any better than I do and he has more reason to dislike the man.

[Now, almost a week later, I add the James Carville part.] We got to Stephanopolis by my mention of having seen James Carville a couple of times in Crystal City and how he looks more lik a space creature in person than on TV. I got loud laughing agreement on that one. The Mr. Hitchens mentioned how Carville is such a big fake, but his wife seems to be such a good person. That brought us to the PV1 Beauchamp discussion about how he seems to be such a big faker and his wife, by all accounts, is the sweetest young lady in the beltway. Damn, I wish I could quote his great quip to that about great women having crappy guys at their side, but I don't remember it exactly. That also spun off into the Fairbanks discussion.

Turns out that he has seen more of my country than I have! 44 States and I forgot the other details. I don't think that I have flown over 44 States yet, much less visited that many. He did say that he might have been to Alabama riding on a bus, but never visited anyplace there. From my experience, there is not much worth visiting there. but I did mention a cool visit to a jazz bar, in the sub basement of some building in an industrial area in Birmingham.

I guess the most important issue we agreed on was the things that will be remembered from our time: the Moon landing and the Global War on Terror. The rest of the events that we keep finding important, but fleeting, will be forgotten after we are gone.

I am sure we talked about other things that I am forgetting and it was a great experience. He had to get going at 4:00 and almost forgot his shades. The whole time he was there he kept putting my beer on his check and no amount of protest on my part was going to stop him. He was having red wine. Neither of us got drunk at all, well maybe I was getting there as I had started a few drinks before he did and he knocked back a nice steak and potatoes something while we chatted. He also gave me his copy of "Secular Nation."

The race lasted longer than I expected, but a buddy of mine walked in who is also a Hitchens fan, so I had to spend two hours telling him what happened during the hour with Mr. Hitchens, plus we spent more time catching up on things as we had not seen each other in a while. I finally got home around 9:30.

I can't believe that I forgot this creepy bit. I woke up around 0345 and turned on the radio to hear some nut calling in to "Coast to Coast" or one of those other UFO/Ghost/Trilateral Commission shows who was using "The Trial of Henry Kissinger" as evidence for his crackpot theory of something I could not remember in the morning.

Slashdot doesn't seem to get much news about Wii Homebrewing, so I thought I'd throw out an article on the latest updates to the popular Wii Web Gaming site WiiCade.

According to GoNintendo, they have released a new version of their Wii Remote API under a combination of the GPL and LGPL licenses. To sweeten the pot, this new version offers cool new features like IR-Based Motion Sensing, 4 player support, control over zooming, and partial Nunchuk support.

To celebrate, WiiCade released 5 new games that use these features. These games are Icy's Droplet Gathering Adventure, Space Shooting Mania, Asteroid Falldown, Bumper Car Madness, and Catch a Falling Star. It looks like someone has already released another game called WiiCade Snake. And for you Bush lovers/haters out there, they also have a Make Your Own Bush Speech "game". If you're into that sort of amusement, that is.

I personally recommend Bumper Car Madness. It's a rather crazy and fun arcade game that has you competing to see who can get the most tokens. It offers three control schemes, two which allow you to steer by twisting the remote, one which follows the cursor. It's tons of fun, especially with friends.

It looks like they also got a new look to go with the upgrade. Decide for yourselves if it's better or not. I like it, though. :-)

Today's lesson on taking things out of context. Here's a post I made today:

How is Science any different from groupthink? Scientists are no where near as impartial as they claim to be. The only checks and balances in place are reviews by scientific peers!

Think about it.

Shocked yet? Frightened at how I could possibly say such a thing? Clamoring for the mods to continue my fall to oblivion? I even got this response from an AC:

You're usually more level headed than this. I think you're just being silly.

Interesting thing, though. No one read the context. Here's the post I was replying to:

How are they different from groupthink? or the political bias at times that persists in Wikipedia?

Their top level admins are no where near as impartial as they claim to be. Obvious subjects to avoid on Wikipedia are those which are based on religious, political, or environmental, concerns. People have taken "maintaining" those types of entries to ridiculous levels that whole pages of discussion exist behind the page where the various factions bitch at each other. The best way to see the bias is to watch what they require to have accredited links and what they do not, let alone what sites they consider credible sources for disputed information.

While it has much useful information there are just certain subjects to avoid

Now let's re-read my text in context:

How are they different from groupthink? or the political bias at times that persists in Wikipedia?

Their top level admins are no where near as impartial as they claim to be.

How is Science any different from groupthink? Scientists are no where near as impartial as they claim to be. The only checks and balances in place are reviews by scientific peers!

See it? Still want my head on a platter?

An interesting experience.

Karl Rove Resigning as WH Chief of Staff

That is all for now.

The MacGuffin is on The Plank.

(linking this up later, sorry)

So, since I began posting about PV2 Beauchamp on 28 July 2007 there has been a new "investigation" and "re-reporting" by The New Republic, that can only be classified as more fairbanksing. There has also been a US Army investigation, that concluded that PV2 Beauchamp's stories were false and they probably have the DD2824s to prove it.

The following US Army spokespeople have gone on record verifying that the investigation concluded that PV2 Beauchamp fabricated his stories and there was no criminal violation: Col. Steve Boylan [filling in others later] ONE was anonymously reported as saying PV2 Beauchamp recanted his stories. What the big difference between "he recanted" and "his stories are false" is, I really do not know, but apparently an anonymous comment on the investigation is enough to 'prove' the investigation 'false' when The New Republic is the one tossing about the accusations.

Speaking of 'investigations', TNR conducted one of their own. The sources involved in the investigation, including the members of their staff that re-researched every detail and the experts and witnesses that they used for verification are known as "The Editors."

The New Republic is not bound by any law to reveal who they spoke to or the details of their investigation. So, in true "look-over-there" form, they demanded that the US Army investigators turn over their information, to assist TNR verify their story, of course. Slight problem that the English majors at TNR is keeping from it's readers, the Army investigators are prohibited by law from releasing investigation details that only result in administrative action. However, there are people who can release DD2824s: The people who signed them under oath. One of those people is TNR 'Diarist' PV2 Scott Thomas Beauchamp. He is married to a reporter for TNR and is not prohibited from contacting her either. By-the-by, if he releases doctored copies, that is a felony violation. Releasing nothing is not a problem, just ask Senator John F. Kerry.

So, TNR does have constructive possession of the document, but they are demanding copies from the Army, who they are accusing of a "coverup," because the Army is not giving TNR copies of documents that their employee already possesses and can send to them whenever he likes. Of course that does not make any sense to you, but the Leftist on The Plank and in weblogs are eating it up. They apparently expect the Army to order PV2 Beauchamp to call home just because Franklin Foer demands it.

We do know the name of one of the experts that TNR contacted to 'verify' one tiny bit of one story: Doug Coffey. Turns out, he did not verify the story, he "verified" some disjointed questions so that TNR can claim that Bradley Fighting Vehicles do not violate the laws of physics when performing feats that would violate the good sense of any vehicle commander. However, they did not re-report it that way, they fairbanksed about it again and got caught.

Has anybody at TNR done that recently? If you were reading my Slashdot journal this time last year, yes you know they were. That is where the verb fairbanksing came from. So, TNR, how about that list of who worked on these stories and what they worked on?

The list of items that were debunked in the stories before the Army investigation include: "square backed" 9mm shells that are only used by Iraqi police, changing HMMWV tires in 2' of sewage, Bradley Fighting Vehicles cutting dogs in half, the 'horrors of war creating monsters' of young men when they are sitting in Kuwait and I am sure I missed some.

Cathy Young at Reason debunked the PV2 Beauchamp story of a kid calling himself 'James Bond' getting his tongue cut out.

Now, with all of this having transpired and reading the carefully worded statements by "The Editors" of TNR it stands to reason that the stories by 'Baghdad Diarist' PV2 Beauchamp, as edited by TNR, should be read with care too.

In the 'James Bond' passages, PV2 Beauchamp does not claim to have seen the boy with his tongue cut out, he 'heard' about it from a buddy. Same thing with the Bradley running over dogs. He claimed to hear about that on the radio and then spoke to the driver who told stories of how to run over dogs, bust through concrete walls, along with other unlikely feats. No doubt that PV2 Beauchamp was 'that know-it-all who will believe anything' and the guys liked to feed him crazy stories.

[edit: 13 AUG 07]
One of the folks who has done a lot of work on debunking The New Republic in this matter has been The Confederate Yankee, but in this case I must disagree. Although PV2 Beauchamp is being crass and tasteless, I really do think he recalling (or just making up) a tasteless joke. The 'zombie dogs' passage from "Dark of Night":

As we slowly started moving back toward the Humvee, we could hear the dogs filling in the space behind us. I turned around and saw their green eyes flashing in the deep shadow where we'd left the body. Part of me thought we should have shot the dogs or done something to keep them from eating the body, but what good would it have done? We only would have been exposing ourselves to danger longer than we needed to.
Back in the Humvee, Hernandez started talking to me without looking in my direction. "Man, I've never seen anything like that before," he said.

"What? A guy killed by a cop?" I asked.

"No, man, zombie dogs. That shit was wild," he said, laughing.

Something inside of me fought for expression and then died. He was right. What else was there to do now but laugh?

"I took his driver's license," I said.

"You did?" questioned Hernandez.

"Yeah. It said he was an organ donor."

We chuckled in the dark for a moment, and then looked out the window into the night. We didn't talk again until we were back at our base.

I don't believe for a moment that he actually took a driver's license, nor do I read that as a serious comment.

In his last article, it sounds like he decided to make up some crazy stories of his own and found one confederate to talk to his bosses back at TNR 1331 Street, NW Washington, DC. The same bosses who say that PV2 Beauchamp was pressured into signing documents (DD2824) that do not refute his published stories. Yes, puzzle that one out. Only The Editors could come up with something like that.

Mr. Foer, you assert that you have witnesses to war crimes and UCMJ violations, to include statements from one of your writers, so why aren't you turning them in?

I have no idea of your military background, as far as I know you could have been a JAG in the IG shop, but you sure don't write that way. I was just a poor Line Officer (after being a Line Enlisted Soldier) . If you were you might see the value of the information to the Army for an investigation for war crimes, vs. your investigation to sell 30,000 copies of a magazine that your subscribers don't read anyway.

Believe it or not, you can not prosicute the criminals that you have in your clutches, but the US Army can.

So, Mr. Foer, please, pretty please, give up your documentation to the Army? If they fail to prosecute to your satisfaction then you will have a real blockbuster!

Stay tuned for the long "wrap up" post. Don't look for links in this one (just back from happy hour), but feel free to google this to death.

Point the firstest: PV2 Beauchamp is a moron and a liar. Moron first, he can't even change the oil on a Bradley Fighting Vehicle (check out his journal), so he takes the word of a Bradley driver's tall tales as truth. Perhaps that is 'tall tails' when the Bradley driver talks about running over sleeping dogs. Taller when he talks about running over concrete barriers and busting through buildings with one. If this story was told to PV2 Beauchamp, then he is an idiot for believing them.

Point the second: Cathy Young at Reason makes short work on the "James Bond" story. If your kid got their tounge cut out for talking to Americans would you let him play with Americans a few weeks later?

Point the third, the big one, the incident that turned this guy into a "monster" was his seeing a woman with a "half melted face", every single day, in the "mess hall" (do Privates really call dining facilities "mess halls" these days?). This war experience so scarred him that he wondered if he were a "monster" of some sort. Only problem there, it happened (if at all) in Kuwait, before he saw "war", according to TNR's investigation.

The defense by TNR?

First they conducted their own "invistigation" with no power of incarceration adn everybody that PV2 (second award) fed them somehow agreed with him. So, according to TNR, everything 'checks out'.

But wait, there was an Army investigation too. Details still confidential, but the conclusion that the PAO has e-mailed to several news organizations, is that PV2 Beauchamp fabricated every story published to his name. TNR, of course, ignores this and attacks The Weekly Standard for mentioning an anonymous inside source who gave added "color" to their piece.

TNR laments that their 'reporter' had his electronic communications gear taken away. Um, guys and gals, the man had already devulged troop movements and schedules on his own 'blog (the one you should have read before hiring him) and he was in the middle of an investigation for UNAUTHORIZED COMMUNICATION OF MILITARY ACTIVITY IN A WAR ZONE. Oh, sorry about the caps, TNR already knows about OPSEC as they fired a staffer for confirming that he is married to Elspeth Reeve of TNR.

All the while, the left is going after that Sanches guy because he is, apparently, the only man on earth who ever engaged in homosexual activity who should (according to them) be banned from military service!

The worst thing about this whole deal is that PV2 Beauchamp's wife, Elspeth Reeve, is a fine and, apparently, honest writer. Her husband, his slimey editor and TNR have done more to ruin her reputation than she could possibly do herself.

More on this very soon.

Just like the script called for, the left accuses coverup after Beauchamp investigation.

PV2 Scott Thomas Beauchamp is reported to have recanted the storeis that were printed in The New Republic under his name. The Weekly Standard reported that he recanted in a sworn affadivit on the first day of the investigation.

Of course, every fairbanksing must be part of a bigger conspiracy, when the lies agree with your view, right Rihard?

While The New Republic is busy defending PV2 (second award) Scott Thomas Beauchamp (see previous JE) as some sort of eye-opening-truth-teller, they have fired staffer Beth Greem for eye-opening-truth-telling.

Beth Greem (thinking that is her real name, not a handle) was the source for 'Ace of Spades' posts about New Republic contributor, Private Second Class Scott Thomas Beauchamp, being married to Elspeth Reeve, Reporter Researcher for The New Republic.

Where is the MacGuffin?
28 July 2007

Admissions and Facts First, Speculation Later (I will add links to text later, but I did change a lot of what I was going to write after re-looking at the original sources. this link to the article was working free as I wrote)

I shall confess, that I was in the minority thinking that 'PFC Scott Thomas' was made up by an editor at The New Republic, at best a load of Glassifications from nonsense passed off by fake vets as fact. Turns out it looks a lot more like a Fairbanksing.

1. Contrary to the dreams of the apologists for Private Second Class (PV2) Scott Thomas Beauchamp, he was not "attacked" by the Right at The Weekly Standard or on the "milblogs". The fanciful accounts written by the Private were questioned. Shortly thereafter, the paid subscribers of The New Republic, in the comments section to his article Shock Troops posted 23 July 2007, questioned the honesty of the Private too.

Look for yourself. The third comment 2007-07-19 09:42:46 raises several questions.

2. The New Republic also employs the wife of Private Beauchamp, the award winning writer Elspeth Reeve. Apparently, she has known her husband for quite some time as she quoted him in an April 2004 story.

Yes, this is relevant since Franklin Foyer stated Bauchamp being married to Reeve was the main factor for hiring the Private.

3. Private First Class Beauchamp (demoted to Private Second Class some time before "Shock Troops" was published) could have taken the "whistle blower" route and reported all of these incidents he describes up through his chain of command, or through the Chaplain. Even Atheists can report through the Chaplain as this is a parallel reporting chain for misconduct witnessed by soldiers. The fact is, he chose to write 'stories' about events, which if true, would likely have resulted in discipline of the personnel involved.

Abu Ghraib was reported by a Specialist, to his Lieutenant and up through the chain. It was announced to the press at a CENTCOM briefing to the press in short order (and ignored by the press for quite some time). Courts Martials and recommended punishments resulted from this investigation. As far as I remember, they are still not complete.

4. Private Beauchamp boasts in his own weblog, full of Leftist musings, that he will go to war and return a "writer". For some reason comparisons to Hemingway and Orwell are tossed onscreen by the supporters of the Private, but there is quite a difference. Hemingway and Orwell were fine writers before going to war and they made no secret about their writing about the war to their fellow soldiers. Also, their accounts rang true. In Homage to Caledonia, Orwell notes a teen or pre-teen soldier telling a story to an old woman on a train. Even thought he could not understand the conversation he doubts the factualness of the little soldier. Now, there is a similarity between an Orwell experience and the Private Beauchamp experience.

5. Private Beauchamp's wife is, as mentioned earlier, an accomplished writer who works for The New Republic. The only question that I have had, or seen for that matter, about her work in the past was in December of 2006 when Group Think was published in The New Republic. Actually, it was not so much a question about her work as it was a question about the odd coincidence with a not-very-honest sounding story by Eve Fairbanks in the Examiner "Caution: D.C. apartment hunt can result in identity crisis" a few months earlier. The articles sounded like they were written from the same research, one fiction and the Reeve article factual. Not doubting that it was all done with permission, it just seemed odd that employees of the same publication had articles within months of each other that were so close in topic and conclusion.

6. The New Republic fired one of their staffers for "leaking" the fact that Elspeth Reeve is married to Private Beauchamp.

Now for some thoughts on the pile of facts above.

If Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp wanted a real story he could have reported all of the incidents through any of the appropriate channels available and watched how events unfolded. If the reports were ignored or given lax attention, he would really have a story. Even if the investigation resulted in punishment, like at Abu Ghraib, that should not stop a good fabulist from making it sound like the Army ignored things, just like the MSM did with Abu Ghraib.

What he did, no matter what the underlying facts are, was wrong.

Speaking of the "facts", his second-hand story of a Bradley driver running over live dogs is quite difficult to believe, for those of us who have been around dogs anyway. I have not had the occasion to notice them to sun themselves on or next to hot roads. The snoozing dogs I have seen usually pick the shade. When I have seen dogs get run over they are usually trying to run in front of a vehicle. Also, I have not seen any that a Bradley could sneak up on.

As for knowing when a dog chasing the Bradley was close in on the right side, he would have had a spotter in the crew or another vehicle calling him on the radio. He would also have to have a pretty lax Track Commander to let him do all that swerving in formation, market stand smashing and the like.

Many people have been describing the passage from the article about this inaccurately. Here it is, just in case you read something different:

I KNOW ANOTHER private who really only enjoyed driving Bradley Fighting Vehicles because it gave him the opportunity to run things over. He took out curbs, concrete barriers, corners of buildings, stands in the market, and his favorite target: dogs. Occasionally, the brave ones would chase the Bradleys, barking at them like they bark at trash trucks in America--providing him with the perfect opportunity to suddenly swerve and catch a leg or a tail in the vehicle's tracks. He kept a tally of his kills in a little green notebook that sat on the dashboard of the driver's hatch. One particular day, he killed three dogs. He slowed the Bradley down to lure the first kill in, and, as the diesel engine grew quieter, the dog walked close enough for him to jerk the machine hard to the right and snag its leg under the tracks. The leg caught, and he dragged the dog for a little while, until it disengaged and lay twitching in the road. A roar of laughter broke out over the radio. Another notch for the book. The second kill was a straight shot: A dog that was lying in the street and bathing in the sun didn't have enough time to get up and run away from the speeding Bradley. Its front half was completely severed from its rear, which was twitching wildly, and its head was still raised and smiling at the sun as if nothing had happened at all.
I DIDN'T SEE the third kill, but I heard about it over the radio. Everyone was laughing, nearly rolling with laughter. I approached the private after the mission and asked him about it.

"So, you killed a few dogs today," I said skeptically.
"Hell yeah, I did. It's like hunting in Iraq!" he said, shaking with laughter.
"Did you run over dogs before the war, back in Indiana?" I asked him.
"No," he replied, and looked at me curiously. Almost as if the question itself was in poor taste.

Loudly making fun of a burn or IED victim in a dining facility and getting away with it seems unlikely too. Especially if she left loudly upset. I know when I was younger than the 23 year old private, as a Second Lieutenant, I would not have tolerated that behavior and neither would the Non Commissioned Officers. If the Private wished to push it, he could get at minimum a Conduct Unbecoming charge without saying or doing anything else to the victim.

Grave desecration? More UCMJ action. How on earth does anybody consider this guy a "whistle blower" if he never bothered putting the whistle in his mouth? The only whistle blower in this whole deal is the recently fired New Republic staffer.

One thing that made me think that this was a Fairbanksing job was from that "Big Shame in a Small World" story, written by New Republic Associate Editor, Eve Fairbanks, for The Examiner. She took an existing New York Times story and wrote another story, that was loaded with falsehoods that could easily be seen IF you found the original story. This story smacks of the same treatment. It could be a series of otherwise bland information and made sensational by an editor skilled in Fairbanksing. I wonder where TNR could find one of those?

I really hope the book clobbers this guy when it is thrown at him.

Yes, much of what I have written has been written and said by others over the past few days. Any similar wording is purely accidental.

If anybody is still reading my journal, I got a new job at the beginning of June (2007) in a large low-rise office building in Arlington, VA.

Last Friday we had a picnic with horse shoes, basketball, tug of war and volleyball. I was recruited to give contractor support to the tug of war.

While we were losing, in the first round, to the opponent who became champion of tug of war, I cut my left index finger. Thus the title of this post.

Otherwise, the new job is pretty cool but it is not as cool as that Afghanistan job.

I just got back from reading the Chicago Tribune's various stories on the iPhone. The reviews were very positive, if not a bit reserved. Sales may have topped 500,000 units. And sales have been so good that the AT&T activation servers have been overloaded. All in all, a very good launch for the iPhone. Not perfect mind you, but nothing ever is.

So imagine my surprise when I checked Slashdot this morning to find that the only story on the launch is Activation Problems in iPhone Paradise. No mention of the 500,000 unit estimate. Nor is there mention of the strongly positive reaction by the market. The only thing discussed is the activation problems, which are blown incredibly out of proportion. From the "long-wait-short-celebration" department tag, to a link to an engadget poll that won't let you see the results unless you vote (There's no "I don't have an iPhone option?" WTH?), all the way to using a random blog of one guy's experience as the basis for what all ~500,000 users (estimated) are experiencing.

Maybe it's just me, but this has gone way too far.

Slashdot is a place where intelligent people tend to hang out to converse. Because these people know a lot, they easily become jaded. I know that I personally have struggled a great deal with becoming unintentionally negative. And it's not necessarily the problem of dealing with people who know less. That's a reasonable excuse for tech support reps, but it doesn't hold up for professionals. In fact, I often find that I can become so indoctrinated in a certain way of thinking (because I know quite a bit about it) that anything that seems to violate that doctrine must be wrong.

Of course, this is a very dangerous trap. There are always clever ways around problems without violating the laws of physics. In fact, the solution presented often solves the problem in a very unique way that requires a dramatic shift in thinking.

For example, hydrogen cars are often criticized for requiring grid power to generate the hydrogen. Thus many discount the option because it "doesn't provide an alternative fuel source". Which is true, but it misses the point. Hydrogen provides a shift in the way that our infrastructure works. Rather than having millions of inefficient, dirty, smog-inducing, portable combustion engines on the road, we could generate all the power from relatively clean and efficient sources like Nuclear power plants then distribute that power to a "vehicle grid" using hydrogen as the storage and transmission device. From that perspective, hydrogen suddenly becomes a lot more appealing. (Without diving into the logistics issues of converting fueling stations, of course.)

Thus I can't help but wonder, is Slashdot getting too negative for its own good? I've been noticing a sharp increase in stories that are either overblown or outright inaccurate. From PopCap Distressed Over 'CopyCat' Games (the original interview states that PopCap is distinctly unaffected by clones), to W3C Bars Public From Public Conference (the newsie apparently couldn't understand English), to Judge Orders TorrentSpy to Turn Over RAM (Judge ordered web logging to be turned on), I'm beginning to wonder if the general status of the Slashdot users and editors isn't taking a turn for the worse. I'm seeing fewer and fewer stories with a positive slant. Those that do have a positive slant are either overblown claims (which results in a negative reaction) or misreported claims (which results in the same negative reaction, except that all of Slashdot is barking up the wrong tree).

While I understand that much of the confusion and negativity is pouring out of the press, it's important to keep a cool head on our shoulders and think critically about every piece of information we see. While I don't directly blame the Slashdot editors or the readers, I do think that all of us can make a contribution toward positive reenforcement on Slashdot. We readers can do two things:

1. Try to make sure that the stories we submit are correctly stated and reflect the true issue at hand.

2. Keep our replies civil. It's so easy for all of us (myself included) to get mad at the other guy thinking he doesn't know what he's talking about. Yet sometimes he actually does. So please be gentle when correcting each other. You'd be amazed at the smart people you'll develop a rapport with!

For the editors, I can offer one major suggestion: Apply critical thinking before smacking that "Approve" button. I know you guys see an absolutely incredible number of submissions day in and day out. The catch is finding the submissions that are worth posting to the front page of Slashdot. As of late it seems like submissions are being chosen more for their yellow (read: inaccurate) headline rather than their substantiveness as news. So please be considerate when choosing submissions.

Thank you all for listening! :-)

In a recent post on the topic of altruism being hardwired into the human brain, I challenged others to think about the theological implications of this. As the article suggested, many people jump to the conclusion that science is disproving the existence of a higher being. I used the exact opposite extreme to point out how silly that is.

Here it is again, but this time with the bolding reversed:

I figured it would be fun to respond with a similarly goofy argument:

It seems to me that if man is hardwired with an sense of altruism and a desire to believe in a super-being, there can be no other answer to this question than the existence of a Creator.

The question is, how many of you got the message? How many of you jumped to disprove a statement that did not need to be disproven in the first place?

Slashdot is composed of some of the smartest people in the world. Yet sometimes the smartest people can close their minds. The truth is that science does not prove or disprove religion. It cannot do that as it only concerns itself with the universe at hand.

Faith-based religion is not science. Let's not treat it as such. But science is not faith-based religion. Let's not make the mistake of mistreating it, either.

It looks like John Edwards is calling on folks to disrupt every Memorial Day celebration across America.

How about everybody turn out to give these folks a proper welcome, like we did in the DC area in 17 March 2007?

Update: Hey Mr. Edwards and your followers, better hurry down to DC if you are going to disrupt Rolling Thunder. Rev up those pink bikes boys and girls!