It's Happening Again...

The Pilot Newspaper: Opinion

I tell you, this stupid “Emailgate” scandal may finally be the thing that drives me into the Hillary Clinton camp. As I’ve written several times, I’m not a huge fan of Mrs. Clinton, because she’s always come across to me as Republican Lite: all the corporate harlotry and knee-jerk hawkishness, but without the deranged raving about “legitimate rape,” gay marriage leading to bestiality, and Ebola-carrying Mexican immigrants with “thighs like cantaloupes” from toting huge bags of drugs.

All that said, I’ve frequently found myself, almost in spite of myself, rising to defend Hillary Clinton because of the sheer ridiculousness of the attacks on her from the right-wing propaganda complex, aka the national political media.

Last time she ran for president, we had the usual Very Serious Right Wing Pundits ruminating on whether Hillary was showing too much cleavage and whether or not she left a tip at a Midwestern “loose-meat” diner (whether she did or not, the Very Serious Right Wing Pundits didn’t like it).

Then, when she was secretary of state, those same Very Serious Pundits asked very seriously if she might be faking a blood clot to avoid testimony about the Benghazi murders — testimony she gave when she recovered (and which the Very Serious Pundits then mangled and misrepresented in shameful and dishonest fashion).

Now we’re supposed to get all aghast over the fact that — hang on to your hats, folks — when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used a personal email account! From a server in her own home! OMG (as the youths on the Interwebs say), she may very well have violated the Federal Records Act of 1950! Or regulations from the National Archives! Or something!

Never mind the fact that the change in the FRA to include “electronic communications” was signed in November 2014, after Clinton had already left, on Feb. 1, 2013. Never mind the fact that new regulations from the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) regarding personal email use by government officials didn’t go out until September of that year.

Never mind the fact that Colin Powell used a personal email account when he was secretary of state because, like most government email systems, the “official” one was years behind the times and frustrating to use (according to interviews with General Powell).

Never mind that two months ago (before this phony “scandal” even broke), Clinton aides turned over 55,000 pages of work-related emails to the State Department for archiving.

Never mind that, after the State Department reviews them to make sure there’s no classified material, the emails in their possession will be posted online.

No, this is all just more evidence that “proves” the prevailing narrative of how “secretive” and “non-transparent” the Clintons are, and how they feel they’re “above the rules.” Because nothing says “secretive” like turning over 55,000 pages of your email to be posted online, and nothing says “I feel like I’m above the rules” like violating a rule that wasn’t in place when you were in office.

But surely there’s something juicy in the “personal” stuff she didn’t turn over. There’s undoubtedly a smoking gun about Benghazi in the emails between Hillary and the caterer for her daughter’s wedding. (“We decided to go with the white roses for the centerpieces, and BTW, I totally knew about the attack days in advance and did nothing because I hate America and wanted the ambassador to die. BWAHAHAHAHA. Hugs, HRC.”)

Is it irresponsible to speculate? As right-wing pundit Peggy Noonan once said about a particularly ludicrous rumor involving President Bill Clinton, it would be irresponsible not to. That, after all, is the standard used by our so-called liberal media for all things Clinton.

Our national political reportage has become an outright disgrace. Those outlets that aren’t blatant mouthpieces for the far right have become like particularly stupid hound dogs, dutifully chasing whatever manufactured “scandal of the week” gets ginned up by Drudge and Faux News, until actual analysis causes it to fall apart and they’re left chasing their tails in confusion. At least until next time, when the same moronic canines go baying off into the same woods because some right-wing blogger who’s off his meds points and yells, “Rabbit!”

In 1992, I got off the fence, put aside my misgivings about Bill Clinton, and threw my support behind him in large part because of the meanness, general blockheadedness, and pettiness of the forces arrayed against him.

I may have had my doubts, but I’d seen the Republican National Convention, and I knew I wanted nothing to do with those people, because they were bat-spit crazy. In 2015, it seems that history is repeating itself across the national media stage.

So I guess what I’m saying is that, once again, I’ve finally joined Team Clinton. Good job.

They Love Me In the Heartland

Thanks to the Lincoln, Nebraska Star Journal who posted this review of  Devils and Dust:

"Jack Keller is a hard man. He has a troubled past but is on the loose right now, playing at being a bartender in a saloon in a dusty desert town. Then Angela comes in, looking for Jack, and our hero is off on another adventure. This is the fourth Keller story, and they are always exciting.

Seems that Angela, in the bail bond business, searched out Jack to find her husband, Oscar, who went off himself to find his sons. Oscar is an illegal immigrant who had sent for his children to join him from Mexico, using a dangerous route that got violently interrupted. Now Jack will have to backtrack to find them all.

This gets complicated, because Jack and Angela used to be lovers, and there is a close tie between Jack and Oscar as well. Thus does the heart dictate our behavior.

Jack is truly a hard man, so you can expect violence, blood and rough action. You won’t be disappointed.

The plot involves a group of modern-day white supremacists who run a slavery community of hijacked men, women and children who are caught trying to get into the United States across the border. It is a story that seems all too true in these days of controversy over illegal entries with often-tragic consequences.

Unfortunately, the fiction approaches the truth."

Our Friend Bibi

The Pilot Newspaper: Opinion

You know, I’ve seen a lot of things in my life that I never thought I’d see. I’ve seen a squirrel on water skis. I’ve seen an old man talking to an empty chair on live TV while thousands cheered (and the rest of the world went, “What the [expletive deleted]?”) I’ve seen NC State win a national basketball championship.

But I never thought I’d see the day when one U.S. political party would attempt to score political points by inviting a foreign leader to come to a joint session of Congress and attempt to dictate our military and foreign policy to us.

This past Tuesday, the House Republicans took the unprecedented step of inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu to come to the floor of the United States House of Representatives to tell us what to do. This move was taken without consultation with the State Department or the president — a calculated slap in the face to one chief executive by another.

While Mr. Netanyahu took great pains to declare Israel a friend to America and vice versa, I don’t think it would be regarded as a friendly gesture were any U.S. president to bypass diplomatic protocol, go to the Israeli Knesset, and widen already existing rifts between that body and the prime minister by telling Israel everything it’s doing wrong.

Our Friend Bibi’s main topic was, as might be expected, Iran, and let’s just say he’s not a fan of the current talks being held between that country and six world powers, including the U.S., to restrict Iran’s nuclear program. 

He was sharply critical of the “deal” between the two countries, which is curious because, as yet, there is no deal. There are only proposals to which no one has yet agreed.

One of the things that worries Our Friend Bibi (let’s call him OFB for short) about the deal-that-isn’t is that (a) it leaves in place a civilian nuclear program, which he’s concerned could quickly “break out” into a military one, and (b) it expires in 10 years, after which that “breakout time” for a nuclear device would be “very short.”

He demands, in his words, “a better deal.” He did not, however, come up with any proposal for getting Iran to agree to dismantle the civilian program. And it’s a pipedream to believe that they’d do that without the use of force. But don’t worry. If it comes to having to use military force, be it air strikes or boots on the ground, I know OFB would fight to the last drop of American blood. He’s done it before.

Let’s not forget the last time OFB told us who and when we should be fighting. In 2002, he testified to Congress that “there is no question whatsoever that Saddam [Hussein] is seeking, is working, is advancing toward to the development of nuclear weapons,” and that “if you take out Saddam, Saddam’s regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region. And I think that people sitting right next door in Iran, young people, and many others, will say the time of such regimes, of such despots, is gone.”

How’d taking that advice work out for us?

As for OFB’s prophecy that, under the deal-that-isn’t, “Iran’s breakout time would be very short,” let us not forget his prior prediction that Iran was only “three to five years” from producing a nuke and that the threat had to be “uprooted by an international front headed by the U.S.” Only problem is, he said that in 1992 when he was a member of the Israeli parliament, and he’s been singing the same “any minute now” song ever since.

No one wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon. But in the quest to keep that from happening, we should not be browbeaten into abandoning the quest for a peaceful settlement. If we do go to war with Iran (and sadly, that may yet happen), it needs to be on our timetable, not Netanyahu’s.

No matter how much the “patriots” in the GOP want to poke the president in the eye, it shouldn’t be at the price of outsourcing our military and foreign policy, even to Our Friend Bibi, a blustering bully whose advice has been so disastrously wrong for us before.

O'Reilly, Williams and the Usual Gang of Idiots

The Pilot Newspaper: Opinion

It’s been a bad couple of weeks for broadcast “journalists.” First there was the kerfuffle over NBC anchorman Brian Williams, who, it seems, might have embellished some of his adventures covering the Iraq war. Williams, speaking at a tribute to a retired soldier, recalled the time when, so he says, the helicopter he was on was forced down by enemy fire.

He was later forced to recant by soldiers who were there at the time who said Williams didn’t show up until a half-hour to an hour after the incident. Williams apologized and is now on a six-month suspension from NBC News.

Among the harshest critics of Williams was Fox News Host Bill O’Reilly, who said that the incident illustrated “a culture of deception in the liberal media” and that his viewers should question “if other news organizations are distorting the facts.”

By “other news organizations,” of course, O’Reilly means “other than Fox News.” If his viewers began caring about news organizations “distorting the facts,” O’Reilly would be out of a job.

The online liberal magazine Mother Jones delved into some of O’Reilly’s own claims of exploits he had while covering the 1982 Falklands War for CBS. O’Reilly, for example, has repeatedly claimed that he was “in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands, where my photographer got run down and then hit his head and was bleeding from the ear on the concrete. And the army was chasing us.”

The story ends with O’Reilly dragging his photographer to safety. He disparaged journalist Bill Moyers by sneering, “I missed Moyers in the war zones of [the] Falkland conflict in Argentina, the Middle East, and Northern Ireland. I looked for Bill, but I didn’t see him.” And so on.

O’Reilly also talks about being caught in a “major riot” in Buenos Aires, where “many were killed” and O’Reilly himself had an automatic rifle pointed at him by an Argentine soldier.

Problem is, according to all accounts, no American journalists (and only a tiny handful of British ones) were allowed into the “war zone” in the Falklands, so it’s clear O’Reilly never reported from there. No one else can seem to remember the incident with the photographer.

As for the “major riot” with fatalities, CBS news’s own account (including footage apparently shot by O’Reilly and his team) shows an angry demonstration, but doesn’t show any violence beyond “a man throwing a punch against the car of a Canadian news crew,” according to the Mother Jones article (which actually includes the footage in question).

O’Reilly, confronted with these contradictions, immediately followed Williams’ example, issued a full apology, and went on a six-month hiatus from Fox News.

Ha ha! Just kidding. O’Reilly told Politico that the article was “garbage” and snarled that Corn was a “despicable guttersnipe.”

He even went so far as to threaten New York Times journalist Emily Steele if he didn’t like what she wrote. “I am coming after you with everything I have,” Steele says O’Reilly told her. “You can take it as a threat.”

This was probably a mistake. As I once said to Winston Churchill as we crouched in a bunker during the London Blitz, “Never get into a public fight with people who buy ink by the barrel.” I’ll never forget his reply to me: “Who the bloody [expletive deleted] are you?” Then he threw a Scotch bottle at me. That Winston. What a kidder.

Where both O’Reilly and Williams went wrong is that they began to believe in their own celebrity. The stories they were covering were larger than life, so they felt as if they needed to be larger themselves. It’s a perilous trap, as Master Yoda explained to me right before the attack on the second Death Star: “Forget not my words: the story you are not.”

The difference, however, is summed up in a conversation I had with Arianna Huffington when we were having a drink at the 2012 Democratic Convention. “To be a right-winger,” I told her over apple-tinis, “is to live life without consequences. Accountability is for liberals. If you’re on the right, you can lie, you can make stuff up, and if you get caught at it, all you have to do is claim that you’re the victim of a political vendetta by liberal media and stand your ground. Voila! You’re a right-wing hero.”

I’ll never forget her response: “Security! Over here!”

I think she’s kind of into me. Chicks dig it when I speak French like that. But hey, let’s keep that last part between us. No need to tell the wife. She’s still all stressed out from doing reshoots for the new “Avengers” movie.

THE GOBSHITES SPEAK: I knew this one would get a reaction from the usual gang of idiots, and as always, I'm right. Most of it is in the standard vein of "O'REILLY'S NOT A LIAR, YOU'RE A LIAR BLAGH BLAGH BLAGH! As always, the charge is led by the spasmodically  foaming "Francis", who used to post as "Mark," so I've taken to calling him "Mark/Francis": 

Francis posted at 9:31 am on Sun, Mar 1, 2015.

Posts: 1427

Talk about living life through the experiences of others, dude you have made a living from perfecting that craft, only uniform that yourself has ever worn is probably the BSA, and that may be stretching things a bit, only danger you faced has probably been trying to outrun your own shadow, l 'm not an O'Reilly fan but only thing worse than a liar is a coward that cashes in on writing about that liar.

There's nothing quite so amusing as being called a "coward" by someone who's already admitted in print he's so afraid of me that he doesn't dare post under his own name. Come out from under the rock, "Mark/Francis". I'm pretty sure I know who you are now anyway. 

Then of course, there's the weekly" "why are you writing about this" response by the people who can't wait every week to tell me how much they're bored by the column they read every week: 

FarmBoy posted at 10:04 pm on Sat, Feb 28, 2015.

Posts: 127

Gee Dusty, thanks for such a relevant topic.

Any time, FarmBoy. Let me know if you ever have anything useful to add. 

PUB DAY!

So, in case you haven't guessed, today is the "official" pub day for Devils and Dust. (You may have read a couple of things about that book in these pages). Grab it at your favorite bookstore...if they don't have it, ask why. Politely. Or, of course, you can order it at the usual places online. And don't forget, if you like it, please post a review at your favorte site, and don't forget to tell all your friends. Our books live and die by that kind of word of mouth advertising. Thanks for everyone who's helped bring this book to life, particularly Jason Pinter and Polis Books, and to everyone who's helping get the word out.

No One At the Wheel?

The Pilot Newspaper: Opinion

You can see it coming in the TV ads, in newspaper and magazine stories, and on the Internet: Every day, we get closer and closer to the truly self-driving car.

Soon, you’ll be able to jump in, tell your auto where to go, and just kick back while it uses a combination of computer software, GPS location and collision avoidance systems to get you there. But are we ready for what all of that means?

Engineers at Google have been working on what they call the “autonomous vehicle” for years. An early prototype (with a human driver aboard as backup) has logged over 700,000 accident-free miles as of 2014. The latest iteration is a little egg-shaped vehicle which has neither pedals nor steering wheel.

There are some bugs to work out, Google says, but they expect to have a model available for sale by 2017. Audi, Mercedes and the computer hardware company Nvidia, among others, are also said to be working on self-driving vehicles.

Meanwhile, according to rumors in the tech blogosphere, Apple is researching its own driverless car, to be called (what else?) the iCar. There are few specific details available, but I can guarantee you one thing: If Apple ever makes a car, it will be at least twice as expensive as its competitors’ vehicles, and the people who own them will quickly become insufferable. Anyone who’s asked for help with a PC in an online forum and immediately had at least two snotty Appleheads respond with “get a Mac” will know what I mean.

Ahead of the truly driverless car, you surely have noticed that new car models are being equipped with things like collision avoidance systems that brake or steer automatically when the car detects a possibility of an upcoming crash.

The Infiniti Q50’s “Predictive Forward Collision Warning System” claims to be able to able to notify drivers of potential hazards up to two cars ahead of them, possibly by the use of a tiny psychic in the glove compartment. Even parking is becoming automated. BMW is working on a system that will use side-mounted sensors to park the car without you even having to be in it.

The driverless car will certainly have its advantages. A report by the Eno Center for Transportation suggests that driverless cars could reduce crashes by over 4 million a year, save up to 21,700 lives and $109.7 billion, and save up to 724 million gallons of fuel. And, of course, if one can slump into one’s vehicle after a night of partying, tell it to “take me home,” then catch a few Z’s on the way, it’ll revolutionize drinking in this country.

Still, it doesn’t appear as if we have thought this thing all the way through.

For one thing, driverless vehicles could cause massive job displacement in transportation-related industries such as cab driving, long-haul trucking, and the music industry. I mean, seriously, if 18-wheelers can drive themselves, what will happen to at least a third of country music? If driverless cabs turn a generation of surly foreigners out onto the streets, what will be the implications for our national security?

But seriously, folks: A recent report commissioned by Massachusetts Sen. Edward Markey reveals some disturbing things. The report noted that tests demonstrate “how hackers can get into the controls of some popular cars and SUVs, causing them suddenly to accelerate, turn, sound the horn, turn headlights off or on and modify speedometer and gas-gauge readings,” according to The Christian Science Monitor.

Cars have basically become big computers, Markey’s report points out, and automakers have done nothing to address the threat of hacking. I’m not looking forward to the day when some East European script-kiddie can not only steal my credit card information off the card reader on the gas pump, but also drive my car into the river with me in it before I can do anything about it.

Not scared yet? Consider this: If hackers can do it, the government can.

Admittedly, there’s currently no recognized right to privacy in where you go on a public street or highway. That’s why they’re called “public.” But in a world where someone will have the ability to sit at a desk and not only see everywhere you go, but take control of your car and drive it where they want, maybe there should be.

All kidding aside, our lawmakers for once should get out in front of technology and make some sane regulations mandating security protocols for the self-driving car and providing some kind of privacy protection, rather than playing catch-up when something awful happens.