Straight Talk on Social Security

UPDATE: Josh Marshall

The debate about Social Security is the same as it was in 2005 and in most respects the same as it was in 1965. You have one group who believe in the current system -- which is an intergenerational bargain, insuring a baseline level of retirement security as well as insurance against premature, disability and for dependent children. The other side -- McCain's side -- thinks this is just wrong, morally and economically. And in its place they want to create a system of individual private investment accounts -- similar to a lifetime 401k.

That's the essence of the debate.

MESSAGE TO CONGRESS ON SOCIAL SECURITY. JANUARY 17, 1935

In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, non-contributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps thirty years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.

Progress and Prospects Under the Social Security Act. May 25, 1937

To be concrete, if we adopt the pay-as-you-go system, we must make absolutely certain that at the same time we not only balance the budget but proceed to retire the government debt within the next generation through the imposition, let us hope, of progressive taxes, in order that we do not reach a period in the future when the burden of the interest charges on a large public debt and the burden of a large government subsidy to the Federal Old-Age Insurance plan cannot be sustained through current taxation.

A Statement on the Automatic Increase in the Tax Rate Under the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance System. November 27, 1944

In my testimony before this Committee last January, I made the following statement: "In the history of social insurance throughout the world the major difficulty of social insurance systems has been the lack of adequate financing of old-age retirement benefits. It is always easiest to delay levying the necessary insurance contributions, thus perpetuating and strengthening the belief that the insurance benefits are meager and the costs of the insurance system are low. Inevitably, when the time comes to increase the taxes, many reasons can always be advanced as to why the imposition of the additional taxes is unwise or impossible. In this country we are still in a position to avoid these mistakes by getting clearly established now that if our people want social insurance they must be willing to pay for it. The time to obtain the necessary contributions is when people are able to pay for the insurance and are willing to pay for it because they can be shown that they are getting their money's worth. If we should let a situation develop whereby it eventually becomes necessary to charge future beneficiaries rates in excess of the actuarial cost of the protection afforded them, we would be guilty of gross inequity and gross financial mismanagement, bound to imperil our social insurance system."

Framing the Social Security Debate: Values, Politics, and Economics. 1998

Competing reform proposals reflect contrasting views about the nature of the Social Security problem and how to solve it. This book examines issues about privatization, national savings and economic growth, the political risks and realities in reforms, lessons from private pension developments in the United States, and the efforts of other advanced industrial countries to adapt their old-age pensions to an aging population. It also poses philosophical arguments about collective versus individual responsibility and the implications of market risks and political risks for stable and secure retirement income policy.

The Real Deal: The History and Future of Social Security, p. 227. 1999

The original architects and builders of our Social Security system, such as Arthur Altmeyer, anticipated exactly the situation we face with pay-as-you-go financing. They thought it would prove to be unfair to future workers, and they did not want to see that eventuality materialize.

The Real Deal: The History and Future of Social Security, p. 202. 1999

We hope that this has convinced you that a pay-as-you-go Social Security system is not without risks. Americans are in this program for an entire lifetime and the risks are considerable. Think about it -- taxes were raised and benefits cut in 1977. Taxes were raised and future benefits cut in 1983. Now we see that the system has a large long-term deficit. Unless we consider changing its very structure, we will have no choice but to raise taxes and cut benefits once again. There aren't a lot of choices for fixing Social Security other than straightforward tax hikes and benefit cuts -- that is unless we set about designing a system that increases our nation's saving rate and ultimately increases the wealth of our children and grandchildren.

An Overview of the Social Security Program. 2001

From Social Security's earliest days, a contentious issue was whether the benefits that workers and their families received should be prefunded using the taxes that those workers paid, rather than the taxes paid by current workers. As the program was enacted in 1935, revenues dedicated to Social Security would have exceeded outlays by enough to build up very large surpluses. In effect, those excess revenues would have helped fund, in advance, the benefits that the same workers would receive later. Opponents of prefunding argued that such an arrangement would result either in pressure to increase spending or in federal government ownership of private assets. Later expansions to the program, along with postponement of increases in the payroll tax rate that were originally scheduled to occur during the 1940s, essentially moved Social Security to a pay-as-you-go basis.⁽²³⁾ That pay-as-you-go structure has worked, although with many changes in taxes and benefits along the way. But it has worked largely because the labor force has grown rapidly during much of the program's history. That situation is about to change, as the number of Social Security beneficiaries begins to increase much faster than the number of workers.

Remember

Remember Me


Fm 7-21-13 :: Appendix C :: Section III- Memorial Ceremony

Memorial ceremonies are patriotic tributes to deceased soldiers....

In most cases, the unit prepares a program that may include a biographical summary of the deceased soldier with mention of awards and decorations. The following elements are commonly part of a memorial ceremony:

• Prelude (often suitable music).
• Posting of the Colors.
• National Anthem.
• Invocation.
• Memorial Tribute (e.g., remarks by unit commander or a friend of the deceased).
• Scripture Reading.
• Hymn or other special music.
• Meditation (quiet moment for attendees to reflect).
• Benediction.
• Last Roll Call. This is a final tribute paid by soldiers to their fallen comrade. It has its origin in the accountability roll call conducted by the unit First Sergeant following combat. Although sometimes painful to listen through, the Last Roll is called with the conviction held by soldiers that all unit members will be accounted for, and none will ever be forgotten.
• Firing of rifle volleys.
• Taps.

Pentagon Memorial

"The memorial should instill the ideas that patriotism is a moral duty, that freedom comes at a price, and that the victims of this attack have paid the ultimate price...We challenge you to create a memorial that translates this terrible tragedy into a place of solace, peace, and healing."

The Media Store
Tune: Sixteen Tons

Some people say a man is made out of mud
A soldier's made out of muscle and blood
Muscle and blood, skin and bones...
A mind that's sharp and a back that's strong

Chorus:
I served sixteen years, and what did I get?
My flag-draped casket all over the 'net
St. Peter, don't you call me, 'cause I can't go
They gave my soul to the Media store

Woke up one mornin' and the sun didn't shine
Boots, rifle, beret made into a shrine
My voice was absent when they called roll
the Chaplain said, "God bless his soul!"

(Chorus)

They carried me slowly thru the drizzlin' rain
and laid me gently on the ramp of the plane
My Brothers in Arms honored my name
A "cost of war," it's a cryin' shame

(Chorus)

Flag-draped caskets came home before
but you weren't there, before the war
You got your photos but there'll be no more
There's no honor in the Media store

UPDATE:
A media protest clouds Marine's final journey

But what bothers me is the way the somber ceremony to honor a man who died for his country got manipulated by the media to create outrage.

Yeah, because those cemetery vultures can't get enough special care and feeding at another man's funeral.

Honoring Weingarten's Humor

o s, s brtu dytpmh [rtdpm/

p,h yjsy esd gimmu@ omg that was funny!

230 for pundustry. (0.10 seconds)

Subprime Mortgage History

Janet at Xark! links to a BBC Q&A on the mortgage "crisis."

What we're seeing in the mortgage market is just a piece of the larger credit "crisis" resulting from bad decisions by private lenders and borrowers after deregulation.

The evolution of the subprime mortgage market (pdf, 2006)

Many factors have contributed to the growth of subprime lending. Most fundamentally, it became legal. The ability to charge high rates and fees to borrowers was not possible until the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (DIDMCA) was adopted in 1980. It preempted state interest rate caps. The Alternative Mortgage Transaction Parity Act (AMTPA) in 1982 permitted the use of variable interest rates and balloon payments.

These laws opened the door for the development of a subprime market, but subprime lending would not become a viable large-scale lending alternative until the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA). The TRA increased the demand for mortgage debt because it prohibited the deduction of interest on consumer loans, yet allowed interest deductions on mortgages for a primary residence as well as one additional home....

Although the subprime mortgage market emerged in the early 1980s with the adoption of DIDMCA, AMTPA, and TRA, subprime lending rapidly grew only after 1995, when MBS with subprime-loan collateral become more attractive to investors....

During the 1990s, average credit scores tended to decline each year, particularly for ARM borrowers; but since 2000, credit scores have tended to improve each year. Hence, it appears that subprime lenders expanded during the 1990s by extending credit to less-credit-worthy borrowers. Subsequently, the lower credit quality unexpectedly instigated higher delinquency and default rates (see also Temkin, Johnson, and Levy, 2002).

TREASURY DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY MICHAEL S. BARR
REMARKS TO THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ATTORNEYS GENERAL PREDATORY LENDING SUMMIT
PORTLAND, MAINE (2000)

When lower-income families went looking for home equity debt in the past, many may not have been able to find it due to their limited or poor credit history. With the rise of the subprime lending market, however, it has become relatively easier for these borrowers to access credit. As the Treasury-HUD report noted, the volume of subprime mortgage originations has increased nearly five times over in the last five years. As a means for expanding the availability of credit, the development of this market has represented a signal achievement for our economy.

UPDATE:
The Crisis of Credit Visualized from Jonathan Jarvis.

This American Life, The Giant Pool of Money

An Anthology of Journalism's Decline

Hutchins' Report: A Free And Responsible Press (1947)

Today our society needs, first, a truthful, comprehensive, and intelligent account of the day's events in a context which gives them meaning; second, a forum for the exchange of comment and criticism; third, a means of projecting the opinions and attitudes of the groups in the society to one another; fourth, a method of presenting and clarifying the goals and values of the society; and, fifth, a way of reaching every member of the society by the currents of information, thought, and feeling which the press supplies.

Objectivity as Strategic Ritual: An Examination of Newsmen's Notions of Objectivity (1972)

To journalists, like social scientists,² the term "objectivity" stands as a bulwark between themselves and critics. Attacked for a controversial presentation of "facts," newspapermen invoke their objectivity almost the way a Mediterranean peasant might wear a clove of garlic around his neck to ward off evil spirits.

Untended Gates: The Mismanaged Press (1986)

The unprofessional gatekeeper system clearly has to be judged as being one of the root causes of the steady slide of public confidence in journalism.

Governing with the News: The News Media as a Political Institution (1998)

Instead, the news media share more with two other political institutions: the political parties, and the interest group system.

Uncertain Guardians: The News Media as a Political Institution (1999)

In this book I build on the work of Cater and his successors, Leon Sigal and Herbert Cans in particular, to explain why the news media effectively constitute a political institution and why this fact matters to students of American politics.

Snob Journalism: Elitism Versus Ethics for a Profession in Crisis (2003)

Most journalists don't know the history of their profession, have not read great works of their predecessors and have not read even the small number of major philosophical works produced by journalists.

When psychologist Bill Damon and his colleagues were researching their book "Good Work: When Excellence and Ethics Meet," they found they had never studied a profession that did as poor a job as journalism of handing down the collected wisdom of one generation to another.

The State of the News Media: Public Attitudes (2007)

All that comes, of course, against a background of more than 20 years of growing skepticism about journalists, their companies and the news media as an institution. As we have noted in other reports,since the early 1980s, the public has come to view the news media as less professional, less accurate, less caring, less moral and more inclined to cover up rather than correct mistakes.

UPDATE: The above are, of course, supplements to Andy's required reading for journalists (pro-am and networked).

Gallup: Media Use and Evaluation

Previous:
Lippman-Dewey Blogosphere
Culture War: Institutions vs. Media

Movement Marxism Masquerading as Liberalism

NYT on Paul Krugman's Conscience of a Liberal: "It’s a story that is as factually shaky as it is narratively simplified."

The biggest problem I have with Princeton Professor Paul Krugman is the intellectual dishonesty of his journalistic persona.

Interagency Unity of Effort: Goldwater-Nichols II

LTG (Ret.) Sanchez's keynote speech at the 6th annual Military Reporters & Editors (MRE) conference has been badly reported in the news. I've read the MRE transcript and watched the C-SPAN video. The transcript is pretty good, but the video is much, much better. The MRE transcript misses some of Sanchez's speech and has none of the Q&A. The C-SPAN video is an hour long, but you don't need to watch the first 8 1/2 minutes or the last four minutes.

I recommend the video, it is worth at least 48 minutes of your time. I also recommend you start the download, hit pause on the Real player (the video continues to download) and come back when it's all downloaded. Forward the scroll bar to about the 08:30 mark and watch when you can get 48 minutes of (mostly) uninterrupted time.

The first 10 minutes of Sanchez's speech is spent criticizing the media. The rest of his speech (12 minutes) is spent criticizing (primarily) the political leadership. The Q&A lasts 26 minutes.

I do want to pull out one part of Sanchez's speech criticizing America's "interagency" leadership (about 27:40 into the video):

Achieving unity of effort in Iraq has been elusive to date primarily because there is no entity that has the authority to direct the actions of our interagency. As I stated before, our National Security Council has been a failure. Furthermore, America's ability to hold the interagency accountable for their failures in this war is non-existent. This must change. We probably need to implement a Goldwaters-like Nichols act for the interagency. As a nation we must recognize that the enemy we face is committed to destroying our way of life. This enemy is arguably more dangerous than any threat we faced in the twentieth century. Our political leaders must place national security objectives above partisan politics, demand intergency unity of effort, and never again commit America to war without a grand strategy that embraces the basic tenets of the Powell doctrine. [emphasis added]

I've written previously about this in The Surge as Foreign Internal Defense. Specifically, from Joint Publication 3-07.1, Joint Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures for Foreign Internal Defense (FID) (1.6MB pdf):

Ensure Unity of Effort. As a tool of US foreign policy, FID is a national-level program effort that involves numerous USG [US Government] agencies that may play a dominant role in providing the content of FID plans. Planning must coordinate an integrated theater effort that is joint, interagency, and multinational in order to reduce inefficiencies and enhance strategy in support of FID programs. An interagency political-military plan that provides a means for achieving unity of effort among USG agencies is described in Appendix D, Illustrative Interagency Political-Military Plan for Foreign Internal Defense.

How long, how many more times, will we kick the "new Goldwaters-Nichols Act" for "interagency jointness" down the road?

Let's review, shall we?

From a military perspective, Joint Pub 3-08 Vols I & II (pdf), Interagency Coordination During Joint Operations, describe what agencies are involved and what they do. The National Defense University has an html excerpt online from the 1996 editions of JP 3-08 listing the agencies. Both pubs were updated and republished in March 2006.

In May 1997, President Clinton promulgated Presidential Decision Directive 56: Managing Complex Contingency Operations. Read it. It further defined interagency planning and coordination for "complex contingency operations."

In 1998, Mark Walsh and Micheal J. Harwood published a good article in Parameters titled Complex Emergencies: Under New Management, which further describes interagency coordination during "complex emergencies," "complex contingency operations" and Clinton's PDD-56.

In December 1999, Rowan Scarborough reported for the Washington Times:

"NSC not stepping forward in leadership role," states the study conducted by A.B. Technologies in Alexandria for the Joint Chiefs of Staff....

The documents, dated November, say none of the heads of the military's postgraduate schools, such as the National Defense University, is "directly engaged in the training effort."

What's more, most agencies told the consultants they have no role in carrying out PDD 56, when in fact they do.

"There are no agency accountability checks to see what has been done, who has done it," the report says.

The report presents the ironic situation of the NSC, which had the lead in carrying out PDD 56, not following a directive sent out by the president it advises.

Moreover, PDD 56 was largely ignored by an administration that has sent American troops on a record number of so-called "contingencies" on foreign soil. The missions have included peacekeeping in Somalia, Haiti, East Timor and Bosnia, as well as air strikes on targets in Iraq, Bosnia, Sudan, Afghanistan and Serbia.

On February 13, 2001, the Bush administration promulgated National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 1, Organization of the National Security Council System. During Bush's first term, the two names most responsible for interagency coordination concerning Iraq were Condoleezza Rice as the National Security Advisor and Elliot Abrams as the Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director of the NSC Policy Coordination Committee for Democracy, Human Rights, and International Operations and later as the Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director of the NSC Policy Coordination Committee for Near East and North African Affairs.

The U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century began a comprehensive review of America's national security in July 1998 and has published 3 volumes. The third volume, Road Map for National Security: Imperative for Change (pdf), was published February 15, 2001. This is a 156-page report, but I highly recommend at least reading the 10-page Executive Summary. You might also be interested in reviewing the 50 recommendations in Appendix 1:

This appendix lists all of the Phase III Report’s major recommendations in order of
their presentation. The recommendations are numbered sequentially and grouped by Section. The page on which the recommendation appears in the report is noted in the box. Those recommendations in red type indicate recommendations on which Congressional action is required for implementation. Those in blue type can be implemented by Executive Order. Those in green type can be implemented by the head of an Executive Branch department or agency, or by the Congressional leadership, as appropriate.

Also in 2001, the National Defense University was funded "to develop and conduct an interagency training program." This became the Interagency Transformation, Education, and After-Action Review (ITEA) Program. I recommend visiting their website. There is a lot of good information there, and the foundation for developing training for a "National Security Service Corps." There is also a good set of high-level briefing slides (ppt) on NSPD-1 there.

The Center for Strategic & International Studies has also published two volumes under its
Beyond Goldwater-Nichols effort:

Beyond Goldwater-Nichols (BG-N) is a three-phased effort to explore the next era of defense reform. Its primary goal is to develop an integrated set of practical and actionable recommended reforms for organizing both the U.S. military and national security apparatus to meet 21st century challenges. As part of its outreach to build the case for necessary reforms, the BG-N study team serves as an honest broker among the various stakeholders, including between and among the Defense Department (DoD), the State Department, the White House, and the Congress, as well as among the various parties in DoD....

The BG-N study team released the Phase 1 Final Report in March 2004, in which a number of areas were addressed, including: reassessing the civilian, joint, and service balance; building a strategy-driven, more efficient resource allocation process; strengthening the cadre of national security and defense civilians; improving DoD's and the U.S. government’s ability to conduct interagency and combined operations; and more. Phase 2 of the BG-N study was released in July 2005. With seven working groups this phase tackles a slate of issues, including: capabilities for 21st century missions; the regional and functional command structures; the U.S. government’s design in light of 21st century challenges; the defense acquisition process; the commercial-like defense agencies; joint officer management and professional military education; and new domains of warfare.

"On August 5, 2004, Secretary Powell announced the creation of the Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization (S/CRS) to enhance our nation's institutional capacity to respond to crises involving failing, failed, and post-conflict states and complex emergencies [link added]." Under the S/CRS is the S/CRS Inter-Agency Team.

On December 7, 2005, the Bush administration promulgated NSPD-44, Mananagement of Interagency Efforts Concerning Reconstruction and Stabilization. This makes the State Department the "focal point":

(i) to coordinate and strengthen efforts of the United States Government to prepare, plan for, and conduct reconstruction and stabilization assistance and related activities in a range of situations that require the response capabilities of multiple United States Government entities and (ii) to harmonize such efforts with U.S. military plans and operations.

and so on ...

The "interagency process" needs to be legislated and funded, for the same reasons that the "joint process" in the military needed the Goldwater-Nichols Act. There's been a significant amount of research and effort in this area over the last decade. The Department of Homeland Security has statutory interagency responsibility (and accountability) for domestic operations.

What department or equivalent "unified commander" in the field is accountable for "interagency jointness" for all the other operations?

Other References:
National Defense University bibliography on Interagency Coordination
U.S. Military Operations in Iraq: Planning, Combat and Occupation (April 26, 2006)
OIF Phase IV: A Planner's Reply to Brigadier Aylwin-Foster (March-April 2006)
Phase IV Operations: Where Wars are Really Won (May - June 2005)
Transforming for Stabilization and Reconstruction Operations (November 12, 2003)

Previous:
The Surge as Stabilty and Support
The Surge as Foreign Internal Defense
Would Sun Tzu Surge?
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Iraq v2.0

NYT Contributes to MoveOn?

This looks bad: About that NYT MoveOn discount.

Do you think the NYT is calling MoveOn right now to explain their "billing error?"

Nah, me neither.

UPDATE: Angered by an Antiwar Ad, Giuliani Seeks Equal Space

[Catherine J. Mathis, a spokeswoman for The New York Times Company,] said the department charges advocacy groups $64,575 for full-page, black-and-white advertisements that run on a “standby” basis, meaning an advertiser can request a specific day and placement but is not guaranteed them.

Betraying Its Own Best Interests

Catherine Mathis, vice president of corporate communications for The Times, said, "We made a mistake."

No moving on from 'General Betray Us' story; NYT admits mistake, MoveOn issues new challenge

MoveOn issued a statement this afternoon saying that it will send the Times a check for $77,083 to cover the difference between what it was charged and the higher rate that it should have paid.

Free Hugs

See if you can watch this without smiling ....

Before Karl Rove, There Was Bill Moyers

Hoover's Institution

Only a few weeks before the 1964 election, a powerful presidential assistant, Walter Jenkins, was arrested in a men's room in Washington. Evidently, the president was concerned that Barry Goldwater would use that against him in the election. Another assistant, Bill Moyers, was tasked to direct Hoover to do an investigation of Goldwater's staff to find similar evidence of homosexual activity. Mr. Moyers' memo to the FBI was in one of the files.

When the press reported this, I received a call in my office from Mr. Moyers. Several of my assistants were with me. He was outraged; he claimed that this was another example of the Bureau salting its files with phony CIA memos. I was taken aback. I offered to conduct an investigation, which if his contention was correct, would lead me to publicly exonerate him. There was a pause on the line and then he said, "I was very young. How will I explain this to my children?" And then he rang off. I thought to myself that a number of the Watergate figures, some of whom the department was prosecuting, were very young, too.

COINTELPRO: BOOK II: INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

-- President Johnson asked the FBI to conduct "name checks" of his critics and of members of the staff of his 1964 opponent, Senator Barry Goldwater.⁵⁴ He also requested purely political intelligence on his critics in the Senate, and received extensive intelligence reports on political activity at the 1964 Democratic Convention from FBI electronic surveillance.⁵⁵

Endnote 54: Memorandum from [J]. Edgar Hoover to Bill Moyers, 10/27/64.

This particular ad was designed to run only one time. We have a few more Goldwater ads, none as hard-hitting as that one was, and then we go to the pro-Johnson, pro-Peace, Prosperity, Preparedness spots.

Bill Moyers

UPDATE: Jack Shafer digs further into Moyers' background and credibility.
The Intolerable Smugness of Bill Moyers
Moyers Responds to Slate
More on Moyers
Bill Moyers' Memory

HuffPo's Lows: Martin Lewis

Martin Lewis penned a post for HuffPo imploring GEN Pace to court-martial President Bush.

His case seems to be based on the idea that the President is a person subject to Chapter 47 of the US Code. He's not: Section 802. Art. 2. Persons subject to this chapter.

It seems odd that Lewis would go to the trouble of linking to punitive articles in the same chapter, but not bother to check, or link to, the section of the UCMJ that actually states who is subject to the UCMJ. OK, not so odd given the author and the publisher.

Besides being factually ignorant, it's a terrible opinion (as in stupid) to promote the idea that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff can or should court-martial a President. It demonstrates an absolute lack of civic understanding about our government, our military, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, etc., ....

Oh well, "There's always tomorrow..."

How Low Can You Go?

Gallup:

A new Gallup Poll finds Congress' approval rating the lowest it has been since Gallup first tracked public opinion of Congress with this measure in 1974. Just 18% of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, while 76% disapprove, according to the August 13-16, 2007, Gallup Poll.

Previous: It's Practically Bipartisan Solidarity!!!

War Stories: Carter and Beauchamp

Phil Carter wrote about Beauchamp on Slate, his blog and spoke to NPR.

If I understand his point, even if Beauchamp's story is exaggerated and/or fabricated and the New Republic failed its editorial responsibility, he is concerned that true stories about the (uncomfortable/awful) realities of war are not (will not be) heard by the public.

What I found most interesting was Carter's seeming contradiction in his own assessment of the veracity of Beauchamp's anecdotes:

I am deeply skeptical about the veracity of Beauchamp's dispatches, particularly the last one, but disinclined to offer definitive pronouncements at this time....

Among military circles, the reaction to Beauchamp's stories has been mixed. A number of my friends were disturbed by the article, especially what it implied about his unit and its leadership, but very few questioned its basic truth.... Beauchamp's tale was neither believable nor patently untrue on its face.

There were many technical and organizational reasons to be skeptical of Beauchamp's tales. I find it difficult to believe that Carter's military friends were not as skeptical as he was. I'm also surprised that Carter doesn't express support for publicly questioning Beauchamp's tales given his own skepticism.

I was disturbed by Beauchamp's article because of my own deep skepticism that it was true. I would have been more disturbed by the article, and what it implied about Beauchamp's unit and leadership, if it was true.

Beauchamp disturbs me either way. Either his tales about his own disturbing behavior are true or he exaggerated/fabricated them.

It's also one thing to tell exaggerated or fabricated personal and secondhand "war stories" at "unit reunions and American Legion halls" and quite another to publish them publicly as nonfiction to further your personal ambition as an "author."

At the end of his Slate piece, Carter offers advice for journalists attempting to tell the story of what happens in wartime:

... The New Republic erred in granting Beauchamp a pseudonym. In this instance, Beauchamp's personal credibility as a combat infantryman would have bolstered his reports immeasurably.... The lesson here is that in war reporting, as with all reporting, you can certainly use anonymous sources, but only with the proper due diligence.

Granting Beauchamp a pseudonym was not the error. Identifying Beauchamp as a combat infantryman rather than as a soldier would not have "bolstered his reports immeasurably." There is no first and second lesson, as Carter suggests, but just the one: "The lesson here is that in war reporting, as with all reporting, you can certainly use anonymous sources, but only with the proper due diligence."

The error was granting Beauchamp a pseudonym without investing the editorial oversight required of a publication doing so ("proper due diligence"). That's the difference between being an Internet Service Provider for a self-publishing anonymous military blogger in Baghdad, and being the New Republic publishing articles by a pseudonymous "freelance writer and soldier currently serving in Baghdad."

It is also the comparison between "Jeff Gannon" and "Scott Thomas" that the New Republic should want to avoid. "Jeff Gannon" was a pseudonym for a partisan hack getting White House day passes writing for an obscure partisan website. "Scott Thomas" was a pseudonym for a "freelance writer and soldier currently serving in Baghdad" writing a diary for the magazine's print edition and website. If the comparison becomes a distinction without a difference for the American public, the credibility of the New Republic is in real trouble.

Related:
The Army Responds
Why I Serve: An affluent big-city lawyer explains why he did

Previous:
Not Blogging About Beauchamp

Stone and Sharratt Cleared in Haditha Case

All charges dropped against 2 Marines in Haditha killings

All charges were dropped against a captain accused of failing to investigate the deaths of 24 civilians in Haditha, the Marine Corps announced Thursday. Also, all charges were dropped against Marine Lance Cpl. Justin L. Sharratt, who had been accused of killing three Iraqi brothers in response to a roadside bomb attack in Haditha in 2005.

Statements from Gen. Mattis on the Capt. Stone and LCpl. Sharratt decisions

Murtha: Mum's the word.

Pundit Review:

Making this nightmare even worse, Murtha is the Sharratt’s congressmen. It took Darryl Sharratt 53 phone calls over 18 months to get Murtha on the line.

More at Gateway Pundit and memeorandum.

Previous: Haditha Roundup

President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors

Message from the Co-Chairs

Next month, this Commission will convene to publicly discuss our recommendations. In doing so, we must fulfill the following objectives of our charter:

• Evaluate and recommend improvments, where needed, to the transition from wounded warrior status back to military service or civilian life
• Evaluate and recommend ways to ensure access to the highest-quality service for returning wounded warriors
• Analyze the effectiveness of the process through which health care services and benefits are delivered.”
  

Commission Urges Improvements to Servicemembers' Care

Today, the nine-member panel outlined six recommendations:

• Create comprehensive health recovery plans and develop a corps of highly trained coordinators to help servicemembers transition back to military duty or civilian life every step of the way.

• Simplify the way disabilities are determined and make the compensation system less confusing.

• Improve the system for diagnosing and treating post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injuries, and work to make servicemembers less vulnerable to these two signature ailments of the war on terror.

• Significantly strengthen support for Families.

• Develop "My eBenefits," a one-stop Web site and information source for servicemembers that combines Defense Department and Veterans Affairs databases.

• Keep Walter Reed staffed with first-rate professionals until it closes in 2011.

Movie: No End in Sight

MountainRunner Movie Review: No End in Sight

This is a must see movie even if you have been paying attention. This is not Michael Moore emotional hyperbole but a factual account of failed leadership. If you haven't been paying attention, which is probably not many readers of this blog, Ferguson creates an easily digested synopsis of how America managed to create an insurgency in Iraq.

Intel Dump's Phil Carter Movie Review: "No End in Sight"

Bottom line up front: go see this movie.

James Fallows: 'No End in Sight': Definitely, see this movie

It covers almost exactly the same terrain, including many of the same sources and anecdotes, as did my book Blind Into Baghdad. But rarely have I seen a clearer demonstration of how much more powerful the combination of pictures, sound, music, real-people-talking, etc can be than words on a page.

Morally Retarded

Related:
What should we say to our soldiers in Iraq?
Arguing About War
Just And Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument With Historical Illustrations

Previous: Bookends

Steve Bailey's Straw Man Purchase and Column

Did the Boston Globe buy Walter Belair a handgun, or did Walter Belair buy a handgun for Steve Bailey with the Boston Globe's money ... and then Bailey gifted the handgun to Belair?

Bailey first tried to buy the handgun using John Rosenthal, a Massachusetts resident, at a New Hampshire gun show with the Boston Globe's money and was denied because Rosenthal was an out-of-state purchaser. So Bailey gave $240 of the Globe's money to Belair (a New Hampshire resident) to buy the handgun. Belair filled out the ATF form, passed the NICS background check, bought the handgun with Bailey's money and kept the handgun.

Listen to the show below starting at the 11 minute point, Rosenthal:

... I was the one talking to the dealer, I said, "I would like to buy this particular handgun, can I?"

He said, "Yeah sure, no problem." He said, "I need to see, uh, where are you from?"

I said, "Massachusetts."

He said, "No, no, no, you can't buy that handgun 'cause you're from Massachusetts but you can buy that long gun or military style assault weapon, no problem."

And I said, "Well, how 'bout if my buddy here who's a New Hampshire resident buys the gun?" And he said, "Oh, no problem." knowing full well it was a straw purchase.

Now listen to Steve Bailey defend his involvement in the admitted straw man purchase.



Poland WRKO - Tom Finneran - Steve Bailey Guns, and Kids

Related:
Bailey’s Straw Purchase: It’s not about bullying, It’s about breaking the law
18 USC § 922(a)(6). Unlawful acts

It shall be unlawful for any person in connection with the acquisition or attempted acquisition of any firearm or ammunition from a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, knowingly to make any false or fictitious oral or written statement or to furnish or exhibit any false, fictitious, or misrepresented identification, intended or likely to deceive such importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of such firearm or ammunition under the provisions of this chapter;

ATF F 4473 (5300.9)
ATF's Learning Theater

Judge Dismisses Plame Lawsuit

Plame's Suit Against Top Officials Dismissed

Ha, Ha!

It's Practically Bipartisan Solidarity!!!

Voters unhappy with Bush; Congress: Reuters poll

An even bigger majority, 83 percent, say the Democratic-controlled Congress is doing only a fair or poor job -- the worst mark for Congress in a Zogby poll....

While 83 percent said Congress was doing a fair or poor job, just 14 percent rated it excellent or good. Last October, in its final days, the Republican-led Congress earned ratings of excellent or good from 23 percent of voters. [my emphasis]

Previous:
More Bipartisan Agreement!!

The 24 percent approval rating for Congress matched its previous low, which came in June 2006, five months before Democrats won control of the House and Senate due to public discontent with the job Republicans were doing.

Finally, Bipartisan Agreement on Something!

The percentage of Americans with a "great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in Congress is at 14%, the lowest in Gallup's history of this measure -- and the lowest of any of the 16 institutions tested in this year's Confidence in Institutions survey. It is also one of the lowest confidence ratings for any institution tested over the last three decades. [my emphasis]

Related: This Isn't What I Voted For