cut on the bias

Flexibility vs sticking to a plan

The husband of one of my close friends is an assistant chief of his local fire department; he's been a firefighter for more than 30 years. When the media began heating up about how the American military plan had failed and planners were having to revamp, he compared it to fighting fires.

Firefighters study fires. They understand how various materials affect fire movement and heat, what dangers exist in different types of buildings, how fires generally must be approached based on where they are and what's burning. They train for as many scenarios as possible in their exercises, and try to anticipate the impact of intervening factors: wind, cold, ice, snow, rain, extreme heat, problems with water or ability to reach the fire. In a sense, whenever firefighters are sent to put out a fire, they arrive with a "plan".

But every situation is different. You can't plan with precision because you don't know how the circumstances of a specific fire scene will come together. What if victims are inside? What if there are unanticipated highly flammable materials? What if the crowd watching it gets too close, or if someone starts trying to hurt the firefighters? What if several of those factors come together at once? It doesn't mean the firefighters are unprepared or impulsive or confused if they approach a new fire differently than any other fire before. And if in the middle of the fire some unexpected circumstance intervened, they wouldn't be irresponsible or incompetent if they changed how they approached the fire scene.

The same is true of the military. It's important to be flexible, as hard as that is with tens of thousands of troops involved, and our military is responding to circumstances that arise. The way the military thinks about this is clearly expressed in this excellent article by Mackubin Thomas in NRO:

As best as I can ascertain, the war plan for Iraq was designed to cause paralysis by simultaneously attacking the pillars of Saddam’s power: the Baath party, internal-security forces, and the Republican Guard. For a variety of reasons, the desired outcome — the rapid collapse of the regime — did not occur. The path to the objective had to be modified. This is not rewriting the plan but modifying elements of it “on the basis of situations that cannot be foreseen."

But this quote from an Australian Broadcasting Corporation article about the "struggles" of embedded journalists, and journalists covering the war in general, is very telling:

Journalists in Iraq, whether embedded with coalition forces or holed up under the eye of Iraqi authorities in Baghdad, face a tough time reporting on a nasty war that has singularly failed to stay on message.

"Failed to stay on message"? Is this supposed to be a political campaign? It shows that the media has a frame they've placed the war in, that they have decided it's going to go this particular way and when it doesn't it's "off plan" or "off message". They aren't reporting what is, they're trying to fit what is into what they think should be. It's a huge difference, and has more to do with the coverage saying the military plan has changed than does the actual military changes.

Pay attention to how the media is covering this, and think about the fire fighting analogy. I think you'll see what I'm saying.

And, on a final note, I think the military is precisely on message: Getting rid of Saddam and his thugs. So what if it takes an extra ladder truck, and three fighters taking on the fire from the left instead of two from the right? The fire will be out, the goal will be accomplished, and the media will be left to analyze how poorly the military stayed within the media's definition of the military message.

Polling bias at Reuters? Noooooo!

Mike the Armchair Analyst has found bias by Reuters in an article on a poll about American support for the war. It's a good example of using careful wording so you're accurate in a strict sense, but creating a false impression.

Arnett may have blood on his hands

Steven Den Beste has more about the impact of what Peter Arnett has done, written prior to Arnett's firing by NBC.

Arnett fired amid NBC spin

Reporter Peter Arnett has been fired by both NBC and National Geographic in the wake of his interview with Iraqi state-run television. NBC first tried to spin it as just "analysis" and not anything bad, but the sweep of public opinion (and, no doubt, a few strongly expressed private opinions) meant they had to back off.

Damian Penny called it right when he gave a sample Reuters caption about it, but the spin didn't come from there (at least not yet that I've seen), but NBC itself. Here's a bit of what Damian said:

Here's how the inevitable Reuters photo caption will read: "Award-winning journalist Peter Arnett leaves NBC headquarters after being fired for giving an interview critical of American foreign policy to a competing station...

And here's a little sliver from the MSNBC article on Arnett's "termination":

The interview quickly made Arnett a target of the war’s supporters.

Oh, really? Was it only the war's supporters who thought his behavior was reprehensible? If so, that means all those anti-war types who say, "But we're for the troops!" are lying. Arnett's interview explicitly did two very dangerous things: First, it gave encouragement to the ones fighting for Saddam, which could both strengthen their resolve and tip some would-be fighters into feeling more confident in an Iraqi win, thus adding to the numbers. Second, it disheartened the Iraqi civilians who, on hearing it, would be justified in thinking that the US may actually lose or choose to withdraw because of the unexpected cost of the war. Those are the civilians that must at some point come out to help rid Iraq of the Ba'athists. Arnett has no doubt succeeded in postponing that day.

Both of those effects mean more deaths of American soldiers. Maybe only one or two, but every life is precious. And they also will most likely mean more civilian deaths. Arnett is not just an arrogant lying scum, he's an active harm to the US efforts.

And his apologies mean absolutely nothing. The interview has already played on Iraqi television. How likely is it that it will be replayed and replayed? I'd lay quite a bit of money on that myself. Will his apology be played? No. Will Iraqi television take it off the air because Arnett has retracted? No.

Of course we won't expect NBC to behave respectably in this, given that they already hid Arnett's history in their bio of him. This is from the official bio connected to his (still online as of this morning) "Baghdad Diary":

One of the world’s leading war correspondents and an authority on the Middle East, Peter Arnett has covered 19 wars in his 40 year career as a reporter and distinguished television journalist...

Early in 1990, he transferred to CNN’s bureau in Jerusalem where he observed and studied the Mideast in depth. He was in the right place at the right time when the Gulf War began. He remained in Baghdad when other journalists left or were expelled, and thus became the only Western television journalist to report from Iraq throughout the course of the war. Arnett conducted the only interview with Saddam Hussein during the conflict.

He is currently on assignment in Baghdad for National Geographic EXPLORER.

And here is the coverage of those same years in the article on MSNBC this morning (remember, same network) about Arnett's firing:

Arnett garnered much of his prominence from covering the 1991 Gulf War for CNN. But even then the first Bush administration was unhappy with his reporting, suggesting that he had become a conveyor of propaganda.

At one point, he was denounced for his reporting about an allied bombing of a baby milk factory in Baghdad that the military said was a biological weapons plant. The U.S. military responded vigorously to the suggestion it had targeted a civilian facility, but Arnett stood by his reporting that the plant’s sole purpose was to make baby formula.

Arnett was also the on-air reporter of a 1998 CNN report that accused U.S. forces of using sarin gas on a Laotian village in 1970 to kill U.S. defectors. Two CNN employees were sacked, and Arnett was reprimanded over the report, which the station later retracted. Arnett later left the network.

A little bit different, isn't it? National Geographic and NBC knew what he was. They just didn't care. Maybe they agreed with him. But there can be no doubt that he made no effort to be fair, much less unbiased, at any time in the last 15 years of his career. It calls the judgment of both organizations severely into question.

UPDATE: Another article on Arnett's firing, with this lovely quote:

``My stupid misjudgment was to spend 15 minutes in an impromptu interview with Iraqi television that has been received with anger, surprise and, clearly, unhappily in the United States and for that I am sorry,'' Arnett said in an interview broadcast on NBC today.

Mr. Arnett, words have meaning, and actions have consequences. Your decision to be a part of that interview was at best a product of your arrogant belief in your own importance, and at worst a knowing grab at an opportunity to harm the US's war efforts. It wasn't a county fair you were talking about, it is a war. "Stupid misjudgment" doesn't touch the hem of the garment of what it was.

I'm afraid, however, that Arnett is not unusual among journalists in his sense of this war as mostly a means to further his career and have fun, kind of a reality television where his behavior is exempt from consequences. Some of the journalists are no doubt honest and fair observers; I think most are neither. Arnett is different only in a matter of degree of ego, arrogance and anti-war sentiment.

[Thanks to reader Joe Nahmias for the link, in comments]

UPDATE: Here's the transcript of Arnett's interview.

[Link via Ibidem]

Most fascinating!

Dodd has a new and interesting interview with Chris Muir, the cartoonist behind the excellent strip Day by Day. You owe it to yourself to read it. Now. Why is it you're still here?!

US reporter Peter Arnett appears on Iraqi TV dissing US

Peter Arnett, a CNN reporter in Gulf War I and now reporting for National Geographic Explorer, has appeared in an interview on Iraqi television saying that the first battle plan of the US military has failed, and the Iraqi resistence has been successful in causing that failure. How much do you want to bet that is replayed and replayed as propaganda?

Awash in objectivity, that Mr. Arnett. Can you say "arrogant"? Can you say "aiding and abetting"? Can you say "I won't be reading Nat'l Geog. any more"?

Don't talk to me about the alleged "bias" of Fox News while Peter Arnett is still accepted as a journalist and not a political activist by anyone.

I can't find an article about it yet, but Fox News played clips from the interview on Iraqi television. The FoxNews anchor read something - a press release, maybe? - that sounded like it came from Arnett's employers, saying he was just offering "analysis". Ha. I'm sure the entire clip will be online soon. We'll just see.

UPDATE: Here's the link to a story on it. Thanks to Rick for the link.

UPDATE: And here's a brief article on the interview, including some quotes.

UPDATE: Fritz Schrank thinks it's a clever ploy.

UPDATE: Sgt. Stryker on Arnett; he links this piece too, where you can get the email of NBC to let them know what you think of Arnett's "analysis".

Moore lies

Not that we're surprised:

According to a report in Friday's Daily Variety, Moore is working on a documentary about the "the murky relationship" between former President George Bush and the family of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden. The paper said the movie, "Fahrenheit 911," will suggest that the bin Laden family profited greatly from the association...

According to Moore, the former president had a business relationship with Osama bin Laden's father, Mohammed bin Laden, a Saudi construction magnate who left $300 million to Osama bin Laden. It has been widely reported that bin Laden used the inheritance to finance global terrorism.

This is nice to know:

Moore said the success of his documentary and book reflects majority public support for his political argument.

"It's because the majority of Americans agree with me, see the economy in the toilet and didn't vote for George W," he said. "People are now realizing you can question your government while still caring about the soldiers."

I didn't realize that his Oscars diatribe was an expression of support for the troops. Silly me.

And this is disappointing:

Variety reported that Moore is working out a deal with Mel Gibson's production company, Icon Productions, to finance "Fahrenheit 911."

I guess that's the end of any desire on my part to see Mel Gibson in anything.

Sobering

A correspondent for The Arab News managed to sneak into Iraq by trailing behind a television crew convoy, and is filing his reports. Two things in his report caught my interest particularly. First, this conversation he had with an Iraqi - and remember The Arab News has no reason to invent anti-Saddam propaganda, given the stance of the Saudi Arabian govt:

When we finally made it to Safwan, Iraq, what we saw was utter chaos. Iraqi men, women and children were playing it up for the TV cameras, chanting: “With our blood, with our souls, we will die for you Saddam.”

I took a young Iraqi man, 19, away from the cameras and asked him why they were all chanting that particular slogan, especially when humanitarian aid trucks marked with the insignia of the Kuwaiti Red Crescent Society, were distributing some much-needed food.

His answer shouldn’t have surprised me, but it did.

He said: “There are people from Baath here reporting everything that goes on. There are cameras here recording our faces. If the Americans were to withdraw and everything were to return to the way it was before, we want to make sure that we survive the massacre that would follow as Baath go house to house killing anyone who voiced opposition to Saddam. In public, we always pledge our allegiance to Saddam, but in our hearts we feel something else.”

Different versions of that very quote, but with a common theme, I would come to hear several times over the next three days I spent in Iraq.

The people of Iraq are terrified of Saddam Hussein.

I wonder if this information will make it on the mainstream media back home? Would it convince anyone who thinks the US is lying about the way the Iraqis feel about the invasion, which this excerpt shows is very similar to what the official US line about it is?

And then this:

We decided to make camp in front of what used to be a hotel and rest stop just off the freeway, which was occupied by a Scottish brigade of the British Army.

[The brigade commander] said that we were not allowed to stay in the camp as we were not “embedded” with the British troops, but we were welcome to set up camp a few yards outside the fence of the “hotel”. He promised that if we were in any danger, his troops would immediately come to the rescue.

These are unembedded journalists from an Arab newspaper that is openly hostile to the coalition efforts in Iraq, and the Scottish commander promises his men will help keep them safe. To me, that shows the willingness of our forces to protect everyone they can, and also it shows just how much effort the coalition forces are expending to take care of journalists at risk to their own safety. It materially increases the complexity of the war, a fact which most journalists not only don't acknowledge, but seem to accept as their due while sneering at the very soldiers who do it (not to say these two Arab News journalists are that way - they don't seem to be, in this dispatch). Look at this excerpt from an article in NRO:

...many of the journalists observable in this war theater are bursting with knee-jerk suspicions and antagonisms for the warriors all around them. A significant number are whiny and appallingly soft. Most club together, passing far too much of their desert sojourn gossiping with fellow reporters, mocking military mores in snide jokes and wise-guy observations, chafing at the little disciplines required by the military’s life-and-death work, banding off as a group to watch DVDs on their computers in the evening, ganging separately in the mess hall during meals, rolling their eyes at each other when ideas like honor, sacrifice, or duty enter the conversation, and otherwise failing to take advantage of this unparalleled opportunity to enter deeply and perhaps sympathetically into the lives and minds of superlative fighting men.

...the vast number of the reporters I’ve spoken to are openly scornful of this war’s aims and purposes.

It's always good behavior to kick your protecter in the teeth and then complain that they're not taking good enough care of you, isn't it? I think we need to be having some anti-journalist rallies.

Oh what a relief it is!

This is the best photo out of Iraq that I've seen so far.

APB

ALL POINTS BULLETIN: Be on the lookout for a busload of tall, ripped, fairly aggressive males dressed primarily in royal blue and white. Most will also be sporting either a "UK" emblem or the letters "K-E-N-T-U-C-K-Y" across their chests. These young men, known collectively as "The University of Kentucky basketball team", were scheduled to play a game on Saturday afternoon at 4:40 p.m. in the NCAA tournament. However, it is apparent that the team was replaced with imposters, as none of the team members who have won every game since January 1 showed up for today's game.

REWARD OFFERED: A slightly chewed and ripped UK cap

UPDATE: Congratulations to Marquette - while UK wasn't up to its usual quality play, Marquette's team also distinguished themselves. I hope they win it all.

More to read

I've posted a couple of things on The Command Post op-ed page this morning; here are the links if you're interested in reading them:

Anti-war protesters = professional agitators

Greeks moderating EU defense push

Getting rubbed the right way

The Saturday Ramble is back in action as of today; check out the newest Ramble, about the pleasures of pedicures.

For those of you new to this site, or who've just forgetten since it's been 9 months since I posted a Ramble, the Saturday Ramble is a longer, non-newsy piece, more like a lifestyle column, that I used to do on a somewhat weekly basis. Yes, I heard your cry for "more, more!" and with my usual responsiveness I have provided.

I need a nap now.

Japan sends up two spy satellites

Interesting:

TANEGASHIMA, Kagoshima Prefecture-The nation's first spy satellites were launched Friday, giving Japan its own eyes in the sky to help it deal with a bellicose North Korea and other potential threats.

The payload was carried by an H2A rocket that blasted off at 10:27 a.m. from the National Space Development Agency's (NASDA) Tanegashima Space Center. The launch prompted an immediate response from North Korea, which accused Japan of starting a regional arms race.

The satellites, one with an optical sensor and the other carrying a synthetic aperture radar, were placed on a polar orbit at an altitude of between 400 and 600 kilometers. While NASDA officials in the past announced the times at which satellites would be released into orbit as well as orbit altitudes, there were no such announcements this time.

Images from the satellites will be transmitted to receptors in Kitaura, Ibaraki Prefecture, Akune in Kagoshima Prefecture, and Tomakomai in Hokkaido. The data will be analyzed at the Cabinet satellite intelligence center in Tokyo. Total development costs, including the receptors, are estimated at 250 billion yen.

While the spy satellites offer greater capability, the added intelligence touched a raw nerve in Pyongyang. North Korea announced March 18 the proposed launch was provocative and posed a major threat to regional peace.

Hiatus

For some reason that I can't quite identify, I seem to be in serious meltdown mode. Therefore, I'm going to take a bit to recollect myself, possibly until tonight, possibly until tomorrow or even Monday. This may or may not include turning off the television, radio, computer and telephone. Any new visitors to the site, there's lots of great material to read if you scroll down, or dig around the archives. For my usual crowd, I recommend any of the blogs on the right or The Command Post.

Real people, real war

It reaches home at Theosebes.

Iraqis subject to "Stockholm Syndrome"?

Bryan Preston and Chris Regan of Junkyardblog lay out the evidence in this NRO article.

Want to know the future? Read Psalms

Or maybe not. Theosebes has part of a press release about a book claiming that the book of Psalms in the Old Testament contains prophecies about the 20th and 21st centuries. I'm not quite sure how it's supposed to work, since the author says each year corresponds to a book in Psalms - there are, FYI, more than 100 chapters in Psalms (and don't even get me started on Psalms 119). At any rate, it's an amusing meander through the kind of mind that sees "sex" written in Ritz crackers, and the forms of nude women airbrushed into the ice cubes in liquor ads.

I wonder if it predicted this outcome?

Classic

From Patrick, a commenter on an earlier post:

Personally I would like to pour the Media a cup of shut the hell up.

That's a drink a lot of them could use regularly.

Mock, mock, mock, mock mock Saddam

As always, the deadline for Dodd's Caption Contest is today when he gets home from work. Best I can tell, that's usually in the 6:30 - 7 p.m. EST range, although if you know anyone in Louisville we could probably waylay him and give you an extra 30 min or so. This week's photo is of Saddam, offering in these difficult times an excellent opportunity to verbally skewer one who so richly deserves it. Have at it.

At what cost?

Jane Galt has an excellent post on the cost of the war, with the dual benefit of also being an evisceration of Eric Alterman. It includes the classic line about his analysis: "That's nuts."

Sounds about right.

Another military blog

Sgt. Hook signs on from Florida, watching over the 120 troops at his command. He's going in the blogroll.

Better watch yourself!

You don't want to get "Dixie-Chicked"!

A Blair-Bush lovefest

And it's all in my heart. I love these guys! I'm watching the press conference right now with President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, and they are both speaking with passion and conviction. Blair is especially forceful. It's beautiful to see. He's shaming the journalists, although most will feel no shame since it's been burned out of their psyches by the arrogance of much of their profession.

Right now Blair is saying, We believed we have to act. I have no doubt we are doing the right thing. And if we walk away from this right now, we'll be doing a huge disservice to this generation.

It was magnificent. If you can, find a video of it and watch it. I'll look for one and post it when I find it.

Oh, and when a journalist said, "Old allies are against you... France and Germany disagree with you," Bush actually chuckled and grinned. Blair said, It is said that Europe is against you. Europe is not against us; some of the EU countries are with us, some are not. It is a division. And the majority of the new EU countries are with us.

That last is an indirect reference, I think, to the fact that the new EU countries are mostly those countries only recently free from Soviet domination.

Of course, afterward reporter Terry Moraon had to say, "You see what Bush and Blair have in common. They're both moralists when it comes to their political philosophy. Both are devout Christians, Bush rather publicly, Blair more privately. But this is grounded in their Christian moral view." You were to understand, by his wording and tone, that he was being more than a tad condescending and dismissive of this as a reasonable ground.

A spot of goodness: UK Coach Tubby Smith

I have loved Tubby Smith since he came to coach the University of Kentucky after Rick Pitino bailed for the big pro lights. Smith isn't as flashy as Pitino, but I think he's as good a coach in his own style, and he certainly has greater constancy - something I think is very valuable in developing and maintaining an excellent basketball program. And I think Tubby relates to the people of Kentucky in a way impossible for Pitino, who always seemed like some exotic fauna on display for a limited run. Tubby is home folk, a grounded persona that can - like this year - take a struggling team and firmly, quietly, steadily turn it around until it's among the most powerful in the country.

Here is a profile of Tubby that I think tells you pretty much all you need to know about the man. I'm thrilled that he's the public face of Kentucky's team.

UPDATE: Because you can't get enough of Kentucky basketball :D, here's some more links:

The Blue Mist hits Planet Cheese - I think we're going to be seeing Blue Cheese after tonight.

Analysis of tonight's game - I think the "why Kentucky will win" is the strongest part.

Kentucky in Sweet 16 9th time in 11 years - Not, of course, that any of us are surprised.

Nice artwork

Vikingpundit found this photo of a mural in a southern Iraqi city showing an airplane going into the side of a building looking rather like the WTC. Nice.

Roving reporters

Matt Labash of The Weekly Standard has an excellent article about an interview with the Public Affairs Officer (PAO) of CENTCOM, . I was going to excerpt it and comment, but CPO Sparkey got to it first.

One issue that stood out to me was the dangerousness of reporters roving the battlefield areas all hot to cover the action, yet doing so without the Allied forces having any way of knowing whether or not this particular jeep or truck or camouflaged person is friend or foe. We are dealing with an enemy that may even be dressing in US uniforms and killing Iraqi civilians to make it seem the US is doing so. We're dealing with an enemy that dresses in civilian clothes, pretends to surrender and then ambushes our soldiers. These journalists have to accept the risks if they choose to enter a battlefield.

And Sparkey's point is my point: You run around a battlefield, you could get killed. This is not a movie set! You can't yell, "CUT!" when the action gets to ferocious or threatens provocative non-combatants. I'm very sorry for the journalists who get killed, but folks, they aren't heroes, they're foolish. Being a journalist does not give you a Protective Shield. And risking the safety of our soldiers to ensure the safety of some hot-for-the-action, I-don't-have-to-follow-rules journalist is not something I'm willing to encourage.

CNN melts Sgt. Stryker

Sometimes a little publicity goes a long way.

CNN has an excellent article today about blogs by military people, and they don't just link Sgt. Stryker but actually use a screen shot of the site.

This is a good thing.

UPDATE: The site is back up and running hot, so I've dumped the rest of this post into "more" just in case you HAVE to read it.

However, so many thousands of people went to read the site that it melted the server and Sarge's hosting service had to move the blog to a different server (and if he has to pay for the bandwidth?! can you say "donation"? I'll check). Now, CPO Sparkey tells me, the Stryker folks can't post!

This is a bad thing.

I know they must have gotten an absolutely massive wash of visitors because my stats have been spinning from Sgt. Stryker hits, and that's just from being in the link list - they didn't even link to one of my posts in an entry. Here's hoping they can be back up soon and posting fiercely as they have been thus far. It's all good stuff over there.

Educated in democracy, can Iraqi immigrants be Iraq's future?

Back in early February, I went to hear James Taranto talk about the then-impending war, and what a post-war Iraq may be like. Diane Moon was also there, with a concern fed by her knowledge of Iraq gained through her friendship with Salam Pax, a Baghdad blogger. How, she asked, is a people crushed so long under a dictatorship, with no cultural history of democracy, with no experience of that kind of government, supposed to learn quickly enough to permit a democratic government in a reasonable length of time after the war? Are the soldiers going to hand out copies of Democracy for Dummies?

It's a valid question, but I think at least part of the answer rests in those thousands of Iraqis who have escaped from Saddam's tyranny and now live in democratic countries. Yesterday Glenn Reynolds linked this diary entry by Kanan Makiya at The New Republic:

Like every other Iraqi I know, I have friends and relatives in Baghdad. I am nauseous with anxiety for their safety. But still those bombs are music to my ears. They are like bells tolling for liberation in a country that has been turned into a gigantic concentration camp...

The war rages on around me in the shape of the news broadcasts to which I have become hopelessly addicted. While I watch, my friends in the opposition are gathering in Kurdistan with the Iraqi National Congress and in Kuwait with Jay Garner's office. I should be there with them, but I am told I have to stay. I am needed here, to keep touch with Washington. I cannot stand it...

And there are many voices of Iraqis who live in the US, and who want this change; :

"So many Iraqis are wanting to serve, to liberate their country," says 40-year-old Basel Taki, of Canton, Ohio. "These people want to fight. They've paid a lot, suffered a lot."

The Free Iraqi Forces, made up primarily of Iraqi refugees, are trained to assist in civil-military operations and carry 9 mm pistols as self-defense weapons in the field, according to the U.S. Department of Defense Web site. They also are trained in rehabilitation efforts.

A defense spokesman on Monday couldn't immediately release the number of Free Iraqi Forces being trained or implemented in Iraq, but the department previously has said it would be allowed to train up to 3,000 members in Hungary.

The efforts to seed the ground for democracy in Iraq have been underway for a while. This is what Aiham Alsammarae, an Iraqi educated in America who could not go home when Saddam took over, had to say about the future, from a PBS program last October:

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: Alsammarae has spent many hours thinking about what will happen in Iraq if Hussein is overthrown. He has met with others active in the Iraqi opposition, with the state department recently picking up the tab for travel, to craft a plan for a post- Hussein Iraq.

AIHAM ALSAMMARAE: The government is between one year to three years, okay? And this government will push in the beginning to start making the constitution in the first year; and the constitution, which is rough like the democracy and all these things.

The second year, we are trying to start electing the local governments and all this representatives and... and... and judges and whatever, okay? And the third year, we are going to elect the president or prime minister or the king, whatever, whatever the people decide in that time.

And there are a number of organizations set up to pursue the goals of democracy without political affiliations, or at least without solely their own interests at heart. For example, The Iraq Foundation has this to say about its mission:

With its educated population and oil reserves, Iraq commands considerable human and natural resources, and enjoys a tradition of intellectual and economic prominence in the Middle East. A peaceful Iraq can serve as a stabilizing force and as a catalyst for security and economic prosperity in the region. However, Iraq will only live in peace within its borders and with its neighbors once democracy and accountable government are established. The Iraqi people will only flourish when their civil and human rights are respected.

And one fact stands out from their site:

The United States is now home to over 30,000 Iraqis political refugees who arrived after 1992.

Many of those Iraqis here, or in other Western democracies, will not choose or be able to return to Iraq when it's time to establish the new government. But the doomsayers who see the next government as a more-America-friendly-yet-not-that-different version of the Hussein regime are not taking into account the avid desire for a representative form of government solidly based in Iraqi culture and history that is prominent amongst Iraqi immigrants. And those immigrants have family throughout Iraq, thus having the capability to work toward change on a grassroots level with connections the United States as a government would never have. It won't be the US or the Western world imposing a government in a colonial mode, but the Western world assisting Iraqis to find their own best government, monitoring the process to make sure it's not subverted by anti-democratic forces.

I feel very positive about the potential for a stable post-Saddam Iraqi government, crafted by Iraqis with Iraqis for Iraqis. There will be a struggle, because there is a struggle in the Arab countries and the Muslim world in general between the repressive hardline Muslim contingent (exemplified by Wahhabism) and the more modern, democratic view of an increasing number of Arab Muslims. But I think the US can open the door for democracy in the Middle East without dictating all its boundaries. In truth, I think we've already done so by taking Iraqi immigrants into our society - and I think we'll hear more and more of this, from 29-year-old Iraqi immigrant and Dearborn, MI, resident Hider Al-Jubury, as it becomes clear regime change is assured:

"I want to take whatever I learn over here to help over there," says the member of Iraqi Youth Reunion, an educational group planning to help rebuild a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq.

Iraq won't need Democracy for Dummies; they'll have many Western-trained Iraqi tutors.

The problem is... you're French

You probably have seen this, but I thought it very funny. Bush 41 is interviewed in this week's Newsweek magazine about the war and his son's role in it. The issue of the French came up:

What do you think is going on with France?

[Pause] They’re French.

Any elaboration?

Nope. There’s always been some friction. I was once talking to a group of French intellectuals, and I said, “You think we’re arrogant, and we think you’re French.” And they looked at each other and thought maybe I’d said something very intelligent. But that may well be it. It’s too bad, but life goes on, and we’ve got to do what we’ve got to do.

I love it. I think Bush 41 should have taken out Saddam when he had the chance, but I also think that Bush 43 gets a lot of his abilities from his dad. Certainly they have a similar attitude toward the French.

[Link via Hawspipe, where there's a little additional dig at ABC's Peter Jennings. I loved that too.]

Don't forget

Mike and I are still looking for more companies to add to our list of those who are supporting our called-up reservist troops by providing benefits beyond what is required by law, most especially making up the difference between military pay and their usual salary. If you want more information, or want to see the list we have already, go to The Home Front.

And for up to the minute information on the war, go to The Command Post.

Complete US execution list

If you're interested in death penalty issues, this is a fascinating site. It's a list of every execution in the entire United States since 1976, when executions began again following suspension by Furman vs. Georgia in 1973. Even better than that, they have a comprehensive posting of Internet information on every execution. How comprehensive? Well, because I found it through my referrer logs because they have included in their section on executed inmate Tracy Lee Housel a post I wrote on his death last March.

The only bad thing? They just link to my old blogspot site without pointing to the specific post. Oops. Whoever tries to find it will be lost. But hey, I'm all about helping! Here's the post.

That is one comprehensive site. Wish I'd know about it when I was teaching corrections.

UPDATE: From the same site, some very interesting information about the death penalty and the much publicized cases of innocent men on death row:

...the risk of making a mistake with the extraordinary due process applied in death penalty cases is very small, and there is no credible evidence to show that any innocent persons have been executed at least since the death penalty was reactivated in 1976. The 100+ death row inmates "innocent", "exonerated" and released, as trumpeted by anti-death penalty activists, is a fraud. The actual number of factually innocent released death row inmates is closer to 40, and in any event should be considered in context of over 7,000 death sentences handed down since 1973. It stands as the most accurate judgment/sentence in any system of justice ever created.

Of course any man executed unjustly is a tragedy. But if 40 inmates were truly innocent, that is about a 0.6% rate - truly an amazing feat. With current forensic technology, I'd say the percentage is even less in cases decided in the past five years. Note the "truly" innocent - a number of the "exonerated" folks apparently were released for reasons other than proven innocence - maybe technicalities?

Figuring it out

Just what does a thumbs-up gesture mean in the Arab countries? It's not something I had considered before, but John Cole has all kinds of information about it over on Balloon Juice. Apparently some have claimed that a thumbs up gesture in some Arab countries means the same as a middle finger gesture here, but others - many from that part of the world themselves - are incredulous about that claim. It matters because some photos have been published of young Iraqis giving the thumbs up to troops. Is that a good thing, or a bad thing?

It's fun reading about the debate, although John seems to have had all of it he can stand. Doesn't matter what I think, anyway - if I was over there I'd be swathed in a burqa.

Reuters: Not even there

There must not have been a Reuters reporter either at the Oscars or watching it on television. Martin at Patio Pundit shows why:

I was pleased that Michael Moore was booed at the Oscars. You wouldn't know it from this Reuters report:

Moore, who received a standing ovation from the assembled celebrities, invited the other nominees for best documentary film to join him onstage in solidarity against the war against Iraq.

One man's booed idiotarian is another man's ovated documentarian.

(Yes, I invented "ovated" - wanna make a big deal about it?!)

So that's his name!

You just never know when you're going to come across interesting information. This article about weblogging by military types or others involved in the Iraq war identifies "Kevin Mickey, a Navy lieutenant commander at Camp Patriot, Kuwait". And who might this Lt. Cmdr. Mickey be? This may help:

Lt. Cmdr. Mickey, a 39-year-old reservist, says in an e-mail that he runs his own Web log, The Primary Main Objective, on his camp's computer network.

Yes! It's our very own Kevin, of largeamericanpenis.com before he cleaned up his URL to www.chinpokomon.com. I'm sure the latter address would be more to the tastes of mainstream media, although it's not like they link him or even give the link in text. Idiots.

Prayers and thoughts with you, Kevin. Hope you enjoy the heart failure you're going to give any number of innocent well-meaning people from the Yahoo! article when they start digging through your archives and come across things like....well... here's the archive, you'll find it. (Don't link from work!). Maybe they'll read this fine analysis you posted in January about the 2003 Annual Forecast War in Iraq. At least in conjunction, if not instead.

Media bias alert

A friend of mine who watches mostly network news (as she doesn't have cable) has mentioned to me several times that ABC News - most especially Peter Jennings - is almost bared-teeth annoyed at the war and likely to do whatever they can to advance the anti-war position. She says that Jennings through his words and manner makes his contempt for the war and, by extention, the troops quite apparent. I only watch cable news, and didn't want to be angered enough to take a baseball bat to my television, so I hadn't flipped over there to see.

Well, the Media Research Center has come through with their Media Reality Check, which condemns ABC and, again, Jennings, in their own words.

March 20:

...rumbling through the Iraqi desert with the U.S. Army’s 3rd Infantry Division, ABC’s Ted Koppel pontificated to Jennings: “I just think, Peter, we ought to take note of the significance of what is happening here, because this is an invasion that in this particular case, of course, was not prompted by any invasion of the United States.”

March 21:

During ABC’s prime time coverage, Jennings decried Bush’s lack of responsiveness to anti-war demonstrators. He wondered to former Ford, Reagan and Clinton aide David Gergen: “Seeing the people in the streets of Washington today right across from Lafayette Park, people in Chicago, San Francisco, New York, demonstrating against the war, there’s a tendency, I think, in the administration to — pretend is not quite the right word — pretend it isn’t happening.”

Jennings spent much of Friday night’s coverage doing his part to make sure the anti-war side was heard, including an eight-minute interview with two far-left leaders of anti-war groups in which Jennings tossed softball questions such as, “Why do you feel so strongly about this war?”

March 22:

In the morning, ABC reporter Chris Cuomo (son of the former New York Governor Mario Cuomo) picked up where Jennings left off. Previewing new protests, he insisted that anti-war activists represented more than the tiny fraction of the country that shares their views: “In American history, protests like this have been prescient indicators of the national mood, so the government may do well to listen to what’s said today.”

There's more where that came from.

Koppel's comments show his obvious preference for justification for the war, and skims over any other arguments others might make; if it wasn't the result of a direct attack, it is out of order. Jennings says the administration is "pretending" the anti-war protest isn't there (I wish the rest of us could pretend it's not), for which conclusion he gives no support, then spends eight minutes interviewing anti-war protestors. Eight minutes on a nightly newscast is huge. And finally, we learn from Cuomo-of-the-die-hard-Democrats that the anti-war protesters are likely "prescient", and non-embedded (read: not brainwashed or censored) reporters are finding "a lot of hostility" toward Bush and the US. I didn't see the piece, so I can't say whether this was there, but I suspect there was no discussion as to why the reporters embedded and the reporters unembedded found different things, beyond the circumstances of the reporters themselves.

Bias enters the media stream in so many ways beyond just the words used in actual reports - who is interviewed, what is emphasized, expressions by reporters and anchors, which stories are used, which footage or photos are used - the list goes on. I'll have to keep an eye on Jennings and the rest to see if they clean up their bias act.

[Thanks to Rick at The Guards of Magog for the heads up on the MRC article.]

UPDATE: Kevin McGehee found another example of Jennings in full flower that supports MRC's point about the anti-war activist interviews. A little sliver:

Activists involved in the left-wing student and anti-war grassroots group MoveOn.org were bragging on Friday night at protest-organizing meeting in Washington, D.C. that they have members working in the newsrooms at CNN, ABC News and NBC, which also feeds news to its sister cable channels MSNBC and CNBC. "We're affecting news coverage of this war. We know it, because our friends are telling us they are affecting it," said an anti-war activist in an Adams-Morgan bar...

"At CNN and ABC we know that the producers and the anchors have been really receptive to our message," said the MoveOn organizer. "Peter Jennings even put our people on the air, with no opposing view. He loves our message."

ABC: All Biased Coverage.

Quagmire alert

You'd think, based on the two pieces smacked around below, that all the media outlets are bowing at the altar of Gen. Tommy Franks and Friends, that All War, All The Time entertainment station beaming in from Iraq, with a "God Bless America", "God Bless the USA" and "She's a Grand Old Flag!" soundtrack running an endless loop. Shockingly, there's evidence that (gasp!) journalists are not only not falling into line, but are using sneering skepticism :

Iraqi troops and militias used ruses, ambushes and other guerrilla tactics yesterday that exploited the risks inherent in the fast-moving Pentagon war strategy, inflicting more than a score of American casualties and raising questions about how effective the U.S. approach has been in convincing Iraqi troops and civilians that President Saddam Hussein's removal is inevitable.

After three days of routing Iraqi forces and even labeling their advance toward the Iraqi capital "the Baghdad 500," U.S. soldiers had a series of sobering engagements. One unit of Iraqi regular troops ambushed a U.S. convoy. Others trapped U.S. troops in what was described as a phony surrender, and some reportedly disguised themselves in civilian clothes. In the south, remnants of an army division moved heavy weapons into a residential area of Basra that U.S. and British forces were reluctant to fire upon.

You know, this actually answers itself. First, the engagements are light, with tragic yet relatively few casualties on either side. Second, the United States could limit American casualties by just glassing over the place with bombs, but they don't - the "U.S. and British forces were reluctant to fire" on residential areas. The Iraqi forces are fighting ugly, and the allied forces are trying to accomplish their goals without sinking to their level of endangering civilians. And now on to more blinkered commentary:

Nevertheless, the images beamed around the world of U.S. soldiers in stunned captivity, or dead in a makeshift morgue in southern Iraq, cast some doubt on the assumptions underpinning the U.S. approach. Pentagon officials had expected U.S. troops to be greeted almost universally as liberators, at least in the Shiite south. That view influenced a war strategy based in part on the goal of achieving victory by persuading the Iraqi population and military that Hussein's government is doomed.

Instead, the appearance yesterday was of members of the Iraqi government standing their ground. "We have drawn them into a swamp, and they will never get out of it," Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf declared in Baghdad.

Note that the first graph there says that allied forces thought the Iraqi population - that is, the civilians as well as government - would view the US as liberators. But the ones "standing their ground" in the second paragraph are Iraqi government officials, who of course are going to stand against invasion. They have everything to lose and nothing to gain if the allied forces succeed. Based on this uneven comparison, though, analyst Thomas Ricks has the following conclusion:

The continued Iraqi resistance specifically calls into question the efficacy of the biggest psychological operations campaign waged by the U.S. military. Over the last six months, U.S. aircraft dropped more than 25 million leaflets on Iraqi military units and civilians, urging them not to fight the U.S. invasion. That was supplemented by propaganda radio broadcasts and telephone calls to unit commanders inviting them to negotiate their capitulations.

The lack of large-scale surrenders suggests that Iraqi commanders instead may have been manipulating the expectations of their U.S. contacts. U.S. military commanders speculate that Iraqi soldiers simply are deserting and going home. But it is also possible that some units are biding their time.

Now we're shifting again to the Iraqi military, many of whom again are irrevocably tied to the Hussein regime and have no hope if it goes out of power. Many of them are also virilently against anything Western. But what about the "Iraqi population" as a whole? Glenn Reynolds highlights response that doesn't seem to mesh with Ricks' analysis, including this article:

As Iraqi Americans reach out to their relatives in Baghdad and Basra, in Kirkuk and Irbil, some are hearing words they never thought possible: Iraqis are speaking ill of Saddam Hussein.

They're criticizing him out loud, on the telephone, seemingly undeterred by fear of the Iraqi intelligence service and its tactics of torture for those disloyal to the Baath Party regime. . . .

And this:

For many kilometres, civilians and soldiers were lined up, waving and blowing kisses at the passing vehicles holding U.S. Marines. Many begged for food. Each U.S. vehicle had been given two boxes of ready-to-eat rations suitable for Muslims. Some people came back for seconds, hiding the food they had already collected.

For their part, the U.S. troops were amazed at the Iraqi soldiers' behaviour.

"Canteens, grenades, abandoned positions -- they even left the Iraqi flag in place before they retreated," said 1st Sergeant Miguel Pares, a New Yorker from Spanish Harlem and the top enlisted man in Bravo company, 3rd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 1st Marine Division.

It is a war. People will die on both sides. Media credulity about Iraqi military response and government pronouncements while expressing harsh criticism of Allied decisions and activities shows a lack of journalistic integrity and insight. The problem seems rather opposite, at least in this instance, to what Kalb and Solomon worry about.

[Thanks to Curt Coman for bringing the Ricks article to my attention.]

Cry me another river - The Sequel

For more journalistic hand-wringing, head on over to E&P columnist Marvin Kalb's take on the horror of embedding:

When American soldiers go off to war, so too do American journalists. In this war, though, something new has been added. "Embedding" is part of the massive, White House-run strategy to sell a single message about the American mission in this war -- that the United States is liberating Iraq from a bloody dictator, who has used weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors and his own people, and that this is a war against terrorism or states that help terrorists and not a war against Islam.

By the start of the current conflict last week, more than 600 American and foreign reporters were embedded, all of them part of specific military units and many advancing on specific military targets. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, whose fingerprints are all over this new approach to press/Pentagon collaboration, wants proud, positive, patriotic coverage -- and so far that's exactly what he's gotten.

You know, it's hard for me not to just say, "These guys are such absolute and unsaveable morons that we should just throw up our hands and ignore them." I would say that, except for the fact that they represent the "media elite" in a lot of ways. Certainly E&P styles itself as an industry observer with some degree of objectivity. I don't understand why columns like Kalb's, and the credulous coverage of Solomon, haven't put E&P out to pasture. Consider what Kalb says toward the end of his column after all but pronouncing the death knell of journalism (well, he gets to the death knell at the end):

First Amendment purists argue that any government control over the media, even during a war, is constitutionally problematic and sets a dangerous precedent -- and therefore, in their view, embedding is a dreadful proposition.

Embedding is not a dreadful proposition. No journalist had to accept it, or any ground rule associated with it. Embedding is for the journalist who wants access and is prepared to pay a price to get it. But for those who worry about the blurring of the line between government and journalism, even in the post-9/11 war against terrorism, there is the larger problem of patriotic reporting. Will journalists covering the front or the White House criticize the mission, the troops, the president, or the strategy in the face of strong popular support for the war? Or will the public have to wait months, even years, after the war to learn about the blunders?

This is breathlessly idiotic. Does Kalb think that he's the only one concerned? Does he truly think that Howell Raines, or the writers at The Nation, are laying back saying, "Yeah, we're at war! Roll out the flags! Spike the criticism! We're a Rummy-led organization now!" If there's a problem, it's not that journalists can't get any legit negative stories out there - it's that many don't want to do the work that would entail, or their organizations won't support it. Much easier to whip out diatribes from the lofty position of "columnist for E&P".

And of course it's not even to be considered that maybe there aren't reams of horrific news lying unreported on the floor of journalistic opportunity.

Oh, yes, the death knell. Let us not leave it out:

Sept. 11, 2001, is the dividing line in journalism between purists and realists. Purists may still worry about the problems of embedding and patriotism; realists say the rules have now changed, and it's time we all recognize we are in a war against Saddam Hussein in Iraq and one against terrorism at home. And journalists may have to bend with the winds of change.

"Purists" here means "leftist anti-Americans". "Realists" mean "people who realize relentless anti-Americanism could mean more American deaths on the battlefield". I could not identify a single person of my acquaintance who would fault the media for covering a legitimate problem with war policy or prosecution, if it were done fairly and in a straightforward manner without an agenda. After all, this is the country that ousted Trent Lott and Jim Moran from leadership positions for idiocy-while-in-office - in each case their own party was responsible for the ouster. We don't hide from truth. But we aren't interested in leftist, biased whining.

Cry me a river

Norman Solomon thinks the US mainstream media has gone all patriotic now that the war has started:

Creators Syndicate writer Norman Solomon is dismayed with the cheerleading approach many U.S. newspapers are taking in the initial days of war. And the media columnist said the practice of "embedding" journalists with U.S. soldiers is partly to blame.

"Embedding means the journalists covering the U.S. war on Iraq are 'in bed' with the military," said Solomon, explaining that the system can lead to reporters losing objectivity as they bond with troops.

"If journalists are going to embed themselves with U.S. troops, they should also embed themselves with Iraqi families," he told E&P Online Friday. "But it's obviously better to be on the sending rather than the receiving end of missiles."

Of course, we won't discuss that hundreds of journalists covering the war are not embedded, and that a lot of information about the policies behind the war and the way it's being prosecuted could be dug up stateside. Embedding doesn't have to limit coverage at all. However, his intent isn't to give an honest view of media coverage, but to whine because his leftist view isn't prominent enough. And he has such a stellar record that he should be listened to:

Solomon has a unique perspective on coverage of Iraq. He visited that country three times since the fall -- including a September trip with past and present members of the U.S. Congress and a December trip with actor/director Sean Penn that upset Bush-administration supporters.

Fine, fine credentials and certainly evidence that we should respect his view of how journalists aren't covering the war objectively.

Interesting how Editor & Publisher is presenting Solomon's viewpoint with little questioning itself - it does call him a "leftist", but you get the sense they don't see that as a bad thing. He's allowed to make blanket statements that I don't think a "right-wing" type would get by with:

Most mainstream dailies, said Solomon, are very conscious about reflecting the consensus of U.S. "elites." Since few prominent Democrats have spoken out against war on Iraq, newspapers feel they don't need much content against it, either -- even though there is plenty of antiwar sentiment in the communities where newspapers circulate.

Funny, I thought that American opinion was running over 70% for the war; I'd be interested to see how those numbers shake out regionally. I'd be willing to bet much of the country runs 90-95% in favor, with certain pockets on the left and east coasts running at 75-80% against. Obviously Solomon doesn't watch television either, where anti-war rallies are so ubiquitous that you just about believe there's one on every streetcorner in America. No insertion of such factoids in this article. Hmmm.

I'm sure it's not because E&P has its own agenda. How unobjective that would be!

Okay, I'm excessively cool

I wanted to link Chris Muir's cartoon with a prominent button, but he didn't have one. He sent me to Foolsblog, which had a button, but not the title in it. I lifted that button, pulled the text from Muir's homepage, and viola! made a button with everything on it! We won't discuss the little band of extra color I had to add because I couldn't figure out how to make the title and author sections bump up together. We'll call it a feature, not a bug! If you'd like to link to Muir's site using the button, feel free. I'm just all impressed with myself that I photoshopped it successfully.

Busting media bias

I've not spent enough time on media bias lately, but fortunately Media Minded is, as always, on the job. He's got a slew of great posts about bias and journalism in general, so I recommend you head on over there, start at the top and scroll down. Love the stuff about Eric Alterman - just a tiny taste, from an article/interview with him:

He [Alterman] acknowledged that "most big-city journalists are liberal. I personally don't know ... well, I don't have to my house for dinner anyone who's not pro-choice, pro-gun control ... pro-campaign finance reform."

Alterman also said that conservatives who think "the mainstream media hold them and their way of life in contempt" are largely correct.

And then MM says:

But Alterman believes the all-powerful journalistic codes of ethics prevent this bias from having any real-world effect.

That's right! Not the least little trickle gets in, as we see from this post.

That MM. He rocks.

(I'm thinkin' MM and his lady would be much better dinner companions than Alterman and his gang - ya think?)

You gotta read this

If you're not reading Chris Muir's Day by Day cartoon, whatsamatta with you? Today's is especially beautiful. This guy is trouncing all current political cartoonists, and is of the quality of Berke Breathed and Gary Trudeau in their heydays.

From experience, I suggest that you not go back and read his entire archives while at work. Your coworkers will become suspicious from the giggles, gaffaws and fists in the air saying, "Right on!"

Remember framing?

Tim Blair highlights a major issue in the whole polling game, although that wasn't the intent of his post. Whenever you hear about a poll with this or that result, especially if it seems to run counter-intuitive, see if you can find out what questions were actually asked. Here's an example of why:

JOHN HIGHFIELD: At what stage do you believe Americans will start to turn against the war?

WILLIAM BLUM: They are against it. If you ask the right questions, if you ask … see, the questions they ask usually in the polls is: do you support the President's attempt to overthrow the government of Saddam Hussein? Well, for that I myself might even answer yes. That implies that the only consequence of a war would be to overthrow one tyrant.

It all depends on the "right questions". And what question would Blum ask?

WILLIAM BLUM: If you ask a question like: do you support the dropping of powerful explosives upon the heads of totally innocent men, women and children, demolishing their homes and their schools and their hospitals, are you in favour of that? That would change the answers, I think, quite a bit.

Most polls, of course, are not nearly that flagrantly biased. But a subtle adjustment in wording can make a huge difference. Think about the difference between these questions, both purporting to get at what Americans think of the UN (these are my made-up examples, no actual poll questionnaires were harmed for this post):

Relatively neutral:

What role do you think the UN has played in this current war in Iraq?

A little rightish:

Do you think the UN's failure to stand by its November Security Council resolution contributed to the need for war in Iraq?"

A little leftish:

Do you think the UN was right to reject the recent US efforts to force through a Security Council resolution for war against Iraq?"

Now, if you had all three questions in the same questionnaire, that might be something different. But you can see how the framing of the question has a lot to do with the direction the answer might take. Reporters are also very good at this framing of questions, as you've no doubt noted while listening to international media question allied forces during the press conferences in Centcom. Just be on the alert for any questions that have the tone of "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?", especially when followed by accusations of failure to answer such questions directly.

From a Canadian soldier

Captain J. M. Heinrichs is a frequent and thoughtful commenter here and on other weblogs. He sent me the following, speaking as a Canadian military man, and gave me permission to post it here:

During the Gulf War, an RAF Tornado was shot down, the crew captured. A picture of the navigator was soon released to the press, but no one would comment directly on his haggard appearance. But every time I went out the door, I could look at his picture, probably interrogated, definitely severely beaten, [and] I had no problem being 'up' for my next duty shift.

This time