May 2002 Archives

William Saletan explains how the Bush Administration is winning the public relations battle over attacking Iraq.

NASA's announcement that probes have found large quantities of ice underneath the Martian surface could open the door for a human mission to our planetary neighbor. If it does, it is by far the most important news of the week. Humanity must once again seek the stars and the knowledge and benefits exploration can bring.

Here's a story about an Oklahoma redistricting case that provides another example of how the parties try to game the redistricting process to ensure as many incumbents as possible do not face significant challenges in future elections. This, of course, means that only a few Americans live in competitive Congressional districts. Districts that are solid for one party or the other tend to elect more extreme candidates, since it is easier for the ideologically pure who win a primary battle to win the general election. This is one of the reasons the number of moderates in Congress continues to shrink. We need a process that creates more competitive districts.

The Washington Post's Karl Vick and Kamran Khan report: "Officials have connected al Qaeda to the kidnapping and murder of American newspaper reporter Daniel Pearl in January, a grenade attack on a church in Islamabad on March 17 that left two Americans and three others dead, and a car bombing May 8 outside a hotel in this southern port city that killed 14 people, including 11 French technicians." The war against terror goes, ahem, I guess, not so well...

Reporters were able to get FBI Director Robert Mueller to admit that there was at least a small chance that the FBI could have prevented the Sept. 11 attacks with more active investigations. So. What. The media, including many of the reporters at that press conference, could have done much to help had they deigned to publicize major warnings about terrorism instead of focusing on a bunch of trivial (remember the summer of shark attacks?) or irrelevant matters.

Mickey Kaus links to a Wall Street Journal story (subscription required) that exposes mail fraud: so-called "priority mail." Rick Brooks writes: "The latest post office statistics show that the typical Priority Mail shipment now takes more than half a day longer to reach its destination than first-class deliveries that cost as little as 34 cents. That compares to $3.50 for the cheapest Priority Mail shipment. Prices are set to rise on June 30. One wonders why the U.S. Postal Service seems so intent on doing whatever it can to ensure that people move to other services.

Joshua Micah Marshall set out to research how attacking Saddam Hussein became such a vital part of America's foreign policy discussion. During his reporting, Marshall changed his mind and decided (perhaps for different reasons than the Bush Administration hawks) that a "regime change" in Iraq is necessary.

Signing on from Limestone, Maine, as my family visits my parents.

The New York Times today has a must-read, but hard-to-read, article. The article, "Fighting to Live as the Towers Died" recreates the atmosphere in the World Trade Center towers starting at 8:00 a.m. on September 11. The reporters use actual phone calls, e-mails, and other communications from those inside the WTC to describe what people were thinking: both those that escaped, and those who did not.

Joshua Micah Marshall wishes the Democrats would stop allowing Vice President Cheney to bully them.

Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.) is really quite pathetic. Now Davis, the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, is complaining that Democratic staffers are sending e-mails to each other discussing strategy and ways to beat Republicans. Well, Congressman, DUH. I happen to think that the strategy outlined in the e-mail in question (which was mistakeningly sent by a Democratic staffer to a Republican) to demagogue Social Security reform is reprehensible. But this is politics, Congressman Davis. Leave the alligator tears at home.

I am traveling with my family (a needed vacation) for the next week. In fact, today we enjoyed a cross-country flight. (We are now at Brown University, where my wfie Kari went to college.) My posts, as a result, will likely be more limited the next few days.

Not that Americans are paying attention, but two nuclear powers are on the verge of war. Jim Hoagland writes: "India and Pakistan are three to four weeks from a foreseeable war that the United States has done too little to prevent. By misreading Gen. Pervez Musharraf, the Bush administration has contributed to a dangerous confrontation between South Asia's two nuclear-armed rivals."

Richard Cohen writes about the new HBO movie "Path to War." The movie explores how President Johnson and his advisors escalated the Vietnam War. The movie was excellent. Cohen sees some parallels between the arrogance of the Johnson White House and that of the newest Texan to reside in the Oval Office. Johnson's experience should be a cautionary tale for the Bush Administration. Of course, it is not.

The discovery yesterday of Chandra Levy's remains marked the return of media excess. Howard Kurtz quotes Robert Lichter of the Center for Media and Public Affairs, who aptly summed up the situation. "9-11 showed that TV news has the capacity to rise to the occasion, but it still has the capacity to sink to any occasion. This poor girl is never going to rest in peace until the media decide there's no more audience they can use her to bring. There is no level of ghoulishness too embarrassing for the tabloid instincts of TV news."

Sen. John McCain makes the case for a Sept. 11 commission in today's Washington Post.

George Will endorses the Sept. 11 commission idea. "Eleven days. That is how long it took President Roosevelt after Pearl Harbor to appoint a blue-ribbon commission, headed by Supreme Court Justice Owen Roberts, to examine what was known, and what should have been, prior to Dec. 7, 1941. More than 250 days have passed since Sept. 11. Last week, one of the most dispiriting in recent Washington history, the administration seemed surly and defensive regarding the inevitably rising tide of questions about governmental intelligence operations before the terrorist attacks."

A reality check from the Sacramento Bee's Peter Schrag: "It's a peek-a-boo war. When it suits someone's political purposes -- say when Cheney and Bush want to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge -- we're reminded of the unstable Middle East and the threat of terrorism. When the issue is energy efficiency or tax cuts, there is no war." Is it going to take another terrorist attack before we really get serious about the problem?

Thomas Friedman asks our political leaders to grow up. He writes, "Look, in the wake of 9/11, I would never rule out any kind of attack. That would be foolhardy. But I'm no more interested in indicting the Bush team for failing to respond to an unspecific warning about a possible terrorist attack before 9/11 than I'm interested in having the vice president and F.B.I. director warn us about the certainty of an unspecified attack sometime in the future." Perhaps it is foolhardy, but I hope these calls for reason are heard by Democrats and Republicans alike in Washington.

There is a menace in the Caribbean that the United States must take a hard line against. No, it is not Cuba's Fidel Castro. We should be fighting those corporations that are moving their headquarters out of the U.S. in order to escape taxes. As John Balzar writes, companies like Stanley Works: "They don't want to give up their good lives as U.S. residents. They're peddling the USA brand at home and abroad. They expect to prosper globally thanks to the stability of the U.S. and the might of its military and diplomacy. They benefit from the strength of domestic institutions, like the stock market, the Federal Reserve, the judiciary and the greenback. They draw talent from U.S. universities." Perhaps in return they could pay their taxes?

It is time to replace the Federal Election Commission with an agency that will try to oversee and protect our electoral process. Basing a new agency on the successful example set by the General Accounting Office, as a new report from Project FEC suggests, makes a great deal of sense.

One would think that our government would have better things to do than continue, as Clarence Page reports, its misleading war on marijuana.

Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), despite her strong environmental record, voted against strengthening automobile efficiency standards a few months ago in hopes that General Motors would save a plant in her state. The Baltimore Sun suggests that Mikulski "would have been wiser to procure a more certain quid pro quo before trading on that [environmental] legacy."

Jules Witcover writes about Sept. 11: "President Bush can't be blamed for not knowing what was coming, but he sure can be held accountable for what is done now about the intelligence breakdown." I'd amend that to also hold Congressional leaders accountable. It may be best if President Bush took the lead, but Congressional oversight and participation is required.

Cynthia Tucker writes about conspiracy theories and Rep. Cynthia McKinney's (D-Ga.) lame attempt to claim the latest furor over what warnings the White House had about Sept. 11 justifies her slander of the president.

After another day of terrorism warnings from White House officials, we remain only at Yellow Alert.

Chris Matthews' "What I Really Think" feature from Monday teaches an important political lesson as it analyzes the "What Did Bush Know" controversy: "Never attack until you know what you’re attacking.". The question, politically, is not what Bush knew. It is what the Democrats knew when they started their criticism.

William Saletan explores the dangers of blaming Clinton and Bush Administration officials for missing the clues and patterns that would have revealed the Sept. 11 terrorist attack in its planning stages. The signals seem obvious now. As Saletan writes: "But everything seems more obvious in retrospect, because you know which things are true and which aren't."

The Weekly Standard comes out in favor of an independent investigation of Sept. 11 intelligence failures. As William Kristol and Robert Kagan write: "Vice President Dick Cheney came out swinging, claiming that any criticism, even a call for an investigation of the administration's actions before September 11, was 'thoroughly irresponsible . . . in a time of war.' But he's wrong. It's precisely because we're in a war that we need an investigation to find out where we failed. After Pearl Harbor, there were half a dozen such investigations. Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the first--just after Pearl Harbor." Asking questions, demanding answers, and seeking necessary reforms are not unpatriotic acts, Mr. Vice President.

"The most likely, most immediate, most potentially devastating threat America faces is the threat of nuclear terrorism. This puts us in a new nuclear arms race -- between terrorist efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and our efforts to stop them." Former Senator Sam Nunn, former Secretary of Defense William Perry and Gen. (Ret.) Eugene Habiger call on the White House and Congress to develop a real strategy to prevent this nuclear threat.

In the wake of last year's rolling blackouts, you might think that California would be providing incentives for people and businesses to generate their own electricity. The Sacramento Bee's Daniel Weintraub reports that California has actually made it more difficult. Will voters remember in this state election year?

A coal-fired electricity plant in Cheshire, Ohio, has caused so much pollution that the company that owns it is going to pay $20 million to relocate all of Cheshire's residents. My question: why is the plant still operating?

This Newsday editorial is on point. "But perhaps most disturbing is knowing that Tom Ridge, the homeland security czar, still lacks the necessary authority to coordinate security that could come only with cabinet-level status and the power to order top agencies to report to him directly. Until that happens, Ridge is a glorified errand boy, flapping around with color-coded charts about terror threats. Let's get serious before it's too late - again."

Even though he is correct, Paul Krugman's column today is going to anger conservatives (again): "Honesty in corporate accounting isn't a left-right issue; it's about protecting all investors from exploitation by insiders. By blocking reform of a broken system, the Bush administration is favoring the interests of a tiny corporate oligarchy over those of everyone else."

Why do we have a tax code that allows companies like Stanley Works to consider moving their corporate headquarters to other countries in order to avoid a portion of their federal taxes?

O. Ricardo Pimentel asks a reasonable question about Sept. 11 intelligence failures: "The White House says the warnings were too vague to act upon. OK, this is believable. But Congress, the White House and others have worked mightily over the past few months to make immigration the scapegoat here. As a taxpayer and, along with every other American, a possible terrorist target, it would be comforting to know that other government agencies were getting the same scrutiny." Indeed.

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) writes an op-ed that does a good job defending the White House against the charge that it had prior knowledge of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The hidden defense here, however, is of the intelligence committee investigations (Kyl is a member of the Senate intelligence committee). I regret, Senator, that the intelligence committees cannot be trusted to handle the necessary investigation properly. Your investigation has been troubled from the start. We need an independent commission, like the one suggested by Sens. Lieberman and McCain since December 20, 2001.

A quick (cynical?) question: if our federal government is so concerned about the prospect of a new Al Qaeda attack based on an increase in Al Qaeda communications activity, why hasn't the Office of Homeland Security changed our current nationwide threat level from its original "yellow" level?

Kevin Lenox makes an excellent point in his comment about how the Sept. 11 attacks were "unthinkable".

Added: Even better, Kevin: James Pinkerton agrees with your point of view. His column today focuses on the need for our homeland security forces to read more, perhaps starting with Tom Clancy's novels. Pinkerton also wonders how military officials, a month after the terrorist attacks, could say that they had not considered the possibility of using airplanes to crash into buildings when Clancy used that scenario as a major plot point in his 1994 novel "Debt of Honor." (Clancy, of course, is extremely well-read in military circles.) As Pinkerton writes, that is a "depressing commentary on military intelligence."

Added: Fareed Zakaria also mentions Clancy.

The United States promised to go to great efforts to rebuild Afghanistan. That makes sense, since it is not in our national interest to allow Afghanistan to disintegrate again. Fred Hiatt, however, reports that our nation is not delivering.

William Safire joins the call for an independent commission to study the Sept. 11 intelligence failures. Safire writes: "I say: finger-point away at the entire national intelligence flop. That means investigate both Clinton and Bush administration nonfeasance, and especially scrutinize the failure of Congressional and executive oversight."

Sensible advice from Graham Allison and Andrei Kokoshin: "After Sept. 11, failure to confront the specter of nuclear terrorism invites catastrophe. Preventing nuclear terrorism is a finite challenge that is susceptible to a finite solution if the presidents [Bush and Putin] determine to just do it."

Judith Kleinfeld writes in the Christian Science Monitor about her recent experience (what she terms "this embarrassing story") in the Seattle airport. Kleinfeld got frustrated with the airport security screening and said something that she admits was stupid. Writes Kleinfeld:

"You're an idiot to have made me go through that," I said to the screener as I handed her the new boarding pass.

I was wrong. I was rude.

The screener blew her whistle. A uniformed guard took me away. "Do I look like a terrorist?" I asked him.

That question pressed his hot button. "Are you telling me we should be doing racial profiling?"

But, you know, this example is just the latest showing just how idiotic our airline security screening process is. It is a display of an arrogance of power that is absolutely not justified based on performance.

The job of airline security is not to keep rude people grounded for life. (A prospect with which Kleinfeld was threatened.) The job of airline security is to keep terrorists, bombs, and similar dangers off our airplanes. It is depressing that I must restate this fact today.

Should rude passengers be punished in some way? Of course. A lifetime flight ban, however, is not the answer. I would suggest a fine. Make it a significant one. Even better, the fine should be made payable to a reputable fund helping the families of Sept. 11 victims.

Make rude people pay for their momentary loss of control. Then, perhaps, we could try to keep weapons and dangerous people off our airplanes?

The Bush Administration should embrace an independent commission to look into the Sept. 11 intelligence failures because it is good idea. A commission, moreover, would benefit the White House. As Robert Novak notes, President Bush has refrained from criticizing the FBI for its obvious mistakes. Now, the FBI is repaying that generosity by selectively leaking in an attempt to shift the focus from the FBI to the White House. A failure as large as Sept. 11 requires accountability. Since Congress is clearly ill-equipped to handle the job, an independent commission needs to take up the task. Immediately.

An excellent question about the Sept. 11 intelligence failures from Jules Witcover: "The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with such planes were "unthinkable," but aren't there hosts of experts at the CIA and the FBI who are well paid to think the unthinkable?"

Fooling around with the national debt limit is irresponsible government at its worst. Congress needs to take action to avoid a looming debt crisis. Yes, I can see how it is not politically convenient to need to raise the national debt limit after spending years cheering about surpluses and how the nation could afford a massive tax cut. While the politics are not neat, defaulting on the debt is far worse. Our members of Congress need to do their job. They need to increase the national debt limit and face the consequences, should the public pay attention long enough to notice.

David Broder hopes for gridlock to keep Congress from passing the bankruptcy bill this year. "Gridlock would doom me to write yet again next year on a topic that has been widely ignored except on the business pages in the press. It would require me to rail again about the way in which business lobbying -- lavish campaign contributions to President Bush and pressure from big home-state bank and credit card employers on such Democratic senators as Tom Daschle and Joe Biden -- has made this a bipartisan outrage. But writing repetitious columns is a small price to pay if a bill as filled with inequities as this one is delayed or ultimately defeated."

The Washington Post editorial page this week will publish a series exploring needed corporate financial disclosure reform. Our financial system is based on a trust economy that assumes the numbers released by corporations and their auditors are true. This trust economy is an important common asset that has deteriorated in recent years. Now is the time to defend it. As the Post writes: "But this is a case in which the public interest, though dispersed and often leaderless, is clearly at odds with the dollar-toting lobbyists. The reformist momentum mustn't fizzle out this time."

This Seattle Post-Intelligencer editorial fails to explain how we'll pay for it, but it does explain that the baby boomers are rushing towards retirement and the United States is unprepared. "The statistics alone predict trouble ahead: On any given day this year, nearly 6,000 Americans will celebrate their 65th birthday; in 10 years, the number will be almost 10,000. Older Americans will more than double in number -- to 70 million -- by 2030. Just who will be on duty to keep them functional and living independently? Way too few is the short, scary answer." How will Medicare and Social Security pay for it? We wait for that answer.

In an op-ed on the Sept. 11 terrorism warnings, former Army intelligence analyst Robert Stewart quotes Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.): "Nothing is more despicable in American politics than for someone to insinuate the President knew an attack on our country was imminent and did nothing to stop it." I have acknowledged that this charge is out of line. There is something else that is, at a minimum, nearly as despicable in American politics: the continuing White House insinuations that criticism of the Bush Administration is unpatriotic and/or allies the critic with the terrorists.

Hans M. Kristensen asks an interesting question about the recent arms agreement between the United States and Russia: "The most immediate question is what will happen to the thousands of warheads that are 'reduced' and removed from operational status. According to Secretary of State Colin Powell, the agreement 'does not deal with where the warheads go, or how they will be disposed of, stored or kept in place if they might be needed for test purposes or for replacement purposes.' Is that a good thing? Not when both sides had already agreed to destroy the warheads."

Remember this paragraph from Tom Friedman when you hear all of the blaming and see all of the fingerpointing about Sept. 11 in the coming days and weeks: "The failure to prevent Sept. 11 was not a failure of intelligence or coordination. It was a failure of imagination. Even if all the raw intelligence signals had been shared among the F.B.I., the C.I.A. and the White House, I'm convinced that there was no one there who would have put them all together, who would have imagined evil on the scale Osama bin Laden did."

I hope Americans will seek to figure out whether statements from our political leaders are designed to help the U.S. prevent a future attack or are merely partisan cheap shots. I also hope that we will remember on election day those who seek partisan advantage from the terrorist attacks.

Cragg Hines examines Europe's reaction to President Bush on the eve of his upcoming trip to the continent. (Tomorrow he promises to look at what the president needs to know about Europe.)

Clarence Page wisely calls for a truce in the bipartisan Sept. 11 blame game.

The Baltimore Sun's Michael Hill writes about a problem close to home: the drug wars in Colombia. This nation has an important election coming up, and the United States should have a role to play in improving the standard of living there. Hill gets some good advice for our government from Russell Crandall, a Colombian specialist at Davidson College in North Carolina: "With the paramilitaries and FARC, it's a real tightrope for the United States to walk. We have to follow the lead of the Colombians. It's like the Hippocratic oath, 'First, do no harm.' And the United States, in its post-Sept. 11 fervor, needs to be very careful, to support a Colombian solution to a Colombian problem."

One sees a snapshot of many of our political system's problems in the continuing reaction to the story about intelligence warnings of potential Al Qaeda attacks prior to September 11. The rhetoric from Democratic leaders is too strong and overreaching. The intelligence failures, and lack of action about warnings from various committees and commissions, are bipartisan. I do not remember any groundswell of speeches demanding action to fight Al Qaeda before September 11. The response from the White House, moreover, is also over the top. It would be nice if the Bush Administration, just once, admitted that opponents are not allying themselves with Osama bin Laden when they ask questions.

The failures before September 11 were bipartisan. The rhetorical failures of the past few days have been bipartisan. It would be nice if, instead of seeking to destroy each other, our political leaders remembered that their first responsibility is to ensure our nation's security. That means working together to improve our intelligence, our analysis, and our security. It would help, for example, if everyone embraced the Lieberman/McCain commission idea as an initial positive step.

I'd think that the authorities in Washington, D.C., would have better things to do than crack down on wine service at art gallery openings. An overactive bureaucrat sent out a threatening letter this week instead of seeking a quieter and more constructive solution to his concerns. Failing to return the reporter's phone calls, moreover, is simply gutless.

Slate senior writer Scott Shuger, a former Navy intelligence officer, outlines some unanswered questions about the terrorism warnings the Whtie House received from the intelligence community prior to Sept. 11.

Paul Krugman makes an excellent point about the recent financial scandals. "Clearly, major reforms are needed. And bear in mind that this isn't a left-right issue; it's about protecting investors — middle-class and wealthy alike — from exploitation by self-dealing insiders."

The invaluable James Pinkerton adds these thoughts about the controversy over what warnings President Bush may have had about terrorist attacks.

"Static. That's the word to bear in mind as the Sept. 11 investigations fly forth, on and off Capitol Hill. And the sound will grow louder in the multimedia mixer as the farrago of facts and factoids echoes from here to cyberspace eternity. In the din, it will be easy for some conspiracists to connect selected data-dots and so "prove" that Bush, or Karl Rove, or Enron, knew that Sept. 11 was coming. But the fair-minded will see that such retrospective blaming is easy. What's hard is threat-assessing.

And so while it's likely that Bush will be tarnished by the investigating and scooping to come, it's hard to believe he'll be revealed as treacherous."

There are legitimate questions. Investigations are necessary. But we must not create connections and conspiracies where none exist.

Jules Witcover writes that when it comes to complaints about the White House's use of a Sept. 11 photograph as a fundraising premium: "it seems a bit of a stretch to complain about the photo when the whole fund-raising business is obscene -- in both parties." The Democrats are missing an opportunity here, one that is popular and would also serve their self-interest. They should admit their fundraising sins and begin to advocate public campaign financing. That is the real campaign finance reform we desperately need. I won't hold my breath waiting, though, as long as Terry McAuliffe as the Democrats' national chairman.

The United States' policies toward Cuba are breathtakingly hypocritical. As the Arizona Republic's Robert Robb explains: "With the end of the Cold War, Cuba is a gnat to the United States. Yet we will have nothing to do with it diplomatically, and we maintain a travel and trade embargo against it. On the other hand, the United States has for years granted the People's Republic of China most favorable trade status, promoted it for membership in the World Trade Organization, and downgraded our diplomatic status with free and democratic Taiwan in deference to it." It really is time to put this battle behind us. Ending the trade and travel embargoes against Cuba would do more to hasten the end of Castro's regime than anything the U.S. has done in decades. We have other, more urgent, battles to fight today.

Chris Matthews adds that former President Carter did make some excellent points during his trip to Cuba this week.

The White House is rightly going to take some hits over the revelation that President Bush was warned that Al Qaeda would possibly hijack airplanes two months before Sept. 11. That fact should have come out earlier. It is another distressing sign of this Administration's compulsion to keep things secret just for the sake of doing so.

But, based on what we know so far, the warnings were vague and did not suggest that airplanes were to be used as missiles against buildings. Nothing in these reports, moreover, justifies Rep. Cynthia McKinney's (D-Ga.) pathetic accusations against President Bush last month. As the Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial writers note, "It's one thing to suggest that a cop may have overlooked clues of a crime that was about to occur. It's something else entirely to suggest -- without any evidence -- that the cop was paid off to look the other way on purpose. When the cop in question is the president of the United States, and when the crime took the lives of more than 3,000 innocent people, the suggestion is reprehensible." (Joshua Marshall also has made some excellent points on this subject in defense of his earlier criticism of Rep. McKinney.)

There is a real danger that we will lose even more focus here. I understand why Chris Matthews felt compelled to focus so much on the question of "What did the president know, and when did he know it" yesterday. The White House has some explaining to do.

While I am often critical of the president, there is no question in my mind that he would have done everything in his power to prevent Sept. 11 if he had clear warnings of what was to come.

We must not lose sight of the fact that virtually all of our political leaders—including the Administrations of Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43, plus those who have served in Congress this past decade—are culpable for ignoring warnings about the growing seriousness of the terrorist threat.

We continue to need, as Sens. McCain and Lieberman suggest, an independent commission of our best people to look into all aspects of the Sept. 11 attacks. This commission needs to look at the missed warnings, the intelligence snafus, and the real steps that need to be taken to try and prevent future attacks.

Our national response to Sept. 11 has featured style over substance. It has been eight months. It is time to get serious.

Jim Romenesko's Media News links to an excellent lecture about the dangers of media consolidation by newspaper publisher Frank Blethen. "In 1975 there were 863 daily newspapers owners. In 2000, there were only 290. In 1975 there were 543 television station owners. In 2000, there were only 360. It is a very serious threat to our way of life." Unfortunately, more consolidation is likely, not less.

The Conventional wisdom here in California remains that Gov. Gray Davis is virtually unbeatable. Sacramento Bee columnist Daniel Weintraub wonders if the conventional wisdom remains correct. The combination of last year's energy crisis, current campaign finance scandals, the largest ($24 billion) budget gap in history, and Davis' general unlikeability could be enough to give Republican Bill Simon a chance at the huge upset. Frankly, if California did not lean so Democratic, Davis would not have a chance.

The future of the Crusader artillery weapons program could indicate whether the U.S. military will ever transform itself to handle 21st century threats. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld wants to kill it while Retired Army General Gordon Sullivan wants to keep it alive.

William Safire says we need to have a wide-ranging conversation about cloning. "The need is to get this far-reaching, soul-searching debate out of the ivory tower, onto the floor, onto the tube and into print until it penetrates every sentient being's consciousness," writes Safire. Absolutely. The issues raised by cloning must be discussed by everyone and not left to "others". There are vital moral and ethical issues that must be raised, discussed, and decided. Now.

We should all wonder why New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer seems like the only politician willing to investigate Wall Street accounting and analyst scandals. As Arianna Huffington writes: "Merrill Lynch is not alone. To pull our corporate culture out of the muck, it's going to take more than public contrition and mea culpas on CNBC. It will take some CEOs paying a real price for fraud, and securities regulations with real bite. Stay tuned — this one is far from over." The real danger here lies in the possibility the general public will stop investing in our capital markets because they do not trust the information and analysis they receive from them.

One should know that there are problems when the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) feels compelled to argue something that should be perfectly obvious. "Nuclear weapons are weapons of retaliation or last resort. They are not handy military tools, and we must not allow ourselves to think of them that way.

Congress needs to replace the Federal Elections Commission with a oversight body that actually seeks to enforce the law. Democracy 21, a nonpartisan organization dedicated to making democracy work for all Americans, has an excellent idea. As the Los Angeles Times explains: "Congress and the president need to start over and establish an agency capable of enforcing the law. The most basic reform would be to create an election agency modeled on the General Accounting Office that would be headed by a single administrator who would be subject to Senate confirmation and serve a term that did not overlap with the president who appointed him or her. This would help guard against the partisanship that cripples the commission." It is a necessary reform, but one should not hold his or her breath expecting our political leaders to enact it.

Steve Chapman writes about where the debate over cloning is headed. "Everyone favors scientific progress. Everyone has a stake in discoveries that could conquer terrible diseases. The question is: At what cost? All Americans should engage in the process of figuring that out.

It's a bit of political inside baseball, but on the Hill this is news. Robert Novak explores how the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee reigned in the powerful committee staff director and cut $3 billion off of a recent supplemental budget bill. With federal spending out-of-control, any restraint should be celebrated.

Think sustainability is not an issue? Here's another example to the contrary from Jay Bookman in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution: "That loud thump you heard the other day could have been any number of things. It could have been the sound of metro Atlanta --- the region "with no physical limits on its growth" --- running smack into a physical limit. It could have been the sound of hearts thudding to the floor at news that for several months in 1999 and 2000, the metro area exceeded water-consumption limits it wasn't projected to reach for another three decades."

The Arizona Republic's O. Ricardo Pimentel on the controversy surrounding the GOP's use of a Sept. 11 photo as a fundraising premium: "So, why is it really a big deal? Because the president said one thing and is doing another. He called on national unity and resolve on this issue. He got it. He said defense of this nation from terrorists is a concern that transcends politics. We bought it. So, when he uses a photo of himself as commander-in-chief in this war, not to forge unity, but to give one party a leg up over the other, this reveals much."

Slate's Robert Wright applies the principles of game theory to the Middle East conflict. It is another argument for an outside party (read: the United States) to get involved.

Will we heed Ted Turner's warning not to ignore the threat that terrorists will acquire nuclear materials. "When President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin meet in Moscow next week, they will sign a treaty to reduce the number of nuclear weapons on each side. They need to reduce a lot more than that. Some of the poisonous byproducts of the two powers' arms race are piled high in poorly guarded facilities across 11 time zones. They offer mad fools the power to kill millions." Will we ignore yet another warning?

Another argument for redistricting reform: Pennsylvania's Sixth Congressional District. A Philadelphia Inquirer editorial today describes it: "It kind of looks like an upside-down, one-clawed, one-legged alien. Modern art at its best? No, modern redistricting at its worst. It's the geographically tortured redrawn Sixth Congressional District in Pennsylvania."

Zev Chafets rightly criticizes former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for his opportunistic tactics.

Yes, the state of history education in this country is embarrassing. But, there is something that can be done about it. Clarence Page explains that adults can make excellent history teachers. "Nowadays we grown-ups seem to have grabbed onto this captivating thing called history and, in many ways, kept it to ourselves. We should share the wealth."

Will Sen. John McCain help the Republicans retake the Senate, thanks to his support of candidates like Jim Durkin in Illinois? Seems like a long shot, but McCain has drawing power. And, if McCain's help makes the difference, will he do whatever it takes to ensure that Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) is not reelected the party's floor leader?

While I would not go as far as Cal Thomas does, his column today examining the use of terror (and why it won't be stopped with words) is worth a read.

The New York Post's John Crudele pulls an interesting (read: I wish it were shocking enough to wake Americans out of their collective slumber) tidbit out of the 2001 Financial Report of the United States Government.

Crudele quotes the "Message from the Secretary of the Treasury," signed by Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, and adds more analysis of his own. Here's the paragraph, lifted directly from the report via cut-and-paste, that may shock you if you have allowed yourself to be fooled by talk of budget surpluses the past few years.

"Accrual based financial reporting is critical to gaining a comprehensive understanding of the U.S. Government’s operations. For fiscal year 2001, our results were an accrual-based deficit of $515 billion in contrast to a $127 billion budget surplus reported last fall. The primary difference between the accrual deficit and the budget surplus is the recognition of expanded military retiree health benefit costs provided by the National Defense Authorization Act, which was signed into law on October 30, 2000, and other actuarial expenses. In fact, these expenses caused the government’s future obligations to its military and civilian retirees to exceed the federal debt held by the public. As with other future obligations of the federal government, only accrual-based financial reporting provides this information in context to the public." (See page one of this pdf document download.)

Again, this is a signed statement by our Secretary of the Treasury.

Remember that the next time you hear cries for more tax cuts. It is just the financial health of future generations of Americans we are risking as we delay dealing with our nation's long-term fiscal crisis. The first boomers become eligible for Social Security in six years. The clock is ticking.

In order for our economy to work, investors have to trust that the financial information they see is real. When this "trust economy" (a common asset) deteriorates, the regular economy takes a heavy blow. As Arnaud de Borchgrave argues, "Corruption on Wall Street is undermining the world's most successful economy and giving democratic capitalism a bad name for the first time since the demise of the Soviet Union."

The farm bill just signed into law is in the running for the most inexcusable and irresponsible piece of legislation to emerge from this Congressional session.

Daniel Weintraub sums it up: "This is a bill that increases subsidies, that makes farmers more dependent than ever on the federal government and that postpones, perhaps forever, the day agriculture confronts the truth that is slowly dawning on the rest of American business: We live in a global economy."

Or, as the Washington Post editorializes: "Yesterday Mr. Bush signed a farm bill that represents a low point in his presidency -- a wasteful corporate welfare measure that penalizes taxpayers and the world's poorest people in order to bribe a few voters."

The myopic policies that are winning the day will harm the United States in the long-term.

Is the White House wrong to approve the use, as a fundraising premium, of an official photo of President Bush phoning Vice President Cheney hours after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks? Of course. Are Democrats being just a tad too strong in their condemnations? Naturally. That said, President Bush should reconsider and not use a Sept. 11 photo as a fundraising thank you.

A rainy and foggy morning on the east coast. As airplanes are trying to land safely, cyberterrorists strike at our air traffic control system. Is this a new threat? No. As John Hughes writes in the Christian Science Monitor, a government commission first brought up this prospect in September 1999. Are we more prepared to stop this attack today than we were then, or even after the September 11 terrorist attacks? Not really.

Thomas Oliphant writes: "Meanwhile, the Citizen McCain portayed by Elizabeth Drew is easily the most fascinating political leader we've got." McCain is trying to prove that our government can work. It is one of the reasons to like him so much.

James Pinkerton has some interesting thoughts about why movies today are so unimaginative.

Is raising the airline ticket surcharge to help pay for security screeners a tax increase? House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas) thinks so. As Marie Cocco sensibly writes: "Either the users of particular vulnerable services must pay or the taxpayers must. Asking no one to take responsibility is an act of irresponsibility that seems destined to make us less, not more, secure." Our security follies continue.

Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center for People and the Press does an excellent job analyzing polling data in terms of current events. So, the opening to his op-ed in today's New York Times should make some people ask a few additional questions: "Congress's overwhelming backing of Israel's use of force in the West Bank is reflective of the politics of Washington, but it runs counter to the tone of American public opinion about the crisis in the Middle East. Of course, nuance is not a popular word in Washington these days.

My family and I have just returned from the Compaq Center in San Jose, Calif., where we watched the Colorado Avalanche get past the San Jose Sharks 2-1 in overtime to force a Game 7 on Wednesday. My wife, a Sharks fan, is not so happy.

There was an earthquake during the game. The upper deck, where we sat, shook noticeably. That was odd. It's my first earthquake since moving out to the Bay Area last year. I should go to bed now before I go on a rant about how much I dislike NHL referee Kerry Fraser...

The situation in Columbia is terrible. As Sebastian Mallaby points out, the United States will soon have to involve itself or watch our hemispheric neighbor continue to disintegrate in a way that destabilizes the entire region.

Do you think all checked airline luggage will soon be scanned? Think again. Another compromise is in the works. As this USA Today editorial explains: "But the history of air safety is that makeshift solutions often become permanent when public pressure wanes. That's why the government needs to be candid about the compromise it is making and lay out a clear timetable for giving the public the 100% screening Congress promised." The government, candid about the present state of airline security? That would be a welcome change.

Editorializes the San Jose Mercury News about the proposed automobile greenhouse gas emissions bill under consideration in California: "It's not going to save the planet; it's not going to ruin the auto industry. A bill the California Assembly has before it will, instead, require the state's air board to see if there are practical steps to be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehicles." The bill is a useful initial step in efforts to stop the rise in greenhouse gas emissions. It deserves to be enacted into law.

Hamilton College President Eugene Tobin advocates real diversity on college campuses in a surprisingly good commentary. Writes Tobin:

"For me, real diversity means ensuring that all currently underrepresented people - not necessarily or exclusively African Americans, Latinos, and Asians, for example, but people whose ideas and experiences contribute to a college's intellectual and cultural vitality - must become a more significant part of our future. Who might that be? Today, on most American campuses, individuals whose views support political, economic and cultural conservatism; elsewhere, advocates for gay rights, the environment and antiglobalization meet that standard. Categories and examples will change, but a truly diverse community must remain open to ideas, values and opinions that disagree with the majority."

Tobin is correct. It has been quite some time since I felt good about one of the leaders of the New England Small College Athletic Conference (of which my alma mater, Bowdoin College, is a member).

Marianne Means provides the best short description I have seen so far of the present state of our national homeland security efforts. "Insofar as anyone knows, the fledgling Office of Homeland Security is a rudderless, unaccountable, organizational morass, incapable of protecting Americans against a bicycle theft, let alone a nuclear attack." Indeed. I look forward to a reasoned and focused debate about this subject during the upcoming election campaigns. Not.

The White House and Congressional leaders should develop a protocol to ensure that every judicial nominee gets a hearing, if not a vote. (There need be no guarantee of a positive vote.) The current situation is unacceptable. It is unfair to the people involved and is causing unneeded delays. Worse, of course, the judicial fight is as much about short-term politics as it is about judicial philosophies. As the Christian Science Monitor editorializes: "What's more, both Democrats and Republicans have used their purposeful delays in approving judicial nominees in order to score points and earn campaign money from their key constituencies."

It is time for our political leaders to stop acting like second graders or to step aside. Both Republicans and Democrats are guilty here, so save us from another day of sanctimonious speeches. Fix this problem or get out.

Robert Novak reports that there is "no evidence whatever" that September 11 suicide bomber Mohamed Atta met an Iraqi secret service operative in Prague before returning to the United States. Such a meeting would provide justification for attacking Iraq. Without it, it is unlikely we will have many allies in the effort.

A study recommending a complete overhaul of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) is scheduled for later this week. The study will call for an overhaul of this all-too-often ineffective agency. The question, as Jules Witcover writes, is "Whether members of Congress will agree to give teeth to an agency many already do not like, even in its ineffective state..." FEC reform seems unlikely. The need to try is undeniable.

I've often complained that our nation is not serious about the war on terrorism or airport security. Now, I wonder if we are really serious about attacking Iraq. As Jim Hoagland writes: "Even the president's campaign to overthrow Saddam Hussein was set back last month when a CIA attempt to enlist the Kurds of northern Iraq fizzled. The agency flew Kurdish leaders Massoud Barzani and Jalal Talibani to a secure undisclosed location in Virginia, but was then unable to talk them into allowing the agency to staff two full-time new "missions" in Kurdistan. The Kurds asked for but did not get guarantees of serious protection for taking such a provocative step."

Read that last sentence again: "The Kurds asked for but did not get guarantees of serious protection for taking such a provocative step."

The Kurds have been gassed by Saddam Hussein. They've been attacked by biological weapons.

Our government brings Kurdish leaders to our country, asks them for a serious favor, and we do not offer to protect them against retaliation?

Pathetic.

Yes, the McCain running for president as a Democrat notion was fun to consider. (I'd love to vote for Sen. McCain again.) It was always an unlikely prospect. And now the esteemed David Broder extinguishes this fire's remaining embers. As Broder writes, "Still, it does amaze me to see this lively, gutsy and quirky man, one of the most useful members of the Senate, who has never given anyone reason to doubt his fidelity to his principles or his party, become the target of an attempted political kidnapping by prematurely pessimistic liberals."

Former President Clinton is correct to explain that any lasting (or temporary) settlement to the Middle East crisis will require an outside push, American resolve, and (more than likely) American troops. A great nation should take up this calling. Will we?

People around the world hear "I read it on the internet" and react with belief and not the requisite healthy skepticism. As Thomas Friedman points out, this is not good.

The college admissions process is out of control. It starts too early, is gamed to the disadvantage of most applicants, and causes too much stress. Of course, as Mike Barnicle explains, the admissions process is just more of the same. "In a lot of cases, the poor kids have been suffocated by their parents' ambitions for years."

Kevin Phillips examines how the differences and tensions between California, Texas, and New York are driving local and national politics.

Steve Chapman explains why the Bush Administration's new Second Amendment interpretation could lead to a more rational discussion of gun control. "If the Supreme Court were to embrace a new interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, both sides would have to stop fantasizing and start dealing rationally with how to balance the rights of gun owners with the safety of everyone else." More rational political conversation: excellent.

Susan Baer profiles Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz in today's Baltimore Sun. It is worth a read, since it is increasingly clear that Wolfowitz's ideas, with the backing of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney, are winning the foreign policy debate within the Bush Administration.

Mickey Kaus has accomplished what most bloggers secretly dream: he's been picked up by Slate, and there is money involved. Kaus is one of my favorite writers, and anything that gets him to write more is great. We should see more blogs signed by other web sites. It is a relatively cheap way to add new daily content. (Joshua Micah Marshall, among others, should watch his e-mail closely for offers.)

My favorite NHL team, the Washington Capitals, fired head coach Ron Wilson today. I found out while watching ESPNews on my JetBlue flight back to Oakland from Washington, D.C. I was hoping, without luck, for ESPNews to cover the press conference live. I like Wilson as a coach, but it is clear that many of the team's top players have tuned him out. In the end, if you fail to win a first-round playoff series for four years you won't keep your job in the NHL today. Wilson should find another job soon enough.

I am heading to Washington, D.C. tonight for a Capitol Hill briefing I helped to organize to discuss Climate Change Policies and Business Opportunities. The idea that the U.S. economy would be destroyed by taking action on climate change is erroneous. This briefing will bring business leaders to Capitol Hill to help explain why.

My posts will be limited while I am in Washington. I get back to California on Friday, and will look to catch up a bit during the weekend.

Thinking fighting terrorism is a priority in Washington? As the Washington Post's Vernon Loeb reports: "As the House Armed Services Committee began its review last week of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's $379 billion budget request, the only intrigue seemed to involve how far lawmakers would go in raiding a $10 billion contingency fund for the war on terrorism to pay for their own pet defense projects." Who cares about a war on terrorism when there is election-year pork to dole out?

Remember how Republicans argued that last year's unfathomably large tax cuts were required to keep the federal government from spending money like a drunken sailor? Mark Shields points out that the GOP keeps bellying up to the bar to buy another round. "Since the GOP takeover of the House in 1995, discretionary federal spending -- which includes those parts of the budget Congress separately appropriates each year, unlike Social Security -- has gone up 48.7 percent. During the eight years of Ronald Reagan's presidency, the federal budget nearly doubled and discretionary spending went up by one-third. In Bush's very first year, federal discretionary spending went up by 15 percent." The days when fiscal conservatism meant fiscal responsibility are long past.

California has a chance to take the lead on the effort to fight global climate change. A bill passed last week by the State Senate, and heading back to the State Assembly for reconciliation, calls "for the California Air Resources Board to adopt 'feasible, cost-effective' standards to reduce carbon dioxide from cars and light trucks." The car manufacturers are, of course, fighting this effort. The federal government has largely refused to engage the climate change issue. Thankfully, in a federal system of government, forward-looking states can seek to fill part of that vacuum.

New York Daily News columnist John Leo supports blogging.

House Majority Whip Tom DeLay and President Bush are finding that their interests are diverging. The latest sign was the farm bill, which DeLay opposed but Bush said he'd sign. As Robert Novak writes, when it comes to domestic policy the president "is combat averse, preferring to sign bills he really does not like rather than fighting it out in the trenches." This does not serve DeLay's aims, as it alienates the Republican base.

Jules Witcover writes about last week's Senate Appropriations hearing into homeland security. It is the latest example of our national lack of seriousness about improving our security in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks. Reading the column will not make you feel more secure. It should make you angry.

ADDED: Here's Office of Management and Budget chief Mitch Daniels, defending the White House's fiscal policies in today's USA Today: "We must assume the responsibility to defend our homeland and defeat terrorism abroad — whatever it takes. How about we start by making the Office of Homeland Security a cabinet-level agency and by stopping the present whitewash and taking airport security seriously?

Remember the days when fiscal responsibility was an important political virtue? They are long gone. In the midst of the spending spree and collapse in tax revenues, one wonders if our political leaders will take the time to raise the national debt ceiling?

In January Karl Rove predicted that the GOP could run as the party fighting terrorism. Reporting from North Carolina, and the race to succeed Sen. Jesse Helms, David Broder explains that Rove appears to be wrong.

Good advice from Thomas L. Friedman: "At the same time, America needs to make a much bigger investment in public diplomacy in the Muslim world, and vigorously challenge what is published there. In an era when blind rage can become a weapon of mass destruction, this is as important as any missile shield."

It is disappointing that we cannot show as much imaginative thinking to build an economy that is not based on fossil-fuel consumption as we do to find new ways to feed our addiction to oil.

Turns out there was some energy price fixing in California last summer. No, not by Enron. As Daniel Weintraub writes in the Sacramento Bee, the culprit was the state-created Independent System Operator.

Jack Germond reflects on Ronald Reagan's failed attempt to use his popularity to re-elect vulnerable Senators in 1986. "The lesson in Reagan's experience is that even extremely popular presidents cannot tell the voters whom to choose. And what this means, in turn, is that the White House is taking a significant political risk by putting presidential stature so clearly on the line.

Could we please try getting serious and make homeland security a cabinet-level agency? As the Los Angeles Times editorializes, the nation's homeland security plans are not nearly adequate. In fact, the Bush Administration is flunking."

Trusted professionals who turn out to be corrupt. Murky financial arrangements make supposedly impartial judgements suspect. Obvious professional conflicts of interest. Sound like the Enron scandal? Actually, as the Washington Post's Sebastian Mallaby writes, these are your doctors.

Gasoline is not expensive. A nugget from Steve Chapman's column confirms it: "Gasoline sells today for about what it did in 1981. If pump prices had just kept pace with inflation over the last two decades, we'd be paying about $2.75 a gallon, not $1.39." If gasoline cost $2.75 a gallon, drivers would be much closer to paying the full price of their automobile use. As it stands now, drivers pay less than half of all the economic costs (link to pdf report).

A remote-controlled rat. Like the cloning debate, it is a scientific advancement with tremendous potential—for good and for bad. Our scientists are working on experiments that pose ethical questions the rest of society has not yet begun to consider. It is time for our political and ethical leaders (do those still exist?) to spark a national, perhaps international, conversation about these scientific journeys.

Our Egyptian "allies" are once again trying Saad Eddin Ibrahim, a human rights activist who happens to be a U.S. citizen. This time the charge is "defaming the nation." Too bad most Americans could not care less.

Did you know that the United States is at war? As Michael Hill writes: "A half-year later, there are 6,000 American troops on the ground in Afghanistan and they seem more endangered now than in those opening days. The war they are fighting has become virtual background noise, pushed from the foreground of the country's consciousness by the tangentially related blowup between the Israelis and Palestinians, as well as humdrum daily news - from actor Robert Blake's arrest to the Kentucky Derby."

There is an economic argument for preserving our natural resources and seeking to create a sustainable economy.

One of the foundations of our free market system is trust. Investors must trust that the financial numbers they see are accurate. As Cliff Cobb from Redefining Progress explains in a letter to the Chicago Tribune: "A market system depends on trust as a common asset, a resource on which everyone relies but for which no one is singularly responsible. Unless policymakers find a way to restore accountability and make the audit system self-regulating, financial markets increasingly will appear less trustworthy than a casino."

As Richard Cohen explains, it is possible to criticize Israel without being anti-semitic. When a charge like this (or facist, or Nazi, etc.) is overused, it eventually loses all meaning.

Stanley Crouch gets it right in today's New York Daily News: "We should demand the best of Israel and pressure it to do the best, if we have to. But we should never forget that, unlike some of our other "friends" in the Middle East, Israel will never sell us out." Israel must be held to a high standard. We—and they—must seek, if not peace, a cessation of hostilities. (See withdraw and build a wall below.)

Austin Bay engages in some interesting speculation about a potential Iraqi war.

Withdraw and build a wall. I agree that this is the best of a menu of bad outcomes in the Middle East conflict. Israel should withdraw from most of the settlements and build a defensible border. As Steve Chapman writes: "Unilateral separation, true, is inferior to a final settlement that has the unequivocal support of both parties--which is like saying it's inferior to life in the Garden of Eden. Neither option is available. Peace now would be nice. But Israelis are coming to see the wisdom of a different approach, captured in a new slogan: Separation now. Peace later."

Jay Bookman writes about the web of corruption that New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer is uncovering among Wall Street analysts. We should not forget the campaign contributions that have kept the U.S. Congress from exercising its proper oversight role. If investors cannot trust the numbers, they will stop investing.

Former President Clinton remains a potent political personality. He also has good advice for any Democrat seeking the president in 2004. The Arizona Republic's Ricardo Pimentel agrees that the best advice (and this should go for any politician, regardless of political affiliation: Be For Something.

The proliferation of new Arab satellite media stations is other reason the United States must do all it can to calm the Middle East conflict. As Thomas L. Friedman writes today: "When I covered the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, it took hours or days for film footage to get out, and Arab regimes could tightly control what was shown. A few weeks ago, by contrast, Arab News Network carried live, from a Palestinian village next to Jenin, a report from a Palestinian family that had been locked into a room by Israeli forces who were sweeping the area. The mother, who had a cellphone, called ANN, pleading for help for her kids. The whole Arab world listened in — live." Imagine what your reaction would be to images such as this one.

Friday is World Press Freedom Day. In 2001, 37 journalists died covering stories. Reporting is an often thankless job, but an absolutely essential one in a free and open society.

Does the Bush Administration need additional Congressional authorization to go to battle against Iraq? As Jules Witcover writes, many in Congress think so unless the White House can establish that Iraq is connected to the Setp. 11 attacks.

Why do I support a moratorium on so-called "therapeutic cloning"? Because we have not fully considered the consequences of the road on which we are traveling. As David Hess, the chairman of the Medical College of Georgia's neurology department writes today, "Unlike "leftover" embryos from in-vitro fertilization clinics, which were created with the intention to give life, these cloned embryos are created only to be destroyed, created as products to be strip-mined for their stem cells. In the world of biotechnology, they become mere commodities." Commodities. A chilling thought.