bmull

Last active
9 months, 2 weeks ago
User Picture

A Day In The Life Of A Bradley-Bashing Tweep

By: bmull Thursday March 10, 2011 3:13 am

Bradley Manning in civilian clothesWhat you are about to read is real. It has been edited for length and clarity. Be advised, reading this will not make you any smarter.

8:15a Good morning everyone! 8:39a As a reminder my blog has a lot of stuff to help Bradley Manning-haters get started. 9:21a I’m now chatting with one of David House’s stalkers. Hello “Natalia…” 11:37a Jane Hamsher is the P.T. Barnum of Manning. FDL’s serious bloggers will soon flee. 12:39p BREAKING: A dispute among Manning supporters is going down elsewhere on Twitter. I’ll see if I can pile on. 12:41p David House believes Manning is his micro-fame meal ticket. 12:43p Ditto Hamsher and David Coombs. 12:45p House is helping Manning in order to get himself a movie deal. 12:46p Hamsher has her eye on producing the movie. 12:50p David House, you are manipulating Manning’s mind. 1:13p Manning’s visitors should be neutral observers rather than friends. 1:37p Does Jane Hamsher not know that Manning is in a suicide cell? She should read Wikipedia. 1:41p How can we be sure that David House is really Manning’s most devoted friend? 1:42p Hamsher, House and Coombs are as disgusting as the plutocrats who are destroying our country. 1:45p I’m now chatting with a lawyer who’s unfamiliar with Manning’s case but is sure that Manning’s supporters are ruining his defense. 1:47p The brig staff who are keeping him alive are the ones who really care. 1:51p This is not about Bradley Manning. It’s about the future of journalism. 1:55p Sympathetic journalists in the mainstream media are covering up the fact that Manning’s treatment is fine. 2:13p The mainstream media are taking their cue from Glenn Greenwald and Hamsher. 2:15p I’m now chatting with Wired’s Kevin Poulsen, a friend of Adrian Lamo. 2:46p Dr. Jeff Kaye’s expert opinion is bullshit. A credible witness is needed. 3:31p Hamsher is hysterical calling the brig commander a sexual sadist. 3:38p She is using Manning as an opportunity to slam Obama. 3:43p I’m now pounding some poor passerby with my knowlege of Manning. She obviously doesn’t spend all day on Twitter. 3:45p You’re wrong. Show me the statutes! 3:46p Can you cite SECNAV rules? I can. This conversation is over. 3:48p If Manning committed suicide FDL would say it was a conspiracy. Enjoy your conspiracy theories everyone. 3:50p The mainstream media have found no story, but a few blogs keep drumming one up. 3:50p The real story is: Smart-mouth prisoner learns a lesson. 3:54p Have you ever considered why the military allows a hacker to visit Manning? 3:57p Could it be that House is a federal informant? 3:58p Could Greenwald and Hamsher be making up claims of torture to hide the fact that David House is a federal informant? 4:00p By the way nudity is not public if it’s only in front of staff. 4:06p Coombs is baiting Hamsher because she’s hysterical. 4:07p Hamsher will get a movie deal out of this. 4:09p Why do I have to do the Washington Post’s job while they cover Charlie Sheen? 4:10p Nobody has any idea how Manning is being treated, but it’s all per regulation. That’s my entire point. 4:25p Anyway what’s right is just a value judgment. 4:39p House is using a fake New England accent. He grew up in Alabama. 4:40p House may be trying to sound like TV millionaire Thurston Howell III to impress young girls. 5:10p David House gives corny speeches to seduce girls. 5:21p House is just a tool of Fitzgibbonsmedia. 5:33p David House is a fame whore. 5:36p He and other Manning supporters would have you believe Manning is in The Hole. 5:45p For all we know House is telling Manning no one else wants to visit him. 5:54p FDL is cashing in on Manning-related traffic. It works out to thousands of dollars per day. 6:19p I’ve been sleeping naked my whole life. 6:33p Maybe Manning was attempting to masturbate to death. 6:36p Dennis Kucinich was denied visitation because he wouldn’t lie like House does. 6:37p Manning’s supporters had to shut Kucinich down. 6:41p I’m now chatting with someone who was in a brig and was never forced to be naked! He does believe Manning’s claims. Oops. Bye! 6:43p If humiliation is torture then every sex partner I’ve had should be in prison. 6:44p Jane Hamsher and friends couldn’t pass Kucinich’s smell-test. 6:50p Here’s a fact: Free all 25,000 prisoners in solitary confinement, or live with it. 7:18p I will pay for David House to take THREE lie detector tests. 7:37p I don’t know whether Manning is guilty, nor do I care. 7:49p All these supporters’ lies about Manning are going to get him the death penalty. 8:09p I’m tired of people having so much bad info. 8:22p Just look at David House’s follower count. It shows most people aren’t buying his schtick. 8:23p Personally I don’t need a lie-detector test. I know House is lying. 8:57p Anyone who would hurt Obama’s reelection chances is simply stupid. 8:59p The second term is when it all gets done. 10:32p How do we know Manning is really forced to strip? Maybe he does it voluntarily. 10:51p I’m now chatting with Dr. Kaye. You coached David House to use the word “catatonic” and you are the Bill Frist of this story. 11:08p A real expert would be doing more than just arguing with me on Twitter. 11:13p My Twitter has become a Team Manning echo chamber. 11:18p Take PressTV.ir coverage of Manning for example. It’s all biased. 11:20p They sent Dr. Kaye after me as an attack dog. 11:26p For the record I’ve never attacked Dr. Kaye. 11:56p Nite all.

Seriously. This goes on every day.

 

“Scam Artist” Behind Draft Olbermann Campaign

By: bmull Tuesday January 25, 2011 4:48 am

Keith Olbermann (Wikipedia Photo)Who wouldn’t want Keith Olbermann to replace Joe Lieberman as U.S. Senator from Connecticut? Who wouldn’t want to have “already won” a million dollars? If you want to believe then it’s easy for a con-artist to make you believe.

Today’s case in point: A person who recently posted on FDL claiming to be an associate of Adrian Lamo, only to retract everything he wrote, has resurfaced as the mastermind of a new Olbermann for Senate campaign. Big web sites like TPM and Mediaite have bought into his fantasy. USA Today and The Hill just picked up the story. I thought I’d better nip this thing in the bud.

The following appeared on DailyKos on January 22:

The three of us were sitting around the table at lunch Saturday talking about Comcast firing Olbermann, and I don’t even know who said “Maybe we should draft him for a Senate race”, but ninety minutes later the Draft Keith Olbermann page was up, the @DraftOlbermann Twitter account was rolling, and the Draft Keith Olbermann DailyKos account was registered.

Tomorrow the Olbermann 2010 web site will go live, pointing at the Facebook page. We’re using our full set of campaign tools but they won’t go active until we get a little downtime while we’re in D.C. I’ve invited the wardogs to come out and play and a couple of them have already expressed interest. The effort has, after eight hours, 227 Facebook fans and 120 Twitter followers. I’ve got messages back from folks with Facebook groups that have five digit subscriber counts indicating that they’ll help. This effort will get its legs under it very shortly.

Sounds impressive–until you realize it takes under ten minutes, let alone ninety, to set up a couple accounts. I don’t know why he wants an Olbermann2010 web site when the election’s in 2012, but anyhow… Just look at the pretend firepower he’s bringing to this effort: the “full set of campaign tools,” “the wardogs to come out and play,” “Facebook groups that have five digit subscriber counts.” Jeez Louise!

For the skeptics he provides a sample quote from a non-believer just like you: 

“[Olbermann] lives in New York City. He has contract issues with his buyout. He doesn’t want to run for office. He is going to get on another network.”

The diarist corrects, “He used to live in Connecticut.” Now I’ve never heard that before, so maybe a knowledgeable reader can confirm it for us. In any case Olbermann once disparged the city of Bristol, CT, as a “God-forsaken place.” He’s not going to be welcomed home as a favorite son.

Beyond that the diarist has no real answers, just a reassuring worst-case scenario: If Olbermann decides not to run, by trying to draft him “we’re helping the chances of the other two lesser known candidates.” Once again he’s making us believe something we want to believe.

But the diarist insists he has the experience to manage this campaign:

We worked on the Draft Halter effort in Arkansas. We worked on both the Alaska and Arizona Senate races. We did some other things for several other Senate races that we’re contractually bound to not disclose. We already have what it takes to carry this effort through to the point where Mr. Olbermann would need to form an exploratory committee.

Those who read the diarist’s pre-deletion FDL posts on the Project Vigilant scam will recall phrases like “we’re contractually bound to not disclose.” It makes things sound super secret, and super important. The question is, “Who is we?” I’m pretty sure I know who was involved in the draft Halter effort and it was not the diarist.

Word to the wise: Don’t send this guy any money.

So Much For The NYT Investigation Of Bradley Manning’s Confinement Conditions

By: bmull Friday January 14, 2011 11:50 pm

Bradley ManningI guess we should be glad The New York Times is checking up on Bradley Manning at all. Between August 9 and December 16 they published exactly zero articles about the man Julian Assange called “the world’s pre-eminent prisoner of conscience.” Meanwhile Bradley has been in the brig at Quantico Marine Corps Base since July. Supporters have become increasingly concerned that he is being mistreated, perhaps to pressure him to testify against Mr. Assange.

The Times piece begins with the obligatory caricature of the Wikileaks founder. Although Assange has about 90% name recognition, it felt nonetheless compelled to remind readers that he is the “flamboyant founder of WikiLeaks, [who] is living on a supporter’s 600-acre estate outside London, where he has negotiated $1.7 million in book deals.”

To find out if the accusations of Bradley being mistreated by the military are true, The Times asked the military. Not surprisingly, a Quantico spokesman said no. The reason Bradley has been on prevention-of-injury restrictions for almost six months, he explained, is that military medical experts and brig guards recommended it. It would have been nice if The Times had asked specifically about the military psychologist who supposedly cleared him months ago. It would also have been nice to know if anyone has ever been on prevention-of-injury watch, with five minute checks, for months at a time. And lastly, could he confirm that Bradley’s one hour of exercise daily consists of walking figure eights in an empty room?

Instead The Times let the Quantico spokesman read from an internal report on Bradley’s treatment: “Pfc. Manning is being treated just like every other detainee in the brig,” the report allegedly says, “His treatment is firm, fair and respectful.” The Times neglected to ask if every other detainee stays on prevention-of-injury restrictions for months and months, but why quibble.

The Times inquired as to why the case is moving so slowly and was offered a variety of explanations: Computer crimes take a long time to investigate. Bradley still needs a mental health evaluation. All parties need to get the necessary security clearances. The defense is the one who asked for the delay. (Bradley’s lawyer says otherwise on his website, which The Times visited, but it chose not to follow up on the conflicting accounts.)

The Times asked if Bradley’s privileges are being restricted to pressure him to testify against Mr. Assange. The Army answered that Bradley has not spoken with civilian investigators or prosecutors. The Times thought it unnecessary to pursue this non-answer.

And so ends The Times investigation of the treatment of Bradley Manning. Its huge readership has been falsely reassured that he is being treated just like anyone else. Nothing will change.

What else is left for the article to say? Oh, yes. The obligatory mention of “the accusations of sexual misconduct [Mr. Assange] faces in Sweden.” Apropos of nothing.

[Ed. note: This post has been re-set to allow new comments. Visit this link for more FDL coverage on Bradley Manning.]

Preparing Children to Be Poor at College

By: bmull Sunday September 12, 2010 7:39 pm

http://www2.ed.gov/offices/OPE/News/collegeweek/CollegeBuilding.gif
h/t The New York Times

Your child’s been accepted to an Ivy League school. You’re excited. Although children from Podunk have been accepted to college, none had a scholarship that actually allowed them to attend. But as a poor protective parent your next thought probably is, "How will my child cope in a ‘mixed’ environment?"

Your child doesn’t know that many 18 year olds have cars, let alone Beemers. Poor parents often don’t feel comfortable discussing these delicate matters with their children. Consultants such as Ostrander International’s Poverty Assessment and Training Program can cost hundreds of dollars an hour. Therefore you may try to tell yourself that this isn’t something you have to worry about.

You should. For the poor child, college is not a safe place. Rich kids will be afraid your child will steal their stuff. That’s what their families and consultants like Ostrander’s Wealth Protection Program taught them. Rich kids will also be afraid your child will rape them.

School officials advise poor parents that are concerned about false accusations to ask to see the campus police log. If the most common 911 call is "girl got pregnant to steal my family’s money" it could be a red flag. But Sylvia Spears, dean of Dartmouth, cautions that a high number of reports doesn’t necessarily mean poor parents should be wary. Many of the alleged golddiggers are from middle class families. In some cases the super-rich level these types of accusations at the merely rich. Spears does agree however that any relationship where the woman is older than the man should be regarded with suspicion.

Ostrander tells its poor clients that the biggest threat they face is the belief that they are just like anyone else. This is particularly a problem for minority students, though poor children of mixed race are almost as vulnerable. If your child don’t realize she is different she is a target for college pranks, such as being taken to an expensive restaurant where she can’t pay the bill. Other kids may think that because your child is from the ghetto she is used to being beaten up, and she may not care.

If your child isn’t forewarned, she will inevitably fall into the trap of falling in love with a wealthier student. This will lead to threatening calls from the family. Usually there will be a report to the police, and often an angry confrontation with the family’s "people." Ostrander has a psychologist and a self-defense instructor on staff. Outrageously expensive though it may be it’s often better to spend student loan money on these services upfront, rather than being caught after the fact with a child who is an emotional wreck.

Finally, poor parents should be alert to computer scams. Poor children often don’t own a computer, and may not understand the need to keep their passwords safe. When it comes to the Nigerian email scam, even though the your child has less money to lose, the risk may be higher due to her increased level of desperation.

Protect but don’t be over-protective. Parents of the very wealthy often resort to paying for a security detail to keep their child safe from yours. Encourage your daughter to use the buddy system if she must leave her dorm room. If she sees men with earphones it’s best to go back inside. The worst thing you as a parent can do is show up at the school yourself. Your child will have to learn to live in a rich man’s world eventually.

NC Sheriffs Want To Peek In Your Medicine Cabinet (Without A Warrant)

By: bmull Sunday September 12, 2010 5:07 am

http://www.fbi.gov/headlines/pills.jpgGleen Greenwald pointed to this story the other day, and I thought it was worth fleshing out as an example of civil liberties lost. What exactly do the sheriffs want, why do they want it, and how do they propose to get it?

The sheriffs don’t actually want to look in your medicine cabinet. They want to know if you have prescriptions for narcotic painkillers and other addictive drugs. The sheriffs say this information will help them make more drug arrests. But the reason they make few arrests has more to do with their job description. Like most places, North Carolina sheriffs have primary jurisdiction over jails and unincorporated areas. That’s it. Take it away Sheriff Alan Cloninger:

“A large percentage of people who come in to the jail have addiction problems,” Cloninger said. “It would be good to have access to check to see if they have prescriptions for painkillers.”

Cloninger said the sheriff should control the access. “We don’t want this to be a fishing expedition,” he said. “A person could have a prescription for a painkiller for a good reason.”

Cloninger said if a person is caught with an invalid prescription or too many painkiller prescriptions he would build a case and take it to the district attorney for prosecution.

I’m not even sure what this means, but it does sound like a fishing expedition. It does not sound like a legitimate need. So what’s the real deal here?

The first federal law designating certain drugs as prescription-only was enacted in 1938. Narcotics and other addictive drugs were designated as "controlled" in 1970. Thereafter pharmacies were required to keep records of every such prescription they dispensed. States began to ask for a copy of those records. In the 1990s the records were computerized, and in the 2000s many states made them available to authorized individuals online.

Who are authorized individuals? In North Carolina the list includes health practitioners and pharmacies. It also includes the state police (SBI), who may share information with any other law enforcement agency. Various state regulatory and public health agencies have access. Medicaid has access for their members. The software itself performs basic analysis of the data looking for "suspicious activity."

The use of controlled drugs is by no means uncommon. About a quarter of all prescriptions are for one of these drugs. When these prescriptions are filled the data transmitted to the state includes: The patient’s name, gender, date of birth, address, name of drug, strength, quantity, prescription date, doctor’s name, pharmacist’s name, fill date, and who signed for the prescription. The data may also include the patient’s social security number, driver license number, telephone number, form of payment, and diagnosis. Even if the diagnosis is not included it can often be inferred based on the type of medication and the specialty of the prescribing doctor.

It should now be clear that the real reason the sheriffs want this data is that it exists and everyone else has it. You are not protected by HIPAA. The state law that creates the prescription monitoring program trumps HIPAA. Even in states that don’t have such a program courts have found that law enforcement can obtain your records through an "authorized investigative demand" (i.e., they ask for it). Why does HIPAA suck so much? One reason is that the people who wrote it were clueless. But in point of fact protecting patient privacy was at best a secondary goal of the law.

The more people who have access to private information the more likely it will be leaked or inappropriately used. North Carolina supposedly requires all applications for access to its database to be notarized. Incredibly, however, I found that anyone can at least tamper with–if not download from–the online database using instructions on the vendor’s website. Furthermore, while database queries are supposed to be logged, the reason for those queries usually is not.

An easy-to-use online database of personal information is catnip to law enforcement officials. New databases that have been requested include police contacts, 911 calls, employment histories, immigration records, social services received, psychiatric holds, HIV status, even school transcripts. Authorities want to integrate these databases for one-stop shopping. This is not science fiction. The information is available. All that’s required is a bit of programming.

Whether you realize it or not, you are already hurt by the prescription drug database. Doctors undertreat patients when they know law enforcement is monitoring their records. In exchange for giving up your privacy and quality of care, the government’s own consultant found that prescription drug abuse is actually higher than if these systems did not exist. Calling the result "difficult to explain," the authors revised their model and found that monitoring reduces prescription drug abuse by 4-10%. I wonder how much taxpayers paid for this ridiculous study.

Sex, Drugs, and Maxine Waters

By: bmull Monday August 16, 2010 4:42 pm

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) via Public Citizen

Maxine Waters is a liberal icon and a thorn in the side of corporate America. Over the years she has also been criticized for alleged ethical lapses. The House Ethics Committee recently charged her with three ethics violations and released the results of last year’s Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) investigation.

Some background is necessary before going into the details. Nancy Pelosi created the OCE in 2008 because the ethics committee was launching politically-motivated investigations which almost never led to charges. The nominally non-partisan OCE is tasked with selecting complaints to investigate and its six-member board decides which cases to refer for public "trial" before the ethics committee. Unfortunately the two cases it has referred ended in disaster, with the committee accusing OCE of incompetence and vice versa. Worse, to the delight of lawyers everywhere, the committee suggested that its own ethics manual (huge PDF) should be construed narrowly, ignoring the clarifications and examples provided.

The rules, some of which date from 1958, are so intentionally vague that the simplest defense is to put the rules themselves on trial. Maxine Waters is charged with violations of the following:

(1) "behave at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House"
(2) "not receive compensation … by virtue of influence improperly exerted from the position"
(3) "never discriminate unfairly by the dispensing of special favors … never accept for himself or his family, favors or benefits under circumstances which might be construed by reasonable persons as influencing the performance of his governmental duties"

The case against Waters is that during the Wall Street meltdown of 2008 she intervened on behalf of OneUnited–a black-owned bank with which she and her husband have a close financial relationship. If Waters had not intervened it’s likely that OneUnited would have been allowed to fail, wiping out $250,000 to $500,000 in stock that her husband owns. Waters called Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to request a meeting on behalf of the National Bankers Association (NBA), a group of minority-owned banks. However all but one of her invitees were executives with OneUnited.

Waters argues that she meant to help the NBA and once she realized her conflict of interest she turned the matter over to Barney Frank. However her chief of staff–who is also her grandson–continued to provide assistance to OneUnited up until the time it found an angel investor, secured a waiver from the FDIC, and qualified for $12 million in TARP money. Unfortunately the bank is now operating under a cease and desist order and is delinquent with its TARP payments. The sex and drugs come in here (police report here).

Of course self-dealing is business-as-usual in Congress. Liberal lion John Dingell "the auto industry’s best friend" married a GM lobbyist. GM changed her title to Executive Director of Public Affairs and she continued to work in Washington. They have over $1 million in GM investments. Diane Feinstein handed out military contracts worth billions to companies owned by her husband. The Senate Ethics Committee signed off on this. Not surprisingly studies have shown that members of Congress are the country’s most successful investors.

Yet those who think the charges against Waters are trivial should consider the ethics committee’s previous decision, which made a distinction between a small stake in a company and a large stake. (Waters’ husband holds a significant minority stake in OneUnited, on the order of 1%. Indeed he was a director of the bank until its investments began to sour.) The committee also made a distinction between merely casting a vote and actively working to advance a company’s interests. These are important established precedents.

Waters is a crucial precedent-setting case and that makes its timing regrettable. The OCE has yet to win before the ethics committee. The committee itself is dysfunctional. If Waters prevails it will legitimize all the self-dealing taking place in Congress today and there is a good chance the OCE will be abolished. If she loses, it will show Congress that the line between right and wrong has become somewhat less fuzzy. The OCE needs to win a just and well-reasoned decision.

What else is needed? The OCE needs to be strengthened with subpoena power and fewer restrictions on its activities. The House rules need to be clear and authoritative. Financial disclosure forms need to be more precise. Ideally members of Congress should own mutual funds rather than individual stocks. Finally all of this needs to be applied to the Senate. We need to keep pressure on Congress to keep ethics a priority.

Put Liz Fowler in Charge of Co-Ops

By: bmull Thursday July 15, 2010 7:40 am

Revolving Doors Suck
From David Sirota comes news that Liz Fowler, Max Baucus’ right hand woman, is headed to Health and Human Services to administer the health insurance reform she helped write.

Fowler’s name appeared as the author of a PDF file called "Baucus Framework" last September. This was the point at which the Public Option got axed in favor of the fantasy known as Co-Ops. People were angry. And so they asked, "Who’s Liz Fowler?" And the Internet answered, "She was Vice President for Public Policy and External Affairs for Wellpoint, Inc." Skeptics of reform have been pissed about her ever since.

Fowler will be a Deputy Director at the new Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight. This is going to be the nerve center, the nucleus controlling our new health system. Fowler will probably be in charge of overseeing the Exchanges, a position that is now vacant.

Before I criticize Obama’s policies let me make the standard disclaimer that criticizing Obama’s policies in any way will lead to unimaginable catastrophe. I accept that risk.

Obama did not have to appoint Fowler. True, as the person who wrote the bill, she knows the bill. But there are many qualified people who could implement this law. It would have been better to snub Fowler than to snub an entire constituency that mistrusts her. Put her in charge of Co-Ops.

Now, some smartass over at Kos (don’t go there, it’s just people yelling at each other) pointed out that Fowler’s future boss, Jay Angoff, has genuine progressive cred. I’ll concede the point. Angoff once worked for Ralph Nader, and the only company that ever employed him is a perpetual money-loser. That doesn’t make me feel better about Fowler, who pretty much had her way with Baucus. As one staffer-turned-lobbyist told Politico, "People know when Liz is speaking, she is speaking for Baucus.”

What else do we know about Liz Fowler? She’s not an idealogue. She told a health care forum in Montana that they tried to craft a bipartisan bill in order to head off Republican criticism. Plus she’s accomodating. Maybe too accomodating, according to Democrats who worked with her on Medicare Part D. None of this bodes well for getting tough on insurers. But it’s a virtue for landing a high-paying lobbyist job. And let’s face it, at 43 years old that’s where Liz Fowler’s headed next.

We Usually Use The Word Brutal (And Other Media Fairytales)

By: bmull Sunday July 4, 2010 5:55 am

Actually It'll Kill YouThe Harvard study of four leading newspapers’ failure to use the word "torture" has everyone mad again. Bill Keller, executive editor of The New York Times, offered–as Glenn Greenwald put it–a "demented and reprehensible" attack on the study, which Keller called "tendentious" (Word of the Day, 10/25/2002).

The Harvard study ended in 2008. In April 2009, The Times supposedly adopted a policy of using the word "brutal" instead of their previous euphemism "harsh" when describing waterboarding and other atrocities. I decided to check out Keller’s assertion that now "we usually use the word ‘brutal.’" Through the magic of Google this is relatively easy.

I looked at the last 12 months (7/09-6/10) since by then The Times’ policy change had been in effect for two months. I searched for "interrogations," "interrogation methods," "interrogation practices," "interrogation tactics," and "interrogation techniques" (h/t thesaurus.com for the synonyms). I found they were described as "brutal" 17 times, "harsh" 33 times, and something else 68 times. So despite what Keller says, "brutal" is not the standard word at 620 Eighth Avenue.

I then decided to see what other words The Times is using. I found "coercive" 10 times, "extreme" 4 times, "rough" 1 time, "harmful" 1 time, and "enhanced" an incredible 26 times. (There was no adjective 19 times.) The frequent appearance of the word "enhanced" is especially troubling since this was the euphemism preferred by the Bush administration. Interestingly when The Times uses the word "enhanced" it often appears in scare-quotes, as if the paper is conscious it’s the wrong word.

The main limitation of my little project was that, though I did my best, I couldn’t completely weed out things not under editorial control like Op-Eds, letters, quotes and comments. This would have required reading every article, and I didn’t get the sense it would affect the overall conclusion. I’m convinced Mr. Keller doesn’t know what’s going on at his paper or, more likely, he doesn’t want to say. The Times seems uncomfortable with its own chosen phrase "brutal interrogations," which itself is a sorry substitute for "torture," and mainly uses the most tendentious word of all–"enhanced."