The Pros and Cons of Releasing the Osama Bin Laden Photos

I am not eager to see the "Death of bin Laden" photos. I was not eager to see the horrible images from 9/11, Falujah, or the Daniel Pearl beheading video either mind you. I am not squeamish, generally speaking. I love gory movies. But I don't relish seeing images of real life carnage, even when the dead guy was a monster. On top of that, whatever ghoulish glee some people might get from the release of the photos, there is also the potential to rile people who don't need much help getting riled up. Why inflame them more, to appease some "deather" conspiracy theorists?

Here's the rub: there's nothing you can do to satisfy them. They don't want to believe that President Obama did something they agree with, so they will now go to any lengths to discredit what he did, or deny him credit.  Right now, they're angry that the photos haven't been released. If one day they are released, they'll have a different reason why they shouldn't have been, or they will declare them to be fake. It's getting very predictable.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Debunking the Birthers: Scanning a Certificate, Birth or Otherwise

As I've said here in the past, I'm sympathetic to conspiracy theorists, because I was briefly taken in by one: the 9/11 truthers. I exited out the other side with some swiftness, when things got a little too crazy to process. I still have problems with the "official" story, but have far more with most truther theories. It became clear to me that any contrary information to the truther story would be explained away, or somehow folded into the storyline. There is nothing that will dissuade them.

This is my reimaging of Obama's COLB. Have at it, Birthers!

Such it is with the birthers. When Barack Obama released a scan--repeat: a scan--of an authenticated "long form" birth certificate from the State of Hawaii, the birther brigade went into high gear. Starting with one of their biggest flaws in understanding--that an internet-ready file is the document, rather than a scan of it--they went over the White House's PDF file with a fine-toothed comb. And within minutes, there was a new addition to the birther catalogue: The birth certificate has LAYERS!

Like any good conspiracy theory, there are a few nuggets that grab you. Hey, there are layers! I downloaded my own version, opened it in Adobe Illustrator, and--I'll be damned--the document was made of many incongruous layers.  You could remove "clipping paths", ungroup it, and it was actually made of nine different parts! Why, this must be a forgery! FAKE! FAKE! FAKE! But wait a minute. . .

Why on earth would a forger do this? For what purpose would you separate out the background (but leave white holes where the letters were)? Why would you break up the word "BARACK" to "BA ACK" and a lonely "R"? You wouldn't, that's what. A forger would make a fake document, not a fake scan. The idiots. . .ahem. . .ignoramuses believing this theory don't think far enough out to realize that the document they are looking at is not an original, but merely a digitization of the original. If there are any fake elements of the document, they would not be discoverable in the PDF file.

But can I prove it? I believe I can. But I had to tread into semi-unfamiliar territory to do so. The only PDF scanning software I have is on my Mac PowerBook. And the only official document on safety paper I could locate easily is my Certificate of Marriage (my gay marriage, birthers!) from California. So, I set it up, scanned the document, and saved it. Here is what I found:

This is a reduced image of the scan of the entire document.
(I reduced the resolution so you vultures can't read it!)

I scanned the entire document in high resolution into Adobe Acrobat Professional. I set everything to "automatic," and scanned it in. After saving the file, I opened Adobe Illustrator CS3, and opened my saved PDF. Immediately when it opened, I saw the document assemble itself!

After some right-clicking to "release clipping masks" and some ungrouping, I was left with four distinct layers. This is short of the nine from the Obama birth certificate, but I didn't even change any of the automatic settings. There are many options you can tweak. Also, my certificate has a very elaborate, different background and border, which may have affected my results.

But I think I've proven the point that yes, a scan of an official document does separate into layers when you scan it. They aren't predictable layers either. There were two very small bands of the border at the bottom of the image that separated themselves out for no particular reason. I didn't retouch, sharpen, blur, enhance or otherwise make any changes. The low resolution image at the right is merely a screen capture of my zoomed out screen, so that it can't be read (do you really need to know my business? No, you do not!).


This is the full scan of the corner of the document. Then, I ungrouped it. . .


Now, it should be noted that the most current birther theory about these scans is that there are duplicate letters in the document. Namely, they found two "E"s or two "1"s or two check boxes that look identical in different areas of the scan. Does that seem hinky? Maybe. Could I recreate it if I fiddled with enough settings, and ran enough tests? Maybe. Probably. Don't know, don't care.



Looky there! I can delete the foreground! But notice, some artifacts
are left that are not part of the background image.



The reason I don't care is that there would be no reason to make a forgery that way. I already explained that the forgery would be on the paper document and not the scan, which should be obvious. But if a digital scammer was going to fake the form, why on earth would he need to assemble his forgery from a bunch of tiny scanned elements? If that was all you had to work with, I'd get it. But it isn't. Barack Obama has the most awesome governmental apparatus in the entire world at his disposal. He could order up a document so perfect, so flawless, that its authenticity could bear the strongest of scrutiny. To assume that all they had to work with was low-res scans of little check boxes, and they had to duplicate them to complete their ruse is, in a word, stupid.



This is what happens when you delete the background. Look at all the
random elements that were part of the background, but are on a layer with
the text. Did I forge my marriage certificate?



All of this ultimately leads to the conclusion that no matter what is offered up, or what points of logic are used, the birthers will never be satisfied. There will be a (smaller and smaller) group of them who will continue to believe that their conspiracy theory is true. And the same goes for the brand new "deathers" who are convinced that Osama Bin Laden is still alive, or was not killed this weekend. The release of authentic photos of the corpse would do nothing to change their minds. You'd just have 100 threads on FreeRepublic dissecting the photo. Excuse me, dissecting a low-res JPEG of the photo.

I cannot with this test declare the Obama birth certificate to be genuine. But I can definitively declare that there is no obvious reason to believe that it is not, nor does the "layers" argument hold any water whatsoever.  When some FReeper tells you that a scan cannot produce such a result, they are either lying, or they are wrong.

A NOTE TO MY READERS: If you venture into the comments section below, be warned that a troll who is too cowardly to leave his/her name has infested the blog.  But he/she/it unwittingly proved a point. This troll is fixated upon the signature of Obama's mother, and how the software separated it into pieces. A similar thing happened to some of the lines and graphic elements in the document I scanned. So, while "Anonymous" is still focused like a psychotic laser beam on the signature!!!, I on the other hand am completely satisfied that the document offered online by the White House could indeed be produced by scanning a real document into a PDF software program. No hanky panky.

"Anonymous" has copious links to YouTube videos that "support" the forgery conspiracy theory, but don't fall for it. Anyone can produce and upload a YouTube video, as I found out with my new phone this weekend, when I almost accidentally uploaded an action shot of the floor of the house I was staying in. And if you get sucked in by the "facts" presented by these loons, please ask yourself what would motivate a forgery artist to use a low-res PDF scan to fool the public. The storyline hasn't even been articulated, because there is no scenario that would make any sense. And this is my final word on the subject. I think.

The Truthers Begat the Birthers, Which Begat the Deathers. . .

"Hell yeah, I've got a redeeming quality! I. . .uh. . .gimme a minute."
Image from source, Think Progress

I understand the dilemma presented to today's news and news commentary shows. I understand how news and entertainment came together in a distasteful mashup. I understand why people who by all rights should not be famous or popular are. How do I know? Because I've been a blogger for four years, that's how!

Yes, my little tiny corner of the interwebs is just a random collage of (mostly) politics, (sometimes) confessional, (occasional) pop culture repository, and other assorted tidbits. But I think about these things. I wonder, "Should I really be giving [fill in the blank: Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin, Donald Trump, Glenn Beck] any more coverage? He/she would fade away if people stopped paying attention" And it's true. But when real life politicians, politicos and wannabes provide more entertainment (lurid or not) than fiction, it is hard to ignore.

So add Andrew Breitbart to the list. He's just as much of an attention whore as any of the above. He is utterly without scruples. He's staged and/or doctored "evidence" in order to perpetrate faux news stories that are largely hoaxes. And yet, he continues to get press, and get on shows like Real Time with Bill Maher. As distasteful as Breitbart and his shtick is, it is also important to shine a light on its awfulness.

[Excerpt]

Meet The Deathers: Andrew Brietbart Website Pushing Conspiracy Theory That Osama Might Not Be Dead



Mere hours after President Obama announced the death of Osama bin Laden, supported by incontrovertible DNA evidence, the conspiracy theorists are hard at work. Andrew Breitbart, a prominent right-wing commentator with close ties to the Republican Party and the Tea Party, is pushing the theory on his website Big Peace. . .
 
Read more at: Think Progress

Stuck on Crazy: Conservatives Want to Impeach Obama

Yeah, another Rachel Maddow Show clip, but it's a goodie. Now that the decibel level of the birthers, the deathers, the tenthers, the tea baggers and all the rest has died down, they're on to something new. Impeach the President!!!

Why not, it worked before. They didn't start out trying to impeach Clinton for getting a little strange, no he kind of stupidly walked into that one. Clinton's was an impeachment charge in search of a reason. And they turned over every rock, and got nowhere until he slipped up. And now they're at it again. And you'd better believe they won't stop.

When Bush was in office, there was a similar effort, of course. But I think a pretty strong argument could be made in Bush's case. But impeachment was "off the table." And it's too late to do it now. But don't you think that if the conservatives start on a relentless case to find a reason to impeach Obama, that the President just might start to warm to the idea of investigating the Bush Administration? I do.

Sunday Morning Blogging, Pt. 1: Meet the Press, 9/20/09

OK, I haven't sat down to watch the Sunday morning political chat shows in a little while. There's a reason for that: they were starting to piss me off. Bouncing around from the political faux outrage of the previous Monday to the forced apology of late Saturday, the shows have largely become Politics Soup, only with actual elected officials. Then, most of the shows get together a bizarre collection of--usually, also bizarre looking--talking heads to cackle like chickens for the rest of the show.

What? You mean they've always been like that? Oh. Well, maybe it's just ceasing to interest me. Anyway, my first dose of this soup today is Meet the Press with David Gregory, a decidedly less relevant show since host Tim Russert died. President Obama was the first guest, and I was fairly impressed, though he only talked for 15 minutes. He's a little too slick, but he's also well spoken, and did not raise my embarrassment shield the way George W. Bush did every damned time he was on the tee-vee.

Gregory decided to rebut the President with two of the most powerful current Republicans, and that is a sad state of affairs for the GOP. Twitchy, orange John Boner Boehner and whiny, frowny, fey Lindsey Graham are two of the three best the GOP has to offer (the third being constipated turtle, Mitch McConnell who did not appear). These easily lampooned figures did their best to talk down Obama while trying to put an eensy bit of distance between themselves and the lunatic fringe overtaking their party like Invasion of the Body Snatchers. The charisma-free twosome regurgitated the conservative lines of the week, including a "reset button" for health care reform, which isn't even under consideration. Probably no one was swayed by Obama, and definitely no one was swayed by Boehner and Graham.

The two-man "round table" included Eugene Robinson, a pundit I have a lot of respect for, and Roger Simon, a pundit I've never heard of. Robinson displays more intelligence, insight and humor than the host himself, and Simon left no impression on me at all. Discussions of "race" brought up because of Jimmy Carter's notion of racism inspiring Obama's opposition, didn't go beyond the controversy. That is where Gregory falls down, and Russert would have done better. There is a strong case to be made for racism behind the birthers, deathers, tenthers, tea baggers et. al. And Jimmy Carter saying so isn't itself the controversy. Calling out racist behavior has become the issue, rather than the behavior itself.

There is still something rather civilized about MTP that works on one hand, and doesn't on the other. For the most part, the program doesn't lend itself to boisterous arguments and cross-talk. That is welcome on a Sunday morning. But it also lends itself to a he said/he said dynamic, in which no minds are changed. OK, that's it for MTP. . . on to the next one.

10 Lessons for Tea Baggers

Image from source, Perrspectives

I found this handy primer for the tea bagger/birther/deather/tenther crowd that you might find helpful when arguing with your right-wing friends and family. I really don't have much to add except, "Just because they say it on FOX "News" or talk radio, it doesn't mean that it's true."

[Excerpt]

10 Lessons for Tea Baggers

Back in April, the Daily Show's Jon Stewart offered some sound advice for frothing at the mouth Tea Baggers, "I think you might be confusing tyranny with losing." Now five months after their Tax Day outburst, thousands of vein-popping Obama opponents descended Saturday on Washington for Tea Party II. But while Glenn Beck's furious followers alternately slandered the President as a "fascist," a "communist" and worse, they remained unencumbered by either the thought process - or the truth. . .

Read the (detailed) list at: Perrspectives

Greenlee Gazette Prediction Accurate. Sorta.

Image from From the Wilderness

Map from Electoral-Vote.com

Last October, long before Barack Obama's Presidential win was a sure thing, I wrote a post predicting the down side of such a win. I got a lot right. But there was something I didn't count on. I knew that the right-wing, and their supporters on talk radio and FOX "News" would be picking apart every tiny thing the new President would do. Here's where I got it wrong, though.

Back when Bill Clinton was President, it seemed as though the talking heads and the think tanks were setting the agenda, doing the digging and coming up with the talking points. The base conservatives--from merely staunch partisans to the wing nut fringe--provided the support, and spread the word. This time around, it is the wing nut fringe doing the heavy lifting, and it is they who are getting support from the talking heads and, yes, FOX "News."

Even the most skilled prognosticator--and I do not claim to be one--couldn't have predicted the nuttiness that would ensue. We've got several groups of separate but overlapping groups of nutters: birthers, deathers, tenthers, tea baggers, town hallies. . .there seems to be no end to it. It doesn't matter how kooky or debunked the theory, it just keeps coming, full steam ahead. Surprisingly, Congressmen, Senators, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et. al are pushing almost all of it. I can only hope that when President Obama says he will "call them out" on their falsehoods, he means it. And I wonder what took him so long?

[Excerpts from Original Post, October 4, 2008]

Democrats, Don't Forget the Downside to an Obama Win

. . .So, while we can't be sure, the odds are that Obama will win. What we need to keep in mind, should this happen, is that Republicans and conservatives are not going to take that well. And that's putting it mildly. It will make the sour grapes attitude of the PUMAs look like a 5-year-old's temper tantrum.

Remember how Republicans acted during the Clinton administration? Every nit was picked, everything was blown up into a scandal, no matter how frivolous or stupid. Millions of dollars were spent on investigations that proved nothing. Right-wing think tanks worked with right-wing media and politicians to impeach Bill Clinton, for anything they could. It was an impeachment in search of a reason. Unfortunately, Clinton walked right into the trap, and what a stupid trap it was.

But that may have been just a preview of what Obama might have to deal with. The right had power for 12 uninterrupted years before Clinton, but they hadn't tasted real power yet. . .

So, if Obama wins, this team of "win at all costs" partisans will have nothing to do, except pick apart the Obama Administration. And pick they will. Every. Little. Thing. You think you're tired of the blowholes like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly now? They will be in full-on attack mode.

The irony of course is that George W. Bush and his administration is guilty of so much, in many cases actual crimes. And that list of people above, in addition to the right-wing blogs, have excused it all. There is very little Obama could do that would even approach the shenanigans of Bush, and yet they will act like it is the worst thing a President has ever done, whatever it is.

So, be aware, liberals, progressives and Democrats. Be prepared to fight. Be prepared to rebut the inevitable inanity. If Obama wins on November 4, we will breathe an ecstatic sigh of relief. In fact, I think the emotion is going to be so strong, it will be hard to name (with the opposite being true with a loss). But the honeymoon is bound to be short. I wouldn't be surprised--again with an Obama win--if the conservatives went to work on November 5, and worked right up to inauguration day to start the slime from day 1. . .

OK, so I might not be Miss Cleo, but I got it pretty much right.

9/11, Truthers, The Real Story, and Lingering Doubts

The memory of 9/11 is still fresh or nearly so to many of us. More than the actual damage and casualties, I think we remember the sense of dread, the expectation that more was coming. It was a true "the sky is falling" feeling. Looking back, the actual number of human losses and the amount of destruction was bad, but not unprecedented by war or natural disaster. But that September morning will live on for its power to draw strong reactions from people.

This past week, The National Geographic Channel aired a special called 911: Science and Conspiracy, which I finally got around to watching today. I've been bothered by many parts of the official story for a very long time, and will confess flirting with the "truther" movement. I even wrote a post about it early in this blog's history, which I most recently revised and reposted here: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, Redux. My personal views on 9/11 have evolved even further along since then.

Having since been exposed to the "birther" and "deather" craziness this year, I've seen the commonalities and pitfalls of conspiracy theories, and what the key problems are with any theorist. As I see it, conspiracy theorists undo themselves when they try too hard to come up with alternate narratives to the "official stories." It is all well and good to point out the flaws in any given history. When someone tries to paint an alternate timeline--and especially when they get too wedded to it--that is when it becomes easy to punch holes in their theories.

Equally damaging to any theory is the fact that each one gathers barnacles of crazy. A sensible supposition will get buried under whack-a-doodle nutball debris. And then the whole theory gets labeled as paranoid delusion, even if an element of it is compelling. What's more, it is very easy to be pulled under that pile of debris, and not notice at first. Once you buy the central premise: "We have not been told the truth," and then you hear one reasonable sounding element of a theory, you are on the hook. Sometimes, every further element of the story can set that hook even deeper.

911: Science and Conspiracy is a documentary that seeks to debunk key theories around 9/11. Scientific experiments are conducted that apparently contradict the main core of the Truther movement. Not surprisingly, the interviewed Truthers are not swayed by the experiments. But my problems with the official story of 9/11 is not addressed by the film.

My problem has nothing to do with the planes (real or simulated) or the collapses of buildings (imploded or not). My problem has to do with the fact that our two most strategic cities were attacked by four planes piloted by inexperienced pilots, and three out of four succeeded. Planes were on radar, and were known to be hijacked at various points. Nobody and nothing intercepted them. And outside of a few sources, we have almost no public released record of the events. The first plane to hit the World Trade Center was accidentally captured by a documentarian. The second plane had more views, since television news crews were trained on the first incident. But the Pentagon plane? We have one set of fuzzy, inconclusive shots from a gas station or something. Why?

I am unconvinced that the Pentagon has such crappy surveillance of its property. And I'm unconvinced that our government would be powerless to stop at least one of these planes. So my level of "trutherness" is pretty reasonable, I think. No missing planes, no huge number of accomplices. I just think that yes our government at the time contained enough evil to allow or to participate in such a thing.

Don't Mess With Texas? OK. Don't Let the Door Hit Ya.

Is anybody else disturbed by the vagueness of the political theatre going on in right-wing world? They are all riled up, frothing and toting guns. They're sputtering about "socialism" and saying that their rights are being violated. They pretend to care about the Constitution (which was being trampled on during the past eight years) now that a hateful (black) liberal occupies the White House. Thought they are really going over-the-top, some of that might be all right, if they had any grounds.

But they don't seem to. In all of the disjointed, unfocused protesting, there have been generalities, untruths and out-and-out delusion. What Constitutional rights have been denied or removed? What liberties are threatened? I'm not sure they have any idea. They're just pissed in general. Wave a flag, rile 'em up, and they'll be there with pitchforks (or automatic weapons). If the issue wasn't health care (of all things) right now, does anybody doubt that they'd still be acting like this over something else?

And when you throw Texas into the mix, you seem to get a whole 'nother level of crazy. They love America so much down there, they're determined to leave it! And they have a million signatures? If that's the case kids, have at it. Who's stopping you? Just remember, Texas has a lot of military and governmental ties. You're going to be losing a lot that you aren't considering.

[Excerpt]

Texas ‘tenthers’ plan pro-secession rally tomorrow.

A organization calling itself the “Texas Nationalist Movement” plans to march on the Texas capitol tomorrow to demand “Sovereignty or Secession”. . .

Read more at: Think Progress

Jon Stewart Interviews Betsy McCaughey, Leader of "Deathers"

This is the lady that started that "death panel" nonsense. I'd think it's fair to say, Jon Stewart won the argument. You decide.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Betsy McCaughey Pt. 1
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Healthcare Protests

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Betsy McCaughey Extended Interview Pt. 1
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Healthcare Protests

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Betsy McCaughey Extended Interview Pt. 2
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Healthcare Protests

Part 2 of Esquire's Orly Taitz & The Birthers Piece

It's amazing how quickly the "birther" um. . .controversy has disappeared from the news. Unless the term is being associated with the current "deather" or town hall tea bagger movements, it's sort of disappeared. That probably has something to do with the fact that they're just different slices of the same ball of crazy, and that the birther wedge has taken a serious hit. After leading birther advocate Orly Taitz (dentist, lawyer, real estate agent, etc.) got punk'd with a fake Kenyan birth certificate, her true colors started shining through.

As the excerpted piece below shows clearly, the wack-a-doodle evidence was there all along. But the scary part is, she's got a following. And she's paring off the saner ones, leaving a very scary bunch.

[Excerpt]

What Really Happens When You Demand the President Produce His Birth Certificate?

You get a bunch of outrageous people — very nice people, mind you, but frustrated enough to believe anything about Obama — storming the offices of the attorney general, the secretary of state, and the FBI. At the center of it all was Esquire.com's political columnist, bearing witness to the "birthers" for the conclusion of a two-part series. . .

Read more at: Esquire

Meet the ObamaCare® Death Panel

Tongue firmly in-cheek, of course. But this is hilarious. . .




Source: Pinko Magazine

Keith Olbermann's Special Comment Sarah Palin and Other Health Frauds

This is one of the better "Special Comments" Keith Olbermann has done in a while, and on an important subject. We all know that many political issues draw out those who'd rather use scare tactics than facts, but the health care reform issue has brought out the very, very worst. Sarah Palin and "death panels," anyone?

As a side note, did Olbermann get Ed McMahon's glasses in the will? Just asking! (Sorry, Keith.)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

President Obama's Weekly Address: Dispelling Health Care Rumors

I've never posted one of President Obama's weekly addresses, but now is an important time to do so. If you've landed at my blog because of my posts about the "town hall riots," maybe--just maybe--you'll find this and watch it.

Birthers, Deathers and Tea Baggers: A Parade of Stupid

These pictures are culled from a thread on Democratic Underground. To be fair, I'm only posting two of them, so please check out the source link below to get your full dose of stupid--or morans, if you will--and the splendor of today's base conservatives (pay attention to the spelling!).

Source: Democratic Underground

Rachel Maddow: "Birthers" Joined by "Deathers"

Warn your parents, your grandparents, your dodgy Aunt Martha, and your "confirmed bachelor" Great Uncle Arthur. . .Barack Obama wants them DEAD! Or rather, that is the latest conspiracy theory to come down the batshit crazy highway. From The Rachel Maddow Show.