Bill's Notes

Hallcest: That's when a college resident assistant (RA) sleeps with one of the students on his or her hall.

Usage: Susan was so desperate she committed hallcest when she was in charge of the freshman wing. Supposedly it was with that nerdy guy Rob.

Now who wouldn't why to write a book called, The Truth? Many of us would, but might have a little more modesty.

Not Al Franken apparently. As we recall from his SNL skits, the 80s were all about him, Al Franken. I would think one decade named after himself would be enough self-promotion for a lifetime, but Franken steadfastly refuses to give in. Good for him.

I've scanned his sources, which show that Al Franken has done all the usual reading. Nothing too fancy for his sources ... some primary, some secondary. Not exactly scholarly, but not entirely a clip job. Good for him.

I've also read the Foreword.
An anonymous, but apparently famous, author, issues an encomium to Franken. Apparently Al is an American hero for speaking truth to power. Good for him.

The book apparently contains a "Book 1: The Triumph of Evil." Whether this is meant to be ironic, I don't know. I haven't read the book. Franken has a tendency, based on the Web site excerpts, to mix his points with jokes. I've known people like that, and it's an extremely effective rhetorical strategy. A classical rhetorician, whose name escapes me (might be Cicero), once said that one key to effective rhetoric is to force your opponent to be serious when he's being funny, and to deflate your opponent's positions with humor when he's trying to be serious.

Franken learned this lesson well. One would take him on one-on-one with extreme caution — just as you would that quick-witted kid in elementary school whom you know would come up with a snappy one liner that would make everyone laugh, and your argument would be lost after that, no matter what the merits of your position.

But what's apparent even from my few gleanings is Franken is a propagandist. No shocking insight there, I know. But there it is. And propagandists, by definition, can't be trusted., no matter they're on.

Back in 1980, I won an essay contest in high school and was one of two people sent to DC for the Washington workshops. It was a very cool experience. Anyone, there was a terrible scandal at that time about congressmen abusing pages ... kind of like the Foley scandal now.

So there was a joke at the time, that fits now:

Q: Why don't congressman use bookmarks?

A: They prefer to just bend over pages.

I've been trying to work out in my mind, starting from a fresh position, what the U.S. policy should be regarding interrogation techniques of terrorists. I also agree the line has be drawn somewhere, and that circumstances matter. I also realize the matter is largely settled now with a new bill. BTW, I haven't read the settlement.

First of all, I was not clear about a few things, and realize that there's a giant potential mistake that may me look like a moral monster. I am not, nor was ever, in favor of routine violence against prisoners.

I was merely okay with waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Muhammad. He planned the 9-11 attacks, he had important, time-sensitive data, and we needed him to spill his guts. Immediately. With the application of two-and-half minutes of a heavy shower, he spilled his guts and we learned a lot.

But that doesn't mean I was in favor of routine violence against Al Qaeda members or anyone else... to be carried about by junior officers or below, or by low-level or even mid-level CIA operatives, at their discretion. Absolutely not.

What I was thinking of — and did not express — was that I was in favor of waterboarding guys like KSM, Osama Bin Laden, and a possibly few of his high-level lieutenants, in strictly controlled circumstances and with the authorization of the highest levels of the CIA or even the president.

I was in favor of using this technique extremely rarely. I mean, like on maybe five to 10 people, in the most extreme cases, and having someone extremely high up sign off on it, like the personal authorization of the head of the CIA or the president. Never, never in a million years did I think that anyone would guess I was in favor of some kind of routine violence against Al Qaeda terrorists, or anyone else, for purposes of interrogation, at the discretion of U.S. agents. I was thinking KSM and folks like him, while they're plotting things like the World Trade Center attacks.

Don't misunderstand me. Sometimes I speak and write quickly and don't make myself clear. Sorry.

BTW, I'm rethinking this whole issue, to see if I agree even with this last exception.

That's all for now ...