That story that’s circulating about Oregon wanting to hire someone fluent in Klingon? It’s too good to be true.

This only looks like a spoof. The Missile Defense Agency — those guys who are still trying to build a nuclear umbrella despite plenty of evidence it’s doomed to failure — are now going for the hearts and minds of your children. Yes, you too can color a picture of Ronald Reagan in the Missile Defense Agency Coloring Book.

The Register reports that T-Mobile is losing its shirt on wireless Internet access. Not much of a surprise in a new market. I’m posting it here because I was amused by the reference in the article that “the nascent Wi-Fi operators simply can’t muster enough Apple PowerBook-toting bloggers to make the whole business viable”. Guess where I am, what I’m using, and what I’m doing?

The red herring about secret messages being hidden in Internet traffic is being flogged again. As The Register says, in yet another article debunking the whole thing, “the likelihood of Islamic fundamentalists hiding messages in porn is roughly the same as their likelihood of hiding them in pig carcasses.”

The Army team searching for WMD in Iraq is giving up. But the administration continues to make happy talk about finding them.

In an essay against going to war in Iraq, I predicted that one of the ways this would make us less safe is by dispersing dangerous materials, possibly to terrorists or other rogue states. Step one in this process has already happened.

Meanwhile, new efforts are underway for our own development of battlefield nukes, which probably gives us great credibility when we tell other nations that “nukes are bad, mmmmkay?”

The moral evil of gambling has gotten some extra press this week thanks to the outing of Bill Bennett as a major whale. (A whale being an industry term for a schmuck who loses a lot of money gambling.) And, of course, we’ve seen a number of conservatives coming forward to defend their favorite ideologue.

As the argument goes, what Mr. Bennett does with his own money is a private matter, and if he happens to enjoy gambling, then that’s his own business.

Sounds reasonable to most people. But Rep. Jim Leach is not most people. Oh, he’s got no problem with Mr. Bennett, because Bennett drove (or got a limo) to Atlantic City to do his gambling. But Mr. Leach has an issue with people who do their gambling outside of the sanctioned halls of New Jersey, Nevada, or the Indian reservations.

Leach has reintroduced for the umpteenth time a bill that would outlaw Internet gambling. Sort of. Actually, it would pretty much do nothing. But more on that in a minute.

According to Mr. Leach’s press release, Internet gambling serves no legitimate purpose, is a danger to the family, and (naturally) has potential links to terrorism. This last bit apparently due to the idea that you can launder money through Internet gambling.

Starting with the most ludicrous proposition first: it’s true that you can walk into a casino with a suitcase of cash, walk out with a suitcase of different cash, and therefore effectively disguise the source of the original cash. But it’s hard to walk into an online casino, so in order to get money into play, you’ve got to do that with a wire transfer. Wire transfers leave inconvenient records of the original source point for the money.

[Update, 5/11, 8:21 PM: A source at one of the online financial clearing-houses tells me that a) most of their transactions are rather small, and b) there are limits on the size of every transaction. When this company approached their government to ask how they could be of use for government tracing of financial transactions, they were told they were already in compliance; since the company stores its money in banks, all transactions are already traceable.]

But moving on to the general proposition, that gambling is bad for society. Presumably, this is due to the fact that it’s possible to wager away Junior’s college fund — unless you’re subscribing to Puritan theory that wagering on the will of God is in itself bad. Assuming the former, gambling that makes it more likely you’re going to lose the college fund is worse than gambling that makes it less so.

Whoops. We have a problem, then. The way to determine the odds of losing is to check out the casino’s edge on any given bet. At one popular Internet casino, the overall edge for the house was 2.21% in March; this means that for every dollar you bet, you could expect to get back just over 97 cents. This makes this particular site a better bet than most Atlantic City casinos, where the equivalent return on slots averages about 95 cents (and much lower on less expensive machines).

But the worst bet you can make isn’t at an Internet or at a land-based casino. The worst bet is on the government. State lotteries routinely pay off 50 to 60 cents on the dollar.

As an example, let’s review the return from the Iowa lottery, where Mr. Leach hails from. In their standard “Pick 3” game, hit the 1,000-to-1 number, and get paid $600. That’s 60 cents for every buck you wager. Spend $10 on their “All The Marbles” instant ticket, and on average you’ll put $6.60 back in your pocket.

Interestingly, the Iowa lottery says on their web site that “tickets cannot be purchased on the Internet at this time.”

There’s no question that there are people playing online who have no business being there; the same goes for any casino, and it’s fairly easy to spot who’s who. But if you’re going to play, you’re best off where you’ve got the best odds, and the free market seems to make online casinos pay off a hell of a lot better than their land-based equivalents.

Leach’s bill makes it illegal to transfer funds directly from a US institution to an Internet casino. But it’s only illegal for the casino; players and the wire-transfer institutions are exempted. Amusingly, it’ll still be legal to buy any registered security, so if you want to buy stock in one of the UK-based casinos, that’s just fine. And since all Internet casinos are already illegal in the US, what this will essentially do is force players to move money first into an international clearing house, and then move it into the casino.

Note to Mr. Leach: you already need a service like this if you want to pick up your winnings from the casino, in most cases. Most online players already have these accounts.

Essentially, this bill should be called, “The Cessation of Protections for Internet Gamblers Act”, because that’s what the bill will perpetuate. Since all of the casinos and most of the clearing-houses are international, if your money gets “lost” somewhere, you’re pretty much screwed. There are web sites which tell players which places to avoid, but that information isn’t widely distributed. A bill that licenses or regulates Internet casinos, rather than attempts an ineffectual ban, would be far more likely to protect the rent money from being lost on Internet red 22. [Update: John Conyers has proposed a commission to do exactly this.]

From Honda UK, a TV commercial featuring a Rube Goldberg machine made from Honda parts. More impressively, it’s all real.

A computer security researcher moved all of his research offshore—and has his legal status in some jeopardy—after the state of Michigan made all of his work illegal.

David Filippi reports on Macintouch today that his iBook was broken by security: “[I]nstead of pressing the button to unlatch it, [they] had taken a screwdriver and pried the two halves apart until the latch broke off. I guess, technically… it’s ‘locked’ and they’re entitled to break it.”

Just heard on CNN. Anchor Aaron Brown is referring to two opinions offered earlier about whether the chemicals found near Karbala were weapons or just industrial chemicals. “We’ve heard two opinions tonight, one more optimistic than the other that these are chemical weapons.”

Optimistic? I thought that chemical weapons were a horrible scourge. Who exactly is cheering for Saddam to have chemical weapons—unless, of course, you’re hoping to retroactively justify an invasion.

An interesting choice of words from a journalist.

Update, 1:43 AM:

CNN showing images from Abu Dhabi TV. When the Abu Dhabi journalist says that it looks like the Iraqis are successfully defending a bridge, Aaron rushes to tell us, several times, that this is only the opinion of the Abu Dhabi reporter. When the image shows two American tanks on the bridge, Aaron tells us that there may very well be more American firepower in the area, but that we just can’t see it.

Might as well watch Fox.

Given the administration’s urge to defend large corporations’ right to profit, perhaps the BBC has inadvertently shown us the real reason for the invasion of Iraq: blatant copyright theft. Part of a series of photos taken in Basra.

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” Theodore Roosevelt, 1918

Spotted at my client site on Friday: an advertising circular from Au Bon Pain, with the headline “celebrating 25 years as an American company.”
Hey, if we’re willing to boycott French toast—named after Joseph French, a New Yorker—no wonder they’re worried.

“Ironically, the only abused party not to have sought some form of payback yet are the Democrats, whose own views on national security are so incoherent that they have shunned debate entirely and preferred to cower meekly on the sidelines, hoping the whole storm will somehow pass them by.” Gideon Rose

Slate’s Julia Turner reports that in this week’s New Republic, “Jonathan Chait tackles the administration’s ludicrous argument that Congress should pass Bush’s tax cut so returning troops will have jobs to come back to. It’s a volunteer Army, Chait points out. When the war’s over, troops will still have jobs, as soldiers.”

Is it really George W. Bush, or just a clever duplicate?

Also in the Guardian, something completely different: a delightful history of Monty Python’s Life of Brian.

This is just mind-boggling. “The Justice Department lifted a requirement Monday that the FBI ensure the accuracy and timeliness of information… before adding it to the country’s most comprehensive law enforcement database.”

Halliburton has won a contract for emergency repairs to Iraqi oil wells. Value of the contract? Unknown, because it’s “cost-plus”: the more Halliburton manages to rack up in expenses, the more money it makes. Time to start flying the interns first class.

Yes, that’s the same Halliburton as in, “Dick Cheney, former CEO of.” And the same Halliburton as in, “under investigation for shady dealings with terrorist-supporting nations.”

“Naturally the common people don’t want war… but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.” Hermann Goering
Note from Jeff: I have a fortune cookie program on my computer. This was today’s, chosen at random.

With the war in Iraq underway, and (as I write) the Seventh Cavalry slicing through the desert like the proverbial knife through warm butter, I’m already getting sick of the number of Gulf War II myths I’m hearing repeated on the news, especially television news. And using the term “myths” is being polite—lies would be more accurate.

GW2 Myth #1: Iraq poses a conventional threat to the United States. The issue of Iraqi missile technology was whether it could exceed the 100 mile limit imposed by the United Nations. The distance from Iraq to the US is about 3,000 miles; the only way Iraq could get one of their missiles into US territory is by use of the world’s largest rubber band and a good tailwind. (Pay close attention to this, as we’ll revisit this when we start talking about weapons of mass destruction.)

Aside from their nonfunctional missiles, there is no means by which Iraq could possibly project conventional force against us. Their fighter force is outdated, their decent troops number under 50,000; all of the reasons why we rightfully expect Gulf War II to be a cakewalk in terms of balance of force suggest that we’d have nothing to fear from these troops outside of their home territory.

GW2 Myth #2: Iraq poses a nuclear weapons threat to the United States. This seems to be taken as an element of faith, despite a great deal of evidence to the contrary. Globalsecurity.org reports that the Iraqi nuclear bomb program produced a device that weighed at least a ton—too big to fit on Iraqi missiles—and was lacking the fissile material necessary to make it go boom. Pugwash reports that after years of research and billions of dollars spent, Iraq managed to create only a few grams of highly-enriched uranium.

So no bang, and no way of getting that lack of bang to a target. But supposing that Iraq managed to shrink its bomb, get their hands on uranium, and build better missiles, well, then we’d have a problem, right? Sure. No one likes the idea of Saddam with nukes. But perhaps a better line against this possibility would be working to lower the odds of any non-nuclear state getting their hands on uranium, such as the 1,000,000 kilograms currently lying around in the former Soviet Union.

Meanwhile, the smoking gun that the US claimed was proof that Iraq was trying to buy uranium turned out to be a stack of forged documents. And no one in the administration seems to care much about their provenance; you’d think that finding the forger might be of some concern.

Nuclear weapons are a major concern. North Korea and Iran are well on their way, or already there. Israel’s nukes provides a nice justification for other nations in the Middle East to try to build their own. Russia still has theirs, and hasn’t always kept the best track of where they kept them. Iraq’s nuclear program doesn’t begin to hold a candle to other nuclear threats.

GW2 Myth #3: Iraq poses a chemical or biological weapons threat to the United States. Ok, now we’re talking about a weapon that we can be reasonably sure Saddam’s got. But see above about Iraq’s lack of ability to get them here.

So can we postulate that Iraq could send a spy over here and set them off? Not really—the Washington Post reports that Iraq is dependent on air power to deliver his payloads, and he’s not likely to have that here in the US. Granted that it’s possible to foresee a crop-duster scenario, but seeing as how the last three terrorist attacks in Washington have been: 1) an unidentified anthrax attack, probably from US bioweapon stores; 2) a couple of homegrown nutcases with rifles; and 3) a lunatic from North Carolina with a tractor; it seem pretty far-fetched to think that Iraq is the most dangerous actor on US soil.

Finally, let’s not forget that the CIA thinks that the only circumstances in which Saddam would even try to use his chemical and biological weapons are exactly the ones we’re creating right now.

GW2 Myth #4: It’s necessary to attack Saddam in order to prevent him from giving his weapons to terrorists. MSNBC reported recently that 81% of Americans think that Saddam is in bed with Al-Qaeda. The same poll reported that 51% of Americans think Saddam was directly involved in 9/11, despite not a shred of evidence. Which goes to show that the most powerful weapon of the 21st century is still smoke and mirrors.

The fact is that despite an administration that would have really liked to produce the direct connection between the bad guys, the best connection we have is “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Al-Qaeda, who would like to see the rule of sharia law throughout the Middle East, consider Saddam to be an apostate. Saddam is not going to hand weapons over to people who are as likely to use them against him as against us. And the problem remains that “poor man’s nuclear weapons” are exactly that—there are easier ways for terrorists to get these weapons than to spirit them out of Iraq.

Myth #4 is the crux of why the war on Iraq is part of the war on terror. But the war will make it more likely that these weapons will get into the hands of people likely to use them. As of today, these stockpiles are in the hands of a tyrant who, according to the CIA, is unlikely to use them. Postwar, there will be an interregnum during which time these weapons, locations and quantities known only to God, will be under no one’s control. Do you suppose that some enterprising Iraqi military officers might have a few contacts that would be willing to make some stockpiles disappear in return for ready cash? Do you expect that American forces will find all of it before this happens?

GW2 Myth #5: We’re doing this out of a humanitarian impulse to liberate the oppressed Iraqi people. This one has gotten very popular of late, as it has the dual effect of making us feel like good guys, and getting the left wing in the US and elsewhere to shut up. No rational person can argue that life in Iraq isn’t a living hell.

But we tend to gloss over the fact that we’re going to make it worse before we make it better. The collapse of the Iraqi government is going to mean the collapse of the Iraqi food distribution system, which the United Nations has called one of the best in the world; Saddam has discovered that feeding people keeps them firmly under his control. The US military doesn’t have the ability to feed 24 million people, and current US postwar plans are to entirely shut out the UN programs with the most experience doing this, in favor of American companies who have landed juicy rebuilding contracts.

And you only have to look as far as Afghanistan, site of our last war on terror, to get a feel for our lack of tenacity when it comes to rebuilding countries formerly known as enemies. My prediction is that there will be just enough reports from embedded reporters, showing the wonderful munificence of troops feeding a few thousand, to keep the humanitarians quiet; if millions starve beyond the view of the cameras, it will take much longer for us to notice, and the anecdotes of our generosity will have inoculated us against doing anything more.

As for our ability to transplant democracy into Iraq, it’s amazing that it’s the Left that has the reputation of believing in political fairy tales if this is the plan of the administration. You’ve got a semi-autonomous Kurdish region in the north, and factions of Sunnis and Shiites splitting up the rest of the country, with Turkey and Iran both quite happily pondering pocketing some additional border lands. This in a country coming off of decades of totalitarianism, preceded by decades of being a vassal colony. And with a strong disinclination to take on “Western values” in the form of our governmental system. Not what you’d call fertile ground for the wellspringing of democracy.

GW2 Myth #6: The US doesn’t need the rest of the world, and the UN is irrelevant. I note that the irrelevant UN at least managed to delay the onset of war, and I don’t think you’d see the global near-unanimity of opinion against war in their absence. The very fact that you hear so many people talking about international law and the use of diplomacy versus war is in itself the best evidence of how far the world has come in the past century.

And even the Bush administration is not immune. Would Bush have bothered to trumpet the “Coalition of the Willing” if he didn’t also believe that he desperately needed international support and legitimacy? Of course, this coalition is in itself one of the biggest myths being foisted on the public: of the 40 nations listed, only 3 (including the US) are involved militarily. Turkey, who refused us the use of their airbases, is listed as willing. Reports are that the Colombian Embassy in Washington discovered that they were willing when reporters called to ask them about it.

What makes this an even greater farce is the US press release claiming that the population of the Coalition of the Willing is almost 1.2 billion people, ignoring that in at least two of those countries, Great Britain and Turkey, the populations are overwhelmingly against the war; last time I checked, Americans aren’t exactly unanimous either. The Bush administration still seems to have some trouble counting votes.

Myths 1-5 pretty much make up the totality of our stated reasons for going to Iraq. If none of them are true upon examination, and assuming that the Bush administration is made up of at least a few people who have similar powers of analysis, it remains to be said exactly why we’re going to war.

There are a few truths of GW2: 1) it will be quick; 2) by most of the standards of war, it will be easy for the US, in terms of casualties and cost; and 3) winning will make us feel good. Those of us who think that the war will make the world more dangerous won’t be able to point to an easy cause-and-effect between this and the next threat, and we’ll have to overcome the cheers of people who happily insinuate that we’re traitorous.

One traitorous belief that’s ascribed to us is that we don’t want the war to be quick, easy, or cheap. And of course that’s not true. What I’m hoping for is a fast US victory, an administration that surpasses my low expectations in Iraqi rebuilding—and firm evidence that cannot be ignored about what we’ll have to do next to clean up the mess we’ve created.