Like most of us, if I’m honest with myself, I really only know how Secret Service protection works from the movies or how, going on my own common sense, I figure it works. The folks who protect the president are professionals. So I want to be extremely tentative and cautious about second-guessing their work from a bit of news video that leaves many key details unanswered.
But watching the video of the Iraqi journalist throwing his shoes at President Bush, I could not help but notice that it took an uncomfortably long period of time for anyone to get to the assailant and, even more, much longer than I would have expected for anyone who looked like Secret Service to get to the president and block his body or get him out of harm’s way.
I guess the point here is that this was a very confined space. Presumably the Secret Service controlled access to the degree that they were confident there were no unauthorized weapons in the room. And they wouldn’t have to worry about someone with a gun at a greater distance. So they may have been less worried about jumping in front of the president, etc.
Maybe I’m just over-analyzing this. And obviously a president can’t be under lock and key at all moments, with Secret Service agents ready to throw him to the floor at a moment’s notice. But for an American president, any moment in Iraq has to be considered a very high risk situation. So it did make me wonder.
On a totally unrelated note, I was genuinely impressed by the president’s quick ducking response. In all seriousness, if you watch the video, the guy was extremely close to the president (maybe fifteen feet?). He threw the shoe very hard and very accurately. Given how out of the blue the whole bizarre incident was I think the reporter would have beaned most other folks in that situation.
Another big name who apparently took a bath courtesy of Bernard Madoff.
In a now much-cited 2001 article (MAR-Hedge (RIP) No. 89 May 2001) raising questions about Bernard Madoff’s improbably consistent rates of return, here’s how Madoff himself addressed doubts by many in the industry who said his numbers just didn’t add up …
Madoff, who believes that he deserves “some credibility as a trader for 40 years,” says: “The strategy is the strategy and the returns are the returns.” He suggests that those who believe there is something more to it and are seeking an answer beyond that are wasting their time.
From the Wall Street Journal (sub. req.):
Google Inc. has approached major cable and phone companies that carry Internet traffic with a proposal to create a fast lane for its own content, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. Google has traditionally been one of the loudest advocates of equal network access for all content providers. …
One major cable operator in talks with Google says it has been reluctant so far to strike a deal because of concern it might violate Federal Communications Commission guidelines on network neutrality.
“If we did this, Washington would be on fire,” says one executive at the cable company who is familiar with the talks, referring to the likely reaction of regulators and lawmakers.
Separately, Microsoft Corp. and Yahoo Inc. have withdrawn quietly from a coalition formed two years ago to protect network neutrality. Each company has forged partnerships with the phone and cable companies. In addition, prominent Internet scholars, some of whom have advised President-elect Barack Obama on technology issues, have softened their views on the subject.
Late Update: A pretty fierce reaction/denial from Google, which you might expect, but also from Larry Lessig, who is quoted in the Journal piece:
Missing from the article, however, is the evidence that my view is a “shift” or “soften[ing]” of earlier views. That’s because there isn’t any such evidence. My view is the view I have always had — whether or not it is the view of others in this debate.
Now no doubt my position might be wrong. Some friends in the network neutrality movement as well as some scholars believe it is wrong — that it doesn’t go far enough. But the suggestion that the position is “recent” is baseless. If I’m wrong, I’ve always been wrong.
Late Late Update: Another aspect of the Journal report that is being disputed is whether Obama has softened/shifted his position on net neutrality.
Illinois struggles with how to fill Barack Obama’s empty Senate seat now that Rod Blagojevich is so thoroughly discredited. That and the day’s other political news in the TPM Election Central Morning Roundup.
TPM brings on a new class of interns each season. Right now we’ve taken our Winter applications, but we’re putting out a special call for a TPM Publishing Intern. We’re looking specifically for someone with some nice design and tech skills to work with us creating special projects and helping us out with site development. Ideally this candidate will be an html and css ninja, have some Photoshop and Flash chops and maybe have dabbled in javascript or php.
Winter cycle interns will work closely on projects relating to the presidential transition and the start of the new Congress.
For more details, click here.
to cover stuff like this?
From the WaPo …
Meanwhile, Paulson repeatedly told lawmakers that he did not plan to use bailout funds to inject capital directly into financial institutions. Privately, however, his staff was developing plans to do just that, Paulson acknowledged in an interview.
The shoe-hurling was pretty gripping video, but Bush’s reaction and subsequent riff on what free societies are all about is worth watching, too: