AdamSmith

Glenn Greenwald: Won't be silenced by detention By ASSOCIATED PRESS | 8/19/13 9:59 AM EDT LONDON — The American journalist who has published stories based on leaked documents from former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden says he's going to be much more "aggressive" about printing stories now. That statement from journalist Glenn Greenwald comes after English authorities detained his partner under anti-terror legislation for nearly nine hours at Heathrow Airport in London. Greenwald's partner, David Miranda, arrived back in Rio de Janeiro on Monday, where the pair live together. Greenwald says he's going "to write much more aggressively than before, I'm going to publish many more documents than before." He added: "I'm going to publish many more things about England, as well. I have many documents about the system of espionage of England, and now my focus will be there, too." Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/glenn-greenwald-partner-detained-95671.html#ixzz2cQU6kixG

Greenwald is not amused. Glenn Greenwald: detaining my partner was a failed attempt at intimidationThe detention of my partner, David Miranda, by UK authorities will have the opposite effect of the one intended Glenn Greenwald The Guardian, Sunday 18 August 2013 At 6:30 am this morning my time - 5:30 am on the East Coast of the US - I received a telephone call from someone who identified himself as a "security official at Heathrow airport." He told me that my partner, David Miranda, had been "detained" at the London airport "under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act of 2000." David had spent the last week in Berlin, where he stayed with Laura Poitras, the US filmmaker who has worked with me extensively on the NSA stories. A Brazilian citizen, he was returning to our home in Rio de Janeiro this morning on British Airways, flying first to London and then on to Rio. When he arrived in London this morning, he was detained. At the time the "security official" called me, David had been detained for 3 hours. The security official told me that they had the right to detain him for up to 9 hours in order to question him, at which point they could either arrest and charge him or ask a court to extend the question time. The official - who refused to give his name but would only identify himself by his number: 203654 - said David was not allowed to have a lawyer present, nor would they allow me to talk to him. I immediately contacted the Guardian, which sent lawyers to the airport, as well various Brazilian officials I know. Within the hour, several senior Brazilian officials were engaged and expressing indignation over what was being done. The Guardian has the full story here. Despite all that, five more hours went by and neither the Guardian's lawyers nor Brazilian officials, including the Ambassador to the UK in London, were able to obtain any information about David. We spent most of that time contemplating the charges he would likely face once the 9-hour period elapsed. According to a document published by the UK government about Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act, "fewer than 3 people in every 10,000 are examined as they pass through UK borders" (David was not entering the UK but only transiting through to Rio). Moreover, "most examinations, over 97%, last under an hour." An appendix to that document states that only .06% of all people detained are kept for more than 6 hours. The stated purpose of this law, as the name suggests, is to question people about terrorism. The detention power, claims the UK government, is used "to determine whether that person is or has been involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism." But they obviously had zero suspicion that David was associated with a terrorist organization or involved in any terrorist plot. Instead, they spent their time interrogating him about the NSA reporting which Laura Poitras, the Guardian and I are doing, as well the content of the electronic products he was carrying. They completely abused their own terrorism law for reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism: a potent reminder of how often governments lie when they claim that they need powers to stop "the terrorists", and how dangerous it is to vest unchecked power with political officials in its name. Worse, they kept David detained right up until the last minute: for the full 9 hours, something they very rarely do. Only at the last minute did they finally release him. We spent all day - as every hour passed - worried that he would be arrested and charged under a terrorism statute. This was obviously designed to send a message of intimidation to those of us working journalistically on reporting on the NSA and its British counterpart, the GCHQ. Before letting him go, they seized numerous possessions of his, including his laptop, his cellphone, various video game consoles, DVDs, USB sticks, and other materials. They did not say when they would return any of it, or if they would. This is obviously a rather profound escalation of their attacks on the news-gathering process and journalism. It's bad enough to prosecute and imprison sources. It's worse still to imprison journalists who report the truth. But to start detaining the family members and loved ones of journalists is simply despotic. Even the Mafia had ethical rules against targeting the family members of people they felt threatened by. But the UK puppets and their owners in the US national security state obviously are unconstrained by even those minimal scruples. If the UK and US governments believe that tactics like this are going to deter or intimidate us in any way from continuing to report aggressively on what these documents reveal, they are beyond deluded. If anything, it will have only the opposite effect: to embolden us even further. Beyond that, every time the US and UK governments show their true character to the world - when they prevent the Bolivian President's plane from flying safely home, when they threaten journalists with prosecution, when they engage in behavior like what they did today - all they do is helpfully underscore why it's so dangerous to allow them to exercise vast, unchecked spying power in the dark. David was unable to call me because his phone and laptop are now with UK authorities. So I don't yet know what they told him. But the Guardian's lawyer was able to speak with him immediately upon his release, and told me that, while a bit distressed from the ordeal, he was in very good spirits and quite defiant, and he asked the lawyer to convey that defiance to me. I already share it, as I'm certain US and UK authorities will soon see. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-miranda-detained-uk-nsa

Glenn Greenwald's partner detained at Heathrow airport for nine hoursDavid Miranda, partner of Guardian interviewer of whistleblower Edward Snowden, questioned under Terrorism Act Glenn Greenwald: a failed attempt at intimidation Guardian staff The Guardian, Sunday 18 August 2013 David Miranda, partner of Guardian interviewer of whistleblower Edward Snowden, questioned under Terrorism Act Glenn Greenwald: a failed attempt at intimidation Guardian staff The Guardian, Sunday 18 August 2013 Glenn Greenwald (right) and his partner David Miranda, who was held by UK authorities at Heathrow airport. Photograph: Janine Gibson The partner of the Guardian journalist who has written a series of stories revealing mass surveillance programmes by the US National Security Agency was held for almost nine hours on Sunday by UK authorities as he passed through London's Heathrow airport on his way home to Rio de Janeiro. David Miranda, who lives with Glenn Greenwald, was returning from a trip to Berlin when he was stopped by officers at 8.05am and informed that he was to be questioned under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The controversial law, which applies only at airports, ports and border areas, allows officers to stop, search, question and detain individuals. The 28-year-old was held for nine hours, the maximum the law allows before officers must release or formally arrest the individual. According to official figures, most examinations under schedule 7 – over 97% – last less than an hour, and only one in 2,000 people detained are kept for more than six hours. Miranda was released, but officials confiscated electronics equipment including his mobile phone, laptop, camera, memory sticks, DVDs and games consoles. Since 5 June, Greenwald has written a series of stories revealing the NSA's electronic surveillance programmes, detailed in thousands of files passed to him by whistleblower Edward Snowden. The Guardian has also published a number of stories about blanket electronic surveillance by Britain's GCHQ, also based on documents from Snowden. While in Berlin, Miranda had visited Laura Poitras, the US film-maker who has also been working on the Snowden files with Greenwald and the Guardian. The Guardian paid for Miranda's flights. "This is a profound attack on press freedoms and the news gathering process," Greenwald said. "To detain my partner for a full nine hours while denying him a lawyer, and then seize large amounts of his possessions, is clearly intended to send a message of intimidation to those of us who have been reporting on the NSA and GCHQ. The actions of the UK pose a serious threat to journalists everywhere. "But the last thing it will do is intimidate or deter us in any way from doing our job as journalists. Quite the contrary: it will only embolden us more to continue to report aggressively." A spokesperson for the Guardian said: "We were dismayed that the partner of a Guardian journalist who has been writing about the security services was detained for nearly nine hours while passing through Heathrow airport. We are urgently seeking clarification from the British authorities." A spokesperson for Scotland Yard said: "At 08:05 on Sunday, 18 August a 28-year-old man was detained at Heathrow airport under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. He was not arrested. He was subsequently released at 17:00." Scotland Yard refused to be drawn on why Miranda was stopped using powers that enable police officers to stop and question travellers at UK ports and airports. There was no comment from the Home Office in relation to the detention. However, there was surprise in political circles and elsewhere. Labour MP Tom Watson said he was shocked at the news and called for it to be made clear if any ministers were involved in authorising the detention. He said: "It's almost impossible, even without full knowledge of the case, to conclude that Glenn Greenwald's partner was a terrorist suspect. "I think that we need to know if any ministers knew about this decision, and exactly who authorised it." "The clause in this act is not meant to be used as a catch-all that can be used in this way." Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act has been widely criticised for giving police broad powers under the guise of anti-terror legislation to stop and search individuals without prior authorisation or reasonable suspicion – setting it apart from other police powers. Those stopped have no automatic right to legal advice and it is a criminal offence to refuse to co-operate with questioning under schedule 7, which critics say is a curtailment of the right to silence. Last month the UK government said it would reduce the maximum period of detention to six hours and promised a review of the operation on schedule 7 amid concerns it unfairly targets minority groups and gives individuals fewer legal protections than they would have if detained at a police station. The government of Brazil issued a statement in which it expressed its "grave concern" over the detention of one of its citizens and the use of anti-terror legislation. It said: "This measure is without justification since it involves an individual against whom there are no charges that can legitimate the use of that legislation. The Brazilian government expects that incidents such as the one that happened to the Brazilian citizen today are not repeated." Widney Brown, Amnesty International's senior director of international law and policy, said: "It is utterly improbable that David Michael Miranda, a Brazilian national transiting through London, was detained at random, given the role his partner has played in revealing the truth about the unlawful nature of NSA surveillance. "David's detention was unlawful and inexcusable. He was detained under a law that violates any principle of fairness and his detention shows how the law can be abused for petty, vindictive reasons. "There is simply no basis for believing that David Michael Miranda presents any threat whatsoever to the UK government. The only possible intent behind this detention was to harass him and his partner, Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, for his role in analysing the data released by Edward Snowden." http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/18/glenn-greenwald-guardian-partner-detained-heathrow

Ugly.

If you have not read it, just occurred to me that a book you might really like is Michael Collins's autobiograpy Carrying the Fire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_the_Fire:_An_Astronaut%27s_Journeys It illustrates something you have remarked on here before -- that Mission Control attitudes (and thus much press coverage) do not always give full shrift to all the work that the astronauts have to do in flight to make the mission go. Collins gives a riveting account of that work, specifically of the extent to which their survival is very much in their own hands. Continually taking star sightings to make sure the guidance platform stays properly aligned, programming and monitoring the engine burns for midflight course corrections, staying on top of equipment "funnies" which vary with every individual spacecraft, etc., etc. In contrast to the impression we often get that most everything is either pre-programmed or controlled from the ground.

Pope Francis: Untying the Knots by Paul Vallely – reviewThe new pope kept his silence as terror stalked Argentina in the 1960s. Is he really as humble as the Vatican says?, asks Hugh O'Shaughn Hugh O'Shaughnessy The Observer, Saturday 17 August 2013 Jorge Mario Bergoglio in a 1950s family portrait. Back row (l-r): his brother Alberto Horacio, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, his brother Oscar Adrian, his sister Marta Regina. Front row (l-r): his sister Maria Elena, his mother Regina, his father Mario Jose Francisco. Photograph: EPA I don't remember hearing the name of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who became Pope Francis in March, or any of his fellow Argentinian Jesuits when I was in Buenos Aires in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. They seemed strangely silent in such harrowing times when the fundaments of decent civilisation were being set at nought throughout the western hemisphere at the multiplying demands of the cold war. Pope Francis: Untying the Knots by Paul Vallely They kept their peace, for instance, when their brother bishop Enrique Angelelli was murdered by the country's uniformed terrorists at the orders of General Jorge Videla and Admiral Emilio Massera. I do remember the lines of armed police with their dogs in Calle Florida, the Knightsbridge of the Argentinian capital; I'll never forget the ESMA, the naval mechanical school, the handsome white building on its wide avenue in the Barrio Norte, the smart part of town where uniformed torturers learned their repulsive technique of sending their opponents screaming to their death – sometimes from aircraft over the waters of the river Plate – as the regime's servants made a few pesos plundering their property and selling their babies to the highest bidders in the name of the defence of "western Christian civilisation". Signs outside the ESMA, I recall, reminded motorists not to linger lest they be shot. These were times of western-supported terrorism imposed on Argentina by a succession of local monsters who combined with their neighbours, Alfredo Stroessner in Paraguay, the Brazilian generals, Augusto Pinochet in Chile, Hugo Banzer in Bolivia and the military non-entities who disgraced the international reputation of Uruguay. Outside help was supplied from Washington not just by Henry Kissinger but also, US writers tend to forget, by Jimmy Carter. The Catholic church in Argentina had few to rival in valour Cardinal Raúl Silva in Santiago in his opposition to the military putsch, or Paulo Evaristo Lins Arns, pastor of São Paulo, and Hélder Câmara of Olinda and Recife, Archbishop Óscar Romero of San Salvador and their six fellow Jesuits of the same city who were assassinated by marksmen trained in the US. I don't remember Bergoglio and company because they outrageously kept their silence over the 30,000 dead in the military terrorists' onslaught against society. Indeed the Argentinian Jesuit leadership did its best to minimise the crimes and was aided by the Vatican's diplomats, notably Archbishop Pio Laghi. The latter reckoned his spiritual duty to believers would be famously advanced by regularly playing tennis with the cowardly Massera, the master of the ESMA. The character of the times was confirmed when John Paul II went on to appoint Laghi to the nunciature in Washington where Bush I called him "an old family friend" and helped the Polish pope to destroy the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. The choice of Bergoglio that the cardinal-electors made at the last papal conclave was widely greeted with dismay; many Catholics were aghast that the winning candidate could be selected from a crew that for years had been led by Antonio Quarracino, the capital's archbishop who had a penchant for large limousines and expensive, tasteless hotels. Paul Vallely is to be complimented for the rapid work he put into this biography of the new pope, though it is peppered with all too many minor errors. Happily the author refused to accept the impression carefully fostered by the Vatican that we have a profoundly humble and good-hearted pope suitable for embrace by any bien pensant. Vallely has wisely distanced himself from the hysterical demands for an immediate canonisation that shouts of "Santo subito!" represented on the death of John Paul II, the artificer of the long and tenacious campaign to push John XXIII's thrilling and much needed reforms of the Second Vatican Council into history. Nor does the author think that taking public transport is the key to sainthood. Vallely's attitude is rather to accept the evidence of Argentinian authors such as Horacio Verbitsky. These say that the conservative Bergoglio was passive in front of the crimes of the day and deaf to the cries of the poor and indeed of some of his fellow Jesuits who were closer to the lessons of the gospel than he himself was. The author says the new pontiff has mended his ways. He underlines the new pope's constant confession that he had erred greatly as a Jesuit – ignoring the victims of western-supported terrorism, betraying friends to the torturers and halting efforts to stop the impoverishment of millions. Vallely remarks, "Bergoglio behaved recklessly and has been trying to atone for his behaviour ever since." That prompts two thoughts. First, let's hope that Vallely has read Bergoglio correctly, second, when will British Catholic leaders forswear the search for honours and, in this time of creeping war and impoverishment, start following the examples of such as Cardinal Silva and Archbishop Romero? http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/aug/18/pope-francis-untying-the-knots-review

Behind the new Pope's smile . . . Luke Coppen on a biography of the Pontiff that raises questions about his background Luke Coppen – 17 August 2013 Independent In the year 2000, Jorge Mario Bergoglio went to Germany to resolve one of the most painful episodes of his life. The then Archbishop of Buenos Aires travelled there in search of an elderly fellow Jesuit, Franz Jalics. When they finally met, for the first time in decades, an eyewitness said they fell into each other's arms and wept. The two men had first crossed paths some 40 years earlier, when Jalics taught the young Bergoglio philosophy. It wasn't long before the student became the older man's superior: just three months after taking his final vows, Bergoglio was appointed head of the Jesuit order in Argentina. Jalics and a fellow priest, Orlando Yorio, asked his permission to live among the poor in a city slum and he readily gave it. Two years later, in 1976, the military launched a coup and began what it called, with sinister euphemism, the Proceso de Reorganización Nacional. Suspected left-wing activists were captured, tortured, drugged and then pushed, still conscious, out of aeroplanes over the Atlantic. One Sunday in May they came for Yorio and Jalics. What happened next – and why – is the subject of an ongoing polemic that went global on March 13 this year, when Bergoglio was elected Pope. Did he provoke the kidnapping by withdrawing his support for the priests after they refused his command to leave the slum? Or did he work courageously behind the scenes to free them, broken but alive, five months later? In Pope Francis: Untying the Knots, Paul Vallely skilfully unravels the competing narrative threads, without ever oversimplifying either Argentine politics or the new Pontiff's complex personality. It may surprise those who know Bergoglio only as the beaming, baby-kissing Bishop of Rome that he was once nicknamed the "man who never smiles". Today, he deliberately avoids referring to himself as "the Pope", yet he was once seen as deeply authoritarian. He is famous for his low-key liturgies, but as a young priest he reportedly justified his High Church-style by saying: "Ordinary people like a touch of Evita." He now enjoys incredible popularity, but other Jesuits disliked him so much that after stepping down as their leader he was sent to a lowly post 400 miles away from Buenos Aires. He has said he wants a "poor church for the poor", but he was suspicious of those, like Yorio and Jalics, who were inspired by Liberation Theology to live among the needy. (When Bergoglio was made a bishop in 1992 Yorio left Argentina in disgust and died eight years later without ever being reconciled with the future Pope.) It's not easy to explain all these apparent contradictions, but Vallely does so brilliantly. He shows how Pope Francis's personality was transformed in the crucible of Argentina's Dirty War, emerging with the old imperfections – aloofness, inflexibility and a taste for power – burned away. When drug dealers threatened to kill one of his slum priests four years ago, he acted without hesitation, telling the cleric: "If someone has to die, I would prefer it be me" and offering to sleep at his house. Almost every page of the book contains this kind of telling detail, which Vallely has gleaned from pounding the streets of Buenos Aires. Not surprisingly, there are a few signs of hasty publication: there is some repetition and the final chapter on the papal reform programme is inevitably quite sketchy. But for such a sophisticated biography to appear now, less than six months after the papal election, is little short of a publishing miracle. Luke Coppen is editor of The Catholic Herald. http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/books-arts/behind-the-new-popes-smile-29505848.html

The President Photos and Webcam Tours and Events Our Government The Obama Store Contact Us White House Overnight Guest Program Exploring the White HousePerhaps the most exciting part of the Overnight Guest Program is the unprecedented access guests will have to all areas of the White House. At 7PM, guests will be allowed entry via the prestigious West Wing Entrance. The Secret Service will assist you in finding your room. After you are settled in, you are free to roam the halls for a self-guided tour. Detailed maps will be provided for your convenience. Be sure to wear the special "O" badge at all times. This will identify you as an Overnight Guest with Level-4 access. Note: Some areas of the White House require knowledge of a daily access password. You will receive this password upon check-in. Be sure to memorize it. Photos taken by a recent participant in the Overnight Guest Program Your overnight stay begins at the West Wing Entrance The East Sitting Hall - outside the Queen's Bedroom The center hallway in the upstairs Residence Small living room outside the President's Master Bedroom Choose your guest roomOur luxurious accommodations are furnished with fine antiques and historic Presidential beds. Thick white towels and Aveda hair products are provided. The Queen's Bedroom Named for the many royal guests including Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Queen Sonja of Norway, and Queen Sofía of Spain, this richly decorated room is furnished in the Federal Style evoking an early-19th-century New England bedroom featuring the bed of Andrew Jackson. The armchair, bed hanging and drapery silks are all Scalamandré exclusives. Decorated with period art work and colored prints worthy of the most discerning collector. The room also has a sitting area with full-size sofa and chair, writing desk, and inlaid armoire. Great view of the North Lawn! Bath has Jacuzzi tub and shower with separate dressing area. The Lincoln Bedroom Artfully restored incorporating Lincoln period details such as window cornices and mantel. The centerpiece of the room is the 8-foot by 6-foot Rosewood Lincoln bed. The gilded carved bed canopy is in the shape of a crown with flowing yards of regal purple satin over white lace trailing to the floor. The bed hanging satin, drapery silk, tassels and tiebacks are Scalamandré exclusives. The furniture used by the Lincoln Administration includes the sofa and three matching chairs, two slipper chairs, and four of Lincoln's Cabinet chairs. Guests staying in the Lincoln Bedroom will have the use of the Lincoln bathroom, installed during the Truman presidency, with pale green opaque glass tiles and a mirrored dome ceiling light. The spacious tub has an elegant sandblasted etching of a Presidential eagle. What's included in Overnight Guest Program One night stay in either the Queen's Bedroom or the Lincoln Bedroom (7PM - 11AM) Commemorative photo taken by Official White House Photographer Use of the library, bowling alley, movie theater, swimming pool, and basketball court Breakfast in the family dining room Self-guided tour throughout the White House complex. Photos allowed, but no videos please. Note: Access to the underground tunnels, hidden staircases, and the First Family's bedrooms is restricted. Note: The President has priority use of all of the above amenities. Please respect his privacy. Guests will be issued a detailed Presidential Schedule of Daily Activities so they may plan accordingly. ReservationsAs the First Lady recently said about the White House: "I hope we've done a good job of bringing even more people to this place—people who never thought they were connected to this history. Just increasing that curiosity that this White House is yours, everyone's: It doesn't belong to a set of special people who have access and privilege. It's everyone's house, at every age. So come, use this place, walk in the doors. Feel like it's your museum." Rooms may be reserved up to eight months in advance. Room rates (including breakfast) are $400 per night double occupancy. In order to maximize the number of guests served, rooms may only be reserved for a single night. Reservations are accepted on a first come first served basis by clicking here. Additional information regarding parking, security, etc. will be sent out upon confirmation. Security InformationAll guests will be required to go through a security screening process. The following items are prohibited: Outside food and beverages of any kind Cigars, pipes, cigarettes, chewing tobacco, chewing gum Video recorders Knives of any size Aerosols Extraordinarily strong perfume Fireworks/smoke bombs Animals Real or simulated guns/ammunition Mace, electric stun guns, martial arts weapons, slingshots U.S. Secret Service reserves the right to prohibit any other personal items. ShareThis Nope, this is not the official website of The White House. It's a parody of whitehouse.gov. No person, department, or agency of the U.S. Government approved, endorsed, or authorized this site. No animals were harmed while making this website (except maybe that one time when I was a little late feeding my dog his dinner). About this Website Copyright Information Privacy Policy

The President Photos and Webcam Tours and Events Our Government The Obama Store Contact Us Happy Hours at the White House Mess Join Us for Happy Hours at the White HouseEvery Friday, members of the White House staff make their way downstairs to the Mess for their traditional end-of-the-week happy hours. If the President is available, he sometimes drops by for a cold beer before heading off to dinner. Other guests often include Cabinet members and their staff. In this casual atmosphere, staffers discuss ideas they have for new programs and initiatives. The basic framework for President Obama's health care reform was built from notes scribbled on a napkin at one of these happy hours. In a spirit of openness and transparency, President Obama invites you to join him for Happy Hours at the White House Mess. Happy Hours are held every Friday from 5PM - 7PM in the White House Mess, which is located in the basement of the West Wing. Advance reservations are required. For more information about the Mess including directions and reservations, visit the Dine at the White House Mess page on this website. White House Happy Hours MenuThe Happy Hours menu includes a selection of specialty drinks, beer, wine, and tasty appetizers. President Obama enjoying Happy Hours at the White House Mess White House Beer RecipeCan't make it to the White House for Happy Hours? Brew your own White House Honey Ale at home. ShareThis Nope, this is not the official website of The White House. It's a parody of whitehouse.gov. No person, department, or agency of the U.S. Government approved, endorsed, or authorized this site. No animals were harmed while making this website (except maybe that one time when I was a little late feeding my dog his dinner). About this Website Copyright Information Privacy Policy

The President Photos and Webcam Tours and Events Our Government The Obama Store Contact Us The Obama Store WHITE HOUSE OBAMA STORE Help support President Obama's initiative to reduce the national debt by purchasing all of your officially authorized Obama products here. All items are Made in the USA (except for the shirt, slippers, sunglasses, and hat) No sales tax! Not what you're looking for? Check out our oBay Auction page! Still not what you're looking for? Check out the other White House Gift Shop. Obama Bunny Slippers - $29.99 Obama Putter - $129.99 Obama Camper - $39,999 Obama Aloha Shirt - $69.99 Grilled Cheese Miracle - $1,400 The Obama Lisa - $1,500,000 Obama Frying Pan - $34.99 Obama Toothpaste - $4.99 Obama Sunglasses - $79.99 Obama Clock - $49.99 Obama Garage Door - $999 Obama Chef Hat - $24.99 Mount Obama - $10,850,000 Obama Tree - $399 Obama XMAS Tree - $99.99 ShareThis Nope, this is not the official website of The White House. It's a parody of whitehouse.gov. No person, department, or agency of the U.S. Government approved, endorsed, or authorized this site. No animals were harmed while making this website (except maybe that one time when I was a little late feeding my dog his dinner). About this Website Copyright Information Privacy Policy http://whitehouse.gov1.info/store/shop.html

The President Photos and Webcam Tours and Events Our Government The Obama Store Contact Us White House Tunnel System: West Wing Underground Command Bunker Project White House Construction: The New West Wing Bunker In 2010, the West Wing underground command center project secretly got underway. The construction equipment arrived and tall fences went up around the West Wing of the White House. An initial ill-conceived scheme to deceive the public about the true nature of the construction led to the widespread reporting of a mere "utility upgrade" project. However, the massive scope of the construction led to many questions and outrageous conspiracy theories. While some officials in federal government agencies sought access to this secret information, most Americans were left in the dark. In a spirit of openness and transparency, the Obama Administration has decided to set the record straight. Construction site outside the West Wing of the White House in 2011 Construction equipment along West Executive Avenue Specialized equipment was brought in for deep drilling Truckloads of dirt were continuously hauled away around the clock The new underground command center is located adjacent to and under the West Wing View of the the White House tunnel expansion work in progress New White House underground command center under construction - January 2013 The White House station is centrally located in the underground tunnel system Some locations along the line are also accessible via pedestrian walkways Undisclosed location along the White House Tunnel System Escalator up to the U.S. Capitol from the White House Tunnel System Building Our New West Wing Underground Command Center Since the early 1960's, the need for a Deep Underground Command Center (DUCC) has been studied. This Top Secret 1963 memo outlined the requirements for the construction of a DUCC. Because of limits in technology at that time, the project was deferred. Fifty years later, the DUCC is finally becoming a reality. The new underground command center serves two purposes: 1) To protect key people with sufficient staff and data to render critical decisions and 2) Ensure the survival of the facility to allow dissemination of these decisions. The DUCC can only serve this purpose if the President and his team can secretly relocate there on very short notice. Unlike the old Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) which is currently located below the East Wing of the White House, the new secret command center will house its own massive communications data center that interfaces with all military, intelligence, and critical federal agency systems. For security purposes, the exact specifications of the this command bunker are classified. Before and After Photos of the Secret White House Construction Area In 2007, a nondescript white building was constructed adjacent to the West Wing. The building is visible in the above photo, located on the far right. During the previous Bush Administration, this building did not officially exist. However, in the spirit of openness and transparency, the purpose of this mysterious structure can finally be revealed: it contained the initial buildout of the DUCC communications data center and was secretly relocated underground when the publicly visible aspect of the massive construction project was completed in 2012. The first photo below shows the West Wing construction area in 2010 with the secret white building visible above ground. The second photo shows the completed construction area at the end of 2012 with the white building removed. Click on the photo to view a larger version of it. Temporary Relocation of the Oval Office Much of the West Wing of the White House, including the Oval Office, will be relocated to the Eisenhower Executive Office Building next door to allow for the installation of the wiring, elevators, and secret entrances to the new command center below them. Although the exact timing has not been decided yet, the move is expected to take place in 2013 or 2014. It is imperative that the President be able to safely evacuate to the command bunker below without having to leave the Oval Office. The existing trap door under the President's desk leading down to the Secret Service "Horsepower" command post in the basement of the West Wing will be modified to allow presidential passage directly to the new underground command bunker. A second Oval Office will be built in the south end of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. The Secret Service is working closely with the construction crews providing top secret security specifications for the windows, walls, and access points for the President's new workplace. President Obama checks out the trap door beneath the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office Presidential Executive Command and Control System Relocation. Currently, the President has access to a large suite of Executive Command and Control applications via a PC located in his personal study outside the Oval Office. Some of these applications include the Cyber Warfare Command and Online Nuclear Launch Codes. For enhanced security, the access point for these important national security applications will eventually be relocated to the new West Wing underground command center. Continuity of Government - The President's Doomsday Plan The White House has developed a comprehensive Continuity of Government Plan to ensure that our nation will continue to function in the event of a catastrophic national emergency. To prepare for this unthinkable event, the new West Wing underground command center will function as an "underground White House". A tunnel will connect the new executive command center with the PEOC under the East Wing. The complex logistics of evacuating key executive agencies located in our nation's capital include a fleet of specialized vans and trucks that can be dispatched on a moment's notice to secret campgrounds located within the Shenandoah Valley and in nearby federal park lands in Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania containing underground hardened facilities and emergency communication systems. Visit our new Continuity of Government (COG) web page for details about this important plan. The White House Tunnel System Work first began on the secret White House underground tunnel system back in early 1950 under the Truman administration. The White House was deteriorating and it was determined that massive reconstruction was required. President Truman relocated to the nearby Blair House for three years while the interior of the White House was completely rebuilt with concrete and steel beams. It was during this time period that forward-thinking engineers came up with the plan to construct a massive underground secret network of tunnels and bunkers to provide the President and his staff the ability to quickly relocate during an emergency in the dawn of the Cold War era. The Secret Metro Tunnels The Washington Metro is a subway system that serves the Washington DC area. It "officially" has 106 miles of track serving 86 stations in the District of Columbia, Virginia, and Maryland. Planning for the Metro system began in the 1950s during the height of the cold war. President Eisenhower created a secret rail planning commission that directed the development of a secondary secret underground rail system built alongside the public one. This secret tunnel system currently connects the White House to the Eisenhower Executive Office Building next door, the New Executive Office Building (NEOB), the bunker under the Blair House, the bunker under the VP Residence at the Naval Observatory, the U.S. Capitol, Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling, the Pentagon, the State Department, and some other federal buildings in between. There is also a secret train that runs between DC's Union Station and Mt. Weather and is under the protection of the TSA Federal Air Marshals. Long-term plans call for the expansion of the White House tunnel system to go south past the Pentagon; west past the CIA to Mount Weather; and north past Camp David up to Site R in Pennsylvania. The estimated completion date and exact route of this ambitious tunnel expansion plan remains classified.Planned White House Tunnel System Expansion Map Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) The PEOC was built six stories below ground under the East Wing to provide the President with a secure meeting place in the event of an emergency. Access to the PEOC is by an elevator located behind multiple vault-type doors with biometric access control systems. On September 11, 2001, President Bush met with his National Security Council in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center. Photos of this secret location were published for the first time following this extraordinary gathering. While the exact specification of this emergency Presidential bunker is classified, it is built to withstand a direct nuclear hit. Meetings in the PEOC and Executive Briefing Room As part of the Obama Administration's effort to make this White House the most open and transparent in history, we've released over three million White House Visitor Access records including the ones below related to meetings held in the PEOC (click below to view the report) Related Pages on this Website Secret Searches for Secret Tunnels Raven Rock Mountain Complex Tour Camp David Tour White House Expanded Tour White House Underground Tours Nope, this is not the official website of The White House. It's a parody of whitehouse.gov. No person, department, or agency of the U.S. Government approved, endorsed, or authorized this site. No animals were harmed while making this website (except maybe that one time when I was a little late feeding my dog his dinner). About this Website Copyright Information Privacy Policy http://whitehouse.gov1.info/tunnel/index.html

Don't let U.S. government read your e-mail By Neil M. Richards, Special to CNN updated 9:04 AM EDT, Sun August 18, 2013 Editor's note: Neil Richards is a professor of law at Washington University. He tweets about privacy at @neilmrichards and is the author of the recent Harvard Law Review article, "The Dangers of Surveillance." (CNN) -- You may have never heard of Lavabit and Silent Circle. That's because they offered encrypted (secure) e-mail services, something most Americans have probably never thought about needing, or wanting. In recent days, Lavabit closed shop reportedly in response to U.S. government pressure to hand over customer data, including those of Edward Snowden, who used the e-mail provider. Silent Circle, which is used by activists, journalists and diplomats, shut down its e-mail service on its own volition because it wanted to prevent spying. While these small companies have the courage to stand up for their customers' privacy, big companies like Google and Microsoft and others seem to be on the sidelines. We seem to be of several minds about government surveillance of our communications. Most people want privacy. But most people want the government, at least in justified cases, to be able to read the e-mail of those legitimately suspected of planning serious crimes. And most people also find the details of electronic surveillance worrying and complicated, and would prefer not to think about them at all. It's easier to stick your head in the sand. But that would be a mistake. E-mail privacy matters because our intellectual privacy matters. The ability to confidentially share ideas and information between friends, confidantes and loved ones is the hallmark of a free society. Our communications are the foundation of our political freedoms. They must be inaccessible to the government unless it can prove to a neutral judge that surveillance is warranted, which means more than "relevance" to an investigation and more than mere curiosity. Governments that have the power to secretly watch their citizens and are not subject to meaningful legal constraint have proven, time and time again, that this power can be abused. Just look at our own history. J. Edgar Hoover's FBI put the Rev. Martin Luther King under surveillance, seeking to discredit him politically. This was part of a broader program called COINTELPRO. Hoover told FBI agents to "expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize" the activities of a wide range of individuals and groups, including communists, civil rights organizations, anti-Vietnam War groups, and so on. When earlier this year Edward Snowden leaked to the world NSA's massive surveillance programs such as PRISM and Boundless Informant, we were shocked. But more revelations kept coming. Just the other day, the Washington Post reported that the NSA had broken its own permissive rules on surveillance thousands of times each year since 2008. This is unacceptable. A society that cannot trust its citizens with ideas -- dissenting, different, or even dangerous -- is a society that is incapable of governing itself. It's in this context that we should understand the importance of the recent closures of Lavabit and Silent Circle's e-mail service. Our government has the power to secretly compel e-mail providers to allow surveillance. These secret powers are frequently subject to minimal legal checks, and they allow the government to put gag orders on e-mail providers who object to turning over the records of their customers' communications. When e-mail providers build their systems in ways to ensure privacy (such as by not collecting metadata or by using strong encryption), they come under government pressure, as Lavabit found out to its dismay. How can we protect e-mail privacy in ways that give the government the power (subject to the meaningful rule of law) to investigate serious crimes? We could let the government record everything, see everything and know everything. This seems to be the position of some government officials, but it would be the end of privacy (and self-government) as we know it. If we know the state is watching, we will censor what we do, what we say, and possibly even what we think. On the other hand, we could put our communications under strong legal or technological protection (like cryptography) subject to no government access. This would guarantee strong privacy, but it could unreasonably handicap the government from legitimate law enforcement and counter-terrorism purposes. There is a middle way. We should presume the privacy of e-mail and other communications, and we should require the government to get warrants supported by probable cause before it can read our mail, track our movements and use our communications data to construct a map of everyone we know and when we talk to them. This is the traditional way we've protected communications privacy, and it's a good way. But this requires recognizing a few things. Total surveillance of our communications is illegitimate, but so is secret surveillance. In a democracy committed to civil liberties, the basic contours of government power must be known by the people, so that the people can agree to them. It's not enough for government agencies to raise the specter of public safety and say "trust us." A common response to this argument is the idea that making government surveillance powers public makes it easier for criminals and terrorists to commit crimes, and harder for the police to do their jobs. This is correct, but we need to acknowledge that privacy is a civil liberty, and civil liberties are inefficient. We tolerate free speech, the freedom from searches and seizures, jury trials, and the privilege against self-incrimination (among others) in spite of these costs because we've learned the hard way that the alternative is worse. Governments that are too efficient abuse their powers, often by trampling political dissent and civil liberties. It's the difference between a police state and a free state. We can't ignore the threat to our civil liberties by giving the government vast powers any more than we can ignore the fact that we live in a dangerous world. Striking the right balance might be hard, but it is part of the price we have to pay for political freedom. http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/18/opinion/richards-lavabit-surveillance/index.html?hpt=hp_t4

The White House credibility deficitThe NSA leaks ended the power of Obama officials to ration access. No self-respecting journalist believes what they say Jeff Jarvis theguardian.com, Sunday 18 August 2013 07.30 EDT According to Britons, Americans are incapable of irony – and our president is certainly proving their point. In his address about Egypt's military coup – or whatever bowdlerizing euphemism is permitted this week in Washington – Obama condemned the notion that "security trumps individual freedom." Really? After his press conference announcing an oversight commission for the NSA, it emerged that the NSA's truth-challenged director of national intelligence, James Clapper, would apparently oversee the oversight. The White House had to explain the joke, and then said Clapper would merely facilitate. And in the latest revelations from Edward Snowden on NSA noncompliance even with its over-broad license to snoop on most anyone, the Washington Post reported that the administration – which supposedly welcomes this discussion and at first permitted a spokesman to defend the administration on the record – tried to withdraw his quotes and replace them with a new statement. The Post wouldn't go along with this gag and reported the attempt. The Post was right to refuse to play along and allow the White House to write its spokesman's quotes after the fact. I was shocked last year when it turned out that the New York Times allowed some sources to "approve quotes" after uttering them, a policy it quickly reversed. I have been equally shocked to find some European reporters, as a matter of standard procedure, giving me the opportunity to review and alter my own quotes. No, what's said is said: that is the very definition of "on-the-record". That is the punchline of the Snowden affair: when we can't trust what government tells us, we come to trust those whom government doesn't trust. Thus, we no longer necessarily care what the official line is and who delivers it. And when that happens, access – the currency of the Beltway – becomes worthless. Ah, the irony. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/white-house-credibility-deficit

Continued here: http://history.nasa.gov/SP-350/ch-13-4.html

Apollo Expeditions to the Moon CHAPTER 13.3 FIFTEEN MINUTES OF POWER LEFT With only 15 minutes of power left in the CM, CapCom told us to make our way into the LM. Fred and I quickly floated through the tunnel, leaving Jack to perform the last chores in our forlorn and pitiful CM that had seemed such a happy home less than two hours earlier. Fred said something that strikes me as funny as I read it now: "Didn't think I'd be back so soon." But nothing seemed funny in real time on that 13th of April, 1970. Blast-gutted service module was set adrift from the combined command module and lunar module just four hours before Earth reentry. Mission Control had insisted on towing the wrecked service module for 300,000 miles because its bulk protected the command module's heat shield from the intense cold of space. The astronauts next revived the long-dormant command module and prepared to leave their lunar module lifeboat. There were many, many things to do. In the first place, did we have enough consumables to get home? Fred started calculating, keeping in mind that the LM was built for only a 45-hour lifetime, and we had to stretch that to 90. He had some data from previous LMs in his book -- average rates of water usage related to amperage level, rate of water needed for cooling. It turned out that we had enough oxygen. The full LM descent tank alone would suffice, and in addition, there were two ascent-engine oxygen tanks, and two backpacks whose oxygen supply would never be used on the lunar surface. Two emergency bottles on top of those packs had six or seven pounds each in them. (At LM jettison, just before reentry, 28.5 pounds of oxygen remained, more than half of what we started with.) We had 2181 ampere hours in the LM batteries. We thought that was enough if we turned off every electrical power device not absolutely necessary. We could not count on the precious CM batteries, because they would be needed for reentry after the LM was cast off. In fact, the ground carefully worked out a procedure where we charged the CM batteries with LM power. As it turned out, we reduced our energy consumption to a fifth of normal, which resulted in our having 20 percent of our LM electrical power left when we jettisoned Aquarius. We did have one electrical heart-stopper during the mission. One of the CM batteries vented with such force that it momentarily dropped off the line. We knew we were finished if we permanently lost that battery. The jettisoning of elements during the critical last hours of the Apollo 13 mission is shown in this sequence drawing. When the lifesaving LM was shoved off by tunnel pressure about an hour before splashdown, everyone felt a surge of sentiment as the magnificent craft peeled away. Its maker, Grumman, later jokingly sent a bill for more than $400,000 to North American Rockwell for "towing" the CSM 300,000 miles. Water was the real problem. Fred figured that we would run out of water about five hours before we got back to Earth, which was calculated at around 151 hours. But even there, Fred had an ace in the hole. He knew we had a data point from Apollo 11, which had not sent its LM ascent stage crashing into the Moon, as subsequent missions did. An engineering test on the vehicle showed that its mechanisms could survive seven or eight hours in space without water cooling, until the guidance system rebelled at this enforced toasting. But we did conserve water. We cut down to six ounces each per day, a fifth of normal intake, and used fruit juices; we ate hot dogs and other wet-pack foods when we ate at all. (We lost hot water with the accident and dehydratable food is not palatable with cold water.) Somehow, one doesn't get very thirsty in space and we became quite dehydrated. I set one record that stood up throughout Apollo: I lost fourteen pounds, and our crew set another by losing a total of 31.5 pounds, nearly 50 percent more than any other crew. Those stringent measures resulted in our finishing with 28.2 pounds of water, about 9 percent of the total. Carbon dioxide would poison the astronauts unless scrubbed from the lunar module atmosphere by lithium hydride canisters. But the lunar module had only enough lithium hydride for 4 man-days - plenty for the lunar landing but not the 12 man-day's worth needed now. Here Deke Slayton (center) explains a possible fix to (left to right) Sjoberg, Kraft, and Gilruth. At left is Flight Director Glynn Lunney. Fred had figured that we had enough lithium hydroxide canisters, which remove carbon dioxide from the spacecraft. There were four cartridge from the LM, and four from the backpacks, counting backups. But he forgot that there would be three of us in the LM instead of the normal two. The LM was designed to support two men for two days. Now it was being asked to care for three men nearly four days.

Apollo Expeditions to the Moon CHAPTER 13.2 ARRANGING FOR SURVIVAL The knot tightened in my stomach, and all regrets about not landing on the Moon vanished. Now it was strictly a case of survival. The first thing we did, even before we discovered the oxygen leak, was to try to close the hatch between the CM and the LM. We reacted spontaneously, like submarine crews, closing the hatches to limit the amount of flooding. First Jack and then I tried to lock the reluctant hatch, but the stubborn lid wouldn't stay shut! Exasperated, and realizing that we didn't have a cabin leak, we strapped the hatch to the CM couch. In retrospect, it was a good thing that we kept the tunnel open, because Fred and I would soon have to make a quick trip to the LM in our fight for survival. It is interesting to note that days later, just before we jettisoned the LM, when the hatch had to be closed and locked, Jack did it - easy as pie. That's the kind of flight it was. "There's one whole side of that spacecraft missing," said Lovell in astonishment. About five hours before splashdown the service module was jettisoned in a manner that would permit the astronauts to assess its condition. Until then, nobody realized the extent of the damage. Vital stores of oxygen, water, propellant, and power were lost when the side of the service module blew off. The astronauts quickly moved into the lunar module which had been provided with independent supplies of these space necessities for the landing on the Moon. Years before, Apollo engineers had talked of using the lunar module as a lifeboat. The pressure in the No. 1 oxygen tank continued to drift downward; passing 300 psi, now heading toward 200 psi. Months later, after the accident investigation was complete, it was determined that, when No. 2 tank blew up, it either ruptured a line on the No. 1 tank, or caused one of the valves to leak. When the pressure reached 200 psi, it was obvious that we were going to lose all oxygen, which meant that the last fuel cell would also die. At 1 hour and 29 seconds after the bang, Jack Lousma, then CapCom, said after instructions from Flight Director Glynn Lunney: "It is slowly going to zero, and we are starting to think about the LM lifeboat." Swigert replied, "That's what we have been thinking about too." Oxygen tank No. 2 overheated and blew up because its heater switches welded shut during excessive prelaunch electric currents. Interior diagram (above) of three-foot-tall oxygen tank No. 2 - whose placement in bay 4 of SM is indicated below - shows vertical heater tube and quantity measurement tube. Heater tube contains two 1800-rpm motors to stir tank's 320 pounds of liquid oxygen. Note thermostat at top. Two switches were supposed to open heater circuit when temperature reached 80° F, but spacecraft power supply had been changed from 28 to 65 Vdc - while contractors and NASA test teams nodded - so switches welded shut and heater tube temperature probably reached 1000° F. A lot has been written about using the LM as a lifeboat after the CM has become disabled. There are documents to prove that the lifeboat theory was discussed just before the Lunar Orbit Rendezvous mode was chosen in 1962. Other references go back to 1963, but by 1964 a study at the Manned Spacecraft Center concluded: "The LM [as lifeboat] . . . was finally dropped, because no single reasonable CSM failure could be identified that would prohibit use of the SPS." Naturally, I'm glad that view didn't prevail, and I'm thankful that by the time of Apollo 10, the first lunar mission carrying the LM, the LM as a lifeboat was again being discussed. Fred Haise, fortunately, held the reputation as the top astronaut expert on the LM- after spending fourteen months at the Grumman plant on Long Island, where the LM was built. Fred says: "I never heard of the LM being used in the sense that we used it. We had procedures, and we had trained to use it as a backup propulsion device, the rationale being that the thing we were really covering was the failure of the command module's main engine, the SPS engine. In that case, we would have used combinations of the LM descent engine, and in some cases, for some lunar aborts, the ascent engine as well. But we never really thought and planned, and obviously, we didn't have the procedures to cover a case where the command module would end up fully powered down." Top of Apollo 13's fuel tank No. 2 (bottom part is below shelf), photographed before it left North American Rockwell plant. Tank was originally installed in Apollo 10's SM, but was removed for modification and in process was dropped two inches (skin of tank is only 0.02 inch thick). Then it was installed on Apollo 13 and certified, despite test anomalies. In raging heat, it burst and the explosion was ruinous to the SM. Nestled amid crinkled metal foil used for thermal insulation, oxygen tank No. 2 was mounted above and close to a pair of hydrogen tanks in spacecraft bay. To get Apollo 13 home would require a lot of innovation. Most of the material written about our mission describes the ground-based activities, and I certainly agree that without the splendid people in Mission Control, and their backups, we'd still be up there. They faced a formidable task. Completely new procedures had to be written and tested in the simulator before being passed up to us. The navigation problem was also theirs; essentially how, when, and in what attitude to burn the LM descent engine to provide a quick return home. They were always aware of our safety, as exemplified by the jury-rig fix of our environmental system to reduce the carbon dioxide level. However, I would be remiss not to state that it really was the teamwork between the ground and flight crew that resulted in a successful return. I was blessed with two shipmates who were very knowledgeable about their spacecraft systems. and the disabled service module forced me to relearn quickly how to control spacecraft attitude from the LM, a task that became more difficult when we turned off the attitude indicator.

Just came across this report by astronaut Jim Lovell of the Apollo 13 drama. Familiar story but fascinating to read this firsthand account. Apollo Expeditions to the Moon CHAPTER 13.1 "Houston, We've Had a Problem" By JAMES A. LOVELL In Mission Control the Gold Team, directed by Gerald Griffin (seated, back of head to camera), prepares to take over from Black Team (Glynn Lunney, seated, in profile) during a critical period. Seven men with elbows on console are Deke Slayton, Joe Kerwin (Black CapCom), Vance Brand (Gold CapCom), Phil Shaffer (Gold FIDO), John Llewellyn (Black RETRO), Charles Deiterich (Gold RETRO), and Lawrence Canin (Black GNC). Standing at right is Chester Lee, Mission Director from NASA's Washington headquarters, and broud back at right belogs to Rocco Petrone, Apollo Program Director. Apollo 13 had two other "ground" teams, the White and the Maroon. All devised heroic measures to save the mission from disaster. Since Apollo 13 many people have asked me, "Did you have suicide pills on board?" We didn't, and I never heard of such a thing in the eleven years I spent as an astronaut and NASA executive. I did, of course, occasionally think of the possibility that the spacecraft explosion might maroon us in an enormous orbit about the Earth - a sort of perpetual monument to the space program. But Jack Swigert, Fred Haise, and I never talked about that fate during our perilous flight. I guess we were too busy struggling for survival. Survive we did, but it was close. Our mission was a failure but I like to think it was a successful failure. Apollo 13, scheduled to be the third lunar landing, was launched at 1313 Houston time on Saturday, April 11, 1970; I had never felt more confident. On my three previous missions, I had already logged 572 hours in space, beginning with Gemini 7, when Frank Borman and I stayed up 14 days- a record not equaled until Skylab. Looking back, I realize I should have been alerted by several omens that occurred in the final stages of the Apollo 13 preparation. First, our command module pilot, Ken Mattingly, with whom Haise and I had trained for nearly two years, turned out to have no immunity to German measles (a minor disease the backup LM pilot, Charlie Duke, had inadvertently exposed us to). I argued to keep Ken, who was one of the most conscientious, hardest working of all the astronauts. In my argument to Dr. Paine, the NASA Administrator, I said, "Measles aren't that bad, and if Ken came down with them, it would be on the way home, which is a quiet part of the mission. From my experience as command module pilot on Apollo 8, I know Fred and I could bring the spacecraft home alone if we had to." Besides, I said, Ken doesn't have the measles now, and he may never get them. (Five years later, he still hadn't.) Dr. Paine said no, the risk was too great. So I said in that case we'll be happy to accept Jack Swigert, the backup CMP, a good man (as indeed he proved to be, though he had only two days of prime-crew training). The second omen came in ground tests before launch, which indicated the possibility of a poorly insulated supercritical helium tank in the LM's descent stage. So we modified the flight plan to enter the LM three hours early, in order to obtain an onboard readout of helium tank pressure. This proved to be lucky for us because it gave us a chance to shake down this odd-shaped spacecraft that was to hold our destiny in its spidery hands. It also meant the LM controllers were in Mission Control when they would be needed most. Then there was the No. 2 oxygen tank, serial number 10024X-TA0009. This tank had been installed in the service module of Apollo 10, but was removed for modification (and was damaged in the process of removal). I have to congratulate Tom Stafford, John Young, and Gene Cernan, the lucky dogs, for getting rid of it. This tank was fixed, tested at the factory, installed in our service module. and tested again during the Countdown Demonstration Test at the Kennedy Space Center beginning March 16, 1970. The tanks normally are emptied to about half full, and No. 1 behaved all right. But No. 2 dropped to only 92 percent of capacity. Gaseous oxygen at 80 psi was applied through the vent line to expel the liquid oxygen, but to no avail. An interim discrepancy report was written, and on March 27, two weeks before launch, detanking operations were resumed. No. 1 again emptied normally, but its idiot twin did not. After a conference with contractor and NASA personnel, the test director decided to "boil off" the remaining oxygen in No. 2 by using the electrical heater within the tank. The technique worked, but it took eight hours of 65-volt DC power from the ground-support equipment to dissipate the oxygen. With the wisdom of hindsight, I should have said, "Hold it. Wait a second. I'm riding on this spacecraft. Just go out and replace that tank." But the truth is, I went along, and I must share the responsibility with many, many others for the $375 million failure of Apollo 13. On just about every spaceflight we have had some sort of failure, but in this case, it was an accumulation of human errors and technical anomalies that doomed Apollo 13. At five and a half minutes after liftoff, Swigert, Haise, and I felt a little vibration. Then the center engine of the S-II stage shut down two minutes early. This caused the remaining four engines to burn 34 seconds longer than planned, and the S-IVB third stage had to burn nine seconds longer to put us in orbit. No problem: the S-IVB had plenty of fuel. The first two days we ran into a couple of minor surprises, but generally Apollo 13 was looking like the smoothest flight of the program. At 46 hours 43 minutes Joe Kerwin, the CapCom on duty, said, "The spacecraft is in real good shape as far as we are concerned. We're bored to tears down here." It was the last time anyone would mention boredom for a long time. At 55 hours 46 minutes, as we finished a 49-minute TV broadcast showing how comfortably we lived and worked in weightlessness, I pronounced the benediction: "This is the crew of Apollo 13 wishing everybody there a nice evening, and we're just about ready to close out our inspection of Aquarius (the LM) and get back for a pleasant evening in Odyssey (the CM). Good night." On the tapes I sound mellow and benign, or some might say fat, dumb, and happy. A pleasant evening, indeed! Nine minutes later the roof fell in; rather, oxygen tank No. 2 blew up, causing No. 1 tank also to fail. We came to the slow conclusion that our normal supply of electricity, light, and water was lost, and we were about 200,000 miles from Earth. We did not even have power to gimbal the engine so we could begin an immediate return to Earth. The message came in the form of a sharp bang and vibration. Jack Swigert saw a warning light that accompanied the bang, and said, "Houston, we've had a problem here." I came on and told the ground that it was a main B bus undervolt. The time was 2108 hours on April 13. Next, the warning lights told us we had lost two of our three fuel cells, which were our prime source of electricity. Our first thoughts were ones of disappointment, since mission rules forbade a lunar landing with only one fuel cell. With warning lights blinking on, I checked our situation; the quantity and pressure gages for the two oxygen tanks gave me cause for concern. One tank appeared to be completely empty, and there were indications that the oxygen in the second tank was rapidly being depleted. Were these just instrument malfunctions? I was soon to find out. Thirteen minutes after the explosion, I happened to look out of the left-hand window, and saw the final evidence pointing toward potential catastrophe. "We are venting something out into the- into space," I reported to Houston. Jack Lousma, the CapCom replied, "Roger, we copy you venting." I said, "It's a gas of some sort." It was a gas-oxygen-escaping at a high rate from our second, and last, oxygen tank. I am told that some amateur astronomers on top of a building in Houston could actually see the expanding sphere of gas around the spacecraft. http://history.nasa.gov/SP-350/ch-13-1.html

And he did not even like water sports.

Hah! My ex had the very same habit. Note that he is now the ex.

A perfect haiku.

Unlikely. (Mandatory blather re: if I were in his situation etc etc) But it does suggest his (1) intelligence and (2) compose, in the face of all this assault: Which on my own instinct rather than analysis I think means something. What, I tell you next.

I wish I knew where this sign board was. In NYC everybody gets that Yelp is random & corrupted. So this sidewalk sign would be totally +++++

Note that his characterization of journalists is an absolute, but of lawyers merely a comparative. The latter lets the bar [sic! ] be set as low as required.

Same here. Do the above claims by merchants, seemingly pretty well documented, cause you any conflict in continuing to make use of Yelp? I have trouble figuring that out. Thus my OP here -- guidance is welcome.