"Bushisms" and "the bulge": a possible connection
Looking over my last few posts and updates, I came up with what I believe is a new line of analysis that combines questions about the "bulge" -- an alleged item under Bush's suit during the presidential debates last year -- with questions about Bush's medical status. In brief, the "bulge" may have been part of an "assisted listening device" designed to help him cope with a hearing and language disorder.

Bush's mangled syntax, noted most recently in his remarks about Social Security at a Tampa gathering, has been a subject of speculation for years. While many dismiss theories that there is some kind of disability involved, at least one writer -- Stan Crock of Business Week -- put together a plausible theory in March of last year that Bush may have a somewhat ill-defined syndrome called CAPD - "central auditory processing disorder":

The possibility is high that there's some dysfunction in the way he hears words, the way he processes what he hears, or the way he retrieves words when he tries to speak. When someone uses the wrong word or malapropisms and has difficulty with grammatical sentences, experts on learning disabilities "typically suspect at least a subtle language disorder," says William Stixrud, a clinical neuropsychologist in Silver Spring, Md. [...]

According to an article on the Internet by Judith W. Paton, a San Mateo (Calif.) audiologist, CAPD is a physical hearing impairment that doesn't show up as hearing loss but rather affects hearing beyond the ear. In effect, the auditory nerves don't handle the raw data from the ear properly. It's usually found with a cluster of other symptoms. Among the tell-tale signs she cites: Confusion of similar sounding words, terse communications, better hearing when watching the speaker, and trouble hearing when it's noisy.

Paton also lists "[p]roblems with speech clarity or articulation, or with grammar, now or in the past" as one of the indicators of CAPD. As Crock observes, such conditions may be heritable; thus Bush Sr.'s similar speech issues may be a clue to those of Bush Jr.

What would this have to do with "the bulge"? One article about CAPD describes measures taken to help children coping with CAPD. In addition to reducing ambient noise, the article notes:

Specialists may also recommend assistive listening devices (ALDs) in some cases. These devices slightly amplify an instructor’s voice for the child. The child will customarily wear a receiver, and the teacher will use a microphone. ALDs vary in cost from $75 to $1600.*

One way for such ALDs to be deployed is as an earbud or even a cochlear implant receiving signals from a small transmitter worn around the neck. Looking around very briefly, I quickly found an accessory for such an item, manufactured by Audex Inc., that, if worn behind the back might well produce the outline in the image produced by NASA/JPL scientist Robert Nelson, displayed in the February 8 post below. There are other companies with similar products, of course, but the purpose would be the same.

This would only have broken the spirit of common sense "ground rules" for the debates if the device were not used just to improve understanding of the moderator's and Kerry's comments, but also to supply third-party answers to those comments. Thus, if these speculations are on or near target, Bush's odd "Now let me finish!" outburst in the first debate -- when nobody was interrupting him -- would remain a question.

As would the issue of why the public wasn't been informed of Bush's condition, and the steps taken to cope with that condition. In this case, Bush et al might be relying on CADP's disputed status as a medical condition in the first place. Or they might not; Bush's decision to skip his annual physical may be germane after all. Crock noted that the denial of a language disorder he got was not as strong as might be imagined:

Asked for this column if the President has a language disorder, White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan dismissed the idea, without flatly denying it. She told BusinessWeek Online Bush's medical records have been scrutinized for 15 years. "The American people know more about the President's health than just about anyone's," she added.

The question of whether to notify the public of a possibly important medical condition is familiar to "West Wing" viewers; it seems generally accepted that it is, and for all I know there are legal requirements to do so. (I missed those episodes.)

If -- if -- Bush was in fact wired for sound in this particular way, there would be real potential for deceiving the American public and arguably for blurring the president's constitutional role. The same technology used to pipe filtered sound into Bush's ear could also be used to put forward a president who is just a figurehead for some committee behind a White House communications console. Knowing that could well have caused some doubts in voting booths in November; knowing that could cause similar doubts now. Especially given how long it was kept quiet.


=====
* "Recognizing and Treating Children with Central Auditory Processing Disorders", Maxine L. Young, M.S., CCC-A/SLP, FAAA.

EDIT, 2/11: "bulge" explained with "-- an alleged... --"
UPDATE, 2/14: Linking to this post (thanks!), Jim Henley posts e-mail by a reader who has believed Bush has some kind of hearing aid since overhearing a conversation three years ago. You can also read this and an earlier post for good discussions of the Jeff Gannon/Talon scandal. posted by Thomas Nephew at 6:45:00 PM -- |    

 
Rove quashed Bulgegate?
Chris Shaw of bushwired.com adds another layer to the "Quashgate" (see below) angle of the "was Bush wired at the debate?" story:

Three sources have told Bush Wired (independently) that Karl Rove put in a call to the NY Times editors on Wednesday, Oct. 27 (the day before the story was scheduled to run), and that this was the REAL reason for the story being "killed". While I have no concrete confirmation on this "scoop", previously my sources named the writers of the killed NYT story correctly immediately after story was "killed" and several weeks before the writers' names were made public.

It used to be "mau-mauing the flakcatchers" meant verbally bullying hapless government officials, if I recall correctly. We need a new term: "mugging the gray lady", maybe?

No word yet on what Rove said exactly.* But it seems of a piece with other hardball "news management" tactics reported recently, like the RNC letter "urging" TV stations not to air a Moveon.org ad critical of Bush's Social Security privatization plans. According to the South Bend Tribune, the letter said in part

The advertisement in question falsely and maliciously makes reference to 'George Bush's planned Social Security benefit cuts of up to 46 percent to pay for private accounts ...' [...]

As an FCC licensee, you have a responsibility to exercise independent editorial judgment to oversee and protect the integrity of the American marketplace of ideas, and to avoid broadcasting deliberate misrepresentations of the facts. Such obligations must be taken seriously and I urge you to decline to broadcast this advertisement.

This letter places you on notice that the information contained in the above-cited advertisement is false and misleading. Your station should act responsibly and refrain from airing this advertisement.
(emphases added) (via Josh Marshall, who also demonstrates the Moveon ad is accurate).

Yglesias called it "Putinization" a couple of days ago. Sounds about right.


=====
* Or, to remain careful, whether anything of the sort transpired. At the end of the day, Mr. Shaw is just one source claiming three more; on the other hand, his information fits with Lindorff's story. Indeed, he seems to have received the same followup e-mail ("I can appreciate" etc.) from Times reporter Andrew Revkin that Lindorff published.

EDIT, 2/10: first 2 links fixed
UPDATE, 2/15: Daniel Okrent, the public editor for The New York Times, replies to my inquiry about the alleged pressure from Rove to quash the Nelson enhanced photo story:

Dear Mr. Nephew,
If this is true, it's because "Bushwired" has much better sources than I do. I have never heard this, nor do I believe it.
Yours sincerely,
Daniel Okrent

Well, it wouldn't be true because "Bushwired" has better sources; obviously there's an implied "and I didn't know about it" in there. Along with an implied "and I don't intend to ask about it," I think. (EDIT: Contrary to the first impression conveyed within this update, Okrent said in his 2/11 letter to FAIR, "It is not unreasonable to argue that The Times should have run the [Nelson enhanced photo] article.")
UPDATE, 2/15: Chris Shaw of "bushwired" responds, citing the accuracy of his sources in the past.
UPDATE, 3/3: A New Yorker article describes (in passing) a Keller-Rove contact five days before the phone call is said to have happened. posted by Thomas Nephew at 1:20:00 AM -- |    

 
Bush debate cheating? Too controversial for the Times
Looks like Bush really might have been wired to get outside help in his debates with John Kerry -- contravening ground rules for the debates and making for a pretty brutal assessment of Bush's skills by himself and his handlers.

I say "might." The processed photograph to the right looks pretty convincing, but I can't be sure. Trouble is, I'll get no help from the news media; even the New York Times killed the story because it might affect the election, while other papers wouldn't touch it unless Kerry raised the issue himself, for fear of being labeled "conspiracy buffs."

You can read all about it on the FAIR website in "The Emperor's New Hump," by David Lindorff (via digby). Lindorff published a piece in Salon -- Bush's Mystery Bulge* -- on October 8 before the election, but didn't have the benefit of a satellite photo specialist's expertise in photo enhancement (see image on the right). I read about it, but didn't know how to evaluate a claim that didn't seem to be going anywhere.

Wrong again. Far from ignoring the story, New York Times reporters William Broad, John Schwartz, and Andrew Revkin were in close touch with Robert Nelson, a NASA/JPL scientist who used methods normally used with probe and satellite images to highlight suspicious lines and bulges under Bush's suit.

Even if this wasn't definitive -- alternative theories included a defibrillator and a bulletproof jacket -- it would have moved the story forward. The enhanced image shows wrinkles nothing like those made by merely hunching forward (one claim published at the time). But with days to go before the election, the story was spiked. Lindorff:

In fact, several sources, including a journalist at the Times, have told Extra! that the paper put a good deal of effort into this important story about presidential competence and integrity; they claim that a story was written, edited and scheduled to run on several different days, before senior editors finally axed it at the last minute on Wednesday evening, October 27. A Times journalist, who said that Times staffers were "pretty upset" about the killing of the story, claims the senior editors felt Thursday was "too close" to the election to run such a piece. Emails from the Times to the NASA scientist corroborate these sources’ accounts.

Jiminy Christmas, if they let Howard Raines go, they ought to let Bill Keller go, too, if Lindorff got this story right. What an absolute negation of everything a newspaper is for: sit around and calculate whether a story is too controversial to run. What a worthless rag. Ben Bagdikian, media observer and journalism dean at UC Berkeley, observed to Lindorff:

I cannot imagine a paper I worked for turning down a story like this before an election. This was credible photographic evidence not about breaking the rules, but of a total lack of integrity on the part of the president, evidence that he'd cheated in the debate, and also of a lack of confidence in his ability on the part of his campaign. I'm shocked to hear top management decided not to run such a story. [...]

Cheating on a debate should affect an election. The decision not to let people know this story could affect the history of the United States.

Instead, the Times waited until after the election -- and then still didn't run the story. Instead, they put ace reporter Elisabeth Bumiller on the case. Result? "Cashmere and Kevlar? Bulge Affair has Tailor Miffed."

For one timeline of the "case of the bulge", see Theories of the Bulge: The Timeline; among other sites, it links to the "Bush Wired" 11/21/2004 blog post by "icone" publishing correspondence to a reader by New York Times ombudsman Daniel Okrent:

Although I admire much of Mr. Lindorff's work, without names or attributions I just don't have enough to go on to enable me to find out whether, much less why, The Times "pulled" a piece on the subject.**

If so, what we have was Okrent basically saying "I'm too lazy to even send out a 'To NYTeveryone' e-mail to try to find out anything about this."

File it under "Your Nation's News Industry"; this is one of the most pathetic stories about the New York Times in quite a while. The only thing that comes close right now: why is Judith Miller still running her mouth as a New York Times reporter? But it's not just the Times that looks bad; the Washington Post, the L.A. Times, and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette also punted when Nelson came to them with his findings.

Finally, memo to the White House: go ahead, use a wire -- once Bush has some practice using it, maybe we'll have fewer embarrassing moments like last Friday's. I'm just trying to get with the program now that our national accountability moment has passed.


=====
* The link leads to a reprint of the article in the Guardian.
** Lindorff refers to this in his "Emperor's New Clothes" article; it took me until today to find this link to what he was talking about.

UPDATE, 2/9: A loose end tied up: the proprietor of Bushwired.blogspot.com writes to say that Okrent wrote his e-mail on 11/16/2004, replying to an 11/14/2004 e-mail by a reader who shared the response with Bushwired. He also says he "received "inside" information about the killing of the Bulge story on Oct. 29th, and immediately contacted the Times for an explanation. The Times did not respond to Bush Wired, and it wasn't until December 19th when Okrent posted on his blog that the story was indeed killed." He adds that by the date of the e-mail exchange Okrent had received other unspecified e-mails with details about the reporters and details of the quashed story.

This is also a correction in that the Okrent post is what Lindorff refers to (see 2nd footnote above), not the bushwired e-mail reprint. posted by Thomas Nephew at 11:08:00 PM -- |    

 
Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled

THE PRESIDENT: Because the -- all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those -- changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be -- or closer delivered to what has been promised.

Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the -- like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate -- the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those -- if that growth is affected, it will help on the red.

Okay, better? I'll keep working on it.

(The White House: President Discusses Strengthening Social Security in Florida) Audience response was appreciative:

(Laughter.)

Hard to pick the stupidest participant here. That's your safety net unraveling too, Red. (Via digby)


=====
UPDATE, 2/9: Via trackbacks to the digby post, ponder this Bushism, from the same event, noted by "North Gare":

THE PRESIDENT: I wish I was your old. (Laughter.)

Again with the laughter. "Uncomfortable laughter", maybe? Is this early-onset Alzheimer's, lack of sleep, or what? North Gare's main point is actually about Bush's use of "in other words" as a verbal crutch; have a look. posted by Thomas Nephew at 11:57:00 PM -- |    

 
Paris on the Potomac, starting Valentine's Day
Between Valentine's Day and Memorial Day, 2005, Washington, DC will be host to over 80 French-themed events collectively called "Paris on the Potomac." (Click through -- that classic French hurdy-gurdy-or-whatever-it-is sound is worth it all by itself.)

Among the events and exhibits:

• Jean-Luc Godard's Histoire du Cinema, (French Embassy, February 1-28) - a film autobiography by the renowned director.
• Washington: Symbol and City (National Building Museum, ongoing) - traces the history and continuing influence of the District city plan devised by Pierre ("call me Peter") L’Enfant in 1791.
  
• Views of WWI Paris by American Red Cross Artists Lewis Hine, Henry Ossawa Tanner and Cameron Burnside (American Red Cross Visitors Center, February 11-ongoing) - I happen to kind of admire Tanner, a very good, underrated African American painter, so this might well be worth seeing.
• Berthe Morisot: An Impressionist and Her Circle (National Museum of Women in the Arts, February 14-May 8, $10) - on loan from a Paris museum, over 40 works by another underrated painter. "Also on view will be comparative works by her contemporaries including Renoir, Manet, Monet, and Degas." There will also be a "A French Family Festival" with kid-friendly events on March 5 from 12-4pm.
• Claire-Lise Cabaret Songs (French Embassy, March 3, $15) - "The chanteuse is a favorite with French audiences and has recorded widely, winning many French prizes."
• Life x3 by Yasmina Reza (Round House Theater, Bethesda, March 30-May 1, $28-$45) - contemporary French playwright.
  
• Americans in Paris (National Archives, May 27-September 5) - "Diaries, journals, photographs, and film from the National Archives illustrate how [Americans like Benjamin Franklin, Jackie Kennedy, and Thomas Edison] felt about Paris or how Paris felt about them."

... and much, much more! The site also lists a number of food events and appropriate DC restaurants -- although it inexplicably overlooks Georgetown's Cafe La Ruche, where I can testify you'll get some righteous French onion soup, an entree, a glass of wine, and a fantastic dessert for a pretty reasonable price.

I think this is a great thing after the "freedom fries" etcetera idiocies of the past few years, and I hope that lots and lots of people go to lots of these events. Matt Welch wrote a nice piece recently about French American relations -- C'est rien -- concluding:

If anything, the mutual hostility and whither-the-West angst is a slightly dysfunctional way of saying "Je t'aime." More than one percent of each country visits the other every year, and the French are as obsessed with American pop culture as the Yanks are with perceived Gallic wine snobbery. We hate because we still care, and because both sides have managed to project identifiable national personalities in an increasingly transnational world.

So raise a glass of Bordeaux-grown Mondavi, slip in a nice Luc Besson flick, and party like it's 2015.

Interestingly, the organization responsible for the "Paris on the Potomac" theme -- the American Experience Foundation -- was founded by the DC Convention & Tourism Corporation "in direct response to the events of September 11, 2001 and the subsequent crisis which Washington, DC endured." I think they've hit on a nice idea by helping us celebrate Washington and France -- instead of fretting about them.


=====
EDIT, 2/9: Individual links to best available information added; "call me Peter" added. posted by Thomas Nephew at 3:45:00 PM -- |