Gotta suck to lose all that fine booty

KHAN BANI SA’AD [my note - this is about 23 miles north of the Baghdad airport and a touch to the east towards the Iranian border], Iraq – A concerned citizen led Coalition Forces to a large weapons cache yesterday in a home in Sa’ada Village, Iraq.

This cache is one of the largest discoveries of explosively formed penetrators found in at one location in Iraq. The find included more than 120 fully-assembled EFPs, more than 150 copper disks of four different sizes used in making EFPs (including 12- inch disks – one of the largest ever discovered in Iraq), 600-plus pounds of C4 and other explosive materials, 100 mortar rounds of various caliber, approximately 30 107mm rockets, two mortar tubes and 20 claymore-type mines...

...“We have a lot of peace in the city center now,” Rosenstrauch said. “We have had [many] CLCs reporting on enemy activity. The people are turning on the insurgents and telling us where they are.”

And two terrorist leaders who ran a group of 100 got snagged by Iraqi Special Forces.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 05:30 AM | Comments (25)
Post contains 200 words, total size 2 kb.

A Florida Department of Law Enforcement investigation found that campus security officers acted "acted well within state guidelines" in using force and a stun gun to subdue Andrew Meyer, the student who refused to stop questioning John Kerry on the campus of the University of Florida last month.

Two officers who were placed on administrative leave have been reinstated.

Posted by: Dave In Texas at 05:22 AM | Comments (11)
Post contains 77 words, total size 1 kb.

Bobby Caina Calvan is a reporter in Baghdad and apparently the world revolves around him.

It seems our boy Bobby was trying to enter the Green Zone the other day but he couldn’t be bothered to make sure he was carrying sufficient ID to get past security. Now, that might be a problem for mere mortals like you and me but Bobby here is a crackerjack reporter so the rules don’t apply to him. And if he has to get mouthy with an American soldier at a checkpoint in the middle of dangerous area to get his way, so be it.

“We’re bigger than the Journal,” I replied. “You never heard of Knight Ridder?”

He didn’t want to be embarrassed. He already looked irritated. He asked me if I knew the number of the military’s media office.

“I would if you’d let me switch on my phone,” I snapped. “What’s the use of these media badges if people like you aren’t going to honor them? Is this for nothing? Why don’t you call? That’s your job, isn’t it?” I made it known that I was jotting down his name.

My security man was struggling with a smirk on his face. He knew my plan. I was going to bully my way back into the Green Zone.

Blackfive has the rest of the story but unfortunately, it doesn’t have a happy ending. The soldier was professional enough to call for instructions and Bobby got in. Personally, I think he should have been forced to walk around downtown Baghdad, maybe then he would have appreciated the protection of the American servicemen he is so quick to insult.

You can read Bobby’s blog entry for yourself. You may even be moved to comment. Just remember, it’s Bobby Caina Calvan you’re talking to.

BTW- It was Bobby’s news service (McClatchy recently bought Knight Ridder) that gave us the memorable “As Violence Falls in Iraq, Cemetery Workers Feel the Pinch” story.

UPDATE: Bobby has decided that perhaps he's shared too much and has redacted his post:

(Yes, I’m obviously new to blogging. Somtimes I share too much. The blogosphere has reacted and pointed out my folly. Yes, I can be pushy. I can also be wrong. I’v'e edited this post — and have shut down the comment feature.)

Alas, that was foreseeable so I took the precaution of saving the original post, which you can see in it's full glory below the fold.

UPDATE x2: docweasel has an email from Bobby and is presenting him with a funny award for doing what was previously thought to be impossible...uniting the internet.

While it's good Bobby may have learned an important blogging lesson, the bigger issue to me is this whole Big Footing garbage and treating an American Soldier like a dimwitted rent-a-cop. Let's see how he handles that part of the story. more...

Posted by: DrewM. at 07:33 PM | Comments (101)
Post contains 1458 words, total size 9 kb.

Bobby Caina Calvan is a reporter in Baghdad and apparently the world revolves around him.

It seems our boy Bobby was trying to enter the Green Zone the other day but he couldnÂ’t be bothered to make sure he was carrying sufficient ID to get past security. Now, that might be a problem for mere mortals like you and me but Bobby here is a crackerjack reporter so the rules donÂ’t apply to him. And if he has to get mouthy with an American soldier at a checkpoint in the middle of dangerous area to get his way, so be it.

“We’re bigger than the Journal,” I replied. “You never heard of Knight Ridder?”

He didnÂ’t want to be embarrassed. He already looked irritated. He asked me if I knew the number of the militaryÂ’s media office.

“I would if you’d let me switch on my phone,” I snapped. “What’s the use of these media badges if people like you aren’t going to honor them? Is this for nothing? Why don’t you call? That’s your job, isn’t it?” I made it known that I was jotting down his name.

My security man was struggling with a smirk on his face. He knew my plan. I was going to bully my way back into the Green Zone.

Blackfive has the rest of the story but unfortunately, it doesnÂ’t have a happy ending. The soldier was professional enough to call for instructions and Bobby got in. Personally, I think he should have been forced to walk around downtown Baghdad, maybe then he would have appreciated the protection of the American servicemen he is so quick to insult.

You can read BobbyÂ’s blog entry for yourself. You may even be moved to comment. Just remember, itÂ’s Bobby Caina Calvan youÂ’re talking to.

BTW- It was Bobby’s news service (McClatchy recently bought Knight Ridder) that gave us the memorable “As Violence Falls in Iraq, Cemetery Workers Feel the Pinch” story.

UPDATE: Bobby has decided that perhaps he's shared too much and has redacted his post:

(Yes, I’m obviously new to blogging. Somtimes I share too much. The blogosphere has reacted and pointed out my folly. Yes, I can be pushy. I can also be wrong. I’v'e edited this post — and have shut down the comment feature.)

Alas, that was foreseeable so I took the precaution of saving the original post, which you can see in it's full glory below the fold.

UPDATE x2: docweasel has an email from Bobby and is presenting him with a funny award for doing what was previously thought to be impossible...uniting the internet.

While it's good Bobby may have learned an important blogging lesson, the bigger issue to me is this whole Big Footing garbage and treating an American Soldier like a dimwitted rent-a-cop. Let's see how he handles that part of the story. more...

Posted by: DrewM at 07:33 PM | Comments (105)
Post contains 1471 words, total size 9 kb.

Snip.

A convicted sex offender tried to castrate himself with a knife after apparently having an urge to offend again.

After the 59-year-old Springfield man severed one of his testicles and flushed it down a toilet, he called a friend for help. Paramedics arrived and treated him for his injuries, and he was rushed to the hospital, the Springfield State Journal-Register reported. Police would not identify the man, but say he is expected to survive.

The Journal-Register reports that the man told police he was feared that he was going to harm children.

His heart's in the right place, I guess. And now, thankfully, so is one of his testicles.

Rudy Giuliani, meanwhile, has decided to stop running for President of the United States and instead seems to be running for Mayor of Bizzarro-Ville.

Presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani hired a Catholic priest to work in his consulting firm months after the priest was accused of sexually molesting two former students and an altar boy and told by the church to stop performing his priestly duties.

The priest, Monsignor Alan Placa, a longtime friend of Giuliani and the priest who officiated at his second wedding to Donna Hanover, continues to work at Giuliani Partners in New York, to the outrage of some of his accusers and victims' groups, which have begun to protest at Giuliani campaign events.

"This man did unjust things, and he's being protected and employed and taken care of. It's not a good thing," said one of the accusers, Richard Tollner, who says Placa molested him repeatedly when he was a student at a Long Island, N.Y. Catholic boys high school in 1975.

At a campaign appearance in Milwaukee last week, Giuliani continued to defend Placa, who he described to reporters as a close friend for 39 years.

"I know the man; I know who he is, so I support him," Giuliani said. "We give some of the worst people in our society the presumption of innocence and benefit of the doubt," he said. "And, of course, I'm going to give that to one of my closest friends."

Jim Geraghty has analysis. It should be noted the priest was defrocked but never convicted (the statute of limitation expired before the allegations were made -- he is, legally, innocent).

I could look past this were it not for Giuliani's Death Wish style of politicking, gunning down one supporter after another as if we had all raped his daughter.

A stubborn insistence on consistency, an unwillingness to pander, loyalty to a long-time friend in a bad jam... these are precisely the attributes that will make Giuliani one of the best Bill O'Reilly guest-hosts beginning in January 2009.

I wish him luck in his new career.

I'm a bit bitter over this, the whole sad what might have been. But in the end political instincts are rather important in a politician, and it seems Giuliani doesn't have particularly good ones.

A blogger (I forget who; apologies!) had a bon mot today that I had thought of yesterday, as it turns out. Giuliani seems to believe that not pandering to his would-be voters is a reason for them to vote for him. In that case, Geraghty observes, Hillary! Clinton should be our dream candidate, as she's never pandered to us once.

Thompson, huh? Or Romney? They're not rocking my world but fine, they'll do.

Giuliani's got about two weeks to contrive a reason why he's reversed himself on abortion (at least on Roe v. Wade, which even liberal scholars admit is a horribly reasoned opinion) and immigration, or his star is about to fall from the sky. Hard. Leadership matters, yes. So does his managerial experience. So does his laudable record on taxes, crime, taking the Islamofascist threat seriously, and telling the NYT to go fuck itself.

But God, gays, guns and now immigration are serious hot-button issues, and he just will not be nominated if he continues to be defiant in the face of orthodox Republican policy preferences.

On the first three of those issues I'm a squish to one degree or another, and so, honestly, Giuliani's liberal positions are actually closer to my preferences than a social cons would be. Except for one little thing: I happen to know as a fact that he cannot actually be elected being so defiantly liberal on those issues, and so I'm a bit pissed off a potentially great candidate is making himself into a very weak one.

The conventional wisdom has long held that Giuliani could not win, not still holding his old liberal beliefs so strongly, at least. That conventional wisdom is correct.

Anyone have any suggestions, here? If Rudy spoke to a Christian leadere and suddenly accepted Jesus into his life, and therefore reversed a lot of old positions, how many of you would be willing to pretend to believe him for the good of the party?

And if not... well, DeNiro says it best.

Thanks to Alice H. and Hot Air's headlines.

Posted by: Ace at 04:40 PM | Comments (69)
Post contains 870 words, total size 6 kb.

It's been years since I gave a rat's ass about a World Series, and this year is no exception. However, I am in Boston, and I guess I'm supposed to watch this crap or something. (No, I haven't moved to NYC yet. Hopefully Dec. 1.)

I have been watching this stuff on and off. I guess I do see what other people see in baseball -- it's not a boring game after all. It's an excruciating game. It's unpleasant, yes, but in a different way than pure tedium is unpleasant.

At any rate, I guess you can post stuff here like "Hey, a guy just got a hit" and "That dreadlocked chap just caught a ball and threw it to the block of wood on first base."

Pedroia, Huh? Bang.

Posted by: Ace at 04:30 PM | Comments (37)
Post contains 138 words, total size 1 kb.

To the fairly friendly NY Observer.

Franklin Foer, editor of The New Republic, said in an interview that the documents Matt Drudge posted this afternoon--and removed several hours later without explanation--could have only come from the Army.

Mr. Foer said he contacted TNR’s contact there, Major Kirk Luedeke, as soon as the documents appeared on Drudge’s Web site. According to Mr. Foer, Major Luedeke told him that the Army was “investigating the source of the leak,” though they did not explicitly take responsibility for it.

“It’s maddening to see the Army selectively leak to the Drudge Report things that we’ve been trying to obtain from them through Freedom of Information Act requests,” Mr. Foer said. “This fits a pattern in this case where the army has leaked a lot of stuff to right wing blogs.”

Mr. Foer said TNR had been trying since July to get access to some of the documents Mr. Drudge posted, but that the Army had not cooperated.

The Army is selectively leaking? Foer had a phone call with his own "source" who refused to re-affirm the story and refused to report that to the public.

That seems pretty selective, doesn't it?

From the phone call we know that Beauchamp himself had to authorize the release of his records to TNR -- and that TNR knew that (Foer was present when the lawyer said the Army would want such an authorization).

If Beauchamp has thusfar refused to sign such an authorization, how the fuck is that due to the Army's failure to cooperate?

And Foer has always had access to his own fucking conversation with Beauchamp -- what, precisely, prevented him from reporting that? The Army again, I suppose? He needed the Army to provide a transcript of a call he himself was almost certainly recording?

Here are the two possibilities:

1) Beauchamp never authorized the release of these documents to TNR, and TNR is trying to claim the Army has a special duty to give them to TNR, even with Beauchamp stubbornly refusing to sign the release.

2) Beauchamp did authorize the release of all documents specifically pertaining to himself, which is all he could authorize, but that authorization does not cover the statements made by other troops in the unit. So TNR is spinning its failure to get permission from the other soldiers to view their statements as A) due to Army non-cooperation and B) absolving them from having to report any further on the story until they get these documents (which they never will).

In other words, TNR is using the impossibility of getting other soldiers to sign authorizations of their private records to be released to TNR as a pretext to claim "We can't yet judge this matter on the merits." They know those authorizations will never, ever come, which puts their day of reckoning conveniently on the Twelfth of Never.

Foer, Chait, and TNR have yet to speak to anyone willing to ask them why they concealed this phone call and these records -- which they admit seem "damning."

They seem to be only willing to talk to people who'll be considerate enough to not ask them any difficult questions.

And for a media organization to complain about government leaks....!

It is. To laugh. The entire "Baghdad Diary" series was itself an unauthorized leak!!! And a false one, as it turns out.

Thanks to Goldfarb, who's taking a well-earned victory lap, taking time to kick the corpses as he jogs around the track.

Jeff Emmanuel also wets his knife in the carcass of TNR.

PS, Foer: Maybe if you didn't outright lie and claim the Army was blocking you from speaking to Beauchamp, someone in the Army wouldn't have felt it necessary to release a call in which you yourself (or your colleague) accuses Beauchamp of "dodging" your calls.

You think you're allowed to lie about the Army and they have to just take it?

Please.

You lied that it was the Army blocking you from getting at the truth. In fact, it was your own wannabe-Hemmingway Beauchamp doing so.

And now you're pissed the Army may (or may not) have leaked a transcript proving you knew Beauchamp was "dodging" you all along?

Maybe you shouldn't have lied. People get pissed off when they're lied about. Sometimes they do horrible things, like leaking a telephone call with the media that you already knew about but chose to conceal to save your own ass.

Posted by: Ace at 02:44 PM | Comments (67)
Post contains 750 words, total size 5 kb.

K-Lo is apparently getting a lot of angry emails. I sent her one myself, though not angry. Here's what she says:

I'm a Gutless Wonder [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

If my e-mails are any indication, in response to my 5:05 post. Look, I just read the documents through and told you what I thought — that's what we tend to do here; we're actually not the right-wing hacks taking orders from the White House or whoever the other puppetmasters we're accused of having are. We'll have more on this story, as will others. All my 5:05 post is saying? I think the docs scream (once again), "something fishy." I don't think they provide nailing-the-coffin-shut-on-the-story proof of "confession." That's it. And so the story goes on.

K-Lo, what is bothersome is that you apparently have a direct line to dead-ender Jonathan Chait and cannot think of any probing questions to ask him. You have a source close to the story -- and the story here is now TNR's obfuscation and deception -- and rather than ask him questions, you simply report his spin.

Fine. Report his spin. He is entitled to get his story out (but apparently TNR needs to hold an all-day meeting to decide what it's official story will be in its own pages -- so apparently Chait wants their spin out there in NRO before it's been fully developed for TNR itself).

But it is frustrating that you have something that thousands of other people would like -- Jonathan Chait actually emailing you -- and you are not, it seems, using that to advance the story at all.

If you don't want to ask him questions, why don't you suggest he contact someone willing to ask him questions if he wants his spin reported in NRO? Quid pro quo -- you can get your side of the story out, but expect to answer some questions in return.

You Know... When I was on a plane to DC Chris Wallace was on board, shortly after Clinton had blown up with him.

I didn't want to be a noodge, but I knew it was my duty to be one. I didn't even give a shit about the story, honestly, but I knew I had to be a dick and try to get a short interview with him.

After initially saying he'd grant me a ten minute interview, he backed out, saying he was tired, and gave me the "call my people later" schpiel. I didn't bother, he was blowing me off. But I did do my duty to be an annoying jackass about it, even if it didn't pay off.

Anyway: Does K-Lo feel no obligation to be a noodge with Jonathan "I Hate Bush" Chait? Is she asking him any questions? Maybe she's buttering him up for some questions but I don't get that sense.

She's sitting there trading emails with someone in the center of this controversy and she's not asking him a damn thing from what I can see.

Is everybody over there in the tank for their colleagues at NRO? Isn't there anyone to say, "K-Lo, let me ask him a few questions"?

Is there no one at that online news magazine interested in, you know, news?

Posted by: Ace at 02:09 PM | Comments (47)
Post contains 545 words, total size 3 kb.

1) Why did the editors decide not to report on Beauchamp's September 7 phone call, in which he steadfastly refused to re-affirm his stories, despite TNR's pressure that without such re-affirmation they would be forced to retract?

a) Note that even if it's TNR's opinion that this call was "not as damning as it seems," TNR must justify its decision to conceal the phone call entirely. Not offering its own take -- simply refusing to report it at all.

2) If Franklin Foer really wanted a full and honest account from Beauchamp, why does he tell Beauchamp that it is incredibly important to his very own wife that he never recant the story?

3) Why did TNR claim that the Army was preventing them from speaking to Beauchamp when their own statements to him accuse Beauchamp of "dodging" them? They do not accuse the Army of blocking access to Beauchamp in this call; they accuse Beauchamp himself of blocking access. Beauchamp admits this, more or less. So why did TNR make a statement they knew to be false, and furthermore never correct this false statement after it was no longer even debatable that Beauchamp could speak to TNR, but was choosing not to?

4) Similarly, why did TNR claim it needed the Army to release the relevant documents to TNR, when TNR knew in fact that it was Beauchamp himself who needed to sign the release forms but was not doing so? Again, they accuse Beauchamp of, basically, lying about his efforts to get the documents released. Again we have TNR knowingly blaming the Army for what they know to be Beauchamp's failure to abide by his promises and responsibilities.

5) Why did TNR falsely assert they wished the Army to allow Beauchamp to speak to "any other" media outlet, while in the conversation with Beauchamp they pressure him to not speak to any other outlet before affirming the stories to TNR themselves? Why did Foer represent his magazine as wanting the truth to come out, no matter what the magazine or venue, when he states to Beauchamp, "Let us control this story"? That doesn't evince a willingness to let the story be told to "any other" magazine or news outfit.

6) Why did TNR misrepresent Beauchamp's single corroborating witness as three corroborating witnesses in a misleading account of precisely how much corroboration TNR had? Why did they not later report that this witness had denied the events when questioned by the Army?

6 a) If this one witness is, as seems likely, Scott Beauchamp's best friend in the unit, shouldn't TNR have at least suggested to readers that this witness might have personal reasons for backing Beauchamp's tale?

7) Why did TNR misrepresent the spokesman for the manufacturer of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle as being able to easily run down dogs in the street, and easily able to burst through walls without suffering any damage? Confederate Yankee tracked down this source and when he was asked about Beauchamp's specific claims, he said he found them highly unlikely, at the very least. For that matter -- why did TNR not report the name of their source for this? He didn't seek anonymity; he was more than willing to have his name be used by Confederate Yankee. Can TNR point to any other reason for obscuring the source of these quotes other than the obvious motivation of denying other reporters the ability to follow-up with him and ask more specific questions?

Why, exactly, did Elspeth Reeves leave TNR? Was this decision due to the Beauchamp Affair? And if so: Why is she the only person in the story to lose her job due to this fiasco?

And finally:

9) TNR promised a full and fair investigation of this matter. Both before and since making this promise, they have deliberately misrepresented the facts, twisted interviews, misled on the number of corroborating witnesses, refused to admit their one corroborating witness told the Army a different story, and concealed the phone call with Beauchamp which they implicitly admit seems "damning" on its face.

Does TNR consider this record to be consistent with a full and fair investigation of the matter? Or would it be more accurate to say that they have comported themselves deceitfully and self-servingly at every step of the process?

If the GOP or a corporation behaved in this manner as TNR was conducting an investigation into it, would TNR be satisfied that such an organization had conducted a full and fair investigation into their own alleged misdeeds?

Or would TNR believe they were being dishonest and self-serving?

Posted by: Ace at 01:31 PM | Comments (35)
Post contains 773 words, total size 5 kb.

NRO pitches in, as is sadly usual, to spin for TNR.

I know you guys are all tight but, um, let's get some distance here. Your personal relationships cannot trump a factual investigation.

We're hearing from The New Republic that the Drudge story isn't the damning evidence it suggests to be ... stay tuned.

The phone conversation can be spun as not as damning as it seems, but what is undeniably damning is that TNR refused to even report on the phone call. They could have offered their spin as they reported the basic content of the conversation; instead, they withheld the call entirely from their readership.

Can K-Lo imagine a way in which that decision is not damning?

Could she ask her TNR source about this, rather than just letting him make self-serving assertions?

UPDATE: An editor there e-mails: "Go to the story and click on the link that he claims is to BeauchampÂ’s confession. ItÂ’s not there. The only Beauchamp document is one were he acknowledged receiving some other memo. Nothing even close to a confession there."

Nothing close to an affirmation in the phone call with TNR, either, "Editor." And yet you withheld that relevant information from the public.

The Army investigation concluded these stories were fiction. Scott Beauchamp refused to re-affirm them on a phone call. The man who is almost certainly TNR's only "corroborating witness" himself denied the stories in the course of the Army investigation.

All of this withheld. Spiked. Hidden.

Not reported with spin -- simply censored from the public record.

Since the TNR editors are spinning NRO, can K-Lo ask them why they chose to do this, and what their justification is?

Bad Speculation: The documents are apparently down at Drudge. Allah wonders:

The Drudge link still exists but the links to the documents donÂ’t, and heÂ’s removed the item from the front page. The Army documents look too real to have been forged but did he get snookered on the transcript?

Answer: No.

Dude, chill. Your paranoia is off the hook since Police Captain Jamil Hussein.

Drudge may have pulled the documents due a request from the Army, as they are, technically, classified personnel information.

Or the server they're on may be on the fritz.

TNR's spin is that the documents "aren't as damning" as they appear, not that they're fake.

Seriously, chill. From what I know, and I do know all this, the documents are quite real and come from trustworthy sources. I know the direct source to be trustworthy and I know (or at least "know" to a very high likelihood) his source in turn to be trustworthy.

Compare and Contrast: TNR just wanted to talk to Beauchamp, and just wanted to see the relevant documents, they claimed, before they rendered a verdict.

They got both. And, contrary to their claims, it was not the Army keeping Beauchamp from speaking to them -- indeed, in their conversation with Beauchamp, they accuse Beauchamp of "dodging" them. Not censored by the Army-- dodging them.

So let's look at what TNR said they wanted before they could render judgment:

TNR 8/10/07:

We once again invite the Army to make public Beauchamp’s statements and the details of its investigation–and we ask the Army to let us (or any other media outlet, for that matter) speak to Beauchamp. Unless and until these things happen, we cannot fairly assess any of these reports about Beauchamp–and therefore have no reason to change our own assessment of Beauchamp’s work. If the truth ends up reflecting poorly on our judgment, we will accept responsibility for that. But we also refuse to rush to judgment on our writer or ourselves.”

TNR Post September 7 Beauchump phone call and release of Beauchamp's documents to TNR:

*crickets*

Note also the false assertion that it was the Army's job to release Beauchamp's documents to TNR. TNR knew that wasn't the case -- the lawyer they arranged states plainly that Beauchamp needs to sign a release form himself to put the documents in TNR's hands.

And they berate Beauchanp for not doing so earlier when he said he'd get that done for them.

So they were lying at the tine -- they knew Beauchamp was "dodging" them, not silenced by the Army as they claimed; and they knew the Army was not keeping the documents from them, but rather the documents were kept from them by Beauchamp himself, whether due to laziness, forgetfulness, or aversion to being humiliated.

They made their early stand on this -- The Army won't let us talk to him and won't give us the relevant documents!

They knew, even as they were claiming this, both of those statements were lies.

Oh -- one more lie. They claimed in that August statement they'd like the army to "allow" Beauchamp to speak to "any other" media outlet.

In fact, in the September 7th call, Franklin Foer and this Scoblic character specifically told Beauchamp to not speak to any other media outlets until he had given them enough information to make a judgment on the story.

They've lied all the way through this, haven't they?

They may be all swell people, but you're not allowed to just lie your fucking ass off when caught with a fabulist.

As "Chuck" said in Shattered Glass: It's indefensible. Don't you know that?

Thanks to Jay for reminding me of that.

Posted by: Ace at 12:26 PM | Comments (45)
Post contains 900 words, total size 6 kb.