It still amazes me that the USA Patriot Act passed, but as I run into more and more people that don't know what it is, or don't care how it affects them, I move from astonishment toward fear.
There was no public debate over the Act, it was rammed through Congress at lightning speed, and legislators were not even provided copies before being required to vote. That there was a vote at all under those conditions doesn't say anything good about our Congressional Representatives, and it says a lot of bad things about the status of American Democracy.
Even in the hysteria after Sept. 11th, how do you vote for (or against) a bill that you've not read, and hasn't been subject to debate, especially when the bill is designed to drastically expand the ability of the government to spy on the citizenry. One excuse could easily be, "we thought it only dealt with terrorists". Of course, this isn't true given both the vagueness of the Act's definition of "terrorism", and a clause that specifically states that the Act doesn't only deal with terrorism. That's right, the law that is supposed to help fight terrorist will also let the FBI and the CIA read your email to Aunt Minnie.
The problem of course is not the emails to Aunt Minnie, but the ability to read all emails. What effect will this have on protest groups that are trying to organize street protests or boycotts? The government isn't above tracking all of this. We all like to think that this sort of thing left the halls of government with J. Edgar Hoover and Eugene McCarthy, but the Denver Police Department kept files of people known to be affiliated with civil rights groups and other dissidents. The practice has supposedly stopped in the past few months, but the ACLU is still trying to gain access to the records so people will be able to find out how long they were followed for. The people in files aren't criminals, mind you, just people who exercised their 1st Amendment rights -- like me. I wonder if there any files out there about web sites?
The point is that the FBI can now search all of your Internet traffic, your home, listen to your phone calls, all without judicial approval. And the people that have to grant access to those things aren't allowed to tell you what happened, either.
Here's a detailed analysis of how the Act effects libraries: http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0429-02.htm
This in from Yahoo! News: Saudi Prince Abdullah doesn't want his plane controlled by women. Evidently the idea of women working bothers him so much that he requested that the FAA not allow women to control his flight, and requested that airports he stopped at not even have women on the tarmac.
Why we take this sort of thing from the Feudal Monarch of a country around the globe from us? He presumes to tell us, how to run our airports and airspace because of his personal views about women? Arrgghh! He's the article text from Yahoo!
------------
Air traffic controllers expressed outrage Sunday over a request that no women work a flight carrying Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah. A spokesman for the prince, who met with President Bush in Texas last week, called the report ''pure fiction'' on Fox News Sunday. But officials with the National Air Traffic Controllers Association said the request was forwarded to a Waco, Texas, facility on a tape-recorded line Thursday morning before the prince's flight arrived. ''We're insulted and offended,'' said John Carr, president of the controller's union.
The incident occurred as the prince's jet approached the Texas State Technical College Waco Airport, said Mark Pallone, the union's southwest regional head. Someone from a privately operated tower at the airport telephoned the Federal Aviation Administration facility that handles flights in that region. The caller said that aides for the prince had requested that no women be allowed to control the flight. Ruben Gonzalez, a regional manager for RVA Inc., which manages the tower, told The Dallas Morning News that the request had come from an advance group of Saudis who spoke to the airport manager. They also requested that no women be allowed on the airport tarmac with the jet, Gonzalez said. -- Alan Levin
You hear a lot about how the Saudis and the Israelis are key US allies in the MIddle East. Those two countries, and Egypt, get the vast majority of US economic and military aid in the region, and most of the US arms sales. We provide the Israelis with $3 Billion a year in aid, access to F-16 fighters, AH-1 Cobra gunships, Armored Personnel carriers, rifles, ships, chemical warfare gear, and Patriot missile batteries. The Saudis get M-1 Abrams tanks, F-15 Eagles, E-3 AWACS, Patriots, and a whole slew of US military defenders and advisors. The Egyptians get AH-64D Apache attack helicopters.
Other than maybe the Egyptians, we don't get much back for our investment. Sure we have access to Saudi oil supplies for our us and our friends (although we get most of our oil from Venezuela), but it costs us a fortune in military deployments, and leaves us open to a whole slew of terrorists. Some of the terrorists see our presence in Saudi Arabia as "defiling" their holy sites in Mecca. Some of them dislike us for supporting the most oppressive regime on the planet. Regardless of the actual reason for their dislike, this is largely what caused Saudi citizens to launch the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
The Israelis also do us more harm than good. While we provide vast quantities of economic and military aid, our support of the Israelis at all costs, provides more reason for Islamist terrorists to hate us, and worsens our relations with other governments in the region. In the past Israel has also shown that it is more than willing to sell American military secrets and designs to China (one example being the design for part of the F-16's fuselage). They've also shown a willingness to sell nuclear weapons designs, and help US competitors (China again) develop advanced C3I systems based on US/Israeli technology (in this case an advanced airborne radar system).
Lately there's been a lot of press coverage about the role of Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah's visit to Crawford, Texas for some more of the President's "Cowboy Diplomacy", and a fair amount of it has illustrated the problems with dealing with the Saudis.
* Funding madrasas, which teach extreme anti-Western Islamist ideas, around the world.
* The Saudi eduaction ministry published a text for all students called Monotheism which has a passge reading, "The Hour will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews, and Muslims will kill all the Jews."
* On Colin Powell's recent diplomatic trip, the US delegation was requested to have no women for certain parts of the trip. Condoleeza Rice may not know much about the Middle East, but as NSA she should've had the option to be there on all parts of the trip, if needed.
* Harassing foreign journalists in Saudi Arabia, including going back on existing agreements to allow access, confiscating laptops, video tapes, etc... for no reason.
* New calls to use oil as a weapon against Israel, the US, and allies.
* Government media denouncing the US in violent terms.
* Close government ties to Islamist extremists such as Ossama bin Laden.
Dealing with the Israelis is no better, and is well documented. They've ignored calls for restraint and withdrawals from the West Bank, knowing there would be few repurcussions. Troops in the West Bank have been ordered to commit atrocious acts. There is no end in sight for the violence in the Occupied Territories.
It's time to start working on our own energy independence, and cut these people loose. Drilling for more oil in places like ANWR, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Rockies is not the answer. We have lots of options for energy:
* Wind Power. Even during the California energy crisis, the wind power generators said they had enough capacity to supply the state with electricity, if only they had been able to get the high capacity lines to their wind farms installed. It didn't happen because it wasn't in the interests of the California's other utilities.
* Bio-diesel. We can recycle all of that used fast food oil to make diesel fuel for cars and trucks across the country. It even costs about the same, and solves a problem for the fast food industry. In a pinch, new canola oil made from corn crops across the country could be used. The farm lobby would love it.
* Ethanol. See my earlier corn comment. It also provides fuel for regular gasoline engines, with fewer pollutants.
* Fuel efficient cars. This is really self-explanatory. Make everything a hybrid. Ford's 2003 Escape SUV will get 40 mpg.
* Solar Power Satellite Systems. Put up some big satellites to generate electricity, and beam it to earth. This would require a real space program.
This lets us stop kow-towing to the Middle East. Then we have to deal with the pro-Israel lobby, to get tough on the Israelis. We can even let them fight among themselves with impunity. Maybe then we could have real peace in the Middle East, even if it is the peace of the dead.
Although I should've noticed this before, it was recently pointed out that the Reagan Administration is the first one to be subject to the Presidential Records Act. It makes me wonder if there might be some specific bit of dirt that President Bush was trying to protect when he signed the Executive order to block the release of the documents. With old Iran-Contra figures like Eliot Abrams back in the administration, it could be just about anything. Not to mention Dick Cheney's dirty secrets.
Happily, a group of Congressmen from both parties are backing a bill introduced by Rep. Stephen Horn (R-Calif) restoring the Presidential Records Act, and preventing the President from barring the release of records not already protected under the act. With luck this will get passed, but it isn't likely that it will get signed into law. It'll provide some fun ammunition when election season rolls around, though.
Hiding the records seems to be part of a pattern for this Administration. Dick Cheney broke open meeting laws and is refusing to release documents to the GAO, the Social Security Task Force broke into subgroups to avoid having open meetings, the President refuses to allow Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge to testify before Congress, not even Congress was told about the "secret government" the Administration set up. The Justice Department is helping government agencies fight all FOIA requests as a matter of procedure.
I could've sworn that this was a government of the people, by the people, for the people....
I recently had an email conversation with two of my uncles regarding GOP political tactics and problems with political reporting in the mainstream media. The conversation came about when one of the uncles read a review of David Brock's new book Blinded by the Right, which details events at the American Spectator, and how Brock and other reporters deliberately lied, distorted facts, bribed "witnesses", and launched libelous attacks on liberals in order to smear Clinton Administration officials and promote other parts of the GOP agenda. The question he asked was, "Is this true?"
Sadly to say, it is. Sadder, is that it appears that, even today, most Americans accept the half-truths, lies, and innuendoes of the attacks on President Clinton as fact. Saddest, is the reason that it is accepted.
The reason, of course, is that the GOP has learned how to manipulate the media, and that most Americans accept as fact anything that appears on TV, especially if it is repeated to them often enough. Most Americans have neither the time, nor the inclination, to seek out reliable sources of news, or even to think about the motivation or bias behind the reporting they get. They also never get the opportunity to compare what is said by a candidate and what they actually do, because the news media rarely point out the differences in a way that is accessible to most people.
The reason I mention this now, is that Democratic Underground published a long, thoughtful article on this very topic today. Go check it out: http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/02/04/24_dumb.html
Of course, the fact that you're here reading this, implies that you've seen through at least part of the illusion, and are trying to get more information.
The fact of the matter is that progressives need to find a way to get an easy to understand message out to people, and to challenge lies and misrepresentations at every turn. Make the GOP fight for every bit of ground. The hard part is execution. I'm afraid that attack ads are the easy way to go, and I don't really like it. What we need is a really good PR/marketing firm, and they sell the shallow crap we're trying to get rid of.
It makes me wonder why no fuss was made about all the draft-dodging, the drinking, the womanizing, the drugs, etc... Think about it. Gov. Bill Clinton was crucified because he smoked marijuana, backed out of an ROTC commitment, Whitewater, and a sleazy affair with an intern. Gov. George Bush was given a pass on drunk driving, multiple arrests for drug use, being grounded for refusing National Guard drug tests, skipping out of the last two years of his service commitment, back room deals as a failed oil executives, and ties to the family of Ossama bin Laden. I guess we know where the media's loyalty lies.
The concept of big American companies being able to move operations offshore to avoid taxes really bugs me. They don't even have to leave the country to do it, just head down to Puerto Rico, which, despite the fact that it has its own Olympic teams, is part of the United States. As long as the profits aren't repatriated, the companies don't pay taxes on them. They can borrow against them, and use the borrowed money for projects anywhere in the world, without facing any tax penalties. I still get the logic of this, but it evidently works really well.
This is a big savings for the companies, and big business for tax lawyers. Of course, if you did it (or tried) and were living off a credit card fro and offshore bank, the IRS would swoop down on you. Why's the law different for big companies and people? Regardless, it's wrong either way. Right now the citizenry pays 80% of the taxes, with the corps paying 20%. Both reap the benefits of our infrastructure, but the companies can buy Congressmen, Presidents, and tax lawyers to fix it for them. We can't.
I'm not saying we should rape and pillage corporate coffers for the Treasury, but the corporations that live off us, should pay their share, too. More on how I think taxation should work another time. Its radical, it's different, and at least better than what we've got now.
Check this out for info on how we get taken by corporations and their tax lawyer/accountant friends: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/16/business/16TAX.html
It looks like some Democratic columnists and officials are testing the waters to see if it's reasonable to co-opt Sen. John McCain for the 2004 Presidential race. It seems none of the front-running Dems have the muscle to deal with the President, even war hero Sen. Kerry. It seems like desperation on some Dems part, until you look at how carefully some of the mainstream media are trying to discredit the idea. Joshua Micah Marshall points this out on his website talkingpointsmemo.com.
Here's the Gist of the whole thing: McCain actually wants to be President (I think he might be pretty good at it), and that won't happen as a a Republican or Independent, which means there's only one place to go. It really isn't as strange as it sounds: campaign reform, oil policy, corporate dominance of politics, etc... and he's enough of a Hawk to keep the military happy, but after a bunch of time in the Hanoi Hilton, he won't be sending Americans in harm's way without an excellent reason, defined goals, and a way out.
Meanwhile the mainstream media are pulling out voting records and speeches that are 7 or more years old, trying to say he just won't fit with the Democrats. Maybe not, but we should look at what he does now, instead of what he did then. After all, who among us is the exact same person they were 7 years ago?
The people over at Buzzflash.com pointed out this part of her latest fundraising letter in Sarasota:
"I want to work for you in Congress because I believe we face a historic opportunity in this new year. As Florida's Secretary of State, I honored the rule of law during the 2000 Presidential election. I know I did what was right and I have no regrets. But, because I followed the law, I am the target of unrelenting partisan attacks. That is why I need your help today. Please join our team, Katherine Harris for Congress, and help me run a winning campaign."
The claim that she "honored the rule of law", may, in fact, be technically correct, due to the vagueness and sponginess of Florida's campaign laws. It does leave out something important, though. Harris used her position as an elected cabinet member to influence the outcome of the Presidential Election. She did so without regard to voting rights, fairness, or ethics. She twisted a vague law to make it look like she had no choice but to certify the election. It also leaves out that she went out of here way to convince the Florida Supreme Court that there was no basis for a recount.
The letter also conveniently ignores that she allowed computers in her offices to be used by Republican campaign operatives, and that she composed campaign documents on her State supplied computer in violation of Florida election law. It also ignores the fact that the most senior election official in the state was also the co-chair of the campaign that she twisted the rules to help.
Check out http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/2002/04/17_Harris.html for more.
At least it wasn't a bloodbath -- this time, but it's obvious that the Bush Administration was up to its eyeballs in the attempted coup in Venezuela this past week, which has the rest of the Americas wondering what it is the colossus to the North really values these days. And whether this is a return to the Gunboat Diplomacy of past eras when Uncle Sam bullied the governments of Central and South America to get what the corporations wanted, and overthrew governments that wouldn't cooperate.
Who would've thought that an American President would let those who came to him with a plan to overthrow a democratically elected, legally constituted government slide with little or no warning. Even Bush the Elder came out in support of the leftist, democratically elected government of Haiti when it was overthrown. So what's different now?
Part of it is certainly that President Chavez of Venezuela doesn't toady to the United States, even in public. That may be part of why his people like him. He stands up to the world's only Superpower, doing what he thinks is right. It may also have something to do with him cozying up to Fidel Castro, the perennial thorn in the side of every U.S. administration since JFK. It is also likely that Chavez's petroleum policy may have a bit to do with it -- he's making noises about nationalizing at least part of Venezuela's oil giant Petróleos de Venezuela, which is the third largest supplier of oil to the U.S., making up a significant portion of the 57% of the US oil supply coming from Venezuela.
Perhaps the Younger Bush thought he could keep the coup leaders under his thumb, or at least quiet.
The disturbing part is not the allegations about the oil, or that the Bush Administration kept quiet when approached by the conspirators, but the fact that they just accepted the news of Chavez's forced "resignation" as if it were normal and acceptable. The Bush Administration even had the gall to chastise Chavez after the people of Venezuela insisted that he re-claim his office, saying that they hoped he would pay more attention to the "democratic" process.
Excuse me? The Bush Administration attempting to lecture others in the exercise of democratic freedoms? This from the Administration that said, ""He was democratically elected. Legitimacy is something that is conferred not just by a majority of the voters, however." This from the group that opposed recounts in Florida on the basis that machines had already recounted the ballots once? This from the group that illegally used State of Florida resources to run their campaign? This from the group that has systematically attacked the 1st and 4th Amendments to a Constitution they are sworn to uphold and defend?
The troubling thing here is that our President, his advisors, and their mouthpieces do not value the democratic process, and seek to undermine it wherever it gets in their way. We are no longer "nation building". We are no longer "defending freedom". We are no longer even "the supporters of democracy everywhere, but the defenders of only our own". We have moved into realpolitik of the sort practiced by the old Great Powers of Europe, just with less skill, finesse, and panache.
My wife and I recently flew from Denver to Tampa for a wedding, and found the changes we've been hearing about to be both better and worse than we've heard. After the trip, I've come to the conclusion that most of the "security" measures aren't so much there to make us more secure, as they are to make us think that we're more secure.
We arrived at Denver International Airport, where I used to work, at 4:15 am for our 6:15 am flight from Denver to St. Louis. Check in was relatively quick and easy, with the normal questions about other people giving us things to carry on the plane, and packing our bags. Our IDs were used to check for our E-tickets. Although we had been told that we'd have to have an itinerary with ticket numbers to check bags, and get boarding passes, we were told they were unnecessary. So much for extra precautions here.
After check-in, we headed down to the main terminal for screening. When we came off the escalator, we followed the signs to the only obvious screening area which was closed, despite the signs that said it was open. We, and a dozen other passengers, went off in search of the "other" screening area.
We got in line behind a family with a toddler and a stroller. Always a bad idea, but I wasn't paying attention. Mom and the toddler got through ok, and so did the stroller, which went through the X-ray scanner. Dad got delayed for either his bag, or something in a pocket. We waited while he was cleared. It took all of 3 minutes.
There are two new procedures at screening (at least at DIA): First, you have to present a tickt or boarding pass to go through. This is ostensibly to keep the lines at screening down, and to reduce the likelihood that someone will get to a secure area that isn't supposed to be there. Of course, to here the FAA tell it, this is still frighteningly easy. The most recent FAA audits (all post-Sept. 11) show that 30% of firearms, 70% of knives, and 60% of "simulated" explosives still get through. And that doesn't even mention the agents that got onto the tarmac or onto aircraft without ID.
The second new item, is that the screener watching the magnetic detector you walk through, bodily blocks access through it until the person in front of you (and the items they stuck on the conveyor) are cleared through. If somebody has problems, it holds up the whole line. Still, it took less than 10 minutes to get through. Of course, at 4:30 am on Thursday, there aren't that many people at the airport.
I had an HP Palmtop computer in my bag, as well as a cellphone. When I worked at DIA, all phones, pagers, radios, etc got turned on. Most computers got the same treatment. Not this time. No one said a word. So much for more stringent guidelines.
We headed out to our gate, and sat around until they started boarding the plane. This is where the fun begins. One of the new requirements is that the airlines have to perform "secondary" screening on passengers boarding the plane. This is supposed to be random. It's quite amusing to watch, even if you get pulled for it yourself. The quality of the search seems to vary greatly on airport and screener.
At DIA, they screeners pulled out some middle-aged women, and white men in business attire. The last person the grabbed was a slightly swarthy guy traveling with his wife. It almost seemed like all of the other selections had been made to show that he was randomly selected.
In St. Louis, we sat around, had a sandwich, and did the whole thing again. This time I got picked to be re-screened. The screener was a nice guy who seemed to be embarrased to be screening me. First, I had to drink out of both of the drinks I had in the side pockets of my backpack (coke and gatorade, yummy). Then he went through my bag, and made me turn on the cellphone and PDA, flipped through our books and magazines, and helped me re-pack it. Then he "wanded" me and my shoes, and checked my ticket and ID.
Coincidentally, I ended up in line with my wife again, just as she was giving her ticket and ID to the gate agent.
Coming back was almost comical. We got to Tampa International Airport on Tuesday morning about 8:00. It took longer to check our bags. There were more people, but it was basicall the same deal as in Denver. There was a Jamaican woman arguing about the extra fees for checking more than two bags, and stalked off leaving one of them at the counter. No one said a peep about the abandoned item. Definitely a security problem. She came back for it after a few moments, but still. These days, they're supposed to cart that stuff off and check it out, poste haste.
Screening was easier in Tampa than Denver. TIA is designed sort of like a spoke, with monorails out to the different concourses. As you walk up to the train, you show your ticket and ID to a guard. After you get on the train, you go through screening. Again, no turning on of anything, but my wife triggered something, so they sent her shoes through the X-ray machine. At our gate, we both were selected "randomly" for screening. We were the first one's picked by the Tampa Police officer, mostly because we were sitting near their little screening area. Again, nothing got turned on, and this time, they didn't check shoes or make me drink any of my water. Strange.
The point is, there's more hassle, but no more safety. There also seems to be a strange suspension of the 4th Amendment at airports, more now than ever. I fail to see how the cursory searching and re-searching, treating passengers even more like cattle, and deciding that because we wan't to get on an airplane we're automatically giving up our rights helps. None of this would have prevented the Sept. 11 attacks because the items used were legal at the time.
We'd be a lot better off with the right technology (explosives detection, etc...) and Air Marshals on planes that real people fly, not just Congressmen and other VIPs. Improved technolgy is something that needs to be carefully evaluated, though, and not just for its utility. Among the new items soon to be appearing at airports (and one reason that I will never fly into Orlando again) is a system that can look under your clothes. We aren;t talking magnetic detection, we're talking low powered X-rays that show the screener everything down to the skin. I have no desire to parade around at airports in my skivvies, and I'm sure I don't want tax dollars to go toward giving a security guard a free show.
Another system to be tested in Orlando analyzes air samples for explosives. It can also pick up evidence of illicit drug use with a minor adjustment. It works by blowing a puff of air at you, and then analyzing the particles that come off you. This means that if you go to firing range or a night club, you should wait awhile before going through the Orlando Airport.
But we were born free.