Saturday, May 27, 2006
OKAY IF YOU SCREW THE PEASANTS, BUT DON'T TREAD ON ME!
Lawmakers, quiet on your rights, roar about theirs
USA Today - Now we know what it takes to make Congress mad enough to stand up for constitutional rights.
When the government snoops on your phone calls and records without warrants, lawmakers barely kick up a fuss. But when the target is a fellow congressman - one under investigation for taking a bribe, no less - they're ready to rumble.
Witness the bipartisan frenzy set off after the
FBI searched the Capitol Hill offices of Rep. William Jefferson (news, bio, voting record), D-La., on Saturday. The FBI had a court order. According to an FBI affidavit, he was videotaped taking $100,000 in cash from an investor working undercover for the FBI. Agents found $90,000 of it stuffed in his freezer at home, the affidavit said.
Never mind all that. Leaders of the House of Representatives are appalled. They say the search violated the Constitution's separation of powers, "designed to protect the Congress and the American people from abuse of power."
House Speaker
Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who rarely agree on anything, demanded that the Justice Department return the "unconstitutionally seized" documents.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., said the episode raised "profoundly disturbing" questions. He set a hearing for Tuesday to ask: "Did the Saturday night raid of Congress trample the Constitution?"
If only those leaders were as profoundly disturbed about executive branch incursions on the rights of average citizens. You certainly have to wonder where they've been for the past several years while the Bush administration ran roughshod over the legislative branch and launched anti-terror programs of questionable legality.
Last December, The New York Times revealed that the National Security Agency (NSA) was wiretapping international phone calls without court warrants. Hastert didn't make a peep. Pelosi and other Democrats loudly protested, but nothing came of it. As it turns out, Pelosi was part of a tiny leadership group that had been briefed on the program since October 2001.
The scenario repeated itself this month when USA TODAY revealed that the NSA has collected millions of phone records.
So now the leadership swings into action because the FBI searched a Capitol Hill office for evidence of criminal activity?
This is not to belittle the separation of powers doctrine. It's meant to prevent a president from using investigations and unwarranted searches to intimidate lawmakers in their official duties. The Justice Department might have minimized the outcry by managing the search with more deference to congressional sensitivities. But there's no evidence that the Jefferson raid was an abuse of power.
A more appropriate response from congressional leaders would have been remorse over their failure to do anything meaningful to make members act ethically. Hastert, for instance, replaced a House ethics committee chairman last year after he attempted to enforce some rules. Congressional offices, obviously, should not be sanctuaries for crime, but the outcry from Capitol Hill brought quick action. On Thursday,
President Bush ordered the documents seized in Jefferson's office to be "sealed" from the investigators' view for 45 days, while the Justice Department and Congress settle their differences.
What a pity that Congress' leaders haven't used their clout to protect the public's rights as eagerly as they defend their own.Thursday, May 25, 2006
LIVE LONG, TOKE HAPPY
Large Study Finds No Link between Marijuana and Lung Cancer
Scientific American - The smoke from burning marijuana leaves contains several known carcinogens and the tar it creates contains 50 percent more of some of the chemicals linked to lung cancer than tobacco smoke. A marijuana cigarette also deposits four times as much of that tar as an equivalent tobacco one. Scientists were therefore surprised to learn that a study of more than 2,000 people found no increase in the risk of developing lung cancer for marijuana smokers.
"We expected that we would find that a history of heavy marijuana use--more than 500 to 1,000 uses--would increase the risk of cancer from several years to decades after exposure to marijuana," explains physician Donald Tashkin of the University of California, Los Angeles, and lead researcher on the project. But looking at residents of Los Angeles County, the scientists found that even those who smoked more than 20,000 joints in their life did not have an increased risk of lung cancer.
The researchers interviewed 611 lung cancer patients and 1,040 healthy controls as well as 601 patients with cancer in the head or neck region under the age of 60 to create the statistical analysis. They found that 80 percent of those with lung cancer and 70 percent of those with other cancers had smoked tobacco while only roughly half of both groups had smoked marijuana. The more tobacco a person smoked, the greater the risk of developing cancer, as other studies have shown.
But after controlling for tobacco, alcohol and other drug use as well as matching patients and controls by age, gender and neighborhood, marijuana did not seem to have an effect, despite its unhealthy aspects. "Marijuana is packed more loosely than tobacco, so there's less filtration through the rod of the cigarette, so more particles will be inhaled," Tashkin says. "And marijuana smokers typically smoke differently than tobacco smokers; they hold their breath about four times longer allowing more time for extra fine particles to deposit in the lungs."
The study does not reveal how marijuana avoids causing cancer. Tashkin speculates that perhaps the THC chemical in marijuana smoke prompts aging cells to die before becoming cancerous. Tashkin and his colleagues presented the findings yesterday at a meeting of the American Thoracic Society in San Diego. --David Biello
ScientificAmerican.comSunday, May 21, 2006
WHY I LEFT FLORIDA
Sunday, May 21, 2006
THE USA NEEDS ASBO'S
I have some asshole neighbors down the block that I'd like to see served with one of these puppies...
Nasty Neighbor Gets Anti-Social Order
LONDON - A retired businesswoman accused of vandalizing her neighbors' property and blocking local roads with dead animals and dog feces was served with an order Thursday banning her from engaging in anti-social behavior.
Jeanne Wilding, 57, is accused of clashing with at least 15 individuals and organizations in the idyllic rural hamlet of Bottomley in northeast England.
Prosecutors said Wilding repeatedly and loudly played a choral work "about rape, pillage and the trashing of villages," caused extensive damage to neighbors' vehicles, beamed floodlights into a neighbor's home and tipped oil over his driveway at night.
She also deposited dead animals, rubbish, dog feces, glass and nails on the road, obstructing other homes and communal spaces, they said.
In all, there were more than 250 alleged incidents involving Wilding in less than 16 months.
At Halifax Magistrates' Court, Deputy District Judge Sandra Keen granted Calderdale Council's application to give Wilding an anti-social behavior order, or ASBO.
"It's clear she has little or no appreciation of the effect her behavior has on other people," the judge said.
"If her views are challenged, she responds in a wholly inappropriate manner. She takes a confrontational stance, causing others harassment or distress."
Under the ASBO, Wilding is banned from damaging property, from entering domestic properties without the owners' consent and from spreading trash anywhere outside her property.
She also is banned from playing loud music and from maintaining or installing lighting or closed-circuit TV equipment that covers anywhere outside the boundary of her property.
Wilding also was ordered to pay 75,000 pounds ($135,000) toward the council's costs.
Introduced in 1999 to counter "loutish and unruly conduct," anti-social behavior orders have been used to ban thousands of people, some as young as 10, from associating with certain people or engaging in activities as varied as shouting, swearing, spray painting, playing loud music and walking down certain streets.
Breaching an order is a crime, punishable by up to five years in prison.Sunday, May 14, 2006
GHOST OF FASCISTS PAST
Saturday, May 13, 2006
THROW THE FASCIST RATFUCKS OUT OF OFFICE!
THE PERILS OF WASHINGTON TOTALITARIANISM
By Richard Reeves Fri May 12, 8:07 PM ET
DURHAM, N.C. -- Someone in the audience at the North Carolina Festival of the Book asked Rep. David Price (news, bio, voting record), a former Duke professor who has written extensively about the workings of Congress, what difference it would make if Democrats won control of the House of Representatives in November.
The theoretician-turned-practitioner, a Democrat who represents the Chapel Hill-Durham area, answered in two words: "Subpoena power!"
There was some applause, but I was not sure everyone there understood what he meant. This is it: The only way to restore constitutional checks and balances in Washington before 2008 is for the opposition to win one house of Congress and have the power to call witnesses at public hearings and ask, under oath:
"What the hell is going on here?"
What is going on in the White House? The Defense Department? The CIA and the NSA? With gasoline prices? Along the border between California and Mexico? In Baghdad? In New Orleans? With Jack Abramoff and the K Street Gang? In Congress itself?
Or, who is listening to your phone calls? Are your taxes being used to teach torture techniques to your sons and daughters? Are the glaciers melting?
We'll be the last to know.
The nation flies blind when we have determined one-party government. That can and has happened in both parties over the centuries, but this White House is a particularly tough bunch, talking freedom around the world and taking it away at home. President Bush essentially has veto power over the Republican automatons in the Congress, and they are the ones who have the power (generally unused) to issue subpoenas and question officials and witnesses who might embarrass "The Decider."
There is a nasty whiff of totalitarianism in Washington today, with a closed administration that seems to spend most of its time and effort trying to prevent the Congress, press and people from getting any information at all about decision-making. There is something comical about "The Decider" declaring only he decides, but tragedy is in the wings as both friends and adversaries try to see over or under the walls around his decision-making.
Rep. Price mentioned another symbol of the declining role of his institution. The House is scheduled to meet for just 97 days this year, which is 11 days less than the "Do-Nothing Congress" Harry S. Truman successfully used as his whipping boy to win the 1948 presidential election. I realize that there are those out there who believe life would be better if Congress never met -- the president seems to be one of them -- but the men who wrote the Constitution had these inconvenient notions about separation of powers.
Subpoenas -- testimony under oath with the threat of jail for perjury or contempt -- are essential to open government. In fact, the few things we are learning these days about this administration is information coming from prosecutors who do have subpoena power.
Questions about Abramoff and other lobbyists came to public attention because of investigations by a prosecutor in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. Rep. "Duke" Cunningham of California was forced to resign his seat when a prosecutor in San Diego read a newspaper story about his real-estate dealings with defense contractors and subpoenaed the congressman and contractors for a showdown that ended with a guilty plea. The action that caused the resignation of Rep. Tom DeLay was initiated by a local prosecutor in Texas. The process that began with the naming of
Valerie Plame as a CIA agent -- and could end up with Bush assistants in jail -- was the result of sworn testimony gathered by a special prosecutor from Chicago.
All that leads to an ironic conclusion as the 2006 congressional campaigns begin. The Democrats, the opposition too loyal, have acted like whining wimps and wusses, whipped into sullen silence by a White House questioning their patriotism -- and so we need more Democrats in Congress.Saturday, May 13, 2006
SO MUCH FOR PRIVATE NUDE SUNBATHING
Spy Agency Watching Americans From Space
By KATHERINE SHRADER, Associated Press Writer Sat May 13, 6:29 AM ET
WASHINGTON - A little-known spy agency that analyzes imagery taken from the skies has been spending significantly more time watching U.S. soil.
ADVERTISEMENT
In an era when other intelligence agencies try to hide those operations, the director of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, retired Air Force Lt. Gen. James Clapper, is proud of that domestic mission.
He said the work the agency did after hurricanes Rita and Katrina was the best he'd seen an intelligence agency do in his 42 years in the spy business.
"This was kind of a direct payback to the taxpayers for the investment made in this agency over the years, even though in its original design it was intended for foreign intelligence purposes," Clapper said in a Thursday interview with The Associated Press.
Geospatial intelligence is the science of combining imagery, such as satellite pictures, to physically depict features or activities happening anywhere on the planet. A part of the Defense Department, the NGA usually operates unnoticed to provide information on nuclear sites, terror camps, troop movements or natural disasters.
After last year's hurricanes, the agency had an unusually public face. It set up mobile command centers that sprung out of the backs of Humvees and provided imagery for rescuers and hurricane victims who wanted to know the condition of their homes. Victims would provide their street address and the NGA would provide a satellite photo of their property. In one way or another, some 900 agency officials were involved.
Spy agencies historically avoided domestic operations out of concern for
Pentagon regulations and Reagan-era executive order, known as 12333, that restricted intelligence collection on American citizens and companies. Its budget, like all intelligence agencies, is classified.
On Clapper's watch of the last five years, his agency has found ways to expand its mission to help prepare security at Super Bowls and political conventions or deal with natural disasters, such as hurricanes and forest fires.
With help, the agency can also zoom in. Its officials cooperate with private groups, such as hotel security, to get access to footage of a lobby or ballroom. That video can then be linked with mapping and graphical data to help secure events or take action, if a hostage situation or other catastrophe happens.
Privacy advocates wonder how much the agency picks up and stores. Many are increasingly skeptical of intelligence agencies with recent revelations about the Bush administration's surveillance on phone calls and e-mails.
Among the government's most closely guarded secrets, the quality of pictures NGA receives from classified satellites is believed to far exceed the one-meter resolution available commercially. That means they can take a satellite "snapshot" from high above the atmosphere that is crisply detailed down to one meter level, which is 3.3 feet.
Clapper says his agency only does big pictures, so concerns about using the NGA's foreign intelligence apparatus at home doesn't apply.
"We are not trying to examine an individual dwelling, for example, because what our mission is normally going to be is looking at large areas," he said. "It doesn't really affect or threaten anyone's privacy or civil liberties when you are looking at a large collective area."
When asked what additional powers he'd ask Congress for, he said, "I wouldn't."
His agency also handles its historic mission: regional threats, such as
Iran and
North Korea; terrorist hideouts; and tracking drug trade. "Everything and everybody has to be some place," he said.
He considers his brand of intelligence a chess match. "There are sophisticated nation states that have a good understanding of our surveillance capabilities," including Iran, he said. "What we have to do is counter that" by taking advantage of anomalies or sending spy planes and satellites over more frequently.
Adversaries who hide their most important facilities underground is a trend the agency has to work at, he said.
NGA was once a stepchild of the intelligence community. But Clapper said it has come into its own and become an equal partner with the other spy agencies, such as the
CIA.
Experience-wise, the agency is among the youngest of the spy agencies. About 40 percent of the agency's analyst have been hired in the last five years.
"They are very inexperienced, and that's just fine. They don't have any baggage," said Clapper, who retires next month as the longest serving agency director. "The people that we are getting now are bright, computer literate. ... That is not something I lie awake and worry about."Saturday, May 13, 2006
ST. OPRAH
The divine Miss Winfrey?
USA TODAY - After two decades of searching for her authentic self - exploring New Age theories, giving away cars, trotting out fat, recommending good books and tackling countless issues from serious to frivolous -
Oprah Winfrey has risen to a new level of guru.
She's no longer just a successful talk-show host worth $1.4 billion, according to Forbes' most recent estimate. Over the past year, Winfrey, 52, has emerged as a spiritual leader for the new millennium, a moral voice of authority for the nation.
With her television pulpit and the sheer power of her persona, she has encouraged and steered audiences (mostly women) in all matters, from genocide in Rwanda to suburban spouse swapping to finding the absolute best T-shirt and oatmeal cookie.
Is Oprah a spiritual leader for the new millenium?
"She's a really hip and materialistic Mother Teresa," says Kathryn Lofton, a professor at Reed College in Portland, Ore., who has written two papers analyzing the religious aspects of Winfrey. "Oprah has emerged as a symbolic figurehead of spirituality."
On Monday, Winfrey shares one of her most ambitious events of the past year -Oprah Winfrey's Legends Ball- as a special on ABC (8 p.m. ET/PT). It lets viewers in on a weekend in which she invited 25 legendary black women and other guests to her home in Montecito, Calif., for a luncheon, ball and gospel brunch in their honor.
It was something she spent a year planning and describes as one of the "greatest moments" of her life. She appears on The View on Friday to talk about the special.
"This weekend was the fulfillment of a dream for me: to honor where I've come from, to celebrate how I got here, and to claim where I'm going," Winfrey says on her website. And now, as Winfrey "lives her best life," as her TV motto says, we get to experience it with her.
Although the concept of the Rev. Oprah has been building through the years, never was it more evident than this season of her talk show, during which she conducted the public flogging of author James Frey. Feeling stung and embarrassed after endorsing his memoir about addiction, A Million Little Pieces, which turned out to include exaggerations and falsehoods, Winfrey had Frey on the show to do an about-face.
"I left the impression that the truth is not important," she said on the show. "I am deeply sorry about that because that is not what I believe."
It was a watershed Winfrey moment, showing herself as not only a talk-show host with whom you don't want to mess, but also someone who is fully aware of the power of her own image. Think back: She appeared in New Orleans to take on the government after Hurricane Katrina hit last August, and she sent a message to us all about civil rights as she stood by the casket of Coretta Scott King in February. Last week, she shed a tear with
Teri Hatcher over sexual abuse memories, and she jumped on the Darfur bandwagon, encouraging viewers to support refugees there.
"She's a moral monitor, using herself as the template against which she measures the decency of a nation," Lofton says.
But while this past year showed Winfrey at new heights, it also was a year that polarized people, particularly after the Frey incident.
"A self-righteous attack dog," wrote arts and culture critic Steven Winn in the San Francisco Chronicle.
"A sanctimonious bully," said media critic Robert Thompson on the PBS NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.
"She puts the cult in pop culture," wrote media critic Mark Jurkowitz in The Phoenix
Winfrey was applauded by many for her public mea culpa and for getting Frey to do the same, but her righteous demand for justice also evoked criticism.
"No one person should have that kind of power to affect markets, politics or anything else," says Debbie Schlussel, a lawyer, conservative columnist and blogger.
Deifying Oprah
Love her or loathe her, Winfrey has become proof that you can't be too rich, too thin or too committed to rising to your place in the world. With 49 million viewers each week in the USA and more in the 122 other countries to which the show is distributed, Winfrey reaches more people in a TV day than most preachers can hope to reach in a lifetime of sermons.
"One of the things that's key," says Marcia Nelson, author of The Gospel According to Oprah, "is she walks her talk. That's really, really important in today's culture. People who don't walk their talk fall from a great pedestal - scandals in the Catholic Church, televangelism scandals. If you're not doing what you say you do, woe be unto you."
In Ellen DeGeneres' stand-up comedy act several years ago, she included a joke about getting to heaven and finding that God is a black woman named Oprah.
Last fall, at the start of this 20th season of The Oprah Winfrey Show, guest Jamie Foxx said much the same thing, but he wasn't joking. "What you have is something nobody can describe," Foxx said to Winfrey on the air. Then he explained about how he told Vibe magazine: "You're going to get to heaven and everyone's waiting on God and it's going to be Oprah Winfrey."
He told her she has "different gears" than most people. "You're on the top of the world, and we really do watch and listen for everything you do and say to kind of get our lives together. It's the truth."
In a November poll conducted at Beliefnet.com, a site that looks at how religions and spirituality intersect with popular culture, 33% of 6,600 respondents said Winfrey has had "a more profound impact" on their spiritual lives than their clergypersons.
Cathleen Falsani, religion writer for the Chicago Sun-Times, recently suggested, "I wonder, has Oprah become America's pastor?"
"I am not God," Oprah said in a 1989 story by Barbara Grizzuti Harrison that ran in The New York Times Magazine titled The Importance of Being Oprah. But at the time, Winfrey called her talk show her "ministry," Harrison wrote. It remains an interview Winfrey says she hates. In a Los Angeles Times interview in December, the talk-show host said that "at every turn everything I said was challenged and misinterpreted."
She declined to be interviewed for this story, and she declined to allow USA TODAY to cover her most recent, and now rare, Live Your Best Life seminars. Tickets, priced at $185 each, sold out in minutes.
Katrina Singleton, 34, paid $450 each for tickets to the February event in Charleston, S.C., which she purchased through a ticket broker. "For Oprah, nothing is too much," she told the Associated Press. "It's a once-in-a-lifetime experience."
At the seminar, according to AP, Winfrey repeatedly spoke of her relationship with God. She even sang a chorus of I Surrender All.
"I live inside God's dream for me. I don't try to tell God what I'm supposed to do," she told the crowd. "God can dream a bigger dream for you than you can dream for yourself."
Claire Zulkey, 26, an Oprah follower who has written about Winfrey in her online blog at zulkey .com, says, "I think that if this were the equivalent of the Middle Ages and we were to fast-forward 1,200 years, scholars would definitely think that this Oprah person was a deity, if not a canonized being."
Marcia Nelson says that it's not going too far to call her a spiritual leader. "I've said to a number of people - she's today's Billy Graham."
Nelson said that concept was most apparent when Winfrey co-hosted the 2001 memorial service held 12 days after the terrorist attacks in New York. She urged the people who filled Shea Stadium that day, and all Americans, to stand strong, rousing the audience by repeating the refrain, "We shall not be moved."
One of Winfrey's most appealing subtexts is that she's anti-institutional, says Chris Altrock, minister of Highland Street Church of Christ in Memphis. He says Winfrey believes there are many paths to God, not just one. After doing his doctoral research three years ago on postmodernism religion, a religious era that began in the 1970s as Christians became deeply interested in spirituality and less interested in any established church, he came up with what he calls "The Church of Oprah," referring to the culture that has created her.
"Our culture is changing," he says, "as churches are in decline and the bulk of a new generation is growing up outside of religion." Instead, they're turning to the Church of Oprah.
"People who have no religion relate to her," Nelson says.
Oprah's own evolution
When Winfrey started in the talk-show business 20 years ago, her goal was to beat Phil Donahue, then the reigning talk-show champ. As the Jerry Springer era of tabloid talk shows came into favor, she vowed to use her show to promote good, not sleaze.
By the late '90s, Winfrey's focus was Change Your Life TV, and a New Age message was more prevalent. She preached making the message of her life - take responsibility, and greatness will follow - the substance of the show. Keep a personal journal, purchase self-indulgent gifts, take time for you - because you deserve it. The notes rang true to millions of viewers.
Debbie Ford's book, The Dark Side of the Light Chasers, shot up the sales charts after Ford appeared on Winfrey's show in October 2000 to talk about aspects of ourselves that we deny but which can be sources of joy and strength.
"I think at the time when she had me and Gary Zukav and a lot of the other spiritual teachers on her show, it was her own journey, and she was taking all of the world on that spiritual evolution," Ford says.
Lately, Winfrey has seemed to focus more on social issues (along with the inescapable talk-show fare of celebrity guests, home and diet makeovers, and marriage and financial troubles).
"She's fabulous. She looks great and is not suffering," Ford says, so it makes sense she isn't exploring New Age philosophies anymore. Instead, Ford says, people now "look to her to find their greatness. She is so real. That's why people are attracted to her - for different reasons. Some people will say her brilliance. Others will say authenticity. Others will say her power. They're seeing part of themselves in her."
Adds Ford, "We're all on Oprah's journey, in a sense."
Maybe not quite "all" of us.
Schlussel says Winfrey followers "are incredibly gullible, bandwagon-jumping trend-slaves." Winfrey, she says, "acts as if her show has 'evolved,' but in fact, she still has the salacious sex and deviance stories, with a psychologist in the audience to make it seem highbrow and give it the kosher seal of approval. If this is the person whose morals we are putting on a pedestal, then America's moral compass is in much need of retuning."
The fact that Winfrey has never been married, never had children and is a billionaire distances her from her audience, Schlussel says. "How could anyone like this be in touch with the average American woman?"
The roots of faith
Lofton points out that any discussion of Winfrey should not be one that criticizes her or how she came to be a spiritual icon for the history books but one that examines how it came to be that way. "Why do we all need her so much? What is wrong with us that we so need this little woman in Chicago?"
Jim Twitchell, a professor at the University of Florida who has written several books about branding and describes himself as a cultural anthropologist, says Oprah reverence makes sense.
"Religion essentially is based on high anxiety of what's going to happen to you." Winfrey pushes the idea "that you have a life out there, and it's better than the one you have now and go get it."
It's most apparent in the setting of her show, Twitchell says.
"The guest is sitting beside her, but what she's really doing is exuding this powerful message of 'You are a sinner, yes, you are, but you can also find salvation.' What I find intriguing about it is it's delivered with no religiosity at all, even though it has a powerful Baptist, democratic, enthusiastic tone.
"It has to do with this deep American faith and yearning to be reborn. To start again."Friday, May 12, 2006
WE WON'T FUCK YOU OVER - TRUST US
NSA has your phone records; 'trust us' isn't good enough
Fri May 12, 6:52 AM ET
USA Today - The government is secretly collecting the phone records of millions of Americans.
Stop and think for a moment about the meaning of that simple, startling fact, exposed Thursday in a remarkable report by USA TODAY's Leslie Cauley.
In the narrowest interpretation, of course, it is benign. Possibly even helpful. It means that the National Security Agency (NSA) - the Pentagon-run spy agency that monitors communications - is using a new tool to hunt terrorists: Monitor phone traffic to identify threats and stop them.
This is all it means, President Bush told the public Thursday in a brief appearance aimed at quelling the instant outrage provoked by the story. He assured Americans that their civil liberties were being "fiercely protected" and that the government was "not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans."
In other words, never mind appearances. Trust us.
Well, that is not all it means. Nor can the president's promise to protect privacy be reliably kept.
The fact that the government is trying to track (but not wiretap) every call you make and every call you receive - at home or on your cellphone is, to say the least, disturbing.
It means that your phone company (if you are a customer of AT&T, BellSouth or Verizon) tossed your privacy to the wind and collaborated with this extraordinary intrusion, and that it did so secretly and without following any court order.
That is, unless you're lucky enough to be served by Qwest, the one major phone company that had the integrity to resist government pressure.
It means that unless public opposition changes the government's course, this database will be compiled, updated and expanded into the indeterminate future, through countless administrations with who-knows-what interests and motives.
Only the most naive and unsuspicious soul could trust that it will remain safe, secured and for the eyes only of those hunting terrorists.
One need look no further than past abuses of power to be uncomfortable about the future. Richard Nixon during Watergate. Lyndon Johnson during the Vietnam War. J. Edgar Hoover during his long reign as FBI director.
Even assuming that the Bush administration's motives are pure, and that this program merely looks for patterns of calls that could reveal terror networks, it raises a number of troubling questions:
Is it legal? Bush insists it is, but that's questionable. The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act requires a court order to gather a person's current phone records. A 1934 law requires phone companies to protect customers' privacy. And the Fourth Amendment forbids "unreasonable searches and seizures."
Is it useful? Taken as a whole, such a database is of dubious utility. U.S. intelligence-gathering agencies are already suffering from an abundance of raw information and a dearth of good intelligence. Looking for suspicious patterns among billions of phone numbers seems like the ultimate search for a needle in a haystack.
Is it foolproof? These types of databases invariably have errors. The federal terrorist "watch list," which is used to screen airline passengers, has ensnared a number of innocent travelers - among them Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., and a 23-month-old toddler - whose names are similar to, or the same as, suspects on the list. Once you're mistakenly targeted, the error can be nearly impossible to fix and your life can be turned upside down.
Will it be abused? Maybe not at first. Over time, however, this vast quantity of data is a potentially irresistible tool for government officials who want to zero in on individual Americans.
At the very least, one can imagine this information being used by law enforcement agencies trying to trace people who have attracted their attention but about whom they don't have enough information to justify a court order. Or to look for whistle-blowers who have leaked sensitive information to reporters.
Consider what happened in the 1960s and '70s, the last time federal law enforcement and national security agencies launched mass snooping expeditions against U.S. citizens. The FBI, which became a clearinghouse for the data, sent them to the CIA, the Justice Department and the IRS, where some of the data were used in tax probes.
"Information that should not have been gathered in the first place has gone beyond the initial agency to numerous other agencies and officials, thus compounding the original intrusion," concluded a committee chaired by Sen. Frank Church, D-Idaho, which investigated and reported on the abuses in 1976. The amount of information was "so voluminous," it was difficult "to separate useful data from worthless detail."
NSA's technological capabilities, the Church Committee wrote, are a "sensitive national asset" valuable to the national defense. Even so, it warned, "if not properly controlled ... this same technological capability could be turned against the American people, at great cost to liberty."
The panel's conclusions about NSA are as valid today as they were then.
The phone record program serves as a powerful reminder of how, in a digital age, records can be compiled and analyzed in ways you are unaware of.
And combined with a separate NSA program (revealed in December by The New York Times) to eavesdrop without warrants on international calls from the USA, it raises the question of what other secret and constitutionally suspect programs the Bush administration might still be shielding.
Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, who headed the NSA for six years and is now Bush's nominee to be CIA director, is a master of evasion. Speaking in January about the international eavesdropping, he said the program is not a widely cast "drift net" but is narrowly "focused" and "targeted."
Perhaps. But, at the time, he was fully aware of a program that is many of the things the other is not. A 2006 version of the Church Committee is needed to investigate the anti-terror programs created in the scary aftermath of 9/11, and the Senate should hold up Hayden's nomination until all its questions are answered.
Creating a huge, secret database of Americans' phone records does far more than threaten terrorists. It is a deeply troubling act that undermines U.S. freedoms and threatens us all.
The White House declined to provide an opposing view to this editorial.Thursday, May 11, 2006
DEMOCRACY IS AN ILLUSION - THE FASCIST MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX RUNS AMERICA
NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls
NSA: Now Spying on Americans
USA TODAY - The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.
The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans - most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.
The NSA record collection program
"It's the largest database ever assembled in the world," said one person, who, like the others who agreed to talk about the NSA's activities, declined to be identified by name or affiliation. The agency's goal is "to create a database of every call ever made" within the nation's borders, this person added.
For the customers of these companies, it means that the government has detailed records of calls they made - across town or across the country - to family members, co-workers, business contacts and others.
The three telecommunications companies are working under contract with the NSA, which launched the program in 2001 shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the sources said. The program is aimed at identifying and tracking suspected terrorists, they said.
The sources would talk only under a guarantee of anonymity because the NSA program is secret.
Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, nominated Monday by President Bush to become the director of the
CIA, headed the NSA from March 1999 to April 2005. In that post, Hayden would have overseen the agency's domestic call-tracking program. Hayden declined to comment about the program.
The NSA's domestic program, as described by sources, is far more expansive than what the White House has acknowledged. Last year, Bush said he had authorized the NSA to eavesdrop - without warrants - on international calls and international e-mails of people suspected of having links to terrorists when one party to the communication is in the USA. Warrants have also not been used in the NSA's efforts to create a national call database.
In defending the previously disclosed program, Bush insisted that the NSA was focused exclusively on international calls. "In other words," Bush explained, "one end of the communication must be outside the United States."
As a result, domestic call records - those of calls that originate and terminate within U.S. borders - were believed to be private.
Sources, however, say that is not the case. With access to records of billions of domestic calls, the NSA has gained a secret window into the communications habits of millions of Americans. Customers' names, street addresses and other personal information are not being handed over as part of NSA's domestic program, the sources said. But the phone numbers the NSA collects can easily be cross-checked with other databases to obtain that information.
Don Weber, a senior spokesman for the NSA, declined to discuss the agency's operations. "Given the nature of the work we do, it would be irresponsible to comment on actual or alleged operational issues; therefore, we have no information to provide," he said. "However, it is important to note that NSA takes its legal responsibilities seriously and operates within the law."
The White House would not discuss the domestic call-tracking program. "There is no domestic surveillance without court approval," said Dana Perino, deputy press secretary, referring to actual eavesdropping.
She added that all national intelligence activities undertaken by the federal government "are lawful, necessary and required for the pursuit of al-Qaeda and affiliated terrorists." All government-sponsored intelligence activities "are carefully reviewed and monitored," Perino said. She also noted that "all appropriate members of Congress have been briefed on the intelligence efforts of the United States."
The government is collecting "external" data on domestic phone calls but is not intercepting "internals," a term for the actual content of the communication, according to a U.S. intelligence official familiar with the program. This kind of data collection from phone companies is not uncommon; it's been done before, though never on this large a scale, the official said. The data are used for "social network analysis," the official said, meaning to study how terrorist networks contact each other and how they are tied together.
Carriers uniquely positioned
AT&T recently merged with SBC and kept the AT&T name. Verizon, BellSouth and AT&T are the nation's three biggest telecommunications companies; they provide local and wireless phone service to more than 200 million customers.
The three carriers control vast networks with the latest communications technologies. They provide an array of services: local and long-distance calling, wireless and high-speed broadband, including video. Their direct access to millions of homes and businesses has them uniquely positioned to help the government keep tabs on the calling habits of Americans.
Among the big telecommunications companies, only Qwest has refused to help the NSA, the sources said. According to multiple sources, Qwest declined to participate because it was uneasy about the legal implications of handing over customer information to the government without warrants.
Qwest's refusal to participate has left the NSA with a hole in its database. Based in Denver, Qwest provides local phone service to 14 million customers in 14 states in the West and Northwest. But AT&T and Verizon also provide some services - primarily long-distance and wireless - to people who live in Qwest's region. Therefore, they can provide the NSA with at least some access in that area.
Created by President Truman in 1952, during the Korean War, the NSA is charged with protecting the United States from foreign security threats. The agency was considered so secret that for years the government refused to even confirm its existence. Government insiders used to joke that NSA stood for "No Such Agency."
In 1975, a congressional investigation revealed that the NSA had been intercepting, without warrants, international communications for more than 20 years at the behest of the CIA and other agencies. The spy campaign, code-named "Shamrock," led to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was designed to protect Americans from illegal eavesdropping.
Enacted in 1978, FISA lays out procedures that the U.S. government must follow to conduct electronic surveillance and physical searches of people believed to be engaged in espionage or international terrorism against the United States. A special court, which has 11 members, is responsible for adjudicating requests under FISA.
Over the years, NSA code-cracking techniques have continued to improve along with technology. The agency today is considered expert in the practice of "data mining" - sifting through reams of information in search of patterns. Data mining is just one of many tools NSA analysts and mathematicians use to crack codes and track international communications.
Paul Butler, a former U.S. prosecutor who specialized in terrorism crimes, said FISA approval generally isn't necessary for government data-mining operations. "FISA does not prohibit the government from doing data mining," said Butler, now a partner with the law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in Washington, D.C.
The caveat, he said, is that "personal identifiers" - such as names, Social Security numbers and street addresses - can't be included as part of the search. "That requires an additional level of probable cause," he said.
The usefulness of the NSA's domestic phone-call database as a counterterrorism tool is unclear. Also unclear is whether the database has been used for other purposes.
The NSA's domestic program raises legal questions. Historically, AT&T and the regional phone companies have required law enforcement agencies to present a court order before they would even consider turning over a customer's calling data. Part of that owed to the personality of the old Bell Telephone System, out of which those companies grew.
Ma Bell's bedrock principle - protection of the customer - guided the company for decades, said Gene Kimmelman, senior public policy director of Consumers Union. "No court order, no customer information - period. That's how it was for decades," he said.
The concern for the customer was also based on law: Under Section 222 of the Communications Act, first passed in 1934, telephone companies are prohibited from giving out information regarding their customers' calling habits: whom a person calls, how often and what routes those calls take to reach their final destination. Inbound calls, as well as wireless calls, also are covered.
The financial penalties for violating Section 222, one of many privacy reinforcements that have been added to the law over the years, can be stiff. The Federal Communications Commission, the nation's top telecommunications regulatory agency, can levy fines of up to $130,000 per day per violation, with a cap of $1.325 million per violation. The FCC has no hard definition of "violation." In practice, that means a single "violation" could cover one customer or 1 million.
In the case of the NSA's international call-tracking program, Bush signed an executive order allowing the NSA to engage in eavesdropping without a warrant. The president and his representatives have since argued that an executive order was sufficient for the agency to proceed. Some civil liberties groups, including the
American Civil Liberties Union, disagree.
Companies approached
The NSA's domestic program began soon after the Sept. 11 attacks, according to the sources. Right around that time, they said, NSA representatives approached the nation's biggest telecommunications companies. The agency made an urgent pitch: National security is at risk, and we need your help to protect the country from attacks.
The agency told the companies that it wanted them to turn over their "call-detail records," a complete listing of the calling histories of their millions of customers. In addition, the NSA wanted the carriers to provide updates, which would enable the agency to keep tabs on the nation's calling habits.
The sources said the NSA made clear that it was willing to pay for the cooperation. AT&T, which at the time was headed by C. Michael Armstrong, agreed to help the NSA. So did BellSouth, headed by F. Duane Ackerman; SBC, headed by Ed Whitacre; and Verizon, headed by Ivan Seidenberg.
With that, the NSA's domestic program began in earnest.
AT&T, when asked about the program, replied with a comment prepared for USA TODAY: "We do not comment on matters of national security, except to say that we only assist law enforcement and government agencies charged with protecting national security in strict accordance with the law."
In another prepared comment, BellSouth said: "BellSouth does not provide any confidential customer information to the NSA or any governmental agency without proper legal authority."
Verizon, the USA's No. 2 telecommunications company behind AT&T, gave this statement: "We do not comment on national security matters, we act in full compliance with the law and we are committed to safeguarding our customers' privacy."
Qwest spokesman Robert Charlton said: "We can't talk about this. It's a classified situation."
In December, The New York Times revealed that Bush had authorized the NSA to wiretap, without warrants, international phone calls and e-mails that travel to or from the USA. The following month, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group, filed a class-action lawsuit against AT&T. The lawsuit accuses the company of helping the NSA spy on U.S. phone customers.
Last month, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales alluded to that possibility. Appearing at a
House Judiciary Committee hearing, Gonzales was asked whether he thought the White House has the legal authority to monitor domestic traffic without a warrant. Gonzales' reply: "I wouldn't rule it out." His comment marked the first time a Bush appointee publicly asserted that the White House might have that authority.
Similarities in programs
The domestic and international call-tracking programs have things in common, according to the sources. Both are being conducted without warrants and without the approval of the FISA court. The Bush administration has argued that FISA's procedures are too slow in some cases. Officials, including Gonzales, also make the case that the USA Patriot Act gives them broad authority to protect the safety of the nation's citizens.
The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Pat Roberts (news, bio, voting record), R-Kan., would not confirm the existence of the program. In a statement, he said, "I can say generally, however, that our subcommittee has been fully briefed on all aspects of the Terrorist Surveillance Program. ... I remain convinced that the program authorized by the president is lawful and absolutely necessary to protect this nation from future attacks."
The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., declined to comment.
One company differs
One major telecommunications company declined to participate in the program: Qwest.
According to sources familiar with the events, Qwest's CEO at the time, Joe Nacchio, was deeply troubled by the NSA's assertion that Qwest didn't need a court order - or approval under FISA - to proceed. Adding to the tension, Qwest was unclear about who, exactly, would have access to its customers' information and how that information might be used.
Financial implications were also a concern, the sources said. Carriers that illegally divulge calling information can be subjected to heavy fines. The NSA was asking Qwest to turn over millions of records. The fines, in the aggregate, could have been substantial.
The NSA told Qwest that other government agencies, including the FBI, CIA and DEA, also might have access to the database, the sources said. As a matter of practice, the NSA regularly shares its information - known as "product" in intelligence circles - with other intelligence groups. Even so, Qwest's lawyers were troubled by the expansiveness of the NSA request, the sources said.
The NSA, which needed Qwest's participation to completely cover the country, pushed back hard.
Trying to put pressure on Qwest, NSA representatives pointedly told Qwest that it was the lone holdout among the big telecommunications companies. It also tried appealing to Qwest's patriotic side: In one meeting, an NSA representative suggested that Qwest's refusal to contribute to the database could compromise national security, one person recalled.
In addition, the agency suggested that Qwest's foot-dragging might affect its ability to get future classified work with the government. Like other big telecommunications companies, Qwest already had classified contracts and hoped to get more.
Unable to get comfortable with what NSA was proposing, Qwest's lawyers asked NSA to take its proposal to the FISA court. According to the sources, the agency refused.
The NSA's explanation did little to satisfy Qwest's lawyers. "They told (Qwest) they didn't want to do that because FISA might not agree with them," one person recalled. For similar reasons, this person said, NSA rejected Qwest's suggestion of getting a letter of authorization from the U.S. attorney general's office. A second person confirmed this version of events.
In June 2002, Nacchio resigned amid allegations that he had misled investors about Qwest's financial health. But Qwest's legal questions about the NSA request remained.
Unable to reach agreement, Nacchio's successor, Richard Notebaert, finally pulled the plug on the NSA talks in late 2004, the sources said.Wednesday, May 10, 2006
WE CAN SUBSIDIZE THE RICH BUT WE CAN'T AFFORD HEAD START OR WORKFARE PROGRAMS
House GOP Confident on $70B Tax Cut Vote
WASHINGTON, Associated Press - Congressional Republican leaders on Wednesday anticipated victory in their drawn-out efforts to preserve President Bush's tax cuts worth $70 billion to investors and to keep 15 million taxpayers from being hit by the alternative minimum tax.
House GOP leaders slated a late Wednesday afternoon vote on the bill, which would let Bush achieve one of his top tax priorities and give his GOP allies on Capitol Hill a victory in times of sagging poll numbers. The Senate was expected to clear the bill Thursday.
The bill devotes $21 billion to a two-year extension of the reduced 15 percent tax rate for capital gains and dividends, currently set to expire at the end of 2008.
And it would keep 15 million families from being hit this year with the alternative minimum tax, which was designed to make sure the wealthy paid taxes but is ensnaring more upper middle-income families because it was not indexed for inflation. The cost of this one year AMT "patch" is $34 billion.
"What we do today protects jobs, protects the incomes of our people, strengthens America's economy and protects our future," Rep. Nancy Johnson (news, bio, voting record), R-Conn, said Wednesday.
Critics, including many Democrats, have attacked the tax rate reductions on dividends and capital gains as being largely tilted to the wealthy. They say provisions should not be extended at a time of large budget deficits and massive spending for the war in Iraq.
Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., said during House debate that Republicans keep "passing bills that raise our deficits and increase our staggering debt, while they give away big tax breaks for the wealthiest corporations in the world and provide more obscene tax relief for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans.
"And the rest of America gets left behind at the restaurant, holding the check."
Democrats also cited a joint study by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution that shows taxpayers with incomes greater than $1 million per year winning tax cuts of $42,000 under the bill while families with incomes of $50,000 a year getting a $46 tax cut.
The agreement capped weeks of talks among GOP lawmakers over how to go ahead on their party's tax agenda. They had to decide how best to deal with a rule that lets them advance up to $70 billion in cuts in a way that would prevent any filibuster from Senate Democrats.
Republicans devised a strategy to advance the investor tax breaks and alternative minimum tax relief in a first, filibuster-proof bill, then use a second bill for other tax breaks.
The second bill, expected to cost perhaps $30 billion, is to contain a number of widely backed tax breaks, among them a tuition tax deduction, a tax break for teachers who buy their own school supplies and a research and development tax credit for businesses.
But top Senate Finance Committee Democrat Max Baucus of Montana said Wednesday that the benefits of "capital gains and dividend reductions are outweighed by the cost of the deficits" they create. Many economists believe budget deficits put upward pressure on interest rates.
Treasury Secretary John Snow asserted that the tax breaks that would be extended have ushered in a period of rising business investment and strong economic growth. "When you get investment occurring and strong
GDP growth, you get jobs," he said.
Under the bill, wealthier people would be allowed to transfer retirement savings into Roth IRAs. This would provide a shorter-term revenue boost, and so helped lawmakers fit more measures into the bill. That's because money moved from traditional IRAs into Roth accounts is taxed immediately, instead of later, when taxpayers withdraw their invested money.
Opponents say the Roth plan would help the Treasury now but shortchange the government in the future years because money saved in a Roth IRA grows tax free.
The bill also would extend for two years provisions sought by small businesses to let them write off up to $100,000 in investments in equipment.
___
On the Net:
Information H.R. 4297 S. 2020: http://thomas.loc.gov/Monday, May 08, 2006
QUEERS ARE BORN NOT MADE
Study: Lesbians' Brains React Differently
WASHINGTON, Associated Press - Lesbians' brains react differently to sex hormones than those of heterosexual women, new research indicates. That's in line with an earlier study that had indicated gay men's brain responses were different from straight men though the difference for men was more pronounced than has now been found in women.
Lesbians' brains reacted somewhat, though not completely, like those of heterosexual men, a team of Swedish researchers said in Tuesday's edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
A year ago, the same group reported findings for gay men that showed their brain response to hormones was similar to that of heterosexual women.
In both cases the findings add weight to the idea that homosexuality has a physical basis and is not learned behavior.
"It shows sexual orientation may very well have a different basis between men and women ... this is not just a mirror image situation," said Sandra Witelson, an expert on brain anatomy and sexual orientation at the Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario.
"The important thing is to be open to the likely situation that there are biological factors that contribute to sexual orientation," added Witelson, who was not part of the research team.
The research team led by Ivanka Savic at the Stockholm Brain Institute had volunteers sniff chemicals derived from male and female sex hormones. These chemicals are thought to be pheromones molecules known to trigger responses such as defense and sex in many animals.
Whether humans respond to pheromones has been debated, although in 2000 American researchers reported finding a gene that they believe directs a human pheromone receptor in the nose.
The same team reported last year on a comparison of the response of male homosexuals to heterosexual men and women. They found that the brains of gay men reacted more like those of women than of straight men.
The new study shows a similar, but weaker, relationship between the response of lesbians and straight men.
Heterosexual women found the male and female pheromones about equally pleasant, while straight men and lesbians liked the female pheromone more than the male one. Men and lesbians also found the male hormone more irritating than the female one, while straight women were more likely to be irritated by the female hormone than the male one.
All three groups rated the male hormone more familiar than the female one. Straight women found both hormones about equal in intensity, while lesbians and straight men found the male hormone more intense than the female one.
The brains of all three groups were scanned when sniffing male and female hormones and a set of four ordinary odors. Ordinary odors were processed in the brain circuits associated with smell in all the volunteers.
In heterosexual males the male hormone was processed in the scent area but the female hormone was processed in the hypothalamus, which is related to sexual stimulation. In straight women the sexual area of the brain responded to the male hormone while the female hormone was perceived by the scent area.
In lesbians, both male and female hormones were processed the same, in the basic odor processing circuits, Savic and her team reported.
Each of the three groups of subjects included 12 healthy, unmedicated, right-handed and HIV-negative individuals.
The research was funded by the Swedish Medical Research Council, Karolinska Institute and the Wallenberg Foundation.
___
On the Net:
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: http://www.pnas.orgMonday, May 08, 2006
WHAT HE SAID
A disintegrating CIA
By DAN K. THOMASSON
Scripps Howard News Service
08-MAY-06
Not since the days when governments of gentlemen thought it inappropriate to read other gentlemen's mail have America's intelligence capabilities been more in doubt. Talk about giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
In his 18 months as CIA director, former-CIA-official-turned-congressman-turned-CIA-official Porter Goss managed to drive out some of the agency's most valuable veterans, lose ground to the Pentagon's intelligence apparatus, and generally leave the once-proud "company" in disarray. In addition, he appears to have gotten caught up in a series of marginally important issues such as minor leaks to the press.
But it isn't all Goss' fault. In fact, a large share of the blame rests with Congress for panic legislation, from establishment of the ill-conceived Department of Homeland Security to the creation of an intelligence overlord whose authority is not well-defined.
Most of all, however, the lack of meaningful and demanding congressional oversight of the $40 billion intelligence system, including a failure to curtail the increasing encroachment of the military into areas traditionally the responsibility of civilian agencies, is a major cause of the dilemma that threatens the No. 1 safeguard against terrorism _ advance information. The chipping away of CIA authority by an aggressive Pentagon has left the CIA demoralized and often impotent in its efforts to refocus from the old Cold War enemies to those in the Middle East, where much of the threat to America now rests.
Now a new round of debilitating political bickering _ over the nominee to replace Goss, Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden _ is assured by a number of hot issues. These include the administration's program of warrantless wiretaps and the CIA's network of secret prisons overseas, all against the backdrop of the upcoming elections. None of this, of course, will benefit the nation's ability to overcome its intelligence-gathering deficiencies.
There was hope that a newly created post _ that of director of national intelligence _ would bring together all the disparate parts of the apparatus. But the first person to hold that job, former Ambassador John Negroponte, seems not to have made much headway. A recent assessment of his performance has been well below that anticipated when he was named. Actually, the Pentagon appears to have gone its own way without much other than a polite nod to the director and his mission as it set up its own teams that both duplicate and supersede the CIA's responsibilities in a number of areas. The military justifies its activities by arguing that the modern battlefield now demands that commanders receive more timely information than the civilian agency provides.
Meanwhile, on the domestic front, the FBI still is struggling to change its own focus from bank robberies and garden-variety crime to counterintelligence. The need for coordination and sharing of information so well-defined by one investigative panel after another in the post-9/11 era clearly has not been met to any great degree, leaving observers to wonder if it ever will under the current structure of the bureau and the CIA.
In the midst of all this is the National Security Agency. Its title is normally preceded by "super secret," but of late the unit has had as much public exposure as the FBI, CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency largely because of its controversial eavesdropping on overseas calls to and from the United States without benefit of judicial oversight despite a law to the contrary. All this publicity has turned the NSA into the new American boogeyman, an Orwellian monster.
What a mess.
Clearly, unless something is done to rejuvenate it, the CIA never will be the intelligence powerhouse it once was. The mere act of downgrading its director's authority and his access to the Oval Office _ the daily briefing is now given by the DNI _ has diminished its stature tremendously, perhaps not in the public's eye, but certainly in official circles here and abroad. More importantly, its covert-operations section is a shambles.
So perhaps it is time to create an entirely new overall intelligence agency under one authority from parts of the CIA and the FBI _ a British MI5 approach, if you will. It has long been debated and will continue to be that this is the only way of overcoming the current institutional failings of both agencies. It also may be necessary for Congress to start exerting pressure on the White House to rein in the Pentagon. This is not a military government.
Meanwhile, America's enemies must be taking some pleasure in watching the disintegration of our leading defense against world terrorism _ accurate and timely intelligence. It scares the hell out of most of us.
(Dan K. Thomasson is former editor of the Scripps Howard News Service.)
Sunday, May 07, 2006
DEMOCRATS ARE A BUNCH OF ASS-KISSING WIMPS
Democrats pledge probes of Bush, not impeachment
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats will launch a series of investigations of the Bush administration if they take control of Congress in November but are not out to impeach President George W. Bush, a top Democrat said on Sunday.
House of Representatives Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said Democrats would hold hearings on the use of intelligence in the lead-up to the Iraq war and investigate the high price of energy and prescription drugs if they win the extra 15 seats they need for a House majority in the mid-term elections.
But Pelosi denied Republican claims that her party would move quickly to impeach Bush.
"I said we'd be having hearings on the war, we'd have hearings. But I don't see us going to a place of impeachment," Pelosi said in an interview on NBC's Meet the Press. "Investigation does not equate to impeachment. Investigation is the requirement of Congress. It is about checks and balances." In Congress, the majority party controls the chairmanship and agenda of all committees, where most laws are drafted and investigative and subpoena power is held.
With Bush's public approval rating at an all-time low and Republicans fearing they could lose control of both houses of Congress in November, Democrats are laying out plans for an aggressive start to the new Congress.
Michigan Rep. John Conyers (news, bio, voting record), the senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, has called for the creation of committee to recommend grounds for possible impeachment of Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney.
But Pelosi said such a decision rests with her and the Democratic caucus.
"John Conyers is an enthusiastic advocate. I am the leader. Our caucus will decide where we go," she said.
While she declined to rule out impeachment, Pelosi focused on investigations of the White House's energy task force and the prescription drug bill.
"You never know where the facts take you ... but that is not what we are about," Pelosi said. "We will have subpoena power and that's why the Republicans are so afraid that we will be able to show the public how they arrived at a prescription drug bill that is born of corruption," Pelosi said.
"The cost of corruption is huge to the consumer, whether it is low income seniors paying more at the pharmacy, whether it is all American consumers paying more at the pump or home heating oil. How did we get to this place? That is worthy of scrutiny."Friday, May 05, 2006
CAN WE *PLEASE* JUST VOTE ALL THESE FUCKERS OUT OF POWER?
Conservatives Drive Bush's Approval Down
WASHINGTON, Associated Press - Angry conservatives are driving the approval ratings of President Bush and the GOP-led Congress to dismal new lows, according to an AP-Ipsos poll that underscores why Republicans fear an Election Day massacre.
Six months out, the intensity of opposition to Bush and Congress has risen sharply, along with the percentage of Americans who believe the nation is on the wrong track.
The AP-Ipsos poll also suggests that Democratic voters are far more motivated than Republicans. Elections in the middle of a president's term traditionally favor the party whose core supporters are the most energized.
This week's survey of 1,000 adults, including 865 registered voters, found:
Just 33 percent of the public approves of Bush's job performance, the lowest of his presidency. That compares with 36 percent approval in early April. Forty-five percent of self-described conservatives now disapprove of the president.
Just one-fourth of the public approves of the job Congress is doing, a new low in AP-Ipsos polling and down 5 percentage points since last month. A whopping 65 percent of conservatives disapprove of Congress.
A majority of Americans say they want Democrats rather than Republicans to control Congress (51 percent to 34 percent). That's the largest gap recorded by AP-Ipsos since Bush took office. Even 31 percent of conservatives want Republicans out of power.
The souring of the nation's mood has accelerated the past three months, with the percentage of people describing the nation on the wrong track rising 12 points to a new high of 73 percent. Six of 10 conservatives say America is headed in the wrong direction.
Republican strategists said the party stands to lose control of Congress unless the environment changes unexpectedly.
"It's going to take some events of significance to turn this around," GOP pollster Whit Ayres said. "I don't think at this point you can talk your way back from those sorts of ratings."
He said the party needs concrete progress in Iraq and action in Congress on immigration, lobbying reform and tax cuts.
"Those things would give the country a sense that Washington has heard the people and is responding in a way that will give conservatives a sense that their concerns are being addressed," Ayres said.
Conservative voters blame the White House and Congress for runaway government spending, illegal immigration and lack of action on social issues such as a constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage. Those concerns come on top of public worries about Iraq, the economy and gasoline prices.
"I think he's the dumbest president we've ever had," said Mark Rauzi, a conservative voter from Gillespie, Ill. "I disapprove of a lot of the stuff he's doing. This war was a big boo boo and he won't admit he did wrong."
Hardline conservatives are not likely to vote Democratic in the fall, but it would be just as devastating to the Republicans if conservatives lose their enthusiasm and stay home on Election Day.
AP-Ipsos polling suggests that Democrats may be winning the motivation game. Fewer voters today than in 2004 call themselves Republicans or Republican-leaning. In addition, 27 percent of registered voters were strong Republicans just before the 2004 election, while only 15 percent fit that description today.
Democratic numbers are the same or better since 2004.
"This tells us we've got our work cut out for us," said Sen. Sam Brownback (news, bio, voting record), a conservative Republican from Kansas who may run for president in 2008. "The key for us is to show restraint on spending and on dealing with immigration."
Bush's strong suit continues to be his handling of foreign policy and terrorism, an area in which he modestly improved his ratings since April. Still, a majority of Americans disapprove of his performance on both fronts.
It gets worse. Only 23 percent of the public approve of the way the president is handling gasoline prices, the lowest in AP-Ipsos polling. Those who strongly disapprove outnumber those who strongly approve by an extraordinary 55 percent to 8 percent.
As for his overall job performance, history suggests that Bush's paltry 33 percent spells trouble for Republicans in the fall.
In the past six decades, only one president had a lower job approval rating six months before a midterm election
Richard Nixon in May 1974, the year in which Watergate-scarred Republicans lost 48 seats in the House and four in the Senate.
By November, Nixon was out of a job too, having resigned the presidency in August.
Nearly half of the public strongly disapproves of Bush, a huge jump from his 5 percent strong disapproval rating in 2002. The poll has a margin of error of 3 percentage points.
Of all Republicans, nearly 30 percent disapprove of the job Bush is doing, including 13 percent who feel strongly about it.
"Hopefully this is a wakeup call for my party to get out of its bunker and hunker mentality," said Republican strategist Greg Mueller, whose firm specializes in conservative politics.
He urged his party to start criticizing Democratic positions on the Iraq war, immigration and the economy.
"We've been like a punching bag," Mueller said.
Democrats need to gain 15 seats in the House and six in the Senate for control of Congress, no easy task in an era that favors incumbents.
"What we have to do is earn the public approval of our right to govern again," said Democratic Party chairman
Howard Dean.
The Democratic strategy is to nationalize the elections around a throw-the-bums-out theme.
Republicans counter that they will do better than polls suggest when voters are forced on Election Day to choose between candidates in their particular House and Senate races.
"But," Ayres said, "we better get in gear."
___
On the Net:
Ipsos http://www.ap-ipsosresults.comWednesday, May 03, 2006
BUSH TO AMERICA: IF YOU GET BIRDFLU, YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN
Chaos Feared in Pandemic Flu Plan
WASHINGTON, Associated Press - President Bush's plan for dealing with a flu pandemic warns that the federal government won't be able to bail out communities reeling from illness and economic upheaval, and calls on businesses and individuals to take steps now to keep vital services running.
The updated plan, released Wednesday, stresses basic human needs such as medical care and food, but doesn't address some major hurdles how to meet those needs if massive absenteeism stops transportation by closing oil refineries, or crashes the Internet so workers can't telecommute.
"Our efforts require the participation of, and coordination by, all levels of government and segments of society," Bush said in a letter to Americans unveiling his updated national pandemic response strategy.
"No less important will be the actions of individual citizens, whose participation is necessary to the success of these efforts."
Influenza pandemics strike every few decades when a never-before-seen strain arises. It's impossible to predict when the next will occur, or its toll. But last fall, amid concern that the Asian bird flu might lead to one if it starts spreading easily from person to person, Bush proposed a $7.1 billion, multi-year strategy to prepare for the next pandemic.
At the plan's core: stockpiling enough bird-flu vaccine for 20 million people, plus anti-flu medications and other key medical supplies, to provide some protection while manufacturers race to brew a pandemic-specific inoculation.
Wednesday's report updates Bush's initial plan, outlining exactly which government agency is responsible for some 300 additional tasks. It also provides details, beyond health care, of changes Americans could expect in how they travel, work and conduct day-to-day activities during a severe pandemic.
The report's big message: "Local communities will have to address the medical and nonmedical impacts of the pandemic with available resources." That's because the federal government won't be able to offer the kind of aid expected after hurricanes or other one-time, one-location natural disasters, it says.
U.S. borders won't be sealed after outbreaks abroad, the report says. That would fail to keep out a pandemic people can spread flu a full day before they show symptoms. Instead, the goal will be to slow influenza's march, starting by screening international travelers for signs of infection and quarantining possibly ill passengers.
As U.S. infections mount, people will be asked to stay away from crowds, and cancel nonessential travel. Patients' families would be temporarily isolated. Schools in affected communities would close.
Employers would be urged to let people telecommute, regularly clean buildings flu viruses can live on hard surfaces for 48 hours and advise workers to avoid shaking hands and stand 3 feet apart, out of sneeze range.
"I want to be careful not to panic people," cautioned Frances Townsend, Bush's White House homeland security adviser. "First of all, a human pandemic has not begun, and we cannot say whether or not a pandemic will begin."
But by assuming a worst-case scenario up to 2 million U.S. deaths, and up to 40 percent of the work force off the job for several weeks the government hopes to have enough contingency plans to limit social and economic chaos if a severe pandemic strikes, and to energize private sector preparations.
A recent Associated Press-Ipsos poll found only one in 10 Americans was doing anything to plan for an outbreak.
The report takes important steps in improving the nation's readiness, said Michael Osterholm, a University of Minnesota infectious disease specialist who has advised the federal government on flu preparations.
But, he said, the private sector provides 85 percent of essential services, such as food and medicines and it will take federal intervention to avoid "an incredible domino effect" of failed services if one of those cogs breaks down.
Osterholm cited closed-door discussions where oil refinery executives have said they physically can't operate if 30 percent of their workers are out. Communities' plans for shipping food would disintegrate if there's no fuel.
Up to 80 percent of medicines not just for flu, but for other diseases use at least some ingredients manufactured offshore, he added, putting production and delivery into question.
He said the report made clear that the private sector needs to plan, "but we need federal coordination around that."
___
On the Net:
White House plan: http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/pandemic-influenza-implementation.htmlWednesday, May 03, 2006
DON'T TAKE MOM FOR GRANTED
Study: US mothers deserve $134,121 in salary
NEW YORK (Reuters) - A full-time stay-at-home mother would earn $134,121 a year if paid for all her work, an amount similar to a top U.S. ad executive, a marketing director or a judge, according to a study released Wednesday.
A mother who works outside the home would earn an extra $85,876 annually on top of her actual wages for the work she does at home, according to the study by Waltham, Massachusetts-based compensation experts Salary.com.
To reach the projected pay figures, the survey calculated the earning power of the 10 jobs respondents said most closely comprise a mother's role -- housekeeper, day-care teacher, cook, computer operator, laundry machine operator, janitor, facilities manager, van driver, chief executive and psychologist.
"You can't put a dollar value on it. It's worth a lot more," said Kristen Krauss, 35, as she hurriedly packed her four children, all aged under 8, into a minivan in New York while searching frantically for her keys. "Just look at me."
Employed mothers reported spending on average 44 hours a week at their outside job and 49.8 hours at their home job, while the stay-at-home mother worked 91.6 hours a week, it showed.
An estimated 5.6 million women in the United States are stay-at-home mothers with children under age 15, according to the most recent U.S. Census Bureau data.
NOT 'JUST A MOM'
"It's good to acknowledge the job that's being done, and that it's not that these women are settling for 'just a mom,"' said Bill Coleman, senior vice president of compensation at Salary.com. "They are actually doing an awful lot."
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, some 26 million women with children under age 18 work in the nation's paid labor force.
Both employed and stay-at-home mothers said the lowest-paying job of housekeeper was their most common role, with employed mothers working 7.2 hours a week as housekeeper and stay-at-home mothers working 22.1 hours in that role.
"Every husband I've ever spoken to said, 'I'm keeping my job. You keep yours.' It's a tough one," said Gillian Forrest, 39, a stay-at-home mother of 22-month-old Alex in New York. "I don't know if you could put a dollar amount on it but it would be nice to get something."
To compile its study, Salary.com surveyed about 400 mothers online over the last two months.
Salary.com offers a Web site (http://www.mom.salary.com) where mothers can calculate what they could be paid, based on how many children they have, where they live and other factors. The site will produce a printable document that looks like a paycheck, Coleman said.
"It's obviously not negotiable," he said.
On average, the mother who works outside the house earns a base pay of $62,798 for a 40-hour at-home work week and $23,078 in overtime; a stay-at-home mother earned a base pay of $45,697 and $88,424 in overtime, it said.
In a Salary.com study conducted last year, stay-at-home mothers earned $131,471. The potential earnings of mothers who work outside the home was not calculated in the previous study.