Its been a million years

Well, I'm a bit behind on my blogging, but I'm beginning to predict the future. For giggles, I recommend playing the "future" market -- by trading predictions on the "future" exchange ... at http://www.cenimar.com/.

For instance .... here are some of the "future' predictions you can trade:

Options President Bush - attack on Iran 7 Nov
Options Democratic Majority in the US House of Representatives 7 Nov
Options Democratic Seats in the US Senate 7 Nov

I hate any senator who does not support Russ Feingold

First, I'd like to welcome the senator to the "Eugene McCarthy, speaking the blatant, plain truth, and being called radical by the Washington entrenchment" club. Senator Feingold, you have my support. But I know, that isn't enough, you need the support of your peers. The peers who are just too weak to stand up to lies and corruption.

Asked at a news conference whether he would vote for the censure resolution, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., declined to endorse it and said he hadn't read it.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said he had not read it either and wasn't inclined simply to scold the president.

"I'd prefer to see us solve the problem," Lieberman told reporters.

Across the Capitol, reaction was similar. Feingold's censure resolution drew empathy but no outright support from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

Pelosi "understands Senator Feingold's frustration that the facts about the NSA domestic surveillance program have not been disclosed appropriately to Congress," her office said in a statement. "Both the House and the Senate must fully investigate the program and assign responsibility for any laws that may have been broken."

Bollocks. They can't investigate because the republicans on the committee to decide whether or not to investigate voted against it. Anyone who does not support this action simply hates the checks and balances built into the constitution. Its much easier to sit back and be complaisant. I'll do whatever the emperor wants.



This reminds me quite a bit of when we carried 50,000 signatures to Barbara Boxer's office asking her to censure the president for lying about pre-war intelligence. The senator responded it was a delicate subject in an election year. That's a great response to a public call for action. "Senator what are you going to do about 50,000 of your constituents who are upset that the President lied to start a war?" "Uh, I think I'll help him get re-elected -- Democrats can't be trusted to make decisions about intelligence"


Yes, delicate, as in, HE LIED, LETS HIDE FROM HIS WRATH! What if CALIFORNIA HAS WMD TOO??


I hope, genuinely hope, that these democrats who are falling down all over themselves to lay down and get out of the way find out that the voters do not like the DINO (democrat in name only) politicians, and want to see serious action. Tom Daschle learned that. I think Boxer and Feinstein may learn that in the next cycles. I certainly hope neo-con-con-democrat Lieberman learns as well.

Feingold's resolution accuses Bush of violating the Constitution and the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

The coolest thing I've seen today

I found this over at http://etherealgirl.blogspot.com/ (which I mention as she has a link to my page! Thanks EtherealGirl!)



Uh, I'll take two.
Support our troops. In a big-ass welcome-home party. Without guns. Or Improvised Explosive Devices.

The US Constitution, Revisited

I'm feeling the need to repost this posting because not enough people saw it and it seems to be relevant, again.

One blogger has had enough. Bill Clinton lied about his sex life while under oath, an offense, while punishible, did not abdicate his duities as president specifically outlined by the constitution.

While there is much discussion regarding whether or not Bush's policies violate our civil rights, violate the liberties ascribed to american life, or the entirety of the 4th amendment (and the 9th, but who's counting), there is little discussion of President Bush's failure to uphold his constitutionally mandated responsibilities

US CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE III, Section 3.
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Regardless whether you are a liberal or a "strict constuctionist" there can be little interpretation of that last line. The president is mandated to see the laws of the United States faithfully executed. There is no exclusion for laws you find inconvienant in times of national crisis. In fact, our forefathers had quite a bit of experience with the necessity for such laws, yet the president upheld his duity.

When you find a law that is inconvienant, one you are supposed to execute, what recourse do you have? Funny you should ask, Article III mentions just such a situation:

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Those guys thought of everything. So, if you are president, you are sworn to uphold the laws of the United States, and in the event you don't like the law, you can take it to the Supreme Court. Wait, there is something else in there as well ...

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority

Wait, what is that about treaties? You mean that the president cannot rule independantly that a treaty (such as the Geneva Conventions) no longer applies to the United States?

Article VI, Paragraph 2:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

So treaties are treated by the constitution as federal laws. And we already know the president is required to execute federal laws. So the president is required to uphold treaties as well as federal laws. If the president doesn't aggree with the treaty, much the same as a law, he needs to either take his case to the Senate where they can make decisions regarding treaties, or take it to the Supreme Court.

But what about times of national crisis and national security issues, and protecting the US Citizens. Nothing in the constitution gives the president any authority to make special exceptions to his constitutionally designated responsibilities. Nothing gives him the right to selectively violate United States law.

But what if you don't like the Supreme Court and the laws of Congress? Well, it seems that you aren't really a team player, but more of a monarch, which the constitution was designed to prevent. It even put in a clause for just such a person:

Article II, Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

There you have it. When the President, regardles of why he chooses to violate the laws of the United States, or fails to uphold our enforce treaties (i.e. Geneva) can loose his job just like anyone else who fails to perform their duties. But, the problem is, who is willing to bring a case against him. Why was the congress so motivated to impeach Clinton over a blowjob, but unwilling to do so to Bush who has clearly abdicated his constitutionally mandated duties to uphold the laws of the United States?

Oh, right, partisan politics. Or is it that they are scared of him. He has become too powerful for his opponents, whether they be congress or judicial, they are frightened. Interestingly enough, while it is clear the constitution would allow, nay, require the impeachment of this administration, there is one glitch. The constitution also mentions something else:

Article I, Section 2:
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Partisanship would overrule should the House ever get over their fear and be able to live up to their constitutionally mandated authority to impeach the president and vice-president. Viva la republicanos.


It is never too late to begin the impeachment and removal from office of the president and vice president.

Fascism, defined

In a recent rant against the National Review, J. Brad mentions the following (in re: Francisco Franco)

As to fascism: the German philospher Ernst Nolte's classic Fascism in Its Epoch set out six key characteristics of fascism:

• Strong belief that--through social darwinism--morality is ultimately tied to blood and race, understood as descent and genetic relationship.
  
• Strong rejection of the classical "liberal" belief that individuals have rights that any legitimate state is bound to respect
  
• In its place, an assertion that individuals have duties to the state, seen as the decision-making organ of the collectivity.
  
• A rejection of parliamentary democracy and other bottom-up institutions to assess the general will.
  
• The assertion that the general will is formed by the decrees of the leader.
  
• A strong fear of twentieth-century Communism, and an eagerness to adapt and use its weapons--suspension of parliaments, mass propaganda, rallies, street violence, and so forth--to fight it.

Ok I'll shoot.
1) Yes (Cronyism, think Michael Brown, Michael Powell)
2) Yes (NSA, Gtmo, torture, enemy combatants, rendition)
3) Yes (evidence is harder to conjur up, but faith-based initiatives?)
4) Yes (Distain and rallying against congress, CBO, GAO, etc)
5) YES (What the leader wants, end abortions, faith-based, increase immigration (yes, I'm actually *for* that one, but it should piss off the religious right)
6) Uhoh. Does it *have* to be communism that they are afraid of, and not terrorism? Because we used to equate anarchists, terrorists, and communists as fellow travellers.

Will he never learn? No, you say, I think you are right

The rumor going around in Judiciary Committee circles late last week was that Senator Kerry’s decision to filibuster was staff-driven. Speculation focused in one staff member in particular: Mirah Horowitz, one of Kerry’s chief legal advisors. Horowitz is a liberal lawyer and blonde braniac who previously clerked for Justice Stephen Breyer, before joining a decidedly less successful enterprise — the Kerry presidential campaign.

Um. Um. Ok, let's do this.

What was one of the great smears of the last campaign? What do we all remember about John Kerry? FLIP FLOP. He was for the war and then he's against it. blah blah.

Where did that impression come from? Well according to the behind-the-scenes Newsweek article (sorry, no link, I'm lazy today) from the week after Nov 2, 2004, the problem was created because Kerry listened to the advice of his staffers and campaign people, many of whom had conflicting opinions. And now this.

1) John Kerry is an idiot. Yes, I'm bitter that after I worked months on his campaign (really, against my will, I wanted Dean) he didn't even wait for the last poll to close in Ohio (voting irregularity) before conceding defeat. But that's not the point here. The point is he's an idiot.

2) Yes, political suicide is good, and we needed someone to say "Filibuster" but it would have been better had it come from someone with credibility. Kerry has zero.

3) There is no way, unfortunately, to block Alito at this point. The best thing to do is hope he and Scalia take to eating a high-fat, high-carbohydrate, high-salt diet and the next president (i.e. NOT John Kerry) will appoint Michael Moore and Al Franken to the court to replace them. I beleive both have significantly higher chance of attaining judicial independence then the Cheneyites.

Exxon Sees Record Profits for US Firm

IRVING, Texas (AP) -- Exxon Mobil Corp. on Monday posted a record profit for a U.S. company of $10.71 billion in the fourth quarter, as the world's biggest publicly-traded oil company benefited from high oil and gas prices and demand for refined products.

Hmm. So wait, why are gas prices high again if its just driving profits? Let's do some math ... 10.71 billion ... nicely divides into the 107 million households in the US ... I guess that's only $10 per household per quarter per oil firm.

REVISION. SOMEONE Pointed out that I can't add very well. That is $100 per household per quarter per firm. This negates the rest of my blog article where I pander to the interests of the oil companies.

Negated blog follows
Assume all 4 major oil companies are roughly equally profitable. So that's $40 per household per quarter. Assuming we burn about 125 billion gallons per year, thats 1168 gallons per household per year, 292 per quarter. That creates .14 per gallon of "profit tax," or a pure profit margin of 6.1% profit.

Ok, so when I started writing this article, I was angry at the unnecessary price gouging. Now, I kinda figure they really *are not* making extra-normal profits. We are just consuming extra-normal supplies of gasoline. I mean, I'd like to see their profit decrease to 4%, but that's not realistic given current circumstances. They *do* need to reinvest in future technologies.

Try again. $400 per household per quarter, or $1600 per year is paid per household to pure profit of the oil companies. Now, carrying on.

Holy profiteering batman! That is $1.37 of PURE PROFIT per gallon. Wait, that can't be right. It just can't be, thats a 60% profit margin.

Can someone tell me if I made a mistake here that I'm just not getting? Because this is really bad. My units are consistent, always using households. It seems right, but. Um. I'll be back. I'm going into the oil business.

"Attack on Iran Still and Option"

"A free world cannot allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon; not just the US, but those of us who value freedom” Bush told CBS television in an interview.

See, the US speaks for the free world, because the cat has their tongue. And perhaps more importantly, the Free World only wants states of which the US approves to have nuclear weapons. Say for instance, Pakistan or Israel. The Free World really wants Pakistan and Israel to have nuclear weapons. What's that you say? What about North Korea? Oh, well they HAVE a nuclear weapon, so its too late for them.

Wait, point #2, lets reconcile this with last week's Pentagon report (or for those for whom theChristiann Science Monitor is too "Liberal" how about Fox News) How can the military be, at the same time, stretched too thin by the overthrow of two smallcountriess (Iraq 26 million people and Afghanistan, 29 million people) ... both of which were crippled by sanctions and outdated cold-war era US weapons (yes, we sold them both the weapons they used against us, although, in fairness Iraq had MiGs -- which they donated to Iran before the invasion) ... and be ready to invade a (possibly) nuclear state with over 68 million people with a modern military and infrastructure? Honestly, I see our asses being handed to us.

But, it would fulfill the Christian Armageddon prophecy in which nuclear holocaust ensues after the combined armies of Russia and China are defeated by the sole army of Israel after the United States and Israel launch nuclear attack on (insert convienant Islamic nation Iraq, sometimes Syria, currently Iran). In this attack, all the Jews who refuse to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior will perish along with the sinners and infidel Muslims.

You know, there are those who are working to replant the Cedars of Lebanon to regrow the necessary wood to rebuild the Temple of God in Jerusalem to begin Armageddon. What's this about a self-fufilling prophecy?

Anyhow, yeah, this is weird. Impeach him now. Before its too late.

Comics for a not very funny world

I'd like to give a shout out to Daryl Cagle and the folks at Slate for making me laugh.

Best Quote of the Day

Bush urges Abbas to remain in office despite Hamas victory

I don't even know where to begin with this one. How about, "This is a preview of November, 2008"

Hey, man, sucks that you lost, but you should really hold on to the presidency, cuz we like you. (Just not enough to help you get votes by providing things like food and economic development capital)

No, wait, its this one. "We support a democracy in the Middle East. As long as they do what America wants. If they don't, we support a dictatorship"

Bush is a flip-flopping liar. Impeach him now.

The Cold War Model of Washington Politics

Remember the cold war? How nice and easy it was? Very simple, a Us v. Them mentality of Good v. Evil, Right v. Wrong? Of course, it turned out to be much more complicated than it was represented, and most of the information that supported it turned out to be false ... but ... wait, was that the point?

Having a dualistic society is quite nice. You have the moral authority, the unabridged authority to do whatever is necessary to accomplish your goals.

Yes, I've been making the "War on Terror" comparison to the Cold War for a long time ... fighting a shadowy ideological enemy that may or may not actually pose a future threat to one's self. But how does this relate to the dualistic nature of the two party system?

The Democrats are just spinless whiners. (Yes, there are exceptions, Obama, Salazar, hmm, I'm sure there is another). The Republicans are thugs (Again, exceptions, McCain, Snow, Collins). But for the most part they power themselves by attacking their opponents. Few would support Republican policies, for the policy themselves, but rather they support them as the means to weaken their Democratic enemy. The same is MORE true for the Democratic "policies" because the only reason the Democratic party exists is because it gives people a voice AGAINST the Republicans. No one (and I'm not on a limb here) would actually support the "mainstream" policies of the Democratic party. What are they? Do they have a "Platform?"

So the Cold War rages on in Washington. And just like in the real cold war, its not going to stop until someone declares victory. I don't think the Dems are in any situation to do so. So, the Republicans declare victory, and then the second superpower breaks down ... and then power is shared across a wide swath of society.

Ok thats what I want, but its not likely to happen. The Republicans have a vested interest in seeing the Democrats struggle along. They will support the spineless, platformless entrenched Democrat interests (Think Barbara Boxer or Dianne Feinstein or Teddy Kennedy) just enough to keep them in power ... to supply their own power source.

I've seen a couple of rants on this topic today.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/dc-strategists-panic-_b_14427.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/trey-ellis/our-only-choices-are-surr_b_14470.html

Dear god, look at that. "They" have pushed me from the ivy and glass halls of the Cato Institute pulbications to reading Arianna's paper. Come one guys, someone, anyone grow some balls.

Developing conventional ballistic missiles, Arkin misses the point

First, huge kudos to Arkin for pointing this out in his tin-foil-hat column "Early Warning." I used to think this was the mouthpiece for the paranoid conspiracy theorists. Now that so many of our leaders are clearly involved in conspiracy, (if you question this, please read some other blog), I believe these are conspiracy realists. That being said...

Arkin discusses the conversion of Trident missiles to conventional warheads from their current nuclear status. He discusses the motivations for this, and finds them largely to be financial, pushed by the defense contractors and STRATCOM. I strongly disagree.

Tony Capaccio of Bloomberg News has another scoop that probably portends the most important strategic military development of our generation.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has given the Navy go ahead to develop a conventionally armed Trident missile. Two dozen existing nuclear-armed submarine-launched missiles will be converted to carry conventional warheads. The missiles will then be assigned "global strike" missions to allow quicker preemptive attacks.

For the first time since intercontinental ballistic missiles were "captured" in arms control treaties 40 years ago as unique and potentially destabilizing weapons, the United States will muddy the waters by modifying an existing nuclear weapon for use in day-to-day warfare.

The conversion of Trident missiles abandons the strict segregation of nuclear from conventional weapons.

Were the United States ever to use its new conventional Tridents, the firing would also flirt with accidental nuclear war. Ballistic missiles aimed at targets in North Korea, for example, might falsely signal to China or Russia that the United States was attacking them.

The arms control and strategic stability issues associated with this decision are momentous. But here is the tragic reality of opening this door: The United States just doesn't need the capability.

The fiscal year 2007-2011 Department of Defense budget plan calls for building 96 conventional warheads for 24 Navy Trident II missiles, according to a Dec. 20 memo signed by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, Bloomberg reported. Each missile would carry up to four warheads.

U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM), which is the sponsor of the global strike program, says that the conventionally armed missiles will add to the ability "for delivering prompt, precise strike globally.''

"Increased precision may allow targets currently held at risk with nuclear weapons to be targeted with conventional weapons, providing options other than nuclear weapons for prompt global strike," STRATCOM says.

In English, STRATCOM is not only looking to improve its ability to attack deeply buried enemy command centers, but also to decrease its reliance on nuclear weapons.

On the surface, the impulse to find conventional alternatives to nuclear missions is laudable. Of course, we are hostage to accepting STRATCOM's calculations as to the need for nuclear weapons in the first place. These are purely physics calculations: We need so much tonnage and overpressure to penetrate this or that underground facility. Since we are required to provide a 90 percent probability of kill against these types of facilities, STRATCOM targeters and weaponeers argue, we need to develop other capabilities to reach those levels of guarantee. This same argument has been used to justify new nuclear-armed bunker buster weapons, but STRATCOM is not just pursuing one approach; conventionally armed Trident IIs is another approach to achieving the same goal.

Of course it isn't STRATCOM's task, nor the Navy's, to wrestle with the arms control and political implications of developing a conventionally armed ballistic missile. And the lack of foresight or restraint on such technological determinism has also stood in the way of investigating other less provocative methods.

For years, STRATCOM and the Air Force have been developing concepts to "functionally" defeat hard-to-get-to targets. Say there is a deeply underground facility that is deemed impervious to conventional attack: The concept of functional defeat investigates other methods, cyber warfare, special operations, a combination of conventional attack on access points and electrical power production that would disable or isolate the facility even if the bunker itself survived.

This is the cutting edge of the military's new "effects based" operations. For a set of difficult targets in countries like Iran and North Korea, functional defeat specialists are today looking at the overall construction and support network to figure out innovative attack methods, ones that not only would obviate the need for nuclear weapons, but would also break with the old-fashioned view that a military mission isn't completed until things are destroyed in a conventional sense.

So isn't it ironic that Donald Rumsfeld, the prophet of military transformation and the booster of an effects based approach is releasing a half a billion dollars to develop a provocative weapon that falls back on the old paradigm?

The reason is that Donald Rumsfeld is a weakling. For all his huffing and puffing, he can't say no to either the military or the defense contractors.

And Congress can't motivate itself to see that there are dozens of half a billion dollar programs like conventional Trident that add boutique weapons that constitute only the slightest increment of additional capabilities but with enormous potential implications.

Ok, lets discuss the real issue. The real issue was hit in paragraph 3. Using missiles that were designed to carry nuclear payloads ... but carrying conventional payloads, means we are blurring the distinction between nuclear and conventional warfare. Yes, I remember back in 2001 when Bush, & Co. said they were planning on developing a smaller nuclear device that could be used in pre-emptive attacks. Yes, I understand the distinction between depleted uranium and a radiological weapon. But as this distinction becomes more and more blurred, what is to say we don't include one very small "micro" nuclear weapon in a barrage including thousands of conventionally armed weapons, including hundreds of Tridents. One little nuke, targeted at something, say a reactor, may not get anyone's attention. No evidence would suggest it was anything other than the "core" melting down ... and just a very effective hit.

This is possibly the most frightening issue ever. The whole basis of mutually ensured self destruction precludes the idea that nuclear weapons could be used unilaterally, which is what has created the uneasy nuclear peace since 1945. One participant using a nuclear device, at any level would send a signal that it's OK TO USE NUKES WHEN YOUR MILITARY IS OVERTAXED.

Don't miss the real point here. Our military is weak. We can't occupy country of 20 million. What do you think will happen when we invade Iran, a country of 6x that population, with a real military, and weaponry? Well, that's why we want to use nukes. Because we are afraid our military will fail, and we will have our asses handed to us on a plate, so we have to resort to nukes. Because we are weak. Because instead of spending the money we need on armor for Humvees, extra infantry, more sophisticated field devices, we are spending our budget on conventional warheads for Tritan to blur the line. Weak. If we are itching for a fight, then, we need to fight like men. What would Eisenhower do? Even with his idea for an all nuclear arsenal, it was still for deterrence, not for attacking a non-nuclear state, which is why he never deployed such weapons in Korea. What would Teddy Roosevelt do? Please, this is not a partisan Liberal v. Conservative issue. What would Reagan do? Not follow this course, that is for certain.

1) Give our troops more armor, disability pay, health benefits (after they lose a limb)
2) Quit picking fights we can't win
3) Impeach George Bush. The military industrial complex reigns supreme.


.

Class war?

I'm beginning to believe in the class war being waged by the Bush administration. However, its interesting to me that the Republicans are not representing the rich, but rather the poor. Specifically the uneducated poor.

So the class war is setup to be the uneducated poor against the educated and wealthy. What does this sound like? Any students of history out there?

Sign me up for the tin-foil hats

OH for the days when we could repel the forces of evil with just the use of a simple tin foil hat. Now they have so many ways they can get inside out heads. If you don't want to be scared, don't read this article published in last week's LA Times.

You're being watched ...

Efforts to collect data on Americans go far beyond the NSA's domestic spying program.

By Laura K. Donohue CONGRESS WILL soon hold hearings on the National Security Agency's domestic spying program, secretly authorized by President Bush in 2002. But that program is just the tip of the iceberg.

Since 9/11, the expansion of efforts to gather and analyze information on U.S. citizens is nothing short of staggering. The government collects vast troves of data, including consumer credit histories and medical and travel records. Databases track Americans' networks of friends, family and associates, not just to identify who is a terrorist but to try to predict who might become one.

ADVERTISEMENT

Remember Total Information Awareness, retired Adm. John Poindexter's effort to harness all government and commercial databases to preempt national security threats? The idea was that disparate, seemingly mundane behaviors can reveal criminal intent when viewed together. More disturbing, it assumed that deviance from social norms can be an early indicator of terrorism. Congress killed that program in 2003, but according to the Associated Press, many related projects continued.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency runs a data-mining program called Evidence Extraction and Link Discovery, which connects pieces of information from vast amounts of data sources. The Defense Intelligence Agency trawls intelligence records and the Internet to identify Americans connected to foreign terrorists. The CIA reportedly runs Quantum Leap, which gathers personal information on individuals from private and public sources. In 2002, Congress authorized $500 million for the Homeland Security Department to develop "data mining and other advanced analytical tools." In 2004, the General Accounting Office surveyed 128 federal departments and agencies to determine the extent of data mining. It found 199 operations, 14 of which related to counterterrorism.

What type of information could these mine? Your tax, education, vehicle, criminal and welfare records for starters. But also other digital data, such as your travel, medical and insurance records — and DNA tests. Section 505 of the Patriot Act (innocuously titled "Miscellaneous National Security Authorities") extends the type of information the government can obtain without a warrant to include credit card records, bank account numbers and information on Internet use.

Your checking account may tell which charities or political causes you support. Your credit card statements show where you shop, and your supermarket frequent-buyer-card records may indicate whether you keep kosher or follow an Islamic halal diet. Internet searches record your interests, down to what, exactly, you read. Faith forums or chat rooms offer a window into your thoughts and beliefs. E-mail and telephone conversations contain intimate details of your life.

A University of Illinois study found that in the 12 months following 9/11, federal agents made at least 545 visits to libraries to obtain information about patrons. This isn't just data surveillance. It's psychological surveillance.

Many Americans might approve of data mining to find terrorists. But not all of the inquiries necessarily relate to terrorism. The Patriot Act allows law enforcement officers to get "sneak and peek" warrants to search a home for any suspected crime — and to wait months or even years to tell the owner they were there. Last July, the Justice Department told the House Judiciary Committee that only 12% of the 153 "sneak and peek" warrants it received were related to terrorism investigations.

The FBI has used Patriot Act powers to break into a judge's chambers and to procure records from medical clinics. Documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union recently revealed that the FBI used other new powers to eavesdrop on environmental, political and religious organizations.

When Congress looks into domestic spying in the "war on terror," it should ask a series of questions:

First, what information, exactly, is being collected? Are other programs besides the president's NSA initiative ignoring traditional warrant requirements? Are federal agencies dodging weak privacy laws by outsourcing the job to private contractors?

Second, who has access to the data once it is collected, and what legal restrictions are set on how it can be used or shared?

Third, who authorized data mining, and is its use restricted to identifying terrorists?

Fourth, what is the collective effect of these programs on citizens' rights? Privacy certainly suffers, but as individuals begin to feel inhibited in what they say and do, free speech and freedom of assembly also erode.

Fifth, how do these data collection and mining operations deal with error? As anyone who's tried to dispute an erroneous credit report can attest, once computer networks exchange data, it may be difficult to verify its accuracy or where it entered the system. Citizens who do not know they are under surveillance cannot challenge inaccurate information that may become part of their secret digital dossier.

What will Congress do to ensure that the innocent remain so?

Jim Hightower on "Ownership Society"

Now, normally, I think Jim Hightower is an ass. But this was so entertaining, I feel I just have to post it.

GEORGE W WANTS CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

1/3/2006

George W is fond of philosophizing about his vision of an "ownership society," organized not on a governmental model, but on the corporate structure. I wonder: Is George even aware that the "owners" of corporate America have no real power over the autocratic elites who run corporations?

The owners of corporations are the shareholders – those people who have bought the company's stock. But ownership in the corporate model buys you no democratic control. Take the board of directors, which is the official governing body of the corporation you "own." As a shareholder, you get to vote for the board members – but the ballot gives you no choices!

Only the candidates hand-picked by the CEO are listed. Your only option is vote for or against the corporate-dictated candidate. But – get this – even if you and 99.9 percent of the other shareholders get together and vote against the CEOs choice, the corporate candidate still wins, assuming the candidate is smart enough to vote for himself (and, by the way, they're nearly always men). Under the self-rigged corporate rules, it just takes only a single vote to elect the chosen candidate.

As if this soviet-style electoral system does not give corporate executives enough control over owners, CEOs are now taking extraordinary steps to assure that they get no interference from pesky shareholders. It seems that more and more of these shareholders/owners have been showing up at the annual board meeting to raise issues and even raise a ruckus about how the place is being run. So, to fend off even this minimal democratic intrusion, corporations have begun hiring surveillance firms to snoop on their own owners, targeting shareholders who might "cause trouble." Of course, the corporate interpretation of "trouble" is to have anyone dissent from what the top executives are doing.

This is Jim Hightower saying... On second thought, this sounds exactly like the kind of government Bush has in mind for us.