FDA approves new 20-minute rapid HIV test
UN targets AIDS stigma
7 November 2002, WASHINGTON, DC - Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson today announced the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the first second-generation, 20-minute HIV test. HIV tests currently in use take one to two weeks to yield results. Public health agencies and AIDS service organizations have been eagerly awaiting the new “rapid” tests because they can be used in innovative ways to reduce the number of new infections, which currently stands at 40,000 each year.
The stigma attached to Aids remains one of the most difficult obstacles to fighting the disease, United Nations General Secretary Kofi Annan has said.
Speaking ahead of the UN's 15th annual World Aids Day, Mr Annan warned that the fear of stigma "leads to silence, and when it comes to fighting Aids, silence is death".
This year's day for highlighting Aids awareness comes after latest figures revealed more people are dying from the disease than ever before.
HIV/AIDS and Africa - Back To The Drawing Board
Constituency for Africa (Washington, DC)
ANALYSIS
November 29, 2002
Posted to the web November 29, 2002
By Chinua Akukwe
After 21 years of dealing with the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa, it appears that Africa has now reached the crossroads.
According to the United Nations agency coordinating the pandemic (UNAIDS) nearly 30 million Africans live with HIV/AIDS. More than 21 million Africans are dead of AIDS. At least, four African countries-Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland and Zimbabwe- have more than 30 percent of its adult population living with HIV/AIDS. Only 30, 000 Africans have access to lifesaving, available antiretroviral medicines. Despite these unfolding ugly scenarios, Africa is yet to mount or lead a credible fight against the number one developmental crisis in the continent.
On a "positive" note, African leaders committed to spending 15 percent of their national budget on health care at the 2001 Abuja summit on HIV/AIDS. Many African countries have "completed" or at the "advanced stages" of completing national strategic plans against the epidemic. Many African leaders now "speak out" against the disease. Many African countries are now "streamlining" their HIV/AIDS remedial efforts in their anti-poverty strategies. African leaders are now fine tuning an ambitious development initiative known as New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD). However, for a continent that is losing its most productive citizens on a daily disease and is dealing with a ballooning AIDS orphan problem, these "positives" are clearly not enough. Africa must go back to the drawing board and come up with a comprehensive strategy and operational mechanism to fight this deadly disease.
Press Release from AIDS Healthcare Foundation on their lawsuite versus GlaxoSmithKline
AIDS Healthcare Foundation’s Anti-Trust Complaint Amended to Include GSK’s Blockbuster AIDS Drugs Combivir & Trizivir. Fraud During Patent Process Used to Procure Invalid Patents on AZT and Other subsequent HIV Drugs.
15 October 2002, NEW YORK, NY - The largest AIDS organization in the United States today announced that it has filed an amended federal anti-trust complaint against British-owned GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and related companies. AIDS Healthcare Foundation’s (AHF’s) lawsuit was filed after the discovery that Burroughs Wellcome (now GlaxoSmithKline) lied to the United States Department of Commerce Patent and Trademark Office in 1986 in order to secure the patent on AZT (Retrovir), a key component in both of GSK’s current best-selling AIDS medications. Burroughs neither invented AZT (which was first created in 1964 as a possible cancer drug), nor showed AZT’s efficacy against the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), yet claimed to the Patent Office that “we have now discovered that …[AZT] is useful for the treatment of AIDS…” when it filed for and secured the patent.
“AHF’s counsel has found the proverbial ‘smoking gun’- fraudulent statements on the patent application for the very first AIDS drug, AZT,” said Michael Weinstein, AHF president. “We believe that Glaxo’s subsequent patents on these newer AIDS drugs should be invalidated as well as one of their primary components- AZT- was illegally patented by the pharmaceutical giant. It is our hope that this amended lawsuit will break Glaxo’s monopolistic hold on key AIDS drugs worldwide.” AHF’s amended complaint also adds GSK’s two best-selling AIDS drugs, Combivir and Trizivir- a primary component of which is AZT- to the suit.
The initial patent application for AZT and its medicinal use against HIV was rejected by United States Department of Commerce Patent and Trademark Office Primary Examiner Ethel G. Love on January 9, 1986. On July 14, 1986, an attorney for Burroughs (GSK) paid a $390 dollar fee- roughly the cost today of one patient’s one year supply of life-saving generic versions of Glaxo’s $10,000 AIDS medications- to respond to the rejection and amend and secure a patent on AZT. In response, the pharmaceutical company’s attorney Donald Brown stated: “With all due respect to the Examiner’s allegations of obviousness, it is quite apparent that the NIH and others skilled in the art have been searching for a drug that will work, all apparently with little success to date.”
In fact, the NIH had been sent samples of AZT (“Compound S” as it was called) by Burroughs for testing. NIH scientist Hiroaki Mitsuya performed tests in mid-February, 1985 that confirmed that AZT or “Compound S” was active against the HIV virus. Burroughs officials were informed of the results by telephone on February 20, 1985- a full seventeen months before Burroughs filed its response claiming that the “NIH and others…have been searching… with little success to date.”
“They lied to the patent office in the 1980’s about discovering AZT’s ability to treat AIDS, and in doing so secured exclusive rights to manufacture it,” said AHF’s Weinstein. “AZT was developed with federal assistance in the 1960’s, and the National Institutes of Health tested it for HIV use in the 1980’s, but Glaxo secured patents on the substance in the’80s and locked competitors out. They then priced AZT at thirty-two times the cost of manufacture, a practice repeated with every new AIDS drug since then.”
Robert D. Becker, a partner at Manatt specializing in patent law, said GSK's predecessor Burroughs Wellcome “made matters worse by asserting the invalid patents against two generic manufacturers in the early 90's to block cheaper generic versions of AZT. Although Burroughs successfully blocked the drugs, the validity of the patents was never decided."
AHF- a non-profit that provides medical services to over 12,000 with HIV/AIDS in the U.S. and Africa- is suing for damages created by such artificially high prices. “It’s patent piracy that has cost untold numbers their lives and is denying treatment to millions today,” said Weinstein, “all in the name of corporate greed. How many more lives could we have saved if Glaxo had not gouged the government and AHF for almost 15 years now?”
AHF’s lawsuit also describes a pattern of such abuse by GSK in marketing AIDS drugs. AHF charges that Glaxo’s abacavir (Ziagen) and 3TC (lamivudine) are manufactured and sold pursuant to exclusive licenses from the University of Minnesota and Emory University. Despite the fact that the drugs were developed with U.S. tax dollars, GSK is doing all that it can to gouge the public and price the drugs out of reach.
AHF claims damages as a major purchaser of these medications for its uninsured patients. “Enron’s fraud cost jobs and savings,” said Weinstein. “GSK’s fraud has cost AIDS patients their lives, and has cost the federal and state governments billions of dollars in ill-gotten gain.”
AHF in the past has criticized GSK for spending too little on assisting people with AIDS in the developing world, which by Glaxo’s own account is about $55 million over the last decade. “That’s three-tenths of one-percent of Glaxo’s AIDS drug sales,” said Weinstein.
In calling for pricing based on cost, Weinstein contrasts the annual price of triple-combination anti-retroviral care charged by GSK, generics manufacturer Cipla, and the Thai government: “Glaxo charges the U.S. government $10,600 annually, Cipla’s price is $440, and the Thai’s charge $336. Since Glaxo didn’t invent or discover AZT, Ziagen or 3TC, what could possibly justify the difference?” In developing nations, Glaxo’s so-called preferential prices are also up to double that charged by Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck and Pfizer, said Weinstein.
The amended lawsuit was filed in United States Federal Court for Central District of California (Western Division) on Friday October 11, 2002. Manatt attorneys Ronald S. Katz, John F. Libby, Robert D. Becker, and Noel S. Cohen represent AHF in this action.
Tomorrow - December 1st - is World AIDS Day. Link and Think is a campaign to encourage bloggers, journalers and others such forums to post about AIDS, our thoughts or experiences with it, links to news, research, resources or other tools dealing with AIDS and to help remind people that the fight against AIDS is still going.
I have been very fortunate in that AIDS has never touched upon my life in a tangible way. I don't know anyone who has AIDS, and, to the best of my knowledge, none of my good friends know anyone who has AIDS, either. I suspect that is something of a rarity.
That doesn't mean, however, that I have been completely untouched by AIDS. It may not be part of my personal experience, but I have seen what AIDS has done to this country and how we have treated it's victims. I have seen the way the victim profile led our government to delay recognizing in the early years - when we might still have had time to contain it - how serious the epidemic is, and how the sexual nature of transmission is, even today, leading to suppression of information on how to prevent contracting it. I've learned about the ego games that may have delayed our ability to have a truly accurate test, which could have possibly helped prevent some of the contamination of the blood supply, and how the fight over credit for discovering the virus that causes AIDS made research more difficult for everyone.
Earlier this year I read "And the Band Played On", by Randy Shilts, and "Science Fictions: A Scientific Mystery, A Massive Cover-Up, and the Dark Legacy of Robert Gallo" by John Crewdson. These books tend to be a bit dry at times, and - "Science Fictions" in particular - sometimes gets a bit lost in the arcana of science and politics, yet I couldn't put either of them down once I started reading. I was in my late high-school/early-college years when most of what was written about took place, and while I was aware of AIDS and had some idea of what it was, by and large, it wasn't something people talked about much.
When I look back on it now, I realize just how dangerous that was. Here were kids from all walks of life and of all sexual orientations who were getting their first taste of freedom and, for the most part, starting to explore their sexual natures - and we didn't really comprehend that there was a dangerous disease that couldn't easily be detected, was transmitted from one person to another through sexual contact, could stay dormant in your bloodstream for years before you began showing symptoms - even though you could infect others that entire time - and brought with it a horrifying death that nothing could stop.
Contrasted with the "West Nile" scare of the last few years, the difference is astounding. While West Nile is a serious disease and can be fairly easily contracted, after three summers of frequent news reports and updates, the number of people who have been sickend by or died from West Nile is only a fraction of the number of people who contracted or died from AIDS in its first three years. Yet you'd almost have to be a hermit to be unaware of the West Nile virus and measures you can take to help prevent getting it.
Accoding to a Reuters report published this week, women now make up half of all AIDS victims worldwide. The article also notes that by the end of the year, 3.1 million people worldwide will have died of AIDS, another 5 million with contract the disease and 42 million will be living with the virus. Even as progress is being made, news of that progress sometimes leads people - especially young people - to believe that there's not as much to worry about as there might have been previously, so not as much caution (including the use of condoms) needs to be used.
Over the next 24 hours, I will be posting links to various articles on AIDS, living with AIDS, fighting against AIDS and fighting against apathy. I hope that you will find them useful. If you have any comments or thoughts you would like to share, please do so. Every voice needs to be heard.
Current Editorials: Thanksgiving wishes...
Posted by worried Aurelia Westlake on Nov. 29, 2002
[...] Now, the people are almost resigned. Apathetic. There is a pervasive greyness in the nation that has not been caused only by the tryptophan in the turkey we're collectively partaking of tonight. A lackluster election full of races with two equally distasteful candidates, a year of having our privacy taken away - mostly because we have given it away, steady economic contraction and months of being told of an imminent war has created a state of helplessness. [...]
In psychology classes, they teach about a condition called "learned helplessness", which occurs when a person has been repeatedly subjected to situations that induce pain or fear and there is no way to get away from it. Eventually, even if a means of escape becomes available, the person has become so used to being afraid or hurt that it's as if the means of escape doesn't exist. They won't even try to get away.
The experience of the last 15 months here in America seems to be producing a nation suffering from learned helplessness. Fear is induced through the constant, but oh-so-vague, warnings eminating from the government. Another attack is imminent, we are told, they may be coming to blow up our banks, our hotels, our apartments, our holiday celebrations. They may be coming in hidden on boats, or scuba-diving to our shores. They may already be here, hidden among us, and we don't even know it. They may use suicide bombers or shoulder-mounted surface-to-air misses can knock planes from the sky. Crop dusters may be used to spread biological agents, or they may load a conventional bomb with nuclear waste to spread radiation throughout a large city. May... may... may... may. The list of horrors is nearly endless, as is the imagination of those whose job it is to come up with new warnings, it seems. We see no escape from this fear, and are told our only hope is to sacrifice our freedoms, our cherished liberties, our very way of life, on the altar of security, so we do - willlingly, it seems - and never realizing that maybe, we should be afraid of our government, too.
The thing is, all of those threats existed before 9/11 - we just didn't let those concerns be the primary focus of our government or our lives. We knew the threat was out there, but because nothing serious had happened yet (and for some reason, we never seemed to consider the first bombing of the World Trade Center to be terribly "serious"), it didn't seem so real. Once the plans crashed into the WTC and the Pentagon, however, we suddenly saw just how real it was. And the fear began.
If you look at all the measures the government is trying to put into place, how many of them would have helped catch the 9/11 terrorists before the attack? From what I've read, they were spread out throughout the country, so it is unlikely that any religious or political groups they were a part of would have had planning for the attacks as a major topic of discussion. They seem to have had little contact with each other prior to the attacks themselves, so monitoring their phone calls probably would have revealed little. They didn't have any need to purchase much in the way of "how to" books or materials for executing their plans - they had boxcutters, but built no bombs - so examining their reading lists or purchases would have revealed little to be concerned about. Would wiretaps have helped? Maybe, if we'd had any way to know that it might be worthwhile to listen in. I've not heard about any e-mail trails they might have left, so reading e-mail probably wouldn't have done any good. In fact, I have yet to hear of any of the new powers the government is granting itself that would have done anything to help prevent the 9/11 attacks. Yet we sit by and watch the government take away more of our rights and give itself more and more power, and we do nothing.
So, what can we do? As Ms. Westlake suggests:
[...] Instead of writing to your Congressman this holiday season, remember that he doesn't read his mail anyway, and his secretary has seen your letter in some form a thousand times before. Instead of trying to work up a legal furor, work up a local furor. Talk to PEOPLE. Hold demonstrations, if you can find enough people that'll hold up signs in the cold of winter. Talk to your friends, your family, about the things that will affect us all in the coming years. [...]
Other ideas? Write letters to the editor of your local papers. Try to call into to talk shows - especially those run by people who hold a different view than your own. Write about it in your blog or journal and then publicize your site as part of your sig line on any e-mails you write or message board postings you make. If you are a part of a religious community that gives members a chance to make open prayer requests, stand and ask that the community pray for citizens of this country to snap out of their collective stupor and have the courage to stand up for themselves and their rights. If you've got some money, take out even a small ad in your local paper. Don't be afraid that your family, friends, neighbors, co-workers or complete stranges may think you're a bit nutty or that you're going to drive them nutty in the process. As is too often said about the death penalty - if this case doesn't call for it, then what does?
Fighting against the government may not sound like a logical way to increase our security - but what we're being sold right now is nothing more than some pretty smell hot air wrapped up in a bow. What the government wants to do won't make us safer. In fact, it puts each of us at greater risk - not from being the victims of a terrorist attack - but from the government deciding that we're worth a closer examination or that we may even be a dreaded "enemy combatant". [ Remember, Jose Padilla has been being held for months now as an "enemy combatant" and all we know that he did was talk to some people about possibly arranging an attack and fly into Chicago. The government claims he was coming here to scout for a possible attack location, but because they arrested him as he stepped off the plane, we don't even know if that's really why he was here. So, there was no actual "combat" involved, but he's still an "enemy combatant." ]
The best way to make this country safer is not to cut back on our freedoms and make it easier for the government to arrest and hold someone indefinately with out charging them with a crime. The best way is to make the government hold itself accountable for the failures and lapses that let the 9/11 terrorists fall through the cracks. As we've learned during these last several months, there were many mistakes, many missed opportunities, and many times when better communication between the FBI, CIA and local law enforcement could have helped put pieces of the puzzle together. That is our escape from the fear, and that is where the government's focus needs to be placed.
We may have learned to think we are helpless. We may have learned that it's better to just lie still and let them hurt us than to try and find an escape where none exists. But what we may have learned is wrong. We are not helpess and there are ways to escape - to make this country what it once was and can be again. Any behaviour that has been learned can be unlearned. We need to re-educate ourselves, and then we need to re-educate the government, and remind them that is it We, the People who really run this country through our voices and our votes.
Told you I'd be posting again today :)
Mark Fiore has done one of his great flash cartoons on the Total Information Awareness project. Be sure to take a minute to check it out.
I'll probably end up posting a few other entries before the day is through, but in case I don't, I did want to be sure and wish each of you a very Happy Thanksgiving!
I also want to thank you for taking the time to visit here, and for sharing with me your own thoughts and reactions to what I post. I do very much appreciate it.
Brightest Blessings to you and those whom you hold dear,
Kriselda Jarnsaxa
Well, following the lead of Kat at "She's Actual Size, Nationwide, Believe" (among a few others), I've switched to using HaloScan for my commenting system. It lets you delete duplicates or offensive posts (not that I've had any of those), plus you can customize the look a bit, so I figured what the heck. It's free and pretty easy to set up.
Over the next few hours or so, I'm going to be transferring the comments that have been posted so far this week from the old system to the new one, so I won't lose everything.
-- kriselda
Ok -- there is just something fundamentally wrong about a company advertising a Pop-up Ad Blocker by using a.... (you can see this coming, right)
Pop-up ad.
Oi!
Bush Government 'Out of Control'
By Chuck Baldwin
The Covenant News ~ November 22, 2002
Back in August, columnist Paul Craig Roberts asked the question, "Is a vote for Republicans a vote for a police state?" The answer seems to be a resounding yes! The Bush administration seems determined to turn our country into the most elaborate and sophisticated police state ever devised.
Things are so bad that outgoing house majority leader Dick Armey said that under Bush the federal government is "out of control." In fact, the conservative congressman is reported to be seriously considering taking a position with the ACLU in order to help fight the federal government's usurpation of constitutionally protected liberties. Does that mean one must leave the Republican Party in order to fight for liberty? Maybe so.
[...] The tyrannical tendencies of old King George III of England cannot hold a candle to the Machiavellian machinations of King George XLIII of the United States. Unfortunately, there are few Paul Reveres around to sound an alarm. Unless contemporary patriots act quickly, Republicans, not Democrats, will be the ones that ultimately dismantle our constitution and trample our liberties.
The article quote above was published in Covenant News, a very conservative, Christian website. Between it, William Saffire's recent editorial on the Total Information Awareness program, Bob Barr and Dick Armey being willing to work with the ACLU and a few other such incidents, I am beginning to see small, but potentially significant, signs of hope.
George Bush has counted on a considerable amount of support from conservatives and the Religious Right, but it appears that at least some of the leaders among those groups are not only concerned about the direction that George Bush and his administration are taking this country in, but are also willing to stand up and say "Enough!". Critics on the left have been expressing concern for most of Bush's term, and now critics from the right are joining them.
Part of me is still a bit unsure about Bob Barr (in particular) and Dick Armey working with the ACLU, but the more I think about it, the more I like it. Not because I agree with either of them on much, but because of what it represents -- left and right setting aside some significant differences to work together and face this current threat that exist within our own government.
I don't expect conservatives and liberals to forget about their differences. We still need to have debates on abortion, gun-control, the separation of church and state and taxation, for example, but right now we need even more to put those debates on hold so that we can stand united and tell the Bush administration that we're not going to just sit by and let them take away the very things that make America what it is. We need to preserve the very liberties that allow us to have all those other debates.
Justice Dept. Seeks to Seal Vaccine Papers
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
WASHINGTON, Nov. 26 — The Bush administration asked a federal claims court today to seal documents relating to hundreds of claims that a mercury-based preservative in vaccines, thimerosal, has caused autism and other neurological disorders in children.
Lawyers for the Justice Department asked for the protective order on behalf of Tommy G. Thompson, the secretary of health and human services, whose department administers a government fund to compensate people injured by vaccines.
A department spokesman said that the law creating the fund gives the secretary control over what information is released and that the government was merely trying to preserve that right.
If there was still any question that the provision in the Homeland Security Bil providing protection to the manufacturers of vaccines was a pork-barrell gift to Eli Lily, today's move should settle that once and for all.
It's not surprising that members of the Bush administration would move to keep these papers locked away - that's been his modus operandi for quite some time. From his and Dick Cheney's refusal to name who they spoke to during the Energy Task Force meetings to establish the nation's energy policy; to his decision to send his own papers to his father's Presidential library (where they are harder to get at for the average citizen) rather than to one of the libraries at a state university, as is the norm; to the executive order he signed preventing the release of documents from the tenure of former Presidents, unless the former President and the sitting President both agree that they should be released, Bush and his administration have shown a serious tendency towards keeping as much information away from the public as possible.
So, requesting that files related to the thimerosal be withheld is nothing new or revolutionary for the Bush administration. Neither is trying to help out a well-connected contributor- which both the company, Eli Lily, and it's CEO are.
Robert of Robert's Virtual Soapbox has a very good article on George Bush, and ways in which is isn't necessarily all that different from Saddam Hussein.
From: The Line Blurs....
[...] I have no doubt that Saddam Hussein is an evil man. None. While I believe that the U.S. propaganda machine has portrayed Saddam to be far more dangerous than he actually is, I believe every word that those Iraqi students told me more than a decade ago, and I doubt that much has changed in Iraq. If anything, I suspect, it’s even worse there.
But just as the U.S. propaganda machine has painted Saddam to be more dangerous than he is, the U.S. propaganda machine has painted the Bush regime to be more benevolent than it is.
The simplistic thinking that good Americans are encouraged to adopt is that good is the opposite of bad, and if Saddam Hussein is bad and George W. Bush & Co. oppose Saddam Hussein, then the Bush regime must be good.
Wrong. [...]
From a list of Bills and Resolutions pre-filed with the Georgia Clerk of the House as of November 19, 2002:
HB 1.
By Representative Franklin of the 17th:
A BILL to amend Article 6 of Chapter 5 of Title 16 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to feticide, so as to define certain terms; to provide that any person seeking to have an abortion performed shall first file a petition in the superior court; to provide that the court shall appoint a guardian ad litem; to provide for a jury trial; to provide that the court shall balance the rights of the fetus against the rights of the person seeking to have an abortion performed; and for other purposes.
In basic (well, more basic, anyway) English, this is a proposal for a change of the abortion law in Georgia that would require a woman seeking an abortion to go to court and file a petition seeking permission for the abortion. The state would appoint a guardian for the fetus and there would be a jury trial to decide if the abortion can be peformed or not.
It's an outrageous proposal. Somewhat clever and certainly a new tactic to make getting an abortion more difficult, but definately outrageous. Once I find futher information on who to contact or how to combat it, I'll be posting it here.
Theory links slavery, stress disorder
Proponents make for a new diagnosis
By Marcella Bombardieri
Globe Staff
11/12/2002
[...] In their working paper, Reid, Mims, and Higginbottom lay out a case for links between slavery and behavior in the black community today. They point out that slaves were punished if they knew how to read, and draw a comparison to the stigma attached to education today. ''If you go to any elementary or middle school today and talk to black kids, they say, `I failed all my classes, it's cool,''' Reid said.
They write about how male slaves were not allowed to stay with their families, and then cite the number of poor black men today who father numerous children with different women. [...]
The idea that the way slaves were treated several generations ago controls how individual blacks cope with life today seems a bit specious. True, blacks were punished for being educated and families were torn apart, but that shouldn't be considered an excuse for poor scholarship from some blacks today, or the inability of some black men to make a commitment to a family.
Women have also been treated poorly. For many generations women were expected to be uneducated and subservient to men, yet we don't see large numbers of women today who adopt an attitude that "its cool" to not be able to read. We also do not see large numbers of women who have a dysfunctional inability to stand up for themselves or survive without a man to tell them what to do. At least we don't see these things in the same proportions that it is sometimes claimed to be seen in the black population. Given the theory behind the "Post Traumatic Slavery Disorder" (PTSlaveryD), however, such parallels should be easy to find in the descendents of any formerly-oppressed group.
Oppression is not uncommon, and many groups have been oppressed through history. In Europe, we even had one group of white people (the royalty) oppressing another (the pesants). Would this mean that we should expect to find PTFeudalismD amongst the descendents of the pesants? If not, why not? In addition, the article mentions that "PTSlaveryD" is seen in both blacks and Latinos, yet I don't recall anything from my history classes that talked about widespread Latino slavery, so how is it that they can suffer from the same disorder?
Danieli said politicians are resistant to the idea of multigenerational trauma, because it brings up the specter of reparations, and because addressing long-term trauma rarely fits in with short-term political considerations.
I have to wonder if part of the reason such a theory might bring up the specter of reparations isn't because that's part of the goal of the theory. Maybe I'm being overly cynical, but if it can be shown that today's blacks are suffering from a disorder brought about by slavery in generations past, some may believe that it will make the case for reparations stronger.
Personally, I think that many of the problems of today exist in the attitudes of today. There seems to be a sense among some black leaders that there is a value to be had in having blacks today be viewed as victims of what was done over a hundered years ago. And its not just blacks who are doing this. Women's groups, members of minority religions, cultural groups and other minorities are all looking at past treatment of their ancestors and claiming that the mistreatment from that time should now be answered with benefits now. This can take the form of quotas and Affirmative Action programs that provide additional consideration to individuals based on what minority group they can claim membership in; political clout through polliticians who want to appear sympathetic to the groups claims and plight; or, in some rare cases, even as a defense for having commited a crime.
Rather than focusing on how victimized any group is, however, it would seem to me that there is more to gain by trying to move out of living in the past an focusing on what can be done today. Yes, great wrongs were done, and we can't go back in time and change them. Would it not be more productive, however, to try and work towards improving the situation for today's minorities rather than maintaining the status quo and then trying to come up with way to justify a handout as a result?
I don't have the answers, but the more I hear about theories such as this "PTSlaveryD", the more I think we're going in entirely the wrong direction....
Livingstone says Miss World is not welcome
Simon Jeffery
Tuesday November 26, 2002
Ken Livingstone, the London mayor, today urged the London venue hosting the Miss World contest to "reconsider its decision" to stage the beauty pageant. [...]
Announcing the change of venue, Miss World's organiser, Julia Morley, this morning said the contest bore no blame for the troubles.
"Miss World cannot be held responsible for the riots. They were down to one journalist who wrote something which inflamed the local people. [...]
Whether the Miss World pagent "caused" the riots or not, I have to agree that going ahead and holding the pagent would be in very bad taste right now.
The issue here is not one of blame. Following the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, there were several movies, albums and other entertainment pieces that were withdrawn, cancelled, or delayed because it was felt that they might provide too much of a reminder of what had happened and would be inappropriate to have out in the marketplace at that time. During the recent sniper attacks in the Washington DC area, a movie about a sniper attack that was slated to be released soon was also delayed and for the same reason.
No one tried to imply that the movies, etc., were somehow to blame for the attacks. That wasn't the point. It was the idea that the images or concepts being presented might be disturbing for people who had lost their lives, loved ones or sense of security during the attacks, and the recognition that sometimes it is important to allow there to be some distance between a tragic event and things that could be reminiscent of them.
With the riots connected to the Miss World pagent, over 200 people have died, 1,200 have been injured and as many as 12,000 may have lost their homes. The pagent, itself, did not cause the riots. But the riots are still connected to the pagent, and the pagent stands as a reminder to the losses suffered during the riots. It would seem to be a matter of principle that the pagent be cancelled for this year out of consideration for those losses.
Keep Big Brother's Hands Off the Internet
By Senator John Ashcroft
October 1997
Republican, Missouri
Chairman of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs,
Foreign Commerce and Tourism
[Senator Ashcroft takes issue with administration views on the Internet
and the use of encryption technology.]
[...] In order to guarantee that the United States meets the challenge of this new means of commerce, communication, and education, government must be careful not to interfere. We should not harness the Internet with a confusing array of intrusive regulations and controls. Yet, the Clinton administration is trying to do just that.
The Clinton administration would like the Federal government to have the capability to read any international or domestic computer communications. The FBI wants access to decode, digest, and discuss financial transactions, personal e-mail, and proprietary information sent abroad -- all in the name of national security. To accomplish this, President Clinton would like government agencies to have the keys for decoding all exported U.S. software and Internet communications.
This proposed policy raises obvious concerns about Americans' privacy, in addition to tampering with the competitive advantage that our U.S. software companies currently enjoy in the field of encryption technology. Not only would Big Brother be looming over the shoulders of international cyber-surfers, but the administration threatens to render our state-of-the-art computer software engineers obsolete and unemployed.
There is a concern that the Internet could be used to commit crimes and that advanced encryption could disguise such activity. However, we do not provide the government with phone jacks outside our homes for unlimited wiretaps. Why, then, should we grant government the Orwellian capability to listen at will and in real time to our communications across the Web?
The protections of the Fourth Amendment are clear. The right to protection from unlawful searches is an indivisible American value. Two hundred years of court decisions have stood in defense of this fundamental right. The state's interest in effective crime-fighting should never vitiate the citizens' Bill of Rights. [...]
We inturrupt this blog for an important announcement:
The new issue of Virtual Occoquan is up and ready for reading. You should be sure to check it out. It's published by Mark Hoback and features articles from several Salon Bloggers - kind of a "Salon Blog Tour of Quality" in a nutshell.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled ranting.
Articles on Total Information Awareness from around the media. This entry may be updated throughout the day.
Embracing Big Brother - William Raspberry:
[...] Too much of what the government is getting in this new dispensation is stuff that Attorney General John Ashcroft and others wanted long before Sept. 11, 2001 -- for instance the right of the FBI to get a warrant to search your home, even in your absence, go through your things and download the contents of your computer.
Congress twice denied the request for such authority. Now it has granted it. The war on terror, you know.
But as President Bush himself told us, the war on terror is a long-term affair, with no end in sight. What's to keep the same thing from being true of the recently granted "exceptions" to our personal liberties? And why do we seem not to care?
-=<*>=-
Who's Watching the Watchers - Derrick Z. Jackson:
[...] The fact that Poindexter has already admitted keeping knowledge of illegal activities from the president should automatically disqualify him from having anything to do with the privacy of Americans. The fact that the White House cannot talk straight about his appointment should make Americans demand that the project be scrapped until secrecy becomes an open debate.
Last week a reporter asked White House deputy spokesman Scott McClellan if President Bush public ly supports Poindexter's program. All McClellan said was: ''I've seen the reports, but I think you need to talk to the Pentagon. That is a question related to something that the Pentagon may be looking at, so I would refer you to the Pentagon.''
The obfuscation so well associated with Poindexter has begun. With him in charge of Total Information Awareness, you can be sure you will be the last to know if the government is breaking the law.
-=<*>=-
Uncle Sam and Big Brother - Miro Cernetig:
Since the 1970s, the United States has created dozens of laws aimed at protecting citizens from spying by government agencies. Congressional committees also have a tradition of overseeing the operations of the government's spy apparatus, such as the Central Intelligence Agency, although often in secret. As well, U.S. law has generally made it necessary for the government to get court orders to see bank records or listen in on communications, laws that may apply to data mining.
Since Sept. 11, however, the White House has pushed through the Homeland Security and U.S. Patriot acts, sweeping laws that are challenging those privacy protections. For example, a U.S. court ruled this month that under the Patriot Act, the Federal Bureau of Investigation can now work in concert with the CIA and other agencies, making it easier to get wiretaps.
"As of today, the Attorney-General can suspend the ordinary requirements of the Fourth Amendment in order to listen in on phone calls, read e-mails and conduct secret searches of Americans' homes and offices," ACLU spokeswoman Ann Beeson declared after the ruling. It is unclear whether there will be an appeal.
Whose Hands Are Dirty?
By Bob Herbert
November 25, 2002
New York Times Editorial
Last week the Senate approved legislation to establish a Department of Homeland Security and it will soon be signed into law by the president. Buried in this massive bill, snuck into it in the dark of night by persons unknown (actually, it's fair to say by Republican persons unknown), was a provision that - incredibly - will protect Eli Lilly and a few other big pharmaceutical outfits from lawsuits by parents who believe their children were harmed by thimerosal.
Now this has nothing to do with homeland security. Nothing. This is not a provision that will in any way protect us from the ferocious evil of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. So why is it there? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the major drug companies have become a gigantic collective cash machine for politicians, and that the vast majority of that cash goes to Republicans.
Or maybe it's related to the fact that Mitch Daniels, the White House budget director, is a former Eli Lilly big shot. Or the very convenient fact that just last June President Bush appointed Eli Lilly's chairman, president and C.E.O., Sidney Taurel, to a coveted seat on the president's Homeland Security Advisory Council.
Whether thimerosal causes autism or not is the subject of much debate, but the actions of Congress in providing Eli Lilly protection from lawsuits over this issue makes it look like they were anticipating a loss.
The problem, though, isn't whether thimerosal is hazardous or not. The problem is that, once again, a corporation with strong political connections is being given the opportunity to avoid the hard questions and possible ramifications they would face if it is found that they have done something wrong.
The measure was justified as necessary to encourage pharmeceutical manufacturers to make vaccines that can be used in the event of a biological attack. This could easily have been accomplished without providing blanket protection for potentially problematic vaccines in general. The legislature could have been narrowly targeted at vaccines for agents likely to be used in a biological attack. It could even have been specifically aimed at vaccines developed or manufactured after the date the bill was passed. Either of those would provide the kind of protection that would help ease manufacturer's minds and make them more willing to produce the vaccines that might be needed should a biological attack take place, without also protecting one specific company from litigation over a vaccine additive that has not been used in making vaccines for roughly 8 years.
Edward R. Murrow. "When the politicians complain that TV turns the proceedings into a circus, it should be made clear that the circus was already there, and that TV has merely demonstrated that not all the performers are well trained." [Quotes of the Day]
I've written before about Jose Padilla, the alleged potential terrorist who was arrested in Chicago on May 8th on the suspicion that he might be planning to set off a "dirty bomb". In June, it was announced that he was being transferred from the criminal justice system to the military one, where he has spent the last 5 months in detention with no charges having been filed and no access to his lawyer on the President's determination that he is an "enemy combatant".
As Time Magazine noted when Padillo (also known as Abdullah al Muhajir) was arrested:
Indeed, rather than a specific conspiracy to detonate a radiological bomb at a designated target, al Muhajir may have been doing a feasibility study. There was no suggestion, for example, that either al Muhajir or any other al-Qaeda operatives might already be in possession of the necessary radiological materials. "They didn't seem to think they'd have a problem getting radiological materials," a U.S. official told the New York Times. "But they didn't have any."
According to the same article, even Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz noted that there was no actual plan in place yet, only that Padillo was here to do reconnisance for a possible target.
One other thing that's interesting about Padillo's arrest is that law enforcement officials had followed him here from overseas, and arrested him immediately after his plane landed in Chicago. This means that they obviously knew who he was and were able to track his movements reasonably well. If they believed he was only here on a reconnisance mission, and that whomever he was working with on this possible plot did not yet even have the materials for making a "dirty bomb", why arrest him immediately upon landing rather than continuing to track his movements and find out who else he was working with? It's not a question that's been answered yet.
Imagine for a moment a group of friends sitting around discussing the possiblity of robbing a bank. Now, obviously, that's not a good thing for people to do, but just say that's what's happening. One person says they will go down to the local bank and check it out to see if a robbery there would even be feasible. At this point, all that's happening is talk. No equipment has been purchase, no dates set, no real "plans" of any kind have been made. So far, no crime has been committed, and there wouldn't be any grounds for arresting someone. Yet, from the reports that have been made public, this is about as far as the whole "dirty bomb" plot got - and this is what Padillo has been jailed for for the last 6 months (counting the first month before he was turned over to the military).
A new site has been created to help raise awareness of Padillo's situation and to mobilize the public to insist that, at the very least, he be charged with something. ChargePadillo.org offers information on the case, links to articles and legal materials relevent to Padillo's situation, suggestions for action individuals can take to make their concerns known, and a message board. The site is young, but well organized and Timothy, the site owner, looks to be taking a very pragmatic approach to Padillo's situation. As demonstrated by the sites URL, he is not claiming that this is a clearly innocent person who's being maltreated, but recognizes that, yes, Padillo may, in act, be guilty of something - but even if he is, he deserves to be treated with the basic rights that are guaranteed to us in the Constitution, and he should be charged with whatever counts are appropriate and given a fair trial.
"I have never covered a president who actually wanted to go to war. Bush's policy of pre-emptive war is immoral - such a policy would legitimize Pearl Harbor. It's as if they learned none of the lessons from Vietnam," -- Former UPI White House correspondent Helen Thomas
Operation TIPS is now officially dead.
Proposal to Enlist Citizen Spies Was Doomed From Start
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 24, 2002; Page A11
[...] The Homeland Security package approved by the Senate last week and slated to be signed by President Bush includes language explicitly prohibiting the government from implementing the controversial initiative. It was hounded by criticism from civil libertarians and targeted for elimination by key lawmakers.
[...] Justice officials attempted to rescue the effort by issuing rules in August explicitly excluding any mail carriers, utility repair personnel or other workers with access to private homes. Ashcroft also told lawmakers he had scrapped plans for a centralized database to compile suspicious reports.
But the retreat did little to calm lawmakers' fears, leading to language in the final version of the Homeland Security package prohibiting "any and all activities" to implement the program.
This is an excellent example of what can happen when people stand up for themselves and their rights. Citizens, advocacy groups and politicians all made it clear that having postal workers, utility service personnel, the cable guy, and others who had legitimate business reasons for being in their home spy on them was completely unacceptable.
Comparable outcry could be effective in stopping the Total Information Awareness program as well - which is as bad of a violation of our privacy as the TIPS program would have been, if not worse. Why TIPS generated so much more outrage than TIA has (thus far) is a question that needs to be answered before an effective mobilization can be undertaken, and it may well have to do with the perceived difference between personal spying and electronic "eavesdropping".
It's easy for John Doe and Jane Smith to imagine having a postman come to their home to deliver the mail - it happens every day. Meter readers and repairmen coming for a visit are common occurrences. The very familiarity of having strangers come into the home for business purposes made the idea that these people could be spies feel like a very real threat. It's not difficult to imagine the telephone guy surreptitiously glancing about, making silent note of what books or magazines are lying about, what kinds of decorations are on the shelves and walls, the common deterious of every day life that may give clue to religious or political orientations, or observing what kind of program is on the TV - and then trying to determine what these bits of individuality might mean in the larger context of whether you are a threat to the safety of this nation or not.
Americans, in general, are not comfortable with having their "personal space" violated - letting someone into your home is a sign of trust, even if the person is only there to install or fix something. The idea of being observed in our homes is a very creepy one, and something few Americans would be willing to tolerate. It's as big of an invasion of personal space as there can be without actual physical contact.
Having "data space" violated, however, is a different matter. There's a difference in perception between the idea of someone looking at the various items on your kitchen shelf, and having a computer scan over a list of the items you bought from a grocery store. Never mind that both provide the same basic information (and thus would likely lead to the same kind of conclusions), there is simply a greater feeling of shock at the idea of personal observation compared to data collection. A person in the home is concrete and tangible - a computer running analysis routines is distant and abstract. It doesn't feel like as big of a threat because it's harder for most people to relate to.
It's important, therefore, for the advocacy groups and individual activists who understand the scope of the threat that TIA represents, to find a way to communicate to the public that this threat, while more abstract in nature, is no less real and no less malevolent than TIPS would have been. Perhaps one possible method of getting the message across can be seen in the unique campaign by the fans of Farscape to try and save their show.
This loosely organized group of fans have come together and pooled their resources to create a TV commercial on their own, and they are planning to buy air time on late-night cable to get their message out. The ads are not done by any fancy advertising form, but by "regular Joes" with video cameras, digital video editing tools and a computer. They're not fancy, but they are effective, because the fans are speaking from the heart.
Perhaps a similar campaign could be made to publicize the reasons for concern about the TIA program. While it might not get as much "free" press as the Farscape ads are (because of the novelty of a group of fans making and buying commercial time), it should get some as it would likely be the first time such an effort was made on behalf of a political cause - and because it would make a good follow-up to the Farscape story - another example of the power of grass-roots organization and the Internet.
A few different ads could be produced - one focusing on the comparison of the TIPS program to the TIA program, to help bridge the perception gap (possibly even using a comparison like the one mentioned above - the telephone guy looking at kitchen shelves and the computer algorithms looking over a grocery receipt); another could remind people why Admiral Poindexter's involvement is, in and of itself, reason for concern (this is a man who felt it was his duty to mislead the American public during the Iran-Contra mess); and so on. One primary ad could be designated and time purchased on late-night cable channels to air it, with others made available at the website.
I'd volunteer to head up such a project, but I make for a lousy leader, and I don't have much skill when it comes to things like making video presentations (and I don't have much in the way of money, either) - but if someone wants to put together this kind of a project, I'll be glad to help out with brainstorming and such...
It's already been proven that public outrage can put a stop to a misguided attempt at invading our privacy. The battle against TIPS has been successful, and Ashcroft was stopped in his tracks. Poindexter can be stopped, too, and needs to be. The more people who understand why TIA is such a bad idea, the more likely it is that the needed outrage can be expressed - and then perhaps it, too, can be expressly forbidden by Congress, just as it ought to be.
Alexi Sayle. "Americans have different ways of saying things. They say 'elevator', we say 'lift'...they say 'President', we say 'stupid psychopathic git'...." [Quotes of the Day]
Defeated G.O.P. Congressman to Be Consultant for A.C.L.U.. American Civil Liberties Union has agreed in principle to hire Representative Bob Barr, as a consultant to work on privacy, surveillance and national security issues. By The New York Times. [New York Times: National]
It is astounding that a civil liberties organization would want to work with Bob Barr. Thankfully, it appears that if they're going to work with him, its going to be on issues of privacy and not on other aspects of our civil rights - in particular anything related to the freedom of religion.
It wasn't that long ago that one of the big issues in the Pagan community was the opposition of some Congressmen to the idea of Wiccan groups making use of property on the military bases to hold their religious ceremonies, even if the group met all the same qualifications and other requirements than any other group had to in order to make use of the property. Bob Barr was one of the most vocal opponants and tried on several occasions to even get a rider attached to different appropriations bills that would have effectively forbidden Wiccans to use military grounds, and, as some interpreted it, could have forbidden Wiccans from even being allowed to serve at all.
Perhaps by working with a civil rights group, Barr can actually start to learn a bit about rights beyond just privacy, and realize that for his civil rights as a Christian to be preserved, he needs to support the rights of people from other religions as well. There can be no freedom of religion, if it only applies to some religions and not others.
This just popped up in my e-mail as "Breaking News"... When more info is available, I'll probably be writing about it. In the meantime, this alert came from MSNBC and Newsweek, so you may want to check there for more info:'
The FBI is investigating whether the Saudi government -- using the bank account of the wife of a senior Saudi diplomat -- sent tens of thousands of dollars to two Saudi students in the United States who provided assistance to two of the September 11 hijackers, law enforcement sources told Newsweek.
From the sketchy information here, if there is a link, it's somewhat tangental, but finding any connection between the Saudi government and the September 11th attacks could create some radical changes in what we do from here. The Saudi government has long been treated as a good friend of America, and it's known that the Bush family has several strong ties to the Royal family there. At the same time, the majority of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, and there have been questions raised about the Saudi government's support of some of the more militant forms of Islam.
If this story pans out, it should be one worth watching - and it'll be interesting to see if there are attempts made to supress the story at all, especially if it touches on the ties between the Saudi government and the Bush family.
UPDATE: Newsweek has posted an article here on this story.
US Funds Artificial Life Project
Genetic scientist Craig Venter has conceived of the idea of an artificial life-form synthesized in a lab, and has just been inseminated with $3 million in funding from the US Department of Energy, according to a story in today's Independent. What the gestation period for this "man-made microorganism" will be is unclear, but ethicists are already concerned about the implications of creating life and the potential use of synthesized cells in horrifying new biological weapons.
Isn't it great to know that while the Bush administration has grave concerns over the ethics of stem-cell research, which holds promise in treating a number of medical conditions from paralysis to Parkinson's Disease, it nevertheless has no problem dumping taxpayer money on Dr. Frankenstein? [Emphasis Added]
I have never been able to understand the objection to using embryos that are scheduled for destruction to create new stem cell lines. It seems completely illogical to me that it is preferrable to dispose of these embryos rather than using them for potentially life-saving research.
I do understand, to a certain extent, the concern that some may have about the possiblity of people attempting to create embryos with specific characteristics to harvest the cells from. While the idea of someone deliberately becoming pregnant just to abort the fetus and harvest the stem cells seems incomprehensible, a recent episode of "Law & Order: Special Victims Unit" featured a storyline showing one possible manifestation of that kind of a situation. In the show, a doctor who had been unable to make satisfactory progress under the guidelines estabished by the government for the use of federal funds, had turned, instead, to a private benefactor who suffered from Parkinson's Disease. The doctor believed that a more closely, genetically matched source of stem cells might prove more effective, so he had artifically inseminated a comatose woman to create a pregnancy with the intention of aborting it and harvesting the cells. (He was caught before being able to perform the abortion).
Granted, this scenario is rather far-fetched, and I'm not aware of anything indicating that using genetically-matched stem cells would make anything more likely to succeed. It does, however, serve as a reminder that desparate people will do desparate things. And with the limitations placed on researchers by the government's decision to only allow federally-funded programs to work on the existing cell lines, it's fairly likely that there will be some who are desparate and who will try things that - to us - seem far too "out there" to even consider.
In the meantime, the embryos of children who ended up being unwanted or unneeded will continue to be destroyed to, well, to what, exactly? To protect them from exploitation? To prove we consider life sacred? It seems that it would be a greater consideration of life to allow the embryos to be used for the greater good.
by Stephen F. Rohde, Esq.
First they came for the Muslims, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Muslim.
Then they came to detain immigrants indefinitely solely upon the certification of the Attorney General, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't an immigrant.
Then they came to eavesdrop on suspects consulting with their attorneys, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a suspect.
Then they came to prosecute non-citizens before secret military commissions, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a non-citizen.
Then they came to enter homes and offices for unannounced "sneak and peek" searches, and I didn't speak up because I had nothing to hide.
Then they came to reinstate Cointelpro and resume the infiltration and surveillance of domestic religious and political groups, and I didn't speak up because I had stopped participating in any groups.
Then they came for anyone who objected to government policy because it aided the terrorists and gave ammunition to America's enemies, and I didn't speak up because...... I didn't speak up.
Then they came for me....... and by that time no one was left to speak up.
Stephen Rohde, a constitutional lawyer and President of the ACLU of Southern California, is indebted to the inspiration of Rev. Martin Niemoller (1937).
From Stand Down:
The author of a letter to the Times this morning has noticed that nowhere in the discussion of the Total Information Awareness program has she seen reference to the tracking of gun sales. But, of course, gun sales are going to be tracked, along with everything else. As Alex Cockburn always points out, this is the sort of government activity gun nuts are afraid of. And it's why the ACLU has always stayed out of the gun debate.
Seth Edenbaum | November 21, 2002 05:09 PM | TrackBack
It may not be quite as cut-and-dried as that. One thing that the gun lobby has fought tooth-and-nail is any kind of national gun registry. They believe it to be unconstitutional, and it has been one of the primary objections to ballistic fingerprinting, which would make it easier to determine which gun shot which bullets by making a database of test-shots fired by every gun that is manufactured, and noting who it was sold to. Because this method could link a specific gun to a specific owner, the gun lobby is strongly opposed. Under TIA, if gun purchase data was also to be included, that could also, in effect, link a specific gun to a specific owner, creating what would, essentially, be a national gun registry database.
There might be an upside to this, however, especially if there are plans for gun purchases to be included. If word of that gets out, the gun-rights lobbyists may well be willing to work with liberal civil-rights advocacy groups to try and find ways to prevent TIA from every being fully developed. I suspect, however, since TIA is mainly backed by conservatives, who also tend to be gun-rights advocates, that gun purchases will not be included in TIA from the outset. Somehow, I doubt it would have gotten as far as it has, otherwise.
Overweight children sue McDonald's
Overweight children are taking McDonald's to court in New York.
Actually, its not the kids who are taking McDonald's to court, and I seriously doubt that their parents went out looking for a lawyer to file this suit for them. No, this appears to be an attorney-generated lawsuit - one where the attorney seems to have decided he could make a name for himself, and possibly a good deal of money, by finding people to file suit against the fast-food industry for their children's weight problems.
Regardless of who initiated the suit, however, there are more than a few problems with it - not the least of which is the fact that it's just another example of people trying to blame someone else for their own stupidity or lack of judgement.
There is no one, single cause for obesity. Overeating and eating the wrong foods is certainly one of them, but it can also involve hormonal malfunctions, poor metabolism, or any of a number of other possiblities. There's some evidence that obesity may even be caused by a virus, and conditions such as Willi-Prader syndrome or PCOS are known to cause significant weight gain. Even some medications - including most anti-depressants - can cause weight gain (and since most obese people are also depressed, and taking medication for it, the problem is only compounded).
Given the number of possiblities, then, it's pretty hard to pick a single product or even a single class of products, and say "That is what made me (or my kid) fat". Quite frankly, it's preposterous.
Then there's this idea that eating a diet made up primarily of fast food is almost a guarantee of obesity and bad health. Most people know at least one person, if not several, who can eat 2 or 3 meals of fast food every day for months, and never gain an ounce. Obviously, there's something in addition to the fast food (be it a metabolic or other physiological condition, a lack of exercise, or other, unknown, factors) that contributes to the effect. In that case, it's not fair to blame the fast-food industry for the entirety of the problem.
Lastly, there's the issue of responsiblity - something no one in America seems to want to admit to having. Parents are responsible to feed their children. If they cannot be bothered to find out what is healthy, they only have themselves to blame. The information about fast food has been out there for ages - there's no secret code word required or special access needed. Nutritional guides are available through the restaurants themselves, or in books that can be found in any bookstore or most libraries. Doctors should even have that kind of information available. As one of the lawyers for the fast food chains said, "People don't go to sleep thin and wake up obese. The understanding and comprehension of what hamburgers and french fries do has been with us for a long, long time."
It's true - people don't "balloon" up overnight. It takes time, and parents need to be paying enough attention to their children's health to notice if the child is gaining significant amounts of weight. If the parent chooses not to be concerned about the weight gain, and chooses not to consult with the doctor about ways to control it, then that parent has no right to sue anyone else for "making" their child fat.
Rather than looking for people or industries to blame or ways to make money off of people's problems, the time and energy going into this suit would be much better used to help gain a greater understanding of what can cause obseity, and - even moreso - what can really be done to help prevent it. Suing the fast food industry certainly isn't going to do that.
One of the joys of having Tourette's Syndrome is the tendency towards obsessive/compulsive behaviour that comes along with it. Not that that really has anything to do with why I've had a major TIA fixation lately, but I figured I could throw it out hope some will decide that it might and give me a pass on the one-track mind thing....
So, for this entry, I'm going to try and not say anything else about TIA (Its bad! write, call your representatives! call your best-friend-in-another-state's representatives! hell, call MY representatives!). Instead, I'm going to post about Other Stuff. Should make for an interesting experiment, eh? Well, come on :) What are you waiting for? Don't worry -- the links will open in new windows *g*
First Stop: The obligitory posting of the Gulf Wars 2: Clone of the Attack poster, which is making its way around the blogosphere. It is really funny, and you should go see the full-sized version to read the fine print.
Ok... I feel better now :) Hope you enjoyed the sites. Oh, yeah! Something else I wanted to mention -- if you have any thoughts about anything I write, do feel free to post comments -- I'd love to hear from you - that's half the fun, you know?
Toodles!
From: Pentagon to Track American Consumer Purchases
Thursday, November 21, 2002
By Major Garrett, Fox News [...] But proponents say big business already has access to most of this data, but don't do anything with it to fight terrorism.
"I find it somewhat counter intuitive that people are not concerned that telemarketers and insurance companies can acquire this data but feel tremendous trepidation if a government ventures into this arena. To me it just smacks of paranoia," said David Rivkin, an attorney for Baker & Hostetler LLP. [...]
Actually, I think a lot of people are concerned that telemarketers and insurance companies can acquire this kind of data. There are, however, a few significant differences between business having access to this kind of information about someone and the government having it.
The first is that in many (though admittedly not all) cases, you have the option whether to give a company information about you or not. You can choose if you want to fill out surveys, or sign up for a consumer account that would let them identify who you are and what you've bought. In addition, a company that wants to gather more information about you is likely to give you something in return - a good example being the "discount card" programs that many supermarket or drug stores offer. You aren't required to use the discount card to shop at their stores, but if you do, they give you better prices. In return, when you sign up for the card, you give them certain information about yourself, including demographic data. Then, each time you make purchases there, they swipe your card, and each item you buy is added to your file. They can then use that information to make more personalized sales pitches to you, and to have a better idea of what their customer base, as a whole, wants.
Secondly, most individual companies only have access to information about your specific purchases, demographic data and other information as it relates to that particular store - not your entire purchasing history at every store. For example, Amazon.com can offer very personalized recommendations to their customers based on your previous purchasing and "window shopping" histories - but they only know about what I've bought or looked at while visiting their website. They don't have access to my purchasing history from, say, CDNow or Best Buy, so they can't take that data into consideration. They may have a pretty good idea of what I like, but its still an incomplete picture.
Of course, the biggest difference is that the stores I shop at and the websites I visit don't have the power to decide that I'm potentially dangerous and subsequently investigate, arrest or otherwise detain, try or punish me. The government, however, can do all of that, and more. And, given the current direction our law enforcement procedures and methods are going, I don't consider it "paranoid" at all to be worried that they might.
When people are being visited by the FBI because someone reports that they have an anti-Bush poster in their home, are detained by the Postal Inspector because they wanted to buy any stamps except the ones with the flag on them, and being interrogated because they were overhead while on a phone call talking about "bombs" (the person in question was helping a friend figure out a video game she was playing), being concerned about how your shopping list might make you look isn't an overraction.
Yesterday, while discussing the lead-up to the Senate vote on the Homeland Security bill, most of the cable news stations were talking about the 7 "pork" items that the Democrats wanted to have removed. I heard nothing about the provision in the act for the "Total Information Awareness" program. Yes, this is something of an obsession for me - the scope of the program and the risk it poses to our freedoms is astonishing, and I am dumbfounded that its not getting more coverage away from the Op-Ed pages.
So far, today's priority stories tell me that we're having a fairly slow news day. Live coverage has been provided of a car-chase in LA (sparking one of my favourite screen headlines of recent memory: "Breaking News: Police tried to stop car for failure to yield"), and Michael Jackson dangling a baby over a balcony rail for about 5 seconds. This second story has even become the question of the day for MSNBC. Since they solicit comments about their questions of the day, I sent them a nice little message telling them I'd much rather hear about the TIA program that John Poindexter of Iran-Contra fame is putting together for the Pentagon than worry about what a generally-regarded-as-bizarre has-been celebrity is doing.
Each day, it seems that our government is moving closer and closer to something that looks more like facism than a republic, but there's a feeling that people are still too shell-shocked from 9/11, too afraid of future terror attacks, too complacent or too burned out to really care or have the strength and courage to fight back. I'm not sure what its going to take, but we need a wake-up call, something to help people see how much we're losing.
America is supposed to be the greatest nation in the world, and one of the biggest reasons for that greatness is that we have the freedom to live our lives, by-and-large, as we see fit. But if we're going to be willing to give up our freedoms just because we're afraid - if we're willing to accept our government being able to pry into nearly every aspect of our lives, to have to worry that someone may detect a "pattern" in what books we read, who we call, what we buy or how we express our thoughts and concerns - then those very things that make America great will be gone.
An excellent editorial on the differences between a theocratic nation and a secular one. I strongly recommend checking it out.
The trouble with interpreting the Bible verbatim
By: Michael Quay
November 18, 2002
The Islamic laws, so brutally dispensed in various parts of the Muslim world, are from a Semitic book of tribal law we know as the book of Leviticus. In the Christian Bible, this book follows Exodus, and is considered by Christian Fundamentalists, as well as a few other groups, as the actual and unerring words of God ( a.k.a. Allah, Jehovah, YHWH, etc.) The basic moral and ethical codes of each of these groups are quite similar. The difference (and it's a big one) is that western nations are not theocracies anymore, (government based on religion) but are democracies (governments based on the will of the people).
Judge's Biblical Monument Is Ruled Unconstitutional. A federal judge on Monday ordered the chief justice of Alabama's Supreme Court to remove a 5,280-pound monument to the Ten Commandments from his courthouse. By Jeffrey Gettleman. [New York Times: National]
How many different ways can the courts say that posting the Ten Commandments in public places is unconstitutional? Roy Moore, chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme court has been trying to maintain a display of the Ten Commandments, first in his courtroom and now in the lobby of the Supreme Court, for the last 10 years. He has repeatedly lost. This latest controversy arose when he snuck in a 2+ ton granite monument with the Ten Commandments and other religious inscriptions, and installed it in the court lobby. He does, of course, plan to appeal this ruling.
"This court holds that the evidence is overwhelming and the law is clear that the chief justice violated the Establishment Clause," wrote Judge Myron H. Thompson of Federal District Court in Montgomery in a crackling opinion, referring to a clause in the First Amendment. The monument is "nothing less than an obtrusive year-round religious display intended to proselytize on behalf of a particular religion, the chief justice's religion."
Regardless of whether or not a religious document was part of the inspiration for our modern laws, there is no reason for a religiously-oriented display to be placed in any court room. Our courts are quite secular in nature, a demonstration of humankind's ability to be self-ruling. Through our courts, we investigate events, use logic and reason to determine guilt or innocence and set forth the proscribed penalty for breaking the laws. We do not rely upon anything religious in nature to make these judgements or issue these punishments. There is no "spectral evidence" that is admissable, no High Priest or Priestess to divine the will or judgement of the Gods, and there is room for the all-too-human failings that can lead to false convictions or letting the guilty go free.
While the Ten Commandments may have played a role in the initial structuring of our laws, our laws have grown far beyond the precepts they set out. We, as a society, have determined what is considered appropriate behaviour, and, more importantly, what isn't. We have determined what penalties are appropriate and what the best ways to get at the truth are. These courts are not courts of God, but courts of Man. To try and elevate them to somehow having been convened on God's authority is to make both more and less of them than they actually are. We need no emblems of external authority, because we have given ourselves the authority to stand in judgement of each other. For good or ill, we should recognize them for what they are.
A coalition of roughly 50 organization published an open letter to Senators Trent Lott and Tom Daschle today, expressing their concerns with the proposted "Total Information Awareness" program and asking that they adopt an amendment to the Homeland Security bill preventing the TIA program from going forward. As evidence of how widespread concern about this program is, the letter is signed by the leaders of groups that represent a wide range of viewpoints, including both People For the American Way and Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum. Other signatories include the SquareOne Media Network, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Consumer Task Force for Automotive Issues, and Junkbusters, Corp.
According to DARPA's own documents, TIA will collect and mine vast amounts of information on the American public, including telephone records, bank records, medical records, and educational and travel data. TIA also proposes to connect with a massive system of biometric identification.
There are no systems of oversight or accountability contemplated in the TIA project. DARPA itself has resisted lawful requests for information about the program pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act.
On another note, Microsoft has hired a director for their Federal Homeland Security office. The purpose of this position is to allow Microsoft to be able to bid on contracts related to the Homeland Security and to lobby the Homeland Security office to use Microsoft products for their projects.
As "The Decline and Fall of the American Empire" observes, this leaves open one very interesting, and rather disquieting, possiblility. IF the Total Informatiom Awareness office is approved, and IF Microsoft were to get the Homeland Security contracts (neither of which is a certain thing), Microsoft could end up not only writing and publishing the most commonly used operating system in America, but could also be directly involved with the government's goal of gathering as much information on each citizen as possible, so that it could be subjected to the "data mining" analysis that is supposed to help investigators indentify if someone should be viewed as a potential threat based on the pattern of actiities their electronic trail leads. How much easier would it be for the government to spy on people if their operating system was designed to interoperate an communicate with the government's data management system? LIke I said - there are an awful lot of ifs involved, so there's no cause for panic yet, but the situation does bear watching.
Bill Tammeus of the Kansas City Star has written an excellent commentary on just what it is that makes for Authentic Patriotism. One of my favourite points:
Praises and criticizes the government. I'm always stunned at how critical some people are of whatever the government does -- until a national crisis arrives. Then some of them brook no criticism at all, imagining it to be unpatriotic.
But the truth is that we don't defend our principles by abandoning them in crises. We don't honor freedom of speech by forbidding it. In good times and bad, we need to follow what our representatives are doing in our name and, if it's done well, praise them, but, if not, call them to account. It is not treason to disagree with the president. It can, however, be unpatriotic to silence dissident voices.
I received this e-mail this morning from the ACLU in regards to the "Total Information Awareness". If you are not yet familiar with the Total Information Awareness program, you can read more about it here and here.
You do not need to be a member of the ACLU to make use of this service.
To: ACLU Action Network
FR: Damon Moglen, National Field Coordinator
DT: November 18, 2002
1. Stop the Pentagon plan to invade our privacy!
In the past few days, press reports have revealed that a little-known Defense Department office has begun developing a computer system that would provide officials with the ability to snoop into all aspects of our private lives without a search warrant or proof of criminal wrongdoing.
The Pentagon's new Office of Information Awareness is building a system called “Total Information Awareness” that would effectively provide government officials with immediate access to our personal information: all of our communications (phone calls, emails and web searches), financial records, purchases, prescriptions, school records, medical records and travel history. Under this program, our entire lives would be catalogued and available to government officials.
We have a real opportunity to stop this plan’s overwhelming invasion of privacy before it is goes any further. To learn more about this initiative and what you can do to defend your right to privacy, please click here:
Surgical tags plan for sex offenders
Silicon chip to be inserted under skin
Martin Bright, home affairs editor
Sunday November 17, 2002
The Observer
Britain is considering a controversial scheme to implant surgically electronic tags in convicted paedophiles amid fears that the extent of the abuse of children has been massively underestimated.
Documents obtained by The Observer reveal the Government could track paedophiles by satellite, with a system similar to that used to locate stolen cars.
The tags can be put beneath the skin under local anaesthetic and would also be able to monitor the heart rate and blood pressure of the abuser, alerting staff to the possibility that another attack was imminent.
As the US Supreme Court plans to decide the Constitutionality of sex-offender registries, the UK is looking into the possiblity of an even more draconian plan - requiring paedophiles to have an electronic tag implanted under their skin to not only monitor their location, but to also take readings to see if they are exhibiting biological signs of "nervousness and fear", which might indicate that another attack is about to occur.
The UK has been known for taking a more authoritarian stance when it comes to crime prevention than the US has, so while such a plan may seem to be unlikely to go anywhere in American, in the UK it has a better chance of being implemented.
In some ways, it doesn't sound like such a bad idea. The tag would only be required for convicted paedophiles, and its widely held that there are no effective treatments or preventitive measures to help an offender avoid repeating his crimes. Unless paedophilia is made a crime that receives an automatic life sentence without parole, anytime a paedophile is released back into the community he is once again a threat to any children he happens to be around.
But the larger implications of this idea are somewhat more disconcerting. First, paedophilia isn't the only crime with a high recidivism rate. If tagging paedophiles is considered appropriate because of their tendency to re-offend, would it not also make sense to tag criminals from other categories that are deemed likely to commit the same kind of crime again? Beyond the obvious civil rights issues and possible "slippery slope" concerns, the logistical issues would also need to be evaluated.
For tracking to be effective, someone has to be paying attention to where the tracked individual is going. To create some kind of a computer program that would be able to not only monitor all of the signals being received, but then to analyze them by individual, location, biological readings and criminal history to determine if there might be a crime about to happen would be no small task - but to have it done manually through human observation would take a great deal of manpower. Without effective tracking and analysis, however, the value of the program as a crime preventative is diminished, though it would still make for excellent evidence in any subsequent trial.
One other point of concern is with the idea of monitoring biological reactions in order to predict when a crime might be about to occur. According to the article, the tags would look for signs of "nervousness and fear" - conditions that most humans feel on a fairly regular basis without there being any involvement on their part in commiting a crime. What kind of a threshhold would there be that would trigger concern of a crime being committed? How would they be able to differentiate between the kind of "nervousness and fear" an offernder might experience while approaching a potential victim and the "nervousness and fear" that someone might feel if they've been startled or had just nearly avoided being part of an automobile accident? And how would law-enforcement resources being allocated to allow for dispatch to prevent a crime if it's determined one may well be under way without running the risk of draining resources from other aspects of their work?
The technology for this kind of a program is still in development, but it's important to make sure that all of these questions, in addition to the larger civil rights issues, are addressed before entering into any kind of a program with the potential ramifications that this one might have.
Should the military be given the names of every high school student in America?
By David Goodman
November/December 2002 Issue
Sharon Shea-Keneally, principal of Mount Anthony Union High School in Bennington, Vermont, was shocked when she received a letter in May from military recruiters demanding a list of all her students, including names, addresses, and phone numbers.
[...] The recruiters cited the No Child Left Behind Act, President Bush's sweeping new education law passed earlier this year. There, buried deep within the law's 670 pages, is a provision requiring public secondary schools to provide military recruiters not only with access to facilities, but also with contact information for every student -- or face a cutoff of all federal aid.
Given the current climate of war in the United States, its understandable that the administration would want to have the best opportunities to recruit as many new soldiers as possible into the Armed Forces. Military service is something that each citizen should give careful consideration to, both as a means of giving something back to the country in return for all of the benefits gained by living here, and also because it can serve as a character building experience and provide excellent training for a variety of careers. Even still, not everyone is cut out for the military life, or is physically capable of serving, and there are many good reasons not to join.
For parents who wanted to see their children join the service, and kids who were interested in enlisting, many schools have been offering the Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps (JROTC), which not only allows them to start their training while still in high school, but also gives them the opportunity to serve as recruiters themselves. Additionally, most schools have gladly allowed military recruiters to come into the schools and talk to students about enlisting. The current administration, however, feels that more is needed, and included a provision in the "No Child Left Behind" act requiring public schools to turn over the names, addresses and phone numbers to the military so that they can then contact them at home to see about getting them to sign up. It was added, because some schools chose not to allow recruiters to come in and recruit, and, as Representative David Vitter [R-La] explained, they "demonstrated an anti-military attitude that I thought was offernsive".
It's not hard to understand why a representative might find it offensive for a school to prevent recruiters from visiting, but its unquestionable that many parents will find having their child contacted at home, directly, by the military, to be offensive as well. The recruiters, however, don't plan to let parental objections stop them from their mission of trying to get as many kids signed up as possible.
Recruiters are up-front about their plans to use school lists to aggressively pursue students through mailings, phone calls, and personal visits -- even if parents object. "The only thing that will get us to stop contacting the family is if they call their congressman," says Major Johannes Paraan, head U.S. Army recruiter for Vermont and northeastern New York. "Or maybe if the kid died, we'll take them off our list."
Students - if they are aware that their information can be turned over to the military - do have the option to request that their information be withheld, but not all schools are letting students know that there information may be given out.
What's curious, though, is that if the issue was that public schools weren't allowing the military to recruit on school grounds, why not change the law to require schools to allow military recruitment, rather than requiring them to turn over their student contact information? The obvious answer is that recruitment events are usually only one or two day affairs, where the recruiters are meeting as many students as possible, and tend to see only those who are pre-disposed to interest in serving. Having their contact information, however, allows recruiters to make multiple contacts to different inividuals more easily, and to spend more time trying to convince those who may be reluctant to conisder enlisting.
Of course, the possiblity exists that this may become a moot point. Representative Nick Smith, [R-Mi] introduced HR 3598 on December 20, 2001, to re-institute the draft. According to to Thomas, it currently is in the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, but with the on-going war on terror and the upcoming war with Iraq, it may begin to draw more notice and consideration than it has thus far. This bill is specifically aimed at recruiting student right out of high school, and no longer allows for a deferrment based on enrollment in college. Conscientious objectors will be exempt from combatant training, but can still be drafted and given other basic training before being permitted transfer to a national service program.
Either way, for high school graduates, the push is on to get them into the military. As parents begin to see their own children being called to serve (whether through a reinstated draft or home-delivered recruitment pitches), perhaps it will help more people understand just what is at risk with Bush's aggressive policies.
Big Brother Goes to Washington
A privacy expert explains how the government could use a new security law to spy on Americans
By Arlene Getz
NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE
[...] THE BILL STILL HAS to be approved by the Senate, but if passed in its current form it will enable law-enforcement groups to compel Internet service providers to hand over client records revealing everything from their personal e-mail messages to their favorite Web sites. [...]
Newsweek's website this week has an excellent interview with Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) about a provision in the House version of the Homeland Security Act that would give the police and federal law enforcement agencies the ability to go to an ISP, an, without a warrant, and obtain records of your online activity, including mail sent and received, websites visited, and purchases made.
This proposal is separate from the Total Information Awarenes program I've previously written about, but could end up being used in conjuction with TIA to give it more data about you for the government.
A few days ago, I wrote about a website called "Masturbate for Peace", which promotes the concept of masturbating and focusing your thoughts on peace as you do so, to release positive energies into the world and hopefully reduce the current war-like feelings in the process.
Well, here's a slightly different take on the concept. This site, walled "Win-the-War", is advocating that women refuse to have sex with men until we get clean water systems built and operation al for all 38,000+ villages in Afghanistan.
Now, there's nothing wrong with wanting to get clean water provided to all the Afghani villages, but I have to say that I think the people behind the "no water, no nookie" campaign are going about it in a bit of a wrong-headed way. Their proposal seems to be based on 2 assumptions: That the greatest power a woman has is in her ability to give or deny sex, and that a man's greatest weakness is his libido.
In all honesty, women do still have a ways to go before we can really be consdiered equal with men, but its pretty obvious that we have made some significant gains outside the bedroom. As for men, we can only hope that men, as a whole, have enough substance to them that can be motivated by logic, reason, compassion and honour and not just by whether or not they can get lucky.
I may not always agree with every cause the ACLU champions or every suit that they file, but their "Keep America Safe AND Free" campaign is one that I can easily support. As part of the campaign, the ACLU has issued the following press release regarding the "Total Information Awareness" program. While much of the informaiton it contains has already been covered by the other postings at this site, I wanted to include it here anyway.
-=<*>=-
November 14, 2002
WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union today called on President Bush to disavow a new system being developed at the Pentagon that would be able to track every American’s activities.
WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union today called on President Bush to disavow a new system being developed at the Pentagon that would be able to track every American’s activities.
"Smile, you’re on virtual candid camera," said Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU’s Washington National Office. "If the Pentagon has its way, every American - from the Nebraskan farmer to the Wall Street banker - will find themselves under the accusatory cyber-stare of an all-powerful national security apparatus."
The Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is developing the system, which it has dubbed "Total Information Awareness," in its Information Awareness Office. That office is directed by former Reagan Administration official John Poindexter, who once said that it was his duty as the national security advisor to withhold information from Congress.
The Total Information Awareness program will be -- by Poindexter’s own public admission -- the infrastructure for what the government hopes will be the most extensive electronic surveillance system in history. That vision is encapsulated in the logo for Poindexter’s office: the all-seeing eye and pyramid (prominent also on the one dollar bill) spying from above on the entire world. The office’s motto is Scientia Est Potentia, Latin for "Knowledge is Power."
The ACLU concerns are somewhat similar to those expressed today by "card-carrying conservative" New York Times columnist William Safire that the program is a "supersnoop’s dream."
The Total Information Awareness program would use the technology called data-mining - which is totally untested in the national security context -- to ostensibly detect terrorist threats before they occur. Data-mining, currently used by private industry to track buying habits and target telemarketers, among other things, involves the computerized scrutiny of vast amounts of unrelated information in the hope of finding patterns that can predict future behavior.
But the Total Information Awareness program goes further than any corporate cyber-snooping: it would link a huge number of commercial and governmental databases, both in America and overseas. These databases could presumably range from student grades to mental health histories to travel records.
"Just as he scaled back the program that would have had neighbors spying on neighbors, President Bush must stop the Total Information Awareness program now," said Katie Corrigan, an ACLU Legislative Counsel. "And if he refuses to act, Congress should step in quickly and pull the plug on this dangerous idea."
© American Civil Liberties Union
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10004
Activists challenge sex-crime law
By Katie Nelson
Kansan staff writer
[...] Two years ago, Matthew Limon was jailed for giving consensual oral sex to a then-14 year-old boy while both were students at a Paola residential school for developmentally disabled youth.
As a result, Limon, 20, received a 17-year-two-month sentence for sodomy from a Miami County judge. Had either Limon or the boy been female, the maximum sentence would have been one year and three months.
One of the greatest joys of living in Kansas is that we frequently get reminded about just how bassackwards this state can be. When we're not busy throwing the theory of evolution out of the schools, we're sentencing gays to sentences more than 10 times as long as they would be had a straight couple been involved. And how do we justify that? According to Rep. Mike O´Neal, chairman of the Kansas House Judiciary Committee, its because "many Kansans aren't ready to go against their religious teachings".
Ok, if their religious teaching tell them that engaging in consensual homosexual sex is wrong, then they shouldn't do it. Problem solved, right? Why punish people who don't have a problem with consensual homosexual sex for having consensual homosexual sex just because some others might have a problem with it?
This situation has come about because a few years ago, the Kansas legislature decided to revise the statuatory rape laws to take into account situations where someone who might be a bit over the age of consent and someone who is just a bit under it decide to have consensual sex, and it's fairly clear that no exploitation was involved on the part of the adult. The problem is, the law specifically, and intentionally, applies only to heterosexual couples. If the two people involved are of the same sex, then the old laws still apply. As a result, in this case, Matthew Limon has been sentenced to 17+ years in prison instead of just over a year.
The ACLU has become invoved in this case and is asking the Supreme Court to hear the case, but from past experience, it doesn't look too good for Mr. Limon or other homosexuals who find themselves in the same situation. Kansas, it turns out, also has anti-sodomy laws that only apply to homosexuals, and attempts to have those laws judged unConstitutional as a violation of the 14th amendment right to equal protection under the law have failed.
Now, granted, this entire situation could have been avoided had Mr. Limon not been messing around with a then-14-year-old, something that by most any standards would be considered inappropriate. But he did, and while he should be penalized for breaking the law, the idea that what he did was 17 times as bad because he and his partner were gay is mind-bogglingly stupid.
What's worse, though, is the idea that this discrepancy is justified because many Kansans "aren't ready to go against their religious training". Is that not admitting that the basis for this different treatment is not that there is something inherently wrong about homosexuality that makes it so much worse, but rather that it is considered so much worse because it violates certain religious principles? It seems to me that if that's the case, then what we have here is not only a lack of equal protection under the law, but also an instance in which the legislature is trying to codify the rules of a specific religion into the state's laws. I cannot imagine that it is at all appropriate, or, for that matter, Constitutionally allowable, for any governmental body to create and enforce laws that serve no purpose other than to estabish a religious principle as an allegedly secular law.
[Ed. Note - Initially, this had been posted as being a letter from the Equal Justice Project. I have since been informed that this is not the case - the campign is being run by an informal group of concerned citizens. - KJ]
Talk Left has posted a copy of a letter they received from a group of concerned citizens regarding Attorney General John Ashcroft, and why they believe he is not fit to hold the office he currently occupies. The letter make some good points, and I would encourage you to at least take a minute to read over it.
I feel very strongly that John Ashcroft is a dangerous man, and should not have the kind of power that the office of Attorney General affords him. He has repeatedly shown that, like others in the Bush administration, he prefers to act in secret and does not believe that he or the Justice Department should be accountable to any other part of the justice system for their actions or policies. This is something that cannot - and should not - be tolerated as part of an open society.
Remember, the people of his home state, Missouri, whom he had served for many years, chose to elect a dead man to the Senate rather than return him to Congress for another term. (And yes, they knew that Mel Carnahan's widow would be appointed to his seat if he won, but even still, they preferred a politically untried widow to John Ashcroft). At the time, I was pleased that Missouri had opted to send Mrs. Carnahan to the Senate, but after having watched Mr. Ashcroft as Attorney General for the last two years, I wish that they had re-elected him - at least then he would only be one voice out of 100, rather than the top authority in our Justice system.
White House Yields on a 9/11 Inquiry Backed by Congress
By DAVID FIRESTONE
WASHINGTON, Friday, Nov. 15 - Yielding to intense pressure from families of Sept. 11 victims, the White House agreed last night to a Congressional compromise that would create an independent commission to investigate the terrorist attacks. The House immediately approved a bill to establish the commission on a 366-to-3 vote before adjourning for the year early this morning. The Senate was expected to pass it later today.
[...] Members of the panel, which will be known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, are intended to be nationally recognized American citizens, none currently holding office, with broad experience in national security affairs and law enforcement. Former cabinet members and elected officials have been mentioned for the positions. The commission will issue a report to the president and to Congress 18 months after it begins, which could provide an embarrassing political issue in the middle of the 2004 election campaign.
[...] The agreement calls for two commission members each to be appointed by the Senate Republican leader, the Senate Democratic leader, the House Republican leader and the House Democratic leader. (Mr. McCain's choice will be one of the Senate Republican leader's two appointments.) The president will choose the chairman, and Congressional Democrats the vice chairman. Subpoenas can be issued by either the chairman and vice chairman together, or by any six members.
It's sad that it's taken over a year for Congress and the White House to finally reach an agreement on how to handle the necessary investigation into the 9/11 attacks. Of course, given the White House's initial stand against any kind of an investigation, this certainly is progress.
It does sound like they've taken a number of steps to help make sure that the commission is reasonably fair, though I am a bit concerned about what kind of a chairman Bush will appoint. The structure of the plan, however, does not put all of the power into the chairman's hands alone. Each party will have 5 members on the commission, and any 6 members can opt to issue a subpoena if they feel it is necessary.
It will be good if this commission can help answer questions as to what the US could have done mre effectively to help prevent this disaster, and even better if we can learn enough to prevent this kind of a tragedy from occuring again - especially if we can figure out how to do it without having to give up our freedoms in the name of security.
I do very much believe that, had the intelligence community been more attentive to the information it had access to, or had been better able to coordinate across agency lines, that there would have been a very good chance that the attacks could have been prevented. Rather than trying to coordinate and analyze databases full of consumer and commercial information (under the "Total Information Awareness" Program), perhaps the Pentagon, FBI, CIA, and NSA, along with state and local law enforcement agencies should work to coordinate their databases of tips, interviews, and other information they've received through various investigations. If all of that information could be cross-referenced and analyzed on a regular basis, I think it would be an incredibly effective tool for helping to stop terroristic activity (and might even help capture some "regular" criminals in the process), without violating the average citizen's privacy or restricting our civil liberties any further.
Former weapons inspector says war with Iraq inevitable
Thu Nov 14, 2:45 PM ET
PASADENA, California - Former United Nations (news - web sites) weapons inspector Scott Ritter says the U.N. resolution on disarming Iraq of weapons of mass destruction makes war inevitable.
[...] The resolution adopted unanimously last Friday says "false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq ... and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in, the implementation of this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the council for assessment."
One of the inherent problems in using something like weapons inspections to ensure that a country has no weapons of mass distruction is that it requires a certain amount of trust be given, not only to the country under inspection, but to the inspectors and the process itself. Even if Saddam Hussein and the weapons inspectors both say that every weapon has been found and destroyed, it is far too easy for the Bush administration to say that they do not believe that all the weapons have been found.
This problem comes about because of the problem of proving a negative. Its one thing to prove that you do have weapons - all you have to do is show them to whomever is asking and the question is settled. Proving that you don't have weapons, however, is an entirely different matter. You can throw open every door, window, cabinet, box and piece of storage furniture you have, and someone can still say "well, maybe he buried it in his back yard" or "maybe he's got it in a hidden cubby hole that we just can't see". Unless you tear the entire house apart brick by brick and dig up every inch of the yard, the possibility will always exist that it could still be "somewhere".
The resolution passed by the United Nations stipulates that omissions or lies by Saddam in regards to what weapons he has or where they are located is not sufficient in and of itself to justify a UN invasion. He also has to show an unwillingness to comply or failure to cooperate with the resolution in some way. If, however, we claim his is lying or otherwise obstructing the efforts of the investigators, linking other behaviour to those actions in such a way as to construe them as non-compliance or non-cooperation isn't going to be much of a stretch.
The US is very much gearing up for a war. The deadline for Suddam to make his weapons declaration is December 8th, and by around that time, there will be 4 US air carriers in the area. Troops are being readied at bases around the country to ship out, and all is set for their to be a war within the next few weeks. [As a side note, I have to say I find it interesting that in other times when we've contemplated military action, we have taken care to avoid attacking during Ramadhan, which is a holy month for Muslims, yet here we stand, preparing to start a war at the beginning of the Christmas season - a time that is supposed to be holy to many Western traditions - and a time in which we are supposed to be focusing on Peace.]
Given that, no matter what the inspectors find, we still have the ability to say that we don't believe everything has been disclosed or found, and given that we've retained the right to invade Iraq by ourselves, even if the UN disagrees with our doing so, it's pretty clear that we will find an excuse to do exactly as we please - and it's also clear that what pleases George Bush is invading Iraq.
I'm not sure I WANT to know what the designer of this logo was thinking when he created it - all I can figure is either he has a truly perverted sense of humour or he's completely unaware of the conspiracy theories that are circulating about various governments around the world.
A large number of conspiracy theories center on a group called the Illuminati, who are believed to be the secret force that rules the world, or, at least, is trying to - depending on who you ask. The image of the eye in in the pyramid (also known as the "All Seeing Eye") is said to represent their ability to observe everything that happens in the world.
The logo for the Information Awareness Office, which will be running the "Total Information Awareness" program (which is the program intended to collect as much information on each person as possible from commercial databases that currently cannot be accessed without a subpeona), features the "Illuminati"'s "All Seeing Eye", and shows it shining it's light of observation over the entire world. Somehow, I don't see conspiracy theorists being mollified upon hearing the goals and programs of the IAO.
The latest "thing" here at the Salon blogs seems to be interesting Google searches that led to your site. My favourite for today? "pay scales for CIA". It does make me wondering - in most industries, you can look at how employees in comperable positions in competing companies are paid to determine if you're being paid "fairly", but who would you compare a position at the CIA with?
For those Googlesluts who are really wanting to rack up the hits, though, let me suggest using "Arnold Chrysler", or "40,000 coat hangers". I posted this article back on October 30th, and Google searches for it have brought me more hits than all of the other search terms combined. In fact, just this week, it's brought me over 100 visitors. (In case you missed it, it's a story about a guy who stole 40,000 coat hangers from hotels, so that he could use them in these hotel-style wardrobes he sells to people who want to make their homes look and feel like a hotel room. The Independent (UK) printed transcripts from Mr. Chrysler's testimony during the trial, which is quite hilarious.)
BTW: For something really fun, check out the Raven as he goes Xtreme Blogging!
You Are a Suspect. John Poindexter is determined to break down the wall between commercial snooping and secret government intrusion. By William Safire. [Headlines From The NY Times]
According to this editorial, the "Total Information Awareness" program that the Pentagon wants to implement is included as part of the Homeland Security bill now being approved by Congress. As described by Safire, the plan would open a number of commercial databases - not just the banking transactions, phone records, e-mails and travel plans mentioned in my previous post on this topic, but also your grades, credit card purchases, websites you visit, prescriptions medications you buy, magazine subscriptions and various events you attend - and allows them to be crossreferenced with any information the government already has - drivers license records, passport information, any judicial or divorce proceedings, complaints made to law enforcement officals about you, and so on.
Something interesting - and more than a bit disconcerting - is the person behind this idea, and who, presumably, would be running the program: former Admiral John Poindexter.
Remember Poindexter? Brilliant man, first in his class at the Naval Academy, later earned a doctorate in physics, rose to national security adviser under President Ronald Reagan. He had this brilliant idea of secretly selling missiles to Iran to pay ransom for hostages, and with the illicit proceeds to illegally support contras in Nicaragua.
A jury convicted Poindexter in 1990 on five felony counts of misleading Congress and making false statements, but an appeals court overturned the verdict because Congress had given him immunity for his testimony. He famously asserted, "The buck stops here," arguing that the White House staff, and not the president, was responsible for fateful decisions that might prove embarrassing.
I probably shouldn't be surprised that he's still in government service, but I am. The felony charges against him were not dismissed because they were not true, but because they weren't allowed to use the incriminating testimony he gave to Congress against him. Given the collective Republican hissy-fit over President Clinton's lies regaring his private life, it seems more than a bit hypocritical for them to have appointed an admitted liar to run the "Information Awareness Office", a department of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).
Even those who feel that the loss of privacy is acceptable in light of the need for safety should be concerned about a program being created and implemented by Admiral Poindexter. He has already shown that he lacks good judgement and considers the truth disposable if disposing of it furthers the aims of the government.
Usualy, when I hear that some fundamentalist or conservative Christian group is promoting a boycott of some childrens' book or books, I just shake my head a bit and wonder why they don't think that parents can actually control what their children read as opposed to needing the material to be made unavilable to all children, even those who's parents wouldn't find the book(s) to be objectionable.
So when I first heard, today, that Ex-Witch Ministries and Focus on the Family were promoting a boycott of Scholastic Books (the publishers of the Harry Potter series, among others), I figured this was just another example of the usual tempest in a teapot these things turn out to be. It was with a bit of surprise, then, that I found myself agreeing with them on one of their major points.
In this particular instance, they are not asking for a boycott of all Scholastic products, nor are they trying to get any books pulled from regular bookstores. Their specific issue is with the Scholastic Book Fairs, in which children can purchase books through their schools, and frequently, the books offered at these fairs also have lesson or discussion guides available so that the teacher can use the books in class. Their specific concern is that some of these books may be teaching Witchcraft, "New Age" beliefs or Wicca, and that religion should not be taught in schools (though I have to admit, they're not as quick to object when its their own religion being taught, but I'm going to let that slide for the moment).
Most of the books that they indicate having concerns about - including the Goosebumps series, the Harry Potter books, and Midnight Magic - are pure fantasy, and don't do anything to promote or teach about religion. There's a big difference between fantasy magic - the typical witches, wizards, goblins, ghosts and other denizens of the night - that populate many of the highly imaginative childrens stories that have been popular throughout the ages, and spiritual magick (spelled with the "k" on the end, to help make it easier to tell the difference when reading something), which is the kind of magick practiced by modern Witches, Wiccans and many Pagans. Fantasy (or "Hollywood") magic is all about flash and sizzle, shooting lightning bolts from your fingertips, flying, creating objects out of thin air and other such powers. These are not things you will see a spiritual Witch doing. Spiritual Magick is more about focusing energy and will on a specific goal to bring about a desired change. It involves recognizing and attuning to the divine energy that is in all of nature as well as within the self. No flying brooms, no disappearing in a "poof" of smoke.
Recently, though, there's has begun to be a melding of the two kinds of magic(k) in fiction aimed at teenagers. While it's still a fairly small market, these books use the flash and sizzle of Fantasy magic to catch the attention of the teens, and then promote spiritual magick as part of the storyline. The most blatant series of thse that I've seen is the "Teen Witch" series by Silver RavenWolf, which are published by Llewellyn publishers. While I'm not fond of the "Teen Witch" books, they are being published through one of the largest occult publishing houses that exist and are written by a noted Pagan author, so its not that big of a surprise to find that there are themes throughout the books that help to teach kids about Wicca, Witchcraft and/or Paganism.
One similar series, however, appears to be the "T*Witches" series published by Scholastic and offered through the school book fairs. Now, I've not read these books personally, but after looking through the website for them today, I actually have to agree with the Ex-Witch Ministries in saying that these books are not appropriate for sale through the school.
The first thing that caught my eye is that the website uses the "magick" spelling, which is something I've rarely seen outside the Pagan community. I then looked at the "Spellbook" section, and was rather surprised at what I found there. The site offers "Magick Tips" for kids wanting to write their own spells, and then gives kids the opportunities to post the spells they've written for other fans to read, and, presumably, try. The "Magick Tips" does have a few suggestions that, from the standpoint of a spiritual Witch, are rather "out there" - for instance, rhyming isn't mandetory when writing a spell -- it just makes it easier to remember, and making up "nonsense" words won't accomplish anything. But most of the other suggestions - talking about the moon phases and timing of spells, the use of herbs and working out in nature - sound like they could come straight from any Witchcraft 101 book.
Reading through some of the spells in the "Spellbook" section, I have to say they don't sound or look all that different from some of the spells I've seen from full-fledged Witches and Wiccans. Now, granted, while providing tips on how to write spells, they don't (at least on the website) to into such depth as to provide lists of correspondences (i.e. Herb "A" is good to use for Issue "1"), so it seems that the kids doing the writing are sort of just "picking" specific times when their "spells" should be done or what herbs to use, but the basic concept is still there.
One thing I did find very irritating is that the website has a catagory for "love" spells, but no discussion of the ethics of that kind of working. In most Wiccan or Witchcraft traditions, casing a spell to cause someone to do or feel something that goes against their own free will is considered highly unethical. Love spells intended to cause a specific person to fall in love with the caster fall under that category and are strongly discouraged by many Witches, Wiccans an Pagans. If the people writing these books and running the website wish to teach spiritual Witchcraft through these books, it would be good if they could teach the ethics that go with it as well.
So, this, then, is where I actually agree with those planning the boycott. These books, from the way they're promoted on the website, appear to very definately cross the line between being an entertaining and imaginative fantasy into promoting or teaching a specific religion. I know I'd be very upset if some "Christian" Teen novels made their way into the schools, and I can't blame Christian parents for being upset about this particular series. There has to be consistancy on this kind of an issue for the Constitution to mean anything.
N.F.L.'s New Bottom (and Waist) Line. Is it fair or even necessary for the N.F.L. to fire a highly respected game official because it considers him overweight? By Mike Freeman. [Headlines From The NY Times]
In July 2002, one of the NFL's best game officials was fired for not meeting a new weight guideline that they had established. He sued, and got his job back, but now is considered suspended, rather than fired, until he gets his weight in line with the new guideines.
There are, of course, debates about why the new guidelines were instituted. Some NFL professionals have said (anonymously) that it's because they want the game officials to look better on TV. Others (un-anonymously) have said that they simply don't want an unhealthy official to collapse on the field due to exertion - the game officials do have to run up and down the field a lot - especially in the higher heat of some of the early games.
Yet, despite the general belief that "fat" automatically means "unhealthy", that isn't always the case. It's entirely possible for an obese person to still have normal blood pressure, normal heart and respiratory rates, low cholesterol, normal pulse and blood oxygen rates and normal blood sugar. And these statistics are much more useful in determining the overall health of a person, as opposed to just their weight or "Body Mass Index".
If the NFL is truly worried about the health and well-being of its game officials, then perhaps it should require them to take tests that would provide the above data and use that to determine if they are healthy enough to officiate, rather than just basing a determination off their weight. This would not only be less discriminatory against healty-but-fat people, it would be more accurate and, thus, more likely to weed out any men who might be at risk for collapsing on the field.
If, however, their actual concern is with appearance, then the NFL should be highly ashamed of itself. I doubt very many people - male or female - are going to decide whether or not to watch a game based on the perceived attractiveness of the game officials.
We've known already for several years that the constant focus of the entertainment (and other) media on slim women, showing them as being desirable and fat women as being people to laugh at, make jokes about or pity, has been linked to the increase in anorexia and bulimia among adolesent girls. More recent trends have shown that as men have come under greater scruitiny in the media, with more attention being paid to thinner men than fat ones, adolesent males have also shown an increase in eating disorders - a phenomenon that was relatively rare just a few years ago.
Worrying about the attractiveness of football game officials will do little, if anything, to enhance the viewers experience, and its unlikely to do much to draw in more viewers. Most people don't really notice the officials, until they throw a flag on a play where the team an individual is rooting for is judged to have made some kind of an error. The knowledge, however, that even football officials are only acceptable if they are thin, is likely to stick with some of the boys who read or hear about it - which also means that it might contribute to some of the boys developing eating disorders at some point. Please note, I'm not saying that this one decision by itself would be enough to push someone over the "edge" of being anorexic or bulimic, but as part of an overall pattern of saying that only thin is acceptable, it has the potential to be a contributing factor. And that's just not something that's needed.
On 11/10 and 11/11, I posted two articles that talked about how the government has been handling the case of John Muhammad and John Lee Malvo, the accused DC-area snipers. In both articles, I noted that Malvo had been interrogated prior to his having had either a lawyer or a guardian appointed to help him. According to today's New York Times editorial, this is incorrect. Malvo had been appointed a guardian prior to the interrogation. During the 7 hours Malvo was being interrogated, however, his guardian asked that the questioning be stopped (as is a guardian's right to do). His request was denied and he was told to leave the police headquarters.
The government's disregard for Mr. Malvo's juvenile status was dramatically illustrated last week, when police interrogated him for seven hours outside the presence of his court-appointed guardian. Todd Petit, the lawyer appointed to serve as a stand-in for Mr. Malvo's parents, asked the police to stop, but they continued, and ordered Mr. Petit to leave police headquarters. It makes a mockery of the institution of guardianship for the government to appoint a guardian and then prevent him from being present for an interrogation that could lead to his ward's execution. - New York Times editorial, 11/12/2002
Suspect Tells Police That Target of Bali Bombing Was Americans, Not Australians
By JANE PERLEZ
KUTA, Indonesia, Nov. 8 — A suspect in the terrorist attack on a Bali disco told his interrogators that the group that carried out the blast intended to attack Americans and regretted that instead they killed many more Australians, the head of the investigation said today. [...]
[...] According to the account of Gen. I Made Mangku Pastika, the chief Indonesian investigator, Mr. Amrozi told his interrogators: "They wanted to kill as many Americans as possible. They hate Americans. They tried to find where the Americans are gathering."
They believed that Bali was a haunt of Americans, and afterward were "not happy because Australians were killed in big numbers," General Pastika said. The attackers sought revenge for "what Americans have done to Muslims," General Pastika said.
How bad does your intelligence have to be in order to think that a tourist hotspot for Australians is actually a tourist hotspot for Americans?
Somehow, I find it a bit difficult to believe that this was an honest mistake. Anyone who would go to the trouble of bowing up a night club in Bali and setting a second bomb to try to kill those who escaped from the first bomb as they ran from the club and to try to kill the rescue workers who reported to the first blast, would also be capable of determining who was likely to be at the target location and if they were the people they really wanted to kill or not. The question, therefore, becomes, why would someone bomb and kill Austrailians and then try to claim they intended to kil Americans? One reason may be that they want to create tension between America and our allies, by giving them reasons to resent us and our treatment of Muslims.
Even while working towards the now-passed UN resolution, the US has made it clear that if we think it's necessary (and it seems unlikely that we won't), we will invade Iraq, regardless of what the UN decides. I suspect that most of the Middle Eastern and Muslim eaders have realized it is inevitable that the US will invade, and that trying to stop us is a wasted effort. International support for our efforts, how ever, have remained shaky, and that makes it an area that those opposed to our goals can attack. The fewer allies we have who will join us in the war, the weaker they think our resove will be. And I can't say I blame them - once the reality that our kids - our young men and women - are dying in a war that makes no sense, its very likely that public support for the war itself will collapse, and the Bush administration will have to decide how much further to push, and balance what future their personal careers may have against the outrage of the public and against whatever their true goals for the attacks are.
I just wanted to take a moment to thank the Veterans of this country's past and present wars for your service to America and the sacrifices you've made in doing so.
As we face yet another war, I want it to be known that, whether or not I agree with the war itself, our reasons for fighting it, or our government, I do support, 100%, the men and women of our Armed Forces who go to fight. With the current military being an all-voluntary force, the members are, in most cases, people who have chosen this path out of a sense of duty or a desire to be of service, and regardless of whatever our governments motivations may be, it doesn't change the motivations of those courageous individuals.
In ancient times, the Norse referred to their war heroes as the Einherjar, and it was believed that when the Einherjar passed from Midgard (Earth) into Asgard ("Heaven"), they would go to be with Odin in His hall of Valhalla, where they would fight each day, and feast and drink every night. Many a horn of ale have been raised to the Einherjar over time, and among modern Norse-based Pagans it is traditional to celebrate Veterans Day as Einherjar Day. So today I raise my horn to each and every one of you who have, will or are prepared to fight when called upon. May the Gods grant you their strength and blessing, and may you live long to tell the tales of your service at for a great many years. You honour us all by your service, and for that, I give honour to you.
"Even if you don't believe in capital punishment, the legislature has said capital punishment is available for certain crimes," Mr. Horan said, adding, "If this doesn't qualify for the death penalty, what does?" - Quoted in the New York Times
This is something I just have to get off my chest. It drives me nuts to hear people, time and time again, justify seeking the death penalty by saying "If this doesn't qualify for the death penalty, what does?". In fact, it's probably my second least favourite phrase (my #1 least favourite being "If I can do it, anyone can", but that's a whole different rant).
How many times have we heard this tired cliche trotted out by some vengeance-minded prosecutor, cop, or politician to help try and placate those who don't support the death penalty, but might be able to be swayed in this particular case. The problem is, of course, that just about any case horrific enough to be eligible for the death penalty will also be horrific enough for people to use as an example of the "if this case doesn't justify it, what does..." cannard.
This is yet another example of why we, as a society, need to decide if we're going to view the death penalty as a form of justice, which I still think is a very shaky proposition, or if we're going to acknowledge that it is social vengeance - something that, while not necessarily serving the purpose of justice, sure does feel good on a primitive level.
Trying to use the example of a particularly heinous case to support the "death-penalty-as-justice" theory actually tends to defeat the purpose. For the death penalty to be just, it would have to be applied consistantly under an objective set of standards, rather than subjectively and on a case-by-case basis as it is now.
Report: Teen sniper suspect confesses. FAIRFAX, Va. - John Lee Malvo, the 17-year-old accused in a series of sniper attacks in the Washington, D.C., suburbs, has admitted to police that he was the triggerman in some of the killings, The Washington Post reported Sunday. [USA Today: Nation]
It's interesting to note that the reported confession came during the 7-hour interview conducted with Malvo before he was appointed a lawyer or a guardian. It's also interesting that the only crime the police have specificed on which he admitted to being the triggerman (though they've indicated that he confessed to others as well) is the murder of Linda Franklin, the FBI analyist who was shot in the parking lot of a Home Depot store in Virginia - the state preparing to prosecute him.
Perhaps it might be cynical to suggest that this "leak" might be an intentional attempt to taint the jury pool before its even selected, but given many of the other irregularities of this case, it is a possiblity that has to be considered. The confession is likely to be thrown out in court. It was obtained by police in an interview with a minor, without a lawyer or guardian to help him protect his own rights, or to help verify a voluntary waiver of those rights. With the information coming out now, it's likey that most anyone who could be called for jury duty in this case wil have heard about the confession prior to the start of jury selection, and will be able to take that into consideration, even if its never formally presented as part of the case.
I have to admit, generally I tend to lean more toward the feeling that suspects are given too many rights, and that too many cases are thrown out because of technical errors that occured while the law enforcement professionals thought they had a valid foundation for taking the actions that they did. Mistakes happen, and it bothers me when someone can exploit a good-faith error and turn it into an acquittal. In this case, however, there have been too many questionable actions to think that they all are innocent mistakes. This latest one just adds to the tally, and makes it that much more difficult for Muhammad and Malvo to get a truly fair trial.
I know that for many people, guilt is a foregone conclusion for these two. Hell, I'm even pretty well convinced that they did it. But that doesn't mean that they don't deserve - and aren't entitled to - fair treatment by our justice system.
NOTE: (added 5/10/03) The main article referenced in writing this piece was written my Jayson Blair, the New York Times reporter who resigned in early May after it was learned that he had turned in a number of stories that contined factual errors, fabricated or plagiarized passages or were otherwise questionable. I have reviewed the list of articles that the Times has said were problematic and this particular article was not included (as of today).
The way the prosecutions of John Muhammad and John Lee Malvo are being handled can give us some good insight into what John Ashcroft considers "appropriate" in a criminal case. While it's certainly understandable that Ashcroft, and much of the public, want to see Muhammad and Malvo tried, sentenced and executed as quickly and neatly as possible, the fact that their crimes were so horrific and that the case against them appears so compelling is why its so important that we make sure this is handled fairly. If we give in to the emotional impulses most of us have, full of rage and vengeance, we run the risk putting emotional satisfaction ahead of justice, and it is justice, here, that MUST be served.
As reported in the New York Times, there are already a number of questionable elements to how this case has been handled:
Playing games like musical lawyers, interrogating a minor with neither a lawyer nor a guardian present, detaining a minor in an adult facility, bringing in evidence of crimes outside the scope of the court's jurisdiction and forum shopping for the place most likely to execute the defendents are things we, as Americans, should not tolerate from our justice sytem. We don't have to believe that the defendents are not guilty, we don't even have to like them - but we do have to ensure that they get a fair trial, and that they are treated by the courts the same ways we would want to be treated, should we ever face trial for anything.
We've already seen that the government is trying to loosen a lot of the regulations that currently help to ensure that we are properly protected as Constitution requires. So far, the Justice department has sought the ability to join religious groups or churches, even if there is no indication that any kind of criminal or terroristic activity is being discussed or planned, so that they can spy on the churchgoers and other participants, incase something does come up. They've tried to implement Operation TIPS, whereby postal and utility workers, truck drivers, and others with access to your home for legitimate purposes could report back to the FBI if they spot anything of "concern" in your home or behaviour. The Pentagon is now seeking the ability to analyze - by computer - data including e-mails, bank transaction records, travel documents and telephone records, without a subpeona and without any reason to even suspect something might be up. As with the infiltration of religious groups and churches, they just want to be able to spy on citizens in case something odd pops up.
When you add that to their treatment of "enemy combatants" the picture turns even darker. Enemy combatants can be held indefinately with no charges filed against them, and the Justice department doesn't believe that a judge should even have the right to oversee their handling of a case or be able to periodically find out why the person is still being held. Enemy combatants can be denied any contact with their attorney, leaving them undefended and at the mercy of the governments lawyers. And these practices don't apply just to foreigners who we have captured while at war, but also to American citizens who have been declared enemy combatants, such as Jose Padillo, who the government has been holding for several months, now, without any charges, without any contact with his family, and without legal council.
There's no denying that, if Muhammad and Malvo are guilty of the crimes they are accused with, that they deserve to face whatever punishment they are given. But unlike the case of Jose Padillo or John Walker Lindh, both of whom were considered potentially tied to Al Qaeda, and thus potentially terrorists (a category that some might feel is deserving of fewer rights or harsher treatment than other criminals), Malvo and Muhammad are "ordinary" criminals. Yet even in how their case is being treated, we see some of the same themes - detention and questioning with a lawyers presence and denying them access to a lawyer for as long as possible. This cannot be accepted as the "new" standard by which cases can be tried.
If the Pentagon and Justice departments get their way and are able to infiltrate religious groups or randomly scan personal data to look for potentially "suspect" patterns, keep in mind that it will increase the chance of innocent people being looked at for crimes they may not have commited. If we allow the government to bend or break the rules for Malvo and Muhammad, it can set a prescedent that can then be used in later cases. I know I wouldn't want to have tactics like that used against me, would you?
Here's my next try at a redesign -- comments, complaints, suggestions and high praise are certainly welcome :) I want to make sure it's readable and that it looks good *g*
Thanks again for visiting!!
Pentagon Plans a Computer System That Would Peek at Personal Data of Americans
By JOHN MARKOFF
The Pentagon is constructing a computer system that could create a vast electronic dragnet, searching for personal information as part of the hunt for terrorists around the globe — including the United States.
As the director of the effort, Vice Adm. John M. Poindexter, has described the system in Pentagon documents and in speeches, it will provide intelligence analysts and law enforcement officials with instant access to information from Internet mail and calling records to credit card and banking transactions and travel documents, without a search warrant.
The kind of system they're wanting has not been completely developed yet, they're still working on a prototype, but what it would allow them to do is very broad-based, and more than a bit disconcerting. Through this system, law enforcement officials would be able to search any number of records about you, and pull all that information together to see if there are any patterns in your activities that might point to you being a terrorist.
What's worse, in some places, the article strongly implies that the system would have the ability to scan the databases in order to find what it thinks are questionable patterns, and, as a result of those searches, bring you to the attention of law enforcement. In other words, not only would they be able to check a lot of databases and gather considerable information about what you're doing if you become a suspect, but you could actually become a suspect based on what these automatic searches turn up. All without a search warrant or any need to indicate if there's even probable cause to think you might be guilty.
The new system will rely on a set of computer-based pattern recognition techniques known as "data mining," a set of statistical techniques used by scientists as well as by marketers searching for potential customers.
The system would permit a team of intelligence analysts to gather and view information from databases, pursue links between individuals and groups, respond to automatic alerts, and share information efficiently, all from their individual computers.
As of right now, some of what they're wanting to do with this system - comfortingly named "Total Information Awareness" - is still illegal, but the Pentagon and other proponants are hoping to get the rules changed through the Homeland Security Act and other legislation.
In order to deploy such a system, known as
Total Information Awareness, new legislation would be needed, some of which has been proposed by the Bush administration in the Homeland Security Act that is now before Congress. That legislation would amend the Privacy Act of 1974, which was intended to limit what government agencies could do with private information.
The possibility that the system might be deployed domestically to let intelligence officials look into commercial transactions worries civil liberties proponents.
"This could be the perfect storm for civil liberties in America," said Marc Rotenberg, director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington "The vehicle is the Homeland Security Act, the technology is Darpa and the agency is the F.B.I. The outcome is a system of national surveillance of the American public."
The good news here is that since the system is not yet fully developed and since there is a need for additional legislation to be passed, there is time to try and fight the "Total Information Awareness" project. I urge each of you, if this kind of a system concerns you -- if the idea that the police or FBI could look through your email, banking transactions, phone usage records and travel information without first showing any probable cause or obtaining a warrant, or the idea that records like these could be randomly searched by an automated, computerized system, and your name kicked out as someone to "check out", bothers you -- then please, take a moment to scroll down this page a bit and look for the box labeled "Contact your Congresscritters", enter your zip code, find out who to contact and let them know what you think.
From an email sent out by the Democratic National Committee:
Out of a total nearly 79 million votes cast nationwide, a shift of just 41,000 votes would have kept the Senate in Democratic hands.
Now, I imagine they had to do at least a little bit of fun math to come up with that statistic (I generally don't trust statistics from a biased source unconditionally), but there is no denying that many races were very close, and that it wouldn't have taken too many votes to have changed the overall outcome. Something for the party faithful from both sides to keep in mind over the next two years, as we approach the 2004 Presidential Elections.
Here's a very, well, odd, anti-war website, with a rather unique idea on how to fight against the war: Masturbation.
The site is sponsored by places that sell Viagra, so there are a few advertisements about, but the basic goal behind the site is the idea is for people to focus on peace and love while masturbating, in order to combat the hatred and anger that is creating this atmosphere in which we're about to go to war.
Their theory is that love is necessary to combat hate, but true love can only come if you love yourself. And, as they put it, masturbation is the greatest expression of self-love there is.
Technically, the process they're describing is an act of sexual magick. When Witches or other spiritually-based magick practitioners do magick, the goal is to build up energy - typically through focused meditation, rhythmic breathing, chanting, drumming or dancing (or sometimes several of these at once) - then infuse that energy with a specific goal. Once you're raised as much energy as you can handle, you focus your thoughts on your goal and release all of it into the world. That energy then goes forth to manifest according to the goals you put into it. Sex magick is just variation of the same theme - energy is built up through sexual stimulation, the mind focuses the goal into that energy and the energy - with the goal embeded - is released at climax.
The site itself doesn't call what they're promoting as "magick" - possibly because they don't want to scare people off (though I'm not sure who there is that would be comfortable with doing focused mastrubation for peace but not with calling it "magick" - one pretty much sounds as loony as the other), or perhaps they don't realize that's what they're suggesting. But, while the whole concept may sound funny, in terms of the practice of Witchcraft or other spiritually-based magickal systems, it makes perfect sense. And, at worst, even if it doesn't work, for whatever reason, it certainly isn't going to cause any harm....
And that's our lesson on Magick 101 for today, class. Be sure to read pages 10 through 527 in your Grimoire tonight and be prepared for a pop quiz tomorrow. Class dismissed! :)
Fired in Dispute, Accounting Firm Rebuts New Overseer on His Role
By STEPHEN LABATON
WASHINGTON, Nov. 7 — A large accounting firm released documents today that it said showed that William H. Webster had fired it as the auditor of U.S. Technologies after the firm warned him about financial problems at the company. The accounting firm said the documents challenged Mr. Webster's description of his role at the company.
Mr. Webster, who has been named by the Securities and Exchange Commission to head a new board overseeing the accounting industry, has said he has no recollection of being told of any significant accounting problems before U.S. Technologies dismissed the accounting firm, BDO Seidman, in August 2001.
This is just ridiculous. First Bush appoints Harvey Pitt, a lawyer who spent most of his recent past fighting the rules and regulations of the SEC, to run the SEC - and now we find out that Pitt, in turn, appointed a man who had apparently helped a company hide their accounting flim-flammery to oversee a board to ensure that the accounting industry is on the up-and-up. Putting the foxes in charge of the henhouse on a grand scale.
Bush's response? He wants to wait until they can "investigate" everything. The problem is, though, that right now even the appearance of impropriety is bad - or at least it should be. There have been nothing but questions raised about how Bush wants to see the SEC run - as an agency that will actually serve to enforce the business regulations or one that will turn a blind eye to the corporate hanky-panky that's emptying employee's 401ks while filling the pockets of upper management.
He has a chance, now, to do it right. Here's to hoping that he'll pick someone who will actually run the SEC as a regulatory agency and start holding businesses accountable for the actions - or inactions.
I'm trying a new layout for different strings - please leave comments with your thoughts or feedback on it, ok? :)
The one problem I can see right off the bat is that the first item in the middle column starts too far down, but I haven't figure out where to fix that yet. If you have any suggestions, that would be great! *g*
U.S. Wants Prints Of Muslim Visitors
Arab Rights Groups Denounce Plan
By Mary Beth Sheridan
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 7, 2002; Page A03
The Justice Department announced yesterday that it will require thousands of students, workers and other men from five Muslim countries who are temporarily residing in the United States to be fingerprinted and photographed, the latest step in its program to register visitors from countries linked to terrorism.
Authorities launched the registration program less than two months ago at airports, where they began gathering extensive information from arriving citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan and Syria -- countries allegedly involved in terrorism -- and other people suspected of links to terror.
This program is very narrowly targeted - only males who are visiting the US and who are from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan and Syria, will be affected. Aside from the obvious civil rights concerns, however, I'm not really sure how well this plan will work to cut down the risk of terrorism. For one thing, most of the terrorists who have either struck in the US or tried to were from Saudi Arabia or Egypt, not any of the countries that are being targeted.
I have to wonder, then, what the point of the program is. Why are men from these five countries being singled out, and why aren't we looking at men from countries where identified as producing the most terrorists, and why aren't we looking at women at all? Granted, female terrorists aren't exactly common, but it wasn't that long ago that the first Palestinian female suicide bomber struck, and other women have since followed in her footsteps. What makes us think that there won't be a female terrorist who might strike here. What better way would there be for someone to sneak a terrorist into the US than to find a Saudi Arabian woman who would be willing to do the job?
I'm not a supporter of violating the civil rights of individuals - even those who are only visiting - especially if it's not likely to produce the desired results. In this particular case, if we're going to start fingerprinting those we think belong to a demographic that is likely to commit terrorists acts, then lets do exactly that - include Saudi Arabians and Egyptians, and include women. Otherwise, we're simply once again doing something that is supposed to look effective, but which actually won't do any real good.
Analysis: Voters Gives Bush Mandate as Iraq Looms
Wed Nov 6, 2:22 AM ET
By Alan Elsner, National Correspondent
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) won a mandate in Tuesday's midterm elections from voters still digesting the effects of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and looking ahead anxiously to a possible war with Iraq. [...]
[...] Temple University political scientist James Hilty said Bush energized Republican voters by campaigning aggressively around the country, putting his personal prestige on the line. Democrats by contrast were hesitant and disunited. Many reluctantly supported the president on Iraq and were unable to mount an effective campaign on domestic issues. [...]
[...] "When you look at the national picture, you have to conclude that many people wanted to support Bush because of the national security situation, especially since the Democrats were not putting forward a convincing message," he said.
Those voters who oppose the war against Iraq were left with no party to vote for and little reason to turn out. [...]
In the weeks leading up to the election, I've read several articles chiding people for claiming that the "war" on Iraq was being pushed in order to divert attention from the weak economy and the scandals in the corporate scandal that could have been used to damage the Republicans if the Democrats had been willing to push the issue.
Whether that's been the reason behind the push for war or not is open to question, but - intentionally or not - it's been very successful in doing just that. The news media are devoting considerable amounts of time to discuss the "countdown" to war, pushing aside news like the President having withheld - for 12 days - the fact that North Korea had admitted to a nuclear weapons program, acknowledging it only after Congress voted to give him the war powers he wanted, and then, apparently, only because a former Clinton staffer was planning to leak the information to the media. What reports there were on that little tidbit indicated that Democrats were outraged by the deception, but if they were, it was a very quiet outrage.
Had the Democrats been willing to take a stand, they could have used Bush's deception on the North Korea issue to not only tap into the doubt that polls have indicated many feel about the war, but also to discredit the Bush administration, and it's Republican supporters. They could also have publicized that the International Atomic Energy Agency report Bush and Tony Blair cited as saying Iraq could have nuclear weapons in six months didn't actually say that. They could have brought up questions about Bush's claims that Iraq has ties to Al Qaeda - something that even magistrates in France and Spain, who have been working on investigating and fighting terrorish for two decades, haven't been able to substantiate. They could even have publicized the CIA's conclusion that Saddam Hussein is unlikely to attack the US, unless he feels that its inevitable that the US will strike first.
One big question is what the Democrats are so afraid of. Just in the last few weeks, 100,000 people gathered in Washington for the largest anti-war protest since the Vietnam era. You would think that might clue someone in to the idea that there are a lot of people who don't support the war - and that there might be a fair number of votes to be gained by taking a stand against a war for which there is no coherent justification. Yet the Democrats chose not to take to advantage of any momentum that the protests might provide, and, as seems to be their wont, stayed silent yet again.
The end result of their unwillingness to educate their constitutants - of their cowardice and inability to stand up to Bush? They gave people no reason to vote against Repubicans, and now Bush not only has the House and the Senate under Republican control, but he now can claim to have a mandate for his policies - including his desire to go to war against Iraq.
While Holywood may not be known as a fount of wisdom, occasionally even movies can make a relevant point - as Arron Sorkin did in 1995's "The American President":
Louis Rothschild (Aide to the President): People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand.
President Andrew Shepherd: Lewis, we've had presidents who were beloved, who couldn't find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight. People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty. They drink the sand because they don't know the difference.
Personally, I think we do know the difference - when we are aware that there's a difference to be known. But for that to happen, someone has point out that the difference exists, and right now, no one seems to be willing to do that.
It's hard to know what to say tonight, after watching the Republicans retain the House and regain the Senate. It shouldn't have happened. And it can't be good.
Over the last 2 years, I've heard many complain about the relative silence of the Democrats on major issues and their seeming inability, or perhaps refusal, to capitalize on the many missteps, lies and scandals that the Bush Administration has been handing out so freely. Clearly, the economy is a big concern to many Americans, yet we hear little from the Democrats on what should be done about it, or that there even is a problem. Polls have shown that, in general, Americans are not in favour of going to war with Iraq if it means that some of our soldiers might die. Bush has long had very strong ties to major businesses, such as the ones that are collapsing due to fraudulant accounting practices and excessive greed, but little is said to point out this fact or to question Bush's own potential involvement in similar scandals. Civil rights are being eroded, but no one has been willing to come to the forefront and point this out to people who may not, as yet, realize that our freedoms are even in danger.
During the Clinton Administration, there was a lot of resentment generated towards the Republicans because of their unending exploitation of Clinton's missteps. Personal issues were thrown in our face, questions about how much time he spent campaigning for Democratic candidates were raised, and any scandal that he might possibly have any tie to was publicized and pursued as far as it could be. Despite all the public bitching and moaning over the Republican's tactics, however, it didn't stop them from winning both the House and the Senate in 2000 (remember that the Democrats only got control of the Senate because Jim Jeffords switched from Republican to Independent), and now they've got both the House and Senate back again.
I don't want to see the Democrats wallow as gleefully in the filth as the Republicans did, and I would hope they could carry on their campaigns with more dignity - but they need to realize that the flaws, lies, questions and concerns about the Republicans, in general, and about George W. Bush, in particuarl, MUST be asked, and that even if people say they don't want to hear it - they do listen, and it apparently doesn't chase them away.
We now have 2 years to get the Democrat leadership to wake up, step up and take action to prevent a repeat of this Republican sweep in 2004.
I knew that spam was getting worse, but I had NO idea it was getting this bad or growing this fast.
From Wired:
The FTC now gets around 70,000 forwarded spams a day. Last year, they received about 40,000 pieces a day. Three years ago, that mailbox received about 4,000 missives daily, and in 1998 the entire year's take was fewer than 100 spams.
Why gay rams are caught on the horns of a dilemma
By Steve Connor Science Editor
05 November 2002
[...] A part of the brain known to be involved in sexual preferences, called the preoptic hypothalamus, has a "sexually dimorphic nucleus" that is normally considerably bigger in males than in females. The scientists found similar differences in the size of the nucleus when they compared straight rams with gay ones, said Dr Kay Larkin, a researcher.
The study, presented yesterday to the American Society for Neuroscience meeting in Oregon, Florida, suggested a specialised centre in the brain could influence sexual preferences in mammals, including possibly humans, said Professor Charles Roselli.
Frequently, when challenged on the issue of whether homosexuality is a choice or just "how" a person is, supporters will point out that homosexuality is found in other animals, not just humans, and therefore must be a normal variation in the population. This is an important point to most gay activists because if it could be shown that homosexuality isn't a voluntary choice, it helps bolster the case for civil rights protections and greater acceptance of homosexuals.
Other studies have indicated that issues involving the hypthalamus may be involved in determining whether a person is gay or straight, and this study adds more credence to that theory. But in showing that there may be a connection between the brain structure and sexual preference, there becomes a danger of homosexuality being seen not as just another varient, like blue eyes or red hair, but as some kind of a defect, more along the lines of a club foot or Down's Syndrome. And it could also spur opponents of homosexuality to start pressing for research into some kind of a "cure".
If more research like this confirms this connection, it will be interesting to see how the various sides in this argument make use of the information. Hopefully, it will be possible to find a point where even if homosexuality is proven to be related to brain structure, homosexuals can be respected as simply another "configurational" option that the genes have, and not treated as a disease or disability.
One thing I do find rather interesting, and which, to me, makes it a bit questionable as to just how strong the link is, is that in the studies I've heard of showing this kind of a difference, the distinciton has been found in the brains of male animals who show a preference for other male animals, but there's no mention of whether a similar distinction exists in females animals who prefer other females. There is also the question, of course, as to whether the brain structure is what causes the impulse, or if the impuse somehow restructures the brain. Either way, though, it's an theory worth looking into further.
Ventura Appoints an Independent as Interim Senator
By DAVID STOUT
WASHINGTON, Nov. 4 - Gov. Jesse Ventura of Minnesota named a fellow Independence Party member, Dean Barkley, as interim senator today, in a move that could affect the balance of power on Capitol Hill, at least for the near future.
Mr. Barkley told a hastily called news conference in St. Paul that he would go to Washington "to do the people's business . . . whether it's two weeks or two months." He fills the vacancy created by the death of Senator Paul Wellstone in an airplane crash on Oct. 25."
While I realize that it is the Governor's discretion to appoint whomever he so chooses to fill a Senate seat in situations such as the sad death of Sen. Paul Wellstone, it would seem to me that it should be a basic prinicple that the appointee should be from the same party that the original Congressman had been a part of.
When voters choose who they want to have as their representatives, they are, in a sense, choosing both the person and the party. While it's not unheard of for a politician to change parties sometime following their election, the voters in those cases are still being represented by the person that they chose. In the case of Sen. Wellstone, however, not only have the voters now lost the person that they sent to Washington, but they are now no longer even being represented by his party - and something about that just seems wrong. While Mr. Barkley may be a wonderful legislature, the voters themselves have had no real input into his selection, making it hard to understand how he will be able to adequately represent them.
As the Senate stands now, there are 49 Republicans, 49 Democrats and 2 Independents. It's unknown how long this kind of gridlock will list - the lawyers are still trying to figure out whether Mr. Barkley will be serving. He may only hold Sen. Wellstone's seat until the results of tomorrow's election are certified in mid-November, when the newly elected Senator will take over; or he may hold it until new Senators are sworn-in in mid-January. The gridlock will also be affected by who wins the Senatorial election in Missouri. If Sen. Jean Carnahan retains her seat, things will stay as they are, but if Jim Talent wins it, the Repubicans will have 50 seats until the new Senate takes over in January. Either way, they also have Vice President Cheney to cast tie-breaking votes if needed.
I do have to give mr. Berkley credit, however, for at least having a decent sense of humour about things. When asked how he'll handle voting in the Senate, he replied:
"whether I caucus with myself in a bathroom or caucus with Senator Jeffords — I don't really know."
He did say he would confer with Mr. Jeffords. "He was a moderate Republican spurned by his own party," said Mr. Barkley, a Democrat before joining the Independence Party. "I can get along with moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans."
Why I feel sorry for the people in Washington's 3rd District
I suppose the guy who filed for - and drew - unemployment benefits after losing his non-political job, even though he was still drawing a $32,000 salary for his work as a state Senator is probably the worst of the two, though the other guy doesn't seem like he's all that great - at least not in the brain-strength department.
Inside Politics
from the Seattle Times
Sometimes a banana is anything but a banana: U.S. Rep. Brian Baird, D-Vancouver, explaining the role politics didn't play in his vote against President Bush's Iraq resolution last week:
"I decided when this started that this would be a decision solely based on my best judgment of what was right for this country, what would in the long run provide the greatest security. I talked to my wife and my campai — ah, my, ah, my congressional staff, and everyone else and said that this is not in any way about politics."
More 3rd District politics: Baird's opponent is state Sen. Joe Zarelli, a Republican from Ridgefield, Clark County, who has been battling news that the state wants him to pay back unemployment insurance he improperly took while collecting his state Senate salary.
His unemployment news was followed by other jobless statistics. Slow fund raising pushed Zarelli to furlough his campaign manager and turn his political director into a volunteer, according to The Olympian.
And Zarelli has come up with the perfect answer to questions about his unemployment claims. We already loved his self-sacrificial statement that if his scandal meant bringing attention to the plight of the unemployed in the 3rd then it was all worth it. But even better was his statement to The Olympian, "I don't want to talk about this issue any more. It's getting far too much politicized."
Bad Roads or Twin Towers: Which Is Worse?
Here in Kansas, we've got ourselves a real winner in Kathleen Sebelius, who compared driving on neighboring Missouri's roads to the attack on the Twin Towers. Yeah, you read that right. She said that driving on Missouri's roads is:
"much more terrifying to me than the attacks on the World Trade Center, because I really think my life was far more at risk."
Wisely, she did apologize for the remark, but I have to wonder about the suitability of any candidate who would make a statement that would so obvoiusly be considered insensitive and likely to start more than a bit of controversy - whether the statement itself is true or not (and Missouri's roads are pretty bad).
Dirty Tricks
There are reports that there have been at least 2 instances of someone - generally presumed to be affiliated with the Republicans, though that can't be proven - trying to convince some people not to vote.
KSHB-TV in Kansas City reported on their 10pm news that many senior citizens are receiving recorded phone calls telling them that their absentee (or "early voter") ballots won't be counted and that the voting machines in a certain area are not working. The calls purport to be from the Election Council, but are not, and now they're just trying to get the word out that the story is false. (As of the time I'm posting this, they have not added the story to their website, but I'm providing the link in case they do add it - kj)
Baltimore's Sun newspaper reported this weekend about a flyer being distributed in some African-American communities, pubicizing not only the incorrect date for voting, but implying that before someone can vote they need to have all parking tickets, moter-vehicle tickets, overdue rent and any warrants taken care of. (Copy of the flyer provided by the Talking Points Memo)
No article to quote from this time - just a basic rant.
Campaign commercials are beyond annoying. I've found that I pay very little attention to them, because I seriously doubt the veracity of what they say - whether they're boosting their candidate or trashing the opponent. Either way, the statistics, quotes, records and other information has, in all liklihood, been chopped, blended, folded, spindled, and pureed beyond recognition.
Now, I'm finding, even more than the mutilated "statistics", the basic pattern of the ads is getting on my nerves. They all start out the same - ominious music, and a harsh voice snapping out the horrible things the opponent has done, building up to a point where suddenly the "sunlight" music breaks in, softer, now, more friendly, and the voice become gentler, extolling how their candidate is so unlike the opponent, leaving the ad on a happy, upbeat note that you're supposed to associate with the candidate.
It's sad to think that these crude tactics seem to work year after year. I'd like to think that, as a whole, we're smarter than that. What I find really sad, though, is how many people profess to hate negative ads, but how effective they still seem to be. It leaves the impression that people either know they're being manipulated and don't like it, but still fall for it anyway, or that they say they don't want to be manipulated, but don't take enough care to see if they are before buying into the message.
There's one guy here where I live who either uses very few negative ads, or the ones he does use aren't terribly good, becuase I don't remember any of the bad things any of his opponents are supposed to have done. The ads of his I do recall focus on him and on what he's done - and he has one set of really geeky ads that feature him playing a guitar and making corney little comments tied to the style of music he plays a snippet of - for example, he plays a bit of country music and then talks about how proud he is of the country. Dorky as all getout, but comparing that to his opponent who does little other than talk about how bad the other guy is, it's not only refreshing, but leaves me feeling much better about supporting him. So far he's won election to the House twice. Maybe someone will notice, someday, that attacks aren't required to win.
Ok, well, hey, I can hope, can't I?
Cops ponder free cruisers funded by ads
By Mark Schlueb
Sentinel Staff Writer
Posted November 1, 2002
In Central Florida and across the country, small-town police chiefs are salivating at this newest idea in law-enforcement circles, tempted by an offer of free squad cars -- albeit ones emblazoned with NASCAR-style ads -- from a startup marketing company in North Carolina.
Faced with tight post-Sept. 11 budgets, many towns, including Edgewood, Oakland and Windermere,think that sounds more appealing than ever. Eachis considering it.
Some criminal-justice experts have already trashed the idea, however. They say that covering patrol cars with ads for burger chains and muffler shops undermines police officers' authority and creates a minefield of potential conflicts of interest.
It's not hard to sympathize with police agencies that are having budgetary crunches. With the economy slowing down, tax revenues are down, and so there's less money to be split among all of the various agencies that are dependent on those public funds. There's no doubt that cars do need to be replaced, and they're not cheap, but I have a hard time seeing plastering them with advertising as the best option.
One of the potential problems the article mentions is that of a conflict of interest, and I think that's a very valid point. I think we all know of businesses that have engaged in criminal activities, or, worse, are fronts for criminal activities. When money becomes part of the relationship between law enforcement and those for whom they're enorcing the law, it is undeniable that problems will arise.
Almost every police department has rules that forbid officers from taking anything that might resemble a bribe, a rule that is supposed to even include things like free or discounted meals, free coffee or donuts. Somehow, I would think that helping to fund free police cars would fall under that same kind of a rule, since the effect would be roughly the same - the police are gaining a benefit at the business owners expense, and can end up feelin endebted to the buisness owner in return for his or her generosity.
It makes sense for police and other public departments to look for alternative ways to getting the equipment they need, but there would need to be a way to help insure that whatever method would be used would prevent the cops from knowing who their benefactors are. Sadly, that's a lot harder to work out than it sounds.
Operation Trick No Treat. No home delivery this year for pedophiles: "Under Operation Trick No Treat, sex offenders in Norfolk and Virginia Beach were ordered to spend 4:30 p.m. to 8 p.m. Thursday in parole and probation offices... Participants watched educational videos related to their offenses, were tested for substance abuse and talked to counselors." [Daily Rotten]
This is actualy a pretty good idea! Yes, it may seem to be a continuing "punishment" for sex offenders, but from a public safety viewpoint, it makes good sense. Given the rate of recidivism when it comes to sexual offenses, especially by pedophiles, taking steps to prevent them from coming in contact with potential victims is a reasonable measure to take. I also know from experience that even if you leave your porch light turned off (which is supposed to be the signal that your home doesn't participate in Trick or Treat), there will still be a number of kids who'll ring your bell to see if they can get something.
I remember when I was a little kid, Halloween was a very popular holiday, but even then we were hearing warnings about the dangers of ringing a strangers doorbell. Of course, the concerns in the 70's were more along the lines of razor blades or injected poisons and not sexual predators, but I'm sure they were there all along.
Fortunately, at least some of the sex offenders didn't seem to object to the diversion. The article notes that:
"It makes sense," said Charles E. Davis, 64. "When you're not supposed to be around children, and they do come around your home ... that's the reason." Others said they felt that attending the session protected them from being falsely accused.
Hopefully, other communities will pick up on the idea - it's better for the kids, and it may well be better for the pedophiles as well.
The Salt Lake Tribune -- Pounds of Flesh
The various jurisdictions involved in the terrifying Washington sniper case no longer have the incentive to blame one another for the seemingly endless days of fear. Now they are challenging one another for the honor of pulling the switch on one or both of the suspects.
In neither case has the American criminal justice system acquitted itself with honor.
While I thought the various jurisdictions involved in the "sniper" investigation handled themselves reasonably well (given how hard it can be to get multiple jurisdictions to work together at all), but the competition now is very unseemly. It also stands to delay the task of bring justice to the killers of so many people.
I admit that I am not a great fan of the death penalty as a tool for justice. I don't believe that it works as a deterrent, I think that it costs far too much compared to life inprisonment, I fail to comprehend how killing peope is supposed to send the message that killing people is wrong, and I'm not quite sure where we get off thinking that we, as a society, have the right to make that decision about anyone. Viewing the death penalty as a form of social vengeance, however, I can understand much better. I still don't necessarily think its the best way to handle it, but, on that primative level where most of us still feel the blood lust, I can appreciate the satisfaction it can bring to see someone who has done so evil given the most dire penalty we can imagine. Sometimes I even think that it might be good to kill these monsters by doing to them whatever they did to their victims, but to do so would require an executioner to, at least on a temporary basis, become a monster like the criminal is - and I don't believe any person could stay sane under those circumstances. Nor do I think society could, either.
But right now we are looking at a situation where many want to see Muhammad and Malvo put to death, and that is becoming a strong factor in trying to determine where to first put them to trial for their crimes. In Maryland, where there are the most victims, would be able to sentence Muhammad to death, but not Malvo. They also don't make quite as much use of the death penalty as some other states might. As a result, there is a call for Virginia to be allowed a first crack at the pair, since they do seem to like to use the death penalty quite a bit, and would be able to kill Malvo as well.
Personally, I don't think that who can put them to death the most effectively shouldn't even be an issue in determining who gets the first crack. To me, what would make the most sense would be to start with the Federal charges. These are crimes that affected people in many states - to a point where their crimes became crimes against the country as a whole, and not just of the different jurisdictions where they attacked people. After that, if other trials are deemed necessary or appropriate (or if they some how fail to convict on the Federal charges), start with the jurisdiction where the most victims were affected, and work down the list from there.
That would, in my opinion, be the fairest way to handle it. The penalties will have to be whatever the particular jurisdiction (or jusidictions) have deemed appropriate for crimes against their people. Our desire for vengeance and slaking our blood lust may have to take a back seat to ensuring that not only to the criminals get fair trials, but so do the people who live in the areas where these crimes were committed.
Boy Scouts to Atheist: Accept A God or Get Out
By Michael L. Betsch
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
October 30, 2002
(CNSNews.com) - The assistant scoutmaster of a Pacific Northwest Boy Scout troop must either profess his belief in a "supreme being" or face banishment from the Boy Scouts of America (BSA). However, 19-year-old Darrel Lambert said he's been an atheist since the ninth grade and he's sticking to his convictions.
Lambert's track record with the Seattle-based Troop 1531 is impressive. Throughout his 10-year scouting career he earned 37 merit badges to achieve the rank of Eagle Scout; served as a quartermaster and three-time senior patrol leader; and has dedicated himself to more than 1,000 hours of community service.
For many people, participating in Boy Scouts is considered to be a normal part of American life - something that little boys are just expected to be able to do.
The Scouts themselves are often viewed as being representative of what right in America - teaching young boys to behave honourably, know the difference between right and wrong - and to choose to do what is right, to be helpful, kind and courteous, and helping them develop a variety of skills while building their character.
The problem, of course, is that they are also an example of what's wrong with America. They reject gays, atheists and agnostics, which teaches the boys who are a part of scouts that gays, athiests and agnostics aren't "good" enough to associate with. They also teach that exclusion is acceptable, even if that exclusion is not based on the unique merits or faults of a specific individual, but because of that individuals inclusion in some kind of a demographically undesireable group.
But Lambert is also passionate in his rejection of the existence of any supreme being, even though the BSA's regional Chief Seattle Council informed him that expressing a reverence for Mother Earth would be an acceptable form of worship."
I have to admit, I find more than a bit of irony in this statement, given that Pagan children have had difficulties being accepted into Boy Scout troops. The problem was big enough that the Aquarian Tabernacle Church in Seattle has started their own scouting program called SpiralScouts.
Davis, who serves as the Archpriest of the Wiccan Aquarian Tabernacle Church, said his main argument with the BSA is that the group has refused to recognize Wicca as an acceptable form of worship, but at the same time, the BSA incorporates the symbols of myriad Christian denominations into its Religious Emblems program.
He said the Scouts rejected a Wicca badge that was designed and submitted by a well-known Wiccan priestess.
In response, the BSA stated that: religious emblems are the property of approved religious scouting organizations and are awarded at their own discretion. For example, he said the National Catholic Council on Scouting and the National Jewish Committee on Scouting each have their own unique religious emblem.
"There is no national Wiccan organization," Shields [a BSA representative] said. "So, that's why there is no religious award for Wiccans."
The Covenant of the Goddess, however, which is a national Wiccan organization, offers the Hart and Crescent award to any youths who wish to work for it, and promote it as available to kids who are a part of youth Scouting organizations.
So, what is one to make of all this. If the Boy Scouts are truly willing to accept any profession of faith, and will accept badges and awareds sponsored by national religious organizations, then why will they not accept the Hart and Crescent award from CoG?
To a great extent, all of this would just be something I'd consider inappropriate and more than a bit shameful, but within the Scouts rights to do, if it weren't for the fact that, by virtue of holding a Congressional Charter, counting the President as their honorary Commander-in-Chief, being able to come into schools and recruit new member and receive some funding from governmental sources, they are at the very least a quasi-public organization. As such, they should be required to adhere to all non-discrimination policies on both the federal and local levels. If they are unwilling to do so, then they should return the charter, end the association with the president, refrain from using schools as recruiting grounds and refrain from taking any kind of public funding.
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
| E-mail: |  |
AKA: | ThorsWitch |
 | INTP |
 | B7 d++ t+ k++ s+ u- f+ i++ o+ x- e l c- |
 |
    
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| « ? ProChoice Is Not AntiLife # » | ||||||||||
| << | domain-ated | >> | ||||||||||
| << ? domain girls # >> | ||||||||||
| <·· PWA ··> | ||||||||||
| < ? blogs by women # > | ||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| ‹ # Circle of Shadows ? › | ||||||||||
| <-- ? In MY Opinion # --> | ||||||||||
| « # blogshares ? » | ||||||||||
| « # Scorpio ? » | ||||||||||
| < # Blogrollers ? > | ||||||||||
| < ? six degrees # > | ||||||||||
|
[ <<
?
Verbosity
#
>>
] |
||||||||||
| domain whore | ||||||||||
|
Are you a  ? Domain . Addict # |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
)O(
 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Rate Me on BlogHop.com!
|
Rate me at Eatonweb
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
![[ Registered ]](http://www.differentstrings.info/images/diarist.gif){kind=small}
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
Recommended sites |
Please note: The Salon Blog mailing list and web rings are not managed by Salon Magazine, but are specifically for the owners/authors/editors of Salon Blogs. The Salon name is used with permission.
| < Ł Salon Bloggers & > |
| Do you own/edit/write a Salon Blog? Join the Salon Bloggers Webring! |
|
|
![[Valid RSS]](http://www.differentstrings.info/images/valid-rss-dylan2.gif "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
|
|
|
![[Blue Ribbon Campaign icon]](http://br.eff.org/br.gif)
