Daniel Ellsberg Speech
Published by Human Head on Thursday, September 27, 2007 at 4:58 PM.'A Coup Has Occurred' by Daniel Ellsberg
Daniel Ellsberg, the heroic former Defense Department analyst and Army officer who shared the secret Pentagon Papers history of the Vietnam War with the American people, talked about the looming war against Iran, and the American police state, at American University on September 20.
I think nothing has higher priority than averting an attack on Iran, which I think will be accompanied by a further change in our way of governing here that in effect will convert us into what I would call a police state.
If there’s another 9/11 under this regime … it means that they switch on full extent all the apparatus of a police state that has been patiently constructed, largely secretly at first but eventually leaked out and known and accepted by the Democratic people in Congress, by the Republicans and so forth.
Will there be anything left for NSA to increase its surveillance of us? … They may be to the limit of their technical capability now, or they may not. But if they’re not now they will be after another 9/11.
And I would say after the Iranian retaliation to an American attack on Iran, you will then see an increased attack on Iran – an escalation – which will be also accompanied by a total suppression of dissent in this country, including detention camps.
It’s a little hard for me to distinguish the two contingencies; they could come together. Another 9/11 or an Iranian attack in which Iran’s reaction against Israel, against our shipping, against our troops in Iraq above all, possibly in this country, will justify the full panoply of measures that have been prepared now, legitimized, and to some extent written into law. …
This is an unusual gang, even for Republicans. [But] I think that the successors to this regime are not likely to roll back the assault on the Constitution. They will take advantage of it, they will exploit it.
Will Hillary Clinton as president decide to turn off NSA after the last five years of illegal surveillance? Will she deprive her administration her ability to protect United States citizens from possible terrorism by blinding herself and deafening herself to all that NSA can provide? I don’t think so.
Unless this somehow, by a change in our political climate, of a radical change, unless this gets rolled back in the next year or two before a new administration comes in – and there’s no move to do this at this point – unless that happens I don’t see it happening under the next administration, whether Republican or Democratic.
The Next Coup
Let me simplify this and not just to be rhetorical: A coup has occurred. I woke up the other day realizing, coming out of sleep, that a coup has occurred. It’s not just a question that a coup lies ahead with the next 9/11. That’s the next coup, that completes the first.
The last five years have seen a steady assault on every fundamental of our Constitution, … what the rest of the world looked at for the last 200 years as a model and experiment to the rest of the world – in checks and balances, limited government, Bill of Rights, individual rights protected from majority infringement by the Congress, an independent judiciary, the possibility of impeachment.
There have been violations of these principles by many presidents before. Most of the specific things that Bush has done in the way of illegal surveillance and other matters were done under my boss Lyndon Johnson in the Vietnam War: the use of CIA, FBI, NSA against Americans.
I could go through a list going back before this century to Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus in the Civil War, and before that the Alien and Sedition Acts in the 18th century. I think that none of those presidents were in fact what I would call quite precisely the current administration: domestic enemies of the Constitution.
I think that none of these presidents with all their violations, which were impeachable had they been found out at the time and in nearly every case their violations were not found out until they were out of office so we didn’t have the exact challenge that we have today.
That was true with the first term of Nixon and certainly of Johnson, Kennedy and others. They were impeachable, they weren’t found out in time, but I think it was not their intention to, in the crisis situations that they felt justified their actions, to change our form of government.
It is increasingly clear with each new book and each new leak that comes out, that Richard Cheney and his now chief of staff David Addington have had precisely that in mind since at least the early 70s. Not just since 1992, not since 2001, but have believed in Executive government, single-branch government under an Executive president – elected or not – with unrestrained powers. They did not believe in restraint.
When I say this I’m not saying they are traitors. I don’t think they have in mind allegiance to some foreign power or have a desire to help a foreign power. I believe they have in their own minds a love of this country and what they think is best for this country – but what they think is best is directly and consciously at odds with what the Founders of this country and Constitution thought.
They believe we need a different kind of government now, an Executive government essentially, rule by decree, which is what we’re getting with signing statements. Signing statements are talked about as line-item vetoes which is one [way] of describing them which are unconstitutional in themselves, but in other ways are just saying the president says “I decide what I enforce. I decide what the law is. I legislate.”
It’s [the same] with the military commissions, courts that are under the entire control of the Executive Branch, essentially of the president. A concentration of legislative, judicial, and executive powers in one branch, which is precisely what the Founders meant to avert, and tried to avert and did avert to the best of their ability in the Constitution.
Founders Had It Right
Now I’m referring to that as a crisis right now not just because it is a break in tradition but because I believe in my heart and from my experience that on this point the Founders had it right.
It’s not just “our way of doing things” – it was a crucial perception on the corruption of power to anybody including Americans. On procedures and institutions that might possibly keep that power under control because the alternative was what we have just seen, wars like Vietnam, wars like Iraq, wars like the one coming.
That brings me to the second point. This Executive Branch, under specifically Bush and Cheney, despite opposition from most of the rest of the branch, even of the cabinet, clearly intends a war against Iran which even by imperialist standards, standards in other words which were accepted not only by nearly everyone in the Executive Branch but most of the leaders in Congress. The interests of the empire, the need for hegemony, our right to control and our need to control the oil of the Middle East and many other places. That is consensual in our establishment. …
But even by those standards, an attack on Iran is insane. And I say that quietly, I don’t mean it to be heard as rhetoric. Of course it’s not only aggression and a violation of international law, a supreme international crime, but it is by imperial standards, insane in terms of the consequences.
Does that make it impossible? No, it obviously doesn’t, it doesn’t even make it unlikely.
That is because two things come together that with the acceptance for various reasons of the Congress – Democrats and Republicans – and the public and the media, we have freed the White House – the president and the vice president – from virtually any restraint by Congress, courts, media, public, whatever.
And on the other hand, the people who have this unrestrained power are crazy. Not entirely, but they have crazy beliefs.
And the question is what then, what can we do about this? We are heading towards an insane operation. It is not certain. It is likely. … I want to try to be realistic myself here, to encourage us to do what we must do, what is needed to be done with the full recognition of the reality. Nothing is impossible.
What I’m talking about in the way of a police state, in the way of an attack on Iran is not certain. Nothing is certain, actually. However, I think it is probable, more likely than not, that in the next 15, 16 months of this administration we will see an attack on Iran. Probably. Whatever we do.
And … we will not succeed in moving Congress probably, and Congress probably will not stop the president from doing this. And that’s where we’re heading. That’s a very ugly, ugly prospect.
However, I think it’s up to us to work to increase that small perhaps – anyway not large – possibility and probability to avert this within the next 15 months, aside from the effort that we have to make for the rest of our lives.
Restoring the Republic
Getting back the constitutional government and improving it will take a long time. And I think if we don’t get started now, it won’t be started under the next administration.
Getting out of Iraq will take a long time. Averting Iran and averting a further coup in the face of a 9/11, another attack, is for right now, it can’t be put off. It will take a kind of political and moral courage of which we have seen very little…
We have a really unusual concentration here and in this audience, of people who have in fact changed their lives, changed their position, lost their friends to a large extent, risked and experienced being called terrible names, “traitor,” “weak on terrorism” – names that politicians will do anything to avoid being called.
How do we get more people in the government and in the public at large to change their lives now in a crisis in a critical way? How do we get Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid for example? What kinds of pressures, what kinds of influences can be brought to bear to get Congress to do their jobs? It isn’t just doing their jobs. Getting them to obey their oaths of office.
I took an oath many times, an oath of office as a Marine lieutenant, as an official in the Defense Department, as an official in the State Department as a Foreign Service officer. A number of times I took an oath of office which is the same oath office taken by every member of Congress and every official in the United States and every officer in the United States armed services.
And that oath is not to a Commander in Chief, which is not mentioned. It is not to a Führer. It is not even to superior officers. The oath is precisely to protect and uphold the Constitution of the United States.
Now that is an oath I violated every day for years in the Defense Department without realizing it when I kept my mouth shut when I knew the public was being lied into a war as they were lied into Iraq, as they are being lied into war in Iran.
I knew that I had the documents that proved it, and I did not put it out then. I was not obeying my oath which I eventually came to do.
I’ve often said that Lt. Ehren Watada – who still faces trial for refusing to obey orders to deploy to Iraq which he correctly perceives to be an unconstitutional and aggressive war – is the single officer in the United States armed services who is taking seriously upholding his oath.
The president is clearly violating that oath, of course. Everybody under him who understands what is going on and there are myriad, are violating their oaths. And that’s the standard that I think we should be asking of people.
Congressional Courage
On the Democratic side, on the political side, I think we should be demanding of our Democratic leaders in the House and Senate – and frankly of the Republicans – that it is not their highest single absolute priority to be reelected or to maintain a Democratic majority so that Pelosi can still be Speaker of the House and Reid can be in the Senate, or to increase that majority.
I’m not going to say that for politicians they should ignore that, or that they should do something else entirely, or that they should not worry about that.
Of course that will be and should be a major concern of theirs, but they’re acting like it’s their sole concern. Which is business as usual. “We have a majority, let’s not lose it, let’s keep it. Let’s keep those chairmanships.” Exactly what have those chairmanships done for us to save the Constitution in the last couple of years?
I am shocked by the Republicans today that I read in the Washington Post who yesterday threatened a filibuster if we … get back habeas corpus. The ruling out of habeas corpus with the help of the Democrats did not get us back to George the First it got us back to before King John 700 years ago in terms of counter-revolution.
We need some way, and Ann Wright has one way, of sitting in, in Conyers office and getting arrested. Ray McGovern has been getting arrested, pushed out the other day for saying the simple words “swear him in” when it came to testimony.
I think we’ve got to somehow get home to them [in Congress] that this is the time for them to uphold the oath, to preserve the Constitution, which is worth struggling for in part because it’s only with the power that the Constitution gives Congress responding to the public, only with that can we protect the world from mad men in power in the White House who intend an attack on Iran.
And the current generation of American generals and others who realize that this will be a catastrophe have not shown themselves – they might be people who in their past lives risked their bodies and their lives in Vietnam or elsewhere, like [Colin] Powell, and would not risk their career or their relation with the president to the slightest degree.
That has to change. And it’s the example of people like those up here who somehow brought home to our representatives that they as humans and as citizens have the power to do likewise and find in themselves the courage to protect this country and protect the world. Thank you.
Carpetbagger sums it up pretty well.
Published by Human Head on Wednesday, September 26, 2007 at 2:25 PM.Blackwater ‘may be worse than Abu Ghraib’ - The Carpetbagger Report
I appreciate the fact that outrage fatigue is inevitable when dealing with the Bush gang, but this is truly ridiculous. We have American taxpayers financing a private security army, whose members stand accused of slaughtering civilians. The Secretary of State believes no one should ask any questions about this, and those who do must be ignored. It’s pure lunacy.Of course it's all one big Soviet-style state secret, which is not a surprise since we are being brought under a Soviet system. And why not? After all, if more people found out about how Eric Prince's boys behave, they might be opposed to the idea of the same people doing "security" here in the US (New Orleans dry run, anyone?).
The State Department’s cooperation with a congressional inquiry is not optional. Rice can’t simply refuse to divulge information, and ordering others to remain silent is getting fairly close to the obstruction-of-justice line.
Then and Now
Published by BG on at 8:18 AM.Bed-wetter Nation | Campaign for America's Future
Nikita Khrushchev disembarked from his plane [in 1959] at Andrews Air Force Base to a 21-gun salute and a receiving line of 63 officials and bureaucrats, ending with President Eisenhower. He rode 13 miles with Ike in an open limousine to his guest quarters across from the White House. Then he met for two hours with Ike and his foreign policy team. Then came a white-tie state dinner. (The Soviets then put one on at the embassy for Ike.) He joshed with the CIA chief about pooling their intelligence data, since it probably all came from the same people—then was ushered upstairs to the East Wing for a leisurely gander at the Eisenhowers' family quarters. Visited the Agriculture Department's 12,000 acre research station ("If you didn't give a turkey a passport you couldn't tell the difference between a Communist and capitalist turkey"), spoke to the National Press Club, toured Manhattan, San Francisco (where he debated Walter Reuther on Stalin's crimes before a retinue of AFL-CIO leaders, or in K's words, "capitalist lackeys"), and Los Angeles (there he supped at the 20th Century Fox commissary, visited the set of the Frank Sinatra picture Can Can but to his great disappointment did not get to visit Disneyland), and sat down one more with the president, at Camp David. Mrs. K did the ladies-who-lunch circuit, with Pat Nixon as guide. Eleanor Roosevelt toured them through Hyde Park. It's not like it was all hearts and flowers. He bellowed that America, as Time magazine reported, "must close down its worldwide deterrent bases and disarm." Reporters asked him what he'd been doing during Stalin's blood purges, and the 1956 invasion of Hungary. A banquet of 27 industrialists tried to impress upon him the merits of capitalism. Nelson Rockefeller rapped with him about the Bible.
Had America suddenly succumbed to a fever of weak-kneed appeasement? Had the general running the country—the man who had faced down Hitler!—proven himself what the John Birch Society claimed he was: a conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy?
No. Nikita Khrushchev simply visited a nation that had character. That was mature, well-adjusted. A nation confident we were great. We had our neuroses, to be sure—plenty of them.
But look now what we have lost. Now when a bad guy crosses our threshhold, America becomes a pants-piddling mess.
Of course, the Soviet Union in 1959 didn't represent the existentialist threat to our way of life that The Next Great Evil Hitlerian Islamofascist Dictator Bad Guy Ahmadinejad does now. Khrushchev never claimed to want to defeat America or anything, right? He definitely never did anything that quelled free speech or the will of the population, and never persecuted religious groups that stood in opposition to his political goals.
Obviously, Eisenhower's Great Neville Chamberlain-esque Sin Of Appeasement towards the Soviet leader showed how weak and cowardly and cowed America was in the face of a far lesser existential evil than the All-Powerful TalibShariaMohammaDevilDictatoFascist Ahmadinejad represents. Eisenhower's French-like surrender led to tacit endorsement of Communism and ultimately the Soviet invasion of a small Colorado town where only C.Thomas Howell and Patrick Swayze were heroic in their Awesome Bill O'Reilly Courage in staring down the enemy invaders.
One can only hope that the need for a latter-day Howell and Swayze to emerge (might I suggest Maguire and Gyllenhall?) is mitigated or eliminated by our no-negotiation policy with Evil AraboMightAsWellBeAlQaedaBecauseAmericaCantTellOneFromAnotherofasicst leaders. Further, I do hope that our well-meaning legislators take a hard look at both the 20th Century Fox commissary and the AFL-CIO's willingness to host a(n admittedly far less dangerous) leader of evil like Khrushchev 48 years ago, and issue the stiff and swift penalties those appeasers deserve.
Powered by ScribeFire.
On The Media
Published by BG on at 6:27 AM.Firedoglake - Firedoglake weblog » Elephant Pimples
News outlets are little tiny cogs in giant corporate machines whose business interests far outweigh ratings and news revenue, much less truth and objectivity. GE (NBC) is a defense contractor which benefits from endless war; Viacom (CBS) is a vast media empire which requires lax ownership rules to stay together; News Corp. (Fox) is another vast media empire, and (bonus!) is owned by a right-wing loon.
In short, Republican rule is far more profitable to the media’s parent companies than the best and most exciting news programming on Earth could ever be, so that’s what they strive for. Their primary objective is not good journalism, not even ratings, but simply to do all they can to get Republicans elected… without making it too obvious.
That’s why their relationship with the right-wing “Liberal bias!” screamers isn’t really adversarial at all - it’s symbiotic. Those accusations provide valuable cover, so that whenever the media get busted shilling for Republicans, they just chuckle with mock exasperation and say that they’re getting it from both sides, so they must be doing their job.
And they are.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Is This Defensible?
Published by BG on Tuesday, September 25, 2007 at 6:28 PM.State Department Prohibits Officials from Discussing Iraqi Corruption :: Committee on Oversight and Government Reform :: United States House of Representatives
The State Department has instructed its officials that they cannot communicate with the Committee about corruption in the Maliki government unless the Committee agrees to treat all information, including “broad statements/assessments,” as national security secrets.
Really, honestly and truly... We can't have congressional oversight of how the money is being spent in Iraq because everything we do there is a state secret?
Assholes. The whole lot of them. It's OUR MONEY, and the House is OUR BRANCH.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Daddy May I?
Published by Human Head on at 4:50 PM.Daily Kos: State of the Nation
Beginning in February 2008, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will implement their ¨Advance Passenger Information System (APIS),¨ the gist of which is that you will need permission from the United States Government to travel on any air or sea vessel that goes to, from or through the U.S. The travel companies will not be able to issue a boarding pass until you are cleared by DHS. This applies to ALL passengers, US citizens and visitors alike. And how do you get said permission to travel? That´s for your government to know and you to never find out.[snip]
The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA) requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to assume from aircraft operators the function of conducting pre-flight comparisons of airline passenger information to Federal Government watch lists for international and domestic flights.
What's more harmful?
Published by Human Head on at 2:05 PM.The Raw Story | FCC fines Comcast $4,000 for airing 'fake news' reports
"We're pleased to see the FCC is finally waking up to the issue of fake news," said Craig Aaron, communications director of Free Press. "But the fine levied against Comcast is just the tip of the tip of the iceberg. Video news releases dressed up as real news were uncovered at more than 100 stations. We hope the FCC will soon fine those stations and issue clear guidelines to end the epidemic of fake news once and for all."Let's revisit 2005.
Rulings such at these by the FCC have become increasingly less frequent over the past seven years. At the same time, the use of VNRs has become more wide spread. General Motors, Intel, Pfizer and Capital One are among the companies who produced VNRs with the help of three PR firms, and "[m]ore than one-third of the time, stations aired the pre-packaged VNR in its entirety," according to Free Press.
House OKs stiff fines for indecency - Media - MSNBC.com
Rejecting criticism the penalties will stifle free speech and homogenize radio and TV broadcasts, bill supporters said stiff fines were needed to give deep-pocketed broadcasters more incentive to clean up their programs and to help assure parents that their children won’t be exposed to inappropriate material.
The measure, which passed 389-38, boosts the maximum fine from $32,500 to $500,000 for a company and from $11,000 to $500,000 for an individual entertainer.
And people still ask why I shut down the television.....
Really? Oh.
Published by BG on at 1:42 PM.Swallowing the Camel
Shortly before he left office, Bill Clinton secretly signed into law the National Economic Security and Reformation Act (NESARA). This act would have completely restructured the U.S. government by - among other things - forgiving all personal credit card debt and mortgages, abolishing the IRS, restoring constitutional law, and somehow ensuring world peace - but the Supreme Court placed a gag order on it, and threatened death to any government official who breathed word of its existence. NESARA activists around the world are agitating to get the act announced and instituted.
I got excited before I saw that the title of the post was, "The World's Weirdest/Stupidest Conspiracy Theories."
Nevermind.
Fun and breezy read though.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Even the French get it
Published by StB on at 1:33 PM.Sarkozy says letting Iran go nuclear could cause war
Iran was entitled to nuclear power for civilian purposes, he said, "but if we
allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, we would incur an unacceptable risk to
stability in the region and in the world".
In a broader warning against the dangers of appeasement, the new French leader said: "Weakness and renunciation do not lead to peace. They lead to war."
Wait, but those great leaders in Tehran say they only wants nuclear power for their civilians, that they have no intention of developing nuclear weapons.
There is no killing of gay people. There is no stoning of people. The government isn't using “national security” as a pretext for arresting student activists, women’s rights campaigners, labor leaders and activists, independent scholars, and journalists (Wow, if must be really bad how the United States uses "national security" as an excuse!).
It is all peace, love, and chocolate for everyone. Yep, no lies there.
I Don't Even Know Where To Start With This
Published by BG on at 8:48 AM.American Thinker: Where Bush Went Wrong in Iraq and How He Can Correct It Now
Seriously, does this guy really think the Iranian reaction to a US bombing campaign is going to be one where they rethink their religious fervor? Turning the sand into glass is going to inspire reason and moderation? Really? Seriously? No kidding?
Powered by ScribeFire.
We're gonna close it. Promise.
Published by Human Head on at 1:02 AM.The Raw Story | Hopes dwindle for closing Guantanamo
And the president, who last year told German television that he "would like to end Guantanamo," is now threatening to veto any move to "micromanage the detention of enemy combatants."Screw you guys, the
Did anyone really think they were going to close it? I heard it was just a scheduling issue. It's been rolled back to run concurrent to our closing of our "embassy" in Iraq. In 93 years or so.
Remember, this War
Riyal Revalue
Published by Human Head on at 12:21 AM.The Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency’s decision to keep interest rates on hold after the Federal Reserve cut rates last week has sparked speculation that the kingdom might revalue the riyal for the first time in 21 years. There has even been talk that the Saudis might abandon the riyal’s peg to the dollar, which has stood at SR3.75 since December 1986.
Might? There's no "might" about it. The only question is "when".
Trash Collection For Peace
Published by BG on Monday, September 24, 2007 at 2:11 PM.Via Karol at Alarming News, that's Flynt Leverett arguing in an Intelligence Squared US debate against "the garbage collection model" in the Middle East. That model proposes that if the Palestinians were to have a democratically-elected government, they'd have less time to worry about what the Israelis are doing, which leads to more peace between the two.
You know, because if you're worried about collecting the trash, you're less worried about the Israelis.
In a vacuum this sounds alright. I mean, if they're given government to run, they'll be too preoccupied to hate Israel. What happens when the great Conservative theories of democracy come to pass? All of a sudden there's no estate tax, everything is privatized, and there's nothing left for government to do except fine broadcasters tens of thousands of (Palestinian) dollars for accidentally showing a boob on TV? Won't they need to hate Israelis again just to keep busy?
I'm not sure Mr. Leverett has thought this all the way through is all.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Questions for the Iranian Leader
Published by StB on at 1:22 PM.TNOYF has obtained an advance copy of some of the queries submitted by Columbia University students for Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who visits the campus today as part of his continuing worldwide goodwill tour.
My favorite:
Mighty Monarch of Mesopotamia:
It is a pleasure to have a real, live revolutionary speak at our humble school. I know many Rethuglicans have put enormous pressure on Columbia to prevent you from speaking. To this university’s credit, they haven’t backed down. The free exchange of ideas-especially unpopular ones-must be allowed to continue in this country; especially in the halls of academe. I am looking forward to hearing what you have to say. I already know it will be a quantum leap ahead of the vile, racist Minutemen speech that we had to shut down last year. I would like to know if you will be coming out with a line of t-shirts similar to Che Guevera’s? I know like a
hundred dudes who would totally buy one. Keep it in mind.
I Don't Know, Ask Rumsfeld
Published by BG on at 10:11 AM.The most amusing 1:41 you'll see this morning, that's for sure.
Via TheAgitator.com
Powered by ScribeFire.
Neocons, World Domination, The New York Times, And Government Endorsed Masturbation
Published by BG on at 9:13 AM.The report was acquired by The New York Times. Here's a clip from Wolfowitz's report:
1992 Wolfowitz U.S. Strategy Plan Document
While the U.S. cannot become the world’s “policeman,” by assuming responsibility for righting every wrong, we will retain the pre-eminent responsibility for addressing selectively those wrongs which threaten not only our interests, but those of our allies or friends, or which could seriously unsettle international relations. Various types of U.S. interests may be involved in such instances: access to vital raw materials, primarily Persian Gulf oil; proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, threats to U.S. citizens from terrorism or regional or local conflict, and threats to U.S. society from narcotics trafficking.
Quoting Irving Kristol (which I do extensively in this post,:
"'(N)ational interest' is not a geographical term... A smaller nation might appropriately feel that its national interest begins and ends at its borders, so that its foreign policy is almost always in a defensive mode. A larger nation has more extensive interests. And large nations, whose identity is ideological, like the Soviet Union of yesteryear and the United States of today, inevitably have ideological interests in addition to more material concerns...
Behind all this is a fact: the incredible military superiority of the United States vis-a-vis the nations of the rest of the world, in any imaginable combination...
(I)t is a fact that if you have the kind of power we now have, either you will find opportunities to use it or the world will discover them for you.
Anyway, we've been up and down this road before. The neoconservative ideology is a radical and militaristic take on imperialism designed to aggressively define our interests and prioritize our needs over those of the citizens and governments of other countries.
This isn't why I wanted to post about the Wolfowitz document.
I found the link via this Crooks and Liars post, where John Amato opines:
One wonders if the media would have looked at the cabinet Bush put together when he took office and then asked some real questions about Wolfie’s plan of world domination. I guess they had other things to do.
Indeed. The New York Times archives list a grand total of five articles when searching for "Paul Wolfowitz" & "Defense Planning," none of which exist between the original 1992 date of the report and his confirmation as Deputy Secretary of Defense in 2001.
On the other hand, there are 43 articles in the same archive for "Joycelyn Elders" & "Masturbation."
Nice priorities Fourth Estate.
Powered by ScribeFire.
When Do I Get My FEMA-Mandated RFID Implant?
Published by BG on at 8:33 AM.Marginal Revolution: Road Pricing
Beginning early next year, drivers in six states will begin testing a new way to pay for roads and transit: Commuters will be charged for the miles they drive rather than paying taxes on gasoline purchased.
GPS will make road pricing and auto insurance by the mile common in the near future. Widespread road pricing will increase investment in private roads.
Paging Human Head to the white conspiracy phone.... Human Head to the white conspiracy phone please.
Seriously though, if government truly represented me, they'd figure out a way to prevent private companies from amassing quote-unquote-independent files of data that are only dubiously necessary in their ability to deliver me the services I require.
I say, "quote-unquote-independent" because, like any service which has any value to a business, if there is a way to utilize economies of scale in a delivery model, it's going to be done. That means that companies (like, say, ChoicePoint) will spring up to provide (say, insurance) companies the data on their consumers that will "help them profile customer risk" in a more cost-effective and agile way. Realistically then, if this idea of fitting cars with a GPS unit to upload data regarding miles driven (and, necessarily, where those miles have been driven) moves forward, this data won't be collected by Progressive and Allstate, but by a master collector/provider, and farmed out from a single pool.
For the companies, this makes a lot of sense. The more data accumulated, the less they need to rely on a statistical projection of behavior based on their sample size. Simply put, even if your neighbor is insured by another carrier, if they know his behavior they can project yours with more accuracy.
For Americans, this should be more troubling than it is. You are the sum total of your behaviors, and your behaviors are increasingly being tracked as points of data. More troubling, these data points are being consolidated by private companies, allowing a de facto sort of privatization of intelligence on American citizens (which is not currently restricted by laws and oversight). In fact, ChoicePoint has been allocated $130 billion in government contracts since 2001, and has had Richard Armitage, former NSA Deputy Director William Crowell, and John Ashcroft's lobbying group on their payroll.
The loss of privacy is a very real concern. We often have these issues framed for us by our media in terms of a laptop with customer data being swiped out of the back of someone's car, but the real concern for Americans should be whether or not we allow our lives to be captured, profiled and modeled by private companies to the extent that they are, especially when these companies work very closely with the government. It's going to take a big push from our representatives in Washington to stop this slow bleed, and I have very little faith that our elected officials have any real incentive from Americans to make that push.
To be clear, this has precious little to do with "terrorism," which has become the catch-all excuse for those that crave authoritarianism to push their agendas. There are already plenty of laws and courts in place to allow our government to track the movements, communications and spending habits of suspected terrorists. We should be doing our national security intelligence gathering in an above-board sort of way (which doesn't mean "letting the New York Times know what we're doing so they can put it on the front page - it means oversight by a court as our laws had [previously] intended). I'd be more sympathetic to the data-accumulation argument if companies like ChoicePoint had clear responsibility in their intelligence profiling to anonymize and/or purge any data that wasn't clearly requested by warrant, but that's not the way it works "in the post-9/11 world."
Powered by ScribeFire.
What's The Largest Man-Made Object In The World?
Published by BG on at 6:50 AM.Whirling Vortex of Stupidity | MetaFilter
The North Pacific Trash Vortex - Researchers have discovered a Texas-sized area of (mostly plastic) rubbish floating in the Pacific Ocean.
On the most recent episode of QI, Fry posed this question: "what is the largest man-made object in the world?" The answer: The North Pacific Trash Vortex.
Damn, that's a big puddle o' trash.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Positively Beauchampian
Published by BG on Sunday, September 23, 2007 at 8:24 AM.Does This Seem Like A Good Idea To Anyone?
Published by BG on at 7:21 AM.Drug WarRant
It's bad enough when government agencies are all lobbying for a chunk of drug war cash. But when you get private companies into the act as well, then the entire power structure has a financial stake in continuing and escalating the destruction.
Lucrative private players have been heavily in the mix for years, from drug testing companies to privately owned prisons -- all lobbying for harsher drug laws.
A couple of other instances have been in the news lately.
LinkThe Defense Department has picked five companies, four of them from the Washington area, for a contract to support the Pentagon's counter-narcoterrorism activities. The government may spend as much as $15 billion through the five-year contract.
The local companies are Arinc of Annapolis, Lockheed Martin of Bethesda, Raytheon Technical Services of Reston and Northrop Grumman Information Technology of McLean. The fifth company is Blackwater USA of Moyock, N.C.
Let's be clear, the only thing I can possibly think Blackwater might be enlisted in the "Drug War" to do is provide military/police/SWAT-type services. If the intention is for them to deliver these services in application of US law, I can think of all sorts of problems with the outsourcing of law enforcement. These guys aren't exactly security guards at the mall, you'd use them to break down doors at suspected meth labs. Nothing could possibly go wrong doing that, right?
Powered by ScribeFire.