Memo To The President...Do Your Job...Testify To The American People Before Congress
President Bush,
I expect the unprecedented and the extraordinary, when it comes to participation in determining what went wrong for 9/11, from you and your staff, including Mrs. Rice.
The spectacular failure happened on your watch.
You better bust your a@# and show us what you're doing about it, and how that compares to what you did before, or you're fired!
Don't patronize us Mr. Bush. We are the American people, and you serve at our discretion (i.e. you work for us). It's your butt on the line, because you're the one supposed to be keeping our butts from becoming victims of our enemies.
So, here is what you should do. Testify before Congress and explain how you did everything possible to keep us secure and safe from our enemies, or, where you failed, explain who's been held accountable and what's changed.
Yours,
Jimm Donnelly
Thursday, March 25, 2004
Bush Testifying Wouldn't Be Nearly As Unprecedented As 9/11 Occurring On His Watch
So far, Bush has lamely tried to spin his participation in Congressional investigations of 9/11 as "unprecedented", in the sense of sharing information between branches.
To that, I would only ask, "Mr. Bush, hasn't the world changed since 9/11?"
What is more unprecedented, Congress investigating failures of the executive branch, and demanding full access to information, or several hijacked planes crashing into buildings and killing several thousand Americans?
These times are unprecedented, and, if we the people have our way, they are going to become even more so, at least in terms of transparency and accountability.
Because, no matter the adjective Bush comes up with - unprecedented, extraordinary, etc. - it will pale in comparison to the shock and events of 9/11.
So far, Bush has lamely tried to spin his participation in Congressional investigations of 9/11 as "unprecedented", in the sense of sharing information between branches.
To that, I would only ask, "Mr. Bush, hasn't the world changed since 9/11?"
What is more unprecedented, Congress investigating failures of the executive branch, and demanding full access to information, or several hijacked planes crashing into buildings and killing several thousand Americans?
These times are unprecedented, and, if we the people have our way, they are going to become even more so, at least in terms of transparency and accountability.
Because, no matter the adjective Bush comes up with - unprecedented, extraordinary, etc. - it will pale in comparison to the shock and events of 9/11.
On The Merits Of Bush And Rice Testifying Before Congress
No matter how you view it, on President Bush's watch, 9/11 occurred.
This is a spectacular failure.
In any failure, especially one as grave and disastrous as this one, responsibility must be determined, and the vulnerability exposed and taken advantage of at least explained.
This can only be done by knowing the state of what was known (the information), and what was being done about it (the operations), following from the information, including strategy development and further risk analysis to expand on "the known".
What we do know, and have begun to learn more about, is that this attack was not as novel or unanticipated as was thought or asserted (by Rice), and the more this is the case, the less it is an excuse of any kind.
That leaves us with the information that was known, in terms of the strategy being built upon its foundation, the risk management that was going on, cost/benefit analyses, in order to determine how such a shocking attack could have occurred under the current administration's watch.
If Bush wants the conspiracies to end, and the fingers to stop pointing, and he and all of us should, he needs to share all he knows, as does Rice, so that we all can move forward past 9/11 and why we were unable to prevent it, in order to focus on today, and tomorrow, and preventing further 9/11's, not to mention better managing our information, risk portfolios, resources, and image/brand.
No matter how you view it, on President Bush's watch, 9/11 occurred.
This is a spectacular failure.
In any failure, especially one as grave and disastrous as this one, responsibility must be determined, and the vulnerability exposed and taken advantage of at least explained.
This can only be done by knowing the state of what was known (the information), and what was being done about it (the operations), following from the information, including strategy development and further risk analysis to expand on "the known".
What we do know, and have begun to learn more about, is that this attack was not as novel or unanticipated as was thought or asserted (by Rice), and the more this is the case, the less it is an excuse of any kind.
That leaves us with the information that was known, in terms of the strategy being built upon its foundation, the risk management that was going on, cost/benefit analyses, in order to determine how such a shocking attack could have occurred under the current administration's watch.
If Bush wants the conspiracies to end, and the fingers to stop pointing, and he and all of us should, he needs to share all he knows, as does Rice, so that we all can move forward past 9/11 and why we were unable to prevent it, in order to focus on today, and tomorrow, and preventing further 9/11's, not to mention better managing our information, risk portfolios, resources, and image/brand.
Were We Truly Ignorant To The Methods Of The 9/11 Terrorists?
The Bush Administration can't be excused for ignorance of the threat, or of its novel nature.
Or can they?
This is the job of Congress. To find out. What did they know, and, going forward from that analysis, how did operations fail in regards to what indeed "was known"?
It's becoming increasingly troublesome to conclude that the Administration knew nothing of suicidal airliner attacks. Too many warnings were coming through from various intelligence agencies worldwide, and the potential for such an attack had to at least have been known. If not, this should merit its own investigation.
And, since the failure was so spectacular, it's hard to argue that it should be left "in house" as an executive managerial matter. Clearly, part of the problem could be ideological blinders or prejudice that hinders a proper risk analysis and strategy implementation.
So the need for an outside party. The Congress.
Bush should testify for as long as it takes in order to assure that we can fully appraise our state of vulnerability pre-9/11, in terms of information and operations, and going forward beyond 9/11.
Anything less threatens the existence and well-being of Americans against terrorism.
The Bush Administration can't be excused for ignorance of the threat, or of its novel nature.
Or can they?
This is the job of Congress. To find out. What did they know, and, going forward from that analysis, how did operations fail in regards to what indeed "was known"?
It's becoming increasingly troublesome to conclude that the Administration knew nothing of suicidal airliner attacks. Too many warnings were coming through from various intelligence agencies worldwide, and the potential for such an attack had to at least have been known. If not, this should merit its own investigation.
And, since the failure was so spectacular, it's hard to argue that it should be left "in house" as an executive managerial matter. Clearly, part of the problem could be ideological blinders or prejudice that hinders a proper risk analysis and strategy implementation.
So the need for an outside party. The Congress.
Bush should testify for as long as it takes in order to assure that we can fully appraise our state of vulnerability pre-9/11, in terms of information and operations, and going forward beyond 9/11.
Anything less threatens the existence and well-being of Americans against terrorism.
Could 9/11 Have Been Prevented?
Lost in all of the debate is the very sensitive matter of whether something could have been done prior to 9/11.
If not, why or what will have changed so that something could be done today (hopefully, is being done)?
From this frame, we notice that common sense tells us that things could have been done prior to 9/11, but weren't.
For the most part, almost everyone has forgiven or explained away this lack of preventive action by agreeing that the risk involved and the act itself were so novel and surprising.
For the man and woman on the street, this is true. But for those with access to warnings of terrorist intentions to hijack airliners and use them as missiles (they sure look like big missiles), this excuse is not as plain as to "the street". Indeed, perception on "the street" is irrelevant, because we don't have access to the same information as our intelligence and security professionals. It's not our job, it's theirs. For them to appeal to our sensibility and perception of the threat is absurd.
Richard Clarke goes part of the way in explaining how 9/11 could have been prevented by contrasting the efforts by Sandy Berger to coordinate agencies and information in the face of domestic terrorist threats during the Clinton Administration with the efforts by Condoleeza Rice during her tenure prior to 9/11.
In all honesty, it's this very coordination that might have got the head of the FBI to somehow notice that special agents in two different locations and offices had reported suspicions concerning flight schools. It also may have ramped up efforts to locate known terrorists, and to upgrade security on that tip at airports.
All speculation, but certainly plausible in view of the facts.
And, though the risk analysis and cost/benefit calculations may still have justified (by current standards before 9/11) the Bush Administration approach, in how they and Rice handled threat assessment, response, and counter-strategy, this ought to be proven as such, and no leeway ought to be given to them for not being aware of novel attack strategies, because these suicidal airline strategies were known to intelligence and security professionals.
That's why finding out how much they knew before 9/11 is so important.
The fact they are so remiss to share what they know hints at the answer.
***
Though, I should add, Donald Rumsfeld is correct to assert that we more than likely couldn't have prevented 9/11 by military means. Bin Laden did not commit this act. The failure and responsibility rests exclusively on the CIA, the FBI, the National Security Advisor, the President, and any other agencies coordinating counterterrorist information involving the homeland.
Lost in all of the debate is the very sensitive matter of whether something could have been done prior to 9/11.
If not, why or what will have changed so that something could be done today (hopefully, is being done)?
From this frame, we notice that common sense tells us that things could have been done prior to 9/11, but weren't.
For the most part, almost everyone has forgiven or explained away this lack of preventive action by agreeing that the risk involved and the act itself were so novel and surprising.
For the man and woman on the street, this is true. But for those with access to warnings of terrorist intentions to hijack airliners and use them as missiles (they sure look like big missiles), this excuse is not as plain as to "the street". Indeed, perception on "the street" is irrelevant, because we don't have access to the same information as our intelligence and security professionals. It's not our job, it's theirs. For them to appeal to our sensibility and perception of the threat is absurd.
Richard Clarke goes part of the way in explaining how 9/11 could have been prevented by contrasting the efforts by Sandy Berger to coordinate agencies and information in the face of domestic terrorist threats during the Clinton Administration with the efforts by Condoleeza Rice during her tenure prior to 9/11.
In all honesty, it's this very coordination that might have got the head of the FBI to somehow notice that special agents in two different locations and offices had reported suspicions concerning flight schools. It also may have ramped up efforts to locate known terrorists, and to upgrade security on that tip at airports.
All speculation, but certainly plausible in view of the facts.
And, though the risk analysis and cost/benefit calculations may still have justified (by current standards before 9/11) the Bush Administration approach, in how they and Rice handled threat assessment, response, and counter-strategy, this ought to be proven as such, and no leeway ought to be given to them for not being aware of novel attack strategies, because these suicidal airline strategies were known to intelligence and security professionals.
That's why finding out how much they knew before 9/11 is so important.
The fact they are so remiss to share what they know hints at the answer.
***
Though, I should add, Donald Rumsfeld is correct to assert that we more than likely couldn't have prevented 9/11 by military means. Bin Laden did not commit this act. The failure and responsibility rests exclusively on the CIA, the FBI, the National Security Advisor, the President, and any other agencies coordinating counterterrorist information involving the homeland.
Wednesday, March 17, 2004
Freedom Of Information Day (Yesterday) At The Miami Herald
Alasdair Roberts from foi.net brings readers up to date on the struggle between populists and realists in regards to the freedom of information, transparency, and accountability.
Alasdair Roberts from foi.net brings readers up to date on the struggle between populists and realists in regards to the freedom of information, transparency, and accountability.
Undoubtedly, the Bush administration has introduced unduly broad restrictions on openness since 9/11. But we shouldn't think that the fight over openness is simply driven by security fears. There's a deeper conflict, in Washington and abroad, about the way government works. It's a battle between two camps: populists and realists.
Populists ruled the 1990s. Their power is rooted in the long-term decline in trust in government and other institutions. Populists assume that elites will exploit secrecy to shortchange the American public. They're optimistic about the public's capacity to use information intelligently. And they want to exploit the internet's ability to distribute information quickly.
(snip)
Realists watch these trends and cringe. Thirty years ago, the Trilateral Commission produced a famous report that said western democracies faced a ''crisis of governability'' caused by an adversary culture and the "debility of elected leaders.''
For realists, these problems have intensified. Interest groups seem more powerful, causing a gridlock that Jonathan Rauch calls ''hyperpluralism.'' The media environment is crowded with more outlets competing in a 24-hour news cycle.
(snip)
Which side is right? For now, the populists. There's plenty of evidence that secrecy can cloak abuses of power. The realists' complaints about governability are often just an attempt to preserve the power of a narrow elite. And it's too early to tell how far the populists' push for radical transparency can go, or assess the implications of this trend.
Eventually, however, openness advocates will have to deal with realists' concern about the decline of governability. The issue will persist long after today's debate over secrecy and 9/11 has faded into history.
As I will articulate in the weeks ahead, there is no true conflict here with transparency and governability. Deliberative democracy and the freedom of information can go hand-in-hand - it's just going to take a new breed of politicians with the right mix of bargaining and strategic skills to make it work, not to mention a more engaged citizenry willing to uphold grassroots accountability.
After Impeaching Roh, South Korea Cracks Down On Bloggers And Dissent
Stirling Newberry has all the details over at the Blogging of the President.
Also, Nyco, over at Daily Kos, reminds us that President Roh, currently under impeachment proceedings, was greatly aided in the last elections by bloggers.
Is something ominous going on over in South Korea?
Stirling Newberry has all the details over at the Blogging of the President.
Also, Nyco, over at Daily Kos, reminds us that President Roh, currently under impeachment proceedings, was greatly aided in the last elections by bloggers.
Is something ominous going on over in South Korea?
Monday, March 15, 2004
From Clarity To A Blur - The Wars Against Afghanistan, Iraq, And Terror
this originally posted yesterday as a comment over at Daily Kos
The real intrigue involving the terrorist attacks is why Spain would be targeted because of Iraq, and by Al Qaeda.
Since there is no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, perhaps the intended response is to take advantage of the weakness that Spain and the US showed by insisting on their participation when only 10% of the people were in favor.
First, this makes arguments about defending democracy seem more hollow.
Second, it blurs the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in a way that, at least in this case, causes great psychological dissonance.
For, what we really have is one war in Afghanistan, and another in Iraq, but the two are inextricably intermingled.
So, support for the war in Afghanistan, which was generally accepted by free peoples worldwide, gets blurred because we forced another war in Iraq that almost noone was in favor of.
And it's the war in Afghanistan, much more than Iraq, that Al Qaeda and Islamicist terrorists would be truly motivated by.
In the end, we have psychologically left great weaknesses in the hearts and minds of people in our fight against terrorism by going to war with Iraq.
From clarity, we've created a blur.
this originally posted yesterday as a comment over at Daily Kos
The real intrigue involving the terrorist attacks is why Spain would be targeted because of Iraq, and by Al Qaeda.
Since there is no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, perhaps the intended response is to take advantage of the weakness that Spain and the US showed by insisting on their participation when only 10% of the people were in favor.
First, this makes arguments about defending democracy seem more hollow.
Second, it blurs the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in a way that, at least in this case, causes great psychological dissonance.
For, what we really have is one war in Afghanistan, and another in Iraq, but the two are inextricably intermingled.
So, support for the war in Afghanistan, which was generally accepted by free peoples worldwide, gets blurred because we forced another war in Iraq that almost noone was in favor of.
And it's the war in Afghanistan, much more than Iraq, that Al Qaeda and Islamicist terrorists would be truly motivated by.
In the end, we have psychologically left great weaknesses in the hearts and minds of people in our fight against terrorism by going to war with Iraq.
From clarity, we've created a blur.
Sunday, March 14, 2004
Imagine A Family Member Killed In Iraq
Yesterday, I was imagining myself in the place of an American who lost a family member in the latest war with Iraq. Knowing as I do the various shenanigans in how we justified that war, and even how we've cavalierly conducted it in many ways, I was overwhelmed with a feeling of rage dashed with sorrow.
We need to hold our leaders accountable. For freedom, for democracy, and for the lives of our family members. It's not just about ideals...it's personal.
To anyone who has lost a loved one in Iraq, I want to extend my deepest condolescences and an apology. Such a thing happening to someone in my family would be an irreplacable loss, and, though I can never truly do so, I will do my best to put myself in your shoes.
Yesterday, I was imagining myself in the place of an American who lost a family member in the latest war with Iraq. Knowing as I do the various shenanigans in how we justified that war, and even how we've cavalierly conducted it in many ways, I was overwhelmed with a feeling of rage dashed with sorrow.
We need to hold our leaders accountable. For freedom, for democracy, and for the lives of our family members. It's not just about ideals...it's personal.
To anyone who has lost a loved one in Iraq, I want to extend my deepest condolescences and an apology. Such a thing happening to someone in my family would be an irreplacable loss, and, though I can never truly do so, I will do my best to put myself in your shoes.
Two Images - Snapshots Of Spain
Two images.
The latest developments in Madrid, in terms of the millions pouring onto the streets to show solidarity in grief and against terrorism, is compelling to view in the light of the demonstrations in Madrid, prior to the war in Iraq, involving millions of Spaniards opposing their government's decision to ally unilaterally with the Americans.
Beyond the fact that the Spanish government (at least nominally) dragged them into the war in Iraq when 90% of the Spanish people were opposed (obviously, this kind of war support will only be token, in the face of such resistance by the people, with an understanding that Spanish forces would not be making vital sacrifices), what strikes me is the millions pouring out together on the streets.
Terrorism, and cronyism, cannot defeat this show of solidarity. Of mutual aid and support. Rather than our elites making rhetorical claims that the terrorists are trying to destroy democracy, they ought to be beginning to realize that true democracy is in order. The hearts and minds of the Spanish people are out there in the streets, and they are not defeated.
In a democracy, if 90% of the people are opposed to spilling blood on a foreign land, especially one which does not directly threaten, than the government does not make a public show of support for that spilling of blood.
Likewise, now or later, absent a weapon of mass destruction, terrorism cannot defeat a people who will refuse to cower in fear, and will instead stand together and show that they are united.
Today, Spanish hearts and minds chose democracy, and held their leaders and representatives accountable for their actions taken on their behalf.
Two images.
Two images.
The latest developments in Madrid, in terms of the millions pouring onto the streets to show solidarity in grief and against terrorism, is compelling to view in the light of the demonstrations in Madrid, prior to the war in Iraq, involving millions of Spaniards opposing their government's decision to ally unilaterally with the Americans.
Beyond the fact that the Spanish government (at least nominally) dragged them into the war in Iraq when 90% of the Spanish people were opposed (obviously, this kind of war support will only be token, in the face of such resistance by the people, with an understanding that Spanish forces would not be making vital sacrifices), what strikes me is the millions pouring out together on the streets.
Terrorism, and cronyism, cannot defeat this show of solidarity. Of mutual aid and support. Rather than our elites making rhetorical claims that the terrorists are trying to destroy democracy, they ought to be beginning to realize that true democracy is in order. The hearts and minds of the Spanish people are out there in the streets, and they are not defeated.
In a democracy, if 90% of the people are opposed to spilling blood on a foreign land, especially one which does not directly threaten, than the government does not make a public show of support for that spilling of blood.
Likewise, now or later, absent a weapon of mass destruction, terrorism cannot defeat a people who will refuse to cower in fear, and will instead stand together and show that they are united.
Today, Spanish hearts and minds chose democracy, and held their leaders and representatives accountable for their actions taken on their behalf.
Two images.
Sunday, March 07, 2004
Haiti - Updated
I know I'm on hiatus, but there is an issue that begs attention, and is not being given it. Haiti. There is an unprecedented propaganda effort underway, with Carol Williams of the LA Times seemingly one of the players, to justify our removal of President Aristide, after the fact.
This is not a healthy sign of democracy, either for us or the Haitians. Every man and woman complicit in this operation should be held to account, and face the consequences. I read a whole article saying bad things about Aristide supporters sometime on Saturday only to learn that, when the still acting Prime Minister goes on state-run radio to declare that Aristide's government is still in charge, the rebels and students opposed to Aristide invade the broadcasting station and loot and destroy it.
That doesn't sound like freedom fighters. If you're in the right, why destroy the media? Where's our Marines? Aren't they defending key people and infrastructure? Don't we need the media to be operational in order to communicate to the people?
And now, today, I hear that pro-Aristide supporters fire on unarmed demonstrators who are championing a known war criminal and terrorist. It sounds unbelievable. These rebels are terrorists, and we are to believe they are the champions of the people? Of democracy? This won't go for American policy, and the fruits of that will bear out soon.
Haiti is just another indignity in a long line. It's time for to hold our president, vice president, and all their men and women, where appropriate, to account, and to insist they justify and explain their policy.
Where has President Bush been in regards to commenting on Haiti? Is he a real leader? Does he even know what's going on?
We could have prevented Aristide's ouster, and didn't, and this is no accident, but rather a policy. This ought to be acknowledged, and explained, and, since it hasn't, it's time to stand up and demand accountability from our leaders.
And, on that note, President Bush has been nowhere to be found, when he ought to be explaining to us why the removal of Aristide needed to occur, and how it fits into our overall strategy. Who's running the show? I want to know, and I'm not going to stand idle while our American values and reputation are trampled in the meantime.
Though, I should acknowledge, I am on hiatus.
Peace.
I know I'm on hiatus, but there is an issue that begs attention, and is not being given it. Haiti. There is an unprecedented propaganda effort underway, with Carol Williams of the LA Times seemingly one of the players, to justify our removal of President Aristide, after the fact.
This is not a healthy sign of democracy, either for us or the Haitians. Every man and woman complicit in this operation should be held to account, and face the consequences. I read a whole article saying bad things about Aristide supporters sometime on Saturday only to learn that, when the still acting Prime Minister goes on state-run radio to declare that Aristide's government is still in charge, the rebels and students opposed to Aristide invade the broadcasting station and loot and destroy it.
That doesn't sound like freedom fighters. If you're in the right, why destroy the media? Where's our Marines? Aren't they defending key people and infrastructure? Don't we need the media to be operational in order to communicate to the people?
And now, today, I hear that pro-Aristide supporters fire on unarmed demonstrators who are championing a known war criminal and terrorist. It sounds unbelievable. These rebels are terrorists, and we are to believe they are the champions of the people? Of democracy? This won't go for American policy, and the fruits of that will bear out soon.
Haiti is just another indignity in a long line. It's time for to hold our president, vice president, and all their men and women, where appropriate, to account, and to insist they justify and explain their policy.
Where has President Bush been in regards to commenting on Haiti? Is he a real leader? Does he even know what's going on?
We could have prevented Aristide's ouster, and didn't, and this is no accident, but rather a policy. This ought to be acknowledged, and explained, and, since it hasn't, it's time to stand up and demand accountability from our leaders.
And, on that note, President Bush has been nowhere to be found, when he ought to be explaining to us why the removal of Aristide needed to occur, and how it fits into our overall strategy. Who's running the show? I want to know, and I'm not going to stand idle while our American values and reputation are trampled in the meantime.
Though, I should acknowledge, I am on hiatus.
Peace.
On Hiatus For Awhile...Until Site Redesign Rolled Out
I'm writing a book, not to mention finishing up a software rollout, so I will be scarce from the blogosphere for awhile.
As a warning to all bloggers and blog readers, beware of the echo chamber. Seek varying opinions, and make sure you expose yourself to information outside of your immediate circle.
(text excised)
Also, something I've learned is that personal communication can be invaluable, especially in regards to conflict resolution, as a tonic for online communication. To make a long story short, I took a particularly smug and arrogant tone to Brad DeLong's blog, he removed me, I reacted, we discussed it, and the matter is resolved. Lesson learned on my part, and vice-versa.
For the record, Brad DeLong is one of our finest bloggers, his economic analysis brings an invaluable perspective to the blogosphere, and I encourage everyone to visit him and his insights regularly. In the meantime, I need to find a niche of my own.
I'm writing a book, not to mention finishing up a software rollout, so I will be scarce from the blogosphere for awhile.
As a warning to all bloggers and blog readers, beware of the echo chamber. Seek varying opinions, and make sure you expose yourself to information outside of your immediate circle.
(text excised)
Also, something I've learned is that personal communication can be invaluable, especially in regards to conflict resolution, as a tonic for online communication. To make a long story short, I took a particularly smug and arrogant tone to Brad DeLong's blog, he removed me, I reacted, we discussed it, and the matter is resolved. Lesson learned on my part, and vice-versa.
For the record, Brad DeLong is one of our finest bloggers, his economic analysis brings an invaluable perspective to the blogosphere, and I encourage everyone to visit him and his insights regularly. In the meantime, I need to find a niche of my own.
Thursday, February 26, 2004
Do We Need A Constitutional Amendment To Ensure Our Privacy?
I'm beginning to wonder if we should push a privacy amendment to the Constitution. Perhaps along with an open government/freedom of information amendment. Not that the two need to be bundled. But it would be a joyous day if we were celebrating the passage of these two great measures.
Let's focus on the privacy amendment in this post. I've been poking around the Internet, and am finding surprisingly little on any past history of proposed amendments of privacy. This seems odd to me because our right to privacy is largely an interpretation of existing amendments, aside from protection from unlawful search and seizure, and is clearly a popular issue. Who wouldn't want a right to privacy from government (except for those who want to regulate personal behavior that results in no harm to another, but even they probably want their own privacy)?
I'm committing myself to this issue. Here in California, we have a right to privacy enshrined in our state Constitution. I'd like to see a similar development on the federal level, and enshrined in an amendment to our great Constitution. So, with privacy on our minds, I encourage you to go visit Privacy International and the Electronic Privacy Information Center as a way of getting up to speed with the world of privacy advocacy, activism, and watchdogging.
And, if you want to pursue open government, transparency, and the freedom of information a little further, then Transparency International, Open Government Information Awareness, Access Reports, freedominfo.org, and Open Society Justice Initiative can bring you up to speed.
I'm beginning to wonder if we should push a privacy amendment to the Constitution. Perhaps along with an open government/freedom of information amendment. Not that the two need to be bundled. But it would be a joyous day if we were celebrating the passage of these two great measures.
Let's focus on the privacy amendment in this post. I've been poking around the Internet, and am finding surprisingly little on any past history of proposed amendments of privacy. This seems odd to me because our right to privacy is largely an interpretation of existing amendments, aside from protection from unlawful search and seizure, and is clearly a popular issue. Who wouldn't want a right to privacy from government (except for those who want to regulate personal behavior that results in no harm to another, but even they probably want their own privacy)?
I'm committing myself to this issue. Here in California, we have a right to privacy enshrined in our state Constitution. I'd like to see a similar development on the federal level, and enshrined in an amendment to our great Constitution. So, with privacy on our minds, I encourage you to go visit Privacy International and the Electronic Privacy Information Center as a way of getting up to speed with the world of privacy advocacy, activism, and watchdogging.
And, if you want to pursue open government, transparency, and the freedom of information a little further, then Transparency International, Open Government Information Awareness, Access Reports, freedominfo.org, and Open Society Justice Initiative can bring you up to speed.
Tony Blair Claims British Intelligence Never Breaks The Law...And Another Absurdity
Now, people say a lot of good and bad things about secret services and intelligence agencies, but I'm not sure anyone has ever said that "they never break the law". These are clandestine spy agencies - does Tony Blair honestly want me to believe that his spies never break the law? Does he think I'm a total fool? Does he thing the whole world are fools?
Probably not. Chances are this is just more legal posturing from Tony. And there's a lot of that going on over in the UK. Take that case against Katharine Gun, the translator who leaked the email request from American intelligence to spy on UN deliberations regarding the war. She regularly confesses to the deed, and yet the government drops the case against her for a "lack of evidence". Of course. Pure logic at its finest.
Though, had they pursued the case in court against her, the veracity of the email itself would have had to been established, and this very well could have led to disclosures that showed the government, and its precious secret services, committing illegal acts.
So, let's sum up. Two developments have arose in the past 24 hours. One, a prime minister claims that his spies never break the law. Two, a woman who regularly confesses to a crime is freed for lack of evidence by the initiation of the prosecutor.
My response to that is, one, I'm not stupid, and two, somebody's hiding something (beyond the obvious being this involves spies and politicians).
Now, people say a lot of good and bad things about secret services and intelligence agencies, but I'm not sure anyone has ever said that "they never break the law". These are clandestine spy agencies - does Tony Blair honestly want me to believe that his spies never break the law? Does he think I'm a total fool? Does he thing the whole world are fools?
Probably not. Chances are this is just more legal posturing from Tony. And there's a lot of that going on over in the UK. Take that case against Katharine Gun, the translator who leaked the email request from American intelligence to spy on UN deliberations regarding the war. She regularly confesses to the deed, and yet the government drops the case against her for a "lack of evidence". Of course. Pure logic at its finest.
Though, had they pursued the case in court against her, the veracity of the email itself would have had to been established, and this very well could have led to disclosures that showed the government, and its precious secret services, committing illegal acts.
So, let's sum up. Two developments have arose in the past 24 hours. One, a prime minister claims that his spies never break the law. Two, a woman who regularly confesses to a crime is freed for lack of evidence by the initiation of the prosecutor.
My response to that is, one, I'm not stupid, and two, somebody's hiding something (beyond the obvious being this involves spies and politicians).
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
Why Is Big Government, Or Liberal Democracy If You Prefer, Necessary To Protect Marriage?
As expected, President Bush has weighed in on an amendment to the Constitution to declare it solely between man and woman. This will be a crux of his presidential campaign, and is a sign of his weakness. In reality, weakness is what I'm examining in this post. For many, we see strength in our traditions that have gone back for millenia, long before the establishment of our limited free government. President Bush is convinced otherwise:
As expected, President Bush has weighed in on an amendment to the Constitution to declare it solely between man and woman. This will be a crux of his presidential campaign, and is a sign of his weakness. In reality, weakness is what I'm examining in this post. For many, we see strength in our traditions that have gone back for millenia, long before the establishment of our limited free government. President Bush is convinced otherwise:
"After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity."
Now, far be it from me to say that marriage is stronger than it's ever been, since anyone can look around and see that marriages aren't lasting as long, on average, than other periods of history. But, as President Bush himself has noted on occasion, this trend has occurred in a world that we lead, and that has come largely to embrace the inalienable - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as the root foundation (however well we are in the process of implementing and enabling this vision).
What am I saying? We live in the greatest days of the world, the days with the most freedom, for the most people, with the best health care, and the most incredible expansion of human innovation and ingenuity ever. This happened because we are free - we freed ourselves. In the process of attaining this freedom, we inevitably noticed the oppressions of the past, of man over woman, of master over slave, and have had to deal with their realities, lingering effects where largely eliminated, and our relative and varying complicity in these evils.
In the past, for millenia, men and women were often married against their will, or, in the case of polygamy, many women were monopolized by a few men. Because of the church, and the lack of freedom and personal autonomy, people trapped in ugly and moribund marriages were unable to exit them. With freedom, this situation has changed. Humanity is growing up, and in the process of choosing for ourselves our destinies. This has been enabled most of all by the aforementioned historical novelty - the right of exit. If you're in a bad marriage, you can leave. Today. In the past, often you could not.
In our culture today, people are free to come and go - to enter into a marriage contract as they please. America did not invent marriages, and our government is not needed to sustain them. Even today, in a growing scientific age, most people get married before a pastor, priest, or religious leader of some sort. As a reflection of our freedom of religion, and separation of church and state, this is also one of the great blessings of our system of government here in America. The government is not needed to protect what ought to be protected in marriage - the force of our traditions, morals, religions, and spiritual traditions will do that, as they have, for millenia.
Our government is embroiled in the legalities relating to marriage, however, and these can best be seen, and are by many, as necessary evils. People don't (or shouldn't) get married in order to take on so many new and unenviable legal responsibilities. That just comes with the territory, and marriage partners weight it as part of their decision, but not usually as a primary. No, people get married because they fall in love. Marriage is romantic. It's about romance. About uniting in a bond forever. This is the essence of marriage, and, if anything, what ought to be protected about it. And, judging by the force of our culture, and the vulnerability of our hearts, we have nothing to worry about here.
For millenia, people got married for various reasons, and so be it. In America, we don't really look favorably on most of history. It involved coercion and slavery, and as far as marriage goes, often much less romance than domination. Today, we are a romantic people, in love with liberty and romance, seeking to realize ourselves in work and play, and to find our life partner and soulmate. Sometimes we succeed. Sometimes we fail.
That's reality. Marriage has not always meant the same thing, other than being the focus of family. And we don't need the state, or Big Government, to be the strength behind our families. To tell us who to include in our families. As free and sovereign individuals we form and give legitimacy to our families and to the state. The government should never forget that. We don't need the government telling us how to collect together and form groups - as human beings, we've been doing that for millenia, our families (extended) are much older than America, or democracy, and ultimately we formed our government as a voluntary and willing association just as we do our other groups. The government needs to do our will - not try to become our will.
Which brings me to gay Americans. It's coming to consensus now that homosexuals do not choose to be so. For whatever reason, genetic or conditional, this is their endowment. Through this prism, they are sexually and romantically driven. If we didn't tie up sex and romance, which we do, we wouldn't be having this particular debate. We could all agree that in the particular sphere of sexual activity, we should just mind our own business.
But this amendment of President Bush's seems to miss all the insight I've mentioned, not to mention any sense of heart or compassion. People don't choose to be gay. Are they to be denied the right to realize their love, when they fall in love, to make that permanent union of heart and body, mind and soul, as do the rest of us? Are we to make the terrible mistake that marriage is about all the legalities and not what we know it to be - about love, and families, and a happy hearth?
Think about it. Marriage doesn't need government. Why does the government, and President Bush, need marriage?
Monday, February 23, 2004
Pentagon Opens Criminal Investigation Of Halliburton
Is it possible that Halliburton will finally be held to account? This site has documented numerous instances of despicable behavior and activities by Halliburton and/or its subsidiary Kellogg, Brown, and Root. Now it seems that KB&R has pulled a fast one on the American government and military, and, unlike with foreign governments in the past, didn't have the influence to evade accountability and the rule of law (i.e. the ability to bribe public officials to look the other way or to be their partners in crime).
Is it possible that Halliburton will finally be held to account? This site has documented numerous instances of despicable behavior and activities by Halliburton and/or its subsidiary Kellogg, Brown, and Root. Now it seems that KB&R has pulled a fast one on the American government and military, and, unlike with foreign governments in the past, didn't have the influence to evade accountability and the rule of law (i.e. the ability to bribe public officials to look the other way or to be their partners in crime).
The Pentagon said on Monday its criminal investigators were examining allegations of fraud against Halliburton Co. unit Kellogg Brown and Root, including potential overpricing of fuel delivered to Iraq.
"The Defense Criminal Investigative Service, the criminal investigative arm of the Inspector General's office, is investigating allegations on the part of KBR of fraud, including the potential overpricing of fuel delivered to Baghdad by a KBR subcontractor," said a Pentagon spokeswoman.
Tuesday, February 10, 2004
John Kerry In The Arms Of Big Media
Well, I must say I'm a little taken aback this morning. Though I'm a fan of John Kerry, I'm disturbed by this latest article out of the Guardian.
Well, I must say I'm a little taken aback this morning. Though I'm a fan of John Kerry, I'm disturbed by this latest article out of the Guardian.
Fresh from his latest win in Maine, the favourite to challenge George Bush for the US presidency has secured the financial support of some of the most powerful media moguls in the world.
As John Kerry's campaign to secure the Democrat nomination - and with it a crack at the White House - continues to gather pace, it has emerged that it is being bankrolled by key executives from News Corporation, MTV-owner Viacom and Sony.
Wow. Before rushing to judgement on this, it would be wise to see the history of these kinds of things, and John Kerry's backing by these companies, but it sure seems to fit into our ongoing theories about Big Media going all out to prevent Howard Dean from getting the nomination.
Unsurprisingly, the donation from News Corp's boardroom came not from chairman Rupert Murdoch, a committed Republican, but from the company's chief operating officer, Peter Chernin.
Mr Chernin, one of Mr Murdoch's most trusted lieutenants, is among several media chiefs who have pledged to raise between $50,000 and $100,000 to support the Vietnam war veteran's campaign for the White House.
Others who have pledged to raise more than $50,000 include the Viacom chief executive, Sumner Redstone, and Sony chairman Howard Stringer, whose name has recently been linked with the vacant chairmanships at ITV and the BBC.
Most of the money raised from these contributors will have to be raised through business associates, relatives and friends as individuals can only give a total of $4,000 each to presidential candidates - $2,000 during the primaries and another $2,000 during a general election.
This certainly deserves more scrutiny. Howard Dean declared that he was going to break up media conglomerates, and swiftly became characterized in the media as a "loose cannon", "angry", and "unelectable". This should have been occasion for the Democratic Party to stand up for its own, and for the benefit of all its candidates, since to condone this behavior is to ignore how it has played negatively against you, and may again in the near future. If not speaking out against this treatment now, please don't bother me with any complaints should it come to you, or to your candidate.
Instead, it seems John Kerry is collecting big money from Big Media, a special interest, yet Kerry claims to be the worst enemy of "special interests", even though he's collected more money than any other senator from special interest lobbyists in the past several years. Odd.
Thursday, February 05, 2004
Health Care Thoughts - Stream Of Consciousness
rising health care costs - integrative vision
need to emphasize preventive care and access to emergency care
population is aging, and requires more health care
with this in mind, what are people treated for?
how many of these ailments are related to pollution, poor nutrition, i.e. the result of activities that the government subsidizes or does not regulate appropriately?
obesity, asthma, adhd, cancer, etc.
profits for petroleum companies (and others) while we pay the health care cost difference in people's health
environmental health
overall vision that sees way to expand access to care, both preventive and emergency, thus saving money by having less intrusive care needs along with better prior accounting and market pricing of emergency care rather than the inevitable waste of bureaucratic "shifting".
no vision with business interests (like business roundtable, walmart)
they want less stringent environmental regulations AND a lower burden on health care costs, and it's not certain whether they advocate that the costs for these be passed on to other interests (not business), or just not acknowledged as long as they are not effected.
empirical: any evidence showing that states with tighter environmental standards pay less for health care? probably not, since most chemicals being dumped would seem to be a federal issue.
***
imagine we implement a better system. what will be demographic result if everyone eats a balanced diet? what will they then die of? what will be the costs of people as a rule living much longer than today? especially if we were to do away with highway and auto accident deaths too?
rising health care costs - integrative vision
need to emphasize preventive care and access to emergency care
population is aging, and requires more health care
with this in mind, what are people treated for?
how many of these ailments are related to pollution, poor nutrition, i.e. the result of activities that the government subsidizes or does not regulate appropriately?
obesity, asthma, adhd, cancer, etc.
profits for petroleum companies (and others) while we pay the health care cost difference in people's health
environmental health
overall vision that sees way to expand access to care, both preventive and emergency, thus saving money by having less intrusive care needs along with better prior accounting and market pricing of emergency care rather than the inevitable waste of bureaucratic "shifting".
no vision with business interests (like business roundtable, walmart)
they want less stringent environmental regulations AND a lower burden on health care costs, and it's not certain whether they advocate that the costs for these be passed on to other interests (not business), or just not acknowledged as long as they are not effected.
empirical: any evidence showing that states with tighter environmental standards pay less for health care? probably not, since most chemicals being dumped would seem to be a federal issue.
***
imagine we implement a better system. what will be demographic result if everyone eats a balanced diet? what will they then die of? what will be the costs of people as a rule living much longer than today? especially if we were to do away with highway and auto accident deaths too?
Monday, February 02, 2004
The Letter That Preceded This Blog
When the war in Iraq seemed almost inevitable, I fired off this letter to every news outlet, commentator, and blogger I could find an email address for. Since we've seemingly come full circle now, with admissions that the war was not justified, I'm reposting it for the purposes of reflection.
It's a crucial time in American history. The incompetent, scandalous and crooked are becoming the norm. The latest incident involving the forgery of the Niger nuclear documents is a telling case-in-point. Confronted with this development, a key component of our case for war against Iraq, all we get from our leaders and these documents' former champions is a shrug. Oh well, we passed it along in "good faith". We are not incompetent, or criminal, it just managed to "slip through". Forget about it. And we couldn't have been responsible for it, because our people are competent, talented professionals who surely would have done a better job of forging these documents. And so on...
Only this information is, and was, unforgettably important. We expressed it at the highest levels of our power apparatus, as a justification for a very expensive, in both human lives and material cost, war against Iraq. A war in which we've articulated our possible use of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear and chemical, as a "defensive" measure "should it come to that". A war which has divided the world, invited enemies and derision, and which we have initiated. The people of Iraq, and Saddam Hussein himself, have not asked us to go to war with them. Mysteriously, it's not a priority for them.
Even more mysteriously, it's seemingly become our overriding purpose as a nation. You can't go anywhere and not hear about it. On TV, on the radio, in the newspaper, the non-stop onslaught of coverage of this possible war against a weakened tyrant and people is constantly in play. Forced to give an opinion by the pollsters, fastly becoming more tiresome and meddling in popular culture than the tax collector, Americans indicate a preference for action. An illusion. Most people don't know the facts, don't really care one way or the other, and would surely rather quit hearing about it. You'd think the mind-numbing coverage and escalating gas prices would have assured overwhelming support for war by now, just so we can "get on with our lives", but it hasn't. Most mysteriously of all, masses are gathering in the streets, not answering the call of obedience, irrationality and war, but demanding peace, rationality and sanity. The herd! Acting with compassion and reason, demanding information before consent! The elites must be trembling in their slippers...
Meanwhile, our young American men and women are strapping on their combat boots and chem-warfare suits, preparing to engage in a war of which they can't possibly be passionate about. Why do I say this? There's a difference in what you hear, and what you know. And only the most clueless of the clueless would believe we're sacrificing human lives for the cause of the common Iraqi. For his freedom. Or hers. So anyone who's looking for reasons, to engage their reason, to determine the right thing to do, the moral course of action, will find nothing but ideology and fiction, speculation and threats, forgeries and plagiarism emanating from our most competent war orators. The mere presence of a plagiarized, decade-old student thesis, and the aforementioned Niger document forgery, as key references for our case is more telling than anything else. The plagiarized student claiming to have been able to give more updated information if he had been consulted only adds insult to injury.
This war is a fraud. Essential questions have not been answered. Who is going to die, and why? Will our fighting men and women kill with certainty, or with doubts? When does being a patriot mean defending freedom, and when does it mean being a fool? We don't know. So to the perpetrators of this absurdity the American people should issue one last ultimatum. Stand down, or face the shame of a nation.
A patriot,
Jimm
When the war in Iraq seemed almost inevitable, I fired off this letter to every news outlet, commentator, and blogger I could find an email address for. Since we've seemingly come full circle now, with admissions that the war was not justified, I'm reposting it for the purposes of reflection.
It's a crucial time in American history. The incompetent, scandalous and crooked are becoming the norm. The latest incident involving the forgery of the Niger nuclear documents is a telling case-in-point. Confronted with this development, a key component of our case for war against Iraq, all we get from our leaders and these documents' former champions is a shrug. Oh well, we passed it along in "good faith". We are not incompetent, or criminal, it just managed to "slip through". Forget about it. And we couldn't have been responsible for it, because our people are competent, talented professionals who surely would have done a better job of forging these documents. And so on...
Only this information is, and was, unforgettably important. We expressed it at the highest levels of our power apparatus, as a justification for a very expensive, in both human lives and material cost, war against Iraq. A war in which we've articulated our possible use of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear and chemical, as a "defensive" measure "should it come to that". A war which has divided the world, invited enemies and derision, and which we have initiated. The people of Iraq, and Saddam Hussein himself, have not asked us to go to war with them. Mysteriously, it's not a priority for them.
Even more mysteriously, it's seemingly become our overriding purpose as a nation. You can't go anywhere and not hear about it. On TV, on the radio, in the newspaper, the non-stop onslaught of coverage of this possible war against a weakened tyrant and people is constantly in play. Forced to give an opinion by the pollsters, fastly becoming more tiresome and meddling in popular culture than the tax collector, Americans indicate a preference for action. An illusion. Most people don't know the facts, don't really care one way or the other, and would surely rather quit hearing about it. You'd think the mind-numbing coverage and escalating gas prices would have assured overwhelming support for war by now, just so we can "get on with our lives", but it hasn't. Most mysteriously of all, masses are gathering in the streets, not answering the call of obedience, irrationality and war, but demanding peace, rationality and sanity. The herd! Acting with compassion and reason, demanding information before consent! The elites must be trembling in their slippers...
Meanwhile, our young American men and women are strapping on their combat boots and chem-warfare suits, preparing to engage in a war of which they can't possibly be passionate about. Why do I say this? There's a difference in what you hear, and what you know. And only the most clueless of the clueless would believe we're sacrificing human lives for the cause of the common Iraqi. For his freedom. Or hers. So anyone who's looking for reasons, to engage their reason, to determine the right thing to do, the moral course of action, will find nothing but ideology and fiction, speculation and threats, forgeries and plagiarism emanating from our most competent war orators. The mere presence of a plagiarized, decade-old student thesis, and the aforementioned Niger document forgery, as key references for our case is more telling than anything else. The plagiarized student claiming to have been able to give more updated information if he had been consulted only adds insult to injury.
This war is a fraud. Essential questions have not been answered. Who is going to die, and why? Will our fighting men and women kill with certainty, or with doubts? When does being a patriot mean defending freedom, and when does it mean being a fool? We don't know. So to the perpetrators of this absurdity the American people should issue one last ultimatum. Stand down, or face the shame of a nation.
A patriot,
Jimm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)