It's getting even worse: Video monitoring order blasted by privacy groups.
"Privacy and electronics trade groups Friday blasted as ``Orwellian'' a federal court order forcing SonicBlue to monitor how individual subscribers use their digital video recorders, and turn the information over to the entertainment companies suing iton claims of copyright infringement. ... "
Duck & Cover... the website!
http://www.ready.gov
Check out the page on what to do during a nuclear attack.
You, sir, are obviously an Evil UnAmerican Terrorist™ for asking such a question.
Please remain where you are, and the FBI will be right over to arrestdetain you.
Let the witch hunting begin...
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/rocketry_security_020325.html
Reminds me of the X-files ep. where mulder and scully were investigating farmers what they had done with their fertilizer because nitrogen-containing fertilizer can be used to build bombs (if you have nothing else on hands).
Of course, the next thing to get banned will likely be radio controlled model airplanes, since we all know how airplanes can be used as weapons of mass destruction... hmmm, I suppose r/c model cars will be, too.
If you live in the US, write your CongressCritter and ask them to support HR 1157, the Freedom to Read Protection Act of 2003.
This bill will exempt reading records (Libraries and bookstores) from the warrantless search provisions of the PATRIOT act.
No librarian that I know is happy with the idea of having to turn over library records. I will definitly write my Congressman about this.
My local library consciously does not keep this kind of record. I found this out the other day when I wanted to find something I'd read about a month ago, but I could not remember the title or author of the book. I asked the librarian if she could help me by checking my record for the previous month.
U.S. role in Texas feud still murky
Blue, George Orwell said it best. "The purpose of power is power."
From democracymeansyou.com, the website my step-father writes columns for (under the name Roland X in case you forgot).
---------------------
Dear Friends,
I want to invite you to join my friend Carl Estrada in Operation Full Disclosure. In anticipation of PATRIOT Act II, which would entitle the government to search our library records, book store purchases, etc., Carl has written to Attorney General John Ashcroft, volunteering his reading material for the year. If everyone were to send him their list, it might keep his office busy for a while, as well as give them the message that there is no need to snoop because we are all so forthcoming.
Patriotically yours,
Paul Chasman (alias: Carl Estrada)
7-12-03
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,
Will you please tell me what all the fuss is about? Everybody is running around like Henny Penny just because of silly little Patriot II. Don't they know that to have a democracy, we all have to make sacrifices? If the Attorney General of the United States wants to check the libraries and book stores and internet to see what everybody has read, small price to pay for a free country!
And what do they have to hide anyway? Remember when you asked all those Muslims to "volunteer" to be interviewed? I think we should all volunteer to tell you what books we have read this year. I¹m going to ask all my friends to freely submit their lists to your office. And just to show I'm serious, I'll go first. Here are the books I have read so far this year:
1. The Hardy Boys, The House on the Cliff by Franklin W. Dixon
2. The Essential Calvin and Hobbes by Bill Watterson
3. Sandy Koufax by Jane Leavy
4. *Dr. Tatania's Sex Advice to All Creation by Olivia Judson
5. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer¹s Stone (Book 1) by J.K. Rowling
6. Green Eggs and Ham by Dr. Seuss
7. Dr. Atkins' New Carbohydrate Gram Counter-by Robert C. Atkins
8. **Work Under Capitalism by Chris and Charles Tilly
9. **The Paradox of American Democracy by John B. Judis
10. *Earth in Balance by Al Gore
*Not what you think. It's about the sex lives of insects, etc. There is some stuff about evolution though--I hope I don't get in trouble there.
**Given to me and signed by Ralph Nader. I have to admit, I haven't finished them. They're pretty heavy reading. (Don't tell him, though--it might hurt his feelings--I fibbed a little and told him they were real "page-turners.")
***I hope I won't get in trouble for this one. I did learn a lot, even if it was written by you-know-who.
I think you should go a step further. You should ask people to volunteer what TV shows and movies they've watched, what CDs they've bought, what web sites they¹ve visited, and what radio shows they've listened to. They might as well tell you because you're going to find out anyway. If everybody volunteers, it'll save a whole lot of time and taxpayer money! It's the patriotic thing to do! Call it Operation Full Disclosure. Just say they word and I'll send you my list and ask all my friends to do it too.
Patriotically yours,
Carl Estrada
-
I plan to do this myself! Below is an exact copy of the letter I'm forwarding by way of DMY.
-
4 - Janurary - 2004
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,
In the spirit of DemocracyMeansYou.com's Operation Full Disclosure, I've decided to include a list of all the books I remember reading in the year 2003. One of the books was borrowe from a friend, whose name I'll include just to stay out of trouble, but the rest of them were bought by me or were gifts.
Please keep in mind Ashy (can I call you Ashy?) that I'm going off an admittedly imperfect memory, so this list may not be entirely complete. I tell you this so you won't think I'm holding anythign back. Also, I haven't read all the books I purchased in 2003 yet. I have a lot of books you see. For example, I just started reading The Demolished Man by Alfred Bester this year. I got the book in November of 2002. Anyway, enough of that. On to the list!
Dude, Where's My Country? by Michael Moore
Knight Life by Peter David
Star Trek New Frontier Books 1-4 Collector's Edition by Peter David
Welcome To Percotran by Richard Davidson
Underneath It All by Traci Lords (hey don't laugh, it's a good book!)
The Hunt For Red October by Tom Clancy
Red Storm Rising by Tom Clancy
The Cleric Quintet by R.A. Salvatore
CSI Cold Burn by Max Allen Collins
CSI Double Dealer by Max Allen Collins
CSI Sin City by Max Allen Collins
Total Recall A V.I. Warshawski Novel by Sara Paretsky
Deadlock A V.I. Warshawski Novel by Sara Paretsky
Guardian Angel A V.I. Warshawski Novel by Sara Paretsky
The Beach House by James Patterson & Peter DeJonge
Good Omens by Neil Gaiman & Terry Pratchet
Wizard's First Rule by Terry Goodkind (borrowed from co-worker Mark Miles)
The Fellowship of the Ring by J.R.R. Tolkien
The Two Towers by J.R.R. Tolkien (the Towers in question are the ones controlled by Sauron and Saruman BTW. No 9/11 reference here, I swear)
The Return of the King by J.R.R. Tolkien
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix by J.K. Rowling
Reefer Madness by Eric Schlosser
Charmed The Power of Three by Constance M. Burge
The Media Monopoly VIth Edition by Ben H. Bagdikian
The Complete Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams
Warning Signs by Stephen White (a mystery novel set in Boulder, again, nothing to do with 9/11)
Congo by Michael Chrichton
The Golden Age by Gore Vidal
What Liberal Media? The Truth About BIAS and the News by Eric Alterman
Starship Troopers by Rober Heinlein (borrowed from my Dad, and if you haven't read it Ashy, skip it. It sucks)
The Darwin Awards by Wendy Northcutt (not actually about evolution per se, but about dumb people who kill themselves in humourous ways)
Star Wars X-Wing Book 9 The Starfighters of Adumaar by Arron Allston
Star Trek First Strike by Diane Carey
Shadows of Steel by Dale Brown
The Man in the High Castle by Phillip K. Dick (actually I got about halfway through then some punk on the bus stole it. Jerk)
Crashing The Party by Ralph Nader
Global Sense by Ken Freed
OK, those are the only ones I can remember and there are a tleast a dozen more I read in '03 that I forgot about. If I ever remember I'll send them your way.
Sincerely,
Brian D Webber of Denver, Colorado, USA.
I found out about this on the news while listening, as I do as often as I can on my days off (like today) to the great and wonderful Air America Radio (Sax's strong dislike--dare I say hatred?--of it notwithstanding): Keeping name private can be crime, court rules. Gosh, another erosion of privacy rights? Who'da thunk it?
Opinions?
This is an odd one for me. I think you should have the right to "say nothing," but I need some more details to really make a decision. Why was the guy stopped in the first place? I assume he was walking, not driving, from what the article says (because if you're pulled over, a cop most definitely should have the right to see your driver's license).
Until this ruling, there was a clear and definite right in this country not to provide identification "papers" to law-enforcement officials, other than certain specific situations, such as showing a license when stopped while operating a motor vehicle. The only limitation was that if there actually was a violation, the police could detain you until they were satisfied of your identity (this was more in the way of assuring that the right person got the ticket, and definitely was not a separate violation).
The situation had never before been tested in court because, before "homeland security," it was obvious and it would have been a waste of taxpayers money to pursue it
I just accessed the actual ruling and found a few interesting things.
[T]he ... statute to require[s] only that a suspect disclose his name. It apparently does not require him to produce a driver's license or any other document. If he chooses either to state his name or communicate it to the officer by other means, the statute is satisfied and no violation occurs.
Although it is well established that an officer may ask a suspect to identify himself during a Terry stop, it has been an open question whether the suspect can be arrested and prosecuted for refusal to answer. The Court is now of the view that Terry principles permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop.
... an officer may not arrest a suspect for failure to identify himself if the identification request is not reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop.
The Nevada law at issue in this case imposes a narrow duty to speak upon a specific class of individuals. The class includes only those persons detained by a police officer "under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime" -- persons who are, in other words, targets of a criminal investigation. The statute therefore is directed not "at the public at large," but rather "at a highly selective group inherently suspect of criminal activities."
The majority reserves judgment about whether compulsion is permissible in such instances. Ante, at 13. How then is a police officer in the midst of a Terry stop to distinguish between the majority's ordinary case and this special case where the majority reserves judgment?
The majority presents no evidence that the rule enunciated by Justice White and then by the Berkemer Court, which for nearly a generation has set forth a settled Terrystop condition, has significantly interfered with law enforcement. Nor has the majority presented any other convincing justification for change. I would not begin to erode a clear rule with special exceptions.
Here are a few things regarding the proposed new passports equipped with RFID chips.
http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0410.html#3
http://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/000434.html
Not exactly a bright idea to transmit the data unencrypted.
So what does everyone here think about Bernard Kerik becoming the new Director of Homeland Security? My impression is that he did a mostly good job of reducing crime in New York, and I can't imagine anyone being worse than Ashcroft when it comes to views of dissent and civil liberties.
Kerik is replacing Ridge, not Ashcroft. Gonzalez is replacing Ashcroft.
"And the Trogdor smote the Kerik, and all was laid to burnination."
Oh yeah. Thanks, Scott.
FBI DEMANDS LIBRARY RECORDS UNDER PATRIOT ACT
The following passage is from Bob Park's weekly What's New column, which you can see here. (Bob Park is a professor of physics at the University of Maryland, College Park, and the author of Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud):
On 5 Sep 86, WN broke the story of the FBI's infamous Library Awareness Program. Agents had asked the physics librarian at the U. of Maryland for circulation records of "persons with Russian- sounding names." The librarian refused. It took the ACLU and the American Library Association years to get Library Awareness stopped. Now we learn that the FBI is at it again, demanding circulation records from a Connecticut library under the Patriot Act. Because the PA prevents public disclosure concerning such demands, little information is available. In the 80's, hundreds of critics of the program were the subject of FBI checks.
IMPEACH BUSH!!!
Ok, now that I've got your attention...
Those of you who are regular readers here know that I am no reflexive Bush-basher. In fact, I have tried to defend him when I felt it was appropriate.
However, his actions in performing warrantless surveillance of US citizens, in contravention of the Constitution, and his adamant insistence that he will continue to do so, constitute a blatant violation of his oath of office, wherein he swore to "Uphold and Defend the Constitution".
This is much more serious than any sexual hijinks. He should be impeached, and soon.
Disclaimer: I voted for neither Bush nor Gore. Similarly, I voted for neither Bush nor Kerry.
And you noticed this only now, that he has ordered arrests of citizens without evidence, and holding suspects in prison without speedy trial? This has been going on after 9/11, and yet Bush was reelected, even after the PATRIOT Act. So what has he done now that he hadn't before the 2004 election?
PATRIOT has to do with Congress overstepping its authority. And even PATRIOT, unconstitutional though it is, has the figleaf of requiring warrants.
I see her point though; it's not like these revelations are shockingly out of sync with how this administration rolls.
Disclaimer: I voted for Bush.
True, but enforcing PATRIOT is not a violation of his oath of office.
Disclaimer: I think the USA PATRIOT Act is a horrible piece of legislation that is unconstitutional on its face.
I ahv enot been keeping up with the news recently, but when you mentioned this I looked a bit closer.
Wow. Bush is starting to get scarier. I mean not just that he did it. I'm not surpised by that considering all the power he has been handed with patriot and such. He has more teflon than reagon ever did.
But what is scary is his attitude about it all. Calling the revelation of this program shameful and not showing the slightest bit of remorse. Vowing to continue the program and saying that he shouldnt be discussin gthis as it is helping the enemies. But at what point does your own government become the enemy? Secret courts, secret prisons, secret programs to tap and spy on its own citizens.
I tell you this is goign to get ugly before it gets better.
Be afraid.
I agree with ScottN's succinct assessment regarding impeachment & PATRIOT. And though I am not a Bush supporter, I have at times defended some of his actions in the past. No longer, though. (Been that way for a while, actually.)
\conspiracy mode on\
Saying all of this here probably puts me on a list of "threats to national security" or something.
\conspiracy mode off\
If this was a democrat who did this there would already be cries of impeachment ringing through DC.
But yeah Clinton got some on the side and the republicans acted like he personally spit on the constitution. Bush blatently and unrepentantly ignores the constitution and bill of rights and nothign major happens.
I never vorted for herr bush in either election and have never supported him or his endeavors.
That's not really surprising. When do Democrats ever stand up for anything? I mean, come on: Kerry Calls Bush Spying Defense 'Lame' Lame? That's the best they can do?
On the news last night (that would be the NBC Nightly News) they showed some clips from 2002 of Bush saying that they'd never perform a wiretap without a warrant. Oops! Ladies and Gentlemen, the President of the United States!
Disclaimer: I really, really, like pie.
*sigh* yeah this is not good. I wish there was a bit more reaction in DC to this. Bush II has lied more often and about bigger things than Clinton ever did and there still hasnt been one word breathed or whispered about impeachment, just calls for investigations and the really strongly worded Kerry response. (I agree Joh calling this lame is like calling Bigfoot hairy apparently Kerry hasnt grown them back yet after the last election) Like I said and they called Reagon the teflon president.
I did hear the "i-word" in relation to this for the first time yesterday.
Really? Where and by whom? I missed that. Well that would be an interesting trial to see.
I know I only had CNN and Fox on for a few minutes yesterday -- and I highly doubt I'd heard it on Fox.
Hmm I dont have cable so I don't know anythign about that. I'll hav eto look around the web and see if ther eis anythign.
I heard it on Air America by some DJ who I was not familiar with, either yesterday or the day before.
Read about a target of the spying:
PATRIOT ACT: 2 DAYS BEFORE CHRISTMAS AND ALL THROUGH THE HOUSE (by Bob Park)
The House yesterday insisted on shortening the extension of the Patriot Act to five weeks because James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), the Judiciary chair, wants it to be permanent. While you're figuring that out, we read in the South Coast Standard-Times that a UMass Dartmouth Senior was visited by Homeland Security agents after he requested a copy of Mao's "Little Red Book" from the library. He had apparently become one of the 500 people at any one time that President Bush has authorized NSA to spy on. So we now have NSA computers sifting through inter-library loans to catch Maoists? Wake up NSA!.
I heard impeachment mentioned by one of my state's Congressmen, John Conyers.
I don't think it's going to happen, folks. If Congress thought it was viably impeachable, they would have acted sooner, not later.
Rather sad because if ever there was a president that so deserved impeachment it is Bush II.
Even Fox News was saying he was wrong about the wiretaps.
Fox news said saint Bush was wrong. Wow!!!! Stop the presses! I think the devil just got some ice skates...
Who on FOX News, Scott?
A small history lesson. Surveillance by a president is nothing new. Former presidents Carter and Clinton both conducted the same thing. Where was the outcry from the New York Times then? Here are the cited facts, so you can look them up afterwards.
Bill Clinton Signed the Executive Order that allowed the Attorney General to do searches without court approval, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order" WASH POST, July 15, 1994.
"Administration Backing No-Warrant Spy Searches": Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order." Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes." Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant. Government officials decided in the Ames case that no warrant was required because the searches were conducted for "foreign intelligence purposes." Government lawyers have used this principle to justify other secret searches by U.S. authorities. "The number of such secret searches conducted each year is classified..."
Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."
Very interesting.
Of course both of these instances where not also coupled with an administration with a very spotty record of civil rights violations, an avowed hatred of civil rights for anyone who does not follow certain specific behavioral guidelines, who has managed to lie and con their way into invading and toppling another countries government, who has apparently had very little respect for the country in general except for those whose pockets are deep enough.
Dubya brought to you by big oil.
So the wiretaps are okay if they're done by nice people?
No. Sorry if I gave that impression. The wire taps are wrong against US Citizens without a warrent regardless of niceness. One of the thigns in the bill of rights is the fourth amendment protection against unreasonable search and siezure that seems to be being forgotton here.
So I'm not exactly happy about anything goign on right now. No.
So the wiretaps are okay if they're done by nice people?
No, if they start allowing illegal wiretaps, they are no longer nice people, but bad people.
And there aren't any bad people in politics, are there?
No, there are rarely any nice people. Even if they start out nice, they eat so many toads that they end up doing bad things.
Well now this is an unexpected follow-up to my Dec. 23rd post.
1. LIES: COLLEGE SENIOR MADE-UP STORY OF VISIT BY FEDERAL AGENTS.
Last week, WN repeated a news story of inter-library loans being monitored by Homeland Security. The student now admits it never happened. His lie had the effect of trivializing the problem of our government spying on Americans. Lies are much in the news.
MikeC: Re your 24 December.
Unfortunately, I don't remember which. It was some talking heads show with a retired judge on it. Both the judge and the host said it was wrong, but the host said his viewers would think it was the right thing to do.
I don't think this merits impeachment. Warrentlessly Spying on Al Qadia is a legimate government function, and may be covered under the wartime powers of the president, considering the wake of the September 11th attacks, the Anthrax scare, and the the intelligence chatter about a portable nuclear device coming into the country that occured in 2001-2002. But given the shadowy nature of these events, we really don't know the full circumstances of this case, I would advise holding judgement until a full investigation is complete.
Warrantlessly spying on US Citizens, on the other hand, is an impeachable offense. Especially when you can get a warrant after the fact for up to 72 hours.
Quote:Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
-- Benjamin Franklin
Exactly. I haven't heard a single thing so far that's made me think a warrant couldn't have been utilized. Bush just decided he didn't want to use one.
Scott N And Sparrow 47: None of those things are certian. That's why I suggest waiting until after the final report is issued.
And freedom and Security are trade-offs. The question is how much.
Unbelievable.
Un.
Friggin’.
Believable.
You heard it right, folks: New York City has no national icons that deserve special protection from potential terrorist threats.
That's nothing...During WWII, there were Nazi submarines RIGHT OFF OUR COASTLINE sinking our ships as soon as they spotted them.
And nobody bothered to tell us!
(I'm not making this up!)
I don't see the problem...NYC is still getting way more money than any other city out there.
True, but the "No National Icons" is a bit much.
Well, New Jersey always claimed that the Statue of Liberty is in New Jersey. ;)
Seriously, I agree with ScottN and Luigi.
I will also agree with the 'no national icons' should make people mad. However, New York City has gotten considerably more money than any other city consistantly since money for anti-terrism has been handed out. The question is, what has New York done with that money they have recieved? Shouldn't they technically been able to make many of the improvements needed to become safe in the last 4 or 5 years? They should still recieve money to maintain programs, but theoretically, their need for money should decrease from year to year until all they require is money for maintainance.
I guess The Empire State Building and the U.N. Building don't count as "national icons"
Not to mention Wall St., Yankee Stadium, Shea Stadium, Rockefeller Plaza....
JAL: I thought we all were in agreement on this point? (ps...i'm going to post as Vargo instead of Derrick Vargo from now on...it's shorter)
In point of fact, Aaron, it is in New Jersey waters.
Derrick, do you have an opinion on why cities like Omaha should get more money?
(And btw, it's good to hear from you again.)
It's always good to feel welcome. Sorry i've been away for so long Luigi, but now that i'm on break for summer, i have enough free time to post on the boards once again.
Omaha, doesn't it have a military base around there? While it isn't a large target, it could in theory be targeted due to the large amount of military families that live there. After all, the best way to attack our military is not directly, but to kill off their families. It's like messing with the mob. They don't just go after you, but they go after your loved ones as well.
Thats just a guess of mine, I don't have any facts to back it up. But our department of homeland security has to look at many potential targets, and differing reasons to attack. Sometimes they might just try to kill many people, sometimes they might try to destroy a national monument or treasure, other times they might try to cripple our military.
I dont think this whole issue has to deal with well known landmarks. Any time you can attack a large city, you will kill many people, and I am sure that is what they are trying to protect.
Also, I do not think that their motives are completely pure. Politics play a role in anything the government does. I am not saying that I agree with it, i am saying that this is simply an unavoidable part of politics, an inherant evil in our system. Politicians (and political parties in power) will do anything they can to try and secure votes for themselves and their party. I'm not saying its right...i'm just saying that it is what happens...
I believe SAC is based in Omaha.
However, back to the "No national icons..."
"Major landmark: Alltel Stadium, home of Jacksonville Jaguars."
And Yankee Stadium isn't considered worthy? (spoken as a well-known and confirmed NYY-hater).
Whither Shea?
Even if Omaha has a military base, I'm perplexed as to why that particular one gets more money.
Perhaps it was honestly rated as having a low state of preparedness for terrerism attacks?
Luigi, because it's SAC. Strategic Air Command. You know, the guys in charge of the nukes?
Okay, I might be able to understand why NYC would have some funding cut. I still don't see why places like Jacksonville, Louisville, and Omaha would need that much more. What's changed that justifies giving them more funding?
And seriously, "no national icons?" In NY and Washington? The two places that have actually been attacked? That's a bit ridiculous.
Just remember, places like omaha may not have SAC anymore, but I'd be willing to bet there's other things in those bases. For instance, Wright Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton Ohio has quite a lot of research going on in it and as such, they want to protect those assets.
If you look at the numbers...they really arent getting that much of an increase. Sure, many places recieved an increase of 20-40%, but in most of those cases, thats only taking on 2 or 3 million more dollars. As opposed to the nearly 207 million NYC was recieving.
Jacksonville - $2.4 million increase
St. Louis - $2.2 Million Increase
Louisville - $3.5 Million Increase
Omaha - $3.2 Million Increase
These places arent getting THAT much more money, but percentages were used to hype it up and insite anger
From R, over on the R! board:
I do recall SAC being disbanded, bu the guys in charge of the Nukes are still in or near Omaha.
Quote:SAC was reorganized and disbanded in 1992 after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the ending of the cold war. Offut airbase was transformed into the HQ of the Air COmbat Command and the Air Mobility Command as well as the HQ of the Strategic Command which handles all the nukes in the Air Force or Navy.
Thanks, Scott.
Hmmm....I've been scanning a folder full of photos into my photo collection over the past week, and came across this pic from Time magazine's "Best Pictures of the Year" feature, which was probably from an issue at the end of 2005. What I found surprising about the caption about the haz-mat suits is the last sentence, which I think you should read. Keep in mind that this predates the funding flap from June 1st by several months. Wonderful.
Well, Wyoming does have the lowest population in the union. Even with those numbers, it's not going to be much.
Precisely. States with small populations are probably invariably going to receive seemingly inflated funds. The deputy secretary of Health and Human Services also stated in 2003 that the next terrorist attack would likely be on a rural target and be more of a bioterrorism attack. You can dispute this reasoning, but it helps to explain where the funding is coming from.
Why would small populations receive inflated funds? And why would they attack a rural target if the number of potential victims are so low, and there are no visible iconic monuments whose desctruction can create demoralizing images?
Well, if there was a state with a population of one person that received $100, it would be receiving $100 per person. It seems inflated because of the small population, but $100 is still a small number.
I believe HHS's reasoning was that a rural target could potentially hurt America's breadbasket (i.e., bioterrorism)--it would also be perhaps more feasible for terrorists.
DHS. HHS is the Dept. of Health and Human Services (formerly known as HEW before the Dept. of Education split off).
Okay, I see what you mean now, Mike. You were speaking in terms of the amount divided by the population. I totally neglected to see that point. Thanks.
Is DHS Homeland Security? If so, I was talking about Health and Human Services (see my 12:17 post).
Got this by email.
Republicans Are Bad On National Security
Larry Beinhart.
Every Democrat running for national office - and local offices too, why not? - should say, "I'm running because Republicans are bad on national security."
Then they should go on to say, here's why I'm saying it:
1. 9/11 happened on their watch.
Of course, we can't say, absolutely, that it would not have happened if they had not been asleep at the wheel. But we can say that they did not do all they could have done to prevent it. We can say that Bush literally pushed away the warnings.
2. George Bush and the Republicans failed to get Osama bin Laden.
We got both Hitler and Hirohito in less time than we've been chasing bin Laden. Every day that bin Laden's out there, he's proof that you can attack the United States and get away with it. That's a bad message to send, and believe me, people in the terrorist world have heard it loud and clear. That's very bad for national security.
3. George Bush and the Republicans gave Osama bin Laden what he wanted.
Bin Laden wanted the US to get into a quagmire. He wanted our troops tied down in an Islamic country so that an insurgency could do to them what the Afghanis did to the Russians and to the British before them.
A modern, hi-tech army is very good at invasions. It's also good for fighting back against other armies. But a modern hi-tech army is not good at occupying a country against the will of the population. Even if the army is as violent and ruthless as the Soviet occupiers of Afghanistan were.
4. George Bush and the Republicans squandered America's power and prestige.
Before 9/11 most people in the world probably thought that America's intelligence services were able and astute, agencies to be feared.
The Bush administration has made them appear bumbling and inept. They did this, first, by ignoring their warnings and then, second, by making them the fall guys for 9/11.
After 9/11 most of the world feared America's wrath and America's might. By failing to get bin Laden and his gang, then by attacking the wrong country, unleashing chaos, and getting our armed forces into a situation that they can't win, the administration showed the world they have less to fear than they imagined.
5. The Bush administration empowered Hezbollah.
The 'insurgency' in Iraq was Hezbollah's textbook and their inspiration. If Iraqis could do that to Americans, surely they could do the same to the Israelis. And they have.
It's not yet on the record, but it's clear from everyone's conduct, that the administration encouraged the Israelis to 'unleash' their forces against Hezbollah. They probably thought Israel's modern hi-tech armies would quickly smash their enemy.
6. The Bush administration radicalized Hamas.
Hamas was elected. Sworn to the destruction of Israel or not, they should have been encouraged to become responsible players with carrots as well as sticks. Instead the administration put them up against the wall, hoping to starve the Palestinian people into voting for a different group. Would that work if someone tried to do it to us?
7. Bush and the Republicans tied down our forces in Iraq while Iran and North Korea invested in nuclear technology.
That made North Korea feel secure enough to test ICBMs. If they had been successful, they would have had a delivery system for their nuclear weapons.
That would be incredibly bad for national security.
Iran, with American forces tied down in Iraq, feels secure enough to defy the UN as well as the US.
Very bad for national security.
8. By the way, every major European nation has had successful arrests and real trials of real, dangerous terrorists. People on the level of this group that the British just took down.
The most ferocious terrorist arrested in the United States since 9/11 has been the shoe bomber.
Ten, twenty, forty, a hundred billion dollars, a trillion dollars, and the best we have to show for it is the shoe bomber?!
Republicans are bad on national security.
9. We have trashed the bill of rights. We have trashed the Geneva conventions. We have a president and a vice president willing to go the mat to fight for the right to torture people. We have spent a fortune on illegal wiretaps. We have spent a fortune on collecting everyone's telephone data.
And what have we achieved by all of this?
A quagmire in Iraq. Dishonor. Debts. An empowered al Qaeda. A new war in Lebanon. The inability to stand up to Iran and North Korea. Osama bin Laden at large, an inspiration to extremists everywhere.
Republicasn are unimaginably bad on national security.
Say it loud. Say it often, it's the truth, Republicans are bad on national security.
Some of this is humor, but:
1. This is ridiculous. Bush was in office less than a year when 9/11 happened. You're saying that if Gore was elected, he would have been more vigilant? 9/11 took everyone by surprise: Republicans, Democrats alike. It's everyone's fault.
2. Also ridiculous. You're saying that Al Gore or John Kerry would have snagged Bin Laden?
3. This is a good point. I think Iraq (not Afghanistan) was exactly what Bin Laden wanted: by invading, the U.S. actually gave Al-Qaeda a foothold and a base.
4. This is more or less a reasonable point. I hesitate to lump it all on Bush and the Republicans though.
5. This is a reasonable point, although I'm not sure how much empowering Hezbollah needed.
6. This is a debatable point.
7. This is a reasonable point in a sort of murky way; I have no idea if our being "tied down" in Iraq prevented us from doing...something...to North Korea or Iran.
8. This is wrong. There were the guys arrested in a few months ago planning on committing terrorist acts in Miami (Chicago?). There were also other arrests.
9. This is a good point.
The real issue though is the piece is insinuating that Democrats (?) must be GOOD on national security. Which I'm not seeing.
I agree with Mike.
Hey, I didn't say any of that. I'm just the messenger! All I did was copy and paste what was sent to me by email! I'm innocent, Your Honor! I swear!
While I'm no supporter of Bush, its congress's fault too that the excutive branch's power has grown...
and for those of you who say that its because the republicans have control of congress, the executive branch's increase in power is not limited to the last 6 years, nor 16, nor...
You get the point...
I also agree with Mike.
An observation about the message- from what I understood, most observers did not believe that the North Korean ICBM would have been capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, or at least nuclear warheads at the level of technology that they possess.
Someone told me that Bush recently declared that in the event of a "national emergency", he will be granted "Emergency dictatoral powers" to do as he pleases. Anyone else hear this?
If true...we the people need to get this guy out of office.
Can you say, "George Palpatine Bush"?
What? It'd be like Jar Jar running the country!
From: The Baltimore Chronicle
quote:Then again, perhaps George Bush knows something we don't know. Writing for World Net Daily, Dr. Jerry Corsi reports that President Bush has just signed a Presidential Directive that would give the President dictatorial powers should he decide to declare a "national emergency."
John A. Lang: Anyone else hear this?
Luigi Novi: Yeah, I posted about it on the Bush board. The second-to-last post on that board is about it. Pretty disturbing.
Well, now we know how he can serve another term in office, if he so chooses: Just declare a "national emergency" and extend his reign. This is both very disturbing and frightening.
Chertoff gave a speech where he said that the only people concerned about Real ID were "Terrorists, illegal immigrants, and con men".
I wonder which one of those I am, since I am extremely concerned about the implications of Real ID.
Bush's CIA destroyed nearly 100 videotapes of interrogations.
Well, it's finally happened. Some idiot tried the bomb up his derriere.
Get ready for the rubber glove at the airport.
I'd give it back. But they might have trouble using it considering how many pieces it'd be in.
RIP Groklaw, 2003-2013.
The owner of Groklaw has decided that she cannot ethically run her site any more because she cannot guarantee confidentiality to any sources.
Thanks a lot, Bush, Obama, and the NSA.
(Also posting on Legal Musings).
IMPEACH OBAMA!!!
Ok, now that I've got your attention...
Those of you who are regular readers here know that I am no reflexive Obama-basher. In fact, I have tried to defend him when I felt it was appropriate. This has *NOTHING* to do with the ACA.
However, his actions in performing AND EXPANDING warrantless surveillance of US citizens, in contravention of the Constitution, constitute a blatant violation of his oath of office, wherein he swore to "Uphold and Defend the Constitution".
Disclaimer: I voted for neither Obama, McCain, nor Romney.
Another mass shooting in the U.S., at least twenty people are dead. Cue the politicians and their "this must not happen again" shtick.
But we all know nothing is gonna change. All because of the scribbling of slave owners who have been dead for over 200 years now.
Two actually, one in El Paso Texas, and another some hours later in Dayton Ohio.
And Orange Hitler and his mooks will continue to insist that the U.S. doesn't have a gun problem, nosiree.
Those that worship the 2nd Amendment need to wake up and smell the coffee. This is no longer 1787, the world that said amendment was written for is long gone.
But nooooooooo... As I said, the politicians will talk, and talk, and talk some more. Until the next mass shooting happen, rinse, wash and repeat.
While we're not the only ones that have them, we do have more than anyone else, I think. Trying to figure out why and fixing that problem is going to be a lot more difficult than just calling for a gun ban. I do wish the assault style guns had been banned back in the 70s before they became so popular. Now there's so many already in existence here that I suspect a ban would be ineffective. Like Prohibition, I suspect a ban would backfire in some unforeseen way.
Hollywood pushes our perception of danger to absurd and frankly ridiculous levels. A security expert, Bruce Schneier, even has a term for this- the "movie plot threat"- where security coordinators think too much about what terrorists do in movies than what they'd do in reality.