bureaucracybusters

Posts Tagged ‘THE WASHINGTON POST’

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

ABORTING DEMOCRACY

In Bureaucracy, Law, Politics, Social commentary on July 19, 2013 at 2:06 am

On July 13, the Texas Senate passed an anti-abortion bill that promotes unforn fetuses over the rights of adult women.

The bill was passed in a vote of 19-11.

The law:

  • Bans abortions 20 weeks after fertilization, four weeks earlier than the standard set by the 1973 Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade.
  • Requires all clinics to become ambulatory surgical centers, even if they do not provide surgical abortions.
  • Requires abortion providers to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals within 30 miles of the facility.
  • Allows abortions only in surgical centers.
  • Requires abortion providers to administer the abortion-inducing medication RU-486 in person, rather than allow women to take it at home.

Democrats countered that childbirth is more dangerous than abortion and there have been no serious problems with women taking abortion drugs at home. They introduced amendments to add exceptions for cases of rape and incest, and allow doctors more leeway in prescribing abortion-inducing drugs.

The right-wing Republican majority overruled these proposed changes–and sent the bill to rightist Republican Governor Rick Perry to sign into law.

On July 17, Planned Parenthood informed staffers that three of its facilities in Texas would be closing–a major goal of the legislation.

So what’s behind all this fetus fanaticism?

Several factors.

First, there is an energized constituency for politicians willing to wave this red flag. Almost every major Republican Presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan has tapped into this voting bloc. And each has found plenty of votes to be gotten from it.

Second, many fetus fanatics are more than a little obsessed with sex. These are the same people who, in Victorian times, used “white meat” when ordering a chicken breast and “dark meat” when ordering a chicken thigh.

Third, many fetus fanatics are flat-out hypocrites. For example: Representative Scott DesJarlais (R-TN), an anti-abortion, “family values” doctor, had an affair with a patient and later pressured her to get an abortion.

Fourth, many fetus fanatics feel guilty about their own past sexual transgressions-–especially if these resulted in pregnancy. And they want to prevent others from living the same life they did.

Fifth, many fetus fanatics embrace contradictory goals. On one hand, most of them claim they want to “get government off the backs of the people.”

That usually means allowing corporations to pollute, sell dangerous products and treat their employees as slaves.

On the other hand, they want to insert the government into the vagina of every woman. That means empowering State and Federal authorities to prevent women from getting an abortion-–even in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.

Sixth, many fetus fanatics simply dislike women. They fear and resent the women’s movement, which has given women the right to enter the workforce and compete directly with men.

And what they hate most is the legal right of a woman to avoid becoming pregnant via birth control-–or to abort the result of a male’s sperm if they do.

They see this as a personal rejection. Perhaps it reminds many of them of their own failures in romance/marriage.

The Right is made up overwhelmingly of white males. And many of these men would feel entirely at home with a Christianized version of the Taliban. They long for a world where women meekly cater to their every demand and believe only what their male masters approve for them to believe.

The trouble for these men is they don’t speak Arabic.

Seventh, many leaders of the fetus-fanatics movement are independently wealthy. This means that even if abortion could be outlawed for the vast majority, they could always bribe a willing doctor-–here or abroad-–to perform such an operation on their wife, daughter and/or mistress.

For them, there is always an escape clause.

Eighth, many fetus fanatics are not truly “pro-life.” They totally oppose abortion under most-–if not all–-circumstances. But they also fully support capital punishment, going to war for almost any reason, wholesale massacres of wildlife and despoiling of the environment, and even nuclear war.

And many of those who fanatically defend the right of a fetus to emerge from the womb just as fanatically oppose welfare for those mothers who can’t support that newborn.

Ninth, many fetus fanatics believe that since their religion teaches that abortion is wrong, they have a moral duty to enforce that belief on others.

This is especially true for evangelical Christians. These are the same people who condemn Muslims-–such as those in Saudi Arabia-–for segregating women, forbidding them to drive and forcing them to wear head scarfs or chadors-–loose, usually black robes.

But while they condemn Islamics for their general intolerance of others’ religious beliefs, they lust to impose their own upon those who belong to other churches. Or who belong to no church at all.

Tenth, many fetus fanatics are just as opposed to birth control as they are to abortion. Thus, when Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke asked Congress to require insurance companies to cover birth control, Rush Limbaugh branded her a “slut” and a “prostitute.”

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

GUNS AND BLACKS: PART TWO (END)

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on July 17, 2013 at 12:30 am

On July 15, a reporter at a White House press briefing asked Presidential Press Secretary Jay Carney the following question:

Q    Well, tomorrow, Eric Holder, Kathleen Sebelius and Shaun Donovan will be in Florida addressing the NAACP, and one of the issues is on gun violence.

And according to the NAACP, black males ages 15 to 19 were eight times as likely as white males of the same age, and two and a half times as likely as their Hispanic peers, to be killed in gun-related homicides in 2009.  And Kathleen Sebelius, Eric Holder and Shaun Donovan will be addressing those issues.

What does the White House have to say, particularly as you can’t push forward gun legislation?

* * * * *

The clear implication within this question was that blacks were being routinely slaughtered by murderous whites.  But the actual statistics of crime say something very different.

Consider the following statistics released by the NYPD for “Crime and Enforcement Activity in New York City” in 2012.

Other Felony Sex Crimes Victims:

  • Black (40.7%)
  • Hispanic (33.6%)
  • White victims (19.6%)
  • Asian/Pacific Islanders (5.9%)

Known Other Felony Sex Crime Arrestees:

  • Black (42.3%)
  • Hispanic (39.8%)
  • White (12.6%)
  • Asian /Pacific Islander (5.1%)

Robbery Victims:

  • Hispanic (36.1%)
  • Black (31.9%)
  • White victims (18.3%)
  • Asian/Pacific Islanders (12.8%)

Robbery Arrestees:

  • Black (62.1%)
  • Hispanic (29.0%)
  • White (6.2%)
  • Asian/Pacific Islander (2.5%)

Felonious Assault Victims:

  • Black (47.8%)
  • Hispanic (33.6%)
  • White (12.4%)
  • Asian/Pacific Islanders (5.5%)

Felonious Assault Arrestees:

  • Black (52.3%)
  • Hispanic (33.6%)
  • White (9.4%)
  • Asian/Pacific Islanders (4.5%)

Grand Larceny Victims:

  • White (42.4%)
  • Black (25.0%)
  • Hispanic (20.1%)
  • Asian/Pacific Islanders (11.8%)

Grand Larceny Arrestees:

  • Black (52.0%)
  • Hispanic (28.5%)
  • White (14.6%)
  • Asian/Pacific Islanders (4.8%)

Shooting Victims:

  • Black (74.1%)
  • Hispanic (22.2%)
  • White (2.8%)
  • Asian/Pacific Islanders (0.8%)

Shooting Arrestees:

  • Black (75.0%)
  • Hispanic (22.0%)
  • White (2.4%)
  • Asian/Pacific Islander (0.6%)

Drug Felony Arrest Population:

  • Black (45.3%)
  • Hispanic (40.0%)
  • White (12.7%)
  • Asian Pacific Islanders (1.9%)

The Drug Misdemeanor Arrest Population

  • Black (49.9%)
  • Hispanic (34.5%)
  • White (13.3%)
  • Asian Pacific Islanders (2.1%)

The Felony Stolen Property Arrest Population:

  • Black (52.5%)
  • Hispanic (28.9%)
  • White (14.5%)
  • Asian/Pacific Islanders (4.0%)

The Misdemeanor Stolen Property Arrest Population:

  • Black (47.1%)
  • Hispanic (30.2%)
  • White (16.9%)
  • Asian/Pacific Islanders (5.4%)

Violent Crime Suspects:

  • Black (66.0%)
  • Hispanic (26.1%)
  • White (5.8%)
  • Asian/Pacific Islanders (1.9%)

Reported Crime Complaint Juvenile Victims:

  • Black (43.5%)
  • Hispanic (38.7%)
  • White (11.6%)
  • Asian/Pacific Islander (5.8%)

Juvenile Crime Complaint Arrestees:

  • Black (58.6%)
  • Hispanic (32.6%)
  • White (5.8%)
  • Asian/Pacific Islander (2.8%)

Appendix B of the report offers a breakdown of New York City’s racial makeup:

                                                                 Total Numbers        Percentage of the City’s Population

  • White                                                 2,722,904                           (33.3%)
  • Black                                              1,861,295                        (22.8%)
  • Hispanic                                            2,336,076                           (28.6)
  • Asian/Pacific Islanders                   1,030,914                          (12.6%)

During the first six months of 2012, 96% of shooting victims were blacks or Hispanics–and in 97% of all cases, the shooters were other blacks or Hispanics.

Blacks and Hispanics comprise 89% of murder victims–and 86% of murder suspects.  Of felony assault victims, 81% are non-whites, as are 88% of the suspects.

Thus, while Blacks make up 22.8% of New York City’s population, they comprise

  • 51.4% of its murder and non-negligent manslaughter arrests;
  • 48.6% of its rape arrests;
  • 42.3% of its known other felony sex crime arrests;
  • 62.1% of its robbery arrests;
  • 52.3% of its felonious assault arrests;
  • 52.0% of its grand larceny arrests;
  • 75.0% of its shooting arrests;
  • 45.3% of its drug felony arrests;
  • 49.9% of its drug misdemeanor arrests;
  • 52.5% of its felony stolen property arrests;
  • 47.1% of its misdemeanor stolen property arrests;
  • 66.0% of its violent crime suspects;
  • 58.6% of its juvenile crime complaint arrests.

Blacks and their liberal allies have long claimed that the startling numbers of blacks arrested, convicted and incarcerated only prove that racist white cops, prosecutors and judges have rigged the system against them.

But this ignores a fundamental–and ugly–truth: The vast majority of victims of black criminals are other blacks.

But pretending that crime doesn’t flourish in black neighborhoods hasn’t stopped black criminals from preying on black victims.

Fortunately, several prominent black figures have dared to speak bluntly to the crisis of lawlessness within their own community.

One of these is Jesse Jackson.  Speaking at a meeting of Operation PUSH (People United to Save Humanity) in Chicago on November 27, 1993, Jackson famously said:

Jesse Jackson

“There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery.

“Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved. After all we have been through.  Just to think we can’t walk down our own streets–how humiliating.”

During a 1998 interview on the PBS investigative series, Frontline, Jackson attacked the “criminal chic” style of dress that has become popular among young black men:

“Well, what does that style [wearing baggy britches or $200 Nike stringless tennis shoes] come from?  It comes from jail.

“That’s recycled jail culture, where they cannot wear belts because they may hang themselves or hurt themselves or hurt someone.  Or they can’t have strings in their tennis shoes.

“So when you find youth having jail culture recycled into them, it is almost as if you’re eating your own vomit.   It’s a kind of recycled sickness.”

Another prominent black who has dared to confront the realities of black criminality is comedian Bill Cosby.

Bill Cosby

Addressing the 20th National Action Network conference in April, 2011, Cosby didn’t mince words before his largely black audience:

“Tell me where Jesus would allow drug dealing on the corner?  Tell me where Jesus would allow people to shoot guns for no reason, missing and then hitting a child who is paralyzed for life?

“And we don’t do anything but have a funeral.  But let a cop shoot [a black man], and you set his car on fire and burn up the police stations.”

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

GUNS AND BLACKS: PART ONE (OF TWO)

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on July 16, 2013 at 12:01 am

During White House Press Secretary Jay Carney’s press briefing on July 15, there occured this memorable exchange:

Q    Well, tomorrow, Eric Holder, Kathleen Sebelius and Shaun Donovan will be in Florida addressing the NAACP, and one of the issues is on gun violence.

And according to the NAACP, black males ages 15 to 19 were eight times as likely as white males of the same age, and two and a half times as likely as their Hispanic peers, to be killed in gun-related homicides in 2009. And Kathleen Sebelius, Eric Holder and Shaun Donovan will be addressing those issues.

What does the White House have to say, particularly as you can’t push forward gun legislation?

Jay Carney

MR. CARNEY:  Well, the President has made clear his feelings about the failure of the Senate to act on common-sense [gun control] legislation that would have improved upon our background check system–legislation that has enormous support across the country, in blue states and purple states and red states, and that the Senate should have approved.

The fact of the matter is–and the President has spoken about this–he will continue to work with members of his administration to advance the cause of reducing gun violence, using the powers that the administration has, but will also continue to try to impress upon Congress the need to have Congress act on this important problem and to reflect the will of the American people when it comes to common-sense steps….

* * * * *

Okay, let’s focus on the core of the question itself: “According to the NAACP, black males ages 15 to 19 were eight times as likely as white males of the same age, and two and a half times as likely as their Hispanic peers, to be killed in gun-related homicides in 2009.”

The question came up two days after self-appointed “neighborhood watchman” George Zimmerman was acquitted on July 13 of murdering 17-year-old Travon Martin.

Zimmerman’s ethnicity is half-German (on his father’s side) and half-Peruvian (on his mother’s).  Martin was black.

From the tone of the question, you’d think that that blacks were being slaughtered daily by whites.

In fact, the racial group most responsible for the murders of blacks is–other blacks.

In 1971, Robert Daley, a reporter for the New York Times, became a deputy police commissioner for the New York Police Department (NYPD).

In that capacity, he saw the NYPD from the highest levels to the lowest–from the ornate, awe-inspiring office of  Police Commissioner Patrick Murphy to the gritty, sometimes blood-soaked streets of New York.

He spent one year on the job before resigning–later admitting that when he agreed to take the job, he got more than he bargained for.

It proved to be a tumultuous year in the NY’D’s history:  Among those challenges Daley and his fellow NYPD members faced were the murders of several police officers, committed by members of the militant Black Liberation Army.

Two of those murdered officers were Waverly Jones and Joseph Piagentini.  Jones was black, Piagentini white; both were partners.  Both were shot in the back without a chance to defend themselves.

Writing about these murders in a bestselling 1973 book–Target Blue: An Inside’s View of the N.Y.P.D.–Daley noted:

“Jones and Piagentini were the sixth and seventh policemen murdered so far that year [1971].  There would be three more….

“The identities of approximately 18 men involved in these murders became known to the police.  All were black.

“The city’s politicians refrained from pointing this out, and so did Commissioner Murphy.

“But the fact remained that approximately 65% of the city’s arrested murderers, muggers, armed robbers, proved to be black men; about 15% were of Hispanic origin; and about 20% were white.

“The overall racial breakdown of the city went approximately this way: whites, 63%; blacks, 20%; Hispanics 17%.”

Stated another way: Blacks, who made up 20% of the city’s population, were responsible for 65% of the city’s major crimes.

Or, as Daley himself put it: “So the dangerous precincts, any cop would tell you, were the black precincts.”

That was 40 years ago.

Now, consider the following statistics released by the NYPD for “Crime and Enforcement Activity in New York City” in 2012.  Its introduction states:

“This report presents statistics on race/ethnicity compiled from the New York City Police Department’s records management system.”

Then follows this chart:

Misdemeanor Criminal Mischief
Victim, Suspect, Arrestee Race/Ethnicity                                                                  

American Indians:               Victims:  0.7%      Suspects:  0.3%      Arrestees:   0.3%

Asian/Pacific Islanders:    Victims:  8.4%      Suspects:   3.2%     Arrestees:    3.9%

Blacks:                                      Victims: 36.5%      Suspects: 49.6%     Arrestees: 36.5%

Whites:                                      Victims: 28.9%      Suspects: 17.0%      Arrestees: 22.9%

Hispanics:                                Victims:   25.4%     Suspects: 29.8%      Arrestees:  36.4%

Total Victims:      40,985       

Total Suspects:     11,356  

Total Arrests:         7,825

Consider the following statistics released by the NYPD for “Crime and Enforcement Activity in New York City” in 2012.

Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter Victims:

  • Black (60.1%)
  • Hispanic (26.7%)
  • White victims (8.7%)
  • Asian/Pacific Islanders (4.2%)

Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter Arrestees:

  • Black (51.4%)
  • Hispanic (36.7%)
  • White (9.2%)
  • Asian/Pacific Islander (2.6%)

Rape Victims:

  • Black (37.9%)
  • Hispanic (36.9%)
  • White victims (19.2%)
  • Asian/Pacific Islanders (5.4%)

Rape Arrestees:

  • Black (48.6%)
  • Hispanic (42.8%)
  • White (5.0%)
  • Asian/Pacific Islander (3.1%)

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

EVERY PASSENGER AN AIR MARSHAL

In Bureaucracy, History, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on July 15, 2013 at 1:19 am

On June 5, the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) finally came face-to-face with reality.

It announced that it was abandoning its plan to let passengers carry small knives, baseball bats, golf clubs and other sports equipment onto planes after all.

Of course, TSA didn’t drop this plan because it wanted to.  It did so because of fierce opposition from passengers, Congressional leaders and airline industry officials.

TSA Administrator John Pistole unveiled the proposal in March, saying that in these days of hardened cockpit doors, armed off-duty pilots traveling on planes and other preventive measures, small folding knives could not be used by terrorists to take over a plane.

He said that intercepting them takes time that would be better used searching for explosives and other more serious threats.

TSA screeners confiscate over 2,000 small folding knives a day from passengers.

The proposal would have permitted folding knives with blades that are 2.36 inches (6 centimeters) or less in length and are less than 1/2 inch (1 centimeter) wide. The aim was to allow passengers to carry pen knives, corkscrews with small blades and other knives.

Passengers also would also have been allowed to bring onboard novelty-sized baseball bats less than 24 inches long, toy plastic bats, billiard cues, ski poles, hockey sticks, lacrosse sticks and two golf clubs.

The United States has gradually eased airline security measures that took effect after 9/11.

In 2005, TSA said it would let passengers carry on small scissors, knitting needles, tweezers, nail clippers and up to four books of matches.  The agency began focusing on keeping explosives off planes, because intelligence officials believed that was the greatest threat to commercial aviation.

With regard to the use of edged weapons as terrorist tools:

  • The terrorists who highjacked four jetliners and turned them into flying bombs on September 11, 2001, used only boxcutters to cut the throats of stewards and stewardesses; and
  • They then either forced their way into the cockpits and overpowered and murdered the pilots, or lured the pilots to leave the cabins and murdered them.

It’s also worth remembering that for all the publicity given the TSA’s “Air Marshal” program, it’s been airline passengers who have repeatedly been the ones to subdue unruly fliers.

Consider the following incidents:

  • On August 11, 2000, Jonathan Burton, a passenger aboard a Southwest Airlines flight tried to break into the cockpit was killed by other passengers who restrained him.
  • On May 9, 2011, crew members and passengers wrestled a 28-year-old man to the cabin floor after he began pounding on the cockpit door of a plane approaching San Francisco.
  • On February 21, 2012, passengers aboard a Continental Airlines flight from Portland to Houston rushed to aid a flight attendant subdue a Middle Eastern man who began shouting, “Allah is great!”
  • On March 27, 2012, a JetBlue flight from new York to Las Vegas was forced to land in Texas after the pilot started shouting about bombs and al-Qaeda and had to be subdued by passengers.
  • On January 9, 2013, passengers on board an international flight from Reykjavik to New York’s John F. Kennedy Airport subdued an unruly passenger by tying him to his seat with duct tape and zip ties after he began screaming and hitting other passengers.
  • On May 27, 2013, a passenger aboard an Alaska Airlines flight from Anchorage to Portland, Oregon, tried to open an airplane door in-flight and was subdued by passengers and crew members until the plane landed in Portland.

In every one of these incidents, it’s been passengers–not Air Marshals–who have been the first and major line of defense against mentally unstable or terroristically inclined passengers.

In opposing TSA’s proposal to loosen security restrictions, skeptical lawmakers, airlines, labor unions and law enforcement groups argued that knives and other items could be used to injure or kill passengers and crew.

Such weapons would have increased the dangers posed by the above-cited passengers (and a pilot) who erupted in frightening behavior.

Prior to 9/11, commercial airline pilots and passengers were warned: If someone tries to highjack the plane, just stay calm and do what he says.

So many airplanes were directed by highjackers to land in Fidel Castro’s Cuba that these incidents became joke fodder for stand-up comedians.

And, up to 9/11, the advice to cooperate fully with highjackers and land the planes where they wanted worked.  No planes and no lives were lost.

But during 9/11, passengers and crew–with one exception–cooperated fully with the highjackers’ demands.  And all of them died horiffically when three of those jetliners were deliberately crashed into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

World Trade Center under airplane attack

Only on United Flight 93 did the passengers and crew fight back. In doing so, they accomplished what security guards, soldiers, military pilots, the CIA and FBI could not: They thwarted the terrorists, sacrificing their own lives and preventing the fourth plane from destroying the White House or the Capital Building.

Memorial to the passengers and crew of United Flight 93

Since every airline passenger must now become his or her own Air Marshal, it seems only appropriate that the criminals they face be rendered as harmless as possible.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

JAMES BOND FOR HIRE: PART TWO (END)

In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on July 12, 2013 at 9:00 pm

The 1960 Kirk Douglas epic, Spartacus, may soon prove to be more than great entertainment. It may also turn out to be a prophecy of the end of the American Republic.

Throughout the movie, wealthy Romans assume they can buy anything–or anyone.  When seeking a favor, Marcus Licinius Crassus (Laurence Oliver) says bluntly: “Name your price.”

Today, “Name your price” has become the password for entry into America’s Intelligence community.

Althugh not portrayed in Spartacus, one of the reasons for the fall of the Roman empire lay in its reliance on foreign mercenaries.

Roman citizens, who had for centuries manned their city’s legions, decided to outsource these hardships and dangers to hired soldiers from Germany and Gaul (now France).

Although Germans and Gauls had proven capable fighters when defending their own countries, they proved highly unrelible as paid mercenaries.

Niccolo Machiavelli, the father of political science, drew heavily on ancient history for his examples of how liberty could best be preserved within a republic.

Fully aware of the Romans’ disastrous experience with mercenaries, Machiavelli believed that a nation’s army should be driven by patriotism, not greed.  Speaking of mercenaries, he warned:

“Mercenaries…are useless and dangerous. And if a prince holds on to his state by means of mercenary armies, he will never be stable or secure; for they are disunited, ambitious, without discipline, disloyal; they are brave among friends, among enemies they are cowards.

“They have neither the fear of God nor fidelity to men, and destruction is deferred only so long as the attack is. For in peace one is robbed by them, and in war by the enemy.”

Americans–generally disdainful of history–have blatantly ignored both the examples of history and the counsel of Machiavelli.  To their own peril.

Mark Mazzetti, author of the bestselling The Way of the Knife, chronicles how the CIA has been transformed from a primarily fact-finding agency into a terrorist-killing one.

Along with this transformation has come a dangerous dependency on private contractors to supply information that government agents used to dig up for themselves.

America’s defense and intelligence industries, writes Mazzetti, once spread across the country, have relocated to the Washington area.

They want to be close to “the customer”: The National Security Agency, the Pentagon, the CIA and an array of other Intelligence agencies.

The U.S. Navy SEALS raid that killed Osama bin Laden has been the subject of books, documentaries and even an Oscar-nominated movie: “Zero Dark Thirty.”

Almost unknown by comparison is a program the CIA developed with Blackwater, a private security company, to locate and assassinate Islamic terrorists.

“We were building a unilateral, unattributable capability,” Erik Prince, CEO of Blackwater, said in an interview.  “If it went bad, we weren’t expecting the [CIA] chief of station, the ambassador or anyone to bail us out.”

But the program never got past the planning stage.  Senior CIA officials feared the agency would not be able to  permanently hide its own role in the effort.

“The more you outsource an operation,” said a CIA official, “the more deniable it becomes.  But you’re also giving up control of the operation.  And if that guy screws up, it’s still your fault.”

Increased reliance on “outsourcing” has created a “brain-drain” within the Intelligence community. Jobs with private security companies usually pay 50% more than government jobs.

Many employees at the CIA, NSA and other Intelligence agencies leave government service–and then return to it as private contractors earning far higher salaries.

Many within the Intelligence community fear that too much Intelligence work has been outsourced and the government has effectively lost control of its own information channels.

And, as always with the hiring of mercenaries, there is an even more basic fear: How fully can they be trusted?

“There’s an inevitable tension as to where the contractor’s loyalties lie,” said Jeffrey Smith, a former general counsel for the CIA.  “Do they lie with the flag?  Or do they lie with the bottom line?”

Yet another concern: How much can Intelligence agencies count on private contractors to effectively screen the people they hire?

Edward Snowden, it should be remembered, was an employee of Booz Allen Hamilton, a consulting/security firm.  It was through this company that Snowden gained access to a treasury of NSA secrets.

In March 2007, the Bush administration revealed that it paid 70% of its intelligence budget to private security contractors.  That remains the case today–and the Intelligence budget for 2012 was $75.4 billion.

A 2010 investigative series by the Washington Post found that “1,931 private companies work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the country.”

Jesus never served as a spy or soldier.  But he clearly understood a truth too many officials within the American Intelligence community have forgotten:

“For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.”

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

JAMES BOND FOR HIRE: PART ONE (OF TWO)

In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on July 11, 2013 at 10:33 pm

A movie critic, reviewing John Wayne’s 1968 gung-ho film, “The Green Berets,” said that Wayne had reduced the complex issues behind the Vietnam war to the simplicity of a barroom brawl.

In the same vein, the American news media displays a genius for ignoring the complexities of a major news story and focusing on just a single, sensationalistic aspect of it.

Take the Paula Deen scandal.  The media have universally focused on Deen’s admitted use of the “N-word”–and utterly ignored far more important aspects of the story.

According to the complaint, employees at the restaurant were routinely subjected to violent behavior, racial and sexual harassment, assault, bettery and sexual discrimination in pay.

Similarly, in covering the odyssey of Edward Snowden, the former NSA worker turned mass secret leaker, the media have followed the same path.

Edward Snowden

In an updated version of “Where’s Waldo?” the media have focused their attention on charting the almost daily whereabouts of Snowden.

Will Snowden receive amnesty in Hong Kong?  In Russia?  In Cuba?  China?  Venezuela?  Nicaragua?

The blunt truth is that Snowden, as an individual, doesn’t matter.

Either he will obtain aslym in a country that hates the United States–or he won’t.

Even if he obtains such asylum, there’s no guarantee it will last.

Ilich Ramírez Sánchez, the international terrorist better known as “Carlos the Jackal,” can attest to that.

By 1994, he had spent almost 20 years on the run from the French Intellilgence agents.  They were seeking him for a series of terrorist attacks across France–and for the 1975 murders of two counter-intellilgence agents and their informant.

Carlos “The jackal”

After living in a series of countries that had no extradition treaty with France–such as Syria, Iraq and Jordan–he settled down in the Sudanese city of Khartoum.

He felt utterly safe, since he had been accorded official protection by the Sudanese government.  But he had misjudged his protectors.

French and American Intelligence agencies offered a number of deals to the Sudanese authorities. In 1994, Carlos was scheduled to undergo a minor testicular operation in a Sudanese hospital.

Two days after the operation, Sudanese officials warned him of an assassination plot–and moved him to a villa for protection.  They also provided him with bodyguards.

One night later, the bodyguards entered his room while he slept, tranquilized and tied him up–and slipped him into the custody of his longtime pursuers.

On August 14, 1994, Sudan transferred him to French Intelligence agents, who flew him to Paris for trial.  He is now serving two sentences of life imprisonment.

There is no guarantee that any nation that guarantees the security of Edward Snowden today won’t decide, in the future, to betray him.

So for all the efforts of the news media to treat him like the Flying Dutchman, he is just one man.

And, eventually he will run out of secrets to spill.  That’s assuming that Russian and/or Chinese Intelligence agents haven’t already helped themselves to the secrets on his laptop.

As Mr. Spock once famously said during an episode of “Star Trek”: “Military secrets are the most fleeting of all.”

So where does the significance of the Snowden story lie?

In the fact that Americans have become too lazy or fearful to do most of their own spying.

Yes, that’s right–60 to 70% of America’s Intelligence budget doesn’t go to the CIA or the National Security Agency (NSA) or the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA).

Instead, it goes to private contractors who supply secrets or “soldiers of fortune.”

One such contractor is Booz Allen Hamilton–which employed Snowden and gave him access to the super-secret NSA.

The outsourcing of government intelligence work to private contractors took off after 9/11.

This was especially true after the United States invaded Iraq in 2003–and found its Intelligence and armed services stretched to their furtherest limits.

The DIA estimates that, from the mid-1990s to 2005, the number of private contracts awarded by Intelligence agencies rose by 38%.

During that same period, government spending on “spies/guns for hire” doubled, from about $18 billion in 1995 to about $42 billion in 2005.

Many tasks and services once performed only by government employees are being “outsourced” to civilian contractors:

  • Analyzing Intelligence collected by drones and satellites;
  • Writing reports;
  • Creating and maintaining software programs to manipulate data for tracking terrorist suspects;
  • Staffing overseas CIA stations;
  • Serving as bodyguards to government officials stationed overseas;
  • Providing disguises used by agents working undercover.

More than 500 years ago, Niccolo Machiavelli warned of the dangers of relying on mercenaries:

“There are two types of armies that a prince may use to defend his state: armies made up of his own people or mercenaries….

“Mercenaries…are useless and dangerous. And if a prince holds on to his state by means of mercenary armies, he will never be stable or secure; for they are disunited, ambitious, without discipline, disloyal; they are brave among friends, among enemies they are cowards.

“They have neither the fear of God nor fidelity to men, and destruction is deferred only so long as the attack is. For in peace one is robbed by them, and in war by the enemy.”

Machiavelli, on meeting Edward Snowden, would no doubt find his judgment confirmed.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

OBAMA FLUNKS, MACHIAVELLI REIGNS

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Politics, Social commentary on July 10, 2013 at 10:00 pm

Barack Obama is one of the most highly educated men to occupy the White House.

In 1988, he entered Harvard Law School, graduating in 1991.  He was selected as an editor of the Harvard Law Review at the end of his first year, and president of the journal in his second year.

In 1991, he accepted a two-year position as Visiting Law and Government Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School to work on his first book, Dreams of My Father, published in 1995.

He then taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years—as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004.

President Barack Obama

And yet, for all his experience as a scholar, there remains a truth about which he remains woefully ignorant.

It is a truth that Niccolo Machiavelli, the father of modern political science, understood all too well.

In his pamphlet, The Prince, Machiavelli laid out the qualities that a successful ruler must possess.  There were some to be cultivated, and others to be avoided at all costs.  For example:

He is rendered despicable by being thought changeable, frivolous, effeminate, timid and irresolute—which a prince must guard against as a rock of danger…. 

[He] must contrive that his actions show grandeur, spirit, gravity and fortitude.  As to the government of his subjects, let his sentence be irrevocable, and let him adhere to his decisions so that no one may think of deceiving or cozening him.

Niccolo Machiavelli

So how has Obama fared by this standard?

Consider the July 2 press release from the Treasury Department on the signature achievement of his administration, the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), better known as Obamacare:

“Over the past several months, the Administration has been engaging in a dialogue with businesses – many of which already provide health coverage for their workers – about the new employer and insurer reporting requirements under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

“We have heard concerns about the complexity of the requirements and the need for more time to implement them effectively….We have listened to your feedback.  And we are taking action.

“The Administration is announcing that it will provide an additional year before the ACA mandatory employer and insurer reporting requirements begin.”

[Boldface in the original document.]

* * * * *

In short: The administration is delaying until 2015 the law’s requirement that medium and large companies provide coverage for their workers or face fines.

Now consider how Obama’s self-declared enemies reacted to this announcement.

Since 2011, right-wing Republicans in the House of Representatives have voted 37 times to repeal or defund all or parts of ObamaCare, most recently in May.

They can only be encouraged at this latest show of timidity on Obama’s part.

And thousands of employers bitterly resent having to provide medical coverage for the men and women whom they would prefer to own rather than pay at all.

This can only convince them to dig in their heels and evade or sabotage the law any way they can.

Susan Collins, the U.S. Senator from Maine, recently confessed as much:

“I’ve heard from countless employers…who say that the onerous penalties and provisions in ObamaCare provide perverse and powerful incentives to not hire new workers or to cut back on the hours that their employees are allowed to work.”

This comment points to a self-defeating part of the legislation:

The health care law requires companies with 50 or more employees to provide affordable insurance coverage to workers. For part-time employees, who work fewer than 30 hours, the company isn’t penalized for refusing to provide health insurance.

Thus, greed-fueled employers will move even more employees into part-time positions.  They can dodge the requirement to provide health insurance and avoid paying a fine.

Obama’s enemies have called him a practitioner of hard-knuckled Chicago-style politics.  But, in reality, he is precisely the sort of other-worldly political leader Machiavelli warned against:

Many have imagined republics and principalities which have never been seen or known to exist in reality. 

For how we live is so far removed from how we ought to live, that he who abandons what is done for what ought to be done, will rather learn to bring about his own ruin rather than his preservation.

Long before he took the Presidential oath, Obama should have committed to memory this famous passage from Machiavelli:

From this arises the question whether it is better to be loved than feared, or feared more than loved. 

The reply is, that one ought to be both feared and loved, but as it is difficult for the two to go together, it is much safer to be feared than loved….

I conclude, therefore, with regard to being loved and feared, that men love at their own free will, but fear at the will of the prince, and that a wise prince must rely on what is in his power and not on what is in the power of others….

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

GREED? THY NAME IS UNION: PART TWO (END)

In Bureaucracy, History, Social commentary on July 9, 2013 at 11:30 pm

On April 18, 1946, the railroads’ two key brotherhoods announced that they would withdraw all their men in 30 days.  The nation’s transportation grid would collapse.

The two unions had been longtime allies of the Democratic Party.  And a Democrat–Harry S. Truman–was then sitting in the White House.

Harry S. Truman

Calling them to the White House three days before the strike deadline, Truman offered them generous arbitration awards.  And expected them to accept.

To his surprise–and outrage–they didn’t.

“If you think I’m going to sit here and let you tie up this whole country,” said Truman, “you’re crazy as hell.”

“We’ve got to go through with it, Mr. President,” one of the labor leaders replied.  “Our men are demanding it.”

“All right,” said Truman, rising.  “I’m going to give you the gun.  You’ve got just 48 hours to reach a settlement.  If you don’t, I’m going to take over the railroads in the name of the government.”

Two days passed and, true to his word, Truman acted.

On May 17, 1946, he signed an executive order seizing the railroads.  He gave the unions another five days of reprieve.

And what did he get in return?  A brief note saying, “Your offer is unacceptable.”

Summoning his cabinet, he announced that he would appear before a joint session of Congress on May 18.  He would then ask for authority to draft all railroad men, regardless of age, into the Army.

Tom Clark, Truman’s Attorney General, declared such a move unconstitutional.

“We’ll draft ’em first and think about the law later,” said Truman.

Then he ordered his press secretary to clear all the radio networks for a major fireside address that same night.

He planned to tell Americans that while their military had faced bullets, bombs and disease to win the victory” in World War II, the leaders of the railroad unions had virtually “fired bullets into the backs of our soldiers.”

They were all liars, and he personally attacked John L. Lewis, head of the United Mine Workers of America (the coal miners were on strike, too).

Truman also savaged Philip Murray, president of the United Steel Workers of America: “Mr. Murray and his Communist friends” had intimidated “a week-kneed Congress.”

Finally, Truman meant to rouse the nation to fury against the strikers with these words:

“Let’s give the country back to the people.  Let’s put transportation and production back to work, hang a few traitors, and make our own country safe for democracy.  Come on, boys, let’s do the job!”

What Truman actually said proved less blazing.  But only slightly less.

Truman’s press secretary, Charles G. Ross, warned the President that the “hang a few traitors” line might lead to wholesale lynchings of union leaders.  And Clark Clifford, already an influential Washington attorney and power-broker, agreed.

Together, they persuaded Truman to tone down his address.  Even so, it proved devastating.

“The crisis at Pearl Harbor was the result of action by a foreign enemy,” said Truman.  “The crisis tonight is caused by a group of men within our own country who place their private interests above the welfare of the nation.”

He said that he would call Congress into session the next day, May 19,  if the railroad workers weren’t back on the job by then, he would call in the military.

With union leaders still refusing to budge, Truman carried out his threat.  He entered Congress, mounted the podium, and asked for authority “to draft into the Armed Forces of the United States all workers who are on strike against their own government.”

Five minutes into the President’s speech, the labor leaders capitulated, signing an agreement drawn up by Truman’s negotiator.

Clifford handed Truman–still at the podium–a note: “Mr. President, agreement signed, strike over.”

Departing from his speech, Truman announced: “Gentlemen, the strike has been settled.”

An ovation resounded.  And when Truman asked for authority to draft future strikers who endangered public safety, the House of Representatives passed it at once.

That was the Truman way–and it worked.

Contrast his decisive and public-spirited approach with that of “leaders” of cities and states who lack the spine to stand up to greedy and arrogant labor leaders.

While 2,400 highly-paid train operators, station agents, mechanics, maintenance workers and professional staff refused to work, public transit within the Bay Area came dangerously close to a standstill.

Only the Herculean efforts of other transit agencies such as the San Francisco ferry service and the MUNI bus lines prevented a total collapse.

Not that BART management should escape criticism.  On the contrary, its managers receive far too many paid holidays and far too much severence pay.

And allowing them to save unused vacation and holidays without any limits is a disgraceful practice that should be immediately abolished.

These people–so-called managers and workers–aren’t “public servants.”  They serve only their own selfish interests, and invite only public contempt and outrage.

But this disgraceful situation can change.

“One man with courage,” said Andrew Jackson, “makes a majority.”  And as Harry S. Truman proved during a far more dangerous time.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

GREED? THY NAME IS UNION: PART ONE (OF TWO)

In Bureaucracy, History, Social commentary on July 8, 2013 at 12:54 pm

On July 1, the two largest unions for the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system went on strike after talks with BART management failed to produce a new contract.

The heavy-rail public transit and subway system connects San Francisco with cities in the East Bay and suburbs in northern San Mateo County.  It’s the fifth-busiest heavy rail transit system in the United States.

BART spokesman Rick Rice said BART had increased its original offer of a four percent pay raise over the next four years to eight percent. The proposed salary increase would come in addition to a one percent raise employees were already scheduled to receive on July 1.

The unions–Service Employees International Union Local 1221 and Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1555–represent nearly 2,400 train operators, station agents, mechanics, maintenance workers and professional staff.

And they were demanding a five percent annual raise over the next three years.

Five percent might seem a small amount–until you look at the salaries now paid to BART train operators and station agents.

According to an analysis of BART payroll records by the San Jose Mercury News:

  • The average BART worker–including management and non-union employees–made $83,157 in gross pay in 2012, up from $80,588 in 2010
  • An eight percent wage increase–as offered by BART–in addition to a one percent increase already set to kick in on July 1, would push the average BART employee’s gross pay to about $90,600 in 2016.
  • Currently, BART workers don’t pay toward their pensions.
  • They pay only $92 a month toward their medical benefits–no matter how many dependents they have.
  • Including pay and benefits, the average cost for BART for each employee was $116,309 last year, up from $110,017 in 2010.

BART strike: With a day left, labor talks fail again Saturday but pay proposal doubled – San Jose Mercury News

On July 1, while at least 12 million willing-to-work Americans were desperately searching for willing-to-hire employers, and while millions more barely survived at part-time jobs, BART employees walked off their posts.

  • More than 400,000 riders found the nation’s fifth-largest rail system shut down.
  • Commuters who work in San Francisco for its higher wages but live outside it for its lower rents found themselves desperately seeking some alternative way to reach their jobs.
  • Other transit agencies in the region urged commuters to carpool, take buses or ferries, work from home and, if they must drive to work, to leave earlier or later than usual.
  • San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee said the city would offer increased transportation options, including at the airport, and increase staff for traffic management. BART said it would allow carpoolers to use parking lots at its 33 stations free of charge.
  • Highways and bridges throughout the Bay Area were crammed with cars.  The San Francisco ferry pressed its 11 boats into service. taking on 7,835 commuters during the morning rush, up from its normal number of 2,500.
  • Finding parking space became a nightmare in downtown San Francisco, especially for those who arrived near the end of the commute. Several lots had “full” signs up by 8 a.m., almost three hours earlier than a regular day.
  • Hundreds of people lined up at the temporary Transbay Terminal in San Francisco hoping to catch a ride back to the East Bay.
  • Within San Francisco, the regular MUNI bus lines were crammed with riders–to the point where, on must bus lines, there was literally standing room only.

After four days of this nightmare, BART and the unions reached a temporary agreement: BART employees would return to work, and the current contract would be extended for 30 days–until August 4.

Of course, after August 4, if the unions don’t get their way, they’ll almost certainly go on strike again.

A July 3 Cal Watchdog editorial brutally sums up the situation: “BART Pay, Benefits So Lavish That Workers Deserve 0% Raise.”

Among its revelations:

  • Former BART General Manager Dorothy Dugger was forced to retire in 2011.
  • Yet she collected more pay than any other BART employee in 2012.
  • When she left, she received a check for $934,000 severance.
  • In 2013, she drew annual salary and benefits worth $420,000.

How did this happen?

  • BART management employees can collect “terminal leave benefits.”
  • When managers are hired, they earn three weeks’ vacation each year.  After 19 years, this increases to six weeks.
  • They also get 13 paid holidays.
  • They’re allowed to save unused vacation and holidays without any limits.  They can also add some unused sick leave days.
  • After they leave BART, they can even use that accrued time to stay on the payroll.
  • This gives them their full salary, incentive pay and health benefits and work credit that increases their pensions.
  • They continue to receive holiday pay and vacation time, which they can use to extend their time on the payroll.

BART pay, benefits so lavish that workers deserve 0% raise | CalWatchDog

Worried commuters have less than a month to count down the days remaining to a longer strike.  As they do so, they might want to recall a time when strikes against public safety were handled in a very different way.

The year was 1946.  And the man who intervened to restore safety was a Democratic President named Harry S. Truman.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

MORE THAN THE “N-WORD”: PART FOUR (END)

In Bureaucracy, Business, Law, Social commentary on July 5, 2013 at 12:07 am

Deserted by most of her major sponsors and branded as a racist by the media, Paula Deen believes she has found the magic solution to her problems:  Hollingsworth v. Perry.

That’s the Supreme Court case which effectively legalized gay marriage in California.

On July 1, Deen’s lawyers cited Chief Justice John Roberts’ decision in a filing submitted to the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Georgia.  To quote Roberts:

“In other words, for a federal court to have authority under the Constitution to settle a dispute, the party before it must seek a remedy for a personal and tangible harm.”

On June 26, the Supreme Court rejected former California State Senator Dennis Hollingsworth’s defense of Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage.  The reason: The Justices believed that, as a heterosexual, he could not be tangibly harmed by same-sex marriage.

Applying this to the Deen lawsuit: Lisa Jackson can’t sue Deen and her brother, Earl “Bubba” Hiers for racial discrimination because she herself is white–and thus could not have been harmed by racial discrimination, even if this had occurred.

While these legal gymnastics may offer Deen some momentary solace, they come too late to prevent the loss of millions of dollars she has suffered in the mass desertion of her sponsors.

Mega-corporations like the Food Network, Wal-Mart and Smithfield Foods aren’t going to renew their ties to Deen anytime soon–if ever.  And, at this point, “if ever” looks more like “never.”

The scandal ensuing from her admitting to use of the “N-word” in her deposition has already cost her far more than any court judgment could.

Moreover, she desperately needs to put this disaster behind her–and as quickly as possible.

Her appearances on TV and the Internet have been filled with self-pitying tears and pleas for forgiveness.  But  they have most likely reminded viewers of the infamous “I Have Sinned” extravaganza put on by televangelist Jimmy Swaggart in 1988.

Paula Deen apology

Outed with a prostitute, Swaggart gave an alternately fiery and tearful speech to his family, TV congregation and God: “I have sinned against You, my Lord, and I would ask that Your Precious Blood would wash and cleanse every stain until it is in the seas of God’s forgetfulness, not to be remembered against me anymore.”

Jimmy Swaggart’s confession

Yes, the U.S. District Court might rule in Deen’s favor that, as a white, Jackson could not have been harmed by racial discrimination.

But Jackson’s lawyers can certainly argue that she was harmed by receiving unequal pay and being exposed to a climate of sexual harassment, obscenity, assault, battery and humiliating behavior.

The longer this lawsuit drags on, the more the public wll be exposed to the truth about Deen’s treatment of her employees.  And the less likely they–and, more importantly, her former sponsors–will be to forgive her.

So no matter how clever she thinks her lawyers are, her best bet would be:

  • Settle the lawsuit–quickly;
  • Drop out of the limelight; and
  • Work quietly to regain the trust of the public and as many of her former sponsors as possible.

The media has focused its attention on Deen’s admission to having used the “N-word.”  But clearly she was running a dysfunctional operation–replete with alcoholism, racial prejudice, violence, sexual harassment and theft.

Deen has claimed she knows that the days of Southern racism are past.  But according to the complaint filed against her by her former General Manager, that past remains very much alive at Deen’s restaurants:

  • Requiring black employees to use separate bathrooms and entrances from whites.
  • Holding black employees to “different, more stringent standards” than whites.
  • Allowing her brother, Earl “Bubba” Hiers, to regularly made offensive racial remarks.
  • Allowing Hiers to make inappropriate sexual comments.
  • Allowing Hiers to force female employees to view pornography with him.
  • Allowing Hiers to often violently shake employees.
  • Allowing Hiers to come to work in “an almost constant state of intoxication.”
  • Enabling Hiers’ behavior by ignoring Jackson’s efforts to discuss his behavior.
  • Holding “racist views herself.”

Many of Deen’s supporters have claimed she is the victim of anti-Southern prejudice.

But the truth appears that Deen is far less victim than victimizer–allowing her brother to subject both his black and female employees to obscene, alcoholic, violent and humiliating behavior.

In her deposition, Deen admitted to being warned by MackWorks, a business consulting firm, that sexual/racial discrimination was rife at her brother’s restaurant.

And how did she respond?

“I didn’t read the report,” admitted Deen. “I know my brother.  I know his character.  If I ask him something, he would not lie to me, nor would I to him.  There was nothing to investigate.”

The wonder is not that the chickens have finally come home to roost for Paula Deen.  The wonder is that it took so long for them to do so.