WikiLeaks faces Cablegate heat

SUBHEAD: It's pretty sad when Pravda is lecturing the US on free speech, tolerance and respect for human rights. By Steve Ragan on 4 December 2010 in The Tech Herald - (http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php/201048/6505) Image above: Julian Assange on the cover of Time Magazine. From (http://www.time.com/time/covers/europe/0,16641,20101213,00.html) It’s been a long week for the whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks. Problems started to mount after Amazon and EveryDNS forced them to shuffle their hosting. While this was happening, they also had to face political posturing and arrest warrants. The truth can be a dangerous and wonderful thing. [Update: PayPal has frozen WikiLeaks' donation account. More informaion is here.] WikiLeaks had moved to Amazon after their site fell victim to a massive Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) attack. The attack, peaking at 2 to 4 Gbps, was said to have originated from a single source. This source, Th3J35t3r, a self-titled ‘Hacktivist for good’, has been silent since word of his actions spread in the media. The move to Amazon helped WikiLeaks remain online, but that was only the start of the problem. A day later politics entered the picture. Senator Joseph Lieberman is said to have called Amazon on December 1, to complain about their hosting of Wikileaks. The assumption that Lieberman caused Amazon to boot WikiLeaks comes from a statement the Senator released that said in part, “After reading press reports that Amazon was hosting the Wikileaks website, Committee staff contacted Amazon Tuesday for an explanation.” “[Amazon’s] decision to cut off Wikileaks now is the right decision and should set the standard for other companies Wikileaks is using to distribute its illegally seized material. I call on any other company or organization that is hosting Wikileaks to immediately terminate its relationship with them,” Lieberman’s statement added. The French minister for industry, energy and digital economy, Eric Besson, seems to have jumped on Lieberman’s request. Reuters reported that he wrote a letter to CGIET, the agency that looks after internet use in France, looking for the means to block hosting for WikiLeaks in France. Shortly after getting the boot from Amazon, WikiLeaks moved to France’s OVH for hosting The situation is unacceptable. France cannot host websites that violate diplomatic relations secrecy and endanger persons protected by diplomatic confidentiality. We cannot host sites that have been called criminal and rejected by other countries on the basis of harm to national rights,” Besson’s letter stated. Amazon disputes the claims that they folded to political pressure, calling the reports “inaccurate”. Likewise, the reports that Amazon kicked WikiLeaks off their services due to DDOS attacks were inaccurate as well. “There were indeed large-scale DDOS attacks, but they were successfully defended against,” Amazon said. “AWS does not pre-screen its customers, but it does have terms of service that must be followed. WikiLeaks was not following them….For example, our terms of service state that ‘you represent and warrant that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the content… that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and will not cause injury to any person or entity.’,” Amazon said in a statement. “It’s clear that WikiLeaks doesn’t own or otherwise control all the rights to this classified content. Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that they weren’t putting innocent people in jeopardy…when companies or people go about securing and storing large quantities of data that isn’t rightfully theirs, and publishing this data without ensuring it won’t injure others, it’s a violation of our terms of service, and folks need to go operate elsewhere.” To some, this statement makes it clear that Amazon is folding to political pressure. However, they do have the right as a business to follow their own rules, so terms of service violations are a valid reason to end a business relationship. Yet, in the U.S. the First Amendment to the Constitution protects WikiLeaks. It also protects Amazon. The EFF, in a blog post, called the move unfortunate. “Indeed, Amazon has its own First Amendment right to do so. That makes it all the more unfortunate that Amazon caved to unofficial government pressure to squelch core political speech. Amazon had an opportunity to stand up for its customer's right to free expression. Instead, Amazon ran away with its tail between its legs.” >“While it's frustrating to think of any hosting provider cutting services to a website because it considers the content too politically volatile or controversial, it's especially disheartening to see Amazon knuckle under to pressure from a single senator. Other Internet intermediaries should now expect to receive a phone call when some other member of Congress is unhappy with speech they are hosting. After all, it worked on Amazon.” Another contradiction to Amazon’s claims comes from both the State Department and WikiLeaks. The U.S. government flatly refused to help WikiLeaks when asked for information that would be used to strip the cables of names, in an attempt to prevent harm. Shortly after moving from Amazon to OVH, WikiLeaks again faced connection issues. EveryDNS, the free DNS offering of DYN Inc., cut DNS services after ongoing DDOS attacks threatened the stability of the service. “…wikileaks.org has become the target of multiple distributed denial of service (DDOS) attacks. These attacks have, and future attacks would, threaten the stability of the EveryDNS.net infrastructure, which enables access to almost 500,000 other websites,” a statement said. Earlier today, DYN Inc added to their original statement, noting that the issue is a difficult one to deal with. “EveryDNS.net, the world’s largest free managed DNS provider, is not taking a position on the content hosted on the wikileaks.org or wikileaks.ch website, it is following established policies so as not to put any one EveryDNS.net user’s interests ahead of any others.” The DNS outage, DYN Inc. added was due to WikiLeaks not switching DNS providers within the amount of time between the first notice of termination and the actual severance. For now, WikiLeaks is available on the following domains

http://213.251.145.96/ http://wikileaks.nl/ http://www.wikileaks.ch/

Intermittent connection problems over the last 24 hours. Compounding WikiLeaks’ issues with hosting are the legal problems faced by Julian Assange, the founder of the infamous organization. Earlier this week, Interpol issued a Red Notice for Assange. The Red Notice says that his offence is sex crime related and that the warrant was issued by the International Public Prosecution Office in Gothenburg, Sweden. The move was called a persecution and not a prosecution, by Assange’s lawyer, Mark Stephens in a statement. “Mr. Assange has repeatedly sought meetings with the Prosecutrix - both in Sweden and subsequently - in order to answer her questions and clear his name...Bizarrely, the Prosecutrix - having ignored or rejected those offers of voluntary cooperation - instead sought an arrest warrant to have Mr. Assange held incommunicado without giving his Swedish lawyer sufficient notice, access to evidence or information to take proper instructions from Mr. Assange. This action is all the more peculiar as she has not even issued a formal summons for his interrogation or brought charges against Mr. Assange,” the statement said. “In 28 years of practice I have never come across a prosecutor, whether in the third world or even in a totalitarian regime, where there has been such casual disregard by a prosecutor for their obligations. Given that Sweden is a civilised country I am reluctantly forced to conclude that this is a persecution and not a prosecution.” On Friday, Assange’s Sweedish lawyer, Bjorn Hurtig told Reuters that he would fight any extradition order that seeks to send him back to Sweden over alleged sex crimes. “If it is in a country where they speak English, I know that my co-counsel Mark Stephens will help me in fighting this extradition order and he will do so vigorously,” Hurtig told Reuters, adding that they are discussing what to do, but one thing that makes the situation harder are the threats against Assange’s life. Assange has been in an undisclosed location since the cablegate leaks started, after death threats were made against him. Offers by Assange to speak with Swedish authorities at an embassy abroad have been rejected. The comments on extradition are due to Swedish authorities issuing a new warrant for Assange’s arrest. The new warrant was needed due to procedural errors in the first warrant. To date, Julian Assange has not been charged. He denies the sex crime allegations, calling the actions a smear campaign against him. “I think somebody has an interest in getting Julian to Sweden and maybe asking for him to be extradited to another country (from there),” Hurtig speculated. While the warrants and legal bickering over Assange moved forward this week, Senator Joseph Lieberman made headlines a second time with his so-called SHIELD Act (Securing Human Intelligence and Enforcing Lawful Dissemination). On Thursday, Senators John Ensign, Joe Lieberman, and Scott Brown introduced the legislation, calling the amendment to the Espionage Act something that “…will help derail the very real threat posed to human intelligence sources by WikiLeaks.” “Julian Assange and his cronies, in their effort to hinder our war efforts, are creating a hit list for our enemies by publishing the names of our human intelligence sources,” said Ensign. “…I simply will not stand idly by as they become death targets because of Julian Assange. Let me be very clear, WikiLeaks is not a whistleblower website and Assange is not a journalist.” Lieberman added to those statements with “This legislation will help hold people criminally accountable who endanger these sources of information that are vital to protecting our national security interests.” Wired’s Kevin Poulsen made a valid point when he noted that the SHIELD Act is aimed squarely at publishers. “Lieberman’s proposed solution to WikiLeaks could have implications for journalists reporting on some of the more unsavory practices of the intelligence community. For example, former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega was once a paid CIA asset. Would reporting that now be a crime?”

Congressman Ron Paul voiced his thoughts when he Tweeted, “In a free society, we are supposed to know the truth. In a society where truth becomes treason, we are in big trouble.” The ACLU weighed in on reports of legal action by the U.S. by noting that they were “deeply skeptical” that prosecuting WikiLeaks would be constitutional, or a good idea. “The courts have made clear that the First Amendment protects independent third parties who publish classified information. Prosecuting WikiLeaks would be no different from prosecuting the media outlets that also published classified documents,” Hina Shamsi, the Director of the ACLU’s National Security Project said in a statement. “If newspapers could be held criminally liable for publishing leaked information about government practices, we might never have found out about the CIA’s secret prisons or the government spying on innocent Americans. Prosecuting publishers of classified information threatens investigative journalism that is necessary to an informed public debate about government conduct, and that is an unthinkable outcome.” In the aforementioned EFF blog posting, they touched on this topic as well, reminding anyone reading that the government itself “…can't take official action to silence WikiLeaks' ongoing publications - that would be an unconstitutional prior restraint, or censorship of speech before it can be communicated to the public.” “No government actor can nix WikiLeaks' right to publish content any more than the government could stop the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing the Pentagon Papers, which were also stolen secret government documents.” When it comes to access itself, there have been several organizations moving to block access to WikiLeaks, including The Library of Congress, according to Talking Points Memo. “The Library of Congress has blocked access to the Wikileaks site on its staff computers and on the wireless network that visitors use,” TPM said in their report. In a statement, the LC told TPM that the block is “…because applicable law obligates federal agencies to protect classified information. Unauthorized disclosures of classified documents do not alter the documents' classified status or automatically result in declassification of the documents.” We’ll keep following the latest in the cablegate saga. In the meantime, feel free to weigh in with your opinions on WikiLeaks. As a final thought, what are your opinions on the remarks by Pravda, who points out how hypocritical the U.S. is being with all of the drama surrounding cablegate? “It is the American people who should be outraged that its government has transformed a nation with a reputation for freedom, justice, tolerance and respect for human rights into a backwater that revels in its criminality, cover-ups, injustices and hypocrisies.” As noted by Mike Masnick at Techdirt, “It's pretty sad when Pravda is lecturing the US on free speech, tolerance and respect for human rights.” Daily updates and coverage on cablegate are available from the following:

The BBC The Guardian The New York Times

For additional background on the facts surrounding the Swedish case against Julian Assange see: "Assange Case: Evidence Destroyed Over and Over Again" by Göran Rudling, 30 September 2010. .

Wikileak reveals Diego Garcia plan

SUBHEAD: UK official told Americans that marine park plan would end the 'Man Fridays' (read islanders) hopes of ever returning home.
=
By R. Evans & R. Norton-Taylor on 3 Dec 2010 in The Guardian -  
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-cables-diego-garcia-uk)

 
Image above: Illegally displaced Diego Garcia Chagos protestors. From original Guardian article. 

[IB Publisher's note - Islanders and fishermen should take note of the strategy used here on the Chagos people of the Diego Garcia Islands.]

The Foreign Office stands accused of misleading the public over the plight of thousands of islanders who were expelled from their Indian Ocean homeland to make way for a large US military base.

More than 2,000 islanders – described privately by the Foreign Office as "Man Fridays" – were evicted from the British colony of Diego Garcia in the 1960s and 70s.

The Foreign Office, backed by the US, has fought a long legal battle to prevent them returning home. The islanders' quest to go back will be decided by a ruling, expected shortly, from the European court of human rights.

A secret US diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks suggests the Foreign Office has privately admitted its latest plan to declare the islands the world's largest marine protection zone will end any chance of them being repatriated.

The admission is at odds with the public position of the Foreign Office that the proposed park does not prejudice or have any effect on the the islanders' right to return. The islanders have claimed the marine park was a ploy to block their return, saying it would make it impossible for them to live there as it would ban fishing, their main livelihood.

The disclosure follows years of criticism levelled at Whitehall over the harsh treatment of the islanders, many of whom have lived in poverty in other countries since their deportation.

In the past, National Archive documents have revealed how the Foreign Office consistently lied about the eviction, maintaining the fiction that the islanders had not been permanent residents. The latest leaked documents are US state department cables recording private meetings between Foreign Office mandarins and their American counterparts.

In May 2009, Colin Roberts, the Foreign Office director of overseas territories, told the Americans Diego Garcia's value in "assuring the security of the US and UK" had been "much more than anyone foresaw" in the 1960s, when the plan to set up the base was hatched.

"We do not regret the removal of the population since removal was necessary for [Diego Garcia] to fulfill its strategic purpose," he added under a passage that the Americans headed "Je ne regrette rien".

Roberts, admitting the government was "under pressure" from the islanders, told the US of the plan to set up the marine park on 55 islands around Diego Garcia, known as the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). "Roberts stated that, according to [Her Majesty's government's] current thinking on a reserve, there would be 'no human footprints' or 'Man Fridays' on the BIOT uninhabited islands," according to the American account of the meeting.

The language echoes that used in 1966 when Denis Greenhill – later the Foreign Office's most senior official – described the inhabitants as "a few Tarzans and Man Fridays". The leaked cable says Roberts "asserted that establishing a marine park would, in effect, put paid to resettlement claims of the archipelago's former residents".

A US state department official commented: "Establishing a marine reserve might, indeed, as the FCO's Roberts stated, be the most effective long-term way to prevent any of the Chagos Islands' former inhabitants or their descendants from resettling in the BIOT."

The Foreign Office said it rejected any allegation that it had misled the public. A spokesman added : "We cannot go into specifics of any leaked documents because we condemn any unauthorised release of classified information."

Leading conservation groups have supported the marine park plan. Roberts is quoted as telling the Americans that Britain's "environmental lobby is far more powerful than the [islanders'] advocates".

See also:  

Ea O Ka Aina: Diego Garcia - Another stolen island 11/6/09

Inter-Galactic Bailout

SUBHEAD: The Fed extends the hand of debt beyond borders. Alien wealth will be required to bail them out.  

By Bill Bonner on 2 December 2010 in The Daily Reckoning
(http://dailyreckoning.com/inter-galactic-bailout-the-fed-extends-the-hand-of-debt-beyond-borders)

 
Image above: Batman and Robin face intergalactic aliens. From (http://comicsmakenosense.blogspot.com/2010/08/batman-and-robin-are-part-of-complete.html).
 

The Fed is now bailing out the whole world! But who will bail out the Fed?
After the news came out yesterday, the Dow rose 249 points. Gold was up $2.
Here’s the latest from Bloomberg News:

Stocks jumped, sending US benchmark indexes to their biggest gains in three months, while the euro and commodities rallied and Treasuries slid amid improving data on the American and Chinese economies and speculation of a larger effort to end Europe’s debt crisis.The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index gained 2.2 percent, the most since Sept. 1. The MSCI Emerging Markets Index rose 2.2 percent, its biggest gain since Aug. 2. The euro rebounded above $1.31 while Spanish 10-year bonds snapped an 11-day drop. The rate on 10-year Treasury notes increased 17 basis points to 2.97 percent, a four-month high. Oil and copper advanced more than 3 percent. After the US close, S&P 500 futures added 0.1 percent at 7 p.m. in New York and Japan’s stocks rose in early trading. European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet said yesterday that investors are underestimating policy makers’ determination to halt the region’s debt crisis and shore up the euro ahead of a meeting of the bank’s Governing Council tomorrow. The Dow Jones Industrial Average surged 249.76 points, or 2.3 percent, to 11,255.78. The Dow has rallied in December more than in any other month over the last century, according to Bespoke Investment Group. The 30-stock gauge rose 1.3 percent on average in the month during the past 100 years and gained 1.5 percent and 1.7 percent over the last 50 and 20 years, respectively, the Bespoke data show. Stocks and the euro extended gains after Reuters reported that an unidentified official said the US may support enlarging a European financial rescue program by adding cash from the International Monetary Fund. The US is not discussing extra IMF money for Europe, a US official in Washington told Bloomberg News.

“Whoa…did you see that?” asked an Indian analyst we met this morning. “This is it. They’re really turning on the presses now. They’re trying to bail out the entire world. I never would have believed it. But it makes sense.”

The US official may not be discussing it openly, but Fed figures show that the US central banks is already bailing out foreigners. Reports tell us that 35 foreign banks took advantage of its EZ money policies. It appears that the Fed is supporting Europe’s banking sector.

And it would not be surprising if the US also backed the IMF. It’s not just the banks that are in trouble in Europe. Governments are deep in debt too. They are so intertwined, that it’s hard to know where private debt ends and public debt begins. Americans may see the dollar rising against the euro and feel a little patriotic pride. But this is not a good thing for Americans.

If Europe comes unhinged, the crisis will waste no time in hitting American banks and the US economy. Ben Bernanke has been trying to get the dollar to go down.

A rising greenback makes Germany’s products less expensive and US exports less competitive. It contributes to the threat of deflation…and encourages a long, drawn-out Japanese-style slump by prompting people to save, rather than spend. Not only that, collapse of European economies would kill world trade. Exporters would be out of business. Importers would be out of money.

The whole planet would be out of luck. The crisis would make its way around the world like a giant tsunami…wiping out stock markets immediately…and then swamping almost all economies. Yes, dear reader…this is the downside of globalization.. One region’s problem can easily become a disaster for everyone.

So, what’s going to happen? We wish you wouldn’t ask us questions like that, dear reader. But we’ll take a guess. The European situation is more dangerous than most Americans realize. It could still melt down. US authorities must know this. And they must know too that if Europe melts down, so will the USA. So, the rumors will probably turn out to be true.

The US will back the IMF. The IMF will back Europe. Europe will back Ireland. Ireland will back its banks. And the banks will back their lenders. Meanwhile, the euro will be backed by the dollar, which will also back the US economy, US banks, the US government, and about half the households in Christendom…not to mention the others! Who’s got the kind of money you need to do all this backing? Ah…there’s the rub…

There’s the weak link in this strange and magical chain. Let’s see, if all the world’s debts are guaranteed by paper money…isn’t the paper money itself impaired by the amount of the losses? Won’t the losses be passed along to dollar holders everywhere?

Yes. But, no one knows how much the losses are. And no one knows how much extra “stimulus” money the feds are going to put out. And no one knows when people will get scared and flee the dollar…the euro…and all paper currencies.

And no one knows what a panic out of the dollar would produce. And no one wants to find out. So, what’s the solution? We won’t bother to offer a solution to the world’s financial authorities. They won’t pay any attention anyway. But how about a solution for you? Did you buy gold when we suggested it, dear reader? We hope so.

 And more thoughts… The New York Times tells us that astronomers had seriously underestimated the number of stars in the universe.

They can’t see the little ones. Which means, their last count was probably a few trillion off. Or maybe a few gazillion off. Which suggests to us that astronomers and federal debt analysts must be using the same calculators. Both are trillions off the mark. But the reason we bring this up is to give dear readers hope.

Maybe…circulating around one of these invisible stars…a few billion light years away from earth…is a habitable planet. And maybe, the people who live there are very good with figures…and money. And maybe they’re also very accomplished space travelers. And very generous.

And maybe they’ll show up – any time now – and offer to bail out the whole Milky Way …if not the whole damned universe.

 

Grayson jabs Republicans

SUBHEAD: Alan Grayson jabs Fox News hosts & Bush on personal stakes in Bush tax cuts extension. By Nick Wing on 3 December 2010 for Huffington Post - (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/03/alan-grayson-fox-news-tax-cuts_n_791533.html) Image above: Alan Grayson portrait. From (http://thepinehillsnews.com/wp/2009/02/27/alan-grayson-saves-homes). Outgoing Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) did the double duty Thursday of going after some of his biggest Republican enemies -- conservative pundits and former president George W. Bush -- and keeping his trusty Capitol Hill print shop in business. Grayson took to the House floor to debate the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy with seven large cardboard slides, each complete with a color headshot of the person and a description of how prolonging the current tax rates for the top two-percent of income earners in the United States would benefit those individuals. His argument: Fox News contributors such as Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly and Sarah Palin, as well as the previous president of the United States himself, support, and in some cases aggressively lobby for, the complete extension of the Bush tax cuts because they would pad their pockets with an additional six-figure (in Rush Limbaugh's case, seven-figure) sum each year. "They want tax cuts for the rich because they want a tax cut for themselves," Grayson said. "Instead of placating these people and letting them spew out onto the airwaves their lies about the Bush tax cuts without ever revealing the fact that they stand to gain millions, millions of dollars each year from their selfish desire to take advantage of the rest of America, let's do this: Let's take that money and create jobs." The House passed an extension of the middle class tax cuts only on Thursday, but many fear that the GOP may get its way on an across-the-board extension if Obama concedes to them in exchange for progress on some of his other initiatives, such as the reauthorization of unemployment benefits. Video above: Alan Grayson takes a parting shot at Republicans. From (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqQn1_x5C3I).

Madam Speaker, we've heard endless braying from the Republicans, time after time, demanding an extension of tax cuts for the rich in this country. They tell us that somehow extending tax cuts for the rich will somehow create jobs. When we've had tax cuts for the rich for nine years and I haven't noticed a lot of jobs being created in nine years.

They tell us it will boost the economy well I haven't noticed that happening for nine years either. So you have to wonder why they persist in this mania, this obsession of theirs that we need to have tax cuts for the rich when the economy is flat on its back and unemployment is almost 10%. I think I have the answer. The answer turns out to be very simple.

They want tax cuts for the rich because they want a tax cut for themselves. What do I mean by that? Let's take a look at the people who are really in charge, the ones who actually run the Republican party.

Let's start with this gentleman here, the man with the cigar, Rush Limbaugh. Doesn't he look happy? According according to Newsweek, he makes $58.7 million a year, and extending the tax cuts means he'll have another $2.7 million. Mega dittos, Rush, and mega money. Let's look at the next one.

Here's Glenn Beck, according to Newsweek Glenn Beck makes $33 million a year as a pundit and extending the Bush Tax Cuts means a cool $1.5 million for Glenn bBeck's ongoing imitation of Howard Beale from Network. Now let's look at the next one.

Sean Hannity. Newsweek says that Sean Hannity, this man of the people makes $22 million a year from his act on Fox. And that means the Bush Tax cuts mean an extra $1 million. $1 million for Sean Hannity. Maybe he can afford some anger management classes. Let's take a look at the next one.

Bill O'Reilly. He makes a modest $20 million a year from his gig on Fox. That means that the Bush tax cuts give him not quite seven figures, nearly $914,000 of extra cash. It's easy to see why Bill O'Reilly wants to see the Bush tax cuts extended. And I have to say, he's no pinhead when it comes to that.

And Now, Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin has made $14 million this year from cashing in on her fame. In fact, she's done a better job of turning fame into cash than anyone in American history. $14 million. So she wants the Bush tax cuts extended so she can make an extra cool $638,000. As she was -- as she would gesture (shoulder shrug.)

And now on to Newt Gingrich, the man who did such a great job of running America in the 1990's, he wants a second chance in this decade. Newt if you do to us now what you did to us then, we'll be in trouble. But Newt Gingrich makes $5 million a year from his punditry, he'll get an extra quarter million dollars a year. An extra quarter million dollars a year from the Bush tax cuts being extended.

Now let's go on to the big cheese. George W. Bush himself. The man who got us into two endless war. The man who brought us to the brink of national bankruptcy. The man who gave us $4 a gallon gasoline. George W. Bush makes a cull $4.2 million a year, according to Newsweek. That means that extending the bush tax cuts for George Bush means an extra $187,000 in his pockets every single year.

I have a better idea. Instead of placating these people and letting them spew out onto the airwaves their lies about the Bush tax cut ever revealing the fact that they stand to gain millions, millions of dollars each year from their selfish desire to take advantage of the rest of America, let's do this. Let's take that money and create jobs.

All that money that the Bush tax cuts are charging us that can create jobs for three million Americans a year. $30,000 job a fair wage for fair work, a dignified wage for dignified work and a way to -- a dignified wage for dignified work and a way to help our economy, a better idea than putting money in the pocks of the rich. The problem is not that the poor have too much money, that's not the problem at all, it's that they need jobs. Thank you.

.

Out of the Comfy Zone

SUBHEAD: America is in frozen state of partisan self-denial as we stumble through a haze of Fox TV breaking news alerts.

By Juan Wilson on 3 December 2010 for Island Breath -
(http://islandbreath.blogspot.com/2010/12/out-of-comfy-zone.html)

 
Image above: Mashup den with Pat Buchanan on Fox talking about illegal aliens and venereal disease.

For the past couple of years oil prices have been bobbing along in a “comfy zone” that has been acceptable to OPEC. In recent months that has been between $75 and $85 a barrel.

This has represented a manipulated balance not between supply and demand but between the reality we want and reality. As a result we get to see neither. We are treading water economically. At $80 a barrel oil prices have not snuffed out FedEx, UPS, American Airlines, United Airlines, GM, Chrysler, Wal-Mart, Home Depot, etc.

But $80 per barrel does not allow America to “grow” its economy out of the Great Recession. Moreover, whether it is obvious or not, the unemployment level that has hovered at just under 10% is fixed to that cost as well. That’s because when oil prices burst the housing bubble it also burst the finance bubble and that has suppressed the raging beast at the heart of America’s economy - consumerism.

The resulting reduced demand for oil allowed the OPEC producers to pretend that were still key players on the field with all the reserves necessary keep control of the game while the the “comfy zone” on price barely kept up with the cost of their overextended debt on desalinization plants used to water lush golf courses, air-conditioned pools and indoor skiing facilities in the desert.

They are treading water too. The “Comfy Zone” allowed for two years of make believe for America. We really wanted to exit the nightmare free-fall from grace and get back to the American Dream. If we only could jump start our old clunker one more time we could get home safely. Dream on. The Comfy Zone is over.  

A New Phase
As I write this, oil futures are heading within pocket change of $90 a barrel. This number is far short of the $147 a barrel that popped the housing/financial bubble back in the summer of 2008. But it is in an area where even our limping economy cannot be supported.

We are entering an economic era where 2009-2010 will be appreciated as a safe harbor before the deluge. All the bailouts, TARPs, bank borrowing windows, quantitative easing and other herculean efforts to keep the Big Ponzi Scheme intact were founded on the idea that a recovery to pre 2008 economy was possible.

Just about all the western industrial nations have pushed the catastrophic failure of their private financial sector onto the back of the public sector. We doubled-down on a long-shot and lost. Overseas we are about to witness an economic train wreck that will possibly take down the European Union. The line-up: Greece - Ireland - Portugal - Spain - Europe - America.

No, we are far from immune.

Our political parties are in a frozen state of partisan self-denial as they stumble through a haze of Fox News breaking news alerts. They cannot cope with or even admit to our reality. The emerging economies of Asia and South America may go on with expansion for a while, but their industrial enthusiasm will soon have the same head-on collision with reality. The faster they grow the faster they will collapse.  

Little Old Kauai
 With this in mind it’s time to turn again to what we might expect here on Kauai. As we have been predicting for a while (perhaps prematurely) the tourism we rely on will face a crisis. There are converging reasons for this. Of course air fare is a primary one. An inter-island round-trip flight to Oahu I took two weeks ago cost more that $250 for coach.

Cab fare to Honolulu was about $35 one way. Another factor is Kauai’s Lihue airport is a TSA test site for enhanced security with full body porno x-ray scanning and hands on your privates groping. If you don’t think that will hurt Kauai tourism, think again. It’s my bet that Kauai tourism will suffer more than the other islands in 2011.

Another angle will be that Kauai will be virtually sovereign again as oil prices rise. State government from Honolulu will have little sway or leverage across the notorious Kauai Channel. Get used to Federal and State funded projects withering on the vine.

Being on our own will extend to the private sector as well. The shippers and big box stores will have problems carrying on normal business even before oil hits $100 a barrel. In another year or two providing pallets of California strawberries to Costco, stocking Fisher-Price electronic toys to Wal-Mart, and delivering Sears appliance replacement parts by FedEx may not be happening in a place as out of the way as Kauai.

If that’s the case you might need to make some adjustments in your shopping priorities. I would recommend a few guidelines. Assume that;

• Your current income is as much money as you are likely to make and that in the future your buying power will be diminished. Use money you have (or can pay back in a month) to purchase things.
  
• You will need to support local small retailers now so that when they’ll be there when you need them... even if it costs a little more now. Encourage them to stock thinks you want and buy them. Assume you to will be working from home, or close to it yourself.
  
• Things that you buy will have to last much longer than you would have expected in the past. Things made of metal, wood, stone or organic fibers will last in a functional way the longest: For example a cast iron pan, wooden cutting board, concrete block, or sisal rug.
  
• Buy reliable tools to keep your stuff running and house repaired. Have a solid set of hand tools that don’t need power. Never throw away nuts, bolts screws, washers, electrical wire, tape, and other bits you’ll need to keep things going and build your own stuff.
  
• Break up big projects into small modular elements that you can afford now. Get them up and running, even if that means scaling down or adjusting the big picture plans. Think about how to provide your own water, food, power, occupation and entertainment: If not alone then with your neighbors.

Even on this short such notice there is time to prepare for a long slow comfortable glide-path down to self-sustainability in Hawaii. The sooner you start the better that glide-path will be to search for a happy landing in the Stone Age.

Ultimately that is where humanity will reside if we are to persist. The Hawaiians before European contact utilized Stone Age technology and it was an admirably rich culture with sophisticated land and ocean management. Let us hope we here today can do as well.

See also:
Ea O Ka Aina: Here's the Deal 7/5/09 

McCain weasels out on DADT

SUBHEAD: 92 percent of troops said that repealing the ban would not undermine their unit's ability to work together. By Aaron Belkin on 2 December 2010 for Huffington Post - (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-belkin/mccain-to-military-f____y_b_791271.html) Image above: Detail of mashup of John McCain in bed with Neil Patrick Harris. From (http://www.freakingnews.com/Quality-time-with-NPH-Pictures-53411.asp).

Back when Senator John McCain was a straight talker, he said that if military leadership ever told him that repealing "don't ask, don't tell" would be in the best interest of the forces, then he would change his views on the matter. That was then and this is now. Today, top brass went beyond what any currently-serving military leader has every said about discrimination against gays and lesbians. According to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen, the gay ban "fundamentally undermines who we are" and repealing it would make the military better. Secretary of Defense Gates also said that the ban should be lifted. In response, Senator McCain and other Republicans fabricated phony arguments left and right. The 28 percent response rate to the military's survey on gays, they said, is too low and renders the results invalid. Forget the fact that that's about average for web-based as well as military surveys. Forget that any social scientist will tell you that response rates have nothing to do with the validity of a survey's results as long as the pool of respondents is drawn properly. In this case, the military's survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 1 percent. Then Republicans said that they just want to be sure not to rush things. Rush!? The Pentagon has been studying the issue for almost a year. There were more than 20 prior studies, all of which found the same thing, that gay troops don't harm the military. "Don't ask, don't tell" was supposed to be a temporary compromise when it was enacted 17 years ago. And, the first soldier fired for gay sex was drummed out of the Continental Army more than 230 years ago! How much slower do the Republicans want to go? Then the Republicans repeated the only phony claims about combat effectiveness. Sure, a bunch of combat troops say that repeal would undermine combat effectiveness. But saying something is going to happen is not the same as showing that it is going to happen. Service members in foreign militaries also said that gays would undermine combat effectiveness, but when gay bans were lifted in those countries, there was no impact at all. And get this: of the 69 percent of U.S. troops who serve or suspect they serve with gays, 92 percent said that repealing the ban would not undermine their unit's ability to work together. If gays undermined combat effectiveness we would have seen that already in Iraq and Afghanistan (and for that matter, Kuwait, Vietnam, Korea, and World War II, all of which included openly serving gay troops). My favorite baloney of the day was the Republican talking point that the Pentagon Working Group failed to listen to the troops or ask them whether "don't ask, don't tell" should be repealed. Huh? The troops offered opinions on this and other topics in an on-line inbox that received 72,384 comments, in 95 face-to-face forums at 51 bases that included more than 24,000 troops, and in 140 smaller focus groups.

It is true that the survey did not include a question about whether the troops want repeal. But the troops had a lot of other opportunities to express that point. And we already know from three different polls, (Annenberg, Zogby, and Military Times) that approximately 40 percent of the troops oppose repeal, 30 percent favor it, and 30 percent don't know or don't care.

Why can't the Republicans just be honest? They don't care what is good for the military. They don't care about what the Secretary of Defense says. They don't care about what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says. They don't care about the data. They don't care about methodology. They don't care about process. They care about one thing and one thing only: prejudice. And when it comes to prejudice, all they want is more, more more.

.

Real Airport Security

SUBHEAD: Current TSA procedures are invasive and ineffective. There are better ways to achieve safety.

Video above: "Real Airport Security" need sniffer dogs. CNN Report from (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMlDVLlAEUU).

By C. Peril on 30 November 2010 for The Daily Kos -

(http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/11/30/923752/-TSA-male-agents-target-female-travellers-(w-poll))

Up to now, TSA has been saying that only men will do the "enhanced pat downs" on men, and only women will do them on women. They are lying. Rape survivor Celeste was flying out of O'Hare when TSA did this to her

Since Celeste didn’t agree to go through the scanner, the enhanced pat down began. “He started at one leg and then ran his hand up to my crotch. He cupped and patted my crotch with his palm. Other flyers were watching this happen to me. At that point I closed my eyes and started praying to the Goddess for strength. He also cupped and then squeezed my breasts. That wasn’t the worst part. He touched my face, he touched my hair, stroking me. That’s when I started crying. It was so intimate, so horrible. I feel like I was being raped. There’s no way I can fly again. I can’t do it.”

A stranger stroking your face and hair, just like a lover or a husband would. And you are powerless to flee, or even to push him away, much less strike out to defend yourself.

Welcome to TSA.

The barbarism was widespread.

From Thousands Standing Around:

(11/6/10 ): In BOS, a male screener told me there was a 'very long wait' for a female screener and it 'would be better' to let him do it. I told him I would wait and that he should put my things where I could see them. He asked me which belt they were on. I was stupid and pointed. He then moved to stand so that I couldn't see the belt at all and kept repeating that it 'would be better' to let him screen me. I told him that if he got one inch closer, I would scream my head off...he backed down and eventually a female came. I tried to file a complaint, but never got any response. A (rather small-busted) friend told me that a male TSA at BOS tried to frisk her, shouting that she couldn't possibly be female. No idea whether it was the same guy or whether she filed a complaint.

(11/5/2010 ): Video clip of woman describing a "pat down" that was quite invasive. What's interesting is that it was a MALE TSA doing this genital groping on the woman giving the narrative (Michelle). After he was done with her, he tried to pat down her two girls (2 and 8) and Michelle demanded a female TSA for their children.

From the New York Times (11/19/10):

But there are far too many reports of T.S.A. agents groping passengers, using male agents to search female passengers, mocking passengers and disdaining complaints.

Here's the official TSA agitprop:

If you are asked to undergo a personal screening you will be provided a security officer of the same gender except in extraordinary circumstances. In some cases you may have to wait for a security officer of your gender to conduct the screening. You will be advised if the wait will be more than a few minutes.

Funny thing: I could find no reports of TSA women giving adult male passengers the "enhanced pat-down". I did find this however:

En route home through Charlotte, our 6 year old son was subjected to an aggressive pat down by a female TSA employee. He was pleading for me to help him and I was admonished for trying to comfort him. His genitals area was groped. He walked down to the plane in tears. When the stewardess asked why he was crying, I explained my frustration and I was further admonished for not being more compliant. My wife was in a wheel chair so she also recieved the pat down by another very unfriendly TSA worker. She felt violated afterwards. We were not given the choice of a full body scanner but would have preferred it over this humiliating experience. The scanners are still intrusive, but at least my 6 year old son would have been unaware of the intrusion. And just to be clear, I am NOT endorsing the scanners either. Both methods are too intrusive on our rights as American citizens.

And there's something else creepy going on: In every report I found of TSA men searching women, the women who reported being searched by men were traveling alone, or in the company of young children.

By the way, the TSA policy encourages this sort of thing by giving (as it appears) male agents the ability to stress that a search by a female agent will cause a delay of unknown length. This angle is what was used apparently by the agent in the instance noted above where the female passenger had to threaten to scream if he touched her.

And even if it is not a male doing the search, there is evidence that young attractive women even those under 18 are targeted for groping. One hideous example:

On November 9, 2010 at Miami airport I witnessed the following. A white female TSA agent in her mid to late 50′s pulled aside a young European tourist, perhaps 14-16 years old, who was traveling with who appeared to be a sister. The American TSA agent had obviously a lot of pride in her ability to speak Italian and seemed to pick this girl on purpose. She was taking lots of time to talk in between “pats” or rubs of the girls body. She was making conversation and then running her hands along another part of the girls body. The girl was wearing a thin pajama type outfit common for young travelers. It was obvious by her near shouting that the TSA agent was trying to show off her horrible heavily accented Italian. Then the TSA agent pressed her hand directly up into the girls crotch. I was sitting very near by putting my shoes on when this happened. Then, when she was done the agent said to the girl in Italian, “you are very pretty.” The girl was silent and the agent repeated it.

Note here the girl was traveling with her sister, but not apparently her parents, making her a vulnerable target just like the women traveling alone or with small children.

Oh, and as Columbo would so, there's just one more thing.

Apparently TSA thinks they have to touch your face (second report I've read to this effect):

(11/11/10) I was just at the Las Vegas airport last weekend and witnessed a woman, in a crowded security area, having her breasts separated and cupped, her shirt lifted, her waistband pulled aside, her hair combed through, her face touched, etc.

Dream for a moment about a lover caressing your face. Now imagine a stranger forcing the same thing upon you.

Oh, and by the way, I cannot find any report that a man's face was stroked. This appears to be done only to women.

I hope this diary is painful to read, because it's the only way that these atrocities can be stopped.

---

Do I have any rights?

by Deirdre Walker on 15 October 2009 for Homeland Security Watch (http://www.hlswatch.com/2009/10/15/%E2%80%9Cdo-i-have-the-right-to-refuse-this-search%E2%80%9D/)

Ms. Walker retired recently as the Assistant Chief of the Montgomery County, Maryland, Department of Police. She spent 24 years as a police officer.

“Do I have the right to refuse this search?” This is a question I heard many times during my law enforcement career. Often my answer was no. But occasionally it would be “yes,” followed by an admonition to have a good day. For the last half of my career, I would have documented each interaction, whether or not it involved an arrest. I would have written down the nature and length of the interaction, the gender, race, and age of the person, and the outcome of the contact (arrest, citation, etc.). I carry the baggage of this history with me as I’ve traveled over the last eight years, mindlessly placing my luggage on the conveyor belt and removing my shoes for TSA inspection. Recently, something changed. Within the last few months, I have been singled out for “additional screening” roughly half the time I step into an airport security line. On Friday, October 9, as I stepped out of the full-body scanning device at BWI, I decided I needed more information to identify why it is that I have become such an appealing candidate for secondary screening. Little did I know this would be only the first of many questions I now have regarding my airport experiences. Over these last few months, I have grown increasingly frustrated with what I view as an unjustifiable intrusion on my privacy. It was not so much the search (then) as it was the embarrassment of being singled out, effectively being told “You are different,” but getting no explanation as to why. That frustration has been tempered by a combination of my desire to be a good citizen, and my empathy for the TSA screeners. These folks, after all, are merely doing what we, the American traveling public, have permitted and now expect them to do. I am left to wonder whether my own passive acceptance of these evolving search procedures has contributed to a potentially fatal dichotomy: what we allow TSA screeners to do in order to maximize efficiency and enhance our perception of safety, or what we really need them to do in order to preserve our rights and dignity and enhance our actual safety. We have asked TSA to find the tools terrorists use and prevent both from boarding a passenger plane. We have unintentionally created an agency that now seeks efficiency and compliance more than any weapon or explosive. While returning my computer and shoes to their proper places, I watched the screening line at BWI. I thought about the haphazard events surrounding the security screening process. As I watched the screening officers, I wondered what information drives their decisions. Left only to my observations, I concluded that their decisions were entirely random, and likely based upon three criteria: passenger load, staffing, and whim. I was left to conclude that I am not screened because I look like a terrorist. I am routinely screened because I look like someone who will readily comply. I decided then that my next invitation to enjoy additional screening would be met with more inquiry. I did not have wait very long. On my return through Albany to BWI — Surprise! – I got “randomly selected” for additional screening. This time, I was “invited” to step into one of the explosive detection machines, commonly referred to as a “puffer machine.” The traveler is exposed to short, intense bursts of air, which are then, supposedly, analyzed for trace residue. I read an article awhile ago that suggested these machines are entirely ineffective. I have subsequently observed that they now sit idle at many airports where they were originally installed (Tampa International, for example). In recently renovated airports (San Jose) they have not been installed. At some other airports (like BWI), they have been replaced by the body-scanning technology. When notified by the cheerful screener that I had been selected for additional screening (the screener’s tone reminded my of the announcer who tells the contestant that she has just won a TV on the Price is Right), I stepped reluctantly toward the machine and asked her quietly whether I had the right to refuse the search. I did not want to become a spectacle, or have to rent a car and drive back to Maryland. The screeners face dropped and she appeared stunned, as if my question had been received like a body-blow. She asked me to repeat what I said, and I repeated my inquiry regarding whether or not I had the right to refuse this search, especially since it was my understanding that the equipment did not work. She responded defensively, “It sounds an alarm!” What followed is what I can only describe as a process that left me with more questions and a hunger for something we need and something that has apparently been missing from TSA procedures since September 12, 2001: Data. It is, again, important to note my general respect for the front line TSA screeners — with the exception of those screeners who feel that it is necessary to yell at people. In my experience as a cop, as a supervisor and as a manager, I know that yelling at people is the one method guaranteed to ensure sub-par performance and a collapse of any semblance of cooperation. My motivation to write this piece is first, to vent, but then to take a stab at the windmill that has grown from flawed processes to become a barrier to achieving the real mission and ultimate goal: Passenger safety. I believe, fundamentally, that our collective compliance with the current screening procedures has served only to undermine TSA, and has denied our screeners the tools they need to correct their course. After realizing I was serious about refusing to step into the puffer machine, I was told that I would be subjected to a “full-body pat-down” and that all of my “stuff would be fully searched.” I shrugged and waited while the screeners figured out what to do next. One of the screeners said “Who is the supervisor? Notify a supervisor.” I waited two to three minutes with two female screeners. I was then approached by a uniformed screener and the following exchange took place. “She refused the puffer. We are supposed to notify a supervisor. You’re a supervisor, right?” Apparently reminded of his role, the subordinate screener then said “We’re notifying you.” She said nothing further. The supervisor then informed me that if I did not step into the “puffer” I would be subjected to a full body-pat-down, that I would be “wanded” and that all of my belongings would be fully searched by hand. By this time, my belongings had already passed through the x-ray and sat oddly unattended on the belt. They had aroused no suspicion, either as they passed through the x-ray or as they sat completely unattended. I thought it odd that my initial refusal to be subjected to the ‘puffer’ now rendered the x-ray examination effectively flawed. I was being cajoled and was then offered the opportunity to change my mind, which, again, I thought rather odd. If I posed such a risk by refusing the secondary screening, why would that risk be now mitigated, if only I were to change my mind? I did not change my mind. So, I stepped between two glass walls and was subjected to what my police training would allow me to conclude was a procedural vacuum. I had been told repeatedly I would be subjected to a “pat-down.” I correctly suspected otherwise. During the course of my police career, I have conducted many pat-downs on the street. The Supreme Court has described pat downs as a cursory check of the outer clothing of a person by a police officer, upon articulable suspicion that the officer’s safety is at risk of being compromised. My department’s procedure indicated that this pat-down was to be conducted with an open hand, gently patting the outer clothing of an individual, for purposes of officer safety only, with the goal of detecting weapons. In other words, it is not a search. What happened to me in Albany was not the promised “pat-down.” It was a full search conducted in full public view. It was also one of the most flawed searches I have ever witnessed. From the outset, it was very clear that the screener would have preferred to be anywhere else. She acted as if she was afraid of me, though given that I had set myself apart as apparently crazy, perhaps I cannot blame her. With rubber-gloved hands she checked my head, my arms, my legs, my buttocks (and discovered a pen that had fallen into one of my pockets) and even the bottom of my feet. Perhaps in a nod to decorum, she did not check my crotch, my armpits or either breast area. Here was a big problem: an effective search cannot nod to decorum. These three areas on a woman, and the crotch area of men, offer the greatest opportunity to seclude weapons and contraband. Bad guys and girls rely on the type of reluctance displayed by this screener to get weapons and drugs past the authorities. We train cops to realize that their life depends upon the ability to compartmentalize any apprehension about the need to lift and separate. Fatal consequences can and do result when officers fail to detect a secreted weapon which is later used against them. At the Albany airport, I was left to wonder what kind of training the screener received. I was forced to conclude the answer might be “none.” At a minimum, she needs re-training, assuming there is any policy or training that governs searches. Further, after being repeatedly informed that I would be “wanded” by the metal detector in addition to the ‘pat-down,’ I was not. Had I actually intended to move contraband past the screening point, my best strategy would have been to refuse secondary screening. I am also forced to conclude that the purpose of the “pat-down” was not to actually interdict contraband. In my case, I believe I was subjected to a haphazard response in order to effectively punish me for refusing secondary screening and to encourage a different decision in the future. All of this is admittedly subjective, based on my perceptions at the time. What is also entirely subjective is identifying which travelers are selected for secondary screening. This is where I find myself now obsessing over TSA policy, or its apparent lack. Every one of us goes to work each day harboring prejudice. This is simply human nature. What I have witnessed in law enforcement over the course of the last two decades serves to remind me how active and passive prejudice can undermine public trust in important institutions, like police agencies. And TSA. Over the last fifteen years or so, many police agencies started capturing data on police interactions. The primary purpose was to document what had historically been undocumented: informal street contacts. By capturing specific data, we were able to ask ourselves tough questions about potentially biased-policing. Many agencies are still struggling with the answers to those questions. Regardless, the data permitted us to detect problematic patterns, commonly referred to as passive discrimination. This is a type of discrimination that occurs when we are not aware of how our own biases affect our decisions. This kind of bias must be called to our attention, and there must be accountability to correct it. One of the most troubling observations I made, at both Albany and BWI, was that — aside from the likely notation in a log (that no one will ever look at) — there was no information captured and I was asked no questions, aside from whether or not I wanted to change my mind. Given that TSA interacts with tens if not hundreds of millions of travelers each year, it is incredible to me that we, the stewards of homeland security, have failed to insist that data capturing and analysis should occur in a manner similar to what local police agencies have been doing for many years. Some might argue that the potential for intrusion is not the same between police and TSA. I believe my experience this past weekend demonstrates otherwise. Currently, there is no way to know whether a certain male screener routinely identifies predominantly women for additional screening. There is no way to identify whether a Latino screener routinely isolates African-Americans, or vice versa. To assert that the screeners are highly trained and do not engaged in this type of discrimination, whether passive or active, is unsupportable because there is no data. You simply cannot solve problems that you do not want to identify. Finally, I am most concerned about the “random” nature of my repeated selection for secondary screening. If there is no discrimination at work, and my selection is entirely random, then we have yet another, and probably more significant problem. For years in policing, we relied on random patrols to curb crime. We relied upon this “strategy” until someone went out and captured some data, and did a study that demonstrated conclusively that random patrols do not work (Kansas City Study). As police have employed other types of “random” interventions, as in DWI checkpoints, they have had to develop policies, procedures and training to ensure that the “random” nature of these intrusions is truly random. Whether every car gets checked, or every tenth car, police must demonstrate that they have attempted to eliminate the effects of active and passive discrimination when using “random” strategies. No such accountability currently exists at TSA. As I left the screening check point in Albany, I looked over a few feet and observed an elderly Asian couple talking to “my” supervisor. I unashamedly eavesdropped. I heard the man say that his wife had not been told that the machine would blow air and that she had been quite startled. The woman said she should have been informed and the supervisor agreed. He said he would speak to the screener (but again, who knows whether he actually did). Then the man said “And she should have been told she can refuse.” The bells in my head were deafening. I believe what we have here is the beginning of the end of complacency. It is now apparent to me that in the haste to ensure compliance with procedures that are inconsistent if not inarticulable, TSA has hastened the likelihood of failure. If we do not insist that TSA work to create articulable policies that make sense, procedures that are explicit and consistent and training that supports both, then we are complicit in what will inevitably be an ultimate compromise of TSA. That compromise may come in the form of terrorist attack, or it may come in the form of a collapse of public support. Either or both are inevitable. Either or both are preventable.

.

S-510 Stalled Out

SUBHEAD: S-510 Food Safety bill now dead in the water due to Constitutional error. Amen!

By Mike Adams on 1 December 2010 for NaturalNews.com -

(http://www.naturalnews.com/030588_Food_Safety_bill_blue_slip.html) Image above: A Black market for fresh raw farm products? From (http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/11/27/patriot-act-for-food-a-close-look-at-bizarre-propaganda-for-s-510).

It is now being revealed that US Senators slipped up in a big way when passing the Food Safety Modernization Act on Tuesday: They added what are effectively "new taxes" into the bill, and according to the U.S. Constitution, only the House of Representatives can initiate legislation requiring new taxes. Thus, the House is now obliged to give this food safety legislation the so-called "blue slip," meaning that it rejects the law and sends it back to the Senate for yet another vote. This would take time and effort, of course, and the Democrats have very little of either remaining in their lame duck session. As explained on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_slip):

"This blue-slipping procedure, done by an order of the House, is routinely completed to enforce its interpretation that the House is the sole body to introduce revenue or appropriations legislation. The failure of the House to consider the legislation means it cannot become a law. This tactic has historically proven to be of great use to the House and, as a practical matter, the Senate does not introduce tax or revenue measures to avoid a blue slip."

In other words, the House wants to remain the sole originator of all new taxes and will therefore need to "blue slip" S.510 in order to slap the hands of Senators who are trying to enact their own new taxes under the bill. S-510 may be dead in the water The upshot of this is that this fight is not yet over. Unless the House makes an unprecedented exception to this blue slip rule, this legislation will apparently need to go back to the Senate floor for another vote. This story was first reported by RollCall.com (http://www.rollcall.com/news/-20101...) which says, "The debacle could prove to be a major embarrassment for Senate Democrats, who sought Tuesday to make the relatively unknown bill a major political issue by sending out numerous news releases trumpeting its passage." (http://www.rollcall.com/news/-20101... According to Roll Call, "The blue slip could lead to one of two likely outcomes. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) could simply drop the issue and let the next session of Congressstart from scratch..." "Or he could try to force the issue in the Senate after the House passes a new version of the bill. But in order to do that and still tackle the other issues, he would need a unanimous consent agreement to limit debate." But unanimous consent is impossible thanks to the heroic efforts of Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla) who has stood firm on his belief that this bill is too large, too expensive and puts too much of a burden on American farmers. If this assessment is correct, it looks like S.510 is now dead in the water and cannot be resurrected until the next session of Congress in which there will be far fewer Democrats (there was not a single Democrat in the US Senate who opposed the bill). See also: Ea O Ka Aina: S-520 Passes the Senate 12/1/10 .

In the Wake of Victory

SUBHEAD: There are things that can be done to cushion the opening phases of the Long Descent.  

By John Michael Greer on 1 December 2010 in Archdruid Report - (http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2010/12/in-wake-of-victory.html)
 
Image above: Members of the Cedar Moon commune near Portland, Oregon in 2008. From (http://www.portlandmonthlymag.com/home-and-garden/articles/1008-features-green-acres).

This has not been an easy week for believers in a brighter future. As I write this week’s post, food prices in the global market are soaring toward levels that brought mass violence two years ago, driven partly by climate-driven crop failures and partly by the conversion of a noticeable fraction of food crops into fuel ethanol and biodiesel.

The price of oil is bumping around somewhere skywards of $86 a barrel, or right around two and a half times the level arch-cornucopian Daniel Yergin insisted not that long ago would be oil’s long-term price.

The latest round of climate talks at Cancún are lurching toward yet another abject failure; and bond markets worldwide are being roiled by panic selling as the EU’s Irish bailout has failed to reassure anybody, investors in US state and local bonds realize that debts that can’t be paid back won’t be paid back, and even the riskier end of commercial paper is beginning to look decidedly chancy.

With all this bad news rattling away like old-fashioned musketry, it can be hard to look beyond the headlines and grasp the broader picture, but that’s something well worth doing just now, especially for those of us who have put in some years in the Peak Oil scene or, for that matter, any of the other movements that have had the unwelcome job of pointing out that infinite growth on a finite planet is a daydream for fools.

What the broader picture shows, when all the short-term vagaries, the rhetoric and the yelling are all stripped away, is something as simple as it is stunning: we were right all along, and the rest of the world is slowly, with maximum reluctance, being forced to grapple with that fact. We’ve come a very long way since the Peak Oil movement began to take shape just over a decade ago.

In those days, those of us who were concerned with petroleum depletion were basically a handful of heretics howling in the wilderness, at a time when serious books on energy by major academic presses routinely missed the obvious fact that fossil fuels would run short long before they ran out.

The suggestion that oil production might be limited by geological factors was dismissed derisively by people straight across the political spectrum; if the price of oil ever actually rose above the rock-bottom levels it then occupied, the conventional wisdom went, the law of supply and demand would infallibly bring new production online and force the price back down. Then, of course, the price of oil began to go up, and production didn’t respond.

All the considerable resources of political and financial rhetoric have been worked overtime to gloss over that extremely awkward fact, but the fact remains: petroleum prices are now at levels that were unthinkably high only a few years ago, the bountiful new production the conventional wisdom foresaw has not happened, and dozens of alternative resources that would supposedly be viable once oil cost $30 a barrel, or $50, or $80 are still nowhere in sight.

Last week the IEA, the international organization that tracks energy supplies and predicts their future trajectory, quietly admitted that conventional petroleum production had peaked in 2006, and ratcheted down their projections of future energy supplies yet again.

The mainstream media responded as usual with a flurry of pieces insisting, essentially, that we do too have plenty of fuel, nyah nyah nyah! I’m not sure if anyone was fooled, though. There’s a famous quote of Gandhi’s:

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

We’re well past the stage of being ignored, and the few voices still laughing at Peak Oil are sounding very hollow and forced these days; the fighting is still going on, but that last stage is starting to look more and more like a near term probability.

All this raises an interesting conundrum for the Peak Oil movement. Of the risks run by any movement that seeks to upend the status quo, the most commonly underestimated are the dangers of success.

Plenty of movements that have triumphed over every adversity have faltered or even imploded when adversity gave way to achievement.

There are plenty of ways that this can happen, but I suspect the one most likely to beset the Peak Oil movement will arrive when the movers and shakers of the world’s industrial nations turn to the more respectable members of the movement and say,

“Okay, you’ve made your point. So what do we do about it?

I suspect that this challenge has been on the minds of a number of people in the Peak Oil scene of late.

Several Peak Oil-related organizations and websites are pretty clearly shifting their focus from arguing for the reality and imminence of Peak Oil - the necessary focus of the last decade - to advocating and lobbying for some set of responses to the end of the age of cheap energy. A number of other people in the Peak Oil scene, most of them less organizationally connected, have reacted against this trend in one way or another.

Which side is right? Both of them, of course. The most common source of trouble when a social movement succeeds in entering the collective conversation of politics is the lack of any constructive plan. That’s not going to be an issue here; we’ve got plenty of people proposing plenty of plans, covering the whole gamut of possibility from the sensible to the delusional.

No, the problem that the Peak Oil movement is most likely to face is the one that comes when a movement, having gotten access to the halls of power, lowers its sights to target only that set of goals it can reach consensus on, and thinks it can get from whichever subset of the political class is currently in charge. That’s a fatal mistake, in two mutually reinforcing ways.

 First, it allows the subset of the political class that’s currently in charge to turn the movement into a wholly owned subsidiary, by giving just enough scraps to the movement to keep it hankering for more, while dangling the whole package just out of reach before the movement’s eager eyes.

hat’s how the Democrats turned the environmental movement (among others) into one of their captive constituencies, for example, and it’s also how the Republicans turned gun owners (among others) into one of their captive constituencies – and you’ll notice that neither movement, nor any of the other movements thus co-opted, have ever managed to get more than a few token scraps of its shopping list out of the process. The second difficulty is the natural result of the first.

Once a movement is turned into a wholly owned subsidiary of one end of the political class, it can count on losing any chance of getting anything once the other end of the political class gets into power, as will inevitably happen. The result is an elegant good cop - bad cop routine; each party can reliably panic its captive constituencies every four years by saying, in effect,

“Well, granted, we haven’t done a thing for you in years, but think of how much worse it will be if those awful (fill in the blank)s get into power!”

Those who swallow this line can count on watching their movement sink into a kind of political zombiehood in which, whatever its official goals, the only real function remaining to it is to get out the vote for one or the other set of mutually interchangeable candidates come Election Day.

Combine these two difficulties and you get the graveyard that’s swallowed most movements for change in America in the last half century. The Peak Oil movement could end up as just another tombstone in that cemetery if it doesn’t scent the trap and avoid it. It’s not that hard to avoid it, either.

The key is dissensus: that is, making sure that the movement doesn’t focus on a single set of readily achievable demands, but rather has several competing agendas, with at least some elements in each agenda that ignore the conventional wisdom about political possibility and shoot for the moon.

 For best results, there should be one detailed agenda, with its own pressure groups and lobbying organizations to back it, that focuses on government regulation and big federal projects, to appeal to the Democrats; there should be another equally detailed agenda, backed by a different set of pressure groups and lobbying organizations, that focuses on market-based approaches and voluntary community groups such as churches, to appeal to the Republicans; and there should be a third agenda that horrifies the entire political class, but has persuasive arguments and vocal supporters and thus can’t simply be ignored.

The point of these competing agendas is that they turn the good cop-bad cop routine against the political class itself.

Democrats who want to get votes by pushing a Peak Oil platform have a set of proposals they can support, with plenty more to come when those are in place; Republicans who want to do the same thing have a different set that they can support, and again, there are more projects to hand once those get going; and then there are those wackos out on the fringe with their extreme proposals, who are always ready, willing and able to frighten Democrats and Republicans alike into backing some Peak Oil agenda because, after all, if they don’t do something, the wackos might get a foothold.

When subjected to this treatment, the political class typically loses track of the fact that the question has stopped being “should we do something about the issue?” and becomes “what should we do about the issue?”

Instead of being manipulated by the political class, in other words, the Peak Oil movement needs to roll up its sleeves and do some manipulating of its own. It’s been done before by plenty of other movements and it will be done again by many more, and the Peak Oil movement has enough internal diversity to pull it off with panache.

 Regular readers may be wondering where among these three options I see the Green Wizards project. The answer, of course, is that it’s a fourth option – the option that works outside the political process, and aims for those projects that can best be pursued at a grassroots level by individuals and small local groups.

 If it catches on, as it appears to be doing just at the moment, it becomes the flywheel providing stability for the whole process; government programs come and go, one might say, but backyard gardens endure – which is one reason why we’ve still got a viable organic gardening movement thirty years after the alternative scene that launched it crashed into ruin.

Furthermore, if green wizardry really catches on, it could become large enough to count as a noticeable voting bloc – in which case we might yet witness the delicious spectacle of politicians pandering to the green wizard vote by supporting expanded tax credits for home insulation and more state funding for Master Composter programs.

 Does this seem improbable? All of it happened here in America during the last round of energy crises, from 1972 through 1981.

During those years the environmental lobby in Washington DC, not yet reduced to its present condition of servitude, pushed energy conservation legislation aimed at both sides of the Congressional aisle; there were plenty of advocates for federal programs, but there was also a thriving subculture of appropriate-tech entrepreneurs arguing for a market-based response to the energy crisis; there were plenty of people out on the Ecotopian fringe who did a fine job of scaring politicians into more moderate projects; and of course there was a very large movement of ordinary people who spent their off hours growing vegetable gardens and caulking their windows to save energy.

Now it’s only fair to say that a repeat of that experience will not save the world, or the United States, from the consequences of the quarter century of malign neglect that occupied the time we might have spent getting ready for Peak Oil. It is very late in the day; as the Hirsch Report pointed out five years ago – ironically, right around the time global oil production peaked – adapting to Peak Oil without drastic social disruptions requires major changes to begin twenty years before the peak. We missed that chance, and so there are going to be drastic social disruptions.

The question is whether there are things that can be done to make their impact less devastating and their long-term consequences less severe – to cushion, in effect, these opening phases of the Long Descent. I think there are. Some of those things, it’s fair to say, are best done by individuals following Ernest Thompson Seton’s excellent slogan - “where you are, with what you have, right now” - and of course this is what the Green Wizard project is meant to encourage.

 The backyard gardens, well-insulated homes, simple alternative energy projects and handmade crafts that helped hundreds of thousands of families navigate the stagflation and soaring prices of the Seventies are likely to turn out just as well suited to help an equal or larger number dodge the worst effects of the economic turmoil and spiking food and energy costs that bid fair to define much of our immediate future. There are things that local, state, and national governments can do to encourage these things, to be sure, but we don’t have the time to wait around for them to get to it.

Are there other things that can be done by changes in public policy? Of course, and with luck and a great deal of hard work, some of those changes may be put in place in time to matter.

To name only one example, a shift in federal policy that redirected money from highway and airport construction and put it to work laying rails and expanding rolling stock, in an effort to restore America’s railways to some semblance of their former effectiveness as a transport system, could have significant positive benefits for decades to come. It’s worth pursuing this and other steps in the political sphere.

Still, the reference to hard work is not there for decoration; any such step, even the most positive, will do nobody any good at all, as long as nobody does anything to make it happen aside from chatting enthusiastically about it on the internet.

As Peak Oil moves steadily into the mainstream, in other words, the Peak Oil movement will increasingly be called upon to put up or shut up.

That doesn’t mean that everyone ought to support some consensus view or other of practical responses to Peak Oil; as I pointed out earlier, that’s a sucker’s move, one that would leave the Peak Oil movement hopelessly vulnerable to the usual maneuvers of the political classes. It doesn’t mean that everyone ought to support engagement with the political system at all. It does mean that whoever you are, and whatever your take on the proper response to Peak Oil happens to be, it’s time to do something about it.

That may involve planting a backyard garden and weatherstripping your doors and windows, along the lines discussed in the last six months of posts here; it may involve taking an active role in lobbying your Congresscritters and their state and local equivalents; it may involve building some exotic-looking device in your basement – we’ll be talking more about that next week – or it may involve something else again.

The one thing it can’t involve, not without complete hypocrisy, is sitting on your backside and convincing yourself that somebody else is going to do whatever it is for you. In the wake of victory, we no longer have that luxury.

Instead, the Peak Oil movement has a window of opportunity, and it’s time for us to use it. .