Obama: It’s (Partly) About Surviving Pundit-Palaver

Medea Benjamin says the anti-war group CodePink gave Obama “a 24-hour honeymoon.” Photo: Stephen Chernin/AP.

Early signs are Obama has to guard his left
By Carla Marinucci / November 14, 2008

As he prepares to enter the ring of White House politics, President-elect Barack Obama might need to perfect that left jab just as much as his right hook.

Not only can the Democratic president-to-be expect the predictable shots from the conservative right, but eventually a pounding from the left if he doesn’t deliver “change you can believe in” on issues that concern liberal voters – health care reform, an end to the war in Iraq, environmental protections and taking care of the economy and the housing crisis.

“We gave him a 24-hour honeymoon – and that was generous,” joked Medea Benjamin, co-founder of the anti-war group CodePink, Thursday about the chances of Obama’s election silencing protests for the foreseeable future. “We believe in celebrating and then moving on.”

Her grassroots organization has wasted no time doing just that. On Thursday, CodePink members hit five consulates in San Francisco – those representing Bolivia, Venezuela, Syria, Cuba and Iran – delivering flowers, apple pies and cards with a message as much for the president-elect as for the leaders of those nations: “Yes We Can … Live in Peace.”

“We told them we are embracing Obama’s message, and part of that is to push him,” said Benjamin. “He’s getting a lot of backlash on issues like direct talks with preconditions. But that is what the American people voted for – and we will hold him to that.”

With just over two months until the new administration takes office and the transition in full force, Benjamin’s words underscore the challenges facing a president whose historic campaign was bolstered by an unusual coalition that involved the activism, energy and money of unapologetic progressives like Benjamin as well as moderates and independents who are far more conservative.

Mainstream tack

And many political observers say that means Obama must tack toward the political mainstream to avoid miscalculations made by President Bill Clinton, who veered left and fired up the 1994 Republican backlash and its “Contract with America” – a GOP rebirth scenario Democrats don’t want to see reprised.

Obama supporter Rep. Barbara Lee of Oakland, an icon to liberals because of her long-standing activism on issues such as AIDS/HIV and her opposition to the Iraq war, said that as Democrats celebrate the new president, they are also very aware of issues to be addressed.

“We know that the president-elect – and rightfully so – is going to work to unite the country, and we will have to see how he does that,” said Lee. “I’m not saying it’s going to be easy. If we really want change, you have got to do it differently, you have to accept the process of change and accept that his processes will be more inclusive.”

But, she adds, “we’re certainly not going to lose sight of our goals and our values. … If you look at the progressive promise – 95 percent of what we advocated for, energy independence, infrastructure, health care reform – it’s mainstream,” she said.

‘Symbolic victory’

At the Edmund G. “Pat” Brown Institute of Public Affairs’ California Policy Issues Conference this week, Melina Abdullah, a professor of Pan-African studies at Cal State University Los Angeles, said that although she and millions of other Democrats sang “It’s a New Day” when Obama was elected, “we need to be very clear … this is a symbolic victory.”

African Americans, particularly, who supported Obama “need to think about … the fact that we are overrepresented in the prison population, that infant mortality in our community looks a lot like developing nations,” and that jobs and economic opportunities are still lacking, she said.

“The only way that change can be substantive is if we push him,” she said of Obama. “Push him on the issues that are important to us, … so institutional racism, institutional oppression can really be eroded in eight years,” she told a crowd of young activists and students at the conference, which was held in Los Angeles.

SEIU’s agenda

Andy Stern, who heads the Service Employees International Union – the nation’s largest union, with 2 million members – says that labor fully expects to push ahead on critical interests, such as health care reform.

Especially since SEIU kept a singular focus on the health care issue by spending millions of dollars on advertising that aided the Democrats’ cause – even as tens of thousands of its members provided critical ground troops for his election, he noted.

“Most presidential elections, we are electing a transactional president, someone who comes in and has a set of priorities and bargains with the Congress and tries to find solutions,” Stern said. “Every once in a while, we have a transformational president, who actually changes the rules. And that is the moment where we’re at.

“This is not about transactional discussions with health care. This is about transforming the economy, to change the way we provide health care, to change the opportunities for people to get an education,” he said.

“We say we will have a 21st century economy that can compete globally,” Stern said. “We need a fundamental reworking of our economic theory – and it can’t just be a little stimulus … or to provide health care for children only. It is a moment where we have to transform the way we think.”

Already, there have been complaints from the left regarding Obama’s choice of Rep. Rahm Emanuel as his White House chief of staff. Some liberals have complained that Emanuel was too supportive of the Iraq war, too tied to Wall Street and too connected to entrenched interests to represent change – or the views of the left – in the White House, where he worked in the Clinton administration.

Dan Schnur, a former GOP strategist who now directs the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Urban Politics at the University of Southern California, said they may have reason to be concerned.

Perils of pull to left

“Rahm Emanuel … understands the perils of a newly elected president who intends to govern from a centrist force and how that president can be pulled leftward,” he told the Brown Institute conference Wednesday.

“Emanuel is one of the five smartest people in American politics. He has that experience, he’s intelligent, he’s tough as nails and he’s one of the few people I know in Washington who would be willing to go down to Capitol Hill” and deliver the message to the left: “If you really want to help this president … then give him some space to enact his agenda,” Schnur said.

Emanuel’s lore includes an incident in which he reportedly sent a dead fish wrapped in newspaper to an adversary, said Schnur.

If Obama is to succeed, he said, “my hope … is that there is a steady stream of such deliveries from one end of Pennsylvania Avenue to another to help President Obama accomplish his agenda.”

Source / San Francisco Chronicle

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Thorne Dreyer: Intelligent Exchange on Gay Hate


Obbop: ‘Piss on the Gays’
By Thorne Dreyer / The Rag Blog / November 16, 2008

I post most of The Rag Blog’s material to social networking site Reddit. Yesterday I sent a link to an article brother Richard Jehn placed on the blog — Gay Rights Activist Aravosis: ‘Utah Is a Hate State’ — and included the following as a “comment” (actually the subhead and lead to the story):

Church Action Prompts Tourist Boycott of Utah …

Utah’s growing tourism industry and the star-studded Sundance Film Festival are being targeted for a boycott by bloggers, gay rights activists and others seeking to punish the Mormon church for its aggressive promotion of California’s ban on gay marriage. ….

I thought our esteemed and erudite readers might enjoy the following high-level exchange (you know, like: “Turkey Butt!” “Dung Face!” That kind of thing, but with bigger words) between your correspondent (“tdreyer”) and a faceless entity name of “obbop.”

obbop: And I believe a growing percentage of the population is growing to HATE the gay, their supporters and their stick-it-in-your-face agenda tactics.

Piss on the gays.

I still follow a live-and-let-live approach to life but observing the childish uncivil antics of the gay crowd I will strike back via the ballot box.

I assure you PC correct idiots, too many of you are actually hurting your cause.

The backlash will occur.

tdreyer: Gosh. Deja vu. Hey, Obbop, not long ago we could have replaced “blacks” for “gays” in your lovely little spiel and the next comment might well have been, “Get a rope!”

obbop: Hey… good idea!!!!!!!!!!!!

tdreyer: Dude. No, leave the rope alone. If you’re feeling suicidal, you should seek professional help.

obbop: Oh, never fear. If the necessity to depart this plane of existence arises a shotgun to the head with no one around to call for medical assistance will ensure the task is accomplished to its completion.

None of that “cry for help” crap from a member of the warrior class.

tdreyer: “Warrior class.” How impressive! How pretentious!

obbop: Warrior class; a concept the brainwashed masses chock-full of political correctness are likely unable to envision.

If you fall into that grouping, I pity thee.

tdreyer: A handy tag for a grandiose bloated self-image, methinks.

Keep your pity, but thanks for the thought.

Feel sure he’ll wish to get in a last word, and I may append.

Later. Gotta post this to Reddit.

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

‘Two Party’ or Not ‘Two Party’ : A Rag Blog Discussion on Change

The following is part of a discussion among members of Austin MDS about the election of Obama, the possibility of real change through the Democratic Party, and the efficacy of the third party option.

Thorne Dreyer / The Rag Blog / November 16, 2008

‘I have come to believe that because of the lack of proportional representation in the American political system, a two party system here is almost a law of physics.’
By David P. Hamilton / The Rag Blog / November 16, 2008

See ‘Two-party system: You can’t correct faulty blueprints by hiring new construction workers’ by Scott Trimble, Below.

I have voted for third (or fourth) party candidates for president eight times. I did not do so in 2008, but I may do it again if I feel a protest vote is in order. However, I have come to believe that because of the lack of proportional representation in the American political system, a two party system here is almost a law of physics. Each of those two parties will be relatively centrist in order to capture a majority.

There have been historical examples of American third parties being “successful” by some definition other than becoming the majority and governing party. The Dixiecrat rebellion against the Democratic Party that began in 1948 triggered by Truman’s integration of the military became the cornerstone of the Republican’s majority embracing racism in 1968. The anti-slavery Republicans emerged to replace the Whigs in 1852, but the two party system remained with the Whigs disappearing altogether. Unless the basic rules of American democracy are changed, we will always end up with a competition between two only slightly ideological political parties. This is also the case in Europe when you have a winner take all situation, such as in France between “Guallist” Sarkozy and “Socialist” Royal.

European democracies have forms of proportional representation and, therefore, many established political parties representing all significant political tendencies. Proportional representation is the key to multi-party democracy. With a winner take all system, you will always end up with just two parties, which define and fight over the center.

For most of my life, the left having access to a presidential administration was realistically a preposterous notion. Whoever thought that we might be accepted into the councils of any Republican or any Democrat since FDR? That is not the case with Obama, and in that way the times have profoundly changed. The peace movement was a very important element of his base. We deserve a continuing presence among his advisers, but we will have to continue to win that role by continuing to build mass movements for change.

I hope that in a couple of years many of those now taking shots at Obama over positions he took in order to get elected in a system where competition for the center is the only game in town (.eg., Afghanistan) will be singing a new tune. In the meantime, many of us can’t get over a lifetime of being on the outside with no key.

Two-party system: You can’t correct faulty blueprints by hiring new construction workers.
By Scott Trimble / The Rag Blog / November 10, 2008

Many things that have come to pass once were considered impossible. Just because our political system has failed to produce a third or fourth party does not mean it cannot happen. Very simply, if one-fourth of the population were smart enough to vote Green and another quarter voted Libertarian, then the Republicans and Democrats would have to split the remaining half, leaving us with four relatively equally supported parties. It is not likely in the next couple of years. It will not happen by itself. But that does not mean it is impossible. It has got to start with those of us who are paying enough attention to realize that the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have had a century and a half of shared power, and have utterly failed to represent the people of this nation, except when we have forced their hand by getting out in the streets and/or by winning cases in the courts.

When it was a new party, the radical wing of the Republicans partnered with activists to bring certain civil rights to former slaves, although those rights were still subverted for nearly another century. Neither party helped us break the injustice of child labor. Labor unions helped us achieve that, as well as the forty hour work week with weekends. Neither party gave women the vote. Women themselves had to fight for it. And the realization of those civil rights for the descendants of slaves (or anyone who looked like them), while originally put on the books in the era of the Radical Republicans, did not come about until black Americans worked together to fight for them.

Of course, these gains required more than just the activists on the front lines. They also required cultural shifts in the general population. Women gained the right to vote nationally by a constitutional amendment, which of course, required the support of most of the country. Blacks could not have won their civil rights in the sixties if the rest of the country had still believed the Jim Crow laws (and the oppressive and violent actions of the police) were justified.

Similarly, we will not have a viable third (or fourth, or fifth) party in the US until we have a shift in public opinion that one is needed. When (not if) Obama fails to really change anything in American politics, we may have a small opening. However, in reality, we have to expect a much longer fight. Nevertheless, we cannot wait to begin it. That is part of the reason why I have insisted (many times on this list) that those of you who understand enough to recognize that a vote for either Republocrat in the presidential race here in Texas (or anywhere else in the old south, except Florida) was a wasted vote should have voted for Cynthia McKinney (or for those who lean more right on economic policy, Bob Barr, or for those who lean more right on social policy, Chuck Baldwin). Unfortunately, apparently, some of our best and brightest still failed to heed my call and supported the Democrat. Possibly worse, here in Travis County, about 900-1000 progressives were smart enough not to vote for Obama, but about 700 of them voted for Nader, which was also a wasted vote, and only about 200-250 were smart enough to vote for McKinney. Oh well. We fight on.

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , , | 6 Comments

Singin’ on Sunday – Nation Beat

Nation Beat

A Vida Tava Tao Bao

Which nation, and which beat? What makes this group special is that it offers no simple answers. They are rhythm gatherers, harvesting the fruit of 500 years of cultural crossbreeding, which is why the sounds of the northeast of Brazil and the southern United States blend together so seamlessly; NPR’s All Things Considered music writer Banning Eyre calls them “the most original and alluring fusion group I have heard in years.”

At the heart of Nation Beat’s Legends of the Preacher lies a totally original 21st century fusion between thunderous Brazilian maracatu drumming and New Orleans second line rhythms, Appalachian-inspired bluegrass music, funk, rock, and country-blues. Their explosive live show — which is frequently known to burst into crowd-wide Carnaval-style drumming and singing — is attracting music fans from a wide demographic: bluegrass and country music fans, Brazilian music lovers, outdoor festival-goers, and pretty much anyone who loves to dance and loves great music.

See also their MySpace page.

Source / NationBeat.com

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged | Leave a comment

Texans by the Thousands Rally to Protest California’s Prop. 8

Photo by Laura Skelding / Austin American-Statesman.

A rally against Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriages in California, drew more than 2,000 to Austin City Hall Plaza on Saturday. Protests were held in Dallas and Houston and across the U.S.

Thousands upon thousands marched throughout the United States to show their anger at the passage of California’s Proposition 8. From all indications we are seeing the birth of a movement. The Rag Blog will publish more about this massive action across the continent, but below is an early take on protests in Texas.

Thorne Dreyer / The Rag Blog / November 16, 2008

Texans protest passage of California proposition
November 15, 2008

DALLAS — About 1,200 people gathered outside Dallas City Hall on Saturday to protest passage of California’s Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in that state.

Across the country, gay rights advocates urged supporters not to quit the fight for the right to wed.

Crowds gathered in cities including Boston, San Francisco, Chicago and Fargo, N.D., to vent their frustrations, celebrate gay relationships and renew calls for change.

Rallies were also held in Houston, San Antonio and Austin, where about 1,000 people attended a protest at City Hall [more than 2,000 according to other reports].

In Dallas, Louise Young, who attended the event with her partner, Vivienne Armstrong, said the issue involves legal rights.

“This is not a religious issue,” said Young, 61, of Dallas.

Etta Zamboni, who organized Dallas’ rally, told The Dallas Morning News that the California measure has galvanized gays and lesbians to step up the battle for gay rights.

“It impacts us because it takes our rights away,” Zamboni said. “If they can do it in California, then they can do it elsewhere.”

Across from Dallas City Hall, Angela Cummings, 38, of Irving, and nine other people protested the rally with a bullhorn and a cross. No confrontations occurred between the two sides, but gay rights activists filed complaints against the group with police.

Source / AP / Houston Chronicle

Disappointed and angry about the passage of Proposition 8 in California last week, at least 2,000 people crowded Austin City Hall Plaza on Saturday afternoon to support equal rights and legal marriage for those who are gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender.

Gay rights supporters cheered, chanted and waved rainbow colors in Austin and in cities across the country protesting the vote that banned gay marriage in California. Tens of thousands of people joined protests in Houston, Dallas and Arlington as well as Boston, San Francisco and Chicago, renewing efforts to make gay marriage legal.

Suzannah Gonzales / Austin American-Statesman / November 16, 2008

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Gay Rights Activist Aravosis: ‘Utah Is a Hate State’

Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Church Action Prompts Tourist Boycott of Utah
By Brock Vergakis / November 15, 2008

SALT LAKE CITY — Utah’s growing tourism industry and the star-studded Sundance Film Festival are being targeted for a boycott by bloggers, gay rights activists and others seeking to punish the Mormon church for its aggressive promotion of California’s ban on gay marriage.

It could be a heavy price to pay. Tourism brings in $6 billion a year to Utah, with world-class skiing, the spectacular red rock country and the film festival founded by Robert Redford among the state’s popular tourist draws.

“At a fundamental level, the Utah Mormons crossed the line on this one,” said gay rights activist John Aravosis, an influential Washington, D.C-based blogger. “They just took marriage away from 20,000 couples and made their children bastards. You don’t do that and get away with it.”

Salt Lake City is the world headquarters for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which counts about 62 percent of Utah residents as members.

The church encouraged its members to work to pass California’s Proposition 8 by volunteering their time and money for the campaign. Thousands of Mormons worked as grassroots volunteers and gave tens of millions of dollars to the campaign.

The ballot measure passed Tuesday [November 5]. It amends the California Constitution to define marriage as a heterosexual act, overriding a state Supreme Court ruling that briefly gave same-sex couples the right to wed.

The backlash against the church – and by extension Utah – has been immediate. Protests erupted outside Mormon temples, Facebook groups formed telling people to boycott Utah and Web sites such as mormonsstoleourrights.com began popping up, calling for an end to the church’s tax-exempt status.

Aravosis is the editor of the popular political blog, americablog.com, which has about 900,000 unique monthly visitors.

He’s calling for skiers to choose any state but Utah and for Hollywood actors and directors to pull out of the Sundance Film Festival. Other bloggers and readers have responded to his call.

“There’s a movement afoot and large donors are involved who are very interested in organizing a campaign, because I do not believe in frivolous boycotts,” said Aravosis, who has helped organize boycotts against Dr. Laura’s television show, Microsoft and Ford over gay rights issues. “The main focus is going to be going after the Utah brand. At this point, honestly, we’re going to destroy the Utah brand. It is a hate state.”

Messages left with a Sundance spokeswoman Thursday and Friday were not immediately returned.

Leigh von der Esch, managing director of the Utah Office of Tourism, said she’s aware that there’s been discussion of a boycott, but her office hadn’t received any calls about it Thursday. State offices are closed Friday.

“We’re respectful of both sides of the equation and realize it’s an emotional issue, but we are here promoting what we think is the best state in the country,” she said.

Jim Key, spokesman for the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center, said he had heard little about a call to boycott Utah.

“It’s not something that we have called for, but we do think it is important to send a message to the Mormon church,” Key said. “Yesterday we launched … invalidateprop8.org. It’s an initiative designed to overturn Prop 8 and in the process send a message to the Mormon church. For every contribution made, a postcard is sent to the Mormon church president letting him know a donation has been made in his name to overturn it.”

The irony in the attack on Utah’s tourism industry is that it would likely do the most harm in Salt Lake City and Park City – two of the state’s most liberal cities and those with some of the smallest percentages of Mormons in the state.

“Even though Salt Lake City is the location of the headquarters of the LDS church, there are really good people here … in Utah that are sympathetic to our cause,” said Scott McCoy, an openly gay state senator from Salt Lake City. “Rather than a boycott, I would rather have every gay person in the country come to Utah and show the people of Utah what genuine wonderful people and families we have, and to help educate them that we deserve the exact same legal rights and protections they and their families are afforded under the law.”

What kind of economic, religious or political impact, if any, a boycott might have is unclear. The Mormon church has members all over the world and no plans to change its stance on gay marriage. A church spokeswoman did not immediately have a comment on a possible boycott Friday. The church issued a statement following Tuesday’s vote and again on Friday calling for civility in the wake of the results.

“It is disturbing that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is being singled out for speaking up as part of its democratic right in a free election,” Friday’s statement says, in part.

“Once again, we call on those involved in the debate over same-sex marriage to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility towards each other. No one on either side of the question should be vilified, harassed or subject to erroneous information.

Bob Malone, CEO and president of the Park City Chamber of Commerce and Visitors Bureau, said he worked in Colorado in the early 1990s when it was targeted for a boycott following a law that prohibited cities from enacting protective legislation for gays and lesbians.

“You know, it had some legs at the very beginning. But it’s one of those things when you don’t know when it starts and when it ends because you really can’t measure it,” he said.

Malone, who serves on the state tourism board, said it is unfair to try to punish certain industries or parts of the state over an issue it had nothing to do with.

“It’s really not a Park City thing, and I don’t see it as a state thing. That was more of a religious issue,” he said. “To sweep people in who really have nothing to do with that issue and have no influence over religious issues – it’s sad that people kind of think that and say, ‘We’re going to bury you.’ It’s sad to hear people talk like that.”

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.

Source / America On Line

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , | 4 Comments

MEDIA / The Minnesota Recount and the Manufactured ‘Debacle’

Recount (Heaven help us) Florida style.

Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., and Democratic challenger Al Franken. Photo from wdcpix.com, Wikimedia Commons.

The news media’s tendency to compare any recount to the “butterfly ballots and hanging chads” made famous during Florida’s 2000 recount, and to breathlessly report the merest rumor of impropriety, is not merely lazy and absurd and sensationalist. It is also dangerous.

By Jamison Foser / November 14, 2008

With only about 200 votes out of nearly 3 million cast separating Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman and his Democratic challenger, Al Franken, the race is headed to a recount.

Naturally, conservative radio hosts are working themselves into a lather, baselessly accusing Democrats of trying to “steal” the election. That shouldn’t surprise anyone. But NBC and The New York Times have also pushed the dubious notion that the Minnesota recount has been plagued by chaos and impropriety.

Here’s how Meredith Vieira, co-host of NBC’s Today, began a report on the Minnesota recount: “If you thought the election debacle in Florida could never happen again, wait until you see the situation in Minnesota.”

This is nonsense. The “debacle” in Florida wasn’t that there was a recount; the “debacle” was an absurdly designed ballot that led to thousands of people who meant to vote for Al Gore voting for Pat Buchanan instead. The “debacle” was that thousands of voters were improperly purged from voter rolls. The “debacle” was that the state’s electoral votes were awarded to the candidate for whom fewer voters attempted to cast ballots. None of those factors are present in Minnesota.

The Minnesota Senate race is simply in the midst of a recount. Recounts happen. They aren’t the illegitimate, anything-goes street fights the media pretend they are; they are a part of how elections work, their process written into law and executed every year. They are necessary, for a perfectly obvious reason: They make it more likely that the candidate who receives the most votes takes office. That is an unequivocally good thing.

During that Today segment, reporter Lee Cowan announced that the situation “has some remembering shades of Florida, of butterfly ballots and hanging chads. There are neither of those here.”

What possible reason could there be for bringing up “butterfly ballots and hanging chads,” given that “there are neither of those” present in Minnesota? Whatever the intent, the effect is clear — it creates the impression that the situation in Minnesota is utter chaos, a “debacle” in the making.

Cowan continued: “Still, ballots have suddenly appeared out of nowhere, including some found unsecured in an election worker’s car.”

That appears to be completely false. Election officials have said the ballots did not “suddenly appear[] out of nowhere,” and they were not “unsecured.” The claim about unsecured ballots in a car appears to have originated with Norm Coleman’s lawyer. Cowan did not attribute the car story to anyone or anything, he simply asserted it as fact. Adopting and repeating Coleman’s lawyer’s claims as though they are facts is bad enough. What makes it worse is that the lawyer had already backed off the claim. Two full days before Cowan’s report, the Coleman lawyer had been quoted saying that “we’ve heard enough from the city attorney to let go of this. It does not appear that there was any ballot-tampering, and that was our concern.”

So Cowan offered a sensational and — by his own acknowledgement — wholly irrelevant comparison to the “butterfly ballots and hanging chads” of the 2000 recount. Then he made a false assertion of ballots materializing out of thin air, and of unsecured ballots — an assertion that seems to have been based entirely on the already-retracted claims of a Coleman campaign lawyer.

Vieira concluded the segment by referring to the “mess in Minnesota.” But there is no mess. There is simply a recount — a recount that does not involve butterfly ballots or hanging chads, a recount that, despite the best efforts of Vieira and Cowan to convince us otherwise, has not a thing in common with the “debacle” in Florida. Just a simple recount.

Today’s New York Times similarly promoted the idea of chaos and impropriety in the Minnesota recount — without actually providing any evidence or examples. The Times reported:

If Fritz Knaak has his way, Mr. Franken will never have a shot at solving those problems. A lawyer hired by Mr. Coleman expressly for the recount, Mr. Knaak described himself as “the new gun with the shiny pistol.” Citing suspicion over what he called a series of “shenanigans” that have narrowed Mr. Coleman’s lead, he has requested the official paper tape with the number of ballots and the time stamp printed out by each ballot machine, in every voting precinct.

The Times gave no examples of “shenanigans” or any indication of who is “suspicious” that such “shenanigans” have occurred. Nor did it give any indication that it asked Knaak for examples of either shenanigans or suspicion.

Later in the article, the Times reported:

Mr. Coleman’s campaign manager, Cullen Sheehan, accused the Franken campaign of “a brazen, last minute act of desperation,” by asking Hennepin County, which includes Minneapolis, to reconsider 461 rejected absentee ballots.

Mr. Franken’s lead lawyer, Marc Elias, called such assertions of ballot stuffing “fanciful and bogus.”

But there were no “assertions of ballot stuffing” — none the Times reported, anyway. The Times simply quoted Coleman’s campaign manager saying the Franken campaign’s request to reconsider previously rejected ballots is an indication of “desperation.” That’s quite different from making an allegation of “ballot stuffing.”

Then the Times reported that Minneapolis Star Tribune columnist Katherine Kersten expressed concerns about the ability of Minnesota’s Democratic secretary of state, Mark Ritchie, to act impartially during the recount, without indicating Kersten’s own political leanings. As Media Matters Senior Fellow Eric Boehlert explained, “Kersten is a right-winger who smeared Franken right before Election Day as a ‘slanderer of Christianity.’ “

Next, the Times quoted a “Republican researcher” who is “very, very concerned” about Ritchie. Then it quoted Sean Hannity saying “[f]ishy business” is occurring in Minnesota, where Democrats and elections officials are “up to no good.” To what “[f]ishy business” was Hannity referring? Were his allegations legitimate? The Times did not say.

Finally, the Times quoted the Facebook status of “Noah Rouen, 34,” a Minnesota man on a pheasant hunt who, along with his friends, “could not help but hatch a conspiracy theory.”

If it seems the Times is desperate to find people concerned about the legitimacy of the Minnesota recount — resorting to quoting vague allegations from hard-right partisans like Sean Hannity and Facebook conspiracy theories — maybe that’s because Tim Pawlenty, Minnesota’s Republican governor, says there is “no actual evidence that there’s been any fraud or problems.” (That quote didn’t appear in the Times article; maybe it got cut to make room for the pheasant hunter’s Facebook status.) And as Media Matters noted, the Times did not note that Pawlenty said that the bipartisan state canvassing board Ritchie appointed to oversee the recount was “fair” and that a lawyer for Coleman’s campaign reportedly said that the “state should feel good about who’s on the panel.”

The news media’s tendency to compare any recount to the “butterfly ballots and hanging chads” made famous during Florida’s 2000 recount, and to breathlessly report the merest rumor of impropriety, is not merely lazy and absurd and sensationalist. It is also dangerous. It causes people to be frightened and concerned about all recounts — to be wary of the very concept of recounts. But recounts needn’t be like the “debacle” of 2000; in fact, they rarely are. They are far more frequently the best way to ensure that errors in counting do not result in the candidate who received fewer votes taking office. (Indeed, in 2004, a manual recount in the Washington governor’s race reversed the results of the initial Election Day tabulations and machine recount.) Sensational and baseless reporting like that produced this week by NBC and The New York Times runs the risk of undermining public confidence in an essential part of the democratic process.

[Jamison Foser is Executive Vice President at Media Matters for America.]

Source / Media Matters

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

POETRY / Larry Piltz : The Messiah is always coming

Cartoon: Jesus-ufo-nesara / mattstone.blogs.com.

The Messiah is always coming
with a wink and a constant drumming
with a fife and annoying humming
to a world that believes He’ll be slumming
yes the Messiah is always coming

The Messiah is always arriving
with His seatbelt fastened and driving
to root out the dull and conniving
and to chasten the kooks and the thriving
thank God the Messiah’s surviving

The Messiah is stoically faithful
and should be eternally grateful
that His world has been ever so hateful
His believers so doggedly fateful
in keeping His vengeful plate full

The Messiah is always just waiting
for a time that’s a little less grating
and a world less obsessed with its mating
otherwise there’ll be no hesitating
when His robes get their armor plating

The Messiah is always coming
with a wrench to look at the plumbing
to a world that is down with its dumbing
and whose rationalizations are numbing
which is why He must always be coming

The Messiah is coming to face us
and is thinking He might have to mace us
while He sorts out the Wiccans and racists
on a first come first serve basis
as He retrofits our oasis
good thing our Messiah’s in stasis

The Messiah is always coming
to a world that believes He’ll be slumming

Larry Piltz / The Rag Blog
Indian Cove / Austin, Texas
11/15/08

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , | 3 Comments

Spitzer: Changing the Rules to Regulate Markets

Here’s what Juan Cole has to say about this article: “Maybe this is the reason the Bush administration illegally spied on Elliot Spitzer’s bank transfers despite lack of any evidence he was doing anything wrong?”

A not completely unreasonable suggestion, no?

Richard Jehn / The Rag Blog

Department of Justice building, Washington, D.C. Photo: Wikipedia.

How to Ground The Street
By Eliot L. Spitzer / November 16, 2008

The Former ‘Enforcer’ On the Best Way to Keep Financial Markets in Check.

President-elect Barack Obama will soon face the extraordinary task of saving capitalism from its own excesses, much as Franklin D. Roosevelt had to do 76 years ago. Up until this point in the crisis, policymakers have appropriately applied the rules of triage — Band-Aids and tourniquets, then radical surgery — to keep the global financial system alive. Capital infusions, bailouts, mega-mergers, government guarantees of unimaginable proportions — all have been sought and supported by officials and corporate chief executives who had until now opposed any government participation in the marketplace. But put aside for the moment the ideological cartwheel we have seen and look at the big picture: The rules of modern capitalism have been re-written before our eyes.

The new president’s team must soon get to the root causes of the mistakes that have brought us to the economic precipice. Yes, we have all derided the explosion of leverage, the failure to regulate derivatives, the flood of subprime lending that was bound to default and the excesses of CEO compensation. But these are all mere manifestations of three deeper structural problems that require greater attention: misconceptions about what a “free market” really is, a continuing breakdown in corporate governance and an antiquated and incoherent federal financial regulatory framework.

First, we must confront head-on the pervasive misunderstanding of what constitutes a “free market.” For long stretches of the past 30 years, too many Americans fell prey to the ideology that a free market requires nearly complete deregulation of banks and other financial institutions and a government with a hands-off approach to enforcement. “We can regulate ourselves,” the mantra went.

Those of us who raised red flags about this were scoffed at for failing to understand or even believe in “the market.” During my tenure as New York state attorney general, my colleagues and I sought to require investment banking analysts to provide their clients with unbiased recommendations, devoid of undisclosed and structural conflicts. But powerful voices with heavily vested interests accused us of meddling in the market.

When my office, along with the Department of Justice, warned that some of American International Group’s reinsurance transactions were little more than efforts to create the false impression of extra capital on the company’s balance sheet, we were jeered at for attacking one of the nation’s great insurance companies, which surely knew how to balance risk and reward.

And when the attorneys general of all 50 states sought to investigate subprime lending, believing that some lending practices might be toxic, we were blocked by a coalition of the major banks and the Bush administration, which invoked a rarely used statute to preempt the states’ ability to probe. The administration claimed that it had the situation under control and that our inquiry was unnecessary.

Time and again, whether at the state level, in Congress or at the Securities and Exchange Commission under Bill Donaldson, those who tried to enforce the basic principles that would allow the market to survive were told that the “invisible hand” of the market and self-regulation could handle the task alone.

The reality is that unregulated competition drives corporate behavior and risk-taking to unacceptable levels. This is simply one of the ways in which some market participants try to gain a competitive advantage. As one lawyer for a company charged with malfeasance stated in a meeting in my office (amazingly, this was intended as a winning defense): “You’re right about our behavior, but we’re not as bad as our competitors.”

No major market problem has been resolved through self-regulation, because individual competitive behavior doesn’t concern itself with the larger market. Individual actors care only about performing better than the next guy, doing whatever is permitted — or will go undetected. Look at the major bubbles and market crises. Long-Term Capital Management, Enron, the subprime lending scandals: All are classic demonstrations of the bitter reality that greed, not self-discipline, rules where unfettered behavior is allowed.

Those who truly understand economics, as did Adam Smith, do not preach an absence of government participation. A market doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Rather, a market is a product of laws, rules and enforcement. It needs transparency, capital requirements and fidelity to fiduciary duty. The alternative, as we are seeing, is anarchy.

One of the great advantages U.S. capital markets have enjoyed over the decades has been the view — held worldwide — that there was an underlying integrity to the representations market participants made, because the regulatory framework in which they were made was believed to provide genuine oversight. But as we all know, the laws requiring such integrity are meaningless without a government dedicated to enforcing them.

Second, our corporate governance system has failed. We need to reexamine each of the links in its chain. Boards of directors, compensation and audit committees, the trio of facilitators (lawyers, investment bankers and auditors) whose job it is to create the impression of legal compliance, and shareholders themselves — all abdicated their responsibilities.

Institutional shareholders, in particular mutual funds, pension funds and endowments, must reengage in corporate governance. Over the past decade, arguably the sole challenge to corporate mismanagement and poor corporate strategies has come from private-equity firms or activist hedge funds. These firms were among the few shareholders or pools of capital willing to purchase and revamp encrusted corporate machines. So it shouldn’t be surprising that the corporate world has taken a skeptical view of them — especially short-selling hedge funds, which have often been a rare voice raising the alarm.
This Story

*
‘Socialism’? It’s Already Here.
*
How to Ground The Street

This Story

*
How to Ground The Street
*
The Money Has Come From Somewhere
*
JUST WHAT THE DOCTOR ORDERED: A Recession Can Clear The Air
*
THE BOOK ON BERNANKE: I Took His Class. Now He’s Being Tested.

View All Items in This Story
View Only Top Items in This Story

Boards of directors were also missing in action over the past decade; not only did they not provide answers, they all too often failed even to ask the appropriate questions. And the roles of compensation committees, of course, must be totally rethought. No longer can Garrison Keillor’s brilliant observation about our kids — that they are all above average — apply to CEOs and propel failed leaders’ paychecks through the roof. Today’s momentary public oversight and outrage over executive compensation, while long overdue, is no substitute over the long term for firm standards set by compensation committees and boards of directors.
ad_icon

Finally, we need to completely overhaul the federal financial regulatory framework.

Let’s leave aside the ideological hesitancy that has long hamstrung regulatory agencies. Today’s balkanized regulatory framework for financial services no longer matches in any way the needs of a fully integrated global financial system. The divisions of the past — commercial banking vs. investment banking vs. insurance vs. hedge funds vs. private equity — have become distinctions without a difference. But these old boxes and formalities still determine how entities are viewed and regulated. It should surprise nobody that capital found the crevices in the regulatory framework. That is what capital is paid to do. But we failed to respond with a regulatory framework flexible enough to plug the leaks.

We do not need additional fragmented areas of federal regulation to handle hedge funds, sovereign wealth funds or derivatives. We need a unified approach that addresses the underlying issues: what kinds of leverage we wish to tolerate, how to measure risk, how much disclosure various trading products should provide. We cannot survive with the current system: the SEC, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Fed, the Office of Thrift Supervision and on and on. We must go from the Rube Goldberg structure we now have to a sleek iPod design that is cleaner, has better operating software and may even look good.

We began to try to craft such a unified model in New York, as did Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. in Washington last year. But it is urgent that we finish the job. Having flooded the market with cash and seen the government take a chunk of many of our largest financial institutions, we now need to craft the rules that will apply to all market participants.

Three overarching priorities should guide government actions in the new structure. First, we need better control of systemic risk. The currently splintered federal regulatory authority, the continued presence of off-balance-sheet transactions for financial entities (even post-Enron) and the failure to subject major players to any government oversight means that nobody can really understand the full risk facing the financial system.

Second, investors must be protected with adequate, accurate information. Firms must offer transparency both to individual investors and to government regulators.

And third, as Eric R. Dinallo, the superintendent of the New York State Insurance Department, has wisely pointed out, we will have to step back from the current environment in which government has become a guarantor of all major risk. The so-called moral hazard will serve to devalue risk in the market, and this too will have a debilitating long-term effect on capital flows. Only if private actors have to bear the real risks they incur will the market function properly. We are now perilously close to nationalizing risk.

As the rules of modern capitalism are rewritten over the next year, those who benefit from the enormous flow of cash being spread throughout the U.S. economy must be expected to compete within a system of rules that creates a true market — based on sound, skilled regulation, vigorous corporate governance and transparency.

Although mistakes I made in my private life now prevent me from participating in these issues as I have in the past, I very much hope and expect that President Obama and his new administration will have the strength and wisdom to do again what FDR did.

Eliot L. Spitzer was governor of New York from 2007-08 and state attorney general from 1999-2006.

Source / Washington Post

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

‘Sessing the Automakers Bailout


Cartoon by Charlie Loving / The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Zwarich: Eradicating Racism Means Eradicating Poverty and Deprivation

People at Mom’s Place, a homeless shelter in Detroit.
Photo: Ankur Dholakia / The Detroit News.

A Post Racial America?
Are we anywhere NEAR there yet?

By Zwarich / The Rag Blog / November 15, 2008

A very good article from a young Black activist, Austin McCoy, was published this morning and is deservedly being circulated. In this deeply thoughtful article, Mr. McCoy digs deeply into the difficult questions on race that are being posed after this historic election. I don’t think that he digs quite deeply enough, however, to get to the basic roots of human racial animosity.

Human beings have an innate instinct to organize ourselves into groups. Many other higher mammal species, (bears for example, or many species of cats), lack this instinct completely. Among species that have this group instinct, individuals use key clues to recognize members of their group, and they have innate fear and hostility toward individuals of their own species who are not members of their own self-identified groups. Race is one of the most basic ‘keys’ that is used by humans as a basic group identifier.

Much of our struggle, as humans, to be ‘civilized’ is an exercise in trying to rise above our instinctive animal nature. This is certainly the case as regards to racial animosities.

But in this noble quest to become ‘civilized’, we must remember that racial animosity is nearly universal among human societies, and is no more prevalent among any race than among any other. (To suppose otherwise is itself a racist notion).

As we all know as American progressives, (living in a nation that was founded on slavery), racism is often socially institutionalized. But even in societies in which institutional racism has been largely discredited and renounced, (I don’t think we yet deserve to claim to be a ‘post-racial’ society, but the recent election is certainly an historical milestone in that direction), virulent racial identification, competition, and animosity remain widespread among lower economic classes.

It is among these poorest classes where competition for the necessities of survival is most intense. To address their self-perceived best chances to succeed in this competition, individuals use race as the most obvious key identifier of their own meta-groups. They then commonly divide themselves into smaller groups, identified by more refined keys, (such as color of headband one wears, etc). But even in the midst of fierce competition between these smaller groups, they retain their identification with their race, in direct competition with other races, as their meta-group.

The most virulent racism in America exists at the lowest end of the scale. In prisons, it is often impossible to survive at all unless an individual joins the group identified with her or his own race, for protection. Even if one does not personally harbor attitudes of racial animosity, one must take them on in order to enjoy the protection of her or his own ‘kind’.

Racism almost as virulent as in prison is also found among the poorest classes, and it is found more or less equally among and between all races. Poor Hispanics, Blacks, Asians, and Whites, (to mention only some), are victims in equal measure and proportions of the race-based animosity they learn and foment against one another. They perceive themselves as competing directly in the economy for a slice of a pie that is too small for all to receive their fair share.

In upper economic classes, at least within societies in which institutionalized racism has been discredited and largely overcome, better educated individuals are able to overcome their more primitive instincts. It doesn’t matter what race we are talking about. As people, of any race, become better off economically, and especially when they are better educated, they are dramatically less inclined to feel hateful racial animosities toward people of other races. (Again, this is mostly restricted to societies which have advanced to a significant degree beyond institutionalized racism, which we surely must agree that the US has, even recognizing the distance we have yet to cover).

I think that many well-educated white Americans do not see Barack Obama as a Black man at all. They only see him as a man whom they admire. It is my perception that it is more difficult for many African Americans, even well educated African Americans, to understand this, due to the painful legacy they have overcome. Many militant African Americans still bitterly and angrily denounce this as “impossible”. But I don’t think it is at all. I think that many Americans simply see Barack Obama in terms they admire. They do NOT see his race at all. I think that as his presidency progresses, that propensity for seeing completely past race in perceiving our president, (for good or ill), will increase. (We’ll see. There are other directions this could go).

During his campaign, Barack Obama failed almost completely, (by design it seemed), to address the issues of poverty that are the most important determinants of racism in our society. He addressed his concerns almost totally for the middle class, but had almost nothing to say about addressing or alleviating poverty. Many think he did so as a deliberate electoral strategy, to avoid being perceived as a ‘black candidate’. Perhaps…..And let’s hope so.

Let’s hope that this man who solicited our Hope so skillfully does not claim that America has arrived at a post-racial plateau. Let’s hope he has plans to address the virulent pockets of urban poverty, in what was being called just a few years ago, (before they fell off the radar entirely), the ‘permanent underclass’. Let’s hope he has plans to rekindle Hope where Hope itself died long ago, under the spirit-crushing oppression of multi-generational poverty. America will NEVER deliver itself into a ‘post-racial’ epoch so long as millions of our citizens, among our poorest classes, live lives from which Hope has long ago been banished by the soul destroying poverty in which they live.

Anti-racism activists take on a very noble cause, but they often don’t seem to realize that if their goal is to eradicate the human instinct to identify with one’s own racial group when basic economic survival is at stake among poorly educated people, they are very likely pursuing a futile goal. We all wish we could change human nature, but we cannot. Racism is deeply ingrained in human nature, and it is only by removing the factors that bring it to the fore, (poverty), and by augmenting the factors that suppress and overcome it, (general prosperity and education), that racism can be eradicated from human society.

We will never eradicate racism in America, (or anywhere else), until we eradicate the ghettos of poverty and deprivation where it thrives and festers.

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The TSA and Airport Security: A Dismal Failure


The Things He Carried
By Jeffrey Goldberg / November 2008

Airport security in America is a sham—“security theater” designed to make travelers feel better and catch stupid terrorists. Smart ones can get through security with fake boarding passes and all manner of prohibited items—as our correspondent did with ease.

If I were a terrorist, and I’m not, but if I were a terrorist—a frosty, tough-like-Chuck-Norris terrorist, say a C-title jihadist with Hezbollah or, more likely, a donkey-work operative with the Judean People’s Front—I would not do what I did in the bathroom of the Minneapolis–St. Paul International Airport, which was to place myself in front of a sink in open view of the male American flying public and ostentatiously rip up a sheaf of counterfeit boarding passes that had been created for me by a frenetic and acerbic security expert named Bruce Schnei­er. He had made these boarding passes in his sophisticated underground forgery works, which consists of a Sony Vaio laptop and an HP LaserJet printer, in order to prove that the Transportation Security Administration, which is meant to protect American aviation from al-Qaeda, represents an egregious waste of tax dollars, dollars that could otherwise be used to catch terrorists before they arrive at the Minneapolis–St. Paul International Airport, by which time it is, generally speaking, too late.

I could have ripped up these counterfeit boarding passes in the privacy of a toilet stall, but I chose not to, partly because this was the renowned Senator Larry Craig Memorial Wide-Stance Bathroom, and since the commencement of the Global War on Terror this particular bathroom has been patrolled by security officials trying to protect it from gay sex, and partly because I wanted to see whether my fellow passengers would report me to the TSA for acting suspiciously in a public bathroom. No one did, thus thwarting, yet again, my plans to get arrested, or at least be the recipient of a thorough sweating by the FBI, for dubious behavior in a large American airport. Suspicious that the measures put in place after the attacks of September 11 to prevent further such attacks are almost entirely for show—security theater is the term of art—I have for some time now been testing, in modest ways, their effectiveness. Because the TSA’s security regimen seems to be mainly thing-based—most of its 44,500 airport officers are assigned to truffle through carry-on bags for things like guns, bombs, three-ounce tubes of anthrax, Crest toothpaste, nail clippers, Snapple, and so on—I focused my efforts on bringing bad things through security in many different airports, primarily my home airport, Washington’s Reagan National, the one situated approximately 17 feet from the Pentagon, but also in Los Angeles, New York, Miami, Chicago, and at the Wilkes-Barre/Scranton International Airport (which is where I came closest to arousing at least a modest level of suspicion, receiving a symbolic pat-down—all frisks that avoid the sensitive regions are by definition symbolic—and one question about the presence of a Leatherman Multi-Tool in my pocket; said Leatherman was confiscated and is now, I hope, living with the loving family of a TSA employee). And because I have a fair amount of experience reporting on terrorists, and because terrorist groups produce large quantities of branded knickknacks, I’ve amassed an inspiring collection of al-Qaeda T-shirts, Islamic Jihad flags, Hezbollah videotapes, and inflatable Yasir Arafat dolls (really). All these things I’ve carried with me through airports across the country. I’ve also carried, at various times: pocketknives, matches from hotels in Beirut and Peshawar, dust masks, lengths of rope, cigarette lighters, nail clippers, eight-ounce tubes of toothpaste (in my front pocket), bottles of Fiji Water (which is foreign), and, of course, box cutters. I was selected for secondary screening four times—out of dozens of passages through security checkpoints—during this extended experiment. At one screening, I was relieved of a pair of nail clippers; during another, a can of shaving cream.

During one secondary inspection, at O’Hare International Airport in Chicago, I was wearing under my shirt a spectacular, only-in-America device called a “Beerbelly,” a neoprene sling that holds a polyurethane bladder and drinking tube. The Beerbelly, designed originally to sneak alcohol—up to 80 ounces—into football games, can quite obviously be used to sneak up to 80 ounces of liquid through airport security. (The company that manufactures the Beerbelly also makes something called a “Winerack,” a bra that holds up to 25 ounces of booze and is recommended, according to the company’s Web site, for PTA meetings.) My Beerbelly, which fit comfortably over my beer belly, contained two cans’ worth of Bud Light at the time of the inspection. It went undetected. The eight-ounce bottle of water in my carry-on bag, however, was seized by the federal government.

On another occasion, at LaGuardia, in New York, the transportation-security officer in charge of my secondary screening emptied my carry-on bag of nearly everything it contained, including a yellow, three-foot-by-four-foot Hezbollah flag, purchased at a Hezbollah gift shop in south Lebanon. The flag features, as its charming main image, an upraised fist clutching an AK-47 automatic rifle. Atop the rifle is a line of Arabic writing that reads Then surely the party of God are they who will be triumphant. The officer took the flag and spread it out on the inspection table. She finished her inspection, gave me back my flag, and told me I could go. I said, “That’s a Hezbollah flag.” She said, “Uh-huh.” Not “Uh-huh, I’ve been trained to recognize the symbols of anti-American terror groups, but after careful inspection of your physical person, your behavior, and your last name, I’ve come to the conclusion that you are not a Bekaa Valley–trained threat to the United States commercial aviation system,” but “Uh-huh, I’m going on break, why are you talking to me?”

In Minneapolis, I littered my carry-on with many of my prohibited items, and also an Osama bin Laden, Hero of Islam T-shirt, which often gets a rise out of people who see it. This day, however, would feature a different sort of experiment, designed to prove not only that the TSA often cannot find anything on you or in your carry-on, but that it has no actual idea who you are, despite the government’s effort to build a comprehensive “no-fly” list. A no-fly list would be a good idea if it worked; Bruce Schnei­er’s homemade boarding passes were about to prove that it doesn’t. Schnei­er is the TSA’s most relentless, and effective, critic; the TSA director, Kip Hawley, told me he respects Schnei­er’s opinions, though Schnei­er quite clearly makes his life miserable.

“The whole system is designed to catch stupid terrorists,” Schnei­er told me. A smart terrorist, he says, won’t try to bring a knife aboard a plane, as I had been doing; he’ll make his own, in the airplane bathroom. Schnei­er told me the recipe: “Get some steel epoxy glue at a hardware store. It comes in two tubes, one with steel dust and then a hardener. You make the mold by folding a piece of cardboard in two, and then you mix the two tubes together. You can use a metal spoon for the handle. It hardens in 15 minutes.”

As we stood at an airport Starbucks, Schnei­er spread before me a batch of fabricated boarding passes for Northwest Airlines flight 1714, scheduled to depart at 2:20 p.m. and arrive at Reagan National at 5:47 p.m. He had taken the liberty of upgrading us to first class, and had even granted me “Platinum/Elite Plus” status, which was gracious of him. This status would allow us to skip the ranks of hoi-polloi flyers and join the expedited line, which is my preference, because those knotty, teeming security lines are the most dangerous places in airports: terrorists could paralyze U.S. aviation merely by detonating a bomb at any security checkpoint, all of which are, of course, entirely unsecured. (I once asked Michael Chertoff, the secretary of Homeland Security, about this. “We actually ultimately do have a vision of trying to move the security checkpoint away from the gate, deeper into the airport itself, but there’s always going to be some place that people congregate. So if you’re asking me, is there any way to protect against a person taking a bomb into a crowded location and blowing it up, the answer is no.”)

Schnei­er and I walked to the security checkpoint. “Counter­terrorism in the airport is a show designed to make people feel better,” he said. “Only two things have made flying safer: the reinforcement of cockpit doors, and the fact that passengers know now to resist hijackers.” This assumes, of course, that al-Qaeda will target airplanes for hijacking, or target aviation at all. “We defend against what the terrorists did last week,” Schnei­er said. He believes that the country would be just as safe as it is today if airport security were rolled back to pre-9/11 levels. “Spend the rest of your money on intelligence, investigations, and emergency response.”

Schnei­er and I joined the line with our ersatz boarding passes. “Technically we could get arrested for this,” he said, but we judged the risk to be acceptable. We handed our boarding passes and IDs to the security officer, who inspected our driver’s licenses through a loupe, one of those magnifying-glass devices jewelers use for minute examinations of fine detail. This was the moment of maximum peril, not because the boarding passes were flawed, but because the TSA now trains its officers in the science of behavior detection. The SPOT program—“Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques”—was based in part on the work of a psychologist who believes that involuntary facial-muscle movements, including the most fleeting “micro-expressions,” can betray lying or criminality. The training program for behavior-detection officers is one week long. Our facial muscles did not cooperate with the SPOT program, apparently, because the officer chicken-scratched onto our boarding passes what might have been his signature, or the number 4, or the letter y. We took our shoes off and placed our laptops in bins. Schnei­er took from his bag a 12-ounce container labeled “saline solution.”

The author’s forged boarding pass — complete with Platinum/Elite Plus status and magical TSA-approval squiggle — got him through security.

“It’s allowed,” he said. Medical supplies, such as saline solution for contact-lens cleaning, don’t fall under the TSA’s three-ounce rule.

“What’s allowed?” I asked. “Saline solution, or bottles labeled saline solution?”

“Bottles labeled saline solution. They won’t check what’s in it, trust me.”

They did not check. As we gathered our belongings, Schnei­er held up the bottle and said to the nearest security officer, “This is okay, right?” “Yep,” the officer said. “Just have to put it in the tray.”

“Maybe if you lit it on fire, he’d pay attention,” I said, risking arrest for making a joke at airport security. (Later, Schnei­er would carry two bottles labeled saline solution—24 ounces in total—through security. An officer asked him why he needed two bottles. “Two eyes,” he said. He was allowed to keep the bottles.)

We were in the clear. But what did we prove?

“We proved that the ID triangle is hopeless,” Schneier said.

The ID triangle: before a passenger boards a commercial flight, he interacts with his airline or the government three times—when he purchases his ticket; when he passes through airport security; and finally at the gate, when he presents his boarding pass to an airline agent. It is at the first point of contact, when the ticket is purchased, that a passenger’s name is checked against the government’s no-fly list. It is not checked again, and for this reason, Schnei­er argued, the process is merely another form of security theater.

“The goal is to make sure that this ID triangle represents one person,” he explained. “Here’s how you get around it. Let’s assume you’re a terrorist and you believe your name is on the watch list.” It’s easy for a terrorist to check whether the government has cottoned on to his existence, Schnei­er said; he simply has to submit his name online to the new, privately run CLEAR program, which is meant to fast-pass approved travelers through security. If the terrorist is rejected, then he knows he’s on the watch list.

To slip through the only check against the no-fly list, the terrorist uses a stolen credit card to buy a ticket under a fake name. “Then you print a fake boarding pass with your real name on it and go to the airport. You give your real ID, and the fake boarding pass with your real name on it, to security. They’re checking the documents against each other. They’re not checking your name against the no-fly list—that was done on the airline’s computers. Once you’re through security, you rip up the fake boarding pass, and use the real boarding pass that has the name from the stolen credit card. Then you board the plane, because they’re not checking your name against your ID at boarding.”

What if you don’t know how to steal a credit card?

“Then you’re a stupid terrorist and the government will catch you,” he said.

What if you don’t know how to download a PDF of an actual boarding pass and alter it on a home computer?

“Then you’re a stupid terrorist and the government will catch you.”

I couldn’t believe that what Schneier was saying was true—in the national debate over the no-fly list, it is seldom, if ever, mentioned that the no-fly list doesn’t work. “It’s true,” he said. “The gap blows the whole system out of the water.”

This called for a visit to TSA headquarters. The headquarters is located in Pentagon City, just outside Washington. Kip Hawley, the man who runs the agency, is a bluff, amiable fellow who is capable of making a TSA joke. “Do you want three ounces of water?” he asked me.

I raised the subject of the ID triangle, hoping to get a cogent explanation. This is what Hawley said: “The TDC”—that’s “ticket document checker”—“will make a notation on your ticket and that’s something that will follow you all the way through” to the gate.

“But all they do is write a little squiggly mark on the boarding pass,” I said.

“You think you might be able to forge that?” he asked me.

“My handwriting is terrible, but don’t you think someone can forge it?” I asked.

“Well, uh, maybe. Maybe not,” he said.

Aha! I thought. He’s hiding something from me.

“Are you telling me that I don’t know about something that’s going on?” I asked.

“We’re well aware of the scenario you describe. Bruce has been talking about it for two years,” he said, referring to Schnei­er’s efforts to publicize the gaps in the ID triangle.

“Isn’t it a basic flaw, that you’re checking the no-fly list at the point of purchase, not at the airport?”

He leaned back in his chair.

“What do you do about vulnerabilities?” he asked, rhetorically. “All the time you hear reports and people saying, ‘There’s a vulnerability.’ Well, duh. There are vulnerabilities everywhere, in everything. The question is not ‘Is there a vulnerability?’ It’s ‘What are you doing about it?’”

Well, what are you doing about it?

“There are vulnerabilities where you have limited ways to address it directly. So you have to put other layers around it, other things that will catch them when that vulnerability is breached. This is a universal problem. Somebody will identify a very small thing and drill down and say, ‘I found a vulnerability.’”

In other words, the TSA has no immediate plans to check passengers against the no-fly list at the moment before they board their flight. (Hawley said that boarding passes will eventually be encrypted so the TSA can follow their progress from printer to gate.) Nor does it plan to screen airport employees when they show up for work each day. Pilots—or people dressed as pilots—are screened, as the public knows, but that’s because they enter the airport through the front door. The employees who drive fuel trucks, and make french fries at McDonald’s, and clean airplane bathrooms (to the extent that they’re cleaned anymore) do not pass through magnetometers when they enter the airport, and their possessions are not searched. To me this always seemed to be, well, another “vulnerability.”

“Do you know what you have on the inside of an airport?” Hawley asked me. “You have all the military traveling, you have guns, chemicals, jet fuel. So the idea that we would spend a whole lot of resources putting a perimeter around that, running every worker, 50,000 people, every day, through security—why in the heck would you do that? Because all they have to do is walk through clean and then have someone throw something over a fence.”

I asked about the depth of background screening for airport employees. He said, noncommittally, “It goes reasonably deep.”

So there are, in other words, two classes of people in airports: those whose shoes are inspected for explosives, and those whose aren’t. How, I asked, do you explain that to the public in a way that makes sense?

“Social networks,” he answered. “It’s a very tuned-in workforce. You’re never alone when you’re on or around a plane. ‘What is that guy spending all that time in the cockpit for?’ All airport employees know what normal is.” Hawley did say that TSA employees conduct random ID checks and magnetometer screenings, but he did not say how frequently.

I suppose I’ve seen too many movies, but, really? Social networks? Behavior detection? The TSA budget is almost $7 billion. That money would be better spent on the penetration of al-Qaeda social networks.

As I stood in the bathroom, ripping up boarding passes, waiting for the social network of male bathroom users to report my suspicious behavior, I decided to make myself as nervous as possible. I would try to pass through security with no ID, a fake boarding pass, and an Osama bin Laden T-shirt under my coat. I splashed water on my face to mimic sweat, put on a coat (it was a summer day), hid my driver’s license, and approached security with a bogus boarding pass that Schnei­er had made for me. I told the document checker at security that I had lost my identification but was hoping I would still be able to make my flight. He said I’d have to speak to a supervisor. The supervisor arrived; he looked smart, unfortunately. I was starting to get genuinely nervous, which I hoped would generate incriminating micro-expressions. “I can’t find my driver’s license,” I said. I showed him my fake boarding pass. “I need to get to Washington quickly,” I added. He asked me if I had any other identification. I showed him a credit card with my name on it, a library card, and a health-insurance card. “Nothing else?” he asked.

“No,” I said.

“You should really travel with a second picture ID, you know.”

“Yes, sir,” I said.

“All right, you can go,” he said, pointing me to the X-ray line. “But let this be a lesson for you.”

Jeffrey Goldberg, an Atlantic national correspondent and the author of Prisoners: A Story of Friendship and Terror (2007), blogs at jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com.

Source / Atlantic

But, hey, the TSA is right on top of this:

TSA’s Take on the Atlantic Article

Bruce Schneier and others have raised a number of good issues about TSA’s role in aviation security but veer off course when our work is described as ‘security theater.’ Some examples from a recent article in the Atlantic magazine are worth examining and I would put them in three categories as they represent three different layers of security: 1) items carried through checkpoints on the body; 2) watch-lists and boarding passes; and 3) behavior detection. The comments about TSA not hassling the reporter for carrying a Hezbollah flag or AQ T-shirt are more in the entertainment category along with the thought of splashing water on your face to simulate sweating as a demonstration that behavior detection doesn’t work.

Items carried on the person, be they a ‘beer belly’ or concealed objects in very private areas, are why we are buying over 100 whole body imagers in upcoming months and will deploy more over time. In the meantime, we use hand-held devices that detect hydrogen peroxide and other explosives compounds as well as targeted pat-downs that require private screening.

Watch-lists and identity checks are important and effective security measures. We identify dozens of terrorist-related individuals a week and stop No-Flys regularly with our watch-list process. Dozens more people with security concerns are identified through finding altered or forged documents, including boarding passes. Using stolen credit cards and false documents as a way to get around watch-lists makes the point that forcing terrorists to use increasingly risky tactics has its own security value. Boarding pass scanners and encryption are being tested in eight airports now and more will be coming.

Behavior detection works and we have 2,000 trained officers at airports today. They alert us to people who may pose a threat but who may also have items that could elude other layers of physical security.

The bigger point is that there are vulnerabilities everywhere and we use multiple layers of different security measures to protect us all from instances where one vulnerability can be exploited. The standard for TSA is not perfection, but material reduction of risk.

Clever terrorists can use innovative ways to exploit vulnerabilities. But don’t forget that most bombers are not, in fact, clever. Living bomb-makers are usually clever, but the person agreeing to carry it may not be super smart. Even if “all” we do is stop dumb terrorists, we are reducing risk.

Stopping the ‘James Bond’ terrorist is truly a team effort and I whole-heartedly agree that the best way to stop those attacks is with intelligence and law enforcement working together. Anyone who knows would tell you that TSA is, in fact, an intelligence-driven operation, working daily with our colleagues throughout the counter-terrorism community in that common effort.

Kip Hawley (10.21.2008)

Source / TSA: Evolution of Security

For more information, go here.

Thanks to Walter Kraus / The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , | 1 Comment