The news media needed a poll to figure this out?

This poll just in from the Washington Post: Shocking! We the People don't blame the new president (in office for less than three months) for the disastrous economy that he inherited!

Imagine that!

Good to know we're not as dumb as we look, eh? (Or as dumb as the news establishment owners would like us to be.)

But can this really be... news? Does this drivel pass for news these days?

Blame for Downturn Not Fixed on Obama
6 in 10 Back His Handling of Economy

The number of Americans who believe that the nation is headed in the right direction has roughly tripled since Barack Obama's election, and the public overwhelmingly blames the excesses of the financial industry, rather than the new president, for turmoil in the economy, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Doh!

(Pssst: they even have a video!)

A Rudderless Government

When Barack Obama takes the helm of the national ship in January, he is going to have to bring in some cheerleaders for federal employees who have held on through the Bush Administration. According to the Washington Post, these people are seriously demoralized under the current administration:

In numerous agencies, federal civil servants complain that they have been thwarted for months or even years from doing the government jobs they were hired to do. Federal workers have told presidential transition leaders they feel rudderless, their morale impacted by the Bush administration's opposition to industry regulation, steep budget cuts or the departures many months ago of Bush political appointees. Though they fear publicly identifying themselves, numerous federal workers said in interviews that they are down, but also excited about new leadership.

"Many we talk to are weary, but cautiously optimistic that with this change in administrations they will get to do their job again," said Jeff Ruch, of the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. "In the environmental agencies we deal with, they weren't allowed to do their jobs because the Bush White House operated on a very centralized basis. The rule was, that which the White House doesn't want to hear shall not be said."

It is interesting to hear that the departments that suffered the most under the Bush regime were the regulatory agencies such as the Department of the Interior, the Department of Labor, the EPA, the FDA and the Consumer Protection and Safety Agency. We have definitely suffered from their lack of effectiveness as well.

Due to the Bush Administration's opposition to any regulation of corporate (greed,) hundreds of federally-employed scientists, researchers and lawyers created and studied regulations that sat collecting dust for 8 years. Meanwhile our food (and our pets' food) was contaminated, our toys are now full of lead, and our air and water protections have regressed back to levels not seen since the 1970s.

We need these federal agencies back. And it appears they need to be needed.

Although generally federal workers can expect to do their jobs without excessive presidential interference, the Bush Administration was different.

At EPA, a regional staffer who works on wetlands protection said the agency's political appointees have stalled and erected roadblocks on work to clean air, water and soil. Headquarters waited a year to advise staff on how to handle a Supreme Court decision that threw wetlands rules into doubt, then issued vague, "useless" guidance, he said.

"There's been an inability for people to do their jobs and do it well, " said the staffer, who asked to remain anonymous. "The administration's purpose has been to do nothing."

At Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), career scientists were told in 2001 by arriving Bush appointees to stop work on nearly completed regulations to reduce exposure to four well-documented workplace poisons. The new leadership explained that it wanted the office to focus on regulating other workplace hazards, but even then, little progress was made.

"It was discouraging for many employees to sit for so long," said Charles Gordon, a Labor Department career attorney who recently retired after 33 years overseeing OSHA matters. "They felt they weren't fully utilized." One veteran OSHA staffer who asked not to be named said her agency has now worked for 15 years on the same draft regulation, most recently on management-ordered revisions, without completion.

"Even though we can show bodies on the floor from this danger, nothing gets out the door," said the OSHA veteran, who ticked off a list of Ph.D.-carrying colleagues who retired to be more productive elsewhere. Some agencies are also suffering from double-digit percentage cuts in staff and resources, and the strain on federal workers has been noted in several independent reports. The staff of the Small Business Administration, for example, dropped from 2,975 to 2,166 since Bush took office. The volume of federal contracting has nearly doubled during that same period, from $207 billion in 2000 to $400 billion last year, while the number of staff monitoring contracts has declined.

President Elect Obama is going to inherit one hell of a mess January 20th. Fortunately he is already gearing up to tackle many fronts at once:

Transition advisers to President-elect Barack Obama have compiled a list of about 200 Bush administration actions and executive orders that could be swiftly undone to reverse White House policies on climate change, stem cell research, reproductive rights and other issues, according to congressional Democrats, campaign aides and experts working with the transition team.

A team of four dozen advisers, working for months in virtual solitude, set out to identify regulatory and policy changes Obama could implement soon after his inauguration. The team is now consulting with liberal advocacy groups, Capitol Hill staffers and potential agency chiefs to prioritize those they regard as the most onerous or ideologically offensive, said a top transition official who was not permitted to speak on the record about the inner workings of the transition.

In some instances, Obama would be quickly delivering on promises he made during his two-year campaign, while in others he would be embracing Clinton-era policies upended by President Bush during his eight years in office.

Change is on the way at last. Maybe one of these days I can make true on my 'About me' description and simply write about Lincoln... at ease in the knowledge that our government is finally in the hands of a sane and responsible leader!

Washington Post endorses Obama

I had thought that WAPO leaned conservative - but then many who lean conservative are leaning Obama this year.

The Obama camp is rapidly becoming a refuge for intellectuals, moderate Republicans, Goldwater Republicans, concerned citizens, the elderly, people who need affordable health care, people who have lost much (if not everything) under years of Bush mis-rule, people fed up with war, everyone who is fed up with lies, and a large majority of Americans who are fleeing from Palin and her crowd -- and that would be from both political parties.

The editorial and the endorsement:

THE NOMINATING process this year produced two unusually talented and qualified presidential candidates. There are few public figures we have respected more over the years than Sen. John McCain. Yet it is without ambivalence that we endorse Sen. Barack Obama for president.

The choice is made easy in part by Mr. McCain's disappointing campaign, above all his irresponsible selection of a running mate who is not ready to be president. It is made easy in larger part, though, because of our admiration for Mr. Obama and the impressive qualities he has shown during this long race. Yes, we have reservations and concerns, almost inevitably, given Mr. Obama's relatively brief experience in national politics. But we also have enormous hopes.

Mr. Obama is a man of supple intelligence, with a nuanced grasp of complex issues and evident skill at conciliation and consensus-building. At home, we believe, he would respond to the economic crisis with a healthy respect for markets tempered by justified dismay over rising inequality and an understanding of the need for focused regulation. Abroad, the best evidence suggests that he would seek to maintain U.S. leadership and engagement, continue the fight against terrorists, and wage vigorous diplomacy on behalf of U.S. values and interests. Mr. Obama has the potential to become a great president. Given the enormous problems he would confront from his first day in office, and the damage wrought over the past eight years, we would settle for very good.

Read more...

Passive-aggressive racism in the media

American Heritage Dictionary
rac·ism (rā'sĭz'əm) n.

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

I was encouraged to read some very strong words this week from White Republicans, condemning John McCain's initial refusal to quiet the racist overtones coming out of his campaign. Unfortunately the national media often lags far, far behind.

This morning I was floored to see an article in the Washington Post - an article purporting to address the issue of race now creeping into daily election dialog - take Democratic congressman John Lewis to task for saying basically the same thing that Republicans Andrew Sullivan and Frank Schaffer said in their own powerful essays.

No mention of the fact that others who are not African American, not civil rights leaders (and not Democrats - heaven help the man who is all three) had evoked similar and equally powerful images before Lewis said a single word.

From the Washington Post, Issue of Race Creeps Into Campaign:

Yesterday, civil rights leader John Lewis, a Democratic congressman from Georgia, became the latest advocate to excite the racial debate, condemning Sen. John McCain for "sowing the seeds of hatred and division" and accusing the Republican nominee of potentially inciting violence.

In a provocative twist, Lewis drew a rhetorical line connecting McCain to the segregationist Alabama governor George Wallace, and through Wallace to the 1963 church bombing in Birmingham that killed four girls. McCain voiced outrage at the comments, which also drew a mild rebuke from an aide to Sen. Barack Obama.

McCain has treated the subject of race gingerly, moving quickly to reject loaded remarks by some supporters while at other times accusing the Obama campaign of "playing the race card" and claiming racism to avoid legitimate criticism.

McCain has been 'moving quickly to reject loaded remarks from some supporters?' What planet has Anne Kornblut been living on all week?

My response:

"Lewis yesterday used a racial frame to leverage one of the harshest cases against McCain this year."

Here we go again.

When a White Republican named Frank Schaffer blasts McCain for "deliberately feeding the most unhinged elements of our society the red meat of hate, and therefore of potentially instigating violence," gosh, that's OK... although none of you in the national media covered his words (I just happened to read the OP-ED in the Baltimore Sun.) I like the fact that Schaffer said that we will hold McCain responsible for any violence... because we will.

And there are many other White Republicans demanding that McCain back off as well; some with very strong words of their own. White Republican Andrew Sullivan said "McCain is playing with fire. If he really wants to put country first, he will attack Obama on his policies - not on these inflammatory, personal, creepy grounds. This is getting close to the atmosphere stoked by the Israeli far right before the assassination of Rabin." I see you didn't cover that.

So why is it that as soon as an African American civil rights leader brings this issue up -- and believe me, he would know -- suddenly he is playing the race card and you write about it here in the Washington Post? Take a good, hard look at yourselves please.

I live in Indiana. I am White and I am very worried that McCain has stirred up racist Klan types that still live in this state -- I also worry about violence breaking out at the polls. All of us who are White or Black non-racists and who have ever come into contact with racists and racist threats are worried that McCain has been stirring a very dangerous pot that could easily turn into violence among his followers.

Lewis has every right to say what he feels needs to be said without being accused in the national media of playing the race card! McCain threw it down first -- we are all answering it. What you in the media are plainly saying is that there is still a double standard - for you - concerning what an African American man can say about racist attacks. And guys -- that is racist.

I could go on and on - with example after example - of this media double-standard. What I think about it really doesn't matter. The real issue is that I can say whatever I want about racial inequality because I am White (that, and no one listens to me anyway - I'm not a democratic congressman from the Deep South.)

If only... I could make one suggestion to the national media, I would encourage them to tread with care when accusing anyone of 'playing the race card' until they have checked more than their own syntax and spelling. Double-standards lurk in the white spaces between the text.

Interesting tidbit in the Washington Post

I found this story in the Washington Post quite interesting; especially in light of rumors that Bush Administration officials were in Georgia immediately prior to the conflict.

The Bush Administration has proven time again that it will start any conflict - any war, no matter how lengthy and bloody - that will benefit their political and financial interests.

After two stolen elections, 9/11, the war in Iraq (and the lies that led to it,) the lack of interest in hunting the very useful and scary bogyman Osama Bin Laden, the tapping of American phones, the trashing of the environment in the face of rapidly advancing climate change, the Valery Plame scandal, a year's worth of 'lost and unrecoverable' Bush administration emails (blatant violation of The Hatch Act,) the continual attacks on our Constitutional rights as Americans - and considering the proximity of the election - nothing would surprise me.

Nothing should surprise you either.

From The Washington Post, AP wire:

MOSCOW, Aug. 29 -- Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said Thursday that he had reason to think U.S. personnel were in the combat zone during the recent war in Georgia, adding that if confirmed, their presence suggested "someone in the United States" provoked the conflict to help one of the candidates in the American presidential race.

I'm certainly no fan of Vladimir Putin. But that doesn't mean he's crazy either. He's have to be crazy to make such a claim without some basis, some evidence to back up his assertion. And unlike our allies; so afraid of a nasty backlash from the Bush Administration that they are willing to keep our dirty little war secrets out of sight for us... Putin has no reason to keep his mouth shut.

That, and its hard to ignore the lurking presence of Randy Scheunemann; currently John McCain’s senior foreign policy adviser... formerly a paid lobbyist for the Georgian government (he ended his official lobbying duties in March.)

Something smells in Georgia.

You see, Scheunemann is known to be one of the chief architects of the Iraq Invasion.

According to Robert Scheer:

Previously, Scheunemann was best known as one of the neoconservatives who engineered the war in Iraq when he was a director of the Project for a New American Century. It was Scheunemann who, after working on the McCain 2000 presidential campaign, headed the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which championed the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

There are telltale signs that he played a similar role in the recent Georgia flare-up. How else to explain the folly of his close friend and former employer, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, in ordering an invasion of the breakaway region of South Ossetia, an invasion that clearly was expected to produce a Russian counterreaction? It is inconceivable that Saakashvili would have triggered this dangerous escalation without some assurance from influential Americans he trusted, like Scheunemann, that the United States would have his back. Scheunemann long guided McCain in these matters, even before he was officially running foreign policy for McCain’s presidential campaign.

Why learn new tricks when the old ones keep working over, and over, and over again? Fear wins elections. Or it used to. Whether it will in 2008 - that is up to us, and unfortunately, to those who believe everything the corporate media tells them.

The GOP is once again casting their web of lies and uncertainty over the American people. McCain just needs to sow the seeds of fear and stir the misguided blood of the Fox TV-watching crowd to keep the poll numbers close.

If Obama doesn't win by a landslide, a close election will 'magically' go to McCain. Been there, done that. The ballot may be stronger than the bullet (as Lincoln once said;) but electronic ballots are also invisible, untrackable, and inherently hackable.

Thus lose the Democrats, as though replaying a scene from 'Groundhog Day.' While Pelosi was keeping a legally sound and winnable impeachment off of her shaky table (undoubtedly to placate the lobbyists,) the NeoGOP has proven time and again that they will put anything and everything on their table -- anything that will help them steal another win in November.

We've had two elections stolen from us. A third would be catastrophic, and the final end to any pretense of democracy in this country.

New Poll: 54% favor impeachment of Cheney

And believe me, it's climbing. And this with only the Washington Post telling it like it really is.

Hats off to WaPo for doing the job other American journalists don't want to do: inform the citizens! Our nation's founders would be proud of you.

The rest of you corporate media pundits and your lame, insignificant news coverage (Paris Hilton, 24/7) are a blot on our democracy. What you don't cover, refuse to cover, makes you complicit.

Meanwhile, CNN has picked up the poll, but (typical MSM) ONLY the parts of the poll that dealt with the Scooter commutation. Can you believe that a poll exists showing a solid majority of American voters want the VP impeached, and the major news sources are going out of their way to ignore it? That, friends, is truly sad....

If you mainstream media talking heads wonder why so many of us have turned to the internet, the BBC and independent media news coverage, it is because you stopped providing it. If I want to be entertained by the news, I'll watch Jon Stewart (and actually learn something.)

Once upon a time we had Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather and Roger Mudd. They would have covered this. Once upon a time television news had integrity and credibility. Once 'news' actually meant real news, not propaganda or sensationalist drivel. Television media has been eaten up by Wallstreet and destroyed: you are now nothing better than a dramatized version of those gossip rags at the grocery store checkout counter.

You are a disgrace to journalism. An absolute disgrace.

POLL: ARG Pardon/Impeachment

A new American Research Group national survey of 1,100 adults (conducted 7/3 through 7/5) finds:

* 31% of approve of "President George W. Bush commuting the 30-month prison sentence of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby while leaving intact Mr. Libby's conviction for perjury and obstruction of justice in the CIA leak case;" 64% disapprove.

* 11% favor a complete presidential pardon for Libby; 84% oppose.

* 45% favor "the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush;" 46% oppose.

* 54% favor "US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney;" 40% oppose.

Original, from the American Research Group:

Question:
Do you favor or oppose the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush?
7/5/07	Favor	Oppose	Undecided
All Adults	45%	46%	9%
Voters	46%	44%	10%
Democrats (38%)	69%	22%	9%
Republicans (29%)	13%	86%	1%
Independents (33%)	50%	30%	20%
3/15/06	42%	49%	9%
Based on 1,100 completed telephone interviews among a random sample of adults nationwide July 3-5, 2007. The theoretical margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points, 95% of the time. Of the total sample, 933 interviews were completed among registered voters.

Question:
Do you favor or oppose the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney?
7/5/07	Favor	Oppose	Undecided
All Adults	54%	40%	6%
Voters	50%	44%	6%
Democrats (38%)	76%	24%	-
Republicans (29%)	17%	83%	-
Independents (33%)	51%	29%	20%
Based on 1,100 completed telephone interviews among a random sample of adults nationwide July 3-5, 2007. The theoretical margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points, 95% of the time. Of the total sample, 933 interviews were completed among registered voters.

EPA Chief resigned after Cheney rewrote coal plant rules

Well here we go, yet another oversight agency gutted... and Cheney is calling the shots directly it seems. But then again, after wiping out 70,000 salmon in one of the greatest mass killoffs in history, this is small potatoes for him:

In Oregon, a battleground state that the Bush-Cheney ticket had lost by less than half of 1 percent, drought-stricken farmers and ranchers were about to be cut off from the irrigation water that kept their cropland and pastures green. Federal biologists said the Endangered Species Act left the government no choice: The survival of two imperiled species of fish was at stake.

Law and science seemed to be on the side of the fish. Then the vice president stepped in.

First Cheney looked for a way around the law, aides said. Next he set in motion a process to challenge the science protecting the fish, according to a former Oregon congressman who lobbied for the farmers.

Because of Cheney's intervention, the government reversed itself and let the water flow in time to save the 2002 growing season, declaring that there was no threat to the fish. What followed was the largest fish kill the West had ever seen, with tens of thousands of salmon rotting on the banks of the Klamath River.

Characteristically, Cheney left no tracks.

The Klamath case is one of many in which the vice president took on a decisive role to undercut long-standing environmental regulations for the benefit of business.

So it seems that Christine Whitman, former governor of New Jersey and former Chief of the EPA under the Bush Administration, originally told everyone that she quit to "spend more time with her family." Of course, she was being a good conservative... and good conservatives tell no tales.

But the Washington Post states that Whitman left the EPA because Cheney pressured her into accepting pro-coal industry power plant rules which would create massive increases of air pollution:

It was Cheney's insistence on easing air pollution controls, not the personal reasons she cited at the time, that led Christine Todd Whitman to resign as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, she said in an interview that provides the most detailed account so far of her departure.

So... she just quietly quit? She didn't speak out, didn't fight him...she simply quit. And all without a word of warning to anyone.

What is wrong with these Republicans? Some of them have over-riding morals - but won't stop the nightmare because they are more devoted to their party than to the nation, or even their own welfare and the welfare of generations to come.

Nation before Party!!!

At last (updated)

I get the feeling this series has been 'sitting around' for awhile. Hopefully they were able to shake all of the dust off of the pages... glad they finally decided to run it. Enough is enough.

1. Washington Post Series: Cheney, Pt 1 'A Different Understanding With the President'
2. Washington Post Series: Cheney, Pt 2 Pushing the Envelope on Presidential Power
3. Washington Post Series: Cheney, Pt 3 A Strong Push From Back Stage
4. Washington Post Series: Cheney, Pt 4 Leaving No Tracks

I can only imagine part V. Perhaps 'How Cheney managed to scare the bejesus out of Congress so that Pelosi would take impeachment off the table without even finding out what was going on.'

Spying on me, part... III? IV? V?

This time, from the Washington Post (if they're covering it, its a disaster:)

An internal FBI audit has found that the bureau potentially violated the law or agency rules more than 1,000 times while collecting data about domestic phone calls, e-mails and financial transactions in recent years, far more than was documented in a Justice Department report in March that ignited bipartisan congressional criticism.

Well isn't that special. Aren't I so very surprised. Like the Justice Department could ever be accused of telling the truth.

I wonder - has the FBI also been reduced to just another partisan arm of the Bush/Cheney/Rove RNC squad (like every other department of the Federal government?) I wonder what the chances are that this is not the case? I can't imagine that Rove Inc. would have overlooked the FBI, when seeding partisan yes-men throughout the ranks of government.

The new audit covers just 10 percent of the bureau's national security investigations since 2002, and so the mistakes in the FBI's domestic surveillance efforts probably number several thousand, bureau officials said in interviews. The earlier report found 22 violations in a much smaller sampling.

Between 2002 and 2006, the FBI identified 26 potential violations in its use of National Security Letters to gather phone, Internet and bank records without traditional warrants. A 2007 Justice Department report that sampled a small number of cases found 22 additional violations, raising the total to 48. That report prompted the FBI to review 10 percent of the cases since 2002. The number of potential violations found has now grown to more than 1,000 as a result of that review.

-- snip --

But two dozen of the newly-discovered violations involved agents' requests for information that U.S. law did not allow them to have, according to the audit results provided to The Washington Post. Only two such examples were identified earlier in the smaller sample.

Yeah. Probably just 1000 innocent mistakes in a tiny, 10% testing sample. Probably just a few FBI agents who don't understand the law or the Constitution. No partisan intent here, of course not, none whatsoever. There isn't any partisan intent anywhere else in our government.

I am so sick of the bullshit.

Is it my turn to scream 'PARTISAN' back at you, Mr. Lott and Mr. Stevens? Or can I simply throw the Constitution in your face and remind you of your oaths again? This isn't the Yankees vs. the Red Sox; this is our government, our laws, and our freedom on the auction block.

All partisan, all the time.

I'm wasting bandwidth even talking to you, but if we citizens don't scream -- who will? If you don't hear each other (mostly all rich guys in matching gray suits;) you surely won't care what I think. But I care about my country.

Jon Stewart was right; you don't listen to each other, and you don't even make sense. I watched the coverage of your hamstrung Gonzales vote-to-not-vote on C-Span, and felt like I was eavesdropping on a Country Club award dinner... or perhaps a roast. Of course you weren't all patting each other on the backs, oh no; you only pat members of your own party, then scream 'partisan!' at everyone on the other side of the aisle. Issues be damned. Law be damned.

Great governing, guys. Terrific job. And thank you! Little wonder that you can't get anything done, any bills passed. Maybe if you all vote to give yourselves a raise, or award yourselves new golf clubs, you can find some common ground at last.

But back to the real issue at hand; the one you obviously won't protect us from:

The change -- combined with national anxiety about another domestic terrorist event -- led to an explosive growth in the use of the (National Security) letters. More than 19,000 such letters were issued in 2005 seeking 47,000 pieces of information, mostly from telecommunications companies. But with this growth came abuse of the newly relaxed rules, a circumstance first revealed in the Justice Department's March report by Inspector General Glenn A. Fine.

Wait a minute... roll that truck back. The 'national anxiety about another domestic terrorist event?'

I felt no such anxiety. Did you ask me?

Oh sure, another terrorist attack may happen -- it is probably guaranteed now; now that we've rampaged through the Middle East, sowing destruction and anti-American sentiments like an angry bull in a china shop. But back when this all started after 9/11, and despite what your ditzy corporate media mouths were saying, not all of us were cowering under our beds. No sir.

Not one damn person asked me - an American citizen - if I was so terribly scared that I would give up my constitutional rights in the hope that next time (unlike last time, when the threats were received in advance) my government will intervene.

Here's the rub. Generations of Americans have faced 'danger' and 'fear' and 'insecurity,' and never once did they gut the Constitution. Not once!

Who are we to be so cowardly, so weak-kneed, and so swayed by our media's propaganda that we would ever consider giving up the very heart of what our ancestors fought and died to protect? No one asked me, and no one asked any other American citizen. The media said 'Americans are scared,' the President said 'I will make them safe;' and then proceeded to spy on us... not the terrorists. Us.

This isn't about terrorists, this is about power. The American people are not terrorists in their own homes and in their own country.

And yes I do take offense. And yes, I'm mad as hell.

You Senators who think of nothing but partisan name-calling: you have no idea what 'defending the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic' means.

Does this all sound vaguely like a Keith Olbermann rant? Well I'm sick of reading things like this. And I'm sick of seeing that no one in Congress will do a damned thing to stop it.

I have spent many hours of my life reading about historic struggles in our past, and admiring those who stood up for me -- before I was even born. Imagine my disgust at you, my Senators, when you can't even differentiate between the law and selfish, party interests.

You are no one's representatives. You have betrayed us all. If that isn't worth a little rant... what is?

UPDATE: Appears at least someone in the House is angry too:

The Democratic Chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties expressed outrage at a report about how FBI agents possibly violated a surveillance law over and over again while misusing the National Security Letter (NSL) authority vastly expanded by the Patriot Act.

-- snip --

In a press release sent to RAW STORY, New York Congressman Jerrold Nadler, who also co-chairs the bipartisan Patriot Act Reform Caucus stated, "Today's reports only heighten the clear need for fixes to the NSL authority. The Justice Department's Inspector General previously found wide-spread abuses of the FBI's authority to issue NSLs - we now know that the problems go much further than initially disclosed. From the beginning, I have said that unchecked power would lead to rampant abuse. It's clear, yet again, that reforms are needed."

"These abuses by the DOJ and FBI have proven that legislative fixes are necessary," Nadler continued. "In the coming weeks, I plan on holding continued oversight hearings on the NSL authority as part of a series of hearing entitled, 'The Constitution in Crisis: The State of Civil Liberties in America.' I will also work with my colleagues to consider and craft legislation that would place adequate checks on the FBI's investigatory power."

Nadler added, "The new FBI guidelines regarding the use of NSLs fall far short of protecting the privacy of innocent Americans. It is not enough to mandate that the FBI fix internal management problems and record keeping, because the statute itself authorizes the unchecked collection of information on innocent Americans."

Union sounds alarm over background checks for new ID

OK, this is scary and very big-brotherish.

I have heard about this 'National Id,' and the huge fight that has been going on to escape it, but I didn't realize they were already implementing it. Orwell is squirming:

• Fifteen States Have Passed Anti-REAL ID Legislation. As the deadline for compliance draws closer, more states are opting out of the controversial REAL ID national identification system. The states that have passed anti-REAL ID legislation are: Arkansas (pdf), Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Carolina, and Washington. The resistance to REAL ID is growing. In May, more than 60 organizations and 215 blogs joined a campaign to submit comments against REAL ID. There are bills in both the U.S. House and Senate that would repeal the national identification scheme. EPIC and 24 experts in privacy and technology submitted detailed comments (pdf) explaining the many privacy and security threats raised by the REAL ID Act. For more information, see EPIC's Spotlight on Surveillance for March. (June 5)
• Congress Debates Bills That Broaden Uses of REAL ID. The House (pdf) and Senate (pdf) are debating immigration bills that include provisions broadening the uses of REAL ID cards and licenses, which do not exist. Both bills create a national employment eligibility verification system, which would use REAL ID cards for identification and eligibility verification. The Senate bill forbids the use of non-REAL ID cards in the verfication system after 2013. Both bills permit the DHS Secretary to prohibit the use of certain documents for employment verification. This would give the DHS Secretary the power to mandate the use of a national ID card, such as the REAL ID card, as the sole acceptable document for employment eligibility verification in the United States. EPIC Executive Director Marc Rotenberg is expected to testify at a Congressional hearing on the House bill next week. For more on the bills, see EPIC's Spotlight on Surveillance for May. (May 31)
• Georgia and Nevada Join Revolt Against REAL ID. Georgia and Nevada have become the ninth and tenth states to pass legislation against REAL ID. The Georgia bill allows the governor to delay implementation "until the Department of Homeland Security has issued regulations that the Governor finds will adequately protect the interests of the citizens of Georgia." Nevada passed a joint resolution urging Congress to repeal the fundamentally flawed national identification scheme. Eight other states have passed anti-REAL ID legislation. Washington (pdf) and Montana (pdf) chose to opt-out completely. Colorado (pdf) and Idaho refuse to spend any money on REAL ID implementation. Arkansas (pdf), Hawaii, Maine, and North Dakota are calling for its repeal. There are bills in both the U.S. House and Senate that would repeal REAL ID. (May 16)
• DHS Receives More Than 12,000 Comments on REAL ID Draft Regulations. The Department of Homeland Security announced that it has received more than 12,000 comments on its draft implementation regulations for the REAL ID Act. The public comment process was marked with problems. Many people complained that they were unable file comments through the Web site and fax number that DHS provided in its federal rulemaking. One day before the comments were due, DHS finally set up an e-mail address to which people could send comments. REAL ID faces considerable opposition by the public, the States and in Congress. More than 60 organizations and 215 blogs joined a campaign to submit comments against REAL ID. Washington (pdf) and Montana (pdf) passed legislation to opt-out completely. Colorado (pdf) and Idaho will not spend any money on REAL ID implementation. Arkansas (pdf), Hawaii, Maine, and North Dakota are calling for its repeal. Both houses of Congress are debating legislation that would repeal the ill-conceived law. At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing yesterday about REAL ID, Chairman Patrick Leahy said, "The days of Congress rubber-stamping any and every idea cooked up by this administration are over." Sen. Leahy has co-sponsored a bill to repeal REAL ID. (May 9)

The Real Id Act faced a great deal of opposition, including a direct warning from Rep. Ron Paul, but apparently slipped through via a Presidential Directive.

President Bush issued a directive in 2004 requiring a new ID card to help deter terrorists, criminals and computer hackers.

The cards, which resemble credit cards, are embedded with a computer chip that permits an exchange of data with another system.

In addition to building access, smart cards can be used to supplement passwords for logging on to computers, with users inserting the card into readers on their desktops.

Pre-Katrina, so I (at least) wasn't paying much attention, must have missed this.

Anyway, the unions are now facing the implementation of these cards, and apparently they come with sweeping background checks that include collection of financial and medical information (isn't this protected by HIPAA?)

Some federal employees are smarting over their smart-card treatment.

Background investigations of federal and contract workers being conducted for a new government-wide identification card, which carries a computer chip, have drawn objections at two agencies and rumblings of concern at others.
The National Federation of Federal Employees has raised questions about the background checks on behalf of its unionized members at the General Services Administration. Four research scientists at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California have written to members of Congress and contacted NASA officials to make clear their opposition to the background checks.

The Bush administration's goal is to replace the multiple ID cards used in the government with a single "smart" card that will verify a person's identity and give him or her access to federal buildings and permission to log on to government computer networks. The cards are being issued in phases, with agencies facing a deadline of late 2008.

Before cards are issued, federal employees and contractors must provide fingerprints and disclose financial, medical and other personal data. The forms filled out by employees and contractors are matched against databases to verify the information. For some employees holding sensitive jobs, agents are sent to interview neighbors.

Some employees are nervous that they could lose their jobs if their agencies take a dim view of excessive credit card debt, unpaid parking tickets or restraining orders issued in divorce proceedings. Some employees also are concerned about the potential for identity theft if their personal information is stolen or lost from a database.