Newshoggers.com

Portents of the police state

By Libby

Fascism doesn't arrive overnight. By design, it creeps in by increments. Every week brings something new.

A recently passed law requires that Texas computer-repair technicians have a private-investigator license, according to a story posted by a Dallas-Fort Worth CW affiliate.

In order to obtain said license, technicians must receive a criminal justice degree or participate in a three-year apprenticeship. Those shops that refuse to participate will be forced to shut down. Violators of the new law can be hit with a $4,000 dollar fine and up to a year in jail, penalties that apply to customers who seek out their services.

I can't think of any reason for this rule other than to shut down small entrepeneurs and to facilitate searches of your hard drive when you bring it in for repairs. I assume the PI license would validate evidence obtained in such a search in some way.

Even more disturbing is this wider surveillance program deputizing municipal employees and utility workers as quasi-Homeland Security agents.

Hundreds of police, firefighters, paramedics and even utility workers have been trained and recently dispatched as “Terrorism Liaison Officers” in Colorado and a handful of other states to hunt for “suspicious activity” — and are reporting their findings into secret government databases. [...]

“Suspicious activity” is broadly defined in TLO training as behavior that could lead to terrorism: taking photos of no apparent aesthetic value, making measurements or notes, espousing extremist beliefs or conversing in code, according to a draft Department of Justice/Major Cities Chiefs Association document.

A lot of room for interpretation in those rules. Think about that. They're building a citizen's surveillance system with such broad parameters that any ordinary dissenter could fit the profile.

This is how they build the state. No one thing is so alarming as to to seem worth causing a fuss over. But taken in the aggregate, it quietly grows into totalitarianism.

Iran's Nuke Letter "Nothing New" Say Leakers

By Cernig

Anonymous Western officials have leaked what they say are aspects of Iran's letter to EU chief negotiator Javier Solana, charging that the letter is "nothing new", although the Western governments involved have declined to discuss the letter's contents "on record". The anonymous officials told the NY Times that:

said Iran would be willing to open a comprehensive negotiation with Javier Solana, the European Union foreign policy chief, and the six world powers involved in confronting Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

It did not specifically address any of the proposals they presented to it last month.

“The time for negotiating from the condescending position of inequality has come to an end,” the Iranian response said, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity under normal diplomatic rules.

It also criticized the United Nations Security Council sanctions against it as “illegal” and spoke of a “lack of trust” because of the “duplicitous behavior of certain big powers,” the officials said.

It apparently made no mention, in particular, of any "freeze on freeze" deal, and an Iranian spokesman close to President Ahmadinejad said yesterday that “Iran’s stand regarding its peaceful nuclear program has not changed." However, the letter did say that Iran was ready for a new phase of negotiations with Solana and it's worth noting that Ahmadinejad's faction has recently been publicly rebuked by figures closer to Grand Ayatollah Kameini for their excessively recalcitrant and infammatory rhetoric.

No good news, then. As I see it, we're still in a position where the West, with the Bush administration as back-seat driver, is trying to play poker with a haggler (and, of course, vice versa). There's something majorly wrong with the West's position that Iran must give up enrichment activities which are its right under the terms of the Non-proliferation Treaty as a precondition to...negotiations on whether it should give up enrichment activities. There's also something wrong with an Iranian government that won't, through simple stupid pride, say that if the precondition was dropped every option, even a cessation of enrichment, would be on the table.

The obvious answer is that Iranian enrichment shouldn't stop - it should be internationalised. If the Iranian venture was converted into an international one -as both the Iranians themselves and US progressive non-proliferation experts have at different times said - then those activities could be made subject to a full IAEA inspection regime and involvement by Western nations, ensuring (beyond even the IAEA's current guarantee that none of Iran's low-level enriched uranium can be redirected for further enrichment to bomb grade without their knowledge) that Iran's enrichment activities cannot be used for bomb-making. On Iran's part, it would have the technology its national pride says it should master, the fuel for reactors so that it can stop burning oil for power and sell that oil instead for hard currency - and even a new source of hard currency as a member of the select club of nuclear fuel producers.

But unless someone makes an effort to break the poker-bluff impasse, I feel, then Iran and the West are on a collision course that will end in an attack which will fail to halt the Iranian program and to its inevitable blowback. Unfortunately, there are those on both sides who actually wish for that, seeing it as a method of bolstering their own political fortunes.

Blogging From The Peanut Gallery

By Cernig

An Ian Dale post on what might be expected in the UK blogosphere when, as everyone expects, the Tories take power got me thinking about what will happen on US blogs after November if Obama wins. Dale considers the theory that blogging is easier for the political opposition - that we bloggers are, at the end of the day, opposers by nature.

I think there's a lot of truth in that - and over the last few years it's been easier for Leftie blogs to oppose actual policies which have a chance of being implemented. Righties have been more confined to opposing drummed-up issues, which is why faux-outrage specialists like Michelle Malkin, LGF and Red State have been so dominant on the Right. That's probably all about to change and those "outraged over not much" types are going to lose ground to those conservative bloggers who are capable of thinking through their opposition in more substantative policy terms.

On the Left too, there are going to be changes. Some Dem/Obama forms of Powerline-style mindless sycophancy are almost certain to emerge - and I hope some of us are going to be mindful enough to ridicule them. In the UK, Dale writes that he'll continue to criticize Tory mistakes when he feels the need - but there's going to be less need when a stronger Lefty blogosphere can do the criticising on substantative grounds and more peer pressure to defend his chosen party. The converse is going to be true in the US, where Lefties are more likely to fall into the "defending the administration" pattern we've seen from rightwing blogs during the Bush terms. That's more likely the closer the blogger is to the adminsitration in terms of contacts and possible future largesse. Might we see Kos and MyDD emulate the kind of administration cheerleaders we've until now only seen from the Powerlines of the US blogosphere?

What do you think?

Postscript: As to Ian Dale's claim that there are too few effective lefty blogs in the UK to provide an online opposition voice against the conservative's online dominance, he should expect that to change rapidly once Cameron is in No.10. Again, opposing is what bloggers do and a whole new slew of leftside UK-politics bloggers, some of whom are bound to be really good, will start up after the next UK election. I, for one, am planning a return to the UK, taking my American family with me, in the next year or two. At that point, there will naturally be more UK politics on Newshoggers as I am immersed back into the daily political news cycle there. Not that I'll be any kinder to the Labour party, mind you - I'm an SNP man.

Poland Wants More Sweeteners On Missile Defense

By Cernig

Poland has rejected the current offer of US sweeteners in return for their basing US missile defense interceptors in their nation as insufficient, in a blow to Bush's plans. However the Poles are saying a deal can still be done if more is offered and talks will continue.

In the months-long negotiations, Tusk's centre-right government had sought billions of dollars worth of U.S. investment to upgrade Polish air defences in return for hosting 10 missile interceptors.

...Political analysts said Tusk's rebuff to Washington demonstrated a new Polish self-confidence on the global stage. Warsaw is one of Washington's firmest allies in the region and has troops serving alongside its ally in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"This is the first time that Poland has said 'no' to the U.S. ... It certainly sends a signal to Washington that Poland's support should not be taken for granted in any circumstances," said Pawel Swieboda, head of demosEuropa, a Warsaw think-tank.

"But it is also the case that the government greatly raised expectations and that these were never very realistic.

The Polish government are including a demand for long-term US Patriot missile basing, with troops to operate them, in their country - something some analysts feel is excessive. However, the Polish people are mostly opposed to the missile shield deal in the first place, according to polls.

The Bush administration has said if Poland rejects hosting the interceptors, they will next look at Lithuania, which lies to the NorthWest - which would serve mostly to undermine claims that the interceptors are to address a threat from Iran and solidify Russian beliefs that the missile shield is ultimately an attempt to ressurect a full Reagan-style "Star Wars" program aimed at erroding the Russian deterrent. Russia has said the missile shield will kick off a new arms race and make the world a less safe place.

On balance, the Russians appear to be correct. The same neoconservative think tanks that first devised the missile shield plan taken up by the Bush administration have since been pushing for an expansion of the shield to include space-based interceptors - something that would first require abrogation of key arms control treaties on weaponry in space and doubtless lead to others, mainly Russia and China, looking to station weapons permanently in orbit as well as to new develpment of interceptor-evading nuclear missiles and a new build-up of conventional Russian forces aimed at a potential threat from the West. Many would say all that far outweighs the benefits of having a dubious defense (placed far too far North) against an entirely hypothetical Iranian missile threat.

Celebrating 35 years of epic failure

By Libby

I'm a couple of days late in wishing the DEA an unhappy anniversary. Brainchild of Richard Nixon, the agency was created 35 years ago when Tricky Dick declared an open war on drugs. "At its outset, the DEA had 1,470 Special Agents and a budget of less than $75 million. Furthermore, in 1974, the DEA had 43 foreign offices in 31 countries. Today, the DEA has 5,235 Special Agents, a budget of more than $2.3 billion and 86 foreign offices in 62 countries."

What has the agency accomplished in these three and a half decades? Not much besides laying the groundwork for our budding present day police state, where it's considered patriotic in certain influential circles to support the abridgement of civil liberties in the name of false safety.

Meanwhile, a NYT editorial didn't mark this sad anniversary but did note the failure of the war on some drugs this week and correctly stated, "Over all, drug abuse must be seen more as a public health concern and not primarily a law enforcement problem. Until demand is curbed at home, there is no chance of winning the war on drugs." I would amend that to say drug abuse myself.

Today, a LAT op-ed goes them one better and looks at the costs of this failed 'war.'

The United States has been spending $69 billion a year worldwide for the last 40 years, for a total of $2.5 trillion, on drug prohibition -- with little to show for it. Is anyone actually benefiting from this war? Six groups come to mind.

These would be the drug lords, street gangs and terrorist groups, all of whom benefit from the tax-free profits of the black market created under prohibition. On the law enforcement side, the beneficiaries are politicians who talk tough on drugs to get elected, but legislate dumb in terms of solving addiction and abuse problems, the professional prohibitionists like those in the DEA and assorted private groups like Drug Free America and corporations that sell urine tests for example and last, but certainly not least, the prison-industrial complex which benefits greatly from the largest prison system in the entire world. Few lobbyist groups are as powerful as the prison guard union. The LAT op-ed gets it exactly right.

Ending drug prohibition, taxing and regulating drugs and spending tax dollars to treat addiction and dependency are the approaches that many of the world's industrialized countries are taking. Those approaches are ones that work.

Approaches the US is unwilling to embrace as long as there is so much profit to made in 'fighting drugs.' The beneficiaries of bad policy have no incentive to 'win' this 'war.' Until non-consuming citizens understand that these failed policies are doing much more harm than the use of illegal drugs themselves and call for an end to prohibition and its associated negative social costs, we will continue to waste tax dollars that could could be much better spent on badly needed social and civic programs that would better civil society instead of slowly destroying it. [h/t to TalkLeft and Media Awareness Project]

Dam Single Points of Failure

By Fester:

Pittsburgh is a massive port.  The rivers provide a cheap, convienent, high volume highway for the transhipment of industrial goods and raw materials, most notably coal.  That coal is used for power generation to supply power both locally and to the mid-Atlantic seaboard, and as an intermediate good in the production steel.  However the river system is full of numerous single points of failures that could have very large repurcussions on both the region and the nation as Forbes reports on the state of the region's navigation system:

Should the Emsworth dam fail, it would isolate river activity around Pittsburgh, Crall said. Public utilities, industry, ecosystems and water supply would be harmed. Nearly 12,000 jobs would at risk...

Without the river transportation system, U.S. Steel would require either 160 railroad cars or 700 trucks a day, instead of 10 barges, to serve its Clairton Coke plant, said Lisa Roudabush, general manager for United States Steel Corp.'s Mon Valley Works.

A few weeks ago, I was looking at the question of best practice dissemination and I am still scratching my head as to why there is not more guerrilla warfare on water.  Some of that is because naval guerrilla warfare is called piracy in most cases, but I think this is an area of luck that we can not count on over the long term. River shipping is prone to single points of failures which in my eyes means attacks on river navigation systems should be high return on investment attacks as the substitution transportation methods are very costly.

For instance, a single barge requires seventy trucks to substitute for its capacity if the barges were stranded.  Paul Krugman posts this convienent chart of the fuel costs of diesel today.  Shifting to trucks instead of transport massively cuts down on profit margins, increases the opportunities for smuggling while also decreasing connectivity and existing elite/governing legitimacy.

These single points of failure are numerous and by their very nature, fairly brittle.  I wonder why similiar structures have not been attacked in Nigeria or Russia where there are significant navigable waterways and insurgent/terrorist groups.  Chechynan guerrillas have demonstrated a capacity for systemic infrastructure attacks in Russia, and MEND in Nigeria has developped its skill sets in taking down oil infrastructure to the point that it is capable of operating in the littoral and near-deep sea areas.  Why not the riverine system as the substitutes to it are expensive, and lacking in capacity to fully shift the load from a failure. 

(h/t to Chris Briem for a post that got this thought rolling for me)

A New Paradigm

By Ron Beasley

The death of Jesse Helms on the Fourth of July is symbolic on many fronts.

Jesse Helms, the North Carolina Republican senator whose uncompromising conservatism made him one of America's leading crusaders against communism, liberalism, tax increases, abortion, homosexuality, affirmative action and court-ordered busing to integrate schools, died yesterday at Mayview Convalescent Center in Raleigh, N.C. He was 86.

Helms was the modern day equivalent of a Neanderthal who's mind set was deeply rooted in the 16th century.  A racist, bigot and homophobe he was truly a man who's species is rushing toward extinction.  He represented the Republican Party that Lee Attwater and Karl Rove created based on the very worst qualities of humans.  The old time bigots are dying and there are increasingly few to take their places which is why the vast majority of those under thirty identify with the Democratic Party and why the Republican Party must once again reinvent itself.

A new paradigm indeed!

What Didn't Happen

By Libby

Krugman puts on his media critic hat today with a good op-ed on the manufactured outrage over Wes Clark's wholly correct statement that McCain's experience as a POW does not qualify him for the presidency and other media manufactured myths. It's a good piece but Paul is a bit more optimistic than me about the future.

Since then, however, both the press and the Obama campaign seem to have recovered some of their balance. Opinion pieces have started to appear pointing out that General Clark didn’t say what he’s accused of saying. Mr. Obama has also declared that General Clark doesn’t owe Mr. McCain an apology for his “inartful” remarks and denies that his own condemnation, in a speech given on Monday, of those who “devalue” military service was aimed at the general.

Furthermore, my sense, though it’s hard to prove, is that the press is feeling a bit ashamed about the way it piled on General Clark. If so, news organizations may think twice before buying into the next fake scandal.

If so, the campaign has just taken a major turn in Mr. Obama’s favor. After all, if this campaign isn’t dominated by faux outrage over fake scandals, it will have to be about things that really did happen, like a failed economic policy and a disastrous war — both of which Mr. McCain promises will continue if he wins.

Right. Tell that to the horrendous Joe Scarborough and the equally despicable Andrea Mitchell. I'm sure we'll be hearing their mea culpas any day now....

Happy Independence Day

By Libby

A safe and happy holiday to all. Don't over imbibe and drive and while you're resting up from the fireworks tomorrow, you might want to keep the celebration going by contacting your Senate sneaks and asking them to honor the occassion, and our Founding Fathers, by upholding the Constitution and protecting the Fourth Amendment.

Dan makes it easy to send them a message and you could pass along some of his suggestions if you find yourself at a loss for words.

And while you're at it, hug your favorite rabblerousers today.

Iran Responds To EU Offer

By Cernig

Iran has sent an official letter of response to the P5+1 group's latest offer on nuclear negotiations. No-one knows what's in it yet but the Iranians telephoned to confirm it has been sent and diplomats expect it to arrive today. The FT reports that the Iranian senior negotiator had been “positive and ­constructive” during the phonecall, according to a spokes man for Javier Solana, the European Union’s foreign policy chief.

Iranian media reported Mr Jalili as saying that Iran’s answer “focused on commonalities and a constructive and innovative view”.

Western diplomats believe that Iran’s response will be critical in determining how the next phase of negotiations between Iran and the international community plays out.

If Iran responds positively, both sides might move to the first stage of negotiations, called “freeze for freeze”. This would see Iran freezing any expansion of its uranium enrichment facility at Natanz. However, it would be able to continue the uranium enrichment process. The international community would, in turn, freeze moves to apply further sanctions on Iran.

Western diplomats insist that this phase can last no more than six weeks before Iran comes under pressure to suspend the enrichment process altogether. But some suspect that Iran might demand that the “freeze-for-freeze” phase lasts longer.

A diplomat from one of the six countries involved in talks with Iran – the US, UK, France, China and Russia plus Germany – said it was unlikely Iran would give a clear-cut answer in its letter. “The Iranians will play for time, it won’t be a straightforward response.”

If, however, the response is deemed insufficiently positive, pressure will mount for a new round of United Nations sanctions in the autumn. It would also add to the growing speculation that Israel might bomb Iran’s nuclear facility before the end of the year.

Here's hoping that Iran has indeed accepted the notion of a "freeze-on-freeze" which would defuse some tension in the region, and that hawks in the P5+1 nations, especially the US, don't decide to torpedo possible negotiations by dismissing any Iranian offer as unrealistic whether it is or not.

Doubtless more on this tomorrow.