YESTERDAY'S QUESTION
What is the "Gates of Hell?"
JEOPARDY!
The Body Human for $200
Of 106, 206, or 306, the number of bones the average adult has.
Monday, April 26, 2004
Hold harmless or homeless
From the Rocky Mountain News (Denver, CO) comes a sign of the times.
The Regional Transportation District (RTD) is a subdivision of the state of Colorado which runs public transportation in and around Denver. It apparently had been having trouble with one of its employees, one Renita Bell, to the point where she was suspended for five days and asked to sign a work performance promise in order to return.
She refused, did not return to work, and applied for unemployment. She was turned down because the officials of the unemployment agency decided that her refusal to sign and subsequent leaving amounted to insubordination. She sued.
Sounds like one of those cases the right-wing, torch-carrying, mob likes to point to about "stupid lawsuits," right?
Except for one thing: The performance promise she was told to sign
Well, good for the court - but what does it say about the state of things when neither her employer nor the unemployment bureau saw anything improper about that provision?
Footnote: Thanks to Alternative Press Review for the tip.
The Regional Transportation District (RTD) is a subdivision of the state of Colorado which runs public transportation in and around Denver. It apparently had been having trouble with one of its employees, one Renita Bell, to the point where she was suspended for five days and asked to sign a work performance promise in order to return.
She refused, did not return to work, and applied for unemployment. She was turned down because the officials of the unemployment agency decided that her refusal to sign and subsequent leaving amounted to insubordination. She sued.
Sounds like one of those cases the right-wing, torch-carrying, mob likes to point to about "stupid lawsuits," right?
Except for one thing: The performance promise she was told to sign
also required Bell to waive her legal rights to appeal RTD's decisions about her or to sue the transportation agency over job issues.That was too much for the Colorado Court of Appeals, which ruled Thursday that employees can't be required to sign away their legal rights in order to keep their jobs. It sent the case back to the unemployment bureau for reconsideration.
Well, good for the court - but what does it say about the state of things when neither her employer nor the unemployment bureau saw anything improper about that provision?
Footnote: Thanks to Alternative Press Review for the tip.
Slowly I turned, step by step....
Again, what can't be done openly is being done by stealth. This example is provided by Declan McCullagh, Washington correspondent for CNET News.com, in an April 19 column on ZDNet.
In 1994, Congress passed the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) because of concerns that then-emerging technologies such as cellular phones and three-way calling weren't covered by legislation allowing for wiretapping of conversations.
At the time, it was made abundantly clear that the law applied to telephones and telephones only.
Now the FBI is back, trying to get the feds to require providers of broadband, Internet telephony, and instant-messaging services to build in backdoors to make it easy for government eavesdroppers to listen in. Are they asking Congress for legislative authority? Of course not - that could spark public debate, especially since there are a lot of politically-adept bitheads who really value their internet privacy.
So despite the legislative history, despite the clear Congressional intent, the FBI and the DEA are claiming that CALEA gives the FCC the authority to in effect require a rewrite of the internet for the benefit of the federal snoops - and they're pressing the agency to move on their dema - er, "request" - for vastly broadened powers of surveillance with little public input, or, more exactly, before the public catches on.
Okay, so Orwell was British. But he had an American spirit.
In 1994, Congress passed the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) because of concerns that then-emerging technologies such as cellular phones and three-way calling weren't covered by legislation allowing for wiretapping of conversations.
At the time, it was made abundantly clear that the law applied to telephones and telephones only.
"So what we are looking for is strictly telephone - what is said over a telephone?" Sen. Larry Pressler, R-S.D., asked.In fact Freeh had earlier attempted to include internet services in the new law, but Congress rejected it.
[Then-FBI Director Louis] Freeh replied: "That is the way I understand it. Yes, sir."
A House of Representatives committee report prepared in October 1994 is emphatic, saying CALEA's requirements "do not apply to information services such as electronic-mail services; or online services such as CompuServe, Prodigy, America Online or Mead Data (Central); or to Internet service providers."
Now the FBI is back, trying to get the feds to require providers of broadband, Internet telephony, and instant-messaging services to build in backdoors to make it easy for government eavesdroppers to listen in. Are they asking Congress for legislative authority? Of course not - that could spark public debate, especially since there are a lot of politically-adept bitheads who really value their internet privacy.
So despite the legislative history, despite the clear Congressional intent, the FBI and the DEA are claiming that CALEA gives the FCC the authority to in effect require a rewrite of the internet for the benefit of the federal snoops - and they're pressing the agency to move on their dema - er, "request" - for vastly broadened powers of surveillance with little public input, or, more exactly, before the public catches on.
Okay, so Orwell was British. But he had an American spirit.
Twenty years down the line
The United Kingdom has launched a trial of what is ultimately intended to be a national ID card, using 10,000 volunteers. So reports the BBC today.
The argument, to what I expect is no one's surprise, is that it will deter terrorism. Home Secretary David Blunkett warned darkly that without them, Britain would become a "soft touch" for terrorists.
But of course such cards do little if anything to prevent domestic attacks.
So what's the real point? The same as always: control. The biometric data to be included on the cards, to the extent that it actually works as intended, enables you to be tracked pretty much through anything you do:
The opposition has largely focused on the cost, whether it will work, and whether the government could effectively manage a database containing identifying information about 60 million people
How about that this is something that supposedly free nations simply don't do?
George Orwell was British, you know.
The argument, to what I expect is no one's surprise, is that it will deter terrorism. Home Secretary David Blunkett warned darkly that without them, Britain would become a "soft touch" for terrorists.
But of course such cards do little if anything to prevent domestic attacks.
Terrorism expert Professor Paul Wilkinson, of St Andrew's University, said he was not convinced ID cards would aid the battle against terrorism.Even Blunkett knows this, admitting that only 35% of accused terrorists used false identities.
He said: "The majority of the 11 September hijackers were travelling under their own names, so they wouldn't have been picked up by an ID system and, of course, the al-Qaeda network is particularly good at finding ways of getting people across borders."
So what's the real point? The same as always: control. The biometric data to be included on the cards, to the extent that it actually works as intended, enables you to be tracked pretty much through anything you do:
By 2013 - when ministers are due to decide whether to make the ID cards compulsory for everyone - 80% of the population is expected to hold either a biometric passport or driving licence.Ministers have also talked about the card helping to crack down on ID fraud (which would mean attaching it to all license applications and bank and credit card accounts, at minimum) and illegal working (job applications) - with areas such as schooling an obvious and logical extension.
If they are made compulsory, cards will have to be produced to access a range of public services including the NHS and benefits.
The opposition has largely focused on the cost, whether it will work, and whether the government could effectively manage a database containing identifying information about 60 million people
How about that this is something that supposedly free nations simply don't do?
George Orwell was British, you know.
The Fallujah ceasefire
Now you see it...
However, what I really wanted to note here is the more subtle point that this is another indication of the willingness of much of Iraq's local civic government to deal through the UN. The UN has a legitimacy in Iraq which the US simply does not and cannot.
Unfortunately, it's hard to imagine the UN being involved in a truly constructive - which would require impartial - way. So far it has served more as cover for US interests than as an independent body. The Security Council won't (because it can't) pass anything the US finds contrary to it's interests and while Kofi Annan could try an end run around the Council by offering the good offices of the Secretariat as a mediator in Iraq, I frankly don't see him doing that. If nothing else, I expect he's going to be rather preoccupied with the emerging claims about scandal and kickbacks in the Iraq oil-for-food program.
Still, better a small chance than none.
US military commanders have postponed a major offensive against Iraqi fighters in the besieged city of Falluja....now you don't.
Instead, US marines will begin joint patrols with Iraqi security forces under a new plan agreed between US forces and Iraqi negotiators.
- BBC News, Monday, April 26, 12:26 GMT
US marines and Iraqi insurgents have been engaged in a prolonged fire fight in the city of Falluja despite a new ceasefire agreement at the weekend.Footnote: Another one of those footnotes that are longer than the post they are a footnote to. The second article also notes that
More than 100 Iraqi fighters are said to have attacked a US patrol, killing one marine and injuring eight.
- BBC News, Monday, April 26, 19:21 GMT
the local council has appealed to the United Nations to investigate allegations of war crimes by American forces.Two things here, one being the obvious one of the charge of war crimes, which I will deal with more fully in a future post. I'll just say here that it's about time it was said out loud on the ground in Iraq, by people who can't be immediately dismissed as wild-eyed, US-hating terrorists. The very fact that the charge is made by the people the US forces have been negotiating with in search of a ceasefire in Fallujah should gives their voices some level of credibility in the Western, most importantly the US, media. It probably won't, but it should.
At a meeting with UN officials in Jordan, members of Falluja's council said American forces had used cluster bombs against civilians there, and their snipers had shot dead non-combatants during the recent truce.
They also called for UN mediation in talks with the Americans aimed at ending the fighting.
However, what I really wanted to note here is the more subtle point that this is another indication of the willingness of much of Iraq's local civic government to deal through the UN. The UN has a legitimacy in Iraq which the US simply does not and cannot.
Unfortunately, it's hard to imagine the UN being involved in a truly constructive - which would require impartial - way. So far it has served more as cover for US interests than as an independent body. The Security Council won't (because it can't) pass anything the US finds contrary to it's interests and while Kofi Annan could try an end run around the Council by offering the good offices of the Secretariat as a mediator in Iraq, I frankly don't see him doing that. If nothing else, I expect he's going to be rather preoccupied with the emerging claims about scandal and kickbacks in the Iraq oil-for-food program.
Still, better a small chance than none.
It Came From Beneath the Geek
New evidence that life emerged early on Earth has come from an international group of geologists studying rocks in South Africa, the Beeb for April 22 tells us.
The evidence consists of microscopic tubes - averaging just 4 micrometers across and 50 micrometers long (i.e., 4x50 millionths of a meter) - found in volcanic glass dating from 3.5 billion years ago. They were caused, the researchers say, by microbes eating their way into rocks that formed as lava oozed out and cooled.
Recently-made microtubules have been discovered previously and the idea that they were caused by rock-eating microorganisms is shown by the fact that the tubules contain nucleic acids and elevated levels of carbon and nitrogen. The tubules in this case also contain carbon, which the researchers say is organic, noting that the surrounding volcanic rock contains very little carbon.
Key to the discovery is the fact that the fine structure of the tubules show that they were overgrown by a metamorphic mineral called chlorite, the result of volcanic glass being subjected to pressure and thus heat. What that showed is that the tubules are much older than the chlorite and thus could not have been made "recently" in geologic terms.
The discovery adds weight to the belief that life on Earth emerged as long as 3.7 billion years ago.
The evidence consists of microscopic tubes - averaging just 4 micrometers across and 50 micrometers long (i.e., 4x50 millionths of a meter) - found in volcanic glass dating from 3.5 billion years ago. They were caused, the researchers say, by microbes eating their way into rocks that formed as lava oozed out and cooled.
Recently-made microtubules have been discovered previously and the idea that they were caused by rock-eating microorganisms is shown by the fact that the tubules contain nucleic acids and elevated levels of carbon and nitrogen. The tubules in this case also contain carbon, which the researchers say is organic, noting that the surrounding volcanic rock contains very little carbon.
Key to the discovery is the fact that the fine structure of the tubules show that they were overgrown by a metamorphic mineral called chlorite, the result of volcanic glass being subjected to pressure and thus heat. What that showed is that the tubules are much older than the chlorite and thus could not have been made "recently" in geologic terms.
The discovery adds weight to the belief that life on Earth emerged as long as 3.7 billion years ago.
Sunday, April 25, 2004
...to this
This is from CBS News for April 22.
Allen says
All Ryan Allen wanted was a Chevrolet Cavalier.The FBI was called but it expressed little interest, since al-Shibh was arrested two years ago in Pakistan and is now in prison.
Instead, a computer lent him a brand new identity as one of the alleged masterminds of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
On April 10, when Van Chevrolet in Kansas City checked his credit, Allen's Social Security number came up as belonging to Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, described by federal authorities as a senior al Qaeda operative suspected of helping to coordinate the Sept. 11 attacks.
Allen says
he has received no clear explanation of how his number could be connected to al-Shibh. And he said Treasury officials could not assure him the number wasn't used in other ways or that the problem would not recur.Too bad he isn't a rich foreign traveler; he'd have Colin Powell lobbying for him.
"At one point (the Treasury Department) told me my name might have come up because the consonants are the same as this other guy," Allen said Wednesday. "Come on, Little Bo Peep is closer to his name than mine."
John Garlinger, a spokesman for the Kansas City region of Social Security, ... said Allen may continue to have troubles, particularly if he wants to travel overseas.
"It's unfortunate that he may spend hours and hours and hours trying to recover from this," Garlinger said.
Want to know how you rate? Compare this...
The Visa Waiver Program allows citizens of 22 European nations plus Australia, Brunei, Japan, New Zealand and Singapore to enter the US for up to 90 days without a visa. In 2002, in the flood of security concerns, Congress passed legislation requiring those visitors to use new passports with (supposedly) more secure means of identification and tracking such as digitized facial recognition and fingerprints. They were supposed to be in use by October 26 of this year.
Washington, April 21 (New York Times) - The Bush administration sent two of its top officials to Congress on Wednesday to argue for giving 27 allies more time to develop high-technology passports for security screening, rather than forcing their citizens to apply for United States visas until the new passports are available.In other words, faced with the choice between protecting "national security" and protecting the tourism industry, the bucks have to keep flowing. We can invade Iraq, we can imprison Muslims without trial, we can deport them for the tiniest offenses, but dammit, we are not going to hinder some European business executive on holiday!
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge told the House Judiciary Committee that most of the countries needed two more years to develop the passports....
[Mr. Ridge] and Mr. Powell outlined other reasons for seeking the extension, including the impact the current deadline would have on the American tourism industry and on consular staff offices suddenly facing a surge in visa requests. Mr. Powell said failure to move the deadline would lead to five million additional applications, a 70 percent increase in demand for nonimmigrant visas and certain delays in processing that would discourage people from visiting the United States.
Jeopardy!
YESTERDAY'S QUESTION
What is Jupiter?
FINAL JEOPARDY!
Sculpture
This unfinished Rodin work depicts scenes from Dante's "Inferno" on two bronze doors.
What is Jupiter?
FINAL JEOPARDY!
Sculpture
This unfinished Rodin work depicts scenes from Dante's "Inferno" on two bronze doors.
The devil's in the details
On Thursday, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the heart of the government's case against Zacarias Moussaoui, the self-confessed Osama bin Laden loyalist accused of involvement in the 9/11 attacks.
Previously, the District Court had ruled the government could neither seek the death penalty nor present evidence related to 9/11 as a penalty for its refusal to produce three witnesses in its custody which Moussaoui said could demonstrate his innocence.
The Circuit Court has tossed out that penalty but in a partial victory for the defense did say that the three could provide written statements in a form to be determined.
Does all that seem oh so wonderfully reasonable, fair, equitable, cleverly balancing "national security" and "fair trial?" Well, I suppose that's what we're supposed to think and is probably what the members of the Circuit Court do think.
But -
No penalty. No penalty for ignoring court orders. No penalty for violating the Constitution. No penalty.
Sleep well.
Previously, the District Court had ruled the government could neither seek the death penalty nor present evidence related to 9/11 as a penalty for its refusal to produce three witnesses in its custody which Moussaoui said could demonstrate his innocence.
The Circuit Court has tossed out that penalty but in a partial victory for the defense did say that the three could provide written statements in a form to be determined.
Does all that seem oh so wonderfully reasonable, fair, equitable, cleverly balancing "national security" and "fair trial?" Well, I suppose that's what we're supposed to think and is probably what the members of the Circuit Court do think.
But -
Robert Precht, assistant dean for public service at the University of Michigan law school, called the ruling "a very pragmatic decision. The court of appeals affirms that the Constitution applies in terrorism cases.Precht, that is, also praises the decision - but inadvertently reveals the core of the danger we face: There should be no penalty on the government, he says, for violating the Constitution. Oh, it still applies, and oh, yes, indeed, courts can order the White House to obey it, but if they refuse? :shrug: No penalty.
"But having said that, the court said that ... we don't have to impose these severe penalties for the government's failure to abide by the Constitution."
No penalty. No penalty for ignoring court orders. No penalty for violating the Constitution. No penalty.
Sleep well.
Please let this be posturing
The words were measured, the intent, it would seem, to be reassuring, when Brig. Gen. Mark Hertling announced on Sunday that
But they just couldn't contain themselves, could they? They just couldn't do it.
Now, frankly, I suspect it was exactly that, posturing for our benefit. Or at the very least I hope it is, because the alternative is rather too awful. But since the word "patience" does, amazingly, seem to have entered the military vocabulary both in Najaf and Fallujah, and as the generals have learned a rather bloody lesson that they can't just "send in the Marines" and have all opposition fold up and run away, I have some confidence that as long as other events don't intrude and as long as the US political scene is not demanding "action! action!" the blood will stay were it belongs for now, which is inside people's bodies.
In fact, as I noted on Monday,
So what does all this mean? Is Sadr "finished?" Has the US "won?" No, of course not, in fact the words are meaningless in this context. What is clear is that Sadr overplayed his hand and the choice now is between giving him a way out and marking ourselves in the eyes of Iraqis as being even more of brutes and Crusaders than we already appear.
This is what I said about Sadr oh so long ago, on April 8:
But as I noted then, what's important about Sadr is that he exposed for all to see the deep divisions, the deep distrust, even the deep hatred, among Iraqis for US forces and the US occupation. By attacking Najaf, US forces would only worsen that.
Not attacking will not, however, make it better. Only getting out will do that.
troops will move into a base on the edge of the holy city of Najaf that Spanish troops will abandon when they withdraw from Iraq in the coming weeks. But the Americans will remain away from holy sites - an effort to avoid outraging Iraq's Shiite majority, which opposes any U.S. foray near their most sacred shrine.Don't worry, the message seemed to be, we're not doing anything provocative, we're only filling a space where troops had already been, a former Spanish base between Kufa and Najaf.
But they just couldn't contain themselves, could they? They just couldn't do it.
Hertling said the move aimed to increase pressure on al-Sadr and his militia.Please let this just be posturing for domestic US consumption. Please.
"It's not going to be large-scale fighting, the likes of other places," he said. But "we're going to drive this guy into the dirt."
Now, frankly, I suspect it was exactly that, posturing for our benefit. Or at the very least I hope it is, because the alternative is rather too awful. But since the word "patience" does, amazingly, seem to have entered the military vocabulary both in Najaf and Fallujah, and as the generals have learned a rather bloody lesson that they can't just "send in the Marines" and have all opposition fold up and run away, I have some confidence that as long as other events don't intrude and as long as the US political scene is not demanding "action! action!" the blood will stay were it belongs for now, which is inside people's bodies.
In fact, as I noted on Monday,
nothing has defused the immediate crisis more than the US simply declining to attack Najaf,and that seems even truer now, when the situation is tense but stable and there are signs emerging that Sadr is wearing out his welcome. The Christian Science Monitor says resentment of the militias is "simmering under the surface" in Najaf and quotes the owner of a small textile business this way:
"These militias have become the major obstacle to our prosperity," says Mr. [Nabil] Mahdi. "If Saddam taught us one thing, it's to love peace. And now these people, not the Americans, won't let us have it."That doesn't mean, CSM notes, "that Najaf's people will soon deal with Sadr on their own." But it does connect to the fact that on
Thursday, a group of 25 tribal leaders issued a statement in Najaf calling on all armed groups in the city to disband. "We call upon you to leave matters to Iraqi officials and legitimate authorities so that the blood of innocent people is not shed," the statement said.Still, it does indicate that al-Sadr is gradually becoming more isolated. And not just physically in Najaf, but generally politically:
[However, i]t's unclear how much influence the statement will have. Iraq's tribes are crucial political factors inside Iraq, but they are not homogenous.
[T]he Advisory Council in Karbala asked for an end of any militarisation in the city, and of efforts to change mosques and other places of worship into military, party, or sectarian headquarters. Observers understood this as a message to followers of Muqtada al-Sadr who gather in mosques.That from al-Mashriq, published daily by Al-Mashriq Institution for Media and Cultural Investments, as relayed by the Iraqi Press Monitor for Thursday.
So what does all this mean? Is Sadr "finished?" Has the US "won?" No, of course not, in fact the words are meaningless in this context. What is clear is that Sadr overplayed his hand and the choice now is between giving him a way out and marking ourselves in the eyes of Iraqis as being even more of brutes and Crusaders than we already appear.
This is what I said about Sadr oh so long ago, on April 8:
I expect that the fighting will die down, perhaps with some face-saving agreement about releasing people seized "now that the situation is stabilized" and a vaguely-worded guarantee to Sadr about there being "no plans to take him into custody at the present time." For his part, I think that Sadr is going to realize that in the absence of that non-occurring general uprising, his people are going to be ground down - slowly, perhaps, but still ground down - by the sheer mass of the overwhelming numbers and firepower they face. I see him announcing an end to the fighting in a way that doesn't constitute any sort of surrender, perhaps something along the lines of "we have bloodied the enemy's nose, let us give him a chance to consider his error," at which point his militia melts back into the general population.I still expect something along those lines except that it's possible that Sadr has waited too long to call backing off any kind of ceasefire; he'd have to find some other face-saving formulation, perhaps "out of respect for the expressions of concern of religious leaders and my fellow clerics" or something.
But as I noted then, what's important about Sadr is that he exposed for all to see the deep divisions, the deep distrust, even the deep hatred, among Iraqis for US forces and the US occupation. By attacking Najaf, US forces would only worsen that.
Not attacking will not, however, make it better. Only getting out will do that.
In case you missed it
On Thursday, I mentioned that a press release from the Republican National Committee and a statement on the stationery of the IRS used exactly the same pro-Bush language. One R. Davis, commenting on that post, noted that he/she had posted an article showing how some press releases from the IRS had equally if not more outrageously propagandistic language.
The article, definitely worth checking out, can be found here.
Update: Common Cause has taken notice and is promoting an email campaign to complain to the Treasury Department about this. You can check it out and add your voice here.
The article, definitely worth checking out, can be found here.
Update: Common Cause has taken notice and is promoting an email campaign to complain to the Treasury Department about this. You can check it out and add your voice here.
AWW-FLAMING-RIGHT!
Oh, how I wish I could have been there.
Personally, I'm not that concerned about Roe v. Wade being overturned. That is, I don't think an outright reversal is likely. First because, despite mythology to the contrary, the Supreme Court is not unaffected by the tenor of the times and such a decision would be very controversial and very unpopular: Even though a majority of Americans express personal discomfort with the idea of abortion, they still oppose outlawing it.
Second and perhaps more important, the Court is generally loath to outright reverse previous decisions and has pretty much done it under rather extraordinary circumstances, such as striking down "separate but equal" as a Constitutionally-acceptable principle. The fact that this Court has had more than one opportunity to strike down Roe but has declined to do so seems to back that up.
What I'm more concerned about is what's been happening: The gradual erosion not of the theoretical legal right to abortion but of real-world access to it. Notification requirements, waiting periods, additional record-keeping regulations, gag rules, mandated "counseling" which was nothing other than an attempt to force doctors to talk women out of abortions, all kinds of bureaucratic hindrances to obtaining the procedure that have to one degree or another found favor in the courts and that together threaten to reduce the right to abortion to an empty shell.
Kate Michelman, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, made the point well:
Footnote: The DC police stopped giving estimates of crowd sizes when it finally became too notorious for downplaying the size of antiwar gatherings. If previous experience holds in the case of "informal" estimates, it's safe to say that over a million took part. Far f'ing out.
Update to the footnote: The march organizers, "using standard crowd estimate methods," came up with a figure of 1,150,000. They described the event as the "largest ever for women's rights rally in the nation's capitol." I think there are a couple of unnecessary qualifiers there.
I'll say it again: Oh, how I wish I could have been there.
Washington (AP, April 25) - Abortion-rights supporters marched in the hundreds of thousands Sunday, galvanized by what they see as an erosion of reproductive freedoms under President Bush and policies that hurt women worldwide.A half-million or more. My oh my that must have been something to see and would mark it as one of the biggest single marches this country has ever seen.
Amid the clamor of an election year, the throng of demonstrators flooded the National Mall. ...
Women joined the protest from across the nation and from nearly 60 countries, asserting that damage from Bush's policies is spreading far beyond U.S. shores through measures such as the ban on federal money for family-planning groups that promote or perform abortions abroad.
The rally on the National Mall stretched from the base of the U.S. Capitol about a mile back to the Washington Monument. Authorities no longer give formal crowd estimates, but various police sources informally estimated the throng at between 500,000 and 800,000 strong.
Personally, I'm not that concerned about Roe v. Wade being overturned. That is, I don't think an outright reversal is likely. First because, despite mythology to the contrary, the Supreme Court is not unaffected by the tenor of the times and such a decision would be very controversial and very unpopular: Even though a majority of Americans express personal discomfort with the idea of abortion, they still oppose outlawing it.
Second and perhaps more important, the Court is generally loath to outright reverse previous decisions and has pretty much done it under rather extraordinary circumstances, such as striking down "separate but equal" as a Constitutionally-acceptable principle. The fact that this Court has had more than one opportunity to strike down Roe but has declined to do so seems to back that up.
What I'm more concerned about is what's been happening: The gradual erosion not of the theoretical legal right to abortion but of real-world access to it. Notification requirements, waiting periods, additional record-keeping regulations, gag rules, mandated "counseling" which was nothing other than an attempt to force doctors to talk women out of abortions, all kinds of bureaucratic hindrances to obtaining the procedure that have to one degree or another found favor in the courts and that together threaten to reduce the right to abortion to an empty shell.
Kate Michelman, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, made the point well:
"The march is about the totality of women's lives and the right to make decision about our lives," she said.And that extends far beyond the bounds of Roe v. Wade and is a struggle that will not be resolved in November.
Footnote: The DC police stopped giving estimates of crowd sizes when it finally became too notorious for downplaying the size of antiwar gatherings. If previous experience holds in the case of "informal" estimates, it's safe to say that over a million took part. Far f'ing out.
Update to the footnote: The march organizers, "using standard crowd estimate methods," came up with a figure of 1,150,000. They described the event as the "largest ever for women's rights rally in the nation's capitol." I think there are a couple of unnecessary qualifiers there.
I'll say it again: Oh, how I wish I could have been there.
Saturday, April 24, 2004
And so it goes....
The attempt to reunify Cyprus in advance of its entry in the European Union has failed, reports Saturday's International Herald Tribune.
Acceptance of the plan, devised by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, required that it be approved in separate referendums in the Greek and Turkish areas of the island. The Turkish community, based on early returns, voted in favor of the plan by a margin of better than 2-1. But the Greek islanders rejected it by an even greater margin of more than 3-1. Turnout in both areas approached 90%.
How this developed and how it turned out show the importance of power politics over justice. The island has been divided for just under 30 years, since Turkey used a short-lived, Greek-backed coup to invade and occupy the northern third of the nation. It declared the area an independent republic, a position to date accepted by no other nation on the planet.
In January, it looked for a time like Turkey was tired of the issue and was prepared to withdraw. From that, the latest round of negotiations for unification were born.
But what came out of Annan's hands was a plan that essentially legitimized the Turkish invasion and occupation:
By the time of the voting, the EU, the UN, and the US were all pressuring Greek Cypriots to vote "yes," telling them this would be their last chance and even hinting at diplomatic isolation for the island if the Greek community didn't vote the way the big powers wanted. Clearly, the concern with getting this albatross from around Turkey's neck and being done with this pesky annoyance outweighed the idea of justice.
Might does not make right, but it can make justice for the weak in the face of an indifferent world irrelevant.
Acceptance of the plan, devised by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, required that it be approved in separate referendums in the Greek and Turkish areas of the island. The Turkish community, based on early returns, voted in favor of the plan by a margin of better than 2-1. But the Greek islanders rejected it by an even greater margin of more than 3-1. Turnout in both areas approached 90%.
How this developed and how it turned out show the importance of power politics over justice. The island has been divided for just under 30 years, since Turkey used a short-lived, Greek-backed coup to invade and occupy the northern third of the nation. It declared the area an independent republic, a position to date accepted by no other nation on the planet.
In January, it looked for a time like Turkey was tired of the issue and was prepared to withdraw. From that, the latest round of negotiations for unification were born.
But what came out of Annan's hands was a plan that essentially legitimized the Turkish invasion and occupation:
The plan envisages a federation of two politically equal states, one for the 643,000 Greek Cypriots and one for the 180,000 Turks and Turkish Cypriots in the north, under a weak central government.Not surprisingly, Turkey and Turkish Cypriots were all for the plan while Greek Cypriots were outraged and Greece was ambivalent.
By the time of the voting, the EU, the UN, and the US were all pressuring Greek Cypriots to vote "yes," telling them this would be their last chance and even hinting at diplomatic isolation for the island if the Greek community didn't vote the way the big powers wanted. Clearly, the concern with getting this albatross from around Turkey's neck and being done with this pesky annoyance outweighed the idea of justice.
The rejection of the plan, which had to be approved by both communities, means that only Greek Cypriots will enjoy the benefits when Cyprus joins the European Union on May 1.and talked of finding means to "ease the isolation of Turkish Cypriots."
The European Commission said it "deeply regrets that the Greek Cypriot community" rejected the plan.
"A unique opportunity to bring about a solution to the long-lasting Cyprus issue has been missed," the commission said in a statement in Brussels.
The commission, the EU's administration, said it wanted to "warmly congratulate Turkish Cypriots for their "yes" vote." It added it would look at ways to promote their development
Might does not make right, but it can make justice for the weak in the face of an indifferent world irrelevant.
Wilkommen is no welcome
An editorial in Saturday's New York Times makes note of the stiffening requirements for obtaining US citizenship.
We have never had an official language and seem to have gotten along quite well without one. Despite that, various attempts to make English the official language of the US have been and are being made. They have made some gains in the individual states (one advocacy group says 27 states have some form of "official language" statute) but they have gone nowhere on the national level. So, as so often happens of late, what can't be done openly is done covertly, smiling all the while.
Personally, what I find "meaningful" is that the pressure to create an official language seems to rise and fall in tandem with sweaty-palm concerns about the US becoming more multi-ethnic and multi-cultural. More bluntly, it seems that the more Hispanic and Asiatic cultures become part of our nation, the more the cry to "preserve our heritage" and "keep us united" rise. Draw your own conclusion.
Footnote: The Times says a typical question on the current test might ask which amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right to vote. (It's the seventh. I didn't know, either.) About 90% of applicants pass the exam. I wonder how many of those who most loudly screech about "preserving our heritage" would?
Background checks are needed, backlogs have increased, and the price of applying for citizenship is set to rise to more than $300 by the end of the month. ... But soon, in what seems to be piling on discouragement and stress for would-be citizens, there will be a revised test of whether applicants possess the knowledge deemed necessary to become an American.Presently, the Times notes, the test consists of "10 or so questions on presidents, the powers of Congress and the colors of the flag, among other areas." The new test will include multiple choice questions
and will be part oral and part written; applicants will be asked to describe scenes shown in photographs. The stated goal of the Bureau [of Citizenship and Immigration Services], which has taken up the duties of the old Immigration and Naturalization Service as part of the Department of Homeland Security, is to make the test more meaningful.Bull. What it will make it is more a test of proficiency in English and open the door wide to the same kind of arbitrary, subjective, outright discriminatory judgments that became notorious in the days of "literacy tests" required of those wanting to register to vote in the South. It's a backdoor way to make English the de facto "official language" of the US.
We have never had an official language and seem to have gotten along quite well without one. Despite that, various attempts to make English the official language of the US have been and are being made. They have made some gains in the individual states (one advocacy group says 27 states have some form of "official language" statute) but they have gone nowhere on the national level. So, as so often happens of late, what can't be done openly is done covertly, smiling all the while.
Personally, what I find "meaningful" is that the pressure to create an official language seems to rise and fall in tandem with sweaty-palm concerns about the US becoming more multi-ethnic and multi-cultural. More bluntly, it seems that the more Hispanic and Asiatic cultures become part of our nation, the more the cry to "preserve our heritage" and "keep us united" rise. Draw your own conclusion.
Footnote: The Times says a typical question on the current test might ask which amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right to vote. (It's the seventh. I didn't know, either.) About 90% of applicants pass the exam. I wonder how many of those who most loudly screech about "preserving our heritage" would?
The laughs keep on coming
On Thursday, the New York Times reports, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission voted to allow employers to reduce or even eliminate health benefits for retirees when they become eligible for Medicare at age 65, claiming it was exercising its statutory authority to carve out a "reasonable exemption" to federal laws barring discrimination on the basis of age.
No law requires employers to pay health benefits to retirees - or anyone, for that matter - but courts have held that if employers offer health benefits to retirees they can't discriminate on the basis of age. The EEOC has now claimed the authority, questioned by some, to allow for exactly that practice.
Some labor unions actually supported the rule, foolishly believing it will improve the chances of maintaining employer-supported health care coverage for current workers. AARP, the sail-trimmer of last fall's Medicare deform, strongly objected to no avail.
So what's the humor in another favor to corporate America? No, I don't mean the rib-tickling implication that Medicare coverage (which generally covers only about half of health-related expenses) is sufficient protection. It's this:
No law requires employers to pay health benefits to retirees - or anyone, for that matter - but courts have held that if employers offer health benefits to retirees they can't discriminate on the basis of age. The EEOC has now claimed the authority, questioned by some, to allow for exactly that practice.
Some labor unions actually supported the rule, foolishly believing it will improve the chances of maintaining employer-supported health care coverage for current workers. AARP, the sail-trimmer of last fall's Medicare deform, strongly objected to no avail.
So what's the humor in another favor to corporate America? No, I don't mean the rib-tickling implication that Medicare coverage (which generally covers only about half of health-related expenses) is sufficient protection. It's this:
A preamble to the final rule says it "is not intended to encourage employers to eliminate any retiree health benefits they may currently provide."Oh, those cards. They crack me up. Or break me down. Something.
Jeopardy!
YESTERDAY'S QUESTION
What is Salzburg?
DOUBLE JEOPARDY!
Rock Me, Amadeus for $2000
"Planetary" nickname of Mozart's Symphony No. 41 in C major.
What is Salzburg?
DOUBLE JEOPARDY!
Rock Me, Amadeus for $2000
"Planetary" nickname of Mozart's Symphony No. 41 in C major.
The Giant Behegeek
And I must say it means so much to me
To be the one who's telling you,
I keep telling you,
That you're beautiful.
- Gordon Lightfoot.
The find places the use of jewelry at least 30,000 years earlier than previously thought.
The real significance of the find is that is also pushes back the emergence of symbolic thought at least that far.
To be the one who's telling you,
I keep telling you,
That you're beautiful.
- Gordon Lightfoot.
The oldest pieces of jewellery made by modern humans have emerged in Africa.That the pea-sized shells were used as jewelry seems clear: They were taken from a river 20km away, apparently chosen for size, they all have similar holes in the same place, and show distinctive wear patters indicating they were strung and so rubbed against each other.
Shell beads found in Blombos Cave on the southern tip of the continent are 75,000 years old, scientists say.
The find places the use of jewelry at least 30,000 years earlier than previously thought.
The real significance of the find is that is also pushes back the emergence of symbolic thought at least that far.
Friday, April 23, 2004
34 is young to die
Well, Thursday was Earth Day and you may be wondering why I didn't say anything about it.
What is there to say? Earth Day doesn't exist anymore. It hasn't existed for a number of years. What we have now is Greenwash Day, the annual event where corporate America parades its devotion to the environment by supporting Clean Up The Park events and It's All Your Fault seminars while continuing to dump swill in the water and spread crud in the air.
I remember the very first Earth Day in 1970. I spent a good portion of it with a few college buddies on 14th Street in southern Manhattan - the street was closed for the day - enjoying the displays, the booths, the balloons, the energy, and most of all the joyous intensity of people who knew what they were about, who knew who the villains were, and who were determined to do something about it.
Those were the days when environmental activists were called "communists" who were "out to destroy the American way of life" by some of the same corporations that now kick in a few thousand dollars to get called "official sponsors" of some Earth Day event or another and to place their logo on "official" posters and brochures. (Which is a lot cheaper - i.e., more profitable - than cleaning up their act.)
But early on we would not be silenced or seduced, and environmentalism became a force too strong to be ignored.
So instead it was co-opted with the passive agreement of the environmental hierarchy - the Big Green groups - who eagerly accepted first corporate money and then corporate influence, fantasizing it was a sign of their own importance, stupidly being bought off by PR firms and their greenwashing clients.
As Geoffrey Johnson, program coordinator of the Green Life, a nonprofit environmental group, put it in the New York Times on Thursday,
Yes, the air and water are on the whole cleaner - in some noted cases, such as Lake Erie and Boston Harbor, much cleaner - than they were those 34 years ago. But such progress has come in spite of corporations, not because of them.
And yes, there is still good, solid, clear-eyed environmental activism, activism that is not afraid to point fingers: locally, around such issues as (for example) power plants and greenfielding versus brownfielding; nationally, looking at, among other things, water quality, mercury pollution, and wetlands; internationally, pressing on climate change, resource depletion, and more.
And yes, again, there are those who have not forgotten that environmental justice is connected to economic justice, that for some the most important environmental issues are rats and municipal trash pickup, that environmental rights must embrace human rights, that the deaths of villagers in Nigeria is one end of a string that reaches to your local Chevron station, and that NIMBY is too often a cover for racism.
But those people, those organizations, those efforts, will not be found in the "official" Earth Day celebrations.
Earth Day is dead. All that's left is a rotting, twitching corpse. We should let it decompose in silence.
What is there to say? Earth Day doesn't exist anymore. It hasn't existed for a number of years. What we have now is Greenwash Day, the annual event where corporate America parades its devotion to the environment by supporting Clean Up The Park events and It's All Your Fault seminars while continuing to dump swill in the water and spread crud in the air.
I remember the very first Earth Day in 1970. I spent a good portion of it with a few college buddies on 14th Street in southern Manhattan - the street was closed for the day - enjoying the displays, the booths, the balloons, the energy, and most of all the joyous intensity of people who knew what they were about, who knew who the villains were, and who were determined to do something about it.
Those were the days when environmental activists were called "communists" who were "out to destroy the American way of life" by some of the same corporations that now kick in a few thousand dollars to get called "official sponsors" of some Earth Day event or another and to place their logo on "official" posters and brochures. (Which is a lot cheaper - i.e., more profitable - than cleaning up their act.)
But early on we would not be silenced or seduced, and environmentalism became a force too strong to be ignored.
So instead it was co-opted with the passive agreement of the environmental hierarchy - the Big Green groups - who eagerly accepted first corporate money and then corporate influence, fantasizing it was a sign of their own importance, stupidly being bought off by PR firms and their greenwashing clients.
As Geoffrey Johnson, program coordinator of the Green Life, a nonprofit environmental group, put it in the New York Times on Thursday,
[t]hrough concerted marketing and public relations campaigns, these "greenwashers" attract eco-conscious consumers and push the notion that they don't need environmental regulations because they are already environmentally responsible. Greenwashing appears in misleading product labels like "all natural" and "eco-friendly"; in television commercials showing S.U.V.'s rolling peacefully through the wilderness; and in the co-opting of environmental buzzwords like "sound science" and "sustainability" - which corporate executives render meaningless through relentless repetition.The result has been, not at all surprisingly, "Earth" Days that equate environmentalism with reducing litter in parks and put all the blame for environmental problems - and all the burden for their resolution - on individuals, while corporations are ignored, their crimes and pollution forgotten.
Yes, the air and water are on the whole cleaner - in some noted cases, such as Lake Erie and Boston Harbor, much cleaner - than they were those 34 years ago. But such progress has come in spite of corporations, not because of them.
And yes, there is still good, solid, clear-eyed environmental activism, activism that is not afraid to point fingers: locally, around such issues as (for example) power plants and greenfielding versus brownfielding; nationally, looking at, among other things, water quality, mercury pollution, and wetlands; internationally, pressing on climate change, resource depletion, and more.
And yes, again, there are those who have not forgotten that environmental justice is connected to economic justice, that for some the most important environmental issues are rats and municipal trash pickup, that environmental rights must embrace human rights, that the deaths of villagers in Nigeria is one end of a string that reaches to your local Chevron station, and that NIMBY is too often a cover for racism.
But those people, those organizations, those efforts, will not be found in the "official" Earth Day celebrations.
Earth Day is dead. All that's left is a rotting, twitching corpse. We should let it decompose in silence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
