Steroids Double Standard

Listening to WFAN on the way home last night, Joe Beningo and Evan Roberts were talking about how Shawne Merriman of the San Diego Chargers was voted to the Pro-Bowl in spite of being suspended for 4 games during the season for steroid use. Merriman has denied using steroids and blamed it on a "tainted supplement"

They thought it highly ironic that a player actually caught cheating and suspended (ie. did the time for his crime), was still thought highly enough by the powers that be to award him with a trip to Hawaii, even though he is currently leading the league with 16 sacks in only 11 games. They thought that another player should question this wisdom and the message it sends, specifically calling out Jason Taylor, the outstanding defensive end of the Miami Dolphins.

Well I open up the news today and there is Taylor spewing on this very subject. (Makes me wonder if the boys at WFAN knew this was coming and it had not been reported yet.) Coincidently, Taylor is be competing with Merriman for the NFL Defensive Player of the Year,so he has reason to discredit Merriman. According to Yahoo, he said:

"You really shouldn't be able to fail a test like that and play in this league, to begin with," Taylor said Wednesday. "To make the Pro Bowl and all the other awards, I think you're walking a fine line of sending the wrong message."

Personally, I agree with Taylor. The NFL is essentially saying it alright to cheat. to come back after serving your sentence then still be rewarded that season for breaking the rules. This is not the criminal system, so yes a different standard should apply. Guilty players should at least not be able to reap post season awards, otherwise the entire league begins to smell and look tainted.

The double standard is that a player in the NFL, can not only test positive for steroids miss 25% of his teams games for his first offense, not be paid his salary for those games missed and still make be considered an All-Pro, but then to be welcomed back with no stigma attached to his name or reputation. There is no long term ramification for their actions, and that sends the wrong message to the fans, the ones who ultimately support the league and have it the juggernaut that we know today.

If a baseball player is either accused (Bonds, Sosa, McGwire) or proven (Palmeiro, Mota, Grimsley, etc.) to be a cheat, the are essentially left wearing a Scarlett A on their jerseys that they must wear for the rest of their career. A player that test positive will be suspended 50 games or 31% of the season, and will have to deal with issue for the rest of their career, with pundits always questioning the integrity of the player, and wonders if the player will ever be (or was ever) clean, or have the always been juiced.

Why does the NFL get a free pass? Let me know what you think.

Centralized Law Enforcement Database

This story from the Chicago Tribune and Washington Post caught my eye:

WASHINGTON -- The Justice Department is building a massive database that allows state and local police officers around the country to search millions of case files from the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration and other federal law-enforcement agencies, according to Justice officials.

The system, known as "OneDOJ," already holds approximately 1 million case records and is projected to triple in size over the next three years, Justice officials said. The files include investigative reports, details on offenses and information about criminal suspects or targets, officials said.

The database is billed by its supporters as a much-needed step toward better sharing of information with local law enforcement agencies.

But civil liberties and privacy advocates say the scale and contents of such a database raise immediate privacy and civil rights concerns, in part because tens of thousands of local police officers could gain access to personal details about people who have not been arrested or charged with crimes.

Personally, I believe this is a huge step in the right direction for getting local, state and federal law enforcement agencies onto the same page. Accomplishing this monumental task will aid investigations and hopefully improve efficiencies in this field.

As far the concerns expressed by my fellow civil libertarians and privacy advocates, this is one of those fuzzy middle grounds which extremists can simply never see. The simple solution to ease these concerns is to remove any mention of witnesses or other innocents involved in any particular case file before it is uploaded into the national database. All relevant individuals pertinent to the local case would remain on file locally, just not accessible nationally. Simple

Added 12/28 - Or maybe not so simple. I came across this piece from the CSM, that further exacerbates this issue between law enforcement and privacy advocates:

The US government is building a massive database designed to identify individual terror suspects from fingerprints on objects such as a tea glass in an Iraqi apartment or a shell casing in an abandoned Al Qaeda training camp.

The database is being created in part by forensic specialists searching for and preserving evidence overseas. They are collecting unidentified latent fingerprints in places once occupied by Al Qaeda and other suspected terrorists.

The information is feeding into a computerized system designed to match a name with an unidentified fingerprint.

Seems reasonable up to this point. What is the point of having fingerprints on file, if we cannot share and play nice together within the US? Anywho, sure enough the privacy advocates, pull up a single most extreme case of either mistaken identity or racial (religious?) profiling:

The case began in mid-March 2004, shortly after terrorist bombs ripped through commuter trains in Madrid, Spain, killing 191 people and injuring 1,400. After the attacks, Spanish authorities found fingerprints on a plastic bag with detonators.

The FBI ran the prints through its computer system and found no matches, but identified several close nonmatches. Mr. (Oregon lawyer Brandon) Mayfield was the fourth of 20 close nonmatches.

Three FBI fingerprint examiners studied the Madrid fingerprint, and concluded that it had been made by Mayfield.

Mayfield's print was in the FBI's database because he had served in the armed forces and had earlier been charged with a crime.

FBI investigators learned that Mayfield had converted to Islam and had married an Egyptian immigrant. He also had served as the attorney in a custody case for a man who was convicted of conspiring to aid the Taliban and Al Qaeda. (ed - Seems reasonable so far)

Justice Department officials say this information was unknown to the three examiners when they matched Mayfield's print to the Madrid bombing. (ed - Seems like no racial/religious profiling took place)

...

The FBI began surveying Mayfield and his family, including covertly entering his home and office. Mayfield was arrested and held in prison for two weeks. (ed- did they have a warrant?)

Concerned about the possibility of a mistake, a federal judge ordered an independent analysis of the fingerprint. That analyst also concluded that the print belonged to Mayfield.

Long story short, the FBI was wrong, Mayfield was not the terrorist they were looking for, and it cost the government $2M. However, it seems they did a fair amount of due diligence, stayed within the constitutional boundaries of surveillance and bottom line, mistakes are going to happen. That is part of any kind of forensic investigation. You hope that people won't make sense, make false assumptions or jump to conclusions, but hey, they are human and it happens. I am sorry Mr. Mayfield was falsely accused, but he was also fairly compensated for this mistake. If this is the best example that privacy advocates can come up with why there should not be a central database of fingerprints, they are missing the trees in the forest, and that is a problem. But hey, that is just me.

Updated 1/3 - Security expert Bruce Schneier has commented on this system as well, and had the following suggestions:

Computerizing this stuff is a good idea, but any new systems need privacy safeguards built-in. We need to ensure that:

• Inaccurate data can be corrected.
• Data is deleted when it is no longer needed, especially investigative data on people who have turned out to be innocent.
• Protections are in place to prevent abuse of the data, both by people in their official capacity and people acting unofficially or fraudulently.

ln our rush to computerize these records, we're ignoring these safeguards and building systems that will make us all less secure.

Gerald Ford dead at 93

It was with great sadness that I opened up the newspaper this morning and saw that President Gerald Ford had died. I know that my friends and I have been on a Gerry Ford death watch since January, when he was hospitalized for pneumonia, but it is always a bit shocking when a former president dies. After all, it is only the third presidential death that I remember, and for better or worse Ford was probably the most underrated of modern presidents.

Ford's presidency will most likely be remembered for two things, pardoning Richard Nixon after his disgraceful resignation and for being a klutz; falling down slippery steps while getting off of Air Force One and falling while skiing. It is too bad, because what most people forget is the sense of decency and normalcy he brought back to the office of the president after Nixon's stench.

In retrospect, Ford had to pardon Nixon to help the country move past Watergate. Without the pardon, the Congress, the press and the people would have continued to investigate and keep the scandal on the front pages for years to come. By pardoning Tricky Dick, we as a country were able to have some closure knowing that Nixon was being exiled, and it would be years before Nixon was essentially able to leave Elba to become a respected elder statesman and author that most of us remember towards the end of his life.

The clumsiness attributes are actually quite ironic, since Ford was probably the most athletically gifted president since Teddy Roosevelt. He was an All-American football player at the University of Michigan, leading them to two national championships. He passed up the opportunity to play professional football so he could obtain a law degree and move onto bigger things in life. At least he was able to laugh at the often harsh parodies and satire of this knowing that the media would often, even in 1975, make a national story out of some microscopic thing, and then not let it die until it was thoroughly beaten. It certainly looks like some things have not changed in 30 years.

During college, my friend Michael and I used to sit around and joke how we both wrote Gerald Ford in as our presidential candidate in the 1988 election. We both figured that Ford was a better man, more decent, more honest, more honorable than either George HW Bush or Michael Dukakis and never really got the chance to prove what he could do, since he was always stuck in Nixon's shadow and his mud. People should remember more about the 38th President.

Ford spent 26 years in the House of Representatives and worked his way up to be the minority leader. He was at the right place to be appointed Vice President in 1973, when Spiro Agnew resigned in disgrace. The following year, he became the first president not elected to either the president or vice-president when Nixon resigned. Some say that after Watergate, there is no way any republican could have won in 1976 and it was probably true. It is a shame that he only got 896 days in the White House, the 5th shortest presidential stint, and we will never know what the Ford legacy could have been, since he never got the chance to set his own policies and make his own mark. That is the true shame of the situation.

Goodbye President Ford, you will be missed!!

Added 12/28 - Here is another tribute from CounterPunch, it is worth a quick read, not like anything else I have seen on this man.

Warning, Home Depot Scam

I know this is a little late for the holidays, but please beware, since this could still happen:

A "heads up" for you and any of your guy friends who may be regular HomeDepot customers. Over the last month I became a victim of a clever scamwhile out shopping. Simply going out to get supplies has turned out to bequite traumatic. Don't be naive enough to think it couldn't happen to you.Here's how the scam works:Two seriously good-looking 18 or 19-year-old girls come over to your car as you pack the shopping into the trunk. They both start wiping your windshield with a rag and Windex, with their breasts almost falling out of their skimpy T-shirts. It is impossible not to look.

When I thanked them and offered them a tip, they said "No" and instead will ask you for a ride to another Home Depot. You agree and they get in the back seat. On the way, they start having sex with each other. Then one of them climbs over into the front seat and starts putting her hands all over you, while the other one steals your wallet.

I had my wallet stolen December 4th, 9th, 10th, twice on the 15th, 17th, 20th, three times just yesterday, and very likely again this upcoming weekend as soon as I can buy some more wallets. Again - please beware!!

Libertarian Ideal

I found this posting by Dan Rode over at Mens News Daily regarding what a libertarian believes, and quite frankly, I am in complete agreement (although I have never considered myself a conservative).

When you are reading this, think about what role government should play in our lives and what role the government actually plays. Then as you gather with family and friends over the coming holiday week discuss these ideas and see if we cannot raise the intellectual discussion level around the Xmas tree, or at the new years eve party just a bit.

Let me start with a disclaimer before I ouch on a couple of Libertarian values as I see them. I do not represent the Libertarian Party, nor do I necessarily represent all Libertarians. In fact, for most of my adult life, I have identified myself as a conservative. Morally, I remain so.

The Libertarian philosophy is one that most closely follows the original meaning and implementation of the United States Constitution. The founding fathers held an intense distrust of government and its natural appetite for tyranny. The primary purpose of the Constitution was to limit the power of the Federal government, granting only those powers essential to carry out its few, well defined responsibilities. A primary goal of Libertarians is pare the Federal government back until it again fits within the confines of the Constitution.

"The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now."- South Carolina v. United States (1905)

There are those who put forth the idea that times have changed, people have changed, technology has changed. The architects of the Constitution could not have foreseen these changes and therefore government’s role must evolve to meet these new challenges. These folks espouse the idea of a "living Constitution." I would like to extend this idea to speed limits. If I am late for work, the living speed limit would increase allowing me to drive faster. To be perfectly blunt, this is nonsense. Its only practical application is to allow the Federal government to assume powers denied it in the Constitution.

The founders understood government and society all too well and attempted to design a government that specifically would not evolve easily. In fact, the Constitution was written in plain, clear English so that any citizen might read and understand it. The law set in the Constitution is subject to little interpretation. Evolution comes in the form of Constitutional amendment only. To believe otherwise is to demonstrate an ignorance of our history.

"By a faction I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."-James Madison, in Federalist paper No. 10

The founders were just as concerned with the tyranny of factionalism as they were governmental power. Essentially, rights are not subject to either legislation or popular vote. This is one reason they developed a representative republic rather than a more direct form of democracy. The rights of the people should not be subject to the ever changing ebb and flow of public opinion. Libertarians believe that rights are sacrosanct and not limited to those enumerated in the Bill of Rights. When Thomas Paine said "Give me liberty or give me death", the liberty he demanded was the free exercise of these natural rights.

On a personal level, I do not feel I have the right to control a person’s actions unless those actions directly interfere with the rights of another. My approval or consent is not required. This demands a level of tolerance that our American society seems to have lost.

I am the TIME Magazine Person of the Year

As one of the multiple millions who have been awarded the lamest award ever, an award that used to mean something to me personally. This award, that a highly respected weekly periodical used to use to determine the one individual who had the greatest impact on the world, whether it be good, bad, or evil in that particular calendar year. This once respected journal has gone and copped to the lamest excuse of just trying to sell magazines ever. They have stooped to ridiculous levels in following the mass media down the drain, in continuing to help dumb down the news.

That is right, Time Magazine has chosen you (and I) as the person of the year in 2006. I can now claim that I have won the same award as Adolf Hitler (1938), Joseph Stalin (1939), JFK (1961), Ayatullah Khomeini (1979), Pope John Paul II (1994), and I could not be more proud. I am planning on adding this award to my resume.

If you want to track the decesent of this award, I suppose we need to go back about 24 years. Back in 1982, everyone thought it was innovative to select the computer as the Machine of the Year. All things considered it was a pretty good decision at the time. Time had selected groups in the past (1950 - American Fighting Man, 1956 - Hungarian Freedom Fighter, 1960 - US Scientists, 1966 - 25 and under, 1975 - American Woman) but this is really the beginning of the end. in 2002, Time completed lamed out by choosing the Whisteblowers, from the FBI, Worldcom and Enron. Ironically it was all woman and perhaps the first time woman were honored for the doing their jobs, rather than forcing a king off the throne (1936) , being somebody's wife (1937) , being the queen (1952) or simply being a woman (1975), but I digress.

In 2003, it was the American Soldier, a repeat of 1950 (American Fighting-Man). Again at the time seemed reasonable to honor the soldiers who are doing their duty. Men and woman who we should always honor and respect. In 2005, they began the ultimate insult, by selecting Bill & Melinda Gates and Bono as People of the Year. These individuals are very intelligent, successful and their philanthropic endeavors are certainly noteworthy and very respectable, but certainly not worthy of this once heralded award.

I also find it very odd, that Osama Bin Laden has not been awarded this title even though he (in conjunction with President George W. Bush) is probably most responsible for steering America down its current path. Not since 1979, has a perceived bad guy won this award, and I think this has to do with the dumbing down of the American media. I think it has to do with Americans perceived need to feel good about ourselves, and that the media believes we could not accept a bad guy as the person of the year anymore. That is because today the media feels we need a feel good story to pump us up, a never ending human interest story, they believe the public is too dumb or apathetic to want or understand real news with real facts. Everything needs to be condensed to a sound bite to fit the ever shrinking american attention span.

I know I have ranted on this before, but it is the responsibility of the media to report the good and the bad. I would like to know that some mainstream media outlet is still willing to make a difficult decision on what to print and when. I realize the person of the year award is pretty lame and insignificant in the greater scheme of things, but it is endemic of of the bigger problem. A significant media organization laming out on a difficult decision in order to be more popular and sell more copy. Very sad, and unfortunately I only see it getting worse.

So with the sarcasm, disdain and that diatribe out of the way, I would like to say the following:

Thank you Time Magazine for giving me this award

I would like to thank my parents, Jim and Carol, for conceiving me back on that hot summer night in June 1968. (Which by the way is only the second and last time they partook in any kind of those activities, but that is entirely another story).

I would like to thank my radiant and beautiful wife Nancy, for watching General Hospital and giving me the time to spew, rant, theorize, research and otherwise create my view of the world here. I would also like to thank her for always allowing me to be me. Many times my humor and sardonic comments are often off-color, blunt, or in-your-face and she almost always takes them in stride. I am amazed and very happy when other friends comment about the leeway she allows me with my actions and comments, and says "that's just him".

On behalf of my children, Jacob and Mollie, who are also recepients of this award, I would like to say thank you, since I am sure they have absolutely no comprehension of the gravity of this award. Seriously though, I would like to thank my kids for being the best, funniest, brightest, cutest kids I could have ever imagined making. Never in a hundred years would I have expected to have to have kids this great, who have brought so much joy and happiness to me personally. Without them, I certainly would not be the person I am now.

Finally, I would like to thank you, the readers of the blog for making this award possible. One of the things that have made you, you (and I, me) according to Time, is the ability of individual to make news via blogging, YouTube, Google, etc. As you may have noticed, I have been playing around with the design and adding some new elements to attract new readers. I would love to hear from you, another Person of the Year about what you think of my rants. I would like to try to make this space more of an open dialouge, rather than a one way mirror, with you looking in on me like some kind of demented focus group for one.

So in conclusion, thank you again Time Magazine for making this award available to you (and me). Let me know what you think.

Holiday Humor

Seen on an office wall, a big sign: Christmas cancelled - Joseph confessed

Pete Rose endorses Mark McGwire for HOF

So Pete Rose has reared his controversial head again and endorsed Mark McGwire's bid to get into the Hall of Fame.

It has been quite amusing reading the self righteous baseball writers of America spewing their opinions on whether Mark McGwire and his steroid tainted (we all know where the taint is after all) history belongs in Cooperstown. Now if you believe what you read, then less than 50% of the voters have selected McGwire for induction in this his first year of eligibility.

I personally agree that he should not be admitted in his first try in that it will soil, what could be the last induction of two very classy and apparently clean players in Cal Ripken Jr, and Tony Gwynn. All that aside, the votes have been cast, and now we wait until January 9, 2oo7 when the new class is announced. I do think he should and will get in, but not on the first year, because it is going to take more time to determine the validity and historical perspective of the steroid era.

I have to think Mark McGwire is sitting at home, since he was not invited to the St. Louis Cardinals World Series celebration, not responded to repeated request for interviews and quietly waiting word on how the writers are actually going to respond. All he seems to be trying to do is quiet await the results and hope that he gets the honor that he ultimately receives.

Now Pete Rose, the ultimate definition of tainted, and announces that he and McGwire both deserve to be in the hall. Quite Frankly, who cares what Charlie Hustle thinks on this subject. He has already proven that he will say or do anything to get into the newspapers and this is clearly just another example of his oversized ego pushing into the public sphere again. SO Pete, Shut UP! and Big Mac, as the old Brooklyn Dodgers fans say "Wait til next year"

Say No to the Libertarian Party

Here is an article from Bruce Bartlett in Human Events, that accurately describes why a third political party is not viable in our current system:

The basic problem with the Libertarian Party is the same problem faced by all third parties: It cannot win. The reason is that under the Constitution a candidate must win an absolute majority in the all-important Electoral College. It won't do just to have the most votes in a three- or four-way race. You have to have at least 270 electoral votes to win, period.

Theoretically, this is no barrier to third parties at the state and local level. But in practice, if a party cannot win at the presidential level, it is very unlikely to achieve success at lower levels of government. In short, the Electoral College imposes a two-party system on the country that makes it prohibitively difficult for third parties to compete.

He then goes on to describe the overall problem with the libertarian party. In general I am in complete agreement, with his comments, which is why I am not a registered Libertarian, but rather a non-affiliated registered voter:

Over the years, I have known a great many people who have flirted with the Libertarian Party, but were ultimately turned off by its political impotence and
immaturity. C-SPAN runs Libertarian conventions, and viewers can see for themselves how unserious and childish they are. They show that the Libertarian Party is essentially a high-school-level debating club where only one question is ever debated -- who is the purest libertarian, and what is the purest libertarian position?

At times, serious people have tried to get control of the Libertarian Party and make it a viable organization. But in the end, the crazies who like the party just as it is have always run them off. In the process, however, they have also run off millions of voters who have supported libertarian candidates at one time or another. After realizing what a waste of time the Libertarian Party is, many became disengaged from politics and don't vote at all.

He actually has a good suggestion for fellow libertarians, abandon the party:

In place of the party, there should arise a new libertarian interest group organized like the National Rifle Association or the various pro- and anti-abortion groups. This new group, whatever it is called, would hire lobbyists, run advertisements and make political contributions to candidates supporting libertarian ideas. It will work with both major parties. It can magnify its influence by creating temporary coalitions on particular issues and being willing to work with elected officials who may hold libertarian positions on only one or a handful of issues. They need not hold libertarian views on every single issue, as the Libertarian Party now demands of those it supports.

I believe that this new organization would be vastly more influential than the party and give libertarian ideas far more potency than they now have. As long as the party continues to exist, unfortunately, it will be an albatross around the necks of small-L libertarians, destroying any political effectiveness they might have. It must die for libertarian ideas to succeed.

The irony is I agree with him about giving up the party, and attacking the problem with lobbyists, but I hate the fact that this is the only way to actually get the government officials to listen and respond to the needs of constituents.

Santa Stats

Santa Stats (Thanks Maurice)

There are currently 78 people named S. Claus living in the U.S. -- and one Kriss Kringle. (You gotta wonder about that one kid's parents)

December is the most popular month for nose jobs.

Weight of Santa's sleigh loaded with one Beanie Baby for every kid on earth: 333,333 tons.

Number of reindeer required to pull a 333,333-ton sleigh: 214,206 -- plus Rudolph.

Average wage of a mall Santa: $11 an hour.
With real beard: $20.

To deliver his gifts in one night, Santa would have to make 822.6 visits per second, sleighing at 3,000 times the speed of sound.

At that speed, Santa and his reindeer would burst into flame instantaneously

Split Senate

It is a sad irony that it the Democrats could lose the Senate after they worked so hard to gain it in last months elections. Tim Johnson a Democratic Senator from South Dakota was hospitalized last night after suffering stroke like symptoms. If he were to become incapacitated or worse, if he passes away, then the South Dakota Republican Governor Mike Rounds has the sole power to replace Johnson, and would more than likely put a Republican in that seat, evening the Senate seats at 50-50. That would technically put the GOP into the majority since the constitution clearly states that the VP has tie breaking capabilities.

This situation would be a shame because it would probably mean a return to beltway gridlock, since the Democratic controlled house would be paralyzed by the Republican controlled Senate and vice-versa. This would also prevent the Democratic Senate Chairs from beginning significant investigations into the conduct of the president and his administration over the past six years in attempt to level the playing field between the executive and legislative branch of our government.

So if you are in favor of due process, and questioning Bush and his advisors about some of the decisions that have been made, then please hope and pray that Senator Johnson is able to make a full recovery and return to his seat and his duties.

Standardize Internet Privacy Policy

This in interesting and worth watching from FoxNews :

Microsoft Corp., Hewlett-Packard Co. and other high-tech companies are preparing to push for data-privacy legislation next year to replace what they consider an outdated patchwork of state and federal laws that are inconsistent and burdensome.

Where I think it is a good idea to have one standard federal internet privacy policy, that enables the free flow of information, consumers need to be very careful about how much influence corpoarate giants like Microsoft and Walmart have over this type of legislation, since their goals are not going to be the same as the individual and consumers whose information they want to flow freely.

Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a consumer advocacy group, said the proposals, if adopted, would amount to an industry drafting its own regulations.

Rotenberg also argued that the notices to consumers preferred by Microsoft and other companies are insufficient to protect online privacy.

Personalization vs. Privacy

eContent Magazine has published the results of The 2006 ChoiceStream Personalization Survey:

More consumers are willing to provide information about themselves to providers they trust in exchange for a personalized online experience

This seems a bit obvious to me, since companies and marketers are constantly improving their eCRM capabilities and as consumers are becoming more comfortable and confident in their online experience, they are going to be willing to provide more personal information to further improve their experience. However, this comes with major caveat, of buyer beware.

It is still the consumers right and responsibility to know and understand how the online organizations that they interacting with are using this personal information they are providing, and how it is being stored, and who has acecss to this information.

No new Iraq strategy until 2007

If you read this article in the NYTimes about President Bush's plan to delay any new Iraq strategy announcement until early next year it seems to be that he does not currently have a new strategy and needs time to develop one.

On paper this is fine, but I just find it hard to believe that President Bush will be able to come up with a solid plan for proceeding in Iraq by early 2007, especially when his top advisers, Rice and Cheney, seem to be at fundamental odds on how we should proceed. Now is the time that President Bush should begin to solicit additional outside opinions that might bring a new set of eyes and fresh perspective, but honestly I doubt that will happen. Looks like group-think might win again.

Privacy, Impeachment & the Democratic Agenda

According to Reuters Senator Patrick Leahy(D-VT), the incoming chairman of the Senate Judiciary committe is looking to put privacy rights back where they belong with the people, not the president or any other government entitiy.

"We have a duty to repair real damage done to our system of government over the last few years," Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont said in outlining his panel's agenda for the 110th, Democratic-led Congress, which is set to convene on January 4.

"Americans' privacy is a price the Bush administration is willing to pay for the cavalier way it is spawning new databanks. But privacy rights belong to the people, not to the government,"

"We are way overdue in catching up to the erosion of privacy," Leahy said. "This will be one of our highest priorities."

Needless to say, I applaud Leahy's efforts and support this initiative whole-heartedly. I am very glad that the Democrats are going to start to questioning those involved in the creation of these policies and perhaps subpoenas officials who have led us down this path.

I am also currently in agreement with incoming Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, who has said that impeachment is not going to be a high priority in the Democratically controlled House come January. Even though I believe that the system of misinformation that was put out by this administration and the apparent abuse of power are without a doubt impeachable offenses (much more so than anything Slick Willie ever did). At this point in time, impeachment proceedings will achieve very little and only add more division between the parties. The Democrats should focus on making Congress a productive legislative body again, a true representation of the people.

However, if investigations like the one that Leahy is proposing begin to uncover serious wrong doings, then Congress has a responsibility to open up impeachment proceedings. If they do find evidence of high Crimes and Misdemeanors and do nothing, then the entire impeachment clause ought to be removed from the constitution. That would be a real travesty.

Tracking People by their Sneakers

Good to see security expert Bruce Schneier agrees with me regarding the iPod and Nike RFID issue I wrote about Privacy back on December 5.

This is a great demonstration for anyone who is skeptical that RFID chips can be used to track people. It's a good example because the chips have no personal identifying information, yet can still be used to track people. As long as the chips have unique IDs, those IDs can be used for surveillance.

To me, the real significance of this work is how easy it was. The people who designed the Nike/iPod system put zero thought into security and privacy issues. Unless we enact some sort of broad law requiring companies to add security into these sorts of systems, companies will continue to produce devices that erode our privacy through new technologies. Not on purpose, not because they're evil -- just because it's easier to ignore the externality than to worry about it.

School Security

A friend of mine sent me an article from the Rochester (NY) Democrat and Chronicle, regarding the lengths that the school districts there are going to help prevent another Columbine or Pennsylvania Amish disaster on their campuses. What I found most interesting is that just four paragraphs into the article the following statistic appears:

An average of nine or 10 homicides, including the Columbine school massacre in 1999, occur in the 119,000 schools in the United States each year, says Dewey G. Cornell, a University of Virginia professor who studies youth violence. Even one death is tragic, but Cornell says these events are so few that it would take 12,000 to 13,000 years for each school to have one if they were spread around equally.

Despite the fact that violent deaths in schools are extremely rare, they've taken a front seat in the minds of many educators, students and parents. The fears appear to be driven by ever-widening media coverage of local and national events, from shootings hundreds and thousands of miles away to a string of false bomb threats in Rochester's suburban schools.

These two paragraphs are the most compelling fact in this whole piece. I don't think any parent would object to increasing security at their local schools in order to prevent another tragedy, but at what cost? In order to plan that your school will be hit sometime in the next 12,000 years begs the question of how much money should be spent on these types initiatives, versus truly educational needs of the student, educators and the districts themselves? Seems like a no brainer to me that security initiatives should not take money away from educational endeavors.

Why Astros did not re-sign Pettite

Jayson Stark, over at ESPN.com wrote on Friday (12/8) why the Astros would not go the extra mile ($2M) to re-sign Pettitte.

The buzz around baseball is that MLB officials -- particularly commissioner Bud Selig -- weren't happy with the Astros for giving $100 million over six years to free agent Carlos Lee. So owner Drayton McLane might be trying to placate MLB's hard-liners by attempting to hold down the rest of his payroll.

My fundamental questions are why would Major League Baseball be purposely and/or covertly suppressing players salaries and does this border on collusion? Or is baseball exempt from collusion because their legislative monopoly? Either way, if this is true, it would seem that the Players Union might have a decent grievance, since the league could be influencing where players sign, and this does not sign like a true free agent market. Do you know?

Charlie Brown Xmas - Scrubs Style

Over at TVSQUAD, they have an absolutely hysterical parody of the Charlie Brown Christmas, with voice overs done by the cast of Scrubs, in their best JD, Dr. Cox, Turk, etc. If you are a fan of either shows, it is worth a click.

Andy Pettite is coming back to the Bronx

Buster Olney, from ESPN.com is reporting that Andy Pettite is coming back to the Yankees. Hopefully he can be the one that brings the 27th Championship to Yankee Stadium. This also increases the chances that Roger Clemens will come to NY in June and not back to Boston. A one year $16M contract actually seems quite reasonable, where Ted Lilly a career .500 gets 4 years and $40 M from the desperate Chicago Cubs.

Perhaps a waste of time and money

From Wired, when I first read this, I thought this was a joke it is so farcical. It just begs the question, why even bother?

The first public meeting of a Bush administration "civil liberties protection panel" had a surreal quality to it, as the five-member board refused to answer any questions from the press, and stonewalled privacy advocates and academics on key questions about domestic spying.

The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, which met Tuesday, was created by Congress in 2004 on the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission, but is part of the White House, which handpicked all the members. Though mandated by law in late 2004, the board was not sworn in until March 2006, due to inaction on the part of the White House and Congress.

The three-hour meeting, held at Georgetown University, quickly established that the panel would be something less than a fierce watchdog of civil liberties. Instead, members all but said they view their job as helping Americans learn to relax and love warrantless surveillance.

"The question is, how much can the board share with the public about the protections incorporated in both the development and implementation of those policies?" said Alan Raul, a Washington D.C. lawyer who serves as vice chairman. "On the public side, I believe the board can help advance national security and the rights of American by helping explain how the government safeguards U.S. personal information." Board members were briefed on the government's NSA-run warrantless wiretapping program last week, and said they were impressed by how the program handled information collected from American citizens' private phone calls and e-mail.

Boycott Walmart

According to Information Week, Intel, Wal-mart and BP are joining together to build a huge data warehouse to help their employees manage there health care.

Impatient with the health care industry's slow pace of change, Intel, Wal-Mart, and the others are pooling their information, technology acumen, and clout as buyers to force the U.S. system to be more cost conscious. "Health care is pricing itself out of business," Intel's (chairman Craig) Barrett told a health care conference in September, arguing that those costs are one reason the United States loses jobs to other countries. "If we can use our purchasing power to drive massive adoption of technology and procedures and best known methods which provide better care at lower cost, we ought to get into that debate."

This seems fine on the surface, but quite frankly I don't want my employer to know anything about my health records, and I certainly don't want them being responsible for storing them and neither does the Patient Privacy Rights Foundation.

Patient Privacy Rights Foundation today denounced the plan by Wal-Mart Stores, Intel, and others, to store their employees’ records in a centralized data warehouse linking hospitals, doctors and pharmacies.

“This is a prescription for disaster,” said Deborah Peel, MD, founder and chair of patient Privacy Rights. “Employees’ sensitive medical records will be held in an employer-controlled database. Will these companies guarantee that employees’ personal health information will never be used against them or disclosed without informed consent?”

Patient Privacy Rights recommends:
* Patient data should not be housed by employers; instead, it should be housed by a neutral third-party such as a health banking repository owned by consumers.

* Employees should control access to their own data.

* Employees should be asked permission before any individual or business entity can access their health information.

* Employers should never be allowed to access or use the data, even if “de-identified”.

* Employers should never be allowed to require that employees’ permit them to access medical data as a condition for employment or insurance coverage.

Unless these conditions are met, Patient Privacy Rights urges patients not to participate in this plan.

The timing of this story is somewhat ironic, because my parents have decided to boycott Wal-mart recently because of their labor practices. It seems if you work for Wal-mart, you are essentially on call 24 hours a day 7 days a week, and can be called in at any time for any reason with limited or no notice. If you are unable or refuse to come, then you risk losing your job. This practice is deplorable, it is not as if Wal-mart employee is like a doctor who needs to be on call 100% of the time because no lives are at stake here, other than the person working for $7/hour trying to make a living.

I think I am going to join my parents on this boycott for the labor practices and trying to force their employees into the system described above. Wal-mrt has come to believe that because they are the largest retail operation in the world, that they can essentially squeeze every operational dollar out of their suppliers, vendors, employees, and anyone else doing business with them, and this has to stop. While I admire the capitalistic pursuit, they certainly seemed to have crossed an ethical line in my mind and for that I will no longer patronize Wal-mart. Please join me, if enough consumers stop going then maybe they will get the message. Somehow, I seriously doubt even if everyone stopped going to Wal-mart, then they still would not get the message, that is the problem with arrogance.

Added 12/8 - Information Week posted some survey results on this issue, which are quite interesting:

Nearly two-thirds -- 65% -- of U.S. consumers want personal electronic health records, but 80% of them have concerns about the misuse and security of their information.

Seventy-five percent also say they think the government should have a role in establishing rules to protect privacy and confidentiality of online health data.

This last stat scares me to the core, since the government roles should only to set up a 100% completely independent agency for oversight of independent companies that will manage my digital files. Quite frankly, I don't want my employer, nor the government anywhere near my health records. Talk about taking a big step towards the ultimate big brother society, with totalatarian capabilities and suspension of all civil liberties. But hey, that is just me. This kind of government intervention always make me think about that scene from Star Wars, Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, where Palpatine becomes Emperor in order to make the republic safer and Padme says:

So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause.

ISG Report - Change in Course its about time

I started reading the Iraq Study Group Report yesterday and found it quite an interesting read. If you don't have the time, I would recommend reading just the first two sections, the letter from the co-chairs and the executive summary.

It is interesting since reading this made me think that George W. Bush, could have saved us billions of dollars and countless lives, if he had simply made some strategic tacks years before this commission was put together. I can remember having discussions and arguments during the 2004 election about Bush's steadfast refusal to budge one iota of an inch from his policies, regardless of what was being said or done that might have directly contradicted the policies.

I am not saying or expecting that Bush would have all of sudden turned tail and become a dove, but any good leader (which Bush is clearly not) has the ability and responsibility to modify, change, upgrade, or update their plans as the playing field, battle field, marketplace etc. changes over the course of time. No strategy is ever 100% static, and will never last forever primarily because the world changes. Situations, scenarios, players, tactics all change over time, and often make strategies irrelevant over time. In any situation, political, business, military your rival, competition, enemy is going to become immune to your tactics over time and having a strategy that does not change or evolve over time only marks that group or individual for ultimate extinction.

But instead of making the necessary course corrections in 2003, 2004, 2005 or 2006 the President is now forced to take the advise of his daddy's adviser's and do what others have been suggesting for years. Bush now looks like an even weaker president and person that he did a few weeks or months ago. Couple this report with the November election results and W is starting to look an awful lot like the lame duck he has always been.

It is somewhat sad that the news today shows that the White House is now going to do its own investigation, since they are under no obligation to follow the panels recommendations. If this occurs this is only cost to more time and money, in a no-win situation, rather than to begin the process of withdrawing and diplomatically stabilizing the region as the ISG suggests. From Yahoo:

"The American people expect us to come up with a new strategy," Bush said.

"I believe we need a new approach and that's why I've tasked the Pentagon to analyze the way forward," he said. In addition to the Iraq Study Group, studies are under way at the Pentagon, State Department and National Security Council on next steps.

The response made it clear that Bush did not intend to be influenced only by the bipartisan panel's report, which contained 79 specific recommendations, but by the other studies as well.

Privacy, New Moms and Humor

Privacy Concerns Raised over Nike + iPod Shoe

This story from NewsFactor regarding security with the RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) seems a bit random and very paranoid:

Computer science student T. Scott Saponas said the Nike+iPod Sport Kit, a device that transmits data from a runner's shoe to an iPod to measure metrics like distance and speed, is actually making users vulnerable to potential spy-like surveillance.

The in-shoe sensor could allow stalkers to track a user's location from as far as 60 feet away, according to the study. "A bad person could use this information to compromise your personal privacy and safety," said Saponas

Reminds of an old adage a friend once told me, "Dont run, unless being chased"

New Moms need privacy

Hey guys, The USA Today is reporting that new mom's don't get enough privacy in the hospital. So if you really don't want to go visit a friend in the hospital asfter the new baby arrives (and I know I don't want to), simply say you are trying to give the parents the privacy and cite this article.

Humor for the day
Republicans insist Muslim terrorists are supporting the Democrats... which is surprising, since al Qaeda and the GOP see eye-to-eye on so many things like gay marriage, women's rights, military spending, separation of Church and State.

Thoughts for today

Worst President ever?

Bob Cesca has a great article in the Huffington Post, discussing how President George W. Bush is now only being called one of the worst presidents ever, but might in fact be the worst ever. That is right, Richard Nixon, Herbert Hoover and Andrew Johnson can now rest a little easier, since they may no longer be considered the worst ever.

Cesca argues that Bush has wasted all the political capital which the US earned and deserved after the September 11 attacks. He has done or said nothing memorable or historic since that time. He has followed the extreme wing of his party into a unjustified war in Iraq, and allowed the real prize to escape into the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

He then goes on to paint a picture of what the world might have looked like had Bush made some different decisions

Imagine if President Bush had been a better man and used 9/11 to appeal to the better angels of our nature.

What if he hadn't withdrawn much of his financial pledge to help the heroes of 9/11 with medical costs, and, now that they're no longer useful in photo ops, has allowed them to die slow, choking deaths mired in bankruptcy? What if the president had pledged as much money and support for the surviving first responders as he has for Halliburton and the Iraq War?

What if the president had kept his eye on Bin Laden rather than pulling out, leaving Afghanistan to flounder and Bin Laden to escape unharmed?

What if, like Lincoln (the president's unlikely roll model), the president had used 9/11 as a catalyst to inaugurate an era of renewed equality?

All very good questions, but unfortunately only hypothetical and rhetorical.

Stalag 9/11 and ignoring the Geneva Convention

Another interesting posting from the Stalag 17. He states that the basic premise of the movies was that regardless of how bad the Nazi's were, they at least had the good sense to honor the Geneva Convention and there were things that were and were not done to prisoners of war. It is pretty sad, when in historical perspective the Nazi's have a leg up on the current administrative on human rights and the Geneva Convention.

Why Hillary Can't Win

I am glad someone else is now saying what I have been for the past 6-8 years:

...some Democrats still believe the odds are against her actually being elected president. Dick Harpootlian, a former chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party not aligned with any presidential hopeful, is among the nay-sayers.

"She's a senator, she'd be the first woman running, and she's Hillary Clinton," he said. "All of that is almost insurmountable for a general election."

He added: "There are people who would write a check and die for her, but there are plenty of others who wouldn't vote for her if she promised to eliminate the income tax and give free ice cream to everyone. People have made up their minds about her, and that doesn't give her much room to maneuver."

Humor of the Day

French police admitted Sunday they now face a permanent intifada from Muslim youths rioting in the Paris suburbs. The French blame the United States. If America had not liberated Paris, the suburbs would still be under German supervision.

Then and Now

I don't generally like this stuff that gets passed around, but this is pretty interesting in how both lacksidaisical we once were, and perhaps how over-reactive we have become to most of these child-like situations

Scenario: Jack pulls into school parking lot with rifle in gun rack.
1973- Vice Principal comes over, takes a look at Jack's rifle, goes to his car and gets his to show Jack.
2006- School goes into lockdown, FBI called, Jack hauled off to jail and never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors called in for traumatized students and teachers.

++++++++++++++++
Scenario: Johnny and Mark get into a fist fight after school.
1973- Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up best friends. Nobody goes to jail, nobody arrested, nobody expelled.

2006- Police called, SWAT team arrives, arrests Johnny and Mark. Charge them with assault, both expelled even though Johnny started it.

++++++++++++++
Scenario: Jeffrey won't be still in class, disrupts other students.
1973- Jeffrey sent to office and given a good paddling by Principal. Sits still in class.
2006- Jeffrey given huge doses of Ritalin. Becomes a zombie. School gets extra money from state because Jeffrey has a disability.

++++++++++++++
Scenario: Billy breaks a window in his father's car and his Dad gives him a whipping.
1973- Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college, and becomes a successful businessman.
2006- Billy's Dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy removed to foster care and joins a gang. Billy's sister is told by state psychologist that she remembers being abused herself and their Dad goes to prison. Billy's mom has affair with psychologist.

++++++++++++++
Scenario: Mark gets a headache and takes some headache medicine to school.
1973- Mark shares headache medicine with Principal out on the smoking dock.
2006- Police called, Mark expelled from school for drug violations. Car searched for drugs and weapons.

+++++++++++++
Scenario: Mary turns up pregnant.
1973- Five (5) High School Boys leave town. Mary does her senior year at a special school for expectant mothers.
2006- Middle School Counselor calls Planned Parenthood, who notifies the ACLU. Mary is driven to the next state over and gets an abortion without her parents' consent or knowledge. Mary given condoms and told to be more careful next time.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Scenario: Pedro fails high school English.
1973- Pedro goes to summer school, passes English, goes to college.
2006- Pedro's cause is taken up by state democratic party. Newspaper articles appear nationally explaining that teaching English as a requirement for graduation is racist. ACLU files class action lawsuit against state school system and Pedro's English teacher. English banned from core curriculum. Pedro given diploma anyway but ends up mowing lawns for a living because he can't speak English.

+++++++++++++++
Scenario: Johnny takes apart leftover firecrackers from the 4th of July, puts them in a model airplane paint bottle, blows up a red ant bed.
1973- Ants die.
2006- ATF, Homeland Security, FBI called. Johnny charged with domestic terrorism, FBI investigates parents, siblings removed from home, computers confiscated, Johnny's Dad goes on a terror watch list and is never allowed to fly again.

Fed Rates Travelers for Terrorism

Here is another example from the AP, of the feds going completely out of control in order to protect us from terrorists.

Without notifying the public, federal agents for the past four years have assigned millions of international travelers, including Americans, computer-generated scores rating the risk they pose of being terrorists or criminals.

The travelers are not allowed to see or directly challenge these risk assessments, which the government intends to keep on file for 40 years.

The scores are assigned to people entering and leaving the United States after computers assess their travel records, including where they are from, how they paid for tickets, their motor vehicle records, past one-way travel, seating preference and what kind of meal they ordered.

How incredibly stupid and short-sighted, especially considering there is no oversight and no way to ever appeal your rating.

Updated 12/7 - Well it seems I am not alone in being outraged by this practice. ComputerWorld is reporting the following:

More than two-dozen privacy groups have joined a growing chorus of voices calling for the immediate suspension of a federal data mining program that assigns secret terrorist ratings to millions of U.S. citizens and foreigners traveling to and from the country.

In formal comments filed with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on Monday, the group called the government's Automated Targeting System (ATS) a "massive black box" for secretly profiling citizens in violation of the Privacy Act.

Updated 12/28- Good news from Blogger News Network -

Thanks to the efforts of privacy advocate groups, the government has halted the Secure Fight anti-terrorism screening program.

Secure Flight, the U.S. government’s stalled program to screen domestic air passengers against terrorism watch lists, violated federal law during a crucial test phase, according to a report to be issued today by the Homeland Security Department’s privacy office. The agency found that by gathering passenger data from commercial brokers in 2004 without notifying the passengers, the program violated a 1974 Privacy Act requirement that the public be made aware of any changes in a federal program that affects the privacy of U.S. citizens

Maybe we can make a difference ? Let me know

Civility

Interesting article from Peggy Noonan in the Opinion Journal, on civility. Good to see a republican actually acknowledging that antagonizing an opponent is not going to promote anyone's ultimate cause. It is alright to disagree, but what happen to courtesy and respect? It seems to have completely disappeared from our political spheres, probably because the talking heads have become more entertainment and less information. But that could just be me.