Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2005 July
2005 June
2005 May
2005 April
2005 March
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
2003 December
2003 November
2003 October
2003 September
2003 August
2003 July
My Links
STOP TCPA!!!!
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
"Those who are willing to give up freedom for a little safety deserve neither freedom nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." Theodore Roosevelt
digg links, for the techie:
|
| ......Budget gap grows to $445B |
| 07.30.04 (12:58 pm) [edit] |
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House said Friday the federal budget deficit will grow to $445 billion this fiscal year, a new record likely to fuel election-year wrangles about President George W. Bush's economic policies.
The figure, released in the White House's mid-session budget review, is well above the 2003 shortfall of $374 billion, the previous record in dollar terms. But it is $76 billion less than the $521 billion forecast for this year by the White House in February.
A top official from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said recently that CBO is expecting a shortfall of less than $450 billion for the fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30.
The Bush administration also revised up its projections for the economy from February's forecasts, saying it expected real gross domestic product growth of 4.7 percent this year, slowing to 3.7 percent in 2005. The White House in February forecast 2004 growth of 4.4 percent and 3.6 percent next year.
It now expects an average unemployment rate of 5.5 percent in 2004, down from a 5.6 percent prior estimate, and it saw this rate declining to 5.3 percent next year.
The projections of faster GDP growth this year came just hours after the government said real GDP slowed to an annualized growth rate of 3 percent in the second quarter, from 4.5 percent in the first three months of 2004 after consumer spending growth dipped amid high energy prices.
The figures, which were released a day after the Democratic convention and as Bush began a month of intense campaigning ahead of the Republican convention, gave ammunition to both sides in the fiscal policy debate.
Red ink
Democrats seized on the record deficit number to back charges that Bush's huge tax cuts are to blame for turning the surplus he inherited into red ink.
"Anyway you slice it, a deficit exceeding $400 billion a year is bad news for the country," said Tom Kahn, Democratic staff director for the House Budget Committee.
"In just three years the administration's failed budget policies have converted record surpluses into the biggest deficits into American history."
But Republicans argue that the lowered deficit projection shows Bush has made progress toward his goal of halving the deficit in five years.
They also say the recession in 2001, the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have unavoidably increased spending.
A stronger economy has lifted tax revenues in recent months and contributed to the downward revision in the budget gap. However, costs for the Iraq war have been higher than expected.
Lawmakers this month approved an extra $25 billion request for the 2005 fiscal year beginning on Oct. 1 but the Pentagon has said it may need to dip into that money before the end of the current year. Bush is expected to ask for a larger sum when the election is over.
The White House missed its July 15 deadline for releasing the report. The budget update comes as the Bush campaign works to refine a second-term economic agenda for the president to roll out in coming weeks.
Conservative Republicans are pressing Bush to make an overhaul of Social Security a key campaign theme. But some Republicans said the anticipated large cost may weigh against giving it heavy emphasis in the campaign.
|
|
|
| |
| .....Keep Bush down on the farm! |
| 07.29.04 (7:44 pm) [edit] |
http://whitehousewest.com/" title="http://whitehousewest.com/" target="_blank"http://whitehousewest.com/
|
|
|
| |
| .......Americans' incomes fell for two years |
| 07.29.04 (8:12 am) [edit] |
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Americans' overall income shrank for two consecutive years after stocks plunged in 2000, the first time that has effectively happened since the current tax system was put in place during World War II, according to a published report Thursday.
The New York Times, reporting data from the Internal Revenue Service, said gross income reported to the agency fell 5.1 percent to $6.0 trillion in 2002, the most recent year for which data is available, down from $6.35 trillion in 2000. Because of population growth, average income fell even more, by 5.7 percent, and adjusted for inflation the decline was 9.2 percent.
The paper said the decline was due to a combination of the big fall in the stock market and the loss of jobs and wages in well-paying industries as the recession started in 2001.
The paper said before the recent drop the last decline posted for even one year was 1953.
The drop in income has hit government tax collections -- the paper said individual income taxes declined 18.8 percent between 2000 and 2002. Part of that was due to tax cuts passed in 2001.
The report said the sharpest drops were in both the number and the earnings of people with the highest incomes. Those with incomes of $10 million or more saw average income fall 22 percent, while the number of returns reporting incomes at that level fell 53 percent during the two year period.
Meanwhile the average income of those filing returns with incomes between $25,000 and $500,000 saw the average income little changed, somewhere between a 0.1 percent decline and a 0.2 percent gain, depending upon the income category, the Times said.
|
|
|
| |
| ......White House to Project Record Deficit |
| 07.28.04 (7:54 pm) [edit] |
Washington - The White House will project soon that this year's federal deficit will exceed $420 billion, congressional aides said, a record figure certain to ignite partisan warfare over President Bush's handling of the economy.
The annual summertime analysis is expected out this Friday, said several congressional aides speaking on condition of anonymity Tuesday. That would be well after the frequently ignored legal deadline of July 15.
White House budget office spokesman Chad Kolton said the report will be issued when it is ready, and offered no date. Friday will be a day after the Democratic National Convention ends -a release date that would prevent presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and others at the gathering from citing its figures to criticize Bush.
Some aides said they believed the projected shortfall would be close to $450 billion, though one said it would be about $420 billion.
Either way, the White House was ready to emphasize that the figure is well below the $521 billion it projected for this year last February, and tie it to improvements in the economy.
"It is hard to disregard the strong progress made on the economy and our fiscal situation," Kolton said Tuesday.
Democrats have said Bush purposely overestimated this year's budget gap so he could take credit for improvement when the real figures came in.
"The new estimate ... will set a new record of fiscal mismanagement and deficit spending," said Kerry economic adviser Gene Sperling.
The federal budget year runs through Sept. 30 and has only two months to go.
Last year's deficit was $375 billion, the worst ever in dollar terms. The White House has said the numbers are manageable because they only equal about 4 percent the size of the U.S. economy -well below the 6 percent ratio reached under President Reagan.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected in January that this year's shortfall would be $477 billion. In May, citing higher than expected revenue collections, it said it believed the red ink would be smaller but offered no figure.
Two weeks ago, the Treasury Department said the deficit for the first nine months of this budget year was $327 billion. That was more than 20 percent larger than the $270 billion shortfall for the same period last year.
By Alan Fram
Associated Press
Wednesday 28 July 2004
|
|
|
| |
| .......What the three broadcast networks won't tell you about their convention coverage: it's greed |
| 07.27.04 (2:13 pm) [edit] |
From Center for Digital Democracy, July 27, 2004
By Jeff Chester
Despite Higher Revenues, Nets Run Away From Public Service While They Arm-twist FCC for Multi-Billion Dollar Hand-out Claiming they Serve "Public Interest"
Washington, DC: The three major broadcast TV networks are merely spinning lame excuses for why they will not be covering the national political conventions for more than a few hours this summer. It’s all “tightly scripted,” “it’s not interesting," or there’s “no news,” they suggest. Meanwhile, the networks will show even less of the conventions than they did in 2000, continuing a sharp decline in coverage. Yet TV broadcasting will largely reap an unprecedented $1 billion or more from political ads sold this election season.
But just as the networks are fleeing from providing the public with greater information about US political issues, TV broadcasters are stealthily lobbying the Federal Communications Commission for a giant mega-billion dollar handout. Believe it or not, ABC, NBC, and the NAB claim that they are serving the public interest by providing the US public with news and information. Consequently, they want the US government to award them a financial digital bonanza that a modern-day Midas would envy.
First, let’s be clear. It’s greed on the part of the Big Three that is keeping convention coverage off the air. The Networks want to run as much of their regular prime-time schedule as possible to harvest profits from advertising. Meanwhile, profits at the networks are arcing ever skyward.
Viacom/CBS saw “double-digit operating income and revenue growth” in a record second quarter this year. It had operating income for the quarter of $1.4 billion, with a major increase from its television holdings. (Source: " Viacom Reports Record Second Quarter 2004 Results ," PR Newswire, 22 July 2004.)
GE/NBC profits rose in the second quarter 2004 to $3.9 billion, which also saw $5 billion in TV ad “upfront” sales for next season. Having just swallowed Universal for $5 billion, TV sales were up 47 percent in the quarter. (Source: Phyllis Furman, " GE surges on NBC pop: Big boost from Universal ," New York Daily News , 10 July 2004) Earnings from the Olympics are also expected to bring increased profits this summer. (Source: " NBC Universal Sees 3rd Qtr Profit Up 10 to 15 Pct ," Reuter's, July 12, 2004.)
Disney/ABC also reported record growth for the second quarter, with $2.8 billion in revenues from its TV division. The company told shareholders to expect “double-digital annual earnings growth from 2004 through at least 2007.” (Source: The Walt Disney Company, " The Walt Disney Company Reports Higher Results for the Quarter and Six Months Ended March 31, 2004 ," press release, May 12, 2004.)
Meanwhile, the networks and the National Association of Broadcasters are lobbying the FCC to approve a new policy that would force cable operators to carry new broadcast network channels (called “multi-casting must carry"). Instead of the one channel delivered today, the networks could deliver six or more interactive channels in its place. The networks have the audacity to tell the FCC and Congress that because they serve the “public interest,” they should receive this handout. Yet, during a critical time in US history, the three networks would rather not help encourage a national discussion of issues affecting Americans; they simply want to close their eyes to any obligation and just make lots of extra money. (See, for example, Center for Digital Democracy, " Broadcast Lobby’s Indecent Posture: Asking for Big Public Hand-out ," April 26, 2004; and Common Cause, " Will Broadcasters Get Yet Another Giveaway Without Giving the Public Anything in Return? " April 13, 2004.)
CDD is a member of the "Public Interest, Public Airwaves" coalition asking the FCC to approve modest requirements for regular electoral and civic programming from TV broadcasters. For more information, see: http://www.bettercampaigns.or... .
|
|
|
| |
| .....1951 and they knew...and we still haven't learned! |
| 07.26.04 (4:13 pm) [edit] |
"There must be security for all, or no one is secure. Now this does not mean giving up any freedom, except the freedom to act irresponsibly."
-- Klaatu, The Day The Earth Stood Still, 1951.
|
|
|
| |
| .....Iran: the next target? |
| 07.25.04 (7:20 pm) [edit] |
Last week the 9/11 Commission said Iran helped al-Qaeda, but was not connected to the World Trade Centre attacks. But the country is still in George Bush’s sights, reports Foreign Editor David Pratt
Iran’s borders are porous places. Having crossed back and forward through the mountains that flank Iraq to the west, and the deserts of Afghanistan in the east, I can vouch for this. On both sides of these frontiers lie a shadowy world of smugglers and safe houses, Iranian Revolutionary Guards and Iraqi, Kurdish, and Afghan militias.
Here, drugs, guns, fuel, and just about anything else that makes a fast black-market buck slips past daily. Over the years, so too have spies, agents provocateur, assassins, saboteurs, and if last week’s findings of the 9/11 Commission are to be believed, al-Qaeda terrorists.
We are told that some time between October 2000 and February 2001, between eight and 10 al-Qaeda men arrived at the Iranian border from Osama bin Laden’s training camps in Afghanistan en route to wreak havoc in the US .
According to documents found in the files of the US National Security Agency and published in the 9/11 report, Iranian border guards were under orders not to stamp the passports of these “muscle” hijackers, thus ensuring their travel documents were “clean” and less likely to raise the suspicions of US customs and visa officials.
Inevitably, the claims have raised questions about the extent of any relationship between Tehran and al-Qaeda, as well as where and how the future war on terror might be fought out.
There is no shortage of Bush administration hawks who think it is a clear-cut case of Iran acting as conduit, benefactor and sanctuary for al-Qaeda. But one US intelligence official was recently quoted in Newsweek magazine, saying: “We just don’t have good intelligence about what is going on in Iran.”
The Iranians have, not surprisingly, disputed the allegations. Hamid Reza Asefi, the Iranian foreign ministry spokesman, compared Iran’s lack of control of its remote 900km border with Afghan istan to the US’s own problems with Mexico.
It wasn’t just the border crossing by al-Qaeda terrorists from Afghanistan that the 9/11 Commission pointed to as implicating Iran. Just months before the attacks on New York and Washington, the Iranian-sponsored Lebanon-based Islamic group Hezbollah appears to have been shadowing another three of the al-Qaeda hijackers as they flew from Saudi Arabia to Lebanon and onward to Iran.
The men were identified as Wail al-Shehri and Waleed al-Shehri – who were hijackers on American Flight 11, one of the two planes to crash into the World Trade Centre – and Ahmed al-Nami – who flew on United Flight 93, which ploughed into a Pennsylvania field after passengers tried to overwhelm the terrorists.
About the same time the trio was apparently being tracked by Hezbollah, a “senior Hezbollah operative” was on the same Beirut-bound flight as Ahmed al-Ghamdi – who ended up on United Flight 175, the other airliner to fly into the Twin Towers.
While the commission noted these bits of raw intelligence, it “found no evidence that Iran or Hezbollah was aware of the planning for what later became the 9/11 attack”.
The report however is clear that as far back as 1991 or 1992, al-Qaeda and Iranian operatives struck an accord to provide training for assaults on Israel and the US, and terrorist leaders went to Iran for instruction in explosives.
“Intelligence indicates the persistence of contacts between Iranian security officials and senior al-Qaeda figures” after Osama bin Laden returned to Afghanistan from Sudan in 1996, it notes.
It quotes captured terrorist leader Walid bin Attash, known as Khallad, as saying Tehran tried to strengthen ties with al-Qaeda after the 2000 attack on the USS Cole but was rebuffed by bin Laden out of concern for Saudi sensitivities.
But two senior al-Qaeda operatives in US custody, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh, told their interrogators that Iran’s assistance was limited to transiting through Iran. They also denied any relationship between the hijackers and al-Qaeda.
According to some Bush administration think tanks however, the events of 9/11 and Iran’s support for Hezbollah are not the only signs of Tehran’s links to Islamic terror. This time last year, the Sunday Herald reported on a day-long conference, held in Washington by the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI).
Entitled The Future Of Iran – Mullahcracy, Democracy, And The War On Terror, the questions posed on the conference brochures were an indicator of its political aims. What lies ahead for Iran? What steps can the United States take to promote democratisation and regime change?
The delegates’ message was clear. Overshadowed until then by their much louder drum-beating for war against Saddam, the task now should be to focus US attention on dealing with Iran. Tehran, they said, has been accelerating a major nuclear programme , and has infiltrated “agents” into Iraq to support the likes of militant shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, and create problems for the US-dominated occupation there.
One recent report by the respected independent London-based agency the Institute for War and Peace Reporting (IWPR) will be music to the ears of AEI . It suggests that the militant Islamic group Ansar al-Islam is reorganising in Iran where its surviving 800 or so members fled after US air and ground strikes against their bases in northern Iraq. Most Ansar founding members fought in Afghanistan and had strong ties with al-Qaeda.
Only last week Norwegian authorities dropped charges against Ansar’s founder Mullah Krekar, saying there wasn’t enough evidence to convict him of attempted murder, kid napping and the funding of terrorism he allegedly committed during his time as acting leader in preinvasion Kurdish Iraq. According to the IWPR, however, Ansar is regrouping, courtesy of its Iranian hosts.
“The radical group’s presence appears to have, at the very least, the acquiescence of the Iranian authorities, and some sources report that Iranian intelligence offers logistics and possibly military training,” said the IWPR report.
Last year President Bush made it clear that, if re-elected this November, regime change in Iran would be on his agenda. With the administration on message that all is well in Iraq and Afghanistan – despite bad news almost daily – some observers believe it is resorting to a diversionary tactic to take the heat off these negative stories. Put simply, that means blame Iran for everything, and make the point whenever possible that it is next in Washington’s crosshairs.
As Bush said last week, despite the CIA finding “no direct connection between Iran and the attacks of September 11”, nevertheless “we will continue to look and see if the Iranians were involved”.
So is Iran next in line for punitive US military action for being a harbinger of Islamic terror? Many analysts believe that trumping up charges against Tehran is one thing, but that a military invasion would be at best impractical and at worse totally reckless – more to do with demonstrating Bush’s resolve to resist evil in the world in what, after all, is an election year.
It’s a game the administration cannot keep up indefinitely. Last week the Council on Foreign Relations issued a report with a more positive take on relations between the two countries titled Iran: Time For A New Approach. Not only does it question the tension between the US and Iran, it recognises Iran as a “critical actor in the post-war evolution” of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Should the US choose to go down the Iran-bashing route, it will have little effect except to increase that country’s hostility toward America at a time when a new generation of reformists within Iran should be embraced rather than manipulated or alienated.
Should Washington screw up, it will only serve to give greater voice to those like the conservative Iranian analyst who recently pointed out that it was not in Iran’s interest to crack down on al-Qaeda unless there was a wider rapprochement with Washington.
“Al-Qaeda is like a dangerous snake,” he said. “If you see it attacking someone who says he is your enemy, you will not attract the snake’s attention so it attacks you. With this snake, there are no effective half measures – either you kill it or leave it free, as wounding it will make it angry and more dangerous.” Washington should perhaps take note.
Source: The Sunday Herald
|
|
|
| |
| ......New Citizens Say GOP Took Away Their Right To Choose |
| 07.22.04 (5:58 pm) [edit] |
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- Dario Cruz has lived in the United States for 16 years, but just became a citizen last week as he and about 200 other immigrants were naturalized.
One of the things he had always wanted to was register to vote, but when he was offered the chance to do that right outside the ceremony, he knew something wasn't right -- the place on the form where you're asked to choose Democrat, Republican or independent was already filled out.
"It's like one side," Cruz said. "You don't get to choose."
According to Cruz and his family, every form was checked off Republican.
It was something his wife, Linda Cross, first noticed. She said she asked what was going on, and was told the woman registering voters said they were with a Republican organization.
"I am Republican," she told Channel 4's Jim Piggott. "I was very angry with that if they want to register whatever party, you shouldn't try to dictate to people what party they are going to register; who they are going to vote for, because then you don't have any freedom."
The couple left without registering, but they did tell local Democratic Party officials what happened.
"These new citizens that were coming out and maybe did not know much of what was going on were all registering Republican," Cross said. "Not by choice, but by someone else's choice."
Clyde Collins, who runs the local Democratic Party, says this practice is not right, and as informed federal officials about the incident. They told him an investigation is underway.
"First of all, it violates your fundamental right," Collins said. "You have right to decide which political party you wish to enroll."
Collins says those who were sworn in last week will be contacted and told they have the right to register for the party of their choice.
For Cruz, that is what's important.
"I think you should be able to choose who you want to vote for," he said.
For the record, any registered voter can vote for any candidate of any party in a general election, but in most primaries in Florida, people can only vote for candidates of their own party.
Channel 4 has tried contracting federal officials about this issue since last Friday and have not received a response, nor have local Republican leaders responded. Folio Weekly will have more on this story in this week's paper.
|
|
|
| |
| ....Weak jobs picture in crucial states may cost Bush |
| 07.21.04 (4:43 pm) [edit] |
By Peronet Despeignes, USA TODAY
Job growth showed continued strength across much of the USA in June, but there was weakness in employment in two states that polls show could go either way in the presidential race.
Michigan and Ohio lost factory jobs last month, according to figures released Tuesday by the Labor Department.
Overall, preliminary job figures for June were mostly good news for Bush. They showed continuing growth in most states. Employment was up from May in all but 10 states and above year-ago levels in all but four. Unemployment, which is at 5.6% nationally, was below year-ago levels in all but three.
Most of the 17 states in the presidential election that could tip either way and decide the race gained jobs. Swing states Missouri, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Oregon and Pennsylvania were among the 11 fastest-growing job markets.
But Ohio, which in 2000 Bush won by 3 percentage points, and Michigan, which he lost by 5 percentage points, remained exceptions. The number of jobs in Ohio shrank for the eighth time in 10 months and for the sixth time in Michigan in 10 months. The nation overall saw 112,000 new jobs.
Job losses in Michigan and Ohio were concentrated in manufacturing. Ohio lost 3,400 factory jobs in June — its worst month in nearly a year and the tenth loss in 12 months. Michigan lost nearly 10,000 factory jobs — its sixth month of factory job losses in ten months and the highest in nearly three years.
Factory job losses in June extended what is already the longest restructuring of those two states' economies since the 1980s. More than a fifth of each state's factory-job base has evaporated since 1999. Many economists believe the national economic recovery is secure and the recent slowdown in economic growth temporary, but many also see no immediate end for Michigan and Ohio's troubles.
"You still have a structural adjustment going on in these states, and it looks like it's not over yet," says Philip Hopkins, an expert on regional economies at Global Insight, a consulting firm. "Factories are still shedding labor to remain competitive, and they're moving away from high-cost states."
Steve Cochrane, who studies state economies for the consulting firm Economy.com, said the losses in Michigan and Ohio were overwhelmingly in the auto industry.
"It's pretty tough to be competitive when you're dealing with the high pay packages autoworkers get in these two states," he said.
Sen. John Kerry's campaign has shifted its economic criticism of Bush from complaints about a job shortage to criticism about the quality of jobs being created. In Michigan, the loss of factory jobs in June and over the past year has been mirrored by a surge in lower-paying leisure and hospitality jobs.
The Bush campaign focused on the national jobs picture and noted that Michigan and Ohio have suffered a drop in auto sales since buyer incentives were scaled back.
"June was a tough month for the auto industry," said Tim Adams, policy director for the campaign. "But those are long-term structural problems, they're sector-specific and they may be an aberration. ... The broader national trends are solid and this recovery is sustainable."
"The jobs we've lost are not being replaced by jobs of the same caliber," Kerry campaign spokeswoman Alison Dobson said.
Nationally, that picture is unclear. One government report shows job growth being led by industries where average pay is below the national average, but another shows it is led by occupations in which pay is above the national average.
Randy Ilg, an economist with the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which produces both reports, said the pattern is inconclusive. "We don't have the data we need on what jobs new hires are getting and where they're ending up on the pay scale to answer the question" of whether the recovery is being led by high- or low-wage jobs.
Ilg said both sides of the debate are torturing the data and "making mountains out of molehills."
|
|
|
| |
| ........Try to Guess Who's Backing Nader |
| 07.20.04 (3:27 pm) [edit] |
By Holly Bailey
Newsweek
July 19 issue - In his run for the White House, Ralph Nader is getting help from an unexpected source: Republicans. Of the $1 million that Nader has raised for his campaign so far, about $50,000 is from donors who have also given to President George W. Bush's campaign. One in 10 of Nader's biggest contributors—individual s who've written checks of $1,000 or more—are longtime GOP donors.
Among the notable: Richard Egan, Bush's former ambassador to Ireland. Egan raised more than $100,000 as a Bush Pioneer in 2000 and at least $200,000 this cycle as one of the Rangers, the Bush campaign's most elite fund-raising circle. In 2001 Egan contributed $100,000 of his own money to help pay for Bush's Inauguration, while he and his family rank among the biggest contributors to the Republican Party in general, giving nearly $1 million to the GOP since 1999, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. And according to Nader's campaign-finance reports, Egan, his son John and his daughter-in-law Pamela each contributed the maximum $2,000 donation to Nader's effort. Egan declined to comment to NEWSWEEK.
Another $2,000 contributor to Nader was Houston businessman and longtime Bush-family pal Nijad Fares, the son of Lebanese Deputy Prime Minister Issam Fares. In 2000 Fares gave $200,000 to the Bush Inaugural fund. "Republicans are giving money to Nader because they want to prop up his candidacy," says Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe.
Republicans and conservative groups in battleground states including Oregon, Florida, Wisconsin and Michigan are also working to get Nader on the ballot this November. Democrats have sued to keep him off the ticket in Arizona, where, according to the state's Democratic Party, half of the 10,000 registered voters who signed petitions last month to get Nader on the ballot were Republicans. The state GOP committees in Michigan and Florida have announced efforts to collect signatures to get Nader on the ballot in those states. Meanwhile, in Oregon, two conservative groups—the Oregon Family Council and Citizens for a Sound Economy—financed phone calls to GOP voters encouraging them to attend a recent Nader nominating convention. CSE, which is headed by former Republican House majority leader Dick Armey, plans to take its campaign to other states. Nader last week rejected calls to disavow Republican efforts on his part, telling reporters that GOPers aren't doing much to help his insurgent campaign. Yet he seems to find some inspiration in his new supporters, telling the crowd at a recent rally, "I think I'll end up taking more votes away from Republicans than Democrats."
© 2004 Newsweek, Inc.
|
|
|
| |
| .....'Fahrenheit 9/11' Has Recruited Unlikely Audience: U.S. Soldiers |
| 07.20.04 (2:30 am) [edit] |
By SHAILAGH MURRAY / THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
July 12, 2004
FAYETTEVILLE, N.C. -- John Atkins isn't the sort of person one would expect to find crowding into the Cameo Theatre here to see Michael Moore's " Fahrenheit 9/11."
The 26-year-old U.S. Army machine gunner from Fort Bragg voted for President Bush. A graduate of the University of Colorado-Boulder, he enlisted last year "to serve my country" and expects to go to Iraq later in 2004.
"That was pretty thought-provoking," Spec. Atkins says after a showing of Mr. Moore's documentary. "I guess I'm a little disillusioned. I've got a lot more questions than answers now."
Every day since "Fahrenheit 9/11" opened here more than two weeks ago, military men and women have swarmed to the 125-seat Cameo. "Everyone thinks the military is so staunchly Republican," says Staff Sgt. Brandon Leetch, a military-intelligence specialist who spent time in Afghanistan. "What this shows," he says, looking around the theater before the movie, "is that we're not all the same."
Although a nearby suburban multiplex has started screening "Fahrenheit 9/11 ," too, on two screens -- meaning Fayetteville residents have their pick of 10 shows a day -- most of the tens of thousands of troops living in the area probably won't see the film. But soldiers and their families make up well over half of each audience at the Cameo, cinema owner Nasim Keunzel estimates.
That surprises Peter Feaver, a political scientist and military specialist at Duke University in North Carolina. There is a sense in the military that "the media is stabbing us in the back as they did during Vietnam" and Mr. Moore's film would seem "Exhibit A," he says.
Most viewers are coming from Fort Bragg, just up the road. But often a few Marines from Camp Lejeune, about two hours away, join them. The night Spec. Atkins attended, three soldiers arrived from South Carolina well after the 7:30 show had, as usual, sold out. The ticket seller set up chairs in an aisle.
"Fahrenheit 9/11" is a harshly satirical and controversial portrait of the Bush presidency, although it has sympathetic scenes of combat soldiers and their families. Critics say it distorts facts to make its point.
It opened in 868 theaters during the week of June 25, and is showing in more than 2,011 theaters across the country. The movie opened in the United Kingdom, Belgium, France and Switzerland last week.
The U.S. Army and Air Force Exchange Service, which distributes films at 164 theaters on bases around the world, is trying to book "Fahrenheit 9/11 ," spokesman Judd Anstey says.
"Our policy is that if a film is popular in the U.S. and we can get our hands on a print, we'll show it," he says.
Currently, all prints are in commercial theaters. He says it took about a month to get another recent surprise hit, Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ."
Unusual Stop
The Cameo isn't a usual stop for Fort Bragg soldiers. Ms. Keunzel and her husband turned a dilapidated downtown Fayetteville building into a two-screen theater because they loved foreign and independent films and were tired of driving to Raleigh to see them.
Ms. Keunzel didn't even advertise the opening of "Fahrenheit 9/11" in the Fort Bragg newspaper. The film's area distributor told her, "Military people won't want to see it."
But the first two scheduled shows sold out so quickly she added a midnight show. The next day, she added more screenings, for a total of five a day. They all sold out, even though the new times were never published.
Staff Sgt. Billy Alsobrook, 28, a missile repairman in a support battalion, drove to the Cameo one afternoon in his fatigues to get tickets for the evening show so he could take his wife.
"I hear they've got a lot of interviews with soldiers," says Sgt. Alsobrook, whose one-year tour in Iraq ended in February. He expects to return in September.
The Florida native said: "I want to see another point of view on Bush. It never hurts."
|
|
|
| |
| .....Ronstadt tossed over 'Fahrenheit' praise |
| 07.19.04 (6:20 pm) [edit] |
LOS ANGELES, California (Reuters) -- Singer Linda Ronstadt was thrown out of the Aladdin casino in Las Vegas on the weekend after dedicating a song to liberal film maker Michael Moore and his movie "Fahrenheit 9/11," a casino spokeswoman said Monday.
Ronstadt, who had been hired for a one-show engagement Saturday night at the Las Vegas Strip casino, dedicated a performance of "Desperado" to Moore and his controversial documentary, which criticizes President Bush and the U.S.-led war in Iraq.
That dedication angered some Aladdin guests who spilled drinks, tore down posters and demanded their money back, said casino spokeswoman Sara Gorgon.
"We had quite a scene at the box office," she said.
About a quarter of the 4,500 people in the audience got up and left before the performance had finished, Gorgon said.
Before her concert, Ronstadt had laughingly told the Las Vegas Review-Journal that she hoped that the casino performance would be her last.
"I keep hoping that if I'm annoying enough to them, they won't hire me back," she was quoted as telling the newspaper.
A statement issued by the Aladdin said Ronstadt had been "escorted out of the hotel" just after her performance and said the performer would "not be welcomed back."
"Ms. Ronstadt was hired to entertain the guests of the Aladdin, not to espouse political views," the casino said.
Ronstadt was not immediately available for comment.
|
|
|
| |
| ........Rapper blames Bush for 9/11 in new song |
| 07.16.04 (1:07 pm) [edit] |
NEW YORK (AP) -- Over the years, the rapper Jadakiss has depicted a world of drug dealing, murder and other assorted mayhem without raising many eyebrows.
But seven words in his new song "Why" -- "Why did Bush knock down the towers?" -- has gotten Jadakiss the most mainstream attention, and criticism, of his career.
"It caught the ear of white America," he said proudly during a phone interview with The Associated Press. "It's a good thing. No matter what you do, somebody's not going to like it, but for the most part, most people love the song."
Not everyone loves it. Bill O'Reilly called Jadakiss a "smear merchant" this week, and some radio stations have edited out the line in the song, in which Jadakiss talks about perceived injustices, conspiracies and problems affecting the world. MTV says it is playing an edited version of the video, as it was sent by his label, Interscope.
Jadakiss says fans have demanded to hear the original version.
"In the beginning, they would edit, but after that, everybody called back for the version that was calling Bush (out)," he says.
Jadakiss doesn't really believe Bush ordered the towers destroyed -- he says the line is a metaphor, and that Bush should take the blame for the terrorist attack because his administration didn't do enough to stop it.
"They didn't follow up on a lot of things properly," says Jadakiss. "It's the president of the United States. The buck stops with him."
The controversy doesn't appear to be hurting Jadakiss -- his new album, "Kiss of Death," released last month, is nearing 500,000 copies sold. However, his song "Why?" has stalled at No. 16 on Billboard's Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles chart.
Hearing Jadakiss converse about political issues is a new concept -- the rapper, who began his career as part of the group The Lox, is more known for his gritty rhymes about street life.
But Jadakiss says his outlook has changed.
"I'm growing up, I'm getting a little older. I've got two kids. I'm almost 30 years old," says the Yonkers, New York native.
He talks up "Fahrenheit 9/11" as an important, must-see movie -- he's watched it twice -- and he's even registering to vote in the upcoming presidential election, a first for him. (He backs John Kerry.) He wants the minimum wage raised and more jobs created.
"As a rapper, as an artist, we've got power," he said. "If we can get people to vote from the ages 18 to 44, we can make a change."
|
|
|
| |
| .........'E911' Turns Cell Phones into Tracking Devices |
| 07.16.04 (2:37 am) [edit] |
Cell phones will be taking on a new role in 1998, beginning a slow transition to becoming user tracking devices. The outcome of this shift reassures some, but has others calling for restrictions on how cell-locating information can be used.
The impending first phase of the FCC's rules is aimed at enabling emergency services personnel to quickly get information on the location of a cell phone user in the event of a 911 call. By April, all cellular and personal communications services providers will have to transmit to 911 operators and other "public safety answering points" the telephone number and cell site location of any cell phone making a 911 call.
The aim of the law is to bring to cell phone users the same automatic-locating capability that now exists with wireline phones. But while the FCC's aim is simple on the surface - to make it easier for medical, fire, and police teams to locate and respond to callers in distress - the technology is also giving rise to concerns over the ease with which the digital age and its wireless accouterments are bringing to tracking individuals.
"The technology is pretty much developing to create a more and more precise location information. The key question for us is 'what is the legal standard for government access?'" says James Dempsey, senior staff counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology.
Those seeking restrictions on the use of cell phone tracking information emphasize that, unlike the stationary wireline phones, a cell phone is more specifically associated with an individual and their minute-by-minute location.
In December, the FCC began requiring wireless providers to automatically patch through any emergency calls made through their networks. Subscriber or not, bills paid or unpaid, anyone with a cell phone and a mobile identification number was thus guaranteed to see their 911 calls completed.
1998 brings new rules into place that take that initial action much further. By April, emergency service personnel will receive more than just the call - they'll also get the originating cell phone's telephone number and, more significantly, the location of the cell site that handled the call.
The FCC's "Enhanced 911 services" requirements that wireless providers make this information available is the beginning of a tracking system that by 2001 will be able to locate a phone within a 125-meter radius.
To provide this precise location information, Jeffrey Nelson of the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association says different carriers will choose different methods of gathering location information, but all of them involve detecting the radio frequencies sent from the phone to service antennas. Because a phone sends additional signals to other antennas in addition to the primary one, "triangulation" lets them calculate the caller's whereabouts within that multi-antenna region. All this happens automatically when a cell phone is turned on.
The upshot, Nelson says, is that cellular callers will "be able to make a call to 911 or the appropriate emergency number without having to explain where they are." He cites a case in which a woman stranded in a blizzard, unable to tell where she was, was located by use of her cell phone. Various systems are being tested by most providers, he reports, but many are already working with methods to provide such location information today.
But this tracking issue has privacy advocates seeking preventive legislation to see that the instant accessibility of the information to emergency units doesn't just as easily deliver the same tracking information to law enforcement agencies - from local police on up to the FBI.
"The FCC has been in the picture from the 911 perspective," says Dempsey of the Center for Democracy and Technology. But to him, this obvious emergency benefit of E911 necessitates legal action to draw boundaries around its use by other organizations, namely law enforcement.
That's where the issue runs into the same waters as the controversy surrounding the expansion of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act. That 1994 law was meant to keep communications companies from letting the advancement of digital and wireless technology become an obstacle to the surveillance needs of law enforcement agencies. But the CDT and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, among others, have argued that as CALEA undergoes actual implementation (a process that is still ongoing), the FBI is seeking to expand its surveillance capabilities by seeking unjust specifications for phone systems' compliance with the law.
Dempsey wants to see both CALEA and the new E911 requirements be implemented with clear restrictions on the ability of law enforcement to tap into personal information on users, especially their whereabouts at any one time.
With the implementation of E911, Dempsey says that in effect, "your phone has become an ankle bracelet. Therefore we are urging the standard for government access be increased to a full probable cause standard. [Law enforcement agencies] have to have suspicion to believe that the person they are targeting is engaged in criminal activity." Currently, he says, to get a court order allowing the surveillance of cell phone use, law enforcement only has to prove that the information sought - not the individual - is relevant to an ongoing investigation.
"It says to law enforcement you've got to have a link between the person you're targeting and the crime at issue," Dempsey says. "It cannot be a mere fishing expedition."
While the CDT and others seek beefed-up constitutional restrictions on the ability for law enforcement to obtain court orders in such cases, the FBI says the process for obtaining such court orders is already adequate.
"We work under the strict provisions of the law with regard to our ability to obtain a court order," said Barry Smith, supervisory special agent in the FBI's office of public affairs. "Law enforcement's access to [cell phone data] falls very much within the parameters of the Fourth Amendment." He also says that under CALEA, the call data the FBI seeks does not provide the specific location of a wireless phone.
The FCC and its E911 requirements are distinct from CALEA, but because they offer the ultimate form of tracking information - far more instantly and explicitly than the FBI is seeking in the implementation of CALEA, E911 may be ripe for access by law enforcement for non-emergency needs.
As for the distinction between the dispute over CALEA and the FCC's E911 services, Smith says the latter has nothing to do with the FBI. "There's not any crossover between the two."
But, says Dempsey, when law enforcement serves a court order, they could get location information through the requirements established by E911.
|
|
|
| |
| .....Slim-Fast trims Whoopi from ads [Dixie Chicks, Take 2] |
| 07.15.04 (2:28 am) [edit] |
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
(CNN) -- Weight loss product manufacturer Slim-Fast announced Wednesday it had dropped Whoopi Goldberg as its spokeswoman, following a controversy over sexually explicit comments she made last week at a fund-raiser in New York for presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry.
"We at Slim-Fast trust the public understands that the way in which Whoopi Goldberg chose to express her own personal beliefs at the recent fund-raiser at Radio City Music Hall does not reflect the views and values of Slim-Fast," said a statement from Terry Olson, general manager and vice president of marketing.
"We are disappointed by the manner in which Ms. Goldberg chose to express herself and sincerely regret that her recent remarks offended some of our consumers. Ads featuring Ms. Goldberg will no longer be on the air," the statement added.
Some conservative groups and GOP supporters had threatened to boycott Slim-Fast products if it did not take action.
At the fund-raiser last Thursday, which also featured other Hollywood entertainers, Goldberg made sexually explicit comments that were puns on President Bush's name. (Kerry bash raises $7.5 million)
Goldberg responded with a statement released through her publicist.
The statement said she understands why the company felt it needed to respond to its consumers, given all the press attention it received.
"But it saddens me that people who were not present at the fund-raiser, including anyone from Slim-Fast and others who have not seen the material for themselves but are only reacting to soundbites produced by the media, have opted to judge my 'conduct,' " Goldberg's statement said.
"I've done material on every president in the past 20 years, from Reagan to Carter, from Clinton to Bush. I have used portions of the material I did at the fund-raiser in shows, speeches and even on national television and it seems now that people from the other side are using this to further their own agenda," her statement continued.
"I only wish that the Republican re-election committee would spend as much time working on the economy as they seem to be spending trying to harm my pocketbook."
Goldberg said she wished "godspeed" to Slim-Fast and its users and hoped "that everything will be better digested, now that I'm no longer representing them."
"And just because I'm no longer in those spots, it doesn't mean I will stop talking," the comedienne's statement said.
Other entertainers also made disparaging remarks about Bush at the event, but what has Republicans particularly critical of Kerry were his closing remarks in which he thanked them and said they "conveyed the heart and soul of our country."
That prompted the Bush-Cheney campaign to demand that the Kerry-Edwards campaign release video or film footage of the event, saying Americans deserved to decide for themselves about it.
In response, the Kerry campaign said it would not release the footage unless the Bush campaign released a raft of documents "relating to Bush's performance in office" -- including records of Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force, among others.
|
|
|
| |
| .....Your Phone Knows Where You Are....So, do others too? |
| 07.14.04 (1:12 pm) [edit] |
In February 2001, while driving on the state turnpike to her home in Miramar, Florida, 32-year-old Karla Gutierrez lost control of her BMW 328i and skidded into a canal. She dialed 911 on a cellphone and explained her predicament as the vehicle slowly sank. But since Gutierrez couldn't describe her precise location—"I'm not sure where I am," she told the operator—Miami-Dade County rescue units didn't know where to go to save her. By the time a passing patrolman noticed a busted fence by the accident site and found Gutierrez, she was dead.
Cases like this give emergency workers the shivers. If Gutierrez had called 911 from her home, the dispatcher would have instantly seen her exact location on a computer terminal, because landlines are matched to household addresses in emergency-services databases. But mobile phones are untethered to any network and provide no clue about where an SOS is coming from.
With more than 200,000 emergency calls coming from cellphones daily, the Federal Communications Commission is eager to remedy this defect. In 1997, the agency ordered wireless carriers to equip their systems with Enhanced 911 (E911) technologies, which would enable rescuers to pinpoint a caller's location to within a few dozen meters. But privacy advocates aren't convinced that the upgrade, due to be completed by 2006, is good news. They fear E911 could make it impossible for people to do anything without someone—employers and the police, for starters—being able to discover where they are.
There are two competing E911 systems. Most big carriers, like Nextel and SprintPCS, are piggybacking on the Global Positioning System (GPS), a series of 24 satellites originally launched by the Pentagon to aid military operations. GPS chips embedded in new phones factor the arrival time of several satellite signals to compute the caller's longitude and latitude. The downside of the GPS-based approach, however, is that it requires people to buy new phones. Thus carriers such as Verizon Wireless are deploying a different E911 system that works with virtually any existing handset. These carriers are placing sensors inside the towers where mobile signals are routed. When a call for help is sounded, the three or four closest phone towers measure how long it takes for the signal to arrive, then triangulate the victim's coordinates. These systems are being installed in places with relatively low population density, such as Gary, Indiana, and St. Clair County, Illinois. The approach is not as accurate as GPS-based E911, but because distressed callers are usually more visible in a rural landscape, precision is less vital.
Each carrier is ponying up about $1 billion to install E911, an expense that will be partially covered in some states by 50-cent-per-customer monthly surcharges. The companies hope to recoup the rest of their investment by using the emergency networks to offer profit-generating, so-called location-based services. A cellphone equipped for E911 could, for instance, direct drivers to the nearest gas station, or gourmands to the closest trattoria. A Japanese carrier already offers a service in which a cartoon character programmed into the phone makes goofy comments based on the user's location—like remarking "Get a life!" when the phone's owner stays late at work.
It's these kinds of E911 applications that alarm privacy advocates, who fear marketers will unleash a torrent of targeted spam. A person strolling by a McDonald's, for example, might be zapped an electronic coupon for a Big Mac. Even worse is the potential for covert surveillance. At least one trucking company is already using location-based service networks to monitor employees—to know, for instance, when drivers are taking breaks in strip malls that have topless bars. Privacy watchdogs worry that when E911 turns all cellphones into location-based service systems, people won't be able to escape being tracked by employers, the government—even jealous spouses.
Mindful of these qualms, the FCC is considering instituting privacy rules for E911. But telecommunications companies insist that's unnecessary because they'll voluntarily add privacy safeguards. Some GPS phones, for example, will send location data only when a caller dials 911; in all other calls, that information will be withheld unless an "I am here" button is pressed.
That might be a happy medium that consumers can live with. According to a Cahners In-Stat survey conducted last fall, 81 percent of cellphone users said it was "extremely important" to be able to turn location tracking off. In other words, people want increased safety, but not if it means they will be bombarded with burger coupons.
|
|
|
| |
| ....VeriChip |
| 07.13.04 (12:59 pm) [edit] |
VeriChip is a miniaturized, implantable radio frequency identification device (RFID) that has the potential to be used in a variety of security, financial, and other applications. About the size of a grain of rice, each VeriChip product contains a unique verification number and will be available in several formats. The verification number is captured by briefly passing a proprietary scanner over the VeriChip. A small amount of radio frequency energy passes from the scanner energizing the dormant VeriChip, which then emits a radio frequency signal transmitting the verification number.
Security Identification
In the security field, the company is actively developing applications for VeriChip in a variety of security, defense, homeland security and secure-access applications. These opportunities include using VeriChip to control authorized access to government installations and private-sector buildings, nuclear power plants, national research laboratories, correctional facilities, and sensitive transportation resources. VeriChip can enhance airport security, airline security, cruise ship security, intelligent transportation and port congestion management. In these markets, VeriChip could function as a stand-alone, tamper-proof personal verification technology or it could operate in conjunction with other security technologies such as standard ID badges and advanced biometric devices (i.e. retina scanners, thumbprint readers or face recognition devices). The Company recently unveiled VeriPass(tm) and VeriTag(tm), which will allow airport and port security personnel to link a VeriChip subscriber to his or her luggage (both during check-in and on the airplane), flight manifest logs and airline or law enforcement software databases. The concept of using VeriChip as a means for secure access could also be extended to include a range of consumer products such as PCs, laptops, cars, cell phones, and even homes and apartments.
Financial Identification
In the financial arena, the company sees enormous, untapped potential for VeriChip as a personal verification technology that could help to curb identity theft and prevent fraudulent access to banking (especially via ATMs) and credit card accounts. VeriChip's tamper-proof, personal verification technology would provide banking and credit card customers with the added protection of knowing their accounts could not be accessed unless they themselves initiated -- and were physically present during -- the transaction.
How VeriChip Works
An implantable, 12mm by 2.1mm radio frequency device, VeriChip is about the size of the point of a typical ballpoint pen. It contains a unique verification number. Utilizing an external scanner, radio frequency energy passes through the skin energizing the dormant VeriChip, which then emits a radio frequency signal containing the verification number. The number is displayed by the scanner and transmitted to a secure data storage site by authorized personnel via telephone or Internet.
FAQ
Where and how is the chip inserted?
A: The chip is inserted just under the skin in the fleshy part (underneath portion) of your upper arm. The special VeriChip inserter and chip are preassembled and sterilized for your safety. The inserter is thrown away afterward. There is very little discomfort – less than “getting a shot”.
|
|
|
| |
| .....RFID Chips Are Here |
| 07.12.04 (4:32 pm) [edit] |
Bar codes are something most of us never think about. We go to the grocery store to buy dog food, the checkout person runs our selection over the scanner, there's an audible beep or boop, and then we're told how much money we owe. Bar codes in that sense are an invisible technology that we see all the time, but without thinking about what's in front of our eyes.
Bar codes have been with us so long, and they're so ubiquitous, that its hard to remember that they're a relatively new technology that took a while to catch on. The patent for bar codes was issued in 1952. It took twenty years before a standard for bar codes was approved, but they still didn't catch on. Ten years later, only 15,000 suppliers were using bar codes. That changed in 1984. By 1987 - only three years later! - 75,000 suppliers were using bar codes. That's one heck of a growth curve.
So what changed in 1984? Who, or what, caused the change?
Wal-Mart.
When Wal-Mart talks, suppliers listen. So when Wal-Mart said that it wanted to use bar codes as a better way to manage inventory, bar codes became de rigeur. If you didn't use bar codes, you lost Wal-Mart's business. That's a death knell for most of their suppliers.
The same thing is happening today. I'm here to tell you that the bar code's days are numbered. There's a new technology in town, one that at first blush might seem insignificant to security professionals, but it's a technology that is going to be a big part of our future. And how do I know this? Pin it on Wal-Mart again; they're the big push behind this new technology.
So what is it? RFID tags.
RFID 101
Invented in 1969 and patented in 1973, but only now becoming commercially and technologically viable, RFID tags are essentially microchips, the tinier the better. Some are only 1/3 of a millimeter across. These chips act as transponders (transmitters/responders) , always listening for a radio signal sent by transceivers, or RFID readers. When a transponder receives a certain radio query, it responds by transmitting its unique ID code, perhaps a 128-bit number, back to the transceiver. Most RFID tags don't have batteries (How could they? They're 1/3 of a millimeter!). Instead, they are powered by the radio signal that wakes them up and requests an answer.
Most of these "broadcasts" are designed to be read between a few inches and several feet away, depending on the size of the antenna and the power driving the RFID tags (some are in fact powered by batteries, but due to the increased size and cost, they are not as common as the passive, non-battery-powered models). However, it is possible to increase that distance if you build a more sensitive RFID receiver.
RFID chips cost up to 50 cents, but prices are dropping. Once they get to 5 cents each, it will be cost-efficient to put RFID tags in almost anything that costs more than a dollar.
Who's using RFID?
RFID is already in use all around us. Ever chipped your pet dog or cat with an ID tag? Or used an EZPass through a toll booth? Or paid for gas using ExxonMobils' SpeedPass? Then you've used RFID.
Some uses, especially those related to security, seem like a great idea. For instance, Delta is testing RFID on some flights, tagging 40,000 customer bags in order to reduce baggage loss and make it easier to route bags if customers change their flight plans.
Three seaport operators - who account for 70% of the world's port operations - agreed to deploy RFID tags to track the 17,000 containers that arrive each day at US ports. Currently, less than 2% are inspected. RFID tags will be used to track the containers and the employees handling them.
The United States Department of Defense is moving into RFID in order to trace military supply shipments. During the first Gulf War, the DOD made mistakes in its supply allocation. To streamline operations, the U.S. military has placed RFID tags on 270,000 cargo containers and tracks those shipments throughout 40 countries.
On a smaller level, but one that will instantly resonate with security pros, Star City Casino in Sydney, Australia placed RFID tags in 80,000 employee uniforms in order to put a stop to theft. The same idea would work well in corporate PCs, networking equipment, and handhelds.
In all of these cases, RFID use seems reasonable. It is non-intrusive, and it seems to balance security and privacy. Other uses for RFID, however, may be troublesome.
Visa is combining smart cards and RFID chips so people can conduct transactions without having to use cash or coins. These smart cards can also be incorporated into cell phones and other devices. Thus, you could pay for parking, buy a newspaper, or grab a soda from a vending machine without opening your wallet. This is wonderfully convenient, but the specter of targeted personal ads popping up as I walk through the mall, a la Minority Report, does not thrill me.
Michelin, which manufactures 800,000 tires a day, is going to insert RFID tags into its tires. The tag will store a unique number for each tire, a number that will be associated with the car's VIN (Vehicle Identification Number). Good for Michelin, and car manufacturers, and fighting crime. Potentially bad for you. Who will assure your privacy? Do you really want your car's tires broadcasting your every move?
The European Central Bank may embed RFID chips in the euro note. Ostensibly to combat counterfeiters and money-launderers, it would also enable banks to count large amounts of cash in seconds. Unfortunately, such a move would also makes it possible for governments to track the passage of cash from individual to individual. Cash is the last truly anonymous way to buy and sell. With RFID tags, that anonymity would be gone. In addition, banks would not be the only ones who could in an instant divine how much cash you were carrying; criminals can also obtain power transceivers.
Several major manufacturers and retailers expect RFID tags to aid in managing the supply chain, from manufacturing to shipping to stocking store shelves, including Gillette (which purchased 500 million RFID tags for its razors), Home Depot, The Gap, Proctor & Gamble, Prada, Target, Tesco (a United Kingdom chain), and Wal-Mart. Especially Wal-Mart.
The retail giant, the largest employer in America, is working with Gillette to create "smart shelves" that can alert managers and stockboys to replenish the supply of razors. More significantly, Wal-Mart intends for its top 100 suppliers to fully support RFID for inventory tracking by 2005. Wal-Mart would love to be able to point an RFID reader at any of the 1 billion sealed boxes of widgets it receives every year and instantly know exactly how many widgets it has. No unpacking, no unnecessary handling, no barcode scanners required.
RFID Issues
Right now, you can buy a hammer, a pair of jeans, or a razor blade with anonymity. With RFID tags, that may be a thing of the past. Some manufacturers are planning to tag just the packaging, but others will also tag their products. There is no law requiring a label indicating that an RFID chip is in a product. Once you buy your RFID-tagged jeans at The Gap with RFID-tagged money, walk out of the store wearing RFID-tagged shoes, and get into your car with its RFID-tagged tires, you could be tracked anywhere you travel. Bar codes are usually scanned at the store, but not after purchase. But RFID transponders are, in many cases, forever part of the product, and designed to respond when they receive a signal. Imagine everything you own is "numbered, identified, catalogued, and tracked." Anonymity and privacy? Gone in a hailstorm of invisible communication, betrayed by your very property.
But let's not stop there. Others are talking about placing RFID tags into all sensitive or important documents: "it will be practical to put them not only in paper money, but in drivers' licenses, passports, stock certificates, manuscripts, university diplomas, medical degrees and licenses, birth certificates, and any other sort of document you can think of where authenticity is paramount." In other words, those documents you're required to have, that you can't live without, will be forever tagged.
Consider the human body as well. Applied Digital Solutions has designed an RFID tag - called the VeriChip - for people. Only 11 mm long, it is designed to go under the skin, where it can be read from four feet away. They sell it as a great way to keep track of children, Alzheimer's patients in danger of wandering, and anyone else with a medical disability, but it gives me the creeps. The possibilities are scary. In May, delegates to the Chinese Communist Party Congress were required to wear an RFID-equipped badge at all times so their movements could be tracked and recorded. Is there any doubt that, in a few years, those badges will be replaced by VeriChip-like devices?
Surveillance is getting easier, cheaper, smaller, and ubiquitous. Sure, it's possible to destroy an RFID tag. You can crush it, puncture it, or microwave it (but be careful of fires!). You can't drown it, however, and you can't demagnetize it. And washing RFID-tagged clothes won't remove the chips, since they're specifically designed to withstand years of wearing, washing, and drying. You could remove the chip from your jeans, but you'd have to find it first.
That's why Congress should require that consumers be notified about products with embedded RFID tags. We should know when we're being tagged. We should also be able to disable the chips in our own property. If it's the property of the company we work for, that's a different matter. But if it's ours, we should be able to control whether tracking is enabled.
Security professionals need to realize that RFID tags are dumb devices. They listen, and they respond. Currently, they don't care who sends the signal. Anything your companies' transceiver can detect, the bad guy's transceiver can detect. So don't be lulled into a false sense of security.
With RFID about to arrive in full force, don't be lulled at all. Major changes are coming, and not all of them will be positive. The law of unintended consequences is about to encounter surveillance devices smaller than the period at the end of this sentence.
by: By Scott Granneman
|
|
|
| |
| ......The Four Problems With Public Video Surveillance |
| 07.12.04 (2:28 am) [edit] |
Video cameras, or closed-circuit television (CCTV), are becoming a more and more widespread feature of American life. Fears of terrorism and the availability of ever-cheaper cameras have accelerated the trend even more. The use of sophisticated systems by police and other public security officials is particularly troubling in a democratic society. In Washington, for example, the police are in the process of setting up a centralized surveillance center where officers can view video from schools, neighborhoods, Metro stations, and prominent buildings around the city.
Although the ACLU has no objection to cameras at specific, high-profile public places that are potential terrorist targets, such as the U.S. Capitol, the impulse to blanket our public spaces and streets with video surveillance is a bad idea. Here are four reasons why:
1. Video surveillance has not been proven effective
The implicit justification for the recent push to increase video surveillance is the terrorist attacks of September 11. But it is far from clear how the proliferation of video cameras through public spaces in America would stop a plot like the attack on the World Trade Center. Even supporters of CCTV like the Washington police do not argue that it would.
The real reason cameras are deployed is to reduce much pettier crimes, such as auto break-ins. But it has not even been demonstrated that they can do that. In Britain, where cameras have been extensively deployed in public places, sociologists studying the issue have found that they have not reduced crime. "Once the crime and offence figures were adjusted to take account of the general downward trend in crimes and offences," criminologists found in one study, "reductions were noted in certain categories but there was no evidence to suggest that the cameras had reduced crime overall in the city centre."
In addition, U.S. government experts on security technology, noting that "monitoring video screens is both boring and mesmerizing," have found in experiments that "after only 20 minutes of watching and evaluating monitor screens, the attention of most individuals has degenerated to well below acceptable levels."
2. CCTV is susceptible to abuse
One problem with creating such a powerful surveillance system is that experience tells us it will inevitably be abused. There are five ways that surveillance-camera systems are likely to be misused:
Criminal abuse
Surveillance systems present law enforcement "bad apples" with a tempting opportunity for criminal misuse. In 1997, for example, a top-ranking police official in Washington, DC was caught using police databases to gather information on patrons of a gay club. By looking up the license plate numbers of cars parked at the club and researching the backgrounds of the vehicles' owners, he tried to blackmail patrons who were married. Imagine what someone like that could do with a citywide spy-camera system.
Institutional abuse
Sometimes, bad policies are set at the top, and an entire law enforcement agency is turned toward abusive ends. That is especially prone to happen in periods of social turmoil and intense conflict over government policies. During the Civil Rights movement and the Vietnam War, for example, the FBI – as well as many individual police departments around the nation – conducted illegal operations to spy upon and harass political activists who were challenging racial segregation and the Vietnam War. This concern is especially justified since we may be entering a similar period of conflict today.
Abuse for personal purposes
Powerful surveillance tools also create temptations to abuse them for personal purposes. An investigation by the Detroit Free Press, for example, showed that a database available to Michigan law enforcement was used by officers to help their friends or themselves stalk women, threaten motorists after traffic altercations, and track estranged spouses.
Discriminatory targeting
Video camera systems are operated by humans who bring to the job all their existing prejudices and biases. In Great Britain, camera operators have been found to focus disproportionately on people of color. According to a sociological study of how the systems were operated, "Black people were between one-and-a-half and two-and-a-half times more likely to be surveilled than one would expect from their presence in the population."
Voyeurism
Experts studying how the camera systems in Britain are operated have also found that the mostly male (and probably bored) operators frequently use the cameras to voyeuristically spy on women. Fully one in 10 women were targeted for entirely voyeuristic reasons, the researchers found.
3. The lack of limits or controls on cameras use
Advanced surveillance systems such as CCTV need to be subject to checks and balances. Because the technology has evolved so quickly, however, checks and balances to prevent the kinds of abuses outlined above don't exist. Two elements in particular are missing:
A consensus on limits for the capability of public CCTV systems.
Unfortunately, history has shown that surveillance technologies put in place for one purpose inevitably expand into other uses. And with video technology likely to continue advancing, the lack of any clear boundaries for what CCTV systems should be able to do poses a significant danger.
For example, a recent ACLU visit to the Washington police department's new central video surveillance center showed that the system currently consists largely of long-range cameras focused on traffic and public buildings that are not suitable for identifying individuals. But the infrastructure for a far more sophisticated and integrated system is being established. Now that the surveillance facility has been put in place, the department will be in a position to increase the quality of its technology and the number of its cameras - and will inevitably be tempted or pressured to do so. Do we want the authorities installing high-resolution cameras that can read a pamphlet from a mile away? Cameras equipped to detect wavelengths outside the visible spectrum, allowing night vision or see-through vision? Cameras equipped with facial recognition, like those already installed in airports and even on the streets of Tampa, Florida?
As long as there is no clear consensus about where we draw the line on surveillance to protect American values, public CCTV is in danger of evolving into a surveillance monster.
Legally enforceable rules for the operation of such systems.
A societal consensus about how cameras should be used is important, but in the end we are a nation of laws and rights that have their root in law. While the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution offers some protection against video searches conducted by the police, there are currently no general, legally enforceable rules to limit privacy invasions and protect against abuse of CCTV systems. Rules are needed to establish a clear public understanding of such issues as whether video signals are recorded, under what conditions, and how long are they retained; what the criteria are for access to archived video by other government agencies, or by the public; how the rules would be verified and enforced; and what punishments would apply to violators.
4. Video surveillance will have a chilling effect on public life.
The growing presence of public cameras will bring subtle but profound changes to the character of our public spaces. When citizens are being watched by the authorities - or aware they might be watched at any time - they are more self-conscious and less free-wheeling. As syndicated columnist Jacob Sullum has pointed out, "knowing that you are being watched by armed government agents tends to put a damper on things. You don't want to offend them or otherwise call attention to yourself." Eventually, he warns, "people may learn to be careful about the books and periodicals they read in public, avoiding titles that might alarm unseen observers. They may also put more thought into how they dress, lest they look like terrorists, gang members, druggies or hookers." Indeed, the studies of cameras in Britain found that people deemed to be "out of time and place" with the surroundings were subjected to prolonged surveillance.
The bottom line: a lack of proportion between benefits and risks
Like any intrusive technology, the benefits of deploying public video cameras must be balanced against the costs and dangers. This technology (a) has the potential change the core experience of going out in public in America because of its chilling effect on citizens, (b) carries very real dangers of abuse and "mission creep," and (c) would not significantly protect us against terrorism. Given that, its benefits - preventing at most a few street crimes, and probably none - are disproportionately small.
-ACLU
|
|
|
| |
| .....Shining a light in a real dark place |
| 07.11.04 (6:10 pm) [edit] |
The investigation conducted by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba into prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib was begun last January, after Army investigators were tipped off to the abuses by an Army specialist named Joseph Darby. Taguba's job: to look at the performance of the 800th Military Police Brigade, which ran Abu Ghraib and other detention facilities in Iraq.
Taguba's report took the brigade's leadership to task, but it also blamed officers attached to the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade. Once his inquiry emerged publicly, in a report on 60 Minutes II and in a New Yorker story by Seymour M. Hersh, other inquiries followed. News reports focused on whether officials in the Bush adminstration encouraged mistreatment--assertions that were denied. The scandal has prompted howls of outrage, particularly in the Middle East, as the administration seeks to build a democracy in Iraq. The military investigations now underway include a review of prisoner deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan.
More here: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/...
|
|
|
| |
| ......THE STEPS TO A NEW PRESIDENT |
| 07.08.04 (7:44 pm) [edit] |
Step One: Help correct flaws in the voting system
I've been talking to a number of people about the upcoming presidential election and how we can defeat Bush in 2004. One person asked, "Why take action when the election machines are already rigged?"
I thought, "The election machines are rigged? I thought Congress rectified the situation. After all no one wants another Florida fiasco."
Well, I did some research. Ladies and gentleman, the situation isn't pretty.
From the ashes of the 2000 Florida recount disaster came the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) passed by Congress last fall. HAVA compels states to upgrade their voting machines prior to the 2004 election. While the intentions of HAVA may have been good, reality suggestions another election disaster.
If you think your vote will count in 2004, think again.
The electronic voting machines states are scrambling to purchase have been proven to contain numerous flaws. According to www.VerifiedVoting.org : Secret software within the computer to track votes has been approved by courts; all software and hardware has the potential for bugs;secret programs could be installed without detection; hackers can tamper with the machines; and some software allows you to cast an unrestricted amount of votes!
Electronic democracy? Not even close.
Now you might be thinking to yourself, "Wait a minute. Isn't there a paper record we can check when discrepancies occur?" Well, not any more.
HAVA meant to require a paper record, but the new law is being "interpreted" by many to mean: only when an audit is necessary. Of course, this would result in the computer dispensing the exact results it already had in its system. The computer will never be wrong!
But the public will never know if the computer recorded their vote correctly, and no physical evidence will be available to prove otherwise.
Flawed computers, no paper record -- you'd think it couldn't get any worse, right? Here's the kicker; Walden O'Dell, CEO of Diebold, a major supplier of voting machines, is a staunch supporter of President Bush. In a recent fund-raising letter O'Dell had the nerve to state that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."
After learning this information I understood exactly the concerns of the gentleman who feared the machines were "rigged." However, I also discovered an organization dedicated to solving the problem.
David Dill has created www.VerifiedVoting.org to draw attention to the problem and encourage citizen support for proposed solutions. Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.) has introduced HR 2239 to protect American voters.
The Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2003 calls for all states to create a paper record of votes prior to casting votes on a machine. Thus, if there were any questions regarding the accuracy of the machines, real paper ballots would be available as the vote of final record.
Every reader can do something abot this now: Visit www.VerifiedVoting.org and sign the petition; call your state, local and federal representatives; and tell others.
We need to make a big deal out of this because it is a big deal, and it's not getting the attention it deserves.
Democracy and the right to vote should be taken seriously whenever threatened. Both remain at stake in 2004, four years after the last electoral debacle.
Working to correct the flaw in our voting procedures is one action citizens can take now.
Michael John Dobbins is the author of "Stop Bush in 2004: How Every Citizen Can Help." His column, "50 steps to a new president" will run weekly through Election Day 2004.
|
|
|
| |
| ......Letterman's Top Ten List |
| 07.05.04 (3:17 pm) [edit] |
Letterman's Top Ten List: Top Ten George W. Bush Complaints About "Fahrenheit 9/11":
10. That actor who played the President was totally unconvincing
9. It oversimplified the way I stole the election
8. Too many of them fancy college-boy words
7. If Michael Moore had waited a few months, he could have included the part where I get him deported
6. Didn't have one of them hilarious monkeys who smoke cigarettes and gives people the finger
5. Of all Michael Moore's accusations, only 97% are true
4. Not sure - - I passed out after a piece of popcorn lodged in my windpipe
3. Where the hell was Spider-man?
2. Couldn't hear most of the movie over Cheney's foul mouth
1. I thought this was supposed to be about dodgeball
|
|
|
| |
| ....Young and Upwardly Mobile |
| 07.05.04 (6:04 am) [edit] |
Judging by the increasing number of pedestrians, drivers, and other adults yapping incessantly into mobile phones, it's no surprise many claim they can't live without these things. Now add 10- to 14-year-olds to the list. A new study from U.K.-based research consultancy Teleconomy says this group (dubbed M-Agers by salivating marketers) is becoming so emotionally attached to wireless devices it can't live without them either. Moreover, these youngsters use mobiles in different ways than adults, an insight that could have profound implications for marketers (and, no doubt, for sociologists, behavioral scientists, and frazzled parents).
Teleconomy suggests that this strong emotional link results from the age group's intimate knowledge and use of wireless technologies. "M-Agers were born into a time where mobile phone use was commonplace and have subsequently developed a significant emotional attachment to their phone," says the study, which examined the mobile habits of 1,400 young British mobile-phone users. "Their dependence on this technology is only set to increase as children begin to grow up with increasingly sophisticated mobile devices." (Even toddlers have been known to distinguish between incoming phone calls and text messages.) Accordingly, and unlike adults, kids use mobile phones for a lot more than chatting: playing games, downloading movie clips and news -- even as address books, diaries, watches, and alarm clocks. And in a sign that mobiles are overtaking sneakers as a mark of playground "cool," 85 percent of children had personalized their phones (downloading their own ringtones, pictures, photos, etc.).
Clearly this trend has significant implications for mobile-phone manufacturers and carriers. Kids use these sophisticated phone functions. Kids grow up to be adults. These highly mobile customers will undoubtedly demand improvements to the devices, such as bigger display areas, better ways of illustrating and typing text, improved data storage, and smarter overall design. And to take advantage of these new functions, mobile carriers will have to cooperate more, something these cutthroat rivals have been reluctant to do (it was only last October that the six major U.S. providers finally agreed on a common standard for text messaging).
But more immediately, it is marketers who are recognizing the potential of mobile preteens. "You can now do this [mobile marketing] with a younger age group," says Wes Bray of Connecticut-based consultancy Mobilopia. "It's your brand in their pocket." Bray suggests a number of "permission-based" marketing strategies for targeting this youthful consumer segment. "Think about how your brand could interact with this age group, then provide rich content enabled by the brand," he says. So offer movies, ringtones, and games sponsored, for example, by Pepsi. (The strategy: Lure mobile consumers to the Pepsi website, have them sign up on a customer database, and then provide them with "exclusive" mobile-phone content.) "It reinforces the brand and is a proven model," Bray says.
Mobile promotional marketing is also effective, according to Bray. "It makes sweepstakes marketing more vivid and alive," he explains. (Put a code number on a candy wrapper; kids type that number into a phone to see if they've won anything.) This permission-based, content-rich approach merely confirms the old adage Go where your consumers are. Seventy-seven percent of young American consumers have access to mobile phones, and of these, 57 percent text-message on a regular basis. Target marketing, indeed.
Of course, all this must be done with the utmost care. Pitching products to minors has always had a vaguely unseemly air about it. Extending these tactics to the latest ubiquitous technology only increases the need for responsible marketing. Moreover, mobile American teens behave a bit differently from their British counterparts. (U.S. parents tend to be more restrictive about mobile-phone use, which can limit the impact of these devices; American kids are more adept with picture phones.) Still, U.K. mobile-phone trends have been a leading indicator of what's coming here, and sooner than you might think. "This bubble of youth will rise up," Bray says. You have been warned.
By Thomas Mucha, July 01, 2004
|
|
|
| |
| .....We Are What We Watch |
| 07.02.04 (4:12 am) [edit] |
A few weeks ago, Fox-TV offered up the finale of “The Swan”—the mutant offspring of the Miss America pageant, Cinderella and “Extreme Makeover.” Women held up as “dogs”—whose supposedly oversized noses, flabby thighs and saggy breasts were scrutinized and pitied, even ridiculed—subjected themselves to multiple invasive procedures, including as many as 14 surgeries and psychological counseling, before a national viewing audience. The finalists then vied in a beauty contest complete with lingerie competition, and one was chosen winner, the Swan.
As “The Swan” and a swarm of reality shows colonized primetime, the news media was consumed by repugnant images coming out of Abu Ghraib. All were appalling, but possibly the most disturbing were those of young women like Pfc. Lynndie England pointing and laughing at an Iraqi man’s genitals and, in another shot, seeming to drag a naked Iraqi man by a leash.
How do these seemingly different images of women work together? To understand, we need to consider the synergy between the coarsening of our culture and post-feminism, between TV’s sadomasochism-lite and its escalating objectification of women.
Because we often dismiss popular culture as banal and inconsequential, we don’t stand back and think about the connections between what we see in the news and what we see in entertainment programming. But we should appreciate that reality TV, particularly, traffics in and relies upon voyeurism, one-upsmanship, humiliation and often soft-core pornography. This is hardly to say reality TV “caused” Abu Ghraib; the soldier-torturers, including the women, were socialized into highly macho military institutions predicated on conquering and killing those deemed the enemy. But the “few bad apples” argument Rumsfeld and Bush used in their efforts to distance torture from “the true nature and heart of America” fails to acknowledge how common humiliation has become in what passes for daily entertainment.
Perpetuating degradation and terror is the premise of such shows as “Fear Factor” and “The Apprentice.” Near nudity and ridicule of people’s bodies, too, is de rigeur in reality TV. In “Are You Hot?” “judges” like Lorenzo Lamas used a laser pointer to identify which parts of a contestant’s barely clad body were shameful. In the early episodes of “American Idol,” when hundreds competed to get to the final phase, we were invited to laugh at those pathetic tone-deaf pop star wannabes.
Others have noted how various cultural practices, from fraternity hazing to torture in U.S. prisons, are of a piece with the sadism at Abu Ghraib. But what’s chilling about reality TV is that it exhorts us to be a voyeur of others’ humiliation and to see their degradation as harmless, even character-building fun. It is not surprising that, as Susan Sontag wrote in dismay, Abu Ghraib torturers “apparently had no sense that there was anything wrong in what the pictures show.”
The other highly disturbing resonance between Abu Ghraib and reality TV is the central role both play in advancing anti-feminism. Right-wing pundits like Linda Chavez suggested that the presence of women in the military “encouraged more misbehavior” in the prison. George Neumayr of the American Spectator summed it up this way: “The image of that female guard, smoking away as she joins gleefully in the disgraceful melee like one of the guys, is a cultural outgrowth of a feminist culture which encourages female barbarianism … [t]his is Eleanor Smeal’s vision come to life.”
In other words, not only are women not morally superior to men, when they get too much power they are worse than men, so they should be expunged from public life and get back in the kitchen.
Reality TV’s obsession with women’s appearance, sexuality, ability to please men, desperate need to compete with each other over men, redecorate, have breast implants and liposuction—reinforces and celebrates pre-feminist gender roles. From “The Bachelor” to “Joe Millionaire” to “Trading Spaces,” reality TV keeps women in their place and encourages a retreat from citizenship and world affairs into consumerism and the domestic sphere. With “The Apprentice,” it was clear that no woman could win the top spot—women were cast as too emotional or too bitchy or too reliant on their sexuality to handle a top job with The Donald.
In these shows, the inevitability of female narcissism is rendered utterly natural, almost genetically determined. But so is a culture of surveillance, of voyeurism and of demeaning exposure. The promised prizes are meant to be worth the initial shame, rejection. Post-feminism—the insistence that deep in their hearts women really want a return to 1957—is thus deployed in the service of a culture of humiliation. Others may dismiss reality TV shows like “The Swan” and “Are You Hot?” as mindless drivel. But when they simultaneously naturalize misogyny at home and shamelessness abroad, we need to take a pretty hard look at what our society finds entertaining—and why.
By Susan J. Douglas
July 1, 2004
|
|
|
| |
|
QUOTE:
Stupidity has a bad habit of getting its way. --"The Day After"
QUOTE: Because I do it with one small ship, I am called a terrorist. You do it with a whole fleet and are called an emperor.
– A pirate, from St. Augustine's "City of God"
QUOTE: War: A wretched debasement of all the pretenses of civilization.
– General Omar Bradley
I hope....that mankind will at length, as they call themselves responsible creatures, have the reason and sense enough to settle their differences without cutting throats...
– Benjamin Franklin
"There must be security for all, or no one is secure. Now this does not mean giving up any freedom, except the freedom to act irresponsibly."-- Klaatu, The Day The Earth Stood Still, 1951.
|
