Here’s the survey as it appeared on the scientific company’s web site:

Which fact about our moon do you find most surprising:

The “dark side of the moon” receives about as much sunlight as the side that faces us.

Literally tons of frozen ice water exists beneath the moon’s surface.

The coldest temperature in the universe was actually meassured on our moon (-415 degrees F)

Unlike those on Earth, all lunar mountains were basically all created in just a matter off seconds due to impact displacement from asteroids.

Before we begin our analysis, it’s worth repeating that this poll appeared on a scientific web site. The poll was lifted verbatim via a copy and paste utility so what you see above is exactly what site visitors were presented with, misspellings and grammatical errors included. Copying the poll wasn’t easy, either– as soon as you chose your answer, you were shown the results to-date, then the poll went away never to be seen again unless you cleared your cookies and came back to the site as a “new” visitor.

To begin with, it’s a very strange sort of survey that doesn’t poll your opinions or your knowledge, but asks instead which of the following “facts” you find most surprising! Any well-read citizen should be aware of all four “facts” and, accordingly, none of them should be “surprising.”

1. The “dark side of the moon” receives about as much sunlight as the side that faces us. The “dark side of the moon” is of course not dark at all. It is “dark” the way the “dark ages” were dark, in that it was unknown to us until we were able to send spacecraft around the moon, to photograph the side of the moon that is always facing away from us. One survey participant did comment that it must be surprising, or else why would we call it the “dark side.” But anyone who understands that the moon rotates on its axis once a month in order to keep the same side facing us, will realize that a day on the far side (much better term than dark side!) of the moon is about the same as a day on the near side.

2. Literally tons of frozen ice water exists beneath the moon’s surface. “Literally tons?” They exists, does they? And what, pray tell, is “frozen ice water?” Is it ice? Is it frozen water? Or is it something new? Whatever, it isn’t very scientific, are it?

3. The coldest temperature in the universe was actually meassured on our moon (-415 degrees F). Hmm. One might be forgiven for thinking that if it was the “coldest temperature in the universe” then we must somehow have measured all of the temperatures in the universe. One hopes that we would have measured them with one “s” and not meassured them. That said, we voted for this one as the most surprising because is so obviously not a fact. It may be that it is the coldest temperature every “actually measured” by a man or a machine, but that’s not what they said.

4. Unlike those on Earth, all lunar mountains were basically all created in just a matter off seconds due to impact displacement from asteroids. That “fact” requires a bit of thinking, perhaps a matter “off seconds,”, but once you understand it, it is not surprising at all. A better way to put it would have been simply to say that “all of the mountains on the moon were created instantaneously by asteroid impacts, and almost all of the mountains on Earth were created by geological forces over very long periods of time.

So there was nothing surprising in the poll, except perhaps that there was nothing surprising in it. Or perhaps it was a bit surprising that a “scientific” company would publish something so unscientific.

–SG

What do you think? Please enter a comment below.

In 2002 the United States Postal Service was plagued with problems associated with the Culture of Fear that our federal government was so carefully and deliberately fostering. A fearful public was a big advantage in promoting the war in Iraq, and mandatory for full implementation of the PATRIOT act. Not to mention– some home-grown vandal/terrorist was mailing anthrax to public officials, and another thought it was great fun to blow up rural mailboxes. The entire nation was on the verge of panic. In a bid to reassure the public, the Post Office combined the popular “United We Stand” slogan with their own “We deliver for you,” and came up with “UNITED WE STAND AND DELIVER FOR AMERICA.”

The new slogan was quick to appear on banners at Post Offices all over the country, and some are still in place today, almost a decade later. But it is increasingly difficult to read the banner without seeing a third, and ancient, expression right in the middle: “Stand and deliver!” Yes, our beloved Post Office is channeling a 17th Century highwayman. “Stand and Deliver” has had more benign meanings in recent years, but the primary meaning is the “stock phrase used by highwaymen” and it is ironically appropriate now for a Post Office that is no longer a service. The United States Postal “Service” is now a quasi-governmental corporation that thinks it will lose less money if it steals from its customers by deliberately tricking them into paying much more for postage than is necessary. It’s one thing to “up-sell” customers to a higher standard of service. It’ something else again to charge them a higher fee for exactly the same service!

How can they do that? They dazzle you with smoke and mirrors in a multi-million dollar advertising campaign: “If it fits, it ships…. for one low flat rate.” Slick, catchy, and effective. But it’s wrong, three ways. Several of the flat-rate options have weight restrictions, so it is quite possible that it will fit, but it won’t ship. But a bigger problem is that there are lots and lots of “flat rates,” not just one. The third and biggest lie is that it’s a “low” rate. Often the rate will be substantially higher than it would be if the customer used an ordinary, non flat-rate box. That sounds complicated, and it is. It’s the complexities and misdirections that allow the USPS to get away with what would be called fraud in any other industry.

And ironically, there most recent, expensive ad campaign focuses on the flat rate envelope. Wouldn’t it be great if they had one? Well, that flat rate envelope was the very first flat rate product, and it’s been available for over a decade.

Here’s how the flat rate scam works. You want to mail a jacket to your brother who lives about 30 miles away. You take it to the Post Office and ask the window clerk for one of those “low flat rate boxes” for it. The clerk tells you he can give you a medium sized flat rate Priority Mail box, free, and the postage charge is $10.95 regardless of how much it weighs or how far it is going within the US and territories.

Hopefully you have done your homework, and you say “No, thanks. I’d like a free Priority Mail Box No. 4, please.” The jacket weighs 1 Lb 3 Oz, and the ordinary Priority Mail Postage for it is…. wait for it… $5.20. That “one low flat rate” doesn’t look all that low, now, does it? You just saved yourself $5.75, or put it another way you stopped the Post Office from stealing $5.75 from you. That’s what we call “highway robbery,” but without the courtesy of a “stand and deliver,” announcement. It’s just plain sneaky.

In all fairness, the example above is about as extreme as we could come up with, but for the most part the difference is in degree, not kind. Almost any time you use a USPS Flat Rate Priority Mail Box you will be paying more postage than if you use an ordinary box. A local internet-based business ships 20-30 priority mail packages a day. They weigh between 1 and 3 pounds, and are mailed in free Priority Mail boxes. A “flat rate” box is less expensive at a rate of perhaps one a day, and that’s because they use the “Regional Flat Rate Box A” which is available only to online shippers.

When it started in the early 1990s, Priority Mail was marketed as “2 Lbs, 2 Days, 2 Dollars.”
Now even a 14 ounce package is “zoned” or charged a variable rate depending on the distance it travels– unless you use a flat rate box. But if it fits, it ships, right? For “one low flat rate.” Sounds simple when you put it that way, but what it amounts to is that you are paying, a lot, to avoid having to figure out the actual postage cost.
And where did they get this “one low flat rate” from? The US Postal Service offers no fewer than nine flat rate boxes and envelopes for Priority Mail (not counting two more that you can’t get at the Post Office), and there are at least six different postage costs (your one low flat rate).

There are seven more flat rate boxes/rates if you are shipping to an APO or FPO address (military mail).

Shipping overseas? Using Canada as an example, we find eleven different “flat rate” boxes and envelopes (International Priority Mail).

Count ‘em, folks– that’s a total of twenty-nine different flat rate boxes and envelopes, with 15 or 20 different postage rates, depending on how you count them. So much for “one low flat rate.” Actually the number of rates is almost double that, because you can get a discount for using an online service like the Post Office’s “Click ‘n’ Ship” or Stamps.com.

Anybody can go to the Postal Service’s web site and look at the nearly infinite variety of postage rates and destinations.

Several of these clearly marked “flat rate” boxes have restrictions on what you can put in them, so you can’t even say for sure that if it fits, it ships!

The USPS has spent millions of dollars on radio and TV advertising for its “if it fits, it ships” campaign, and guess what– it seems to be working at least to the extent that some of the more popular flat rate boxes seem to be in short supply. Which begs the question, just how ignorant are the Postal Service’s customers? But a better question might be, “When did it become acceptable for the US Postal Service to deliberately cheat its customers?”

–SG

What do you think? Please enter a comment below.

At age 16 or so, the student George Washington copied 110 Rules of Civility & Decent Behaviour in Company and Conversation into one of two surviving schoolbooks, preserved in the Library of Congress. The Rules date back to 16th century France, and were popularly circulated in English translation.

Washington’s transcription occupies the last ten pages of the second schoolbook, and in 1926 Charles Moore said that “These maxims were so fully exemplified in George Washington’s life that biographers have regarded them as formative influences in the development of his character.”

The University of Virginia web site offers a transcription of the Rules as well as scans of the original. Many of the Rules are quaint, and relevant in a social world which no longer exists. Reading the entire list is an entertaining exercise, and educational, but some of the Rules have a particular relevance to current discussions of civility in political discourse.

In today’s climate of “information overload” it is apparently impossible for Members of Congress and Members of the Media to read the legislation that they are debating, ridiculing, or otherwise commenting upon, so it is undoubtedly too much to expect them to read all of Washington’s Rules. Here are some that should be required reading:

A Selection from the Rules of Civility & Decent Behaviour in Company and Conversation

12th Shake not the head, Feet, or Legs rowl not the Eys lift not one eyebrow higher than the other wry not the mouth, and bedew no mans face with your Spittle, by approaching too near him when you Speak.

17th Be no Flatterer, neither Play with any that delights not to be Play’d Withal.

21st: Reproach none for the Infirmaties of Nature, nor Delight to Put them that have in mind thereof.

22d Shew not yourself glad at the Misfortune of another though he were your enemy.

24th Do not laugh too loud or too much at any Publick Spectacle.

25th Superfluous Complements and all Affectation of Ceremonie are to be avoided, yet where due they are not to be Neglected.

39th In writing or Speaking, give to every Person his due Title According to his Degree & the Custom of the Place.

40th Strive not with your Superiers in argument, but always Submit your Judgment to others with Modesty.

42d Let thy ceremonies in Courtesie be proper to the Dignity of his place with whom thou conversest for it is absurd to act the same with a Clown and a Prince.

43d Do not express Joy before one sick or in pain for that contrary Passion will aggravate his Misery.

44th When a man does all he can though it Succeeds not well blame not him that did it.

46th Take all Admonitions thankfully in what Time or Place Soever given but afterwards not being culpable take a Time & Place convenient to let him him know it that gave them.

47th Mock not nor Jest at any thing of Importance break no Jest that are Sharp Biting and if you Deliver any thing witty and Pleasent abstain from Laughing there at yourself.

48th Wherein wherein you reprove Another be unblameable yourself; for example is more prevalent than Precepts.

49th Use no Reproachfull Language against any one neither Curse nor Revile.

50th Be not hasty to beleive flying Reports to the Disparagement of any.

56th Associate yourself with Men of good Quality if you Esteem your own Reputation; for ’tis better to be alone than in bad Company.

58th Let your Conversation be without Malice or Envy, for ’tis a Sign of a Tractable and Commendable Nature: And in all Causes of Passion admit Reason to Govern.

59th Never express anything unbecoming, nor Act agst the Rules Moral before your inferiours.

63d A Man ought not to value himself of his Atchievements, or rare Qualities of wit; much less of his riches Virtue or Kindred.

64th Break not a Jest where none take pleasure in mirth Laugh not aloud, nor at all without Occasion, deride no mans Misfortune, tho’ there Seem to be Some cause.

65th Speak not injurious Words neither in Jest nor Earnest Scoff at none although they give Occasion.

67th Detract not from others neither be excessive in Commanding.

69th If two contend together take not the part of either unconstrained; and be not obstinate in your own Opinion, in Things indiferent be of the Major Side.

70th Reprehend not the imperfections of others for that belongs to Parents Masters and Superiours.

73d Think before you Speak pronounce not imperfectly nor bring out your Words too hastily but orderly & distinctly.

74th When Another Speaks be attentive your Self and disturb not the Audience if any hesitate in his Words help him not nor Prompt him without desired, Interrupt him not, nor Answer him till his Speech be ended.

78th Make no Comparisons and if any of the Company be Commended for any brave act of Vertue, commend not another for the Same.

79th Be not apt to relate News if you know not the truth thereof. In Discoursing of things you Have heard Name not your Author always A Secret Discover not.

82d undertake not what you cannot perform but be carefull to keep your promise.

86th In Disputes, be not So Desireous to Overcome as not to give Liberty to each one to deliver his Opinion and Submit to the Judgment of the Major Part especially if they are Judges of the Dispute.

89th Speak not Evil of the absent for it is unjust.

109th Let your Recreations be Manfull not Sinfull.

110th Labour to keep alive in your Breast that Little Spark of Celestial fire Called Conscience.

Finis

–SG

What do you think? Please enter a comment below.

The issue of civility in public and political discourse has been getting a lot of attention recently, especially (and unworthily) now that some are blaming physical violence on violent rhetoric. There may or may not be a connection, but it really shouldn’t matter– there is no place for incivility in public discourse, no need for it, and it is always counterproductive. Unless the aim is to infuriate and distract the other party, in which case (obviously) it can be very productive, but then it’s hard to think of it as “discourse.”

Colorado’s Senator Mark Udall recently suggested that a good way to show a bit of civility in Congress might be to mix up the seating for the President’s State of the Union address on January 25th. In theory, members might be able to listen to the President’s report without having to worry so much about when to jump to their feet and applaud (or sit in stony silence) with the other members of their party. Last Sunday the Denver Post ran a pair of articles in point-counterpoint juxtaposition, one supporting the idea of mixed Democrat/Republican seating, the other… also supporting the idea and going a step farther to suggest “boy-girl-Asian-Jew” seating.

The original “point” side supporting Udall’s idea was written by local legend Ed Quillen, who has been a professional journalist for thirty years and is a regular contributor to the Denver Post.

The “counterpoint” side was in the form of “Guest Commentary” from Jon Caldara, right wing AM radio talk-show host and president of the “non partisan” Independence Institute, which calls itself “Freedom’s Front Line” and is at least as non-partisan as Fox News is fair and balanced.

Point-Counterpoint layout of articles is meant to be a display of opinions on opposite sides of an issue, and it is up to the reader to decide which side wins the debate, in accordance with the reader’s own beliefs, biases, or predispositions. You can read both columns here:

Quillen: Mixing up seating a great idea

Caldara: Why not boy-girl-Asian-Jew?

If this was a debate, then Ed Quillen scored a triple victory.

1. Ed stated his case clearly, logically, and persuasively.

2. Jon somehow stated Ed’s case, supporting Udall’s suggestion and going a bit farther to suggest that racial and gender mixing on the floor of the House would be even better.

3. The wise editors of the Post split the articles up for the web, so Jon’s piece isn’t even laid out as a “counterpoint” but instead appears to be a stand-alone essay in support of Udall’s idea.

But wait, you exclaim! Caldara isn’t arguing Quillen’s case at all. He is using satire and sarcasm to ridicule it! His first sentence is “I support Sen. Mark Udall’s impactful proposal to have Republicans and Democrats sit together during the State of the Union.” That’s obviously meant in jest because Caldara couldn’t possibly mean it, and besides, there’s no such word as “impactful.” There’s no better way to refudiate an argument than with clever sarcasm and made-up words.

“God knows what we need now, perhaps more than ever, is a really important symbolic political gesture,” says Caldara. Perhaps he intended it as sarcasm, but coincidentally he wrote it while the Republic Party in Congress was voting to repeal “Obamacare,” which was a “really important symbolic political gesture” if ever there was one.

But more to the point, it is a simple fact that Caldera’s fans, including Teabaggers, Bornagins, and Alaskans, simply do not “get” satire. You can see this in any interview on Colbert or the Daily Show. These people take everything literally. If it’s on Fox News it must be Truth on a Biblical scale. You don’t have to look far for a great example of this.

Last November, well-known humor journal The Onion published a story claiming that Obama had a midnight tantrum and sent a 75,000 word email to everyone in America, “revealing deep frustrations with America’s political culture, his presidency, U.S. citizens, and himself.” Frustrated Obama Sends Nation Rambling 75,000-Word E-Mail

In the blink of an eye, it was posted on Fox Nation which is a “news blog” published by Fox News…. as a factual news story! What’s more, hundreds of Fox Nation readers posted comments on the article accepting the story as fact. A personal favorite was the woman who said “I didn’t get the e-mail, but my friend did….”

The posting was quietly removed from Fox Nation after about 24 hours, which was long enough to get the attention of Keith Olbermann and a number of other on-line media outlets including The Raw Story.

So thanks, Jon, for arguing in favor of Udall’s mixed seating arrangement for the State of the Union, and recognizing the importance of civility in political discourse. If you listen real hard, you might hear a ghostly voice from the Far North whispering “You betcha.”

–SG

What do you think? Please enter a comment below.

The other night Craig Ferguson said “what you lose on the swings you win on the roundabout” or words to that effect. It went right over the heads of his studio audience, and Craig offered a partial explanation: it means that things work out, what goes up must come down, a situation has equal pluses and minuses, there are advantages and disadvantages, and, more recently, “it’s a zero-sum game.” But where does the expression come from, and what is its literal meaning? The swings and roundabouts are antique carnival rides, but how do you lose on one and get it back on t’other?

It took a little digging but the idea of equivalent profit and loss on the swings and roundabouts comes from a very popular children’s poem of the late colonial era. It’s almost forgotten now, but the expression lives on. The poem may not have been the first use of the expression but it “reads right,” and it was widely read. There’s plenty of contemporary rural English slang in it, but there are only two terms that the modern reader will not recognize or at least be able to guess at. A “Pharaoh” was a “carny” or carnival operator, the term actually derives from “gypsy” — it was widely held that gypsies had originally come from Egypt. By extension, a Pharaoh was a boss gypsy. A “lurcher” was an ill-bred dog often used by poachers. OK, without further ado….

Roundabouts and Swings
by Patrick R Chalmers, 1872-1942
written in 1917

It was early last September nigh to Framlin’am-on-Sea,
An’ ’twas Fair-day come to-morrow, an’ the time was after tea,
An’ I met a painted caravan adown a dusty lane,
A Pharaoh with his waggons comin’ jolt an’ creak an’ strain;
A cheery cove an’ sunburnt, bold o’ eye and wrinkled up,
An’ beside him on the splashboard sat a brindled tarrier pup,
An’ a lurcher wise as Solomon an’ lean as fiddle-strings
Was joggin’ in the dust along ‘is roundabouts and swings.

“Goo’ luck,” said ‘e; “Goo’ luck,” said I; “you’ve put it past a doubt;
An’ keep that lurcher on the road, the gamekeepers is out.”
‘E thumped upon the footboard an’ ‘e lumbered on again
To meet a gold-dust sunset down the owl-light in the lane;
An’ the moon she climbed the ‘azels, while a night-jar seemed to spin
That Pharaoh’s wisdom o’er again, ‘is sooth of lose-and-win;
For “up an’ down an’ round,” said ‘e, “goes all appointed things,
An’ losses on the roundabouts means profits on the swings!”

–SG

What do you think? Please enter a comment below.

That level of genius was approached by some nameless ad executive in the 1950s with the first television commercials for the new aerosol shaving creams. Manly, athletic guys were shown using approximately twenty times as much shaving cream as was needed to get the job done.

But both of these classics might well be outshone by a brand new trend that combines TWO of the all-time greatest scams: the rebate, and the gift card. It was all of five years ago that we talked about them and they have been going from strength to strength. Probably time to combine them into one Perfect Scam. Just to clarify, the difference between the rebate and gift card scams on the one hand, and the shampoo and shaving cream marketing schemes on the other, is that marketing is simply a way of convincing you that you should buy something that you don’t need. The gift card and rebate scams are outright theft, if technically legal.

Both the rebate and and the card are of enormous benefit to a retailer because with both of them, only a percentage of the “face value” is ever redeemed. Give your rebate in the form of a gift card and you get two bites of the cherry, and you will probably end up paying out less than half of the amount you are appearing to give back to the customer.

A synopsis of a typical transaction shows clearly the risks for the customer and the benefits to the merchant. The details will not be applicable to all such transactions, but you get the idea…

1. You buy a widget for (an inflated price of) $200, because a $50 rebate is offered. NOTE you will pay sales tax on the $200, and it is not refunded on your rebate. Gosh, a scam that benefits the City and State, too!
2. Only 75-80% of customers will remember to mail in the paperwork before the deadline.

3. Of those that send it in, 15-20% might make some trivial mistake that invalidates the rebate request. And watch for Catch 22– you have to send in the original receipt, which you will no longer have if you need it for a warranty claim later.

4. The rebate processor can claim that he never received another 5-10% of the remaining valid rebate claims (who audits them, eh?).

5. NOW, and what’s new, the processor can deal with the few remaining valid rebate claims by sending you a “rebate card” which is a gift card “containing” the rebate amount.

6. Here’s where it gets really cool. You have to take the “rebate card” back to the merchant you got the original widget from and you have to buy something else. If the new widget costs less than the rebate amount, you are out the difference– call it a donation to the merchants “extra profit ” fund– unless you fall for step 7 below. In some cases there is even a processing fee, just like the gift cards, or a short time in which you can use it.

7. If the merchant really gets lucky, you will spend your rebate on something that costs more than the rebate amount, making up the difference in cash or credit, and maybe even making yourself eligible for yet another product rebate!

This is more than faintly reminiscent of Joe Pesci’s Leo Getz in Lethal Weapon– “First they f**k you. And then they really f**k you. And then they f**k you some more. Okay? Okay?” He was talking about the giant cell-phone companies, but that’s another scam for another day.

What can you do? Probably not much,  but you have an obligation as an informed consumer to at least understand how you are likely to be stung. You can boycott rebates, and gift cards, and especially rebate cards, but sometimes you have to just grin and bear it. The only sensible thing to do is to make the purchase decision based on the un-rebated price. If you get lucky and get a useful refund, well– that’s just what it is: you got lucky.

–SG

What do you think? Please enter a comment below.

Another Halloween is over, so we can get back to important things like getting ready for Christmas. If we’re lucky, there will be only one more interruption, namely that quaint US American holiday “Thanksgiving” when we get together as families, pretend we don’t hate each other, and participate in two activities that best represent our greatness as a nation– stuffing ourselves with food, and watching emulated blood sports on TV. Eleven months from now the armies of the War on Halloween will be surging and these comments will be available to anyone who cares to read them.

We could complain about religious warfare in the trenches of our kindergartens and primary schools. Is Halloween a pagan celebration? Is it satanist? Is it Christian? (That’s not a dumb question because Halloween is a contraction of All Hallows Eve, or the day before All Saints Day). The subtleties of the religious arguments are way too demanding for one with an All Hallows Hangover, so we’ll focus on what we can intellectually cope with– the real meaning of Halloween, which is… TRICK-OR-TREATing.

Sure, it’s an exercise in naked greed and naughtiness, but dammit there are rules. Violating the time-honored if unwritten rules is simply bad form. For example:

Bad form: Sitting in your car with the engine idling to watch your kids go up to the door and beg for candy.Worse form: Driving your kids to a better neighborhood than your own so they can beg for a better quality treat than your poor neighbors can come up with.

Bad form: Pushing your 18-month-old child from door to door in a stroller, and begging for treats on her behalf.

Bad form: Just standing there and not saying “trick-or-treat,” so the adult answering the door has to ask what you want.

Worse form: Replying “We want some candy.”

Bad form: Examining what you have been given before saying “Thank you” in a voice dripping with sarcasm.

Worse form: Liking what you see and asking for more.

Bad form: Going to the door with your teenage children, whether you are wearing a costume or not.

Worse form: Holding out your own goody bag.

Worstest form: Not bothering to interrupt your cell-phone conversation long enough to say “trick-or-treat” or even “thank you.”

In the hope that next year’s event might go a little more smoothly, we’ve prepared a script for your convenience…

1. Child knocks on door or rings bell… once.

2. Homeowner opens door and feigns astonishment that there is a witch, or goblin, or Darth Vader, on his doorstep.

3. Child utters the magic words “Trick or Treat!”

4. Homeowner gushes “Oh look at you,” or “Oh my goodness,” or some similar appreciation of the child’s costume.

5. Child presents container and homeowner deposits one or more treats.

6. Child says “thank you” and homeowner replies “you’re welcome.”

7. Child and homeowner wish each other a “Happy Halloween” and retire to prepare for the next transaction.

Improvisation is fine, but any serious departure from the script, or omission of its key elements, is just… bad form.
–SG

What do you think? Please enter a comment below.

The CIA is primarily an intelligence gathering and analysis organization, and it reports almost directly to the President, through the new Director of National Intelligence. .

Here’s the CIA’s offical mission statement, from its own http://www.cia.gov/cia/information/mission.html

We are the eyes and ears of the nation and at times its hidden hand. We accomplish this mission by:

* Collecting intelligence that matters.

* Providing relevant, timely, and objective all-source analysis.

* Conducting covert action at the direction of the President to preempt threats or achieve United States policy objectives.

An airstrike is hardly a “covert action,” it’s hard to think of a way it could possibly be more overt. An airstrike is a military combat action involving military forces and materiel (the Predator vehicle and its weapons are “owned,” maintained and supported by the US Air Force). Where is the authority for the Air Force to put advanced weapon systems into the hands of civilians? Where is the authority for the CIA to conduct military operations? That authority can certainly be claimed by the President, under the heading of “We’re at war, Congress authorized me to do whatever I need to do,” but consider the implications: if previous presidents believed that they had the same authority, they would certainly have ordered the assassination (by remote airstrike) of Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, and the Ayatollah Khomeni, to name three.

There are reasons for having a strong military, and equipping it with technologically advanced weapons systems. There are reasons for ensuring that such weapons systems can be used only by the military, which has elaborate systems for command and control. Yes, the CIA can and should carry out reconnaisance missions using whatever technology is available. And having identified a target, national command authority (derived from the President) could certainly be used to order the Air Force to conduct the strike. Is that just a technicality?

We don’t want to sound alarmist, but somebody has to say this out loud: the Hellfire missile can carry a nuclear warhead. The legitimate military forces have an incredibly complex set of rules and procedures to control what they euphemistically refer to as “special weapons.” What level of control can we expect within the CIA?

–SG

What do you think? Please enter a comment below.

With a few exceptions, the Democratic Party should welcome in its newest member: President George W. Bush. The exceptions include defending the legality of his domestic eavesdropping program, making his tax cuts permanent, and nonsensical approaches to health care. For those of you wondering about the War in Iraq – that’s a lost cause. Congress gave that one away when it authorized the invasion. This year, I’m not going waste much time talking about our new method of pounding democracy down the throats of unruly Middle Eastern states. Suffice it to say that Bush, during his very first campaign for President, was dead set against nation-building. Now he’s the Builder Bob of this frustrating construction job.

On the domestic front, which has been ignored by Washington for years, many of the State of the Union address included retreads of just about everything the Democratic Party has been advancing. And some of the proposals were just plain silly.

Seeking energy independence from foreign oil, a still-born effort launched during the administration of GOP president Gerald ford. Following Ford, President Carter instituted programs aimed at developing alternative energy sources. Of course, the programs were either cut back or ignored by subsequent Republican and Democratic administrations. And the Republicans hate – just hate – urban mass transit programs. But don’t get me wrong. Encouraging alternative and advanced technologies today is a good thing, even though they have been promoted by nasty liberals for decades. We’ve got the ability to build into every house a solar-electric system that would decimate the demand for electricity generated by dirty coal or nuclear power.

The call to “buy American” was a real laugher. Where? How? Nothing is made here any more. Nothing! OK, we make our appliances here. That’s about it. Maybe broomstraw brooms in Colorado. Everything else is made in
China, and most of it is crap. But, the buying public and American business just want cheap crap. So we’ve got it. Welcome to Walmart USA – home of cheap crap and lots of it.

I was astounded when the President hyped advanced placement classes in math and science for our nation’s high school students. Just when did the President hear about AP classes? Certainly not during his high school
years. Must have been a little pillow talk between him and the librarian. When I was in high school – in the early sixties – we had advanced placement classes in math, science, English, foreign languages, and social studies. Hell, I entered the University of Illinois with credits in German, chemistry and college algebra. That was in 1965, bubba. I have a friend whose daughter just entered the University of Denver – as a sophomore! She picked up her first year of credits in high school. Hello? Anyone home at the White House? We already have AP classes, and have had them for – what – forty years or so. Maybe the President can toss a few bucks toward these valuable programs, now that he’s discovered their existence.

Want a tip for improving education (and this is for all you Republicans out there)? Quit bashing teachers! They’re under paid, under appreciated, under respected, and over worked – especially when it comes to being forced to parent unruly kids! Pass a law demanding parental responsibility and start praising teachers. How would you like
to work in a profession that gets bashed constantly by big- mouthed politicians?

How about the health care mess? Instead of talking about the 800 pound gorilla – A SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM – Bush decides to set up more investment vehicles for Wall Street. How will medical savings accounts reduce the spiraling cost of health care? Poor people don’t have extra money to put into these accounts. Wealthier people don’t need them, except to shelter more income from taxes. An old and tired idea, the medical savings account concept has been around for a long time. It started as a part of cafeteria benefit plans offered to employees by some companies. It also assumes that people are over- using the health care system and that the savings account idea will cut back on this overuse because whatever isn’t spent on health care can be spent on a new TV made
in China (since none are made in America) at the end of the year. Ask yourself – except for the occasional hypochondriac, whom do you know who is overusing his or her doctor’s office? No one wants to go to the
doctor! The real problem is UNDER-UTILIZATION of the health care system, especially when it comes to preventative health care. Medical savings accounts aren’t going to solve that problem, although thyey will help the
bottom line for a few more mutual fund managers.

And speaking of the 800 pound gorilla, what about the 600 pound gorilla? Social Security. Let’s study it, he commands! Haven’t we done that three or four times in the past 25 years? When are we going to quit studying the problem and doing something about it? What a “fresh” approach to solving a problem – create a blue ribbon commission to study it. I’ll bet his staff and speechwriters worked long and hard to come up with this novel idea. So much for the President’s political capital he planned to use to reform Social Security after the last election.

And speaking of security, just assume you are being watched when you use the phone, send and email or demonstrate against anything associated with the establishment. What I don’t understand is how any hard-working journalist will be able to “phone it in” from the Middle East. How can businesses fax, email or phone business stuff to the Middle East? According to the President, all this sounds like fair game for our spies,
even though the U.S. Constitution says this isn’t supposed to occur without a warrant – and only courts can issue warrants. I don’t get it, and most members of the Democratic Party don’t get it. I suppose some newly conservative court will wind up sorting that one out. Kiss your rights goodby. By the way, spying on U.S. citizens is supported by the Democrats. They simply want the President to get the proper authority to
do so.

So while you listen to the Republicans slather praise all over the President for his innovative retread ideas, remember that liberal Senator Dianne Feinstein of the Peoples Republic of California gave Bush
a “B” on his 2006 State of the Union address. It’s almost like he was in an Advanced Placement class. So he’d be, like, a sophomore when he enters the Democratic Party.

Denver writer Richard J. Schneider studies Political Science at the University of Colorado Denver. In his free time he sails and builds nations in his back yard.

© Richard J. Schneider

What do you think? Please enter a comment below.

Here, in its entirety, is the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

If you read it carefully you will see that Jefferson and our Founding Fathers did not say that the Fourth Amendment applies to the President. This, evidently, is what the President means by “strict construction,” which he has been so vocal in demanding from the Supreme Court. And of course if you read the rest of the Constitution, you will see that it does not prohibit the President from telling the Supreme Court what to do. A “strict constructionist” will surely see that the President is not mentioned at all in the Bill of Rights. Therefore, ipso facto as the legal types would have it, the Fourth Amendment simply does not apply to the White House. Or, to quote an earlier generation of Republicans’ poster child of integrity, Richard M. Nixon, “…when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.”

After all, the President’s first priority is to defend America. It says that right in the Oath of Office– “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” As you can see, “executing the office” takes precedence over the Constitution, and according to the President the office is whatever he says it is.

OK, all kidding aside, that’s a reasonable summary of the Administration’s justification for spying on Americans without a warrant, in direct contravention of the Fourth Amendment. Although it is customary to name the President, it is more accurate to refer to the Administration, because the President signed the order but the order itself has Cheney’s and Rumsfeld’s fingerprints all over it. After all, the National Security Agency reports to the Department of Defense.

In other words, the President has ordered the NSA to eavesdrop on the private conversations of an unspecified number of people (estimates range from a few hundred to millions), without obtaining a warrant. The Administration has acknowledged that these targets of surveillance include US citizens and other persons legally in this country, which would be a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment.

A brief history of this issue may be useful for those of you who don’t know it, or who have let the Administration’s spin machine obscure it.

In the 1970s the National Security Agency developed a system called ECHELON to carry out automatic monitoring of electronic communications. The NSA already had the hardware in place, and owned more computer processing power than any other organization in the world (they are the biggest of the few users of supercomputers). They were technically capable of intercepting and recording virtually any electronic communications anywhere in the world. This includes telephone, fax, e-mail, and data communications that are carried on networks, and of radio signals including but certainly not limited to broadcast TV and radio. It has been reported that the NSA arranged for some telecommunications companies to route their network traffic in ways that made it easier for NSA to intercept.

You may now have some idea of the volume of electronic data that is available to the NSA eavesdroppers, and you may wonder how they can possibly deal with it. That’s where the ECHELON system comes into it. ECHELON is a system of graduated monitoring that starts with the giant vacuum cleaner that is the NSA collection system. Intercept operations are carried out by the NSA itself, the Cryptologic Agencies of the US military services, and by or with the cooperation of several foreign governments.

All of the intercepted communications are run through some very elaborate computer software that looks for specific words, names, or addresses (e.g. phone numbers), in perhaps a hundred distinct languages. This lowest level of processing is the DICTIONARY program, and it is carried out in stations all over the world, many of them operated by other governments who have intelligence treaties with the US. An ECHELON station in New Zealand, for example, will use several “dictionaries” maintained by the agency that it reports to as well as those of NSA, GCHQ, CSE and DSD (you can look those up for yourself).

When a target pattern is matched, which is to say that enough “flags” are identified in a transmission, a recording of that communication is escalated to the next level of the ECHELON system. The next level is probably a more advanced computer system that is slower but can detect more patterns, and make connections between message “A” which it is working on now, and messages “B,C & D” which were processed in the last month, or year, or decade.. On the other hand, if the message was escalated because it contained the words “bomb” and “disaster” but turned out to be a review of a movie, it can be discarded. If more flags or links are discovered, the intercept is escalated to the next level of analysis, which may actually be performed by a human being. Presumably, in some circumstances enough flags can be registered at the dictionary level to escalate the message straight to a human analyst.

But wait– wouldn’t interception, recording, and analysis of all communications going through a particular network involve the private communication of American citizens? And wouldn’t that automatically be a violation of the 4th Amendment? The answer to both questions is a resounding yes, and that is why Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in 1978. FISA set down procedures for the handling of intercepted communications involving Americans, specifically required a warrant, and created a secret court (the FIS Court, or FISC, which has 11 judges– increased from 7 to 11 by the USAPATRIOT act) to which intelligence agencies could apply for a warrant. An agency requesting a FISA warrant can do so up to 72 hours after surveillance has begun– and that “retrospective” period is extended to 15 days “in time of war.”

The constitutionality of FISA warrants has never been tested in court, and is not likely to be. Nobody has been charged with a crime on the basis of a FISA warrant, and that is not likely to happen either so long as the government can declare suspects to be “enemy combatants” and hold them indefinitely without charges.

The only “oversight” of the FISA court’s activities would seem to be their annual reports to Congress, which indicate that in the first 22 years of its history the court issued 13,102 warrants as requested by the government, and modified exactly two of them. But beginning in 2000 the Court found itself rejecting applications by the Bush administration. Since 2001 there have been 5,645 requests for warrants, and the court modified 179 them (of which 173 were in 2003 and 2004). Also during 2003 and 2004 the court rejected or deferred at least 6 requests for warrants– the first outright refusals to issue warrants in the court’s history. The timing is significant– Bush ordered warantless spying only after he was denied warrants. What was he asking for that the exceptionally friendly FISA court would not give him? Sorry… that’s classified.

What is known, though, is that NSA “product” includes all sorts of intelligence that is unrelated to any military or national security purpose. Suffice it to say that US government officers, negotiating sales of grain to the Soviet Union, knew almost to the bushel what Soviet grain production was going to be– often before the Soviet government had any idea. And it is safe to assume that there is a lot of commercial intelligence “product” that would be of immediate interest to our government contractors, including, um, Haliburton. Hypothetically speaking, if Bush can deliver commercial intelligence to contractors, it must be an awful temptation to throw the odd bone to corporations that have supported him. He might even be tempted to use his assumed “authority” to conduct surveillance operations against his political “enemies.”

At the moment the Whitehouse is asserting the legality of warrantless eavesdropping on two primary grounds– the conversations which are monitored have one leg outside the United States, and the president’s ordering of surveillance is within his “war powers” authority. Both would seem to be highly questionable.

The Fourth Amendment does not include an exception for “papers and effects” involving persons outside the United States. The deliberate attempts to distinguish “domestic” from “international” spying are pointless. Or would they have us believe that a US citizen loses all of his contstitutional rights when he is overseas?

The “war powers” authority rests entirely on Congress’ authorization of the use of force against terrorists and countries that sponsor them. Bush has taken that to mean that a state of war exists, and has manufactured the War on Terror. Again referring to the Constitution, only Congress can declare war, and it has not done so.

But perhaps this will put the whole thing in focus: the NSA does not need a warrant to conduct surveillance of any foreign person or government. The FISA court was established specifically to cover cases where a warrant was required because of the involvement of a US person. The administration’s attempt to say that warrants aren’t necessary because some foreign person is also involved, is clearly out of bounds, violating not only the letter but the spirit of the FISA law and the Constitution. And common sense says that if a warrant is easy to get, can be obtained retroactively, and the details are secret forever, the administration can have no reason for bypassing FISA that is legitimate– again, we wonder why they were having warrants denied, deferred, or modified.

–SG

What do you think? Please enter a comment below.