Monday, January 09, 2006
NFL Playoff Tickets Exchange
With a click on the title post link above, you can either sell your NFL Playoff tickets (don't scalp, please), or buy them and for any game.
Vince Young Enters The NFL Draft - Young's Stats at Texas
Texas Longhorns' Junior QB Vince Young's annouced his intention to enter the NFL Draft. I think he should be the first round pick of the Houston Texans; they can offer Dave Carr for trade for more draft picks, and use backup QB Tony Banks as the "trainee" for Young.
You can read more about Young and his statistics and records at Texas with a click on this sentence.
A Gestapo Administration by Paul Craig Roberts
This is another column comparing the Bush Administration to the Nixon Administration and unfavorably. Will impeachment trails ever occur, or is President Bush protected by a Republican majority in both House and Senate?
Caught in gratuitous and illegal spying on American citizens, the Bush administration has defended its illegal activity and set the Justice (sic) Department on the trail of the person or persons who informed the New York Times of Bush's violation of law. Note the astounding paradox: The Bush administration is caught red-handed in blatant illegality and responds by trying to arrest the patriot who exposed the administration’s illegal behavior.
Bush has actually declared it treasonous to reveal his illegal behavior! His propagandists, who masquerade as news organizations, have taken up the line: To reveal wrong-doing by the Bush administration is to give aid and comfort to the enemy.
Compared to Spygate, Watergate was a kindergarten picnic. The Bush administration's lies, felonies, and illegalities have revealed it to be a criminal administration with a police state mentality and police state methods. Now Bush and his attorney general have gone the final step and declared Bush to be above the law. Bush aggressively mimics Hitler’s claim that defense of the realm entitles him to ignore the rule of law.
Bush's acts of illegal domestic spying are gratuitous because there are no valid reasons for Bush to illegally spy. The Foreign Intelligence Services Act gives Bush all the power he needs to spy on terrorist suspects. All the administration is required to do is to apply to a secret FISA court for warrants. The Act permits the administration to spy first and then apply for a warrant, should time be of the essence. The problem is that Bush has totally ignored the law and the court.
Why would President Bush ignore the law and the FISA court? It is certainly not because the court in its three decades of existence was uncooperative. According to attorney Martin Garbus (New York Observer, 12/28/05), the secret court has issued more warrants than all federal district judges combined, only once denying a warrant.
Why, then, has the administration created another scandal for itself on top of the WMD, torture, hurricane, and illegal detention scandals?
There are two possible reasons.
One reason is that the Bush administration is being used to concentrate power in the executive. The old conservative movement, which honors the separation of powers, has been swept away. Its place has been taken by a neoconservative movement that worships executive power.
The other reason is that the Bush administration could not go to the FISA secret court for warrants because it was not spying for legitimate reasons and, therefore, had to keep the court in the dark about its activities.
What might these illegitimate reasons be? Could it be that the Bush administration used the spy apparatus of the US government in order to influence the outcome of the presidential election?
Could we attribute the feebleness of the Democrats as an opposition party to information obtained through illegal spying that would subject them to blackmail?
These possible reasons for bypassing the law and the court need to be fully investigated and debated. No administration in my lifetime has given so many strong reasons to oppose and condemn it as has the Bush administration. Nixon was driven from office because of a minor burglary of no consequence in itself. Clinton was impeached because he did not want the embarrassment of publicly acknowledging that he engaged in adulterous sex acts in the Oval Office. In contrast, Bush has deceived the public and Congress in order to invade Iraq, illegally detained Americans, illegally tortured detainees, and illegally spied on Americans. Bush has upheld neither the Constitution nor the law of the land. A majority of Americans disapprove of what Bush has done; yet, the Democratic Party remains a muted spectator.
Why is the Justice (sic) Department investigating the leak of Bush's illegal activity instead of the illegal activity committed by Bush? Is the purpose to stonewall Congress' investigation of Bush's illegal spying? By announcing a Justice (sic) Department investigation, the Bush administration positions itself to decline to respond to Congress on the grounds that it would compromise its own investigation into national security matters.
What will the federal courts do? When Hitler challenged the German judicial system, it collapsed and accepted that Hitler was the law. Hitler's claims were based on nothing but his claims, just as the claim for extra-legal power for Bush is based on nothing but memos written by his political appointees.
The Bush administration, backed by the neoconservative Federalist Society, has brought the separation of powers, the foundation of our political system, to crisis. The Federalist Society, an organization of Republican lawyers, favors more "energy in the executive." Distrustful of Congress and the American people, the Federalist Society never fails to support rulings that concentrate power in the executive branch of government. It is a paradox that conservative foundations and individuals have poured money for 23 years into an organization that is inimical to the separation of powers, the foundation of our constitutional system.
September 11, 2001, played into neoconservative hands exactly as the 1933 Reichstag fire played into Hitler's hands. Fear, hysteria, and national emergency are proven tools of political power grabs. Now that the federal courts are beginning to show some resistance to Bush's claims of power, will another terrorist attack allow the Bush administration to complete its coup?
January 2, 2006
Dr. Roberts [send him mail] is John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, former contributing editor for National Review, and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.
You may email him at paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com
Caught in gratuitous and illegal spying on American citizens, the Bush administration has defended its illegal activity and set the Justice (sic) Department on the trail of the person or persons who informed the New York Times of Bush's violation of law. Note the astounding paradox: The Bush administration is caught red-handed in blatant illegality and responds by trying to arrest the patriot who exposed the administration’s illegal behavior.
Bush has actually declared it treasonous to reveal his illegal behavior! His propagandists, who masquerade as news organizations, have taken up the line: To reveal wrong-doing by the Bush administration is to give aid and comfort to the enemy.
Compared to Spygate, Watergate was a kindergarten picnic. The Bush administration's lies, felonies, and illegalities have revealed it to be a criminal administration with a police state mentality and police state methods. Now Bush and his attorney general have gone the final step and declared Bush to be above the law. Bush aggressively mimics Hitler’s claim that defense of the realm entitles him to ignore the rule of law.
Bush's acts of illegal domestic spying are gratuitous because there are no valid reasons for Bush to illegally spy. The Foreign Intelligence Services Act gives Bush all the power he needs to spy on terrorist suspects. All the administration is required to do is to apply to a secret FISA court for warrants. The Act permits the administration to spy first and then apply for a warrant, should time be of the essence. The problem is that Bush has totally ignored the law and the court.
Why would President Bush ignore the law and the FISA court? It is certainly not because the court in its three decades of existence was uncooperative. According to attorney Martin Garbus (New York Observer, 12/28/05), the secret court has issued more warrants than all federal district judges combined, only once denying a warrant.
Why, then, has the administration created another scandal for itself on top of the WMD, torture, hurricane, and illegal detention scandals?
There are two possible reasons.
One reason is that the Bush administration is being used to concentrate power in the executive. The old conservative movement, which honors the separation of powers, has been swept away. Its place has been taken by a neoconservative movement that worships executive power.
The other reason is that the Bush administration could not go to the FISA secret court for warrants because it was not spying for legitimate reasons and, therefore, had to keep the court in the dark about its activities.
What might these illegitimate reasons be? Could it be that the Bush administration used the spy apparatus of the US government in order to influence the outcome of the presidential election?
Could we attribute the feebleness of the Democrats as an opposition party to information obtained through illegal spying that would subject them to blackmail?
These possible reasons for bypassing the law and the court need to be fully investigated and debated. No administration in my lifetime has given so many strong reasons to oppose and condemn it as has the Bush administration. Nixon was driven from office because of a minor burglary of no consequence in itself. Clinton was impeached because he did not want the embarrassment of publicly acknowledging that he engaged in adulterous sex acts in the Oval Office. In contrast, Bush has deceived the public and Congress in order to invade Iraq, illegally detained Americans, illegally tortured detainees, and illegally spied on Americans. Bush has upheld neither the Constitution nor the law of the land. A majority of Americans disapprove of what Bush has done; yet, the Democratic Party remains a muted spectator.
Why is the Justice (sic) Department investigating the leak of Bush's illegal activity instead of the illegal activity committed by Bush? Is the purpose to stonewall Congress' investigation of Bush's illegal spying? By announcing a Justice (sic) Department investigation, the Bush administration positions itself to decline to respond to Congress on the grounds that it would compromise its own investigation into national security matters.
What will the federal courts do? When Hitler challenged the German judicial system, it collapsed and accepted that Hitler was the law. Hitler's claims were based on nothing but his claims, just as the claim for extra-legal power for Bush is based on nothing but memos written by his political appointees.
The Bush administration, backed by the neoconservative Federalist Society, has brought the separation of powers, the foundation of our political system, to crisis. The Federalist Society, an organization of Republican lawyers, favors more "energy in the executive." Distrustful of Congress and the American people, the Federalist Society never fails to support rulings that concentrate power in the executive branch of government. It is a paradox that conservative foundations and individuals have poured money for 23 years into an organization that is inimical to the separation of powers, the foundation of our constitutional system.
September 11, 2001, played into neoconservative hands exactly as the 1933 Reichstag fire played into Hitler's hands. Fear, hysteria, and national emergency are proven tools of political power grabs. Now that the federal courts are beginning to show some resistance to Bush's claims of power, will another terrorist attack allow the Bush administration to complete its coup?
January 2, 2006
Dr. Roberts [send him mail] is John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, former contributing editor for National Review, and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.
You may email him at paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com
Saturday, January 07, 2006
NFL "SUPER SEASON" KICKS OFF
The NFL playoffs begin on Saturday and Sunday, January 7-8, with Wild Card Weekend. On Saturday, the Washington Redskins play at the Tampa Bay Buccaneers (ABC, 4:30 PM ET) and the Jacksonville Jaguars visit the New England Patriots (ABC, 8:00 PM ET). Wild Card Weekend continues Sunday with the Carolina Panthers at the New York Giants
(FOX, 1:00 PM ET) and the Pittsburgh Steelers traveling to face the Cincinnati Bengals (CBS, 4:30 PM ET).
The following week, the Denver Broncos and Indianapolis Colts in the AFC and Chicago Bears and Seattle Seahawks in the NFC host the Divisional Playoffs. The Colts and Seahawks own homefield advantage for the Conference Championship Games (January 22) if they win their Divisional games. The conference champions advance to Super Bowl XL at Ford Field in Detroit, Michigan on February 5.
A CONSISTENTLY GOOD PLAYOFF FIELD
Six of the past eight Super Bowl champions have returned to the playoffs this year and are among the 12 clubs vying to hoist the Vince Lombardi Trophy on February 5. Those teams are: Denver (twice), New England (thrice) and Tampa Bay.
Each of the 12 teams vying for a trip to Super Bowl XL has won at least 10 games – only the third time (2000, 2003) since the current playoff format was instituted in 1990 that the entire playoff field accomplished the feat.
The 2005 playoff participants own a combined record of 138-54 (.719), the best winning percentage since the 1977 postseason field posted a .732 mark (82-30).
ALL-TIME PLAYOFFS
The New York Giants will participate in the playoffs for the 27th time, tying the Dallas Cowboys and St. Louis Rams for the most playoff seasons in NFL history.
The Pittsburgh Steelers will play in their 43rd playoff game Sunday afternoon, tying the Oakland Raiders and St. Louis Rams for the second most postseason games ever. Only the Cowboys (54) have played more than the Steelers.
The New England Patriots are one win away from the longest playoff winning streak in NFL history. New England has won nine consecutive playoff games, tied with the VINCE LOMBARDI-led Green Bay Packers (1961-62, 1965-67).
Following is a list of this year’s 12 playoff teams and their postseason records:
TEAM WINS LOSSES PCT.
Carolina Panthers 4 2 .667
New England Patriots 16 10 .615
Washington Redskins 22 15 .595
Pittsburgh Steelers 24 18 .571
Denver Broncos 16 14 .533
Jacksonville Jaguars 4 4 .500
Chicago Bears 14 15 .483
Indianapolis Colts 13 15 .464
Tampa Bay Buccaneers 6 7 .462
New York Giants 16 21 .432
Cincinnati Bengals 5 7 .417
Seattle Seahawks 3 7 .300
WILD CARD RECORDS
TEAM WINS LOSSES PCT.
Washington Redskins 5 0 1.000
Carolina Panthers 1 0 1.000
Cincinnati Bengals 1 0 1.000
New York Giants 4 2 .667
Jacksonville Jaguars 2 1 .667
Pittsburgh Steelers 3 2 .600
New England Patriots 2 2 .500
Tampa Bay
Buccaneers 1 3 .250
DIVISIONAL RECORDS
TEAM WINS LOSSES PCT.
Denver Broncos 7 3 .700
Indianapolis Colts 4 6 .400
Chicago Bears 3 6 .333
Seattle Seahawks 1 2 .333
- NFL PLAYOFFS -
HOME SWEET HOME -- MAYBE: While homefield advantage throughout the playoffs is a coveted prize, it has been no guarantee of a trip to the Super Bowl. And like so much about the NFL, an unpredictable result is seemingly the only predictable outcome.
Since the NFL adopted the 12-team playoff format in 1990, only 15 of 30 (50 percent) No. 1 seeds have advanced to the Super Bowl with eight No. 1s being crowned NFL champions (27 percent).
A look at how the No. 1 seeds have fared since 1990:
1990 Buffalo Lost Super Bowl XXV San Francisco Lost NFC
Championship
1991 Buffalo Lost Super Bowl XXVI Washington Won Super Bowl XXVI
1992 Pittsburgh Lost Divisional San Francisco Lost NFC
Championship
1993 Buffalo Lost Super Bowl XXVIII Dallas Won Super Bowl XXVIII
1994 Pittsburgh Lost AFC Championship San Francisco Won Super Bowl XXIX
1995 Kansas City Lost Divisional Dallas Won Super Bowl XXX
196 Denver Lost Divisional Green Bay Won Super Bowl XXXI
1997 Kansas City Lost Divisional San Francisco Lost NFC
Championship
1998 Denver Won Super Bowl XXXIII Minnesota Lost NFC
Championship
1999 Jacksonville Lost AFC Championship St. Louis Won Super Bowl XXXIV
2000 Tennessee Lost Divisional New York
Giants
Lost Super Bowl XXXV
2001 Pittsburgh Lost AFC Championship St. Louis Lost Super Bowl XXXVI
2002 Oakland Lost Super Bowl XXXVII Philadelphia Lost NFC
Championship
2003 New England Won Super Bowl XXXVIII Philadelphia Lost NFC
Championship
2004 Pittsburgh Lost AFC Championship Philadelphia Lost Super Bowl XXXIX
UNDEFEATED AT HOME: The Denver Broncos and Seattle Seahawks are the only two NFL teams to finish the 2005 season with undefeated home records.
Since 1995, 21 clubs have sent their fans home happy throughout the season, finishing with 8-0 records at home.
However, only nine of those clubs have earned a trip to the Super Bowl, further proving that in the NFL, you just never know.
The teams (since 1995) to finish with 8-0 records at home and their final season result:
1995 Kansas City Chiefs 13-3 Lost Divisional Playoffs
1996 Carolina Panthers 12-4 Lost NFC Championship
1996 Denver Broncos 13-3 Lost Divisional Playoffs
1996 Green Bay Packers 13-3 Won Super Bowl XXXI
1997 Denver Broncos 12-4 Won Super Bowl XXXII
1997 Green Bay Packers 13-3 Lost Super Bowl XXXII
1997 Kansas City Chiefs 13-3 Lost Divisional Playoffs
1997 San Francisco 49ers 13-3 Lost NFC Championship
1998 Atlanta Falcons 14-2 Lost Super Bowl XXXIII
1998 Denver Broncos 14-2 Won Super Bowl XXXIII
1998 Minnesota Vikings 15-1 Lost NFC Championship
1998 San Francisco 49ers 12-4 Lost Divisional Playoffs
1999 Tennessee Titans 13-3 Lost Super Bowl XXXIV
1999 St. Louis Rams 13-3 Won Super Bowl XXXIV
2002 Green Bay Packers 12-4 Lost Wild Card Playoffs
2003 Kansas City Chiefs 13-3 Lost Divisional Playoffs
2003 New England Patriots 14-2 Won Super Bowl XXXVIII
2003 St. Louis Rams 12-4 Lost Divisional Playoffs
2003 Seattle Seahawks 10-6 Lost Wild Card Playoffs
2004 New England Patriots 14-2 Won Super Bowl XXXIX
2004 Pittsburgh Steelers 15-1 Lost AFC Championship
Wifi for NYC: A Temporary Advisory Committee on Broadband for New York
I received this on Thursday from New York City. It's an attempt by New York's elected officials to eventually establish a citywide Wifi program. Reportedly, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has dragged his feet on the issue, setting it up such that if a private sector company does not step forward to initiate meetings, design, and build the system, it will not be established. The City of New York wants to take the initiative -- but not it's mayor. This is an effort to change that.
Proposed Int. No. 625-A
By Council Members Brewer, Boyland, Comrie, Fidler, Gerson, Gonzalez, James, Liu, Nelson, Palma, Recchia Jr., Sears, Weprin, Jackson, DeBlasio and The Public Advocate (Ms. Gotbaum)
A Local Law
To establish a temporary advisory committee to advise the mayor and the speaker of the council on issues pertaining to access to broadband technologies within the city of New York.
Be it enacted by the Council as follows:
Section 1. Legislative findings and intent. Access to broadband, a high-speed connection to the Internet, is becoming increasingly essential to New York City's residents, not-for-profit organizations, and businesses. Such high-speed connections enable the fast relay of voice and data that many have come to expect. Additionally, broadband connections are necessary for conveying images, sounds and video, all of which require large amounts of bandwidth.
Broadband connections are improving the quality of life across all ages and sectors. Schoolchildren can communicate with their teachers quickly and easily, as well as complete homework projects that involve on-line multi-media educational resources. Home-bound seniors may use broadband to connect with doctors who can relay test results in real time. Broadband also benefits businesses and not-for-profit organizations.
Due to the important role of broadband in the city, the council of the city of New York deems it useful to create a broadband advisory committee to advise the mayor and the speaker of the council on issues pertaining to access to broadband technologies and to gather information and data regarding the needs of residents that access to broadband might be able to address. This local law is in support of the mayor’s telecommunications plan and seeks to supplement and not duplicate the findings in the mayor's telecommunications plan or the work of the mayor's telecommunications policy advisory group. The findings of this committee shall be used to inform the agencies implementing the recommendations of the mayor's telecommunications plan and the mayor’s telecommunications policy advisory group.
2. Broadband Advisory Committee. a. There shall be an advisory committee, to be known as the Broadband Advisory Committee, which shall review the ways and methods of using municipal resources to accelerate the build-out of current, emerging and any newly developed broadband technologies and other advanced telecommunications and information services, such as cable, digital subscriber line (“DSL”), broadband over power lines (“BPL”), any other wire-based methods, Wi-Fi, WiMAX, and any other wireless technologies, within the city of New York.
b. The broadband advisory committee shall be comprised of fifteen members, seven of whom shall be appointed by the speaker of the council, and eight of whom shall be appointed by the mayor. The committee shall select a chairperson from among the members of the committee. The members shall be appointed within thirty days of the enactment of this local law and shall serve without compensation. Each member may be removed for cause at any time by the original appointing authority and any vacancy shall be filled in the same manner as the appointment of the departing member was made.
c. The committee shall be deemed established upon the appointment of seven of its members and shall continue until December 31, 2008.
d. The committee shall meet as many times as it deems necessary but in no event shall it meet less often than two times in the first calendar year. The committee shall also hold at least one public hearing in the first year in each borough to educate the public on new technologies and policies and to accept public comment. The committee shall also accept comments received through email and regular mail. Any comments accepted by the committee shall also be made available to the general public by being posted on the city’s website. Thereafter, the committee shall meet as many times as it deems necessary but in no event shall it meet less often than two times in the next two years. The committee shall hold at least one public hearing in each borough in the next two years to educate the public on new technologies and policies and to accept public comment. The committee shall continue to accept comments received through email or regular mail, and comments accepted by the committee shall also be made available to the general public by being posted on the city’s website.
e. For the purposes of this local law, the presence of seven members shall be deemed a quorum. In the presence of a quorum, any act taken by a majority of those present shall be deemed an act of the committee.
f. The committee shall be comprised of, but not limited to, persons with expertise in the following areas:
1. Business, technology, industrial organization, and economics;
2. The not-for-profit and philanthropic communities;
3. Technology, telecommunications, privacy, antitrust, and information law and regulation; and
4. Such other areas as the appointing authorities deem appropriate.
g. The committee shall report its findings and recommendations to the mayor and the speaker of the council at least once a year. Such findings shall be used to inform the agencies implementing the recommendations of the mayor's telecommunications plan and the mayor's telecommunications policy advisory group. The findings and recommendations shall also be made available to the general public by being posted on the city’s website. Such report shall contain, but not be limited to:
1. An identification of the geographic areas of the city where the committee deems broadband technologies and telecommunications and information services are needed and which technologies will best serve these areas;
2. An analysis of the current broadband and other advanced telecommunications and information services market, including, but not limited to, an assessment of current providers’ and intermodal competitors’ offerings, levels of competition, pricing, innovation, customer service and overall responsiveness to consumer demand; and
3. Recommendations that the mayor and the speaker of the council may implement regarding the mandate set forth in subdivision a of section two of this local law, including, but not limited to, possible incentives for telecommunications companies and broadband service providers to deploy affordable access to broadband technologies and other advanced telecommunications and information services in areas of the city where such technologies are needed.
h. The department of information technology and telecommunications and any other city agency may make available to the committee any relevant information concerning broadband technologies and telecommunications and information services.
3. This local law shall take effect immediately upon its enactment.
Proposed Int. No. 625-A
By Council Members Brewer, Boyland, Comrie, Fidler, Gerson, Gonzalez, James, Liu, Nelson, Palma, Recchia Jr., Sears, Weprin, Jackson, DeBlasio and The Public Advocate (Ms. Gotbaum)
A Local Law
To establish a temporary advisory committee to advise the mayor and the speaker of the council on issues pertaining to access to broadband technologies within the city of New York.
Be it enacted by the Council as follows:
Section 1. Legislative findings and intent. Access to broadband, a high-speed connection to the Internet, is becoming increasingly essential to New York City's residents, not-for-profit organizations, and businesses. Such high-speed connections enable the fast relay of voice and data that many have come to expect. Additionally, broadband connections are necessary for conveying images, sounds and video, all of which require large amounts of bandwidth.
Broadband connections are improving the quality of life across all ages and sectors. Schoolchildren can communicate with their teachers quickly and easily, as well as complete homework projects that involve on-line multi-media educational resources. Home-bound seniors may use broadband to connect with doctors who can relay test results in real time. Broadband also benefits businesses and not-for-profit organizations.
Due to the important role of broadband in the city, the council of the city of New York deems it useful to create a broadband advisory committee to advise the mayor and the speaker of the council on issues pertaining to access to broadband technologies and to gather information and data regarding the needs of residents that access to broadband might be able to address. This local law is in support of the mayor’s telecommunications plan and seeks to supplement and not duplicate the findings in the mayor's telecommunications plan or the work of the mayor's telecommunications policy advisory group. The findings of this committee shall be used to inform the agencies implementing the recommendations of the mayor's telecommunications plan and the mayor’s telecommunications policy advisory group.
2. Broadband Advisory Committee. a. There shall be an advisory committee, to be known as the Broadband Advisory Committee, which shall review the ways and methods of using municipal resources to accelerate the build-out of current, emerging and any newly developed broadband technologies and other advanced telecommunications and information services, such as cable, digital subscriber line (“DSL”), broadband over power lines (“BPL”), any other wire-based methods, Wi-Fi, WiMAX, and any other wireless technologies, within the city of New York.
b. The broadband advisory committee shall be comprised of fifteen members, seven of whom shall be appointed by the speaker of the council, and eight of whom shall be appointed by the mayor. The committee shall select a chairperson from among the members of the committee. The members shall be appointed within thirty days of the enactment of this local law and shall serve without compensation. Each member may be removed for cause at any time by the original appointing authority and any vacancy shall be filled in the same manner as the appointment of the departing member was made.
c. The committee shall be deemed established upon the appointment of seven of its members and shall continue until December 31, 2008.
d. The committee shall meet as many times as it deems necessary but in no event shall it meet less often than two times in the first calendar year. The committee shall also hold at least one public hearing in the first year in each borough to educate the public on new technologies and policies and to accept public comment. The committee shall also accept comments received through email and regular mail. Any comments accepted by the committee shall also be made available to the general public by being posted on the city’s website. Thereafter, the committee shall meet as many times as it deems necessary but in no event shall it meet less often than two times in the next two years. The committee shall hold at least one public hearing in each borough in the next two years to educate the public on new technologies and policies and to accept public comment. The committee shall continue to accept comments received through email or regular mail, and comments accepted by the committee shall also be made available to the general public by being posted on the city’s website.
e. For the purposes of this local law, the presence of seven members shall be deemed a quorum. In the presence of a quorum, any act taken by a majority of those present shall be deemed an act of the committee.
f. The committee shall be comprised of, but not limited to, persons with expertise in the following areas:
1. Business, technology, industrial organization, and economics;
2. The not-for-profit and philanthropic communities;
3. Technology, telecommunications, privacy, antitrust, and information law and regulation; and
4. Such other areas as the appointing authorities deem appropriate.
g. The committee shall report its findings and recommendations to the mayor and the speaker of the council at least once a year. Such findings shall be used to inform the agencies implementing the recommendations of the mayor's telecommunications plan and the mayor's telecommunications policy advisory group. The findings and recommendations shall also be made available to the general public by being posted on the city’s website. Such report shall contain, but not be limited to:
1. An identification of the geographic areas of the city where the committee deems broadband technologies and telecommunications and information services are needed and which technologies will best serve these areas;
2. An analysis of the current broadband and other advanced telecommunications and information services market, including, but not limited to, an assessment of current providers’ and intermodal competitors’ offerings, levels of competition, pricing, innovation, customer service and overall responsiveness to consumer demand; and
3. Recommendations that the mayor and the speaker of the council may implement regarding the mandate set forth in subdivision a of section two of this local law, including, but not limited to, possible incentives for telecommunications companies and broadband service providers to deploy affordable access to broadband technologies and other advanced telecommunications and information services in areas of the city where such technologies are needed.
h. The department of information technology and telecommunications and any other city agency may make available to the committee any relevant information concerning broadband technologies and telecommunications and information services.
3. This local law shall take effect immediately upon its enactment.
Friday, January 06, 2006
Wonkette: No Woman No More - Founder Ann Marie Cox steps down
I was an occasional reader of her very fun-to-read blog, but I have to admit that it's questionable that a couple of young (Caucasian? Are they white? I don't know) men can capture the sprit and lovely-pro-young-smart-white-female view Ann brought to her place in cyberspace.
It's a little like...Well, me hiring anyone to replace -- me! Not possible. But I suppose it has to be done.
It's a little like...Well, me hiring anyone to replace -- me! Not possible. But I suppose it has to be done.
DIET PEPSI NFL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR FINALISTS
CHARGERS LB SHAWNE MERRIMAN, SEAHAWKS LB LOFA TATUPU,
BENGALS LB ODELL THURMAN, COWBOYS LB DE MARCUS WARE
& BUCCANEERS RB CARNELL “CADILLAC” WILLIAMS
NAMED 2005 DIET PEPSI NFL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR FINALISTS
Fans To Vote For Winner On NFL.com or Via Sprint Wireless Service.
The National Football League today announced the five finalists for the 2005 DIET PEPSI NFL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR award.
2005 DIET PEPSI NFL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR FINALISTS:
SHAWNE MERRIMAN Linebacker San Diego Chargers
LOFA TATUPU Linebacker Seattle Seahawks
ODELL THURMAN Linebacker Cincinnati Bengals
DE MARCUS WARE Linebacker Dallas Cowboys
CARNELL “CADILLAC” WILLIAMS Running Back Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Fans can vote for one of these five players on NFL.com or SuperBowl.com from January 6 through January 30 to determine the 2005 DIET PEPSI NFL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR.
In addition, for the first time, NFL fans may cast their votes for the 2005 DIET PEPSI NFL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR using phones with Sprint wireless service - an opportunity available only to Sprint customers. This fast, convenient
voting method involves texting the word PEPSI to short code 51933. Sprint customers will then receive an interactive text message ballot that lists the five finalists.
The winner will be presented the 2005 DIET PEPSI NFL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR award during a press conference in Detroit, the site of Super Bowl XL, on Thursday, February 2, 2006.
The five finalists were selected for their outstanding performances throughout the 2005 NFL season. Each week, five nominees were chosen for Diet Pepsi NFL Rookie of the Week and NFL fans voted for the winner on NFL.com.
Those results were used to help determine the finalists.
Following is a closer look at the five 2005 DIET PEPSI NFL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR finalists:
SHAWNE MERRIMAN (San Diego Chargers) -- Merriman finished the season ranked first among NFL rookies, and 15th overall, with 10 sacks. He made an immediate impact on the Chargers’ defense, recording 57 tackles, the fifth-highest total on the team. Some of Merriman’s best performances came in San Diego’s biggest games. In a
Week 8 victory over the AFC West-rival Kansas City Chiefs, he recorded five tackles an two sacks. Then, when the Chargers knocked off the previously-undefeated Indianapolis Colts in Week 15, he recorded seven tackles and two sacks. Merriman, who attended the University of Maryland, was nominated for four Diet Pepsi NFL Rookie of
the Week awards, winning once.
LOFA TATUPU (Seattle Seahawks): In his rookie season, Tatupu led the Seahawks defense with 104 total tackles,togo along with his four sacks, three interceptions and one fumble recovery. In a Week 10 victory over the NFC West-rival St. Louis Rams, Tatupu recorded 10 tackles and one sack. He had a 13-tackle performance in a win over the New York Giants in Week 12 and scored his first career touchdown on a 38-yard interception return the following week in a victory over the Philadelphia Eagles. Tatupu, who attended the University of Southern California was nominated for four Diet Pepsi NFL Rookie of the Week awards this season.
ODELL THURMAN (Cincinnati Bengals): Thurman led the Bengals in tackles with 98 and led all rookies with five interceptions this season. The middle linebacker got off to a fast start in 2005, recording seven tackles and one interception in his NFL debut, a Week 1 Bengals victory over the AFC North-rival Cleveland Browns. Thurman, scored his first career NFL touchdown on a 30-yard interception return in a Week 6 victory over the Tennessee Titans. In a Week 13 victory over the rival Pittsburgh Steelers that helped the Bengals clinch the AFC North title, Thurman recorded nine tackles, one interception and one forced fumble. Thurman, who attended the University of
Georgia, was nominated for three Diet Pepsi NFL Rookie of the Week awards this season, winning one.
DE MARCUS WARE (Dallas Cowboys): Dallas linebacker DeMarcus Ware ranked second among NF rookies with eight sacks this season. His 58 tackles in 2005 were fifth-most on the Cowboys’ defense. Ware recorded a sack in four consecutive games from Week 3 to Week 6, with the Cowboys winning three of the four contests. He also finished the season strong, registering nine tackles, three sacks and three forced fumbles in a Week 16 victory over the Carolina Panthers. Ware, who attended Troy University, was nominated for three Diet Pepsi NFL Rookie of the Week awards, winning one.
CARNELL "CADILLAC" WILLIAMS (Tampa Bay Buccaneers): Williams set a Buccaneers single-season record with six 100-yard rushing games in 2005, including three to start the season. He finished with 1,178 yards and six touchdowns on 290 carries. Williams rushed for 148, 128 and 158 yards respectively in Weeks 1-3, announcing
his arrival on the NFL scene. He provided the Buccaneers with several strong performances down the stretch of the season as well, including a 112-yard, two-touchdown effort in a Week 14 victory over the NFC South-rival Carolina Panthers and a 150-yard, one-touchdown game in a Week 16 victory over the NFL South-rival Atlanta Falcons. Williams, who attended Auburn University, was nominated for seven Diet Pepsi NFL Rookie of the Week awards, winning three.
Diet Pepsi is the official soft drink of the NFL. This is Pepsi's fourth year as a league sponsor.
BENGALS LB ODELL THURMAN, COWBOYS LB DE MARCUS WARE
& BUCCANEERS RB CARNELL “CADILLAC” WILLIAMS
NAMED 2005 DIET PEPSI NFL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR FINALISTS
Fans To Vote For Winner On NFL.com or Via Sprint Wireless Service.
The National Football League today announced the five finalists for the 2005 DIET PEPSI NFL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR award.
2005 DIET PEPSI NFL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR FINALISTS:
SHAWNE MERRIMAN Linebacker San Diego Chargers
LOFA TATUPU Linebacker Seattle Seahawks
ODELL THURMAN Linebacker Cincinnati Bengals
DE MARCUS WARE Linebacker Dallas Cowboys
CARNELL “CADILLAC” WILLIAMS Running Back Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Fans can vote for one of these five players on NFL.com or SuperBowl.com from January 6 through January 30 to determine the 2005 DIET PEPSI NFL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR.
In addition, for the first time, NFL fans may cast their votes for the 2005 DIET PEPSI NFL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR using phones with Sprint wireless service - an opportunity available only to Sprint customers. This fast, convenient
voting method involves texting the word PEPSI to short code 51933. Sprint customers will then receive an interactive text message ballot that lists the five finalists.
The winner will be presented the 2005 DIET PEPSI NFL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR award during a press conference in Detroit, the site of Super Bowl XL, on Thursday, February 2, 2006.
The five finalists were selected for their outstanding performances throughout the 2005 NFL season. Each week, five nominees were chosen for Diet Pepsi NFL Rookie of the Week and NFL fans voted for the winner on NFL.com.
Those results were used to help determine the finalists.
Following is a closer look at the five 2005 DIET PEPSI NFL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR finalists:
SHAWNE MERRIMAN (San Diego Chargers) -- Merriman finished the season ranked first among NFL rookies, and 15th overall, with 10 sacks. He made an immediate impact on the Chargers’ defense, recording 57 tackles, the fifth-highest total on the team. Some of Merriman’s best performances came in San Diego’s biggest games. In a
Week 8 victory over the AFC West-rival Kansas City Chiefs, he recorded five tackles an two sacks. Then, when the Chargers knocked off the previously-undefeated Indianapolis Colts in Week 15, he recorded seven tackles and two sacks. Merriman, who attended the University of Maryland, was nominated for four Diet Pepsi NFL Rookie of
the Week awards, winning once.
LOFA TATUPU (Seattle Seahawks): In his rookie season, Tatupu led the Seahawks defense with 104 total tackles,togo along with his four sacks, three interceptions and one fumble recovery. In a Week 10 victory over the NFC West-rival St. Louis Rams, Tatupu recorded 10 tackles and one sack. He had a 13-tackle performance in a win over the New York Giants in Week 12 and scored his first career touchdown on a 38-yard interception return the following week in a victory over the Philadelphia Eagles. Tatupu, who attended the University of Southern California was nominated for four Diet Pepsi NFL Rookie of the Week awards this season.
ODELL THURMAN (Cincinnati Bengals): Thurman led the Bengals in tackles with 98 and led all rookies with five interceptions this season. The middle linebacker got off to a fast start in 2005, recording seven tackles and one interception in his NFL debut, a Week 1 Bengals victory over the AFC North-rival Cleveland Browns. Thurman, scored his first career NFL touchdown on a 30-yard interception return in a Week 6 victory over the Tennessee Titans. In a Week 13 victory over the rival Pittsburgh Steelers that helped the Bengals clinch the AFC North title, Thurman recorded nine tackles, one interception and one forced fumble. Thurman, who attended the University of
Georgia, was nominated for three Diet Pepsi NFL Rookie of the Week awards this season, winning one.
DE MARCUS WARE (Dallas Cowboys): Dallas linebacker DeMarcus Ware ranked second among NF rookies with eight sacks this season. His 58 tackles in 2005 were fifth-most on the Cowboys’ defense. Ware recorded a sack in four consecutive games from Week 3 to Week 6, with the Cowboys winning three of the four contests. He also finished the season strong, registering nine tackles, three sacks and three forced fumbles in a Week 16 victory over the Carolina Panthers. Ware, who attended Troy University, was nominated for three Diet Pepsi NFL Rookie of the Week awards, winning one.
CARNELL "CADILLAC" WILLIAMS (Tampa Bay Buccaneers): Williams set a Buccaneers single-season record with six 100-yard rushing games in 2005, including three to start the season. He finished with 1,178 yards and six touchdowns on 290 carries. Williams rushed for 148, 128 and 158 yards respectively in Weeks 1-3, announcing
his arrival on the NFL scene. He provided the Buccaneers with several strong performances down the stretch of the season as well, including a 112-yard, two-touchdown effort in a Week 14 victory over the NFC South-rival Carolina Panthers and a 150-yard, one-touchdown game in a Week 16 victory over the NFL South-rival Atlanta Falcons. Williams, who attended Auburn University, was nominated for seven Diet Pepsi NFL Rookie of the Week awards, winning three.
Diet Pepsi is the official soft drink of the NFL. This is Pepsi's fourth year as a league sponsor.
Low Rawls passes at 72 - an era is coming to an end
I just learned that Lou Rawls, who's voice powered the song "You'll Never Find", passed away this morning. With his passing, Ray Charles, Richard Pryor, and Rosa Parks, an era of African American pioneers in many walks of life is passing by.
George W. Bush as the New Richard M. Nixon: Both Wiretapped Illegally, and Impeachably -- John Dean
John Dean, Former Council to President Richard M. Nixon, wrote this controversial but accurate reflection on President Bush. Dean also takes a critical shot at UC Berkeley Boalt Hall School of Law Professor John Yoo, who's reached celebrity ststus defending President Bush. The link does not work properly so I copied the article below.
George W. Bush as the New Richard M. Nixon: Both Wiretapped Illegally, and Impeachably;
Both Claimed That a President May Violate Congress' Laws to Protect National Security
By JOHN W. DEAN
Friday, Dec. 30, 2005
John W. Dean, a FindLaw columnist, is a former counsel to the president.
On Friday, December 16, the New York Times published a major scoop by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau: They reported that Bush authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to spy on Americans without warrants, ignoring the procedures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
It was a long story loaded with astonishing information of lawbreaking at the White House. It reported that sometime in 2002, Bush issued an executive order authorizing NSA to track and intercept international telephone and/or email exchanges coming into, or out of, the U.S. - when one party was believed to have direct or indirect ties with al Qaeda.
Initially, Bush and the White House stonewalled, neither confirming nor denying the president had ignored the law. Bush refused to discuss it in his interview with Jim Lehrer.
Then, on Saturday, December 17, in his radio broadcast, Bush admitted that the New York Times was correct - and thus conceded he had committed an impeachable offense.
There can be no serious question that warrantless wiretapping, in violation of the law, is impeachable. After all, Nixon was charged in Article II of his bill of impeachment with illegal wiretapping for what he, too, claimed were national security reasons.
These parallel violations underscore the continuing, disturbing parallels between this Administration and the Nixon Administration - parallels I also discussed in a prior column.
Indeed, here, Bush may have outdone Nixon: Nixon's illegal surveillance was limited; Bush's, it is developing, may be extraordinarily broad in scope. First reports indicated that NSA was only monitoring foreign calls, originating either in the USA or abroad, and that no more than 500 calls were being covered at any given time. But later reports have suggested that NSA is "data mining" literally millions of calls - and has been given access by the telecommunications companies to "switching" stations through which foreign communications traffic flows.
In sum, this is big-time, Big Brother electronic surveillance.
Given the national security implications of the story, the Times said they had been sitting on it for a year. And now that it has broken, Bush has ordered a criminal investigation into the source of the leak. He suggests that those who might have felt confidence they would not be spied on, now can have no such confidence, so they may find other methods of communicating. Other than encryption and code, it is difficult to envision how.
Column continues below ↓
Such a criminal investigation is rather ironic - for the leak's effect was to reveal Bush's own offense. Having been ferreted out as a criminal, Bush now will try to ferret out the leakers who revealed him.
Nixon's Wiretapping - and the Congressional Action that Followed
Through the FBI, Nixon had wiretapped five members of his national security staff, two newsmen, and a staffer at the Department of Defense. These people were targeted because Nixon's plans for dealing with Vietnam -- we were at war at the time -- were ending up on the front page of the New York Times.
Nixon had a plausible national security justification for the wiretaps: To stop the leaks, which had meant that not only the public, but America's enemies, were privy to its plans. But the use of the information from the wiretaps went far beyond that justification: A few juicy tidbits were used for political purposes. Accordingly, Congress believed the wiretapping, combined with the misuse of the information it had gathered, to be an impeachable offense.
Following Nixon's resignation, Senator Frank Church chaired a committee that investigated the uses and abuses of the intelligence derived from the wiretaps. From his report on electronic surveillance, emerged the proposal to create the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The Act both set limits on electronic surveillance, and created a secret court within the Department of Justice - the FISA Court -- that could, within these limits, grant law enforcement's requests to engage in electronic surveillance.
The legislative history of FISA makes it very clear that Congress sought to create laws to govern the uses of warrantless wiretaps. Thus, Bush's authorization of wiretapping without any application to the FISA Court violated the law.
Whether to Allow Such Wiretaps, Was Congress' Call to Make
No one questions the ends here. No one doubts another terror attack is coming; it is only a question of when. No one questions the preeminent importance of detecting and preventing such an attack.
What is at issue here, instead, is Bush's means of achieving his ends: his decision not only to bypass Congress, but to violate the law it had already established in this area.
Congress is Republican-controlled. Polling shows that a large majority of Americans are willing to give up their civil liberties to prevent another terror attack. The USA Patriot Act passed with overwhelming support. So why didn't the President simply ask Congress for the authority he thought he needed?
The answer seems to be, quite simply, that Vice President Dick Cheney has never recovered from being President Ford's chief of staff when Congress placed checks on the presidency. And Cheney wanted to make the point that he thought it was within a president's power to ignore Congress' laws relating to the exercise of executive power. Bush has gone along with all such Cheney plans.
No president before Bush has taken as aggressive a posture -- the position that his powers as commander-in-chief, under Article II of the Constitution, license any action he may take in the name of national security - although Richard Nixon, my former boss, took a similar position.
Presidential Powers Regarding National Security: A Nixonian View
Nixon famously claimed, after resigning from office, that when the president undertook an action in the name of national security, even if he broke the law, it was not illegal.
Nixon's thinking (and he was learned in the law) relied on the precedent established by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War. Nixon, quoting Lincoln, said in an interview, "Actions which otherwise would be unconstitutional, could become lawful if undertaken for the purpose of preserving the Constitution and the Nation."
David Frost, the interviewer, immediately countered by pointing out that the anti-war demonstrators upon whom Nixon focused illegal surveillance, were hardly the equivalent of the rebel South. Nixon responded, "This nation was torn apart in an ideological way by the war in Vietnam, as much as the Civil War tore apart the nation when Lincoln was president." It was a weak rejoinder, but the best he had.
Nixon took the same stance when he responded to interrogatories proffered by the Senate Select Committee on Government Operations To Study Intelligence Operations (best know as the "Church Committee," after its chairman Senator Frank Church). In particular, he told the committee, "In 1969, during my Administration, warrantless wiretapping, even by the government, was unlawful, but if undertaken because of a presidential determination that it was in the interest of national security was lawful. Support for the legality of such action is found, for example, in the concurring opinion of Justice White in Katz v. United States." (Katz is the opinion that established that a wiretap constitutes a "search and seizure" under the Fourth Amendment, just as surely as a search of one's living room does - and thus that the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirements apply to wiretapping.)
Nixon rather presciently anticipated - and provided a rationalization for - Bush: He wrote, "there have been -- and will be in the future -- circumstances in which presidents may lawfully authorize actions in the interest of security of this country, which if undertaken by other persons, even by the president under different circumstances, would be illegal."
Even if we accept Nixon's logic for purposes of argument, were the circumstances that faced Bush the kind of "circumstances" that justify warrantless wiretapping? I believe the answer is no.
Is Bush's Unauthorized Surveillance Action Justified? Not Persuasively.
Had Bush issued his Executive Order on September 12, 2001, as a temporary measure - pending his seeking Congress approval - those circumstances might have supported his call.
Or, had a particularly serious threat of attack compelled Bush to authorize warrantless wiretapping in a particular investigation, before he had time to go to Congress, that too might have been justifiable.
But several years have passed since the broad 2002 Executive Order, and in all that time, Bush has refused to seek legal authority for his action. Yet he can hardly miss the fact that Congress has clearly set rules for presidents in the very situation in which he insists on defying the law.
Bush has given one legal explanation for his actions which borders on the laughable: He claims that implicit in Congress' authorization of his use of force against the Taliban in Afghanistan, following the 9/11 attack, was an exemption from FISA.
No sane member of Congress believes that the Authorization of Military Force provided such an authorization. No first year law student would mistakenly make such a claim. It is not merely a stretch; it is ludicrous.
But the core of Bush's defense is to rely on the very argument made by Nixon: that the president is merely exercising his "commander-in-chief" power under Article II of the Constitution. This, too, is a dubious argument. Its author, John Yoo, is a bright, but inexperienced and highly partisan young professor at Boalt Law School, who has been in and out of government service.
To see the holes and fallacies in Yoo's work - embodied in a recently published book -- one need only consult the analysis of Georgetown University School of Law professor David Cole in the New York Review of Books. Cole has been plowing this field of the law for many years, and digs much deeper than Yoo.
Since I find Professor Yoo's legal thinking bordering on fantasy, I was delighted that Professor Cole closed his real-world analysis on a very realistic note: "Michael Ignatieff has written that 'it is the very nature of a democracy that it not only does, but should, fight with one hand tied behind its back. It is also in the nature of democracy that it prevails against its enemies precisely because it does.' Yoo persuaded the Bush administration to untie its hand and abandon the constraints of the rule of law. Perhaps that is why we are not prevailing."
To which I can only add, and recommend, the troubling report by Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon, who are experts in terrorism and former members of President Clinton's National Security Council. They write in their new book The Next Attack: The Failure of the War on Terror and a Strategy for Getting It Right, that the Bush Administration has utterly failed to close the venerable loopholes available to terrorist to wreak havoc. The war in Iraq is not addressing terrorism; rather, it is creating terrorists, and diverting money from the protection of American interests.
Bush's unauthorized surveillance, in particular, seems very likely to be ineffective. According to experts with whom I have spoken, Bush's approach is like hunting for the proverbial needle in the haystack. As sophisticated as NSA's data mining equipment may be, it cannot, for example, crack codes it does not recognize. So the terrorist communicating in code may escape detection, even if data mining does reach him.
In short, Bush is hoping to get lucky. Such a gamble seems a slim pretext for acting in such blatant violation of Congress' law. In acting here without Congressional approval, Bush has underlined that his Presidency is unchecked - in his and his attorneys' view, utterly beyond the law. Now that he has turned the truly awesome powers of the NSA on Americans, what asserted powers will Bush use next? And when - if ever - will we - and Congress -- discover that he is using them?
George W. Bush as the New Richard M. Nixon: Both Wiretapped Illegally, and Impeachably;
Both Claimed That a President May Violate Congress' Laws to Protect National Security
By JOHN W. DEAN
Friday, Dec. 30, 2005
John W. Dean, a FindLaw columnist, is a former counsel to the president.
On Friday, December 16, the New York Times published a major scoop by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau: They reported that Bush authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to spy on Americans without warrants, ignoring the procedures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
It was a long story loaded with astonishing information of lawbreaking at the White House. It reported that sometime in 2002, Bush issued an executive order authorizing NSA to track and intercept international telephone and/or email exchanges coming into, or out of, the U.S. - when one party was believed to have direct or indirect ties with al Qaeda.
Initially, Bush and the White House stonewalled, neither confirming nor denying the president had ignored the law. Bush refused to discuss it in his interview with Jim Lehrer.
Then, on Saturday, December 17, in his radio broadcast, Bush admitted that the New York Times was correct - and thus conceded he had committed an impeachable offense.
There can be no serious question that warrantless wiretapping, in violation of the law, is impeachable. After all, Nixon was charged in Article II of his bill of impeachment with illegal wiretapping for what he, too, claimed were national security reasons.
These parallel violations underscore the continuing, disturbing parallels between this Administration and the Nixon Administration - parallels I also discussed in a prior column.
Indeed, here, Bush may have outdone Nixon: Nixon's illegal surveillance was limited; Bush's, it is developing, may be extraordinarily broad in scope. First reports indicated that NSA was only monitoring foreign calls, originating either in the USA or abroad, and that no more than 500 calls were being covered at any given time. But later reports have suggested that NSA is "data mining" literally millions of calls - and has been given access by the telecommunications companies to "switching" stations through which foreign communications traffic flows.
In sum, this is big-time, Big Brother electronic surveillance.
Given the national security implications of the story, the Times said they had been sitting on it for a year. And now that it has broken, Bush has ordered a criminal investigation into the source of the leak. He suggests that those who might have felt confidence they would not be spied on, now can have no such confidence, so they may find other methods of communicating. Other than encryption and code, it is difficult to envision how.
Column continues below ↓
Such a criminal investigation is rather ironic - for the leak's effect was to reveal Bush's own offense. Having been ferreted out as a criminal, Bush now will try to ferret out the leakers who revealed him.
Nixon's Wiretapping - and the Congressional Action that Followed
Through the FBI, Nixon had wiretapped five members of his national security staff, two newsmen, and a staffer at the Department of Defense. These people were targeted because Nixon's plans for dealing with Vietnam -- we were at war at the time -- were ending up on the front page of the New York Times.
Nixon had a plausible national security justification for the wiretaps: To stop the leaks, which had meant that not only the public, but America's enemies, were privy to its plans. But the use of the information from the wiretaps went far beyond that justification: A few juicy tidbits were used for political purposes. Accordingly, Congress believed the wiretapping, combined with the misuse of the information it had gathered, to be an impeachable offense.
Following Nixon's resignation, Senator Frank Church chaired a committee that investigated the uses and abuses of the intelligence derived from the wiretaps. From his report on electronic surveillance, emerged the proposal to create the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The Act both set limits on electronic surveillance, and created a secret court within the Department of Justice - the FISA Court -- that could, within these limits, grant law enforcement's requests to engage in electronic surveillance.
The legislative history of FISA makes it very clear that Congress sought to create laws to govern the uses of warrantless wiretaps. Thus, Bush's authorization of wiretapping without any application to the FISA Court violated the law.
Whether to Allow Such Wiretaps, Was Congress' Call to Make
No one questions the ends here. No one doubts another terror attack is coming; it is only a question of when. No one questions the preeminent importance of detecting and preventing such an attack.
What is at issue here, instead, is Bush's means of achieving his ends: his decision not only to bypass Congress, but to violate the law it had already established in this area.
Congress is Republican-controlled. Polling shows that a large majority of Americans are willing to give up their civil liberties to prevent another terror attack. The USA Patriot Act passed with overwhelming support. So why didn't the President simply ask Congress for the authority he thought he needed?
The answer seems to be, quite simply, that Vice President Dick Cheney has never recovered from being President Ford's chief of staff when Congress placed checks on the presidency. And Cheney wanted to make the point that he thought it was within a president's power to ignore Congress' laws relating to the exercise of executive power. Bush has gone along with all such Cheney plans.
No president before Bush has taken as aggressive a posture -- the position that his powers as commander-in-chief, under Article II of the Constitution, license any action he may take in the name of national security - although Richard Nixon, my former boss, took a similar position.
Presidential Powers Regarding National Security: A Nixonian View
Nixon famously claimed, after resigning from office, that when the president undertook an action in the name of national security, even if he broke the law, it was not illegal.
Nixon's thinking (and he was learned in the law) relied on the precedent established by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War. Nixon, quoting Lincoln, said in an interview, "Actions which otherwise would be unconstitutional, could become lawful if undertaken for the purpose of preserving the Constitution and the Nation."
David Frost, the interviewer, immediately countered by pointing out that the anti-war demonstrators upon whom Nixon focused illegal surveillance, were hardly the equivalent of the rebel South. Nixon responded, "This nation was torn apart in an ideological way by the war in Vietnam, as much as the Civil War tore apart the nation when Lincoln was president." It was a weak rejoinder, but the best he had.
Nixon took the same stance when he responded to interrogatories proffered by the Senate Select Committee on Government Operations To Study Intelligence Operations (best know as the "Church Committee," after its chairman Senator Frank Church). In particular, he told the committee, "In 1969, during my Administration, warrantless wiretapping, even by the government, was unlawful, but if undertaken because of a presidential determination that it was in the interest of national security was lawful. Support for the legality of such action is found, for example, in the concurring opinion of Justice White in Katz v. United States." (Katz is the opinion that established that a wiretap constitutes a "search and seizure" under the Fourth Amendment, just as surely as a search of one's living room does - and thus that the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirements apply to wiretapping.)
Nixon rather presciently anticipated - and provided a rationalization for - Bush: He wrote, "there have been -- and will be in the future -- circumstances in which presidents may lawfully authorize actions in the interest of security of this country, which if undertaken by other persons, even by the president under different circumstances, would be illegal."
Even if we accept Nixon's logic for purposes of argument, were the circumstances that faced Bush the kind of "circumstances" that justify warrantless wiretapping? I believe the answer is no.
Is Bush's Unauthorized Surveillance Action Justified? Not Persuasively.
Had Bush issued his Executive Order on September 12, 2001, as a temporary measure - pending his seeking Congress approval - those circumstances might have supported his call.
Or, had a particularly serious threat of attack compelled Bush to authorize warrantless wiretapping in a particular investigation, before he had time to go to Congress, that too might have been justifiable.
But several years have passed since the broad 2002 Executive Order, and in all that time, Bush has refused to seek legal authority for his action. Yet he can hardly miss the fact that Congress has clearly set rules for presidents in the very situation in which he insists on defying the law.
Bush has given one legal explanation for his actions which borders on the laughable: He claims that implicit in Congress' authorization of his use of force against the Taliban in Afghanistan, following the 9/11 attack, was an exemption from FISA.
No sane member of Congress believes that the Authorization of Military Force provided such an authorization. No first year law student would mistakenly make such a claim. It is not merely a stretch; it is ludicrous.
But the core of Bush's defense is to rely on the very argument made by Nixon: that the president is merely exercising his "commander-in-chief" power under Article II of the Constitution. This, too, is a dubious argument. Its author, John Yoo, is a bright, but inexperienced and highly partisan young professor at Boalt Law School, who has been in and out of government service.
To see the holes and fallacies in Yoo's work - embodied in a recently published book -- one need only consult the analysis of Georgetown University School of Law professor David Cole in the New York Review of Books. Cole has been plowing this field of the law for many years, and digs much deeper than Yoo.
Since I find Professor Yoo's legal thinking bordering on fantasy, I was delighted that Professor Cole closed his real-world analysis on a very realistic note: "Michael Ignatieff has written that 'it is the very nature of a democracy that it not only does, but should, fight with one hand tied behind its back. It is also in the nature of democracy that it prevails against its enemies precisely because it does.' Yoo persuaded the Bush administration to untie its hand and abandon the constraints of the rule of law. Perhaps that is why we are not prevailing."
To which I can only add, and recommend, the troubling report by Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon, who are experts in terrorism and former members of President Clinton's National Security Council. They write in their new book The Next Attack: The Failure of the War on Terror and a Strategy for Getting It Right, that the Bush Administration has utterly failed to close the venerable loopholes available to terrorist to wreak havoc. The war in Iraq is not addressing terrorism; rather, it is creating terrorists, and diverting money from the protection of American interests.
Bush's unauthorized surveillance, in particular, seems very likely to be ineffective. According to experts with whom I have spoken, Bush's approach is like hunting for the proverbial needle in the haystack. As sophisticated as NSA's data mining equipment may be, it cannot, for example, crack codes it does not recognize. So the terrorist communicating in code may escape detection, even if data mining does reach him.
In short, Bush is hoping to get lucky. Such a gamble seems a slim pretext for acting in such blatant violation of Congress' law. In acting here without Congressional approval, Bush has underlined that his Presidency is unchecked - in his and his attorneys' view, utterly beyond the law. Now that he has turned the truly awesome powers of the NSA on Americans, what asserted powers will Bush use next? And when - if ever - will we - and Congress -- discover that he is using them?
Thursday, January 05, 2006
Last night i learned about the shocking habit called "Cutting"
I went to a going away gathering for some friends last night and at a rather neat bar and restaurant called "Olive."
At any rate, a woman I was talking with who's a councelor at a local middle school told me about a habit about five of her 500 students had: "cutting".
Cutting is where they deliberately cut themselves with a sharp knife. The reasons she gave were mostly tied to the kids being in controlling family environments, the worst example being those kids who were being molested by their own parents.
My new friend told me that cutting was becoming common. Curious to know more about this, I looked it up on the search engine and found this website.
I don't know what can be done to reduce the frequency of this habit, but I do know something must be done. It would seem that we as a society have to take a serious look at the evolution of the family unit in America.
At any rate, a woman I was talking with who's a councelor at a local middle school told me about a habit about five of her 500 students had: "cutting".
Cutting is where they deliberately cut themselves with a sharp knife. The reasons she gave were mostly tied to the kids being in controlling family environments, the worst example being those kids who were being molested by their own parents.
My new friend told me that cutting was becoming common. Curious to know more about this, I looked it up on the search engine and found this website.
I don't know what can be done to reduce the frequency of this habit, but I do know something must be done. It would seem that we as a society have to take a serious look at the evolution of the family unit in America.
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
A passionate call to get our troops out of Iraq
This is from the Washington Post, but I've reprinted it here, with a link back to their site in the title of this post.
A Life, Wasted
Let's Stop This War Before More Heroes Are Killed
By Paul E. Schroeder
Tuesday, January 3, 2006; Page A17
Early on Aug. 3, 2005, we heard that 14 Marines had been killed in Haditha, Iraq. Our son, Lance Cpl. Edward "Augie" Schroeder II, was stationed there. At 10:45 a.m. two Marines showed up at our door. After collecting himself for what was clearly painful duty, the lieutenant colonel said, "Your son is a true American hero."
Since then, two reactions to Augie's death have compounded the sadness.
At times like this, people say, "He died a hero." I know this is meant with great sincerity. We appreciate the many condolences we have received and how helpful they have been. But when heard repeatedly, the phrases "he died a hero" or "he died a patriot" or "he died for his country" rub raw.
"People think that if they say that, somehow it makes it okay that he died," our daughter, Amanda, has said. "He was a hero before he died, not just because he went to Iraq. I was proud of him before, and being a patriot doesn't make his death okay. I'm glad he got so much respect at his funeral, but that didn't make it okay either."
The words "hero" and "patriot" focus on the death, not the life. They are a flag-draped mask covering the truth that few want to acknowledge openly: Death in battle is tragic no matter what the reasons for the war. The tragedy is the life that was lost, not the manner of death. Families of dead soldiers on both sides of the battle line know this. Those without family in the war don't appreciate the difference.
This leads to the second reaction. Since August we have witnessed growing opposition to the Iraq war, but it is often whispered, hands covering mouths, as if it is dangerous to speak too loudly. Others discuss the never-ending cycle of death in places such as Haditha in academic and sometimes clinical fashion, as in "the increasing lethality of improvised explosive devices."
Listen to the kinds of things that most Americans don't have to experience: The day Augie's unit returned from Iraq to Camp Lejeune, we received a box with his notebooks, DVDs and clothes from his locker in Iraq. The day his unit returned home to waiting families, we received the second urn of ashes. This lad of promise, of easy charm and readiness to help, whose highest high was saving someone using CPR as a first aid squad volunteer, came home in one coffin and two urns. We buried him in three places that he loved, a fitting irony, I suppose, but just as rough each time.
I am outraged at what I see as the cause of his death. For nearly three years, the Bush administration has pursued a policy that makes our troops sitting ducks. While Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that our policy is to "clear, hold and build" Iraqi towns, there aren't enough troops to do that.
In our last conversation, Augie complained that the cost in lives to clear insurgents was "less and less worth it," because Marines have to keep coming back to clear the same places. Marine commanders in the field say the same thing. Without sufficient troops, they can't hold the towns. Augie was killed on his fifth mission to clear Haditha.
At Augie's grave, the lieutenant colonel knelt in front of my wife and, with tears in his eyes, handed her the folded flag. He said the only thing he could say openly: "Your son was a true American hero." Perhaps. But I felt no glory, no honor. Doing your duty when you don't know whether you will see the end of the day is certainly heroic. But even more, being a hero comes from respecting your parents and all others, from helping your neighbors and strangers, from loving your spouse, your children, your neighbors and your enemies, from honesty and integrity, from knowing when to fight and when to walk away, and from understanding and respecting the differences among the people of the world.
Two painful questions remain for all of us. Are the lives of Americans being killed in Iraq wasted? Are they dying in vain? President Bush says those who criticize staying the course are not honoring the dead. That is twisted logic: honor the fallen by killing another 2,000 troops in a broken policy?
I choose to honor our fallen hero by remembering who he was in life, not how he died. A picture of a smiling Augie in Iraq, sunglasses turned upside down, shows his essence -- a joyous kid who could use any prop to make others feel the same way.
Though it hurts, I believe that his death -- and that of the other Americans who have died in Iraq -- was a waste. They were wasted in a belief that democracy would grow simply by removing a dictator -- a careless misunderstanding of what democracy requires. They were wasted by not sending enough troops to do the job needed in the resulting occupation -- a careless disregard for professional military counsel.
But their deaths will not be in vain if Americans stop hiding behind flag-draped hero masks and stop whispering their opposition to this war. Until then, the lives of other sons, daughters, husbands, wives, fathers and mothers may be wasted as well.
This is very painful to acknowledge, and I have to live with it. So does President Bush.
The writer is managing director of a trade development firm in Cleveland.
A Life, Wasted
Let's Stop This War Before More Heroes Are Killed
By Paul E. Schroeder
Tuesday, January 3, 2006; Page A17
Early on Aug. 3, 2005, we heard that 14 Marines had been killed in Haditha, Iraq. Our son, Lance Cpl. Edward "Augie" Schroeder II, was stationed there. At 10:45 a.m. two Marines showed up at our door. After collecting himself for what was clearly painful duty, the lieutenant colonel said, "Your son is a true American hero."
Since then, two reactions to Augie's death have compounded the sadness.
At times like this, people say, "He died a hero." I know this is meant with great sincerity. We appreciate the many condolences we have received and how helpful they have been. But when heard repeatedly, the phrases "he died a hero" or "he died a patriot" or "he died for his country" rub raw.
"People think that if they say that, somehow it makes it okay that he died," our daughter, Amanda, has said. "He was a hero before he died, not just because he went to Iraq. I was proud of him before, and being a patriot doesn't make his death okay. I'm glad he got so much respect at his funeral, but that didn't make it okay either."
The words "hero" and "patriot" focus on the death, not the life. They are a flag-draped mask covering the truth that few want to acknowledge openly: Death in battle is tragic no matter what the reasons for the war. The tragedy is the life that was lost, not the manner of death. Families of dead soldiers on both sides of the battle line know this. Those without family in the war don't appreciate the difference.
This leads to the second reaction. Since August we have witnessed growing opposition to the Iraq war, but it is often whispered, hands covering mouths, as if it is dangerous to speak too loudly. Others discuss the never-ending cycle of death in places such as Haditha in academic and sometimes clinical fashion, as in "the increasing lethality of improvised explosive devices."
Listen to the kinds of things that most Americans don't have to experience: The day Augie's unit returned from Iraq to Camp Lejeune, we received a box with his notebooks, DVDs and clothes from his locker in Iraq. The day his unit returned home to waiting families, we received the second urn of ashes. This lad of promise, of easy charm and readiness to help, whose highest high was saving someone using CPR as a first aid squad volunteer, came home in one coffin and two urns. We buried him in three places that he loved, a fitting irony, I suppose, but just as rough each time.
I am outraged at what I see as the cause of his death. For nearly three years, the Bush administration has pursued a policy that makes our troops sitting ducks. While Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that our policy is to "clear, hold and build" Iraqi towns, there aren't enough troops to do that.
In our last conversation, Augie complained that the cost in lives to clear insurgents was "less and less worth it," because Marines have to keep coming back to clear the same places. Marine commanders in the field say the same thing. Without sufficient troops, they can't hold the towns. Augie was killed on his fifth mission to clear Haditha.
At Augie's grave, the lieutenant colonel knelt in front of my wife and, with tears in his eyes, handed her the folded flag. He said the only thing he could say openly: "Your son was a true American hero." Perhaps. But I felt no glory, no honor. Doing your duty when you don't know whether you will see the end of the day is certainly heroic. But even more, being a hero comes from respecting your parents and all others, from helping your neighbors and strangers, from loving your spouse, your children, your neighbors and your enemies, from honesty and integrity, from knowing when to fight and when to walk away, and from understanding and respecting the differences among the people of the world.
Two painful questions remain for all of us. Are the lives of Americans being killed in Iraq wasted? Are they dying in vain? President Bush says those who criticize staying the course are not honoring the dead. That is twisted logic: honor the fallen by killing another 2,000 troops in a broken policy?
I choose to honor our fallen hero by remembering who he was in life, not how he died. A picture of a smiling Augie in Iraq, sunglasses turned upside down, shows his essence -- a joyous kid who could use any prop to make others feel the same way.
Though it hurts, I believe that his death -- and that of the other Americans who have died in Iraq -- was a waste. They were wasted in a belief that democracy would grow simply by removing a dictator -- a careless misunderstanding of what democracy requires. They were wasted by not sending enough troops to do the job needed in the resulting occupation -- a careless disregard for professional military counsel.
But their deaths will not be in vain if Americans stop hiding behind flag-draped hero masks and stop whispering their opposition to this war. Until then, the lives of other sons, daughters, husbands, wives, fathers and mothers may be wasted as well.
This is very painful to acknowledge, and I have to live with it. So does President Bush.
The writer is managing director of a trade development firm in Cleveland.
"Human" Coal Mining should be outlawed -- leave it to the machines
I'm watching CNN tonight for all the wrong reasons, but the bottom line is that 12 of 13 miners were found dead after a long search and rescue effort that was a reminder of the Coal Creek Incident of a few years ago.
What's even more shocking is that the 12 miners were found alive! This news is a total body blow. Now, we learn that the news was not only wrong, but that the truth was far more terrible than their lifes. We can only pray this does not happen to us.
I think human coal mining should be banned. It's emotionally hard to hear -- let alone see -- another person die before the nation via national television because of quasi-coordinated search and rescue missions. Moreover, I think our technology is getting better, but I don't think it's going to reach the level of wlow water tied?
What's even more shocking is that the 12 miners were found alive! This news is a total body blow. Now, we learn that the news was not only wrong, but that the truth was far more terrible than their lifes. We can only pray this does not happen to us.
I think human coal mining should be banned. It's emotionally hard to hear -- let alone see -- another person die before the nation via national television because of quasi-coordinated search and rescue missions. Moreover, I think our technology is getting better, but I don't think it's going to reach the level of wlow water tied?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)