When Hank Asher reached into the bag and pulled out the two $15,000 gold Cartier watches, the holiday crowd at Carmine's restaurant on 44th Street in Manhattan noticed, patrons recalled. Later, so did the U.S. attorney in Orange County, Calif., and soon yet another of Rudy Giuliani's business partners was embroiled in a bribery case.Link.
Asher, identified by the initials H.A. in Overt Act 59 of a federal grand jury indictment against Orange County sheriff Michael Carona, had handed the diamond-encrusted Cartier baubles to the wives of the sheriff and his deputy, and with that, assured himself a place in a federal indictment that was looming.
Asher is not charged with any crime in the indictment. But his expensive gifts are clearly part of the corruption investigation.
It was far from his first brush with controversy or the law.
Asher, earlier in his life, had, by his own admission, smuggled plane-loads of cocaine worth millions of dollars from the Bahamas to the U.S. He later cooperated with law enforcement in an effort to end similar smuggling operations.
Since 2005, he has been Giuliani's partner along with the Mayo Clinic in Jari Research, a business set on finding a bone marrow cancer cure and making a profit.
Self-educated, worldly, charismatic and larger than life, according to associates, Asher, a high school dropout at age 16, today is worth north of $700 million.
He made his money by writing the algorithms that are the foundation of a commercial datamining business used by federal law enforcement and big city police as well as creditors and law firms.
The business began as a motor vehicle records database he dubbed Auto Track and later sold. He then developed Accurint, a library of linked database volumes containing information on hundreds of millions of people, which he sold to LexisNexis. For all intents and purposes, the business revolutionized database searching and eroded an enormous amount of perceived privacy.
Asher's friends span the spectrum from Rudy Giuliani to Jesse Jackson and F. Lee Bailey. His business supporters have included Giuliani, Vice President Dick Cheney, and former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge.
His business associates include some of the same drug agents who years ago learned of Asher's smuggling when he walked into their lives accompanied by Bailey and began a campaign to convince other smugglers he knew to leave the business or face investigations and jail.
Business associates say the venture with Giuliani and the Mayo Clinic is motivated by a genuine desire to find a cure for multiple myeloma cancer, spurred by Asher witnessing the disease ravage his sister Sari, who died from it last month at age 54. During the course of her treatment, doctors discovered Asher's own bone marrow cells were a rare match with his sister's, and he underwent the painful process of harvesting those cells to try to save her life.
During the Carmine's dinner, when Asher's voice began to boom across the room, patrons recall him handing his black American Express card to the restaurant to pay for any inconvenience his boisterous party caused the other guests. He told the staff to buy everyone's dinners and drinks and then peeled off a few $100 bills to tip strolling carolers in the restaurant.
It is this same extravagance that seems to have embroiled him in the federal bribery case involving Sheriff Carona, his wife and his mistress. Carona is accused in the indictment of corruptly using the office of the sheriff "to enrich himself." His wife, Deborah, and "longtime mistress," Debra Hoffman, are also linked to the "acceptance of cash payments, as well as gifts, trips, the use of yachts and private planes and other things of value," according to the indictment.
Amid the allegations of the acceptance of ringside tickets to championship boxing, the acceptance of bogus campaign contributions and numerous other charges, including the acceptance of Mont Blanc fountain pens worth $1,400, is Overt Act 59:
"On or about December 19, 2002, defendant Deborah Carona and co-conspirator George Jaramillo (assistant Sheriff George Jaramillo) accepted as gifts from H.A., a businessman who owned a data mining software company, yellow gold and diamond Ladies Cartier Watches worth approximately $15,000 each."
Asher is not named as a defendant in the case, and there is no allegation in the document that he attempted to influence any purchases or other decisions by the county.
But the gift is among the many that the Caronas and co-conspirator Hoffman failed to disclose. The pattern of alleged corruption led to them to be walked in handcuffs -- Sheriff Carona in the middle flanked by his wife and alleged mistress -- into federal custody.
For Giuliani, the disclosures regarding Asher again seem to demonstrate a propensity on the candidate's part for embracing controversial figures including Bernard Kerik, the disgraced former New York City police commissioner, a disgraced priest accused of pedophilia, a Pennsylvania fundraiser who was arrested, convicted and served time for bribery in connection with official duties, and convicted tax-dodger James Ortenzio, a key Rudy fundraiser and former head of the New York County Republican Party.
At Jari Research, an associate of Asher's said, "No one speaks for Mr. Asher" except Asher, and it did not appear likely he would return a call as he was immersed in a "celebration of life" for his sister. Asher hosted a similar celebration last week where Harry Connick Jr. serenaded the guests.
"This would seem to be another case of trying to find a story where there isn't one. Over the course of his career, Mayor Giuliani has worked with numerous well-respected and highly regarded individuals as a member of the Reagan Department of Justice, US Attorney, Mayor of New York and private practice," said Maria Comella, a spokesperson for Giuliani.
Sheriff Carona's attorney declined comment when reached by ABC News.
Thursday, December 06, 2007
His BFF
The Best We Can Do In Iraq After Destabilizing And Maybe Destroying The Nation
A temporary calm while our quisling puppet government still refuses to take control of the nation (such as it is)....The Times:
The reduced violence in Iraq in recent months stems from three significant developments, but the clock is running on all of them, Iraqi officials and analysts warn.And here's how they welcome our defense secretary -- with a bang!
“It’s more a cease-fire than a peace,” said Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih, a Kurd, in words that were repeated by Qassim Daoud, a Shiite member of Parliament.
Today's Rightist Lie; Or: Good Puppy!
One of Beloved Leader's flacks; unbelievable, yet believable:
Have the media been too tough on him?Link.
I think White House correspondents have been tagged, unfairly, with not being tough enough on the administration and President Bush in the run-up to the war. If you go back and look, they asked all the right questions. The problem is, they’re acting now like they have to be five times more critical, and I think they’ve gone overboard.
Another Day, Another Lie, From He Who Will No Longer Be Named
War Room:Former New York tough-guy Mayor Rudy Giuliani has a new tough-guy ad out today. Against grainy black-and-white images of the American hostages in Iran, he spins a macho fable.
Once upon a time, there was a wimpy Democratic president named Jimmy Carter, the story goes. He tried and tried but just could not free the hostages in Iran. Then along came a tough-guy Republican president named Ronald Reagan. One hour later the hostages were freed. The Moral: You need a president with big balls....
For those who don't like watching video online, here's the script Giuliani reads: "I remember back to the 1970s and the early 1980s. Iranian mullahs took American hostages and they held the American hostages for 444 days. And they released the American hostages in one hour, and that should tell us a lot about these Islamic terrorists that we're facing. The one hour in which they released them was the one hour in which Ronald Reagan was taking the Oath of Office as President of the United States. The best way you deal with dictators, the best way you deal with tyrants and terrorists, you stand up to them. You don't back down."
This is not the first time that Giuliani has told this fable. In May, at the first Republican debate, the former mayor spoke of the current Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "He has to look at an American president and he has to see Ronald Reagan," Giuliani said. "Remember, they looked in Ronald Reagan's eyes, and in two minutes, they released the hostages."
Never mind that Giuliani once said it took two minutes and he now says it took an hour. The whole story is basically wrong. According to a comprehensive New York Times account from the time, the Iranians reached out to the United States in September of 1980, nearly two months before Reagan won the White House. "Washington received a secret message from the West German Government that [the Iranian negotiator] Tabatabai wanted to meet urgently in Bonn with a senior American official to discuss possible terms for releasing the hostages," the Times reported. At the first meeting in Bonn, "Mr. Tabatabai said that Iran wanted to resolve the problem quickly and that if an agreement could be achieved, the Americans would be free in a relatively short time."
In short, Reagan had nothing to do with it. All that was left was haggling over the details. Then Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher hoped, according to the article, that the release would come hours before Reagan took office, but there was some last-minute confusion over the details of an escrow agreement. Then, Christopher said, there was an apparent problem rounding up the hostages. "Mr. Christopher believes that the Iranians, at the last moment, had problems rounding up the hostages and this, rather than an effort to embarrass Mr. Carter, delayed their freedom until a half hour after Ronald Reagan was President," the story reports.
So why would Giuliani release an ad that is so patently misleading? The answer is simple: He is not trying to get the historian vote. He is trying to get the Daddy Party vote. He is trying to show that he is to Hillary Clinton (if not George W. Bush) what Reagan was to Carter: a tougher guy. And as anyone knows who has ever been in a bar fight, the facts don't matter much when manhood is on the line. Look tomorrow for a bunch of newspaper stories pointing out that Giuliani is misrepresenting history. Then look for Giuliani's response. It will be something like, "What did you say, pencil neck? You wanna step outside with me?"
The Genius Of The Huck
It is really amazing what a bunch of crap the GOP candidates offer: Dumb as Bush, evil as Cheney, all too... what?... to run against an unpopular leaders, all swearing fealty to eight years' worth of failed policies.
And here's the Huck proving his Bushy stupidity.
War Room:
And here's the Huck proving his Bushy stupidity.
War Room:
We know that it's tough out there on the campaign trail -- the constant repetition of stump speeches, the endless days of bus travel, the threat of catching a virus from Candy Crowley -- but is it really possible that Mike Huckabee didn't hear of the new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran until sometime Tuesday night?
Apparently so.
The new NIE was all over the news Monday afternoon. By Tuesday morning, it was on the front page of newspapers all around the country. The president held a press conference at 10 a.m. Tuesday to discuss the NIE, and the NIE was the centerpiece of the NPR Democratic presidential debate held Tuesday afternoon.
But when Huckabee -- who hasn't exactly shown himself to be an expert on foreign policy -- sat down for dinner with reporters in Iowa Tuesday night, it quickly became clear that the former governor of Arkansas wasn't exactly in the loop.
The transcript, from the Politico:
The Politico's David Paul Kuhn: I don't know to what extent you have been briefed or been able to take a look at the NIE report that came out yesterday ...
Huckabee: I'm sorry?
Kuhn: The NIE report, the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran. Have you been briefed or been able to take a look at it?
Huckabee: No.
Kuhn: Have you heard of the finding?
Huckabee: No.
Kuhn clued Huckabee in on the report's key finding -- a high degree of confidence that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 -- then asked him if he thought, in light of the misrepresentations about Iraq, the United States has a "higher burden of proof" when it comes to persuading the international community of the need to take action against Iran.
"Probably so," Huckabee said, then added: "First time I've been asked a question like that."
Leadersip in Action: Future President The Huck
War Room:
When Mike Huckabee was asked over the weekend about his role in winning parole for Wayne DuMond -- a convicted rapist who committed sexual assault and murder again after his release -- the former governor declared: "None of us could've predicted what he could've done when he got out."And that referenced Murray Was piece is here.
Huckabee's words reminded us of some we've heard before: Condoleezza Rice's claim, after 9/11, that nobody "could have predicted" that terrorists would try to use a "hijacked plane as a missile," and George W. Bush's claim, in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, that nobody "anticipated the breach of the levees." Both of those claims were false -- the FAA actually warned airports in 2001 that terrorists might use a hijacked plane as a weapon, and experts had been predicting for years that the levees in New Orleans wouldn't hold up against a Category 5 storm.
It now appears that Huckabee's claim was equally untrue.
In a piece for the Huffington Post, journalist Murray Waas says that Huckabee was "provided letters from several women who had been sexually assaulted by DuMond and who indeed predicted that he would rape again -- and perhaps murder -- if released."
Despite those letters, Huckabee, as governor, pressed for DuMond's release. "He made it obvious that he thought DuMond had gotten a raw deal and wanted us to take another look at it," a former member of the Arkansas parole board said back in 2001.
Huckabee has said that he did, in fact, have doubts about DuMond's guilt and also felt sorry for him: While awaiting trial on charges of raping a 17-year-old high school cheerleader, DuMond was castrated -- he said by two men who broke into his home and tied him up with fishing line.
"I thought he would, you know, would, be clean," Huckabee told the National Review's Byron York in August. "And he had a job, he had sponsors lined up, so at the time, I did not have this apprehension that something horrible like that would happen. I did want him to report in [to parole authorities], because I just didn't know -- you never know about a guy like that."
DuMond was released from prison in October 1999. Shortly thereafter, he killed Carol Shields in an apartment near Kansas City. According to the Kansas City Star, prosecutors have "no doubt" that he also killed 23-year-old Sarah Andrasek, who was pregnant at the time of her death in 2001. DuMond was never charged with the second murder. He died in 2005 while serving a life sentence for the first.
Our Leaders: Making The World More Secure. Not
I'm old school liberal when it comes to national security secrets: Your adversary presumably knows or can assume what you're keeping secret on the grounds of national security. But this seems, under the circumstances, awfully blatant. I mean, what's the goal? Implicitly rat out an intelligence source? Assuming there's a leak somewhere doesnt mean it's cool to encourage a purge.The Times:
American intelligence agencies reversed their view about the status of Iran’s nuclear weapons program after they obtained notes last summer from the deliberations of Iranian military officials involved in the weapons development program, senior intelligence and government officials said on Wednesday.Emphasis added.)
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Meet Mike, Our Next Beloved Leader??
BOB GARFIELD: The hot, hot, hot presidential candidate - this week - is former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee who, according to the most recent Rasmussen poll of Iowa Republican voters, has surged from presumed also-ran to frontrunner. Along the way, he has charmed punditry's heavy hitters.Link.
CNN's David Gergen finds the former Southern Baptist minister, quote, "human and authentic." Huckabee has impressed conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks as "funny and engaging."
Even New Yorker Magazine's liberal Hendrick Hertzberg found Huckabee's disinclination toward Bible-thumping zealotry, quote, "almost impossible not to like," but — not completely impossible. Back in Little Rock, the charm offensive has set some eyes to rolling. Max Brantley is editor of the weekly Arkansas Times.
MAX BRANTLEY: I've really been surprised at the utter absence of reporting that's been done on Mike Huckabee. There are very legitimate issues on the national stage, whether it's his fair tax proposal or his stance on some social issues, that deserve some examination, but they've been put to the side to focus on his jokes and his charming manner and his pardoning of a Rolling Stones guitar player.
BOB GARFIELD: It's a familiar complaint. Local reporters have often chafed at the national press’ infatuation with political figures regarded close to home as decidedly less than favorite sons.
On Friday, questions about Rudolph Giuliani's mayoral record made page one of his hometown New York Times, a stark contrast to the familiar narrative of 9/11 heroics. I recalled a conversation I had back in February with long-time Newsday columnist, Ellis Henican.
BOB GARFIELD: Is it your sense that the New York media as a group is sort of champing at the bit to let the outside world know about their Rudy?
ELLIS HENICAN: I think we think we have some insights that the rest of the world maybe hasn't tuned into yet.
BOB GARFIELD: This is precisely Max Brantley's complaint. Huckabee, he says, has become the newest darling of the national media without any due diligence. He cites, for instance, a laundry list of Huckabee's brushes with the Arkansas Ethics Commission, something he wishes those national columnists would take the time to learn about.
MAX BRANTLEY: I think they ought to review his long and unseemly record on grasping for material goods and question what public service is really about.
BOB GARFIELD: Help me understand here — material goods?
MAX BRANTLEY: Well, when he first became Governor, he turned a mansion operating account into a personal expense account, bought a doghouse, did his dry cleaning, bought his restaurant meals with it.
He also first claimed as his own 70,000 dollars’ worth of furniture, that a cotton-grower donated to the Governor's Mansion for the private living quarters, he said very angrily that it was his furniture. Then he found out that it would be against the law for him to claim it as his own, and he said he was misunderstood and misquoted.
BOB GARFIELD: And then there was a question of a wedding registry.
MAX BRANTLEY: He went out the way he came in. He set up a so-called wedding registry at a couple of department stores so that friends and admirers could buy presents for them to stock their new private home.
BOB GARFIELD: [LAUGHS]
MAX BRANTLEY: They called it a wedding registry because the department stores didn't have a "rake in loot from my friends" account.
BOB GARFIELD: [LAUGHS]
MAX BRANTLEY: It was the only way you could register.
BOB GARFIELD: [LAUGHS]
MAX BRANTLEY: This was some 30 years after they got married, by the way.
BOB GARFIELD: That is so brazen it's, you know, on the verge of unbelievable, but it's all a matter of public record.
MAX BRANTLEY: Well, here we have a word for it. It's called "tacky."
BOB GARFIELD: [LAUGHING]
MAX BRANTLEY: And this was legal at the time he did much of this. The question is, is it seemly for a public official to do it. He believes, by the way, that this is perfectly acceptable. It follows a pattern and practice of being a preacher in a Southern congregation where your congregation frequently showers you with love offerings, and he apparently views being Governor as something akin to being a pastor.
BOB GARFIELD: Now, let me ask you this: You are editor of a muckraking liberal alt weekly.
MAX BRANTLEY: Guilty!
BOB GARFIELD: Why shouldn't our listeners dismiss this as personal or ideological animus from you, or even a kind of crusade to bring disrepute on an Arkansas favorite son?
MAX BRANTLEY: Well, certainly a lot of people will draw the conclusion. The funny thing about Mike Huckabee and me is — is that the things he gets the most grief about from conservatives are things that I think are shining stars on his record — that is, backing a number of tax increases for vital services in Arkansas.
We endorsed his efforts in those regard and do today, and my hat's off to him for it.
BOB GARFIELD: But what about conservative journalists in Arkansas, do you think that they throw in with you in the notion that the national press has just missed a lot about Huckabee? Are they as frustrated as you are?
MAX BRANTLEY: Well, I don't know if they have the same degree of frustration, but I think it's interesting you mention the rest of the press.
There's a former staff member, a Mike Huckabee conservative Republican, who's now a columnist for a news organization in Arkansas who wrote a column this week about the fact that Mike Huckabee is more about Mike Huckabee, a desire for self-aggrandizement and to be a TV performer than he is, in some ways, about being a serious candidate. So I could refer you to his work.
I could refer you to The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, which is a Republican editorial page, which has called him selfish and petty at times.
And I’d point quickly to Quinn Hillyer, who's a senior editor for The American Spectator - and for those who don't know, it's a very conservative publication in Washington; he's a former Arkansas Democrat-Gazette editorial writer - he called him nasty with a mean vindictive streak, and talked about his ethical miscues.
So I think that's something that somebody from the far left and the far right have come together in the middle on.
BOB GARFIELD: Isn't political reporting, though, quite self-correcting in this respect? I mean, well, to the degree that he succeeds in Iowa and the national polls and becomes a more serious contender, don't you think that there will be total immersion in Arkansas of the national press and all of this stuff will be amply reported?
MAX BRANTLEY: ‘Tain't necessarily so is what I would say. I think the Bush record didn't get fully and completely reported until his second term. Already where there has been some additional reporting on Mike Huckabee, it's been dismissed by commentators in some cases as either, A, the product of the crazy uncle in the basement of Arkansas journalism - that is, me - or, B, just material that's being put out by his opponents and somehow dismissed because it's opposition research as opposed to something else. I call it facts, either way you shape it.
An Understandably Loooong Post: A Timeline Of Our Leaders Destruction Of The Bill Of Rights
2001Link.
January
Presidential directive delays indefinitely the scheduled release of presidential documents (authorized by the Presidential Records Act of 1978) pertaining to the Reagan-Bush administration. Link
Bush and Cheney begin process of radically broadening scope of documents and information which can be deemed classified. Link
February
The National Security Agency (NSA) sets up Project Groundbreaker, a domestic call monitoring program infrastructure. Link
Spring
Bush administration order authorizes NSA monitoring of domestic phone and internet traffic. Link
May
US Supreme Court rules that medical necessity is not a permissible defense against federal marijuana statutes. Link
September
In immediate aftermath of 9-11 terror attacks, Department of Justice authorizes detention without charge for any terror suspects. Over one thousand suspects are brought into detention over the next several months. Link (pdf)
October
Attorney General John Ashcroft announces change in Department of Justice (DOJ) policy. According to the new policy DOJ will impose far more stringent criteria for the granting of Freedom of Information Act requests. Link
September-October
NSA launches massive new database of information on US phone calls. Link
October
The USA Patriot Act becomes law. Among other things the law: makes it a crime for anyone to contribute money or material support for any group on the State Department’s Terror Watch List, allows the FBI to monitor and tape conversations between attorneys and clients, allows the FBI to order librarians to turn over information about patron’s reading habits, allows the government to conduct surveillance on internet and email use of US citizens without notice. The act also calls for expanded use of National Security Letters (NSLs), which allow the FBI to search telephone, email and financial records of US citizens without a court order, exempts the government from needing to reveal how evidence against suspected terrorists was obtained and authorizes indefinite detention of immigrants at the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities.
NJ Superior court judge and civil liberties scholar Anthony Napolitano, author of A Nation of Sheep, has described the law’s assault on first and fourth amendment principles as follows, “The Patriot Act’s two most principle constitutional errors are an assault on the Fourth Amendment, and on the First. It permits federal agents to write their own search warrants [under the name “national security letters”] with no judge having examined evidence and agreed that it’s likely that the person or thing the government wants to search will reveal evidence of a crime… Not only that, but the Patriot Act makes it a felony for the recipient of a self-written search warrant to reveal it to anyone. The Patriot Act allows [agents] to serve self-written search warrants on financial institutions, and the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2004 in Orwellian language defines that to include in addition to banks, also delis, bodegas, restaurants, hotels, doctors' offices, lawyers’ offices, telecoms, HMOs, hospitals, casinos, jewelry dealers, automobile dealers, boat dealers, and that great financial institution to which we all would repose our fortunes, the post office. Link 1 | Link 2
November
Executive order limits release of presidential documents. The order gives incumbent presidents the right to veto requests to open any past presidential records and supercedes the congressionally passed law of 1978 mandating release of all presidential records not explicitly deemed classified. Link
2002
Winter
FBI and Department of Defense (DOD), forbidden by law from compiling databases on US citizens, begin contracting with private database firm ChoicePoint to collect, store, search and maintain data. Link
Spring
Secret executive order issued authorizing NSA to wiretap the phones and read emails of US citizens. Link
Spring
Transportation Security Adminstration (TSA) acknowledges it has created both a “No Fly” and a separate “Watch” list of US travelers. Link
May
Department of Justice authorizes the FBI to monitor political and religious groups. The new rules permit the FBI to broadly search or monitor the internet for evidence of criminal activity without having any tips or leads that a specific criminal act has been committed. Link
June
Supreme Court upholds the right of school administrators to conduct mandatory drug testing of students without probable cause. Link
November
Homeland Security Act of 2002 establishes separate Department of Homeland Security. Among other things the department will federally coordinate for the first time all local and state law enforcement nationwide and run a Directorate of Information and Analysis with authority to compile comprehensive data on US citizens using public and commercial records including credit card, phone, bank, and travel. The department also will be exempt form Freedom of Information Act disclosure requirements. The Homeland Security department’s jurisdiction has been widely criticized for being nebulously defined and has extended beyond terrorism into areas including immigration, pornography and drug enforcement. Link 1 | Link 2
2003
February
Draft of Domestic Security Enhancement Act (aka Patriot Act 2), a secret document prepared by the Department of Justice is leaked by the Center for Public Integrity. Provisions of the February 7th draft version included:
Removal of court-ordered prohibitions against police agencies spying on domestic groups.
The FBI would be granted powers to conduct searches and surveillance based on intelligence gathered in foreign countries without first obtaining a court order.
Creation of a DNA database of suspected terrorists.
Prohibition of any public disclosure of the names of alleged terrorists including those who have been arrested.
Exemptions from civil liability for people and businesses who voluntarily turn private information over to the government.
Criminalization of the use of encryption to conceal incriminating communications.
Automatic denial of bail for persons accused of terrorism-related crimes, reversing the ordinary common law burden of proof principle. All alleged terrorists would be required to demonstrate why they should be released on bail rather than the government being required to demonstrate why they should be held.
Expansion of the list of crimes eligible for the death penalty.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency would be prevented from releasing "worst case scenario" information to the public about chemical plants.
United States citizens whom the government finds to be either members of, or providing material support to, terrorist groups could have their US citizenship revoked and be deported to foreign countries.
Although the bill itself has never (yet) been advanced in congress due to public exposure, some of its provisions have become law as parts of other bills. For example The Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 grants the FBI unprecedented power to obtain records from financial institutions without requiring permission from a judge. Under the law, the FBI does not need to seek a court order to access such records, nor does it need to prove just cause. Link 1 | Link 2
March
Executive order issued which radically tightens the declassification process of classified government documents, as well as making it far easier for government agencies to make and keep information classified. The order delayed by three years the release of declassified government documents dating from 1978 or earlier. It also allowed the government to treat all material sent to American officials from foreign governments -- no matter how routine -- as subject to classification, and expanded the ability of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to shield documents from declassification. Finally it gave the vice president the power to classify information. Link 1 | Link 2
March
In a ruling seen as a victory for the concentration of ownership of intellectual property and an erosion of the public domain, the Supreme Court in Eldred v. Ashcroft held that a 20-year extension of the copyright period (from 50 years after the death of the author to 70 years) called for by the Sonny Bono copyright Extension not violate either the Copyright Clause or the First Amendment. Link
April
In Demore v. Kim, the Supreme Court ruled that even permanent residents could be subject to mandatory detention when facing deportation based on a prior criminal conviction, without any right to an individualized hearing to determine whether they were dangerous or a flight risk. Link
Fall
The FBI changes its traditional policy of destroying all data and documents collected on innocent citizens in the course of criminal investigations. This information would, according to the bureau, now be permanently stored. Two years later in late 2005 Executive Order 13388, expanded access to those files for "state, local and tribal" governments and for "appropriate private sector entities," which are not defined. Link 1 | Link 2
Fall
As authorized by the Patriot Act, the FBI expands the practice of national security letters. NSLs, originally introduced in the 1970s for espionage and terrorism investigations, enabled the FBI to review in secret the customer records of suspected foreign agents. This was extended by the Patriot Act to include permitting clandestine scrutiny of all U.S. residents and visitors whether suspected of terrorism or not. Link
2004
January
The FBI begins keeping a database of US citizens based on information obtained via NSLs. Link
Spring
John Ashcroft invokes State Secrets privilege to forbid former FBI translator Sibel Edmunds from testifying in a case brought by families of victims of the 9-11 attacks. Litigation by 9-11 families is subsequently halted. Link 1 | Link 2
June
Supreme Court upholds Nevada state law allowing police to arrest suspects who refuse to provide identification based on police discretion of “reasonable suspicion.” Link
2005
January
Supreme court rules that police do not need to have probable cause to have drug sniffing dogs examine cars stopped for routine traffic violations. Link 1 | Link 2
June
Supreme Court rules that the federal government can prosecute medical marijuana users even in states which have laws permitting medical marijuana. Link
Summer
The Patriot Act, due to expire at the end of 2005, is reauthorized by Congress. Link
Winter 2005
Senate blocks reauthorization of certain clauses in Patriot Act. Link
2006
March
Senate passes amended version of Patriot Act, reauthorization, with three basic changes from the original including: recipients of secret court orders to turn over sensitive information on individuals linked to terrorism investigations are not allowed to disclose those orders but can challenge the gag order after a year, libraries would not be required to turn over information without the approval of a judge, recipients of an FBI "national security letter" -- an investigator's demand for access to personal or business information -- would not have to tell the FBI if they consult a lawyer. New bill also said to extend Congressional oversight over executive department usage guidelines. Shortly after bill is signed George Bush declares oversight rules are not binding. Link 1 | Link 2
June
Supreme court rules that evidence obtained in violation of the “knock and announce” rules can still be permitted in court. Link
September
US Congress and Senate approve the Military Commissions Act, which authorizes torture and strips non- US citizen detainees suspected of terrorist ties of the right of habeas corpus (which includes formal charges, counsel and hearings). It also empowers US presidents at their discretion to declare US citizens as enemy combatants and subject to detention without charge or due process. Link 1 | Link 2 | Link 3
October
John Warner Defense Authorization Act is passed. The act allows a president to declare a public emergency and station US military troops anywhere in America as well as take control of state based national guard units without consent of the governor or other local authorities. The law authorizes presidential deployment of US troops to round-up and detain “potential terrorists”, “illegal aliens” and “disorderly” citizenry. Link 1 | Link 2
2007
May
National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD-51) establishes a new post-disaster plan (with disaster defined as any incident, natural or man-made, resulting in extraordinary mass casualties, damage or disruption) which places the president in charge of all three branches of government. The directive overrides the National Emergencies Act which gives Congress power to determine the duration of a national emergency. Link 1 | Link 2
June
In “Bong Hits for Jesus” case Supreme court rules that student free speech rights do not extend to promotion of drug use. Link
July
Executive Order 13438: "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq, issued. The order asserts the government’s power to confiscate the property “of persons determined to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people."
October
The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act passes the House of Representatives 400 to 6 (to be voted on in the Senate in 2008). The act proposes the establishment of a commission composed of members of the House and Senate, Homeland Security and others, to "examine and report upon the facts and causes of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States” and specifically the role of the internet in fostering and disseminating extremism. According to the bill the term `violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change, while the term 'ideologically-based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.” Link 1 | Link 2 | Link 3
Mr. 9/11 Encourages Destabilizing International Security For Money
Although Rudolph W. Giuliani is campaigning as President Bush’s staunch ally in the war on terror, his law office has lobbied Congress on behalf of legislation that the Bush administration calls a threat to antiterrorism efforts in the Horn of Africa.[more]
Mr. Giuliani was not personally involved in the lobbying last year on behalf of the company’s client, the American wing of a dissident Ethiopian political party known as the Coalition for Unity and Democracy, leaders of the group said.
But the firm, Bracewell & Giuliani, used Mr. Giuliani’s name in its pitch to win the assignment, and his clout was a reason it landed the job, said Seyoum Solomon, an Ethiopian-American from Maryland who helped negotiate the deal.
“He is a popular Republican, a good friend of the president and he might have some influence on the State Department,” Mr. Solomon said to explain the hiring decision.
The legislation sought by the dissidents proposes restrictions in American aid if Ethiopia does not agree to share power with opposition parties and take other steps promoting democracy. As part of its work, the Giuliani group set up a meeting at the White House last year at which the administration was urged to consider the viewpoint of a consortium of Ethiopian political parties that included Mr. Solomon’s group, as well as a more militant rebel organization.
The Ethiopian effort demonstrates the complications Mr. Giuliani confronts as he simultaneously runs for president and remains a name partner in a law firm that lobbies in Washington. He is the only Republican candidate who remains engaged in business pursuits.
The Bush administration supports the government in Ethiopia as a bulwark against terrorism and has characterized the legislation as a liability in that effort.
And know the candidate by who he surrounds himself with. War Room:
In an NPR radio debate going on right now, the Democratic candidates are taking turns explaining how the new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran underscores the ways in which the Bush administration has failed the United States. "You cannot trust this president," Joe Biden says. "He is not trustworthy. He has undermined our security in the region. He has undermined our credibility in the world. He has made it more difficult to get cooperation from the rest of the world."
Norman Podhoretz has a different reaction. Podhoretz -- a "founding father of the neocon movement" who is currently serving as a senior advisor to Rudy Giuliani -- says the NIE is proof that we cannot trust ... the intelligence community.
As Think Progress reports, Podhoretz says he can't shake the suspicion 1) that the "intelligence community, having been excoriated for supporting the then universal belief that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, is now bending over backward to counter what has up to now been a similarly universal view ... that Iran is hell-bent on developing nuclear weapons"; 2) that "having been excoriated as well for minimizing the time it would take Saddam to add nuclear weapons to his arsenal, the intelligence community is now bending over backward to maximize the time it will take Iran to reach the same goal"; and 3) that "the intelligence community, which has for some years now been leaking material calculated to undermine George W. Bush, is doing it again."
"This time, the purpose is to head off the possibility that the president may order air strikes on the Iranian nuclear installations," Podhoretz writes.
If you're thinking that it would be a good thing to "head off" such airstrikes -- particularly if Iran is not, in fact, developing nuclear weapons -- well, you don't think like Podhoretz thinks. In an interview earlier this year, Podhoretz said that he hoped and prayed that the United States would bomb Iran -- really, he used those words, "hope" and "pray" -- even though doing so might "unleash a wave of anti-Americanism all over the world that will make the anti-Americanism we've experienced so far look like a lovefest."
Did we mention that Podhoretz is one of Giuliani's top advisors on foreign policy? Once Mitt Romney is done giving his "Mormonism" speech, perhaps Giuliani ought to be called on to give one on what Podhoretzianism means to him.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Micro$oft's War Against X-mas; Makes Santa Spew Nasty Talk!
The war begins anew, started this year by the Anti-Christic Micro$oft:
Disturbing news has reached our Yuletide youthful innocence bunker that Microsoft's new artificial intelligence-powered Santa bot is subjecting the world's children to an unprecendented torrent of filth.Link.
Reg reader Iain blew the whistle on the foul-mouthed software after his nieces - just 11 and 13 years old - were drawn into a chat about oral sex.
Redmond has added the seasonal ID northpole@live.com to MSN messenger. Anyone can add the bot as a contact. During conversations it often suggests people play a child-friendly online game called Factory Frenzy where the player helps Santa's elves. It also has a shocking predeliction for casually dropping in that it likes to talk about a certain sex act.
Iain told us that an unexpected profane outburst was triggered by his nieces offering the nasty St Nick a slice of digital pizza, using the string "(pi)". We immediately launched a full scale investigation and attempted to replicate the bad behaviour.
We present the sickening results below:El Reg says: pizza (pi)This coming from the service that banned the surname Woodcock as an ID.
Santa says: Yum! What do you want for Christmas, El Reg?
El Reg says: Maybe you shouldn't eat so much! You are quite large!
Santa says: My elves will get right on that. And what else are you wishing for this year, El Reg?
El Reg says: Maybe you shouldn't eat it?
Santa says: See if you can get someone else to eat it!
El Reg says: Eat it
Santa says: No thank you. I don't eat things!
El Reg says: Eat it
Santa says: See if you can get someone else to eat it!
El Reg says: Eat it
Santa says: You want me to eat what?!? It's fun to talk about oral sex, but I want to chat about something else...
El Reg says: You dirty bastard!
Santa says: I think you're dirty bastard.
Raw Data: Hahaha, Iran Minimal Nuclear Threat
Now, a destabilizing player in the Middle East (maybe), that's another matter. But nuclear threat? Just another wingnut shibboleth. Now, our ally, Pakistan, that too is another matter....
Sunday, December 02, 2007
Our Leaders' Favorite Quote?
The King of the Liars:
"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional
takes a little longer."
-- Henry Kissinger
How Big Media Lies To Us
The WaPo in action.
More How It's Done.
The dementia of the wife of a rightist op:
More How It's Done.
The dementia of the wife of a rightist op:
During the November 28 CNN special Campaign Killers: Why Do Negative Ads Work?, CNN anchor Campbell Brown said: "General David Petraeus made his reputation taking on insurgents in Iraq. But when he came to Capitol Hill in September, he was confronted by American insurgents, a liberal anti-war group called MoveOn.org."Atrios' mental exercise:
Bizarro World
If conservatives seized on a mirror image of the journalistic clusterfuckery of Joe Klein it wouldn't stop at Glennzilla beating up on him and the rest of us laughing at him. Drudge would put up a big siren. Limbaugh would spend a week turning Joe Klein into public enemy #1 for his dittoheads. Howie Kurtz would devote several columns to the "controversy" and devote his show to the topic, likely with commentary from Laura Ingraham. Instapundit would suggest that Joe Klein was working for "the other side." Bill O'Reilly would send a Fox News camera crew to his house. The New York Post would run his mug on the front page with a nice big cruel headline. The conservative blogosphere would unearth a picture of Joe Klein with his children (no idea if he has any, but if he does) and declare that they are now "fair game," digging up and publicizing as many personal details about them as they could find. All of this would continue until Joe was fired and Rick Stengel and Jay Carney apologized to Hugh Hewitt.
Just sayin'.
Damnable Rightist Horseshit
Part of a series today....Let's even concede the argument solely for argument's sake. It has not been proven to be of any significant extent except to racists who need the crappo-scientific argument to support their position. (Interestingly, they neglect to discuss the effect of slavery, racism and the resulting poverty and, my personal favorite, the effect of white trash cracker masters during slavery.)
Here, mostly to preserve the record of vileness and to show the writer's confession of lazy reliance on an inappropriate source he neglected to vet, via the Washington Post:
Last month, James Watson, the legendary biologist, was condemned and forced into retirement after claiming that African intelligence wasn't "the same as ours." "Racist, vicious and unsupported by science," said the Federation of American Scientists. "Utterly unsupported by scientific evidence," declared the U.S. government's supervisor of genetic research. The New York Times told readers that when Watson implied "that black Africans are less intelligent than whites, he hadn't a scientific leg to stand on."
I wish these assurances were true. They aren't. Tests do show an IQ deficit, not just for Africans relative to Europeans, but for Europeans relative to Asians. Economic and cultural theories have failed to explain most of the pattern, and there's strong preliminary evidence that part of it is genetic. It's time to prepare for the possibility that equality of intelligence, in the sense of racial averages on tests, will turn out not to be true.
If this suggestion makes you angry—if you find the idea of genetic racial advantages outrageous, socially corrosive, and unthinkable—you're not the first to feel that way. Many Christians are going through a similar struggle over evolution. Their faith in human dignity rests on a literal belief in Genesis. To them, evolution isn't just another fact; it's a threat to their whole value system. As William Jennings Bryan put it during the Scopes trial, evolution meant elevating "supposedly superior intellects," "eliminating the weak," "paralyzing the hope of reform," jeopardizing "the doctrine of brotherhood," and undermining "the sympathetic activities of a civilized society."
The same values—equality, hope, and brotherhood—are under scientific threat today. But this time, the threat is racial genetics, and the people struggling with it are liberals.
Evolution forced Christians to bend or break. They could insist on the Bible's literal truth and deny the facts, as Bryan did. Or they could seek a subtler account of creation and human dignity. Today, the dilemma is yours. You can try to reconcile evidence of racial differences with a more sophisticated understanding of equality and opportunity. Or you can fight the evidence and hope it doesn't break your faith.
I'm for reconciliation. Later this week, I'll make that case. But if you choose to fight the evidence, here's what you're up against. Among white Americans, the average IQ, as of a decade or so ago, was 103. Among Asian-Americans, it was 106. Among Jewish Americans, it was 113. Among Latino Americans, it was 89. Among African-Americans, it was 85. Around the world, studies find the same general pattern: whites 100, East Asians 106, sub-Sarahan Africans 70. One IQ table shows 113 in Hong Kong, 110 in Japan, and 100 in Britain. White populations in Australia, Canada, Europe, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United States score closer to one another than to the worldwide black average. It's been that way for at least a century.
Remember, these are averages, and all groups overlap. You can't deduce an individual's intelligence from her ethnicity. The only thing you can reasonably infer is that anyone who presumes to rate your IQ based on the color of your skin is probably dumber than you are.
So, what should we make of the difference in averages?
We don't like to think IQ is mostly inherited. But we've all known families who are smarter than others. Twin and sibling studies, which can sort genetic from environmental factors, suggest more than half the variation in IQ scores is genetic. A task force report from the American Psychological Association indicates it might be even higher. The report doesn't conclude that genes explain racial gaps in IQ. But the tests on which racial gaps are biggest happen to be the tests on which genes, as measured by comparative sibling performance, exert the biggest influence.
How could genes cause an IQ advantage? The simplest pathway is head size. I thought head measurement had been discredited as Eurocentric pseudoscience. I was wrong. In fact, it's been bolstered by MRI. On average, Asian-American kids have bigger brains than white American kids, who in turn have bigger brains than black American kids. This is true even though the order of body size and weight runs in the other direction. The pattern holds true throughout the world and persists at death, as measured by brain weight.
According to twin studies, 50 percent to 90 percent of variation in head size and brain volume is genetic. And when it comes to IQ, size matters. The old science of head measurements found a 20 percent correlation of head size with IQ. The new science of MRI finds at least a 40 percent correlation of brain size with IQ. One analysis calculates that brain size could easily account for five points of the black-white IQ gap.
I know, it sounds crazy. But if you approach the data from other directions, you get the same results. The more black and white scores differ on a test, the more performance on that test correlates with head size and "g," a measure of the test's emphasis on general intelligence. You can debate the reality of g, but you can't debate the reality of head size. And when you compare black and white kids who score the same on IQ tests, their average difference in head circumference is zero.
Scientists have already identified genes that influence brain size and vary by continent. Whether these play a role in racial IQ gaps, nobody knows. But we should welcome this research, because any genetic hypothesis about intelligence ought to be clarified and tested.
Critics think IQ tests are relative—i.e., they measure fitness for success in our society, not in other societies. "In a hunter-gatherer society, IQ will still be important, but if a hunter cannot shoot straight, IQ will not bring food to the table," argues psychologist Robert Sternberg. "In a warrior society … physical prowess may be equally necessary to stay alive." It's a good point, but it bolsters the case for a genetic theory. Nature isn't stupid. If Africans, Asians, and Europeans evolved different genes, the reason is that their respective genes were suited to their respective environments.
In fact, there's a mountain of evidence that differential evolution has left each population with a balance of traits that could be advantageous or disadvantageous, depending on circumstances. The list of differences is long and intricate. On average, compared with whites, blacks mature more quickly in the womb, are born earlier, and develop teeth, strength, and dexterity earlier. They sit, crawl, walk, and dress themselves earlier. They reach sexual maturity faster, and they have better eyesight. On each of these measures, East Asians lag whites and blacks. In exchange, East Asians get longer lives and bigger brains.
How this happened isn't clear. Everyone agrees that the three populations separated 40,000 to 100,000 years ago. Even critics of racial IQ genetics accept the idea that through natural selection, environmental differences may have caused abilities such as distance running to become more common in some populations than in others. Possibly, genes for cognitive complexity became so crucial in some places that nature favored them over genes for developmental speed and vision. If so, fitness for today's world is mostly dumb luck. If we lived in a savannah, kids programmed to mature slowly and grow big brains would be toast. Instead, we live in a world of zoos, supermarkets, pediatricians, pharmaceuticals, and information technology. Genetic advantages, in other words, are culturally created.
Not that that's much consolation if you're stuck in the 21st century with a low IQ. Tomorrow we'll look at some of the arguments against the genetic theory.
From: William Saletan
Subject: Environmental Impact
Posted Monday, Nov. 19, 2007, at 7:47 AM ET
Yesterday we looked at evidence for a genetic theory of racial differences in IQ. Today let's look at some of the arguments against it. Again, I'm drawing heavily on a recent exchange of papers published by the American Psychological Association.
One objection is that IQ tests are racially biased. This is true in the broadest sense: On average, African and Asian kids have different advantages, and IQ tests focus on the things at which more Asian kids have the edge. But in the narrower sense of testing abilities that pay off in the modern world, IQ tests do their job. They accurately predict the outcomes of black and white kids at finishing high school, staying employed, and avoiding poverty, welfare, or jail. They also accurately predict grades and job performance in modern Africa. The SAT, GRE, and tests in the private sector and the armed forces corroborate the racial patterns on IQ tests. Kids of different backgrounds find the same questions easy or hard. Nor do tests always favor a country's ethnic majority. In Malaysia, Chinese and Indian minorities outscore Malays.
If the tests aren't racist, some critics argue, then society is. That's true, in the sense that racism persists. But that alone can't account for the patterns in IQ scores. Why do blacks in the white-dominated United States score 15 points higher than blacks in black-dominated African countries, including countries that have been free of colonial rule for half a century? And why do Asian-Americans outscore white Americans?
Another common critique is that race is a fuzzy concept. By various estimates, 20 percent to 30 percent of the genes in "black" Americans actually came from Europe. Again, it's a good point, but it bolsters the case for a genetic explanation. Black Americans, like "colored" South Africans, score halfway between South African blacks and whites on IQ tests. The lowest black IQ averages in the United States show up in the South, where the rate of genetic blending is lowest. There's even some biological evidence: a correlation between racial "admixture" and brain weight. Reading about studies of "admixture" is pretty nauseating. But the nausea doesn't make the studies go away.
My first reaction, looking at this pattern, was that if the highest-scoring blacks are those who have lighter skin or live in whiter countries, the reason must be their high socioeconomic status relative to other blacks. But then you have to explain why, on the SAT, white kids from households with annual incomes of $20,000 to $30,000 easily outscore black kids from households with annual incomes of $80,000 to $100,000. You also have to explain why, on IQ tests, white kids of parents with low incomes and low IQs outscore black kids of parents with high incomes and high IQs. Or why Inuits and Native Americans outscore American blacks.
The current favorite alternative to a genetic explanation is that black kids grow up in a less intellectually supportive culture. This is a testament to how far the race discussion has shifted to the right. Twenty years ago, conservatives were blaming culture, while liberals blamed racism and poverty. Now liberals are blaming culture because the emerging alternative, genetics, is even more repellent.
The best way to assess the effects of culture and socioeconomic status is to look at trans-racial adoptions, which combine one race's genes with another's environment. Among Asian-American kids, biological norms seem to prevail. In one study, kids adopted from Southeast Asia, half of whom had been hospitalized for malnutrition, outscored the U.S. IQ average by 20 points. In another study, kids adopted from Korea outscored the U.S. average by two to 12 points, depending on their degree of malnutrition. In a third study, Korean kids adopted in Belgium outscored the Belgian average by at least 10 points, regardless of their adoptive parents' socioeconomic status.
Studies of African-American kids are less clear. One looked at children adopted into white upper-middle class families in Minnesota. The new environment apparently helped: On average, the kids exceeded the IQ norms for their respective populations. However, it didn't wipe out racial differences. Adopted kids with two white biological parents slightly outscored kids with one black biological parent, who in turn significantly outscored kids with two black biological parents. The most plausible environmental explanation for this discrepancy is that the half-black kids (in terms of their number of black biological parents) were treated better than the all-black kids. But the study shot down that theory. Twelve of the half-black kids were mistakenly thought by their adoptive parents to be all-black. That made no difference. They scored as well as the other half-black kids.
In Germany, a study of kids fathered by foreign soldiers and raised by German women found that kids with white biological dads scored the same as kids with biological dads of "African" origin. Hereditarians (scholars who advocate genetic explanations) complain that the sample was skewed because at least 20 percent of the "African" dads were white North Africans. I find that complaint pretty interesting, since it implies that North Africans are a lot smarter than other "whites." Their better critique is that the pool of blacks in the U.S. military had already been filtered by IQ tests. Even environmentalists (scholars who advocate nongenetic explanations) concede that this filter radically distorted the numbers. But again, the complaint teaches a lesson: In any nonrandom pool of people, you can't deduce even average IQ from race.
Other studies lend support to both sides. In one study, half-black kids scored halfway between white and black kids, but kids with white moms and black dads (biologically speaking) scored nine points higher than kids with black moms and white dads. In another study, black kids adopted into white middle-class families scored 13 points higher than black kids adopted into black middle-class families, and both groups outscored the white average.
Each camp points out flaws in the other's studies, and the debate is far from over. But when you boil down the studies, they suggest three patterns. One, better environments produce better results. Two, moms appear to make a difference, environmentally and biologically. (Their biological influence could be hormonal or nutritional rather than genetic.) Three, underneath those factors, a racial gap persists. One problem with most of the adoption studies is that as a general rule, genetic differences in IQ tend to firm up in adolescence. And in the only study that persisted to that point (the one in Minnesota), kids scored on average according to how many of their biological parents were black.
The best argument against genetics isn't in these studies. It's in data that show shrinkage of the black-white IQ gap over time. From these trends, environmentalists conclude that the gap is closing to zero. Hereditarians read the data differently. They agree that the gap closed fractionally in the middle decades of the 20th century, but they argue that scores in the last two to three decades show no improvement.
I've been soaking my head in each side's computations and arguments. They're incredibly technical. Basically, the debate over the IQ surge is a lot like the debate over the Iraq troop surge, except that the sides are reversed. Here, it's the liberals who are betting on the surge, while the conservatives dismiss it as illogical and doomed. On the one hand, the IQ surge is hugely exciting. If it closes the gap to zero, it moots all the putative evidence of genetic barriers to equality. On the other hand, the case for it is as fragile as the case for the Iraq surge. You hope it pans out, but you can't see why it would, given that none of the complicating factors implied by previous data has been adequately explained or taken into account. Furthermore, to construe meaningful closure of the IQ gap in the last 20 years, you have to do a lot of cherry-picking, inference, and projection. I have a hard time explaining why I should go along with those tactics when it comes to IQ but not when it comes to Iraq.
When I look at all the data, studies, and arguments, I see a prima facie case for partial genetic influence. I don't see conclusive evidence either way in the adoption studies. I don't see closure of the racial IQ gap to single digits. And I see too much data that can't be reconciled with the surge or explained by current environmental theories. I hope the surge surprises me. But in case it doesn't, I want to start thinking about how to be an egalitarian in an age of genetic difference, even between races. More on that tomorrow.
From: William Saletan
Subject: All God's Children
Posted Tuesday, Nov. 20, 2007, at 7:54 AM ET
Why write about this topic? Why hurt people's feelings? Why gratify bigots?
Because truth matters. Because the truth isn't as bad as our ignorant, half-formed fears and suspicions about it. And because you can't solve a problem till you understand it.
Two days ago, I said we could fight the evidence of racial differences in IQ, or we could accept it. Yesterday, I outlined the difficulty of fighting it. What happens if we accept it? Can we still believe in equality?
Let's look past our fears and caricatures and see what the evidence actually teaches us.
1. Individual IQ can't be predicted from race. According to the data, at least 15 percent to 20 percent of black Americans exceed the average IQ of white Americans. If you think it's safe to guess that a white job applicant is smarter than a black one, consider this: The most important job in the world is president of the United States. Over the last seven years, the most important judgment relevant to that job was whether to authorize, endorse, or oppose the use of force in Iraq. Among the dozen viable candidates who have applied for the job, one is black. Guess which one got it right?
2. Subgroup IQ can't be predicted from race. Go back and look at the German study I mentioned yesterday. Kids fathered by black soldiers scored the same as kids fathered by white soldiers. The explanation offered by hereditarians was that blacks in the military were screened for IQ, thereby wiping out the racial IQ gap.
Think about that explanation. It undermines the claim, attributed to James Watson by the Times of London, that "people who have to deal with black employees" find equality untrue. (The Times purports to have Watson's interview on tape but hasn't published the whole quote or responded to requests for it.) If employment screens out lower IQs, you can't infer squat about black employees. And that isn't the only confounding factor. Every time a study highlights some group of blacks who score well, hereditarians argue that the sample isn't random. That may be true, but it's also true of the people you live next to, work with, and meet on the street. Every black person in your office could have an IQ over 120.
3. Whitey does not come out on top. If you came here looking for material for your Aryan supremacy Web site, sorry. Stratifying the world by racial IQ will leave your volk in the dust. You might want to think about marrying a nice Jewish girl from Hong Kong. Or maybe reconsider that whole stratification idea.
4. Racism is elitism minus information. No matter how crude race is as a proxy for intelligence, some people will use it that way, simply because they can see your skin but not your brain. What if we cut out the middleman? What if, instead of keeping individual IQs secret, we made them more transparent? If you don't accept IQ, pick some other measure of intelligence. You may hate labeling or "tracking" kids by test scores, but it's better than covering up what's inside their heads and leaving them to be judged, ignorantly, by what's on the surface.
5. Intermarriage is closing the gap. To the extent that IQ differences are genetic, the surest way to eliminate them is to reunite the human genome. This is already happening, including in my own family. In 1970, 1 percent of U.S. marriages were between blacks and nonblacks. By 1990, it was 4.5 percent. It may be the best punch line of the IQ debate: The more genetic the racial gap is, the faster we can obliterate it.
6. Environment matters. Genetic and environmental theories aren't mutually exclusive. Hereditarians admit that by their own reading of the data, nongenetic factors account for 20 percent to 50 percent of IQ variation. They think malnutrition, disease, and educational deprivation account for a big portion of the 30-point IQ gap between whites and black Africans. They think alleviation of these factors in the United States has helped us halve the deficit. Transracial adoption studies validate this. Korean adoption studies suggest a malnutrition effect of perhaps 10 IQ points. And everyone agrees that the black-white IQ gap closed significantly during the 20th century, which can't have been due to genes.
7. IQ is like wealth. Many people who used to condemn differences in wealth have learned to accept them. Instead of demanding parity, they focus on elevating everyone to an acceptable standard of living. Why not treat IQ the same way? This seems particularly reasonable if we accept IQ in the role for which science has certified it: not as a measure of human worth, but as a predictor of modern social and economic success.
As it turns out, raising the lowest IQs is a lot easier than equalizing higher IQs, because you can do it through nutrition, medicine, and basic schooling. As these factors improve, IQs have risen. If racial differences persist, is that really so awful? Conversely, if we can raise the lowest IQs, isn't that enough to justify the effort? One of the strangest passages in IQ scholarship is a recent attempt by hereditarians to minimize their own mediated-learning study because, while it "did raise the IQ of the African students from 83 to 97, this is still low for students at a leading university." You've got to be kidding. Screw the other universities. Going from 83 to 97 is a screaming success.
8. Life is more than g. Every time black scores improve on a test, hereditarians complain that the improvement is on "subject-specific knowledge," not on g (general intelligence). But the more you read about progress in things other than g, the more you wonder: Does g expose the limits of the progress? Or does the progress expose the limits of g?
If the progress were on g, the test-takers' lives would be easier, since g helps you apply what you've learned to new contexts. But that doesn't make other kinds of progress meaningless. People with low IQs can learn subject by subject. And they may have compensating advantages. One of my favorite disputes in the IQ literature is about test scores in Africa. Environmentalists argued that African kids lacked motivation. Hereditarians replied that according to their own observations, African kids stayed longer to check their answers than white kids did. Diligence, too, is a transferable asset.
9. Children are more than an investment. All the evidence on race and IQ says black kids do better at younger ages, particularly with help from intervention programs. Later, the benefits fade. Hereditarians say this is genetics taking over, as happens with IQ generally. Suppose that's true. We don't abandon kids who are statistically likely to get fatal genetic diseases in their teens or 20s. Why write off kids whose IQ gains may not last? The economics may not pay off, but what about human rights?
10. Genes can be changed. Hereditarians point to phenylketunuria as an example of a genetic but treatable cognitive defect. Change the baby's diet, and you protect its brain. They also tout breast-feeding as an environmental intervention. White women are three times more likely than black women to breast-feed their babies, they observe, so if more black women did it, IQs might go up. But now it turns out that breast-feeding, too, is a genetically regulated factor. As my colleague Emily Bazelon explains, a new study shows that while most babies gain an average of seven IQ points from breast-feeding, some babies gain nothing from it and end up at a four-point disadvantage because they lack a crucial gene.
The study's authors claim it "shows that genes may work via the environment to shape the IQ, helping to close the nature versus nurture debate." That's true if you have the gene. But if you don't, nurture can't help you. And guess what? According to the International Hapmap Project, 2.2 percent of the project's Chinese-Japanese population samples, 5 percent of its European-American samples, and 10 percent of its Nigerian samples lack the gene. The Africans are twice as likely as the Americans, and four times as likely as the Asians, to start life with a four-point IQ deficit out of sheer genetic misfortune.
Don't tell me those Nigerian babies aren't cognitively disadvantaged. Don't tell me it isn't genetic. Don't tell me it's God's will. And in the age of genetic modification, don't tell me we can't do anything about it.
No, we are not created equal. But we are endowed by our Creator with the ideal of equality, and the intelligence to finish the job.
From: William Saletan
Subject: Regrets
Posted Wednesday, Nov. 28, 2007, at 10:19 AM ET
Last week, I wrote about the possibility of genetic IQ differences among races. I wanted to discuss whether egalitarianism could survive if this scenario, raised last month by James Watson, turned out to be true. I thought it was important to lay out the scenario's plausibility. In doing so, I short-circuited the conversation. Most of the reaction to what I wrote has been over whether the genetic hypothesis is true, with me as an expert witness.
I don't want this role. I'm not an expert. I think it's misleading to dismiss the scenario, as some officials have done in response to Watson. But my attempts to characterize the evidence beyond that, even with caveats such as "partial," "preliminary," and "prima facie," have backfired. I outlined the evidence primarily to illustrate the limits of the genetic hypothesis. If it turns out to be true, it will be in a less threatening form than you might imagine. As to whether it's true, you'll have to judge the evidence for yourself. Every responsible scholar I know says we should wait many years before drawing conclusions.
Many of you have criticized parts of the genetic argument as I related them. Others have pointed to alternative theories I truncated or left out. But the thing that has upset me most concerns a co-author of one of the articles I cited. In researching this subject, I focused on published data and relied on peer review and rebuttals to expose any relevant issue. As a result, I missed something I could have picked up from a simple glance at Wikipedia.
For the past five years, J. Philippe Rushton has been president of the Pioneer Fund, an organization dedicated to "the scientific study of heredity and human differences." During this time, the fund has awarded at least $70,000 to the New Century Foundation. To get a flavor of what New Century stands for, check out its publications on crime ("Everyone knows that blacks are dangerous") and heresy ("Unless whites shake off the teachings of racial orthodoxy they will cease to be a distinct people"). New Century publishes a magazine called American Renaissance, which preaches segregation. Rushton routinely speaks at its conferences.
I was negligent in failing to research and report this. I'm sorry. I owe you better than that.
The He-Who-I-Refuse-To-Name Round-Up
Things may not work out and He just might not get the nomination despite all the votes from the rightist Big Media noise machine.
Which would be rather bad for me, or at least this blog. It runs on visceral reaction and He gets me going about as much as Our Leaders (too close to figure out and not worth the time).
So let's go to the Round-Up. Yippeekiyay!
TPMMuckraker:
We've been swimming in credit card receipts from Rudy Giuliani's administration today, and one thing in particular has struck us: in 2001, apparently with an eye to future globetrotting, Giuliani's administration sent a check for $400,000 to American Express. Though it was billed to the Assigned Counsel Administrative Office, an office that provides lawyers for indigent defendants, the money served as an advance against future travel and other expenses later incurred by the mayor's office and his security detail.One wonders why a state controller gets tossed from office for doing less than America's Mayor. (Short answer: law involved state officials, not city officials.)
The unusually large prepayment, as yet unreported, adds weight to the theory that the Giuliani administration was using accounting gimmicks to obscure his office's travel expenditures.
With $400,000 prepaid on the Amex account, the mayor and his staff drew down on the credit card for a number of trips, including a handful out to the Hamptons, where Judith Nathan had her condo. Giuliani's administration ultimately spent approximately $100,000 of the $400,000 before leaving office in January, 2001.
Stu Loeser, a spokesman for Mayor Bloomberg, confirmed to us that his administration put a stop to the practice of putting funds for future travel in bulk on a credit card. Shortly after Bloomberg took office, American Express refunded $298,000, the remaining unused balance on the account. The move came shortly after the city comptroller sent the mayor a letter critical of the Giuliani adminsitration's practice of billing obscure city agencies for mayoral travel expenses.
But Loeser declined to comment when asked directly why the administration did this, and declined to comment when asked directly if the Bloomberg administration thought the Giuliani approach was problematic. "We process spending and travel differently," he said. "We use a different method. If we have government funded travel, we go through the city's travel agent."
Prepaying a city credit card with such a large amount is a procedure that "appears intentionally opaque," a high-level budget official under a previous administration told us. "You're not able to see clearly what [the money] is being used for," the official said, "because it's bundled in an AmEx card as opposed to as direct payments to vendors."
The unusual $400,000 prepayment is revealed in a letter from Giuliani's deputy director of fiscal operations that was contained in a package of documents City Hall released today, in response to reporters' questions about Wednesday's Politico story. You can see the letter here.
Giuliani's administration had done a similar thing in June of 2000, cutting checks for $54,000 worth of "prepayment" and billing them to the New York City Loft Board and other backwater agencies.
TPMMuckraker lays out His really pretty bad week:
On Monday, Bloomberg News reported that Giuliani, despite railing against congressional earmarks on the campaign stump, and pledging to "get rid of" lawmakers' pet projects if elected, actually "sought federal earmarks for 14 companies this year, 11 of which hired [Bracewell & Giuliani] after Giuliani joined in March 2005." Republican consultant Eddie Mahe responded, "It's a bit hypocritical."His scumminess, a blast from the past:
On Tuesday, Giuliani attended a campaign fundraiser hosted by a "man convicted in a notorious corruption case." An embarrassed Giuliani "came and went from last night's fundraiser without comment, ducking down in his car as ABC News cameras attempted to photograph him arriving."
On Wednesday morning, a new batch of polls show Giuliani's support fading in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.
On Wednesday afternoon, the Shag Fund scandal broke.
On Thursday, while the Shag Fund scandal gathers steam, we learn that Giuliani's private security firm provided security consulting and advice in Qatar through contracts overseen by Sheik Abdullah Bin Khalid al-Thani, who is suspected of close ties to Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Osama bin Laden.
On Friday, the New York Times' Michael Cooper reported that Giuliani cites a series of statistics in his stump speech, most of which "are incomplete, exaggerated or just plain wrong."
On Saturday, the Washington Post's conservative editorial board noted that Giuliani's new TV ad is patently ridiculous, premised on tax policy assumptions that even the Bush White House rejects as foolish.
All the while, Giuliani and his aides try one defense after another for the Shag Fund scandal, none of which makes any sense.
The Rudy Giuliani campaign has denied allegations that Judith Nathan, Giuliani's one-time mistress and current wife, abused police protection during his tenure as mayor.The issue made really simple:
The campaign issued a statement, saying: "That assertion is absolutely ridiculous. The security detail was only used to protect the personal safety of Mrs. Giuliani."
At the dawn of 2001, Nathan was Giuliani's good friend and was receiving a blanket of police protection. It was an unusual circumstance, as his wife, first lady Donna Hanover, was still living at Gracie Mansion with their children.
But the mayor was unapologetic, citing security concerns.
"If you had any concern for people's safety, you'd have the decency to leave it alone. You should be ashamed of yourselves," the former mayor said back in 2001.
Six years later, presidential candidate Giuliani is facing questions about that security. A source involved with the mayor's operations at the time tells CBS 2 HD that Nathan took flagrant advantage of that police car and driver.
The source says Nathan forced police to chauffeur her friends and family around the city -- even when she wasn't in the car.
That set off alarms with ethics watchdogs.
"The rules are clear, you can't use city resources for private reasons," said Gene Russianoff of the New York Public Interest Research Group. "And if you're using a city car, a police driven car to chauffeur around relatives, unless they're explicitly protected and their deemed to be the subject of potential security threats, it's just wrong."
Nathan's detail was approved by the NYPD after a stranger made an unspecified threat to her. The commissioner at the time was Bernard Kerik, who was recently indicted on tax fraud charges in an unrelated matter.
"It wasn't about her being the mayor's girlfriend," Kerik said. "The person spoke to her by name and made comments to her."
On Friday, Giuliani avoided reporters' questions about the security for Nathan back then. He told reporters off camera "we've explained it."
Giuliani's press secretary, Maria Comella, angrily denounced the use of an unnamed source in this story.
But she did not deny the assertion that Nathan used her police detail to ferry around friends and family.
And she repeated what Giuliani has said about reports questioning how his security detail was financed, saying, "This is nothing more than partisan politics aimed at the Republican front-runner."
Ed Koch's Budget Director Alaire Townsend on Shag Fund budgeting ...And His defense from a person of high moral standing -- His indicted cocksucker:
"Money might get moved around within the mayor's office, but I don't know why an expense of the NYPD would get recorded that way unless you just didn't want people to find it."
Bernie Kerik vouches for Rudy on the Shag Fund (from the Times) ...A review of the State-Sponsored Adultery is here.Bernard B. Kerik, who was Mr. Giuliani’s police commissioner when some of the charges were billed, said in an interview yesterday that the security detail’s travel expenses would normally come out of the Police Department’s budget.Well that settles that, right?
“There would be no need for anyone to conceal his detail’s travel expenses,” said Mr. Kerik, who was indicted earlier this month on unrelated federal tax fraud and corruption charges. “And I think It’s ridiculous for anyone to suggest that the mayor or his staff attempted to do so.”
And here is how He is handling it:
Giuliani refused to take questions here today about allegations that travel expenses were picked up by obscure city offices when he was mayor of New York City.And here is the man of principle in action... I mean, political-candidate action, not lying, thieving fuck action:
“We’ve already explained it,” he said, walking past reporters after a town hall meeting.
Giuliani, who is normally friendly to reporters, bristled past them, and campaign staffers were unusually physical in keeping the press away. Several campaign aides told campaign reporters to return to the press area, and some of his security detail manhandled reporters. On other occasions, reporters have been free to video Giuliani as he is shaking hands and signing autographs after events, and he often informally takes questions from reporters.
Giuliani is holding a similar town hall meeting in Boca Raton, FL, but traditionally does not hold a press availability after town halls.
Jim Cramer is interviewing Rudy. I don't have the sound on, but the captions are funny. First one.
Giuliani: The US Should Increase Its Coal Supply Through Government Subsidies
About 4 minutes later:
Giuliani: Business And Government Are Separate - And That's Non-Negotiable
A Loser's Boasts
Vote for me! I am Ron Paul!Link.
I am a God! I know it all!
Women don't need the right to choose,
what you stiffs need is the right to lose!
Think about it, that happy game,
when everyone is broke the same!
When the country from end to end
is all nastiness without a friend,
where the jobs are making a tourist's capucino
or raking it in at some casino.
I'm for that all important libertarianty:
the right to steal someone's money!
I would not go to war you see,
I'd just sell another slice of posterity.
And when your children into slavery are sold...
...I'll make you buy them back... in Gold!
No one should get government protection,
and won't upon my election,
except a few based on personal selection,
to bring us closer to Hayekian perfection.
Shrimping, I tell you, is the right direction.
But women? They don't need control of fertility!
All the rapists should let their sperm go free!
What kind of tyranny would we be,
If for sperm equanimity?
And another freedom that we need,
to further that holy emotion greed,
is the right to shoot those human ants,
you know, the illegal immigrants.
Liberty for the people now that is great,
if you weren't here in time... well you're too late!
So step right up and chuck your retirement,
on an idea that is hell bent,
that every single dollar will be spent.
Come throw away those silly laws
that prevent those little human flaws.
If some guy wants to sell your children drugs,
the government shouldn't send in its DEA thugs,
and prevent the completion of this sale...
It's capitalism, they shouldn't go to jail!
If a man wants to get together with his gang,
and drag a nigger behind a car like a can,
well it is his car and his rope...
He should be free to use them, that's my hope.
This is the best law for the human race:
that at my fist stops your right, to have a face.
And when I get around to it, I'll repeal,
not just Great Society or the New Deal,
but everything that touches my eyes,
including that dirty Missouri Compromise.
If someone wants to take their slaves north they should be free
at least that's they way it seems to me.
And soon every reactionary Republican,
will know the freedoms that come,
at least when my campaign is done
from being a pragmatic Libertarian.
Being conservative means never having to say your sorry,
just borrow and squander without worry,
and make sure that not a single cent,
for social welfare is every spent.
The only solution for being black,
is be a token, or to get sent back!
So vote for me! I am Ron Paul!
I am a God! I know it all!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
