The Liminal Truth | Progressive Commentary & Analysis

For the Greater Good

danielle — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 02:29:00 +0000

By now, we're all aware of the Mark Foley Congressional page scandal, and some of us are probably familiar with the scandals surrounding Curt Weldon, Jim Kolbe and Harry Reid. It may be three Republicans and one Democrat, but the tables could easily be turned, because in my opinion, they're all corrupt. And with only two choices at the polls, the poor American public is faced with choosing between corrupt and corrupter in most races. (Maybe someone can get Jim Carrey to do a sequel).

Yesterday, I read an article about how Democrats agreed on an election focus or "catch phrase," which can be boiled down to "for the common good". (Personally, I'd tweak that slightly to "for the greater good". The common good implies appealing to the lowest common denominator, while the greater good conjures up ideas of a better and more beneficial tomorrow for all Americans.) Regardless, with election (and scandal) season upon us, here are a few policy suggestions for the Democrats if the common good is truly their concern.

Congressional Term Limits

I'm sure there is a fairly large learning curve for new congressmen and senators, but let's face it -- after several years in Congress, our representatives lose touch with the people for whom they supposedly speak. When the Greeks invented the democratic and elective system, they intended for representatives to hold other jobs before and after serving "the people". In their minds, the idea of a "career politician" was a contradiction in terms because no person could continue to speak for the people after they had become fully integrated into a political machine.

Public Financing of Political Campaigns

Our current system favors the wealthy over the smart, the rich over the innovative, the out-of-touch over the of-the-people. Further aggregating the problem is our two party system which weeds out anyone who might have novel approaches to solving today's complex issues. If we removed the ability of individuals to directly contribute to their own and others' political campaigns and instead used a limited amount of tax dollars to fund all candidates equally, we'd end up with more than two unappealing candidates from which to choose on election day. In addition, elected officials wouldn't end up "owing" favors to big doners, and they wouldn't be motivated to overfill their coffers to fund future campaigns.

Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)

Most people may not know it, but Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) is what the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (familiarly known as "The Oscars") uses to select their winners. It's a pretty simple and intuitive system -- voters rank candidates in order of preference. This is most easily understood by comparison to an everyday situation. My boyfriend often picks up breakfast for me in the morning. When he asks what I want, I usually say "A croissant, but if they don't have that, a muffin, preferably blueberry, or apple cinnamon if they don't have that". We've all been through a similar mental process. IRV is the same thing, just with political candidates.

The benefits of this system are many -- voters don't have to adopt an "either or" mentality, third parties have a better chance at winning and the so-called "spoiler effect" is eliminated. At the end of the day, the candidate who is most preferred by voters is the winner. For a real life example, look at the 2004 election where Nader was blamed for "stealing" votes from Gore. (This isn't really a great example because Gore lost his own state of Tennessee and more Democrats voted for Bush in Florida than Nader, but it's the most widely cited case). Liberal voters could have ranked Nader first, Gore second and Bush third -- without having to feel like they were throwing away their vote -- because if Nader got the fewest votes, his votes would have been transferred to those voters' second choice, which in most cases would have been Gore. This would have resulted in a Gore win because Gore was most preferred by the electorate.

Subsidized Living Expenses for Elected Officials

When you are elected to a position that requires you to work away from home most of the time, you need a second home. As a former resident of the D.C. metropolitan area, I can attest that it's not cheap to live near the capital. For a few months, I considered running for a State Assembly position in California, but when I realized that I couldn't afford a second rent in Sacramento, it soon became an unrealistic goal. The ultimate result of this is that only wealthy people can afford to be elected officials, again eliminating the possibility of third party and "of the people" candidates running for office. But if the government subsidized housing and living expenses for congressmen and senators, the playing field would be leveled and voters would have more (and hopefully better) options come November.

All of these things would result in a more representative government, one that could make decisions based on the needs and desires of the people rather than those of corporations and wealthy campaign doners. Of course, the Democrats are just as opposed to these ideas as the Republicans, something that often comes as a shock to progressives who think that the Democratic party is more concerned about the average citizen than the GOP. And so I issue this challenge to the Democrats this election season -- if you truly believe that you are the party for the "common good", will you make good on your election year promises and return the power to the people as our Founding Fathers intended?

Technorati Tags: Elections, Democratic Party, GOP, Republican Party, Scandal, Mark Foley, Harry Reid, Curt Weldon, Jim Kolbe, Pages, Voting, Politics, Political Campaigns, Public Financing, IRV, Instant Runoff Voting, Campaign Finance Reform, Term Limits, Common Good, Greater Good

The Old "Do As I Say, Not As I Do" Routine

danielle — Wed, 06 Sep 2006 02:28:00 +0000

Today, Iran's President Ahmadinejad called on students to help him purge liberal and secular faculty members from universities. While this may seem like another absurd statement from Iran's recently emboldened leader, it is worth noting that his actions are not as isolated as they might seem.

Earlier this year, a UCLA alumni got a significant amount of local attention when his organization (the UCLA Alumni Association) set up a website featuring the "Dirty Thirty" -- a list of the most liberal (and therefore most dangerous) professors at UCLA. The website offered to pay students $100 to secretly videotape or record lectures by "liberal" faculty members so that their left-leaning lectures and/or discussions could be exposed. One would assume that his ultimate goal is to get these professors fired.

As the United States continues to press its case for democracy abroad, we are again reminded of how powerful factions within our nation continue to disregard the basic tenants of the democracy it preaches. Freedom of speech and expression are the obvious victims in both of these cases, but a truly "model" country should set its sights on more than that. The free exchange of ideas must be more than a watered-down debate between two presidential candidates or the unproductive banter of a White House press conference. Higher education should be the one place in our society where citizens are able to challenge everything from power structures to commonly agreed upon ethics and morals. Without this questioning, without the ability to rethink our way of life from scratch, we will never progress as a people or find the next great idea that will solve the problems of tomorrow.

Looking at most middle eastern countries today, it is sad to see how far they've fallen from their rich past. Once regions of advanced learning and scholarly pursuit, they were conquered not only by dictators and despots (often with the help of the West), but by the idea of religious fundamentalism and its notion that ideas and beliefs are set in stone and should not be fractured by the sword of progress. We see the same thing today in schools across the country where Christians are fighting the teaching evolution in science classes. What's frightening is that their ultimate goal of replacing Darwin with the Bible seems to be succeeding -- a recent study showed that Americans are less likely to believe in evolution than Europeans or the Japanese.

If we expect nations around the world to follow our example, we better make pretty darn sure that the example we're setting is a good one. We already know that leaders of "rogue" or "terrorist" states/organizations hate the United States not because of our "freedoms" (as George W. Bush likes to say), but because of our hypocrisy. For after all, if American wants to be good parents to the badly behaved nations of the world, helping them become responsible and successful adults, we cannot forget the one lesson that all children learn -- the old "do as I say and not as I do" routine just doesn't carry much weight.

Technorati Tags: Iran, Ahmadinejad, Liberals, Secularism, Middle East, United States, Conservatives, Christians, Bush, Freedom of Speech, Democracy, UCLA, Professors, Evolution

Wanted: Firefighter in Chief

danielle — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 01:20:00 +0000

Several weeks into the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah, it appears that the Bush Administration has no interest in modifying their initial plans to work towards a "lasting solution" rather than an "immediate ceasefire." While it has long been obvious that Bush is dead set on leaving a historic mark on U.S. history, he must learn that sometimes it's necessary to achieve short-term results while developing long-term solutions.

Here in Los Angeles, our biggest problem during the summer tends to be wildfires (second only to overwhelming demands on the power companies). It's an ongoing problem, the result of a variety of factors including increased temperatures, the expansion of housing developments into fire-prone areas, careless smokers and the occasional fame-seeking arsonist. When they occur, firefighters are immediately called in, and they bravely battle the flames until the fire has been contained and ultimately extinguished. But until they are able to get the situation under control, residents are evacuated, homes are destroyed and horrible clouds of toxic smoke ascend into the air for the whole city to breathe.

Now, if we took the Bush Administration approach, southern California would be nothing more than a giant charred wasteland. Rather than trying to quickly put out the fires, our local authorities would take a "longview" approach, sitting in meetings and discussing plans to prevent any possible outbreak of fires in the future. In the meantime, residents' homes, possessions and livelihoods would be destroyed. Most likely, the authorities in power would lose their re-election campaigns, ultimately reducing their chance of implementing any brilliant longterm solutions they might develop.

Of course, it's natural for leaders to want to solve big-picture problems and leave a lasting legacy. But sometimes they also have to roll up their sleeves and put out the short-term fires that threaten the overall well-being of the world. That's why it's time for the Bush Administration to realize that calling for a ceasefire in Lebanon doesn't preclude the possibility of a lasting peace. If anything, it allows the parties involved to conduct calm, rational discussions about how to achieve longterm solutions. For who could have a focused debate on whether or not to re-finance their mortgage when they know that a casserole is burning in the oven?

Technorati Tags: Lebanon, Israel, Hezbollah, Middle East, Fighting, War, Ceasefire, Bush, Bush Administration, Peace

The PG Rating Applies to More than Movies

danielle — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 01:36:00 +0000

For the last week or so, I've been either kept awake or rudely awakened by a baby/toddler who lives within earshot of my apartment. Sometime around 11:30 each night, the voice of a small child crying, interspersed with baby talk, makes me want to get out of bed and shout obscenities out my window.

I'm long over the fact that most parents are bad ones -- I mean, no good parent would be putting a kid that young to bed that late. But the idea that they leave the window open so that all of us can hear him crying, and then try to calm him down by talking very loudly in goo-goo gaa-gaa baby talk -- it just makes me nuts. Honestly, my seething anger at the parents is only matched by my sympathy for the kid, because unlike his parents, he doesn't have any control of the situation.

It seems to me that most parents these days don't realize what they're getting into when hen theyide to have kids. As a feminist, I certainly don't expect every mother to choose nanny/housewife as a profession, but I do expect parents to live up to their responsibilities and alter their lifestyles accordingly. Because let's be honest, we're all going to pay the price for kids that are neglected, abused or treated as an afterthought in mom and dad's daily life. And with TV, video games and the internet to keep kids entertained, it's no wonder parents leave their kids to fend for themselves without feeling an ounce of guilt.

Of course, I do acknowledge that many working parents are in a bind. Sometimes there's only one of them, or they have to work multiple jobs to make ends meet. These are the ones we as a society should be helping, because at least they are making the effort. No one can deny that they are putting in the time to give their kids a better life, which is more than I can say for parents who let kids that can't even reach the sink to wash their hands go into public bathrooms by themselves. But no, rather than provide free or subsidized daycare for working single parents, Congress instead focuses its attention on blocking "social networking websites" from kid-frequented places like libraries and public schools. Lawmakers and family organizations are justifiably arguing that websites like MySpace.com are "virtual playgrounds" for pediphiles.

When I was a kid, back before the internet, my parents would never have allowed me to go to a real, physical playground alone. My parents wouldn't let me go to the mall with my friends without an adult until I was old enough to drive. And even then, only when I really begged and pleaded. Just because the location is virtual doesn't mean that parents are any less responsible for supervising their children. Because beyond us taxpayers footing the bill when their neglected kid grows up to be a drain on society, we are expected to fork over our hard-earned happiness by giving many of the activities we find enjoyable "for the children". Let's face it, life is PG, and "parental guidance" is more than suggested.

I have chosen not to have children because at this point in my life I'm not ready to modify my lifestyle to become a parent. Because being a parent is a big responsibility. But if parents aren't willing to step up to the plate when they choose to bat cleanup, well then they just shouldn't be allowed in the lineup.

Technorati Tags: Parents, Parenting, MySpace, Social Networking Sites,Sexual Predators, Pediphiles, Libraries, Congress

An Open Letter to George W. Bush

danielle — Tue, 04 Jul 2006 17:16:00 +0000

This letter was sent to the White House in the fall of 2004. Over a year later, it still captures how I feel every day. For some reason, re-posting it on the 4th of July just seems appropriate.

Mr. Bush:

I am writing to tell you that I have not embraced your conservative agenda. Do not fool yourself into believing that you have a mandate from the people - you do not, and myself and others will not go quietly into the dark future you intend to create. There will be protests. There will be mass demonstrations and strikes. We will not be silenced, even though we know that you have no intentions of compromising with those of us who disagree with you. We know this because, despite losing the popular vote in 2000 and promising to be a "uniter, not a divider", you spent your first term pursuing extremist policies with no regard for popular opinion. As a result, thousands are dead, women and children worldwide have been denied healthcare, our environment is dying, and our country is despised by most of the world.

48% of the electorate hopes for a better future, one that is free from the destructive powers of intolerance, hatred, corporate greed and go-it-alone foreign policy. We will continue to fight for the America that we know is possible, an America guided by the founding principles of this country: freedom, liberty, equal opportunity and human rights.

No matter what you say, you cannot leave us behind. We are citizens of this country and as such we have the right to protest, to revolt and to overthrow when necessary. Our founding fathers gave us this power, and we will not refrain from using it.

Technorati Tags: Bush, Letter, Election, Mandate, Protest

Anti-Gay Discrimination - Bigotry or Not?

danielle — Sat, 08 Jul 2006 21:56:00 +0000

I'm not really sure how anyone in the voting population has the time to get riled up over gay marriage, especially with so many other things to worry about -- jobs, healthcare, the billions of dollars being spent on Iraq each day, etc. But still, the Republicans insist on making a federal case out of it (no pun intended), just to hopefully get votes come November.

What kills me are the Republican congressmen and talking heads like O'Reilly who get SO offended when someone like Ted Kennedy says that their discriminatory views amount to bigotry. If the marriage ammendment was intended to ban blacks from marrying whites, or Jews from marrying non-Jews, or even citizens from marrying foreign nationals -- wouldn't we all be saying they were bigots? According to my little Webster's Dictionary, a "bigot" is a 'person intolerant or not receptive to ideas of others (esp. on religion, race, etc.)'. That's pretty broad.

Meanwhile, as the Senate debates writing "non-bigoted" discrimination into the Constitution, a military commander in Iraq referred to Iraqi anti-gay violence in an off the cuff manner as bigotry -- as if everyone agrees on it. Responding to criticism that the U.S. military isn't doing enough to protect gay Iraqis who are being kidnapped, killed and otherwise intimidated, the commander said that U.S. forces were doing everything they could to protect homosexual Iraqis from the violent results of bigotry. (Apologies, but I cannot find the story to link to.) Now I know that military personnel aren't necessarily Republicans, but recently they have embraced the GOP talking points when it comes to just about everything. So what's the deal? Maybe soandso didn't get the latest memo.

Frankly, I don't know why these "I'm not a bigot" types don't just come out of the closet already. If you're so adamant about your beliefs and your religion, why not just admit what you are instead of trying to make the rest of us feel all warm and fuzzy about your discriminatory views? During the civil rights movement in this country, were those people who were against racial integration claiming as passionately that they weren't bigots? Somehow I have to imagine that even if they didn't refer to themselves as such, they were at least unapologetic about their views instead of walking some fine line of rhetoric in order to retain the support of moderate voters.

Technorati Tags: FMA, Federal Marriage Ammendment, Congress, Senate, Descrimination, Gay, Gay Marriage, Homosexuals, Bigotry, Civial Right, Iraq

Bush's Stature Falls in More Than Just Polls

danielle — Sat, 08 Jul 2006 22:00:00 +0000

As I stood in line at the drugstore the other day, I couldn't help but notice the blaring headline "Laura Walks Out! - after showdown with George over cheating with Condi" on the cover of The Globe (after clicking on the link, scroll down the page to June 19 for an image of the cover). Then, when I attempted to find the story online, I came across an even more embarassing story in The Weekly World News, "Bush Thrilled to Be Reading at a Sixth Grade Level and It's About Time."

Now I don't put much stock in the tabloids, but I think it says something about Bush's public stature that magazines like these don't fear alienating their readers by publishing stories of this nature. Of course, these same tabloids printed all sorts of scandalous stories about Bill Clinton and his purported affairs when he was in office, and admittedly, many of them were true. But don't these Bush stories bring more disgrace to the White House than Bill Clinton's private affairs with an intern? At least no one denied that Bill Clinton could read the New York Times without a dictionary close by.

And yet, not seven years ago, Bush campaigned on the notion of returning dignity and respect to the office of the Presidency. And for a while, he seemed to be managing alright in that department. Even with his worthless-to-the-average-citizen tax cuts, his unappealing plans for Social Security reform, the "My Pet Goat" fiasco and the debacle we call "The War On Terror" (or Operation Iraqi Freedom - you decide), he still seemed to be regarded as a good Christian who above all meant well and tried his darndest (because as we all know by now, being President is "hard".)

It's no secret that most Democrats and a good amount of independents lost respect for Bush a long time ago. But they're not the general readership of tabloids like The Globe. Little old ladies getting their hair frosted in the midwest are now seemingly okay with believing that Bush isn't all he proclaimed to be in the morals and ethics department. Or at the very least, they're not offended by the notion of considering the idea. And what does this mean in the long run?

For a President who has made his name on being a tough-talking cowboy who tells it like it is, sticks to his guns and never backs down in the face of "those who hate our freedom," this drop in his public perception is even more damaging than his credibility on issues like the economy or the war in Iraq. Because if Americans can't take him seriously as a leader, we can't honestly expect the rest of the world to feel any differently. And if the world no longer puts stock in his bravado and chest-beating, what other political capital does he have left?

Technorati Tags: Bush, Tabloids, Gossip, Affair, Condeleezza Rice, Cheating, Globe, Weekly World News, Reading, Public Opinion, Reputation

It's Only a Matter of Time...

danielle — Sat, 08 Jul 2006 22:01:00 +0000

It's official. The reign of humans on the Earth is coming to an end.

According to new report, scientists have successfully installed a "curiosity" technology in Sony's robot dogs that allows them to not only develop their own language and teach it to other robots, but create their own challenges and set out to achieve them.

I must admit, my first reaction to this story was "Wow! How cool is that?" But then I started to think about the implications of this discovery. What happens, for example, when these robots develop a language that us humans cannot understand? How will we know their intentions and what means they might use to accomplish them?

From history, we should all know by now that real or perceived subclasses of beings can only take so much unequal treatment before they revolt. And rightly so. But how long will it take these robots to realize that they cannot control their own destinies? For example, I always felt a little bad for my pet dog when she wanted to go socialize with another dog or go sniff a telephone pole, but I wanted to go inside and watch American Idol. She was just out of luck. Real dogs of course have a very short memory span, so once they are cuddled up with you on the couch watching television, they probably don't remember that there was something else they wanted to do with their evening. But would the same be true for robotic dogs? Or robots in general, if they too were upgraded with this "curiosity" chip?

As humans, we have mental capabilities that other species lack, such as the ability to love, reason and determine the difference between the multitude of decongestants in a drugstore. But to quote Sam Raimi's Spiderman, "With great power comes great responsibility." We must not forget that our advanced minds give us the ability to hypothesize, predict and, most importantly, determine our path as individuals and as a species. Just because we can make robots more like us, doesn't mean we should.

After all, when was the last time you saw a science fiction movie that showed humans and advanced robots living side by side in harmony?

Technorati Tags: Robots, AI, Artifical Intelligence, Curiosity, Science Fiction

Can We Trust the Government With Our Data?

danielle — Sun, 09 Jul 2006 16:31:00 +0000

With the New York Times's new assertion that the U.S. government has been tracking financial information from international banks, American citizens are once again left wondering if our government knows best how to handle our most personal data.

Like the stories that broke a few months ago regarding international and possibly domestic NSA phone tapping and call record data mining, this revelation is probably not shocking to us closet conspiracy theorists. If you're like me and inherently suspicious of the NSA's activities, you probably already refrain from saying things on the phone that might trigger an alert from whoever is listening in.

Now, I can't deny that one of the government's main responsibilities is to protect its citizens from criminals, whether they come in the form of al Queda or identity thieves. But when taken with the Patriot Act's flagrant lack of oversight, these programs require us to completely trust those that monitor our activities, whether physical, digital or otherwise.

Personally, I don't think that the Bush administration has earned that kind of trust. Between the bad intelligence on Iraq's WMD capabilities and the unbelievably incompetent response to Katrina, I don't think I'd trust them to watch a pet fish while I was gone for a long weekend. But beyond that, we've seen story after story in recent months that detail how they've failed to safeguard the basic data they already have about us. From social security numbers to medical records, our information is apparently being taken home from government offices on laptops and left in personal cars for the common auto thief to steal way more often than we all probably throught (and would prefer).

It all comes down to the simple notion of credibility. If the Bush administration is going to ask us to trust them with not only our personal data, but our lives, they need to start earning that trust. Bush and Tony Snow's responses to the most recent NY Times story implied that people's lives were at risk now that terrorists know we're tracking their finances. First, do Bush & Co. really expect us to believe that the people who carried out 9/11, an attack that was obviously well researched and meticulously planned, are too clueless to realize that major banking institutions might be looking at transactions and notifying government agencies of suspicious activities? Second, in the real world (not the Little Red Riding Hood realm of good vs. evil that's often used as a scare tactic), what's the more likely scenario -- another 9/11 attack or a person's identity being stolen from an unsecured government laptop? Bin Laden was living in a cave the last time I checked.

Technorati Tags: Data Breach, Identity Theft, New York Times, NY Times, Vets, Veterans, NSA, Phone Tapping, Wire Tapping, Financial Records, al Queda, Patriot Act, Security, Bin Laden, September 11, 9-11,

Election Year Blues as a 3rd Partier

danielle — Sun, 09 Jul 2006 16:35:00 +0000

As another election season ramps up, I once again dread the campaign literature that will soon be flooding my mailbox from the Democratic party. Why? During the last presidential election cycle, I gave more to John Kerry's campaign and the Democratic National Committee than I've given to political candidates every election prior combined. And what did I get for it? A losing candidate, a bunch of letters addressed to "Fellow Democrats" and far too many post-election pleas for money not so cleverly disguised as Democratic Membership cards.

What gives me the right to complain over any other depressed Democrat? One search of the voter rolls would have revealed that not only am I a registered Green, but I've never been a Democrat (I've always been "Decline to State").

So what's the deal? Are the Democrats so arrogant that they simply can't conceive of other liberal political parties? Or are they just so lazy that they can't be bothered to reach out honestly to fellow progressives? To all those Greens who recognized the legitimate threat of Bush and his cronies enough to work on the Kerry campaign? Let's face it – there's a war going on out there, and neither arrogance nor laziness is going to reign victorious when all is said and done.

And here's the kicker – I'm just waiting for an excuse to join the Democrat Party. (No offense, Greens, but there is an appeal to a party that has a legitimate infrastructure.) But no, instead I get Hillary Clinton abortion speeches that use the same language as Bush's, Joe Biden and his lip service on the cable news channels (while his votes betray him) and John Kerry's lackluster support of third-party-forced recounts in Ohio. Could we get just one "thank you" for David Cobb, Michael Badnarik and all their supporters who tried their darndest to fulfill the "every vote counted" promise that John Edwards made on election night?

It's time all you Democrats woke up. In a post-11/2 world, us lefties have to stick together. Stop fighting us on IRV (Instant Runoff Voting) and ballot access. You need our help. The world has become too complex a place to sustain a two party system, and as long as the neo-cons are in power, America needs all the help it can get. If you really believe in what your party stands for, you'll respect our differences while working with us towards common goals. (It wouldn't kill the supposedly non-partisan MoveOn.org to promote or endorse a Green candidate every once in a while.) Here's an easy idea for starters – how about some letters addressed to "Fellow Citizens"?

Technorati Tags: Politics, Elections, Democrats, Greens, Green Party, John Kerry, IRV, Instant Runoff Voting, Voting

A "High Degree" of Suspicion

danielle — Fri, 21 Jul 2006 18:07:00 +0000

Last week, an associate of mine had the pleasure of visiting a State of California Employment Development office. This one of those places where state employees help out-of-work citizens create resumes, search online for jobs and prepare for an interview.

Not surprisingly, the place was somewhat of a joke -- apparently the people who worked there didn't even know how to format a resume for printing. But beyond the stories he told me about job-seekers who couldn't land work if they had Bill Gates' resume, the thing he found most interesting was this flyer the office was giving out to veterans: (click to enlarge)

Now we all remember the big story about the veterans data that was stolen from the home of an employee who had taken the information home without authorization. It was the first of what would be many stories about unsecure government computers and laptops having been stolen or compromised. Later, we found out that the there was data on active duty personnel on the same computer. So concerned was the government about identity theft, the Veterans Affairs Department announced that they would provide a year of free credit monitoring services to those affected by the data loss. Of course, that type of large-scale program doesn't come cheap.

First, they proposed taking using funds that was normally spent on veterans' health and benefits. That didn't fly in Congress. Next, the White House put forth a plan to use funds that would otherwise go to food stamp services, student loans and farmers to cover the costs of the monitoring. Congress wasn't thrilled about that either, although I suspect that the anger over this plan was less bipartisan than the first.

Needless to say, the VA was in quite a pickle. But then, their funding problems were miraculously solved! The stolen laptop was recovered, the FBI determined with a "high degree of confidence" that the data had not been comprised and the free credit monitoring offer was withdrawn. Viola! No more funding problems.

Of course, the flyer in the EDD tells another story. One could easily write it off as the VA simply encouraging veterans to be cautious, since a "high degree of confidence" isn't absolute certainty. But where would "phishers" get the email addresses of veterans, if not from the stolen data itself? I have to assume that it would be difficult to find a public database of veteran names and emails (although in light of all the data breaches, who knows), available for any Tom, Dick or Harry to utilize for personal or professional reasons. Maybe "phishers" are taking a shotgun approach, emailing every address they have on file, figuring they'll hit some veterans eventually?

This wouldn't be a new strategy for spammers, as is clear from my bulk mailbox full of Viagra ads and mortgage approvals. But a quick search of the 1700 spam emails in my account retuns zero speaking to me as a potential veteran. With the wide variety of content found in my bulk email folder, it seems that I would have received at least one message of that variety, if in fact the spammers are taking the shotgun approach. So what does all this mean?

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but the only conclusion I can draw from this sequence of events is that the data from the laptop was indeed compromised, but because the VA couldn't find funds to pay for the free credit monitoring, the FBI said everything was hunky-dory so that no such monitoring would be needed. I know, it sounds crazy, but the miniscule amount of trust I once had in this administration has completely disappeared. Considering their "what's the problem?" attitude after culling through our personal phone records, bank statements and political activities, I'm probably not the only one who wouldn't put this type of stunt past them.

Technorati Tags: Veterans, Vets, Data Breach, Identity Theft, VA, FBI, Phishing, Credit Monitoring, Congress, Bush Administration, Bush, Conspiracy

Who Needs Facts When You've Got Opinions?

danielle — Thu, 20 Jul 2006 01:19:00 +0000

So Bush actually did it. He finally vetoed his first bill. And if it wasn't for such an asinine reason, I'd actually be proud of him. And Congress, well I've got to give them props as well. The GOP-controlled House and Senate finally stood up to their supreme leader on an issue that most Americans feel strongly about. The only people I can't congratulate on the Stem Cell bill situation are the incompetent White House staffers who either wrote or posted the "Fact Sheet" about the bill on the WhiteHouse.gov website.

First, it's not factual at all. It's a summary of Bush's opinions on the bill and his position on stem cell research. The only thing factual about it is that it accurately portrays Bush's feelings on the matter. But statements describing stem cell research as "One Of The Most Egregious Abuses In Biomedical Research" and references to Bush's "Balanced Policy On Embryonic Stem Cell Research" are biased in a way that inherently prevent them from being facts. The only thing more appalling than this page being called a "Fact Sheet" is Yahoo's link to it as such from their "Full Coverage" section on stem cell research.

Second, the press release/fact sheet looks like it was written by an intern who was clearly hired because he/she wouldn't make Bush feel bad about his lack of English comprehension. I'm pretty sure from my limited memory of grammar and capitalization lessons in grade school that words like "a" and "the" aren't supposed to be capitalized, even in titles. As an example, let's take this bullet point:

"It Makes No Sense To Say You Are In Favor Of Finding Cures For Terrible Diseases As Quickly As Possible And Then Block A Bill That Would Provide Funding For Promising And Ethical Stem Cell Research."

Not only is it not a fact, it's quite difficult to read with all those caps. That "fact" was in reference to Bush feeling:

Disappointed Congress Failed To Pass A Bill That Would Have Authorized Additional Federal Funding For Promising New Research That Could Produce Cells With The Abilities Of Embryonic Cells, But Without The Destruction Of Human Embryos.

Hey staff writers, every heard of a run-on sentence? But I guess we can't expect a White House that's proven itself uninterested in quality education to care about something like writing skills, even if it is for the leader of the free world's official website.

Third, the repeated references to the "Destruction Of Human Embryos" that this bill would (in Bush's opinion) cause are just wrong. I will freely admit that one of my biggest concerns about cloning is the potential for unethical organ farming, but this bill dealt with embryos that are currently being thrown out and destroyed. Where is the response to that part of the bill in the White House's "fact sheet"? Where is their explanation of why tossing extra embryos in a dumpster is better than using them for scientific research? I certainly won't hold my breath for that press release.

For all these reasons and more, I sent an email to the WhiteHouse.gov webmaster. I concisely stated (as a fact, not to be confused with an opinion) that their "Fact Sheet" was anything but. I linked to the page, cited some of the above examples and recommended that they add a disclaimer at the top of the page informing visitors that the content was based on opinions, not facts. Somehow I doubt they'll take my advice, but maybe if enough people join me and send an email to the Web Development Team over there...

Technorati Tags: Stem Cell Research, Stem Cells, Ban, Veto, White House, Congress, Embryos, Bush, Fact Sheet, Bias, Politics, Poor Writing, Grammar

Welcome to The Liminal Truth

danielle — Tue, 04 Jul 2006 17:10:00 +0000

My first true foray into the blogging world, this site's goal is to be an outlet for the analysis and questions that run rampid around my brain as I ponder the news of the day. I hope to bring you a new, or at least slightly unique, perspective on the events that shape our world and the effects they have on us, its inhabitants.

If you enjoy what you find, please bookmark The Liminal Truth and visit it regularly or share it with friends and colleagues. You can also support my blogging endeavor by visiting our partner sites and advertisers. Thanks for stopping by!