JetBlue and CAPPS II

I don’t know anything about what area of the country they serve, as I’ve never heard of them before, but it seems like the JetBlue airline is going to be the testbed for the blatantly invasive CAPPS II program.

In a secret, off-the-record meeting held recently at TSA headquarters, TSA chief James M. Loy informed an elite audience of conservative opinion-makers that JetBlue Airways is replacing Delta Airlines as the “testing platform” for the CAPPS II internal border control system.  The meeting was attended by former US Representative Bob Barr as well as leaders from several conservative public policy groups.

Don’t fly JetBlue.

(via Kottke)

Just another day of lies

The Powers That Be that run this country (into the ground, apparently) don’t seem to be physically or psychologically capable of telling the truth anymore. The Nation’s David Corn takes a look at “The Latest Bush Gang Whoppers” today, including this from our Dear Leader…

September is back-to-school time, and Bush hit the road to promote his education policies. During a speech at a Nashville elementary school, he hailed his education record by noting that “the budget for next year boosts funding for elementary and secondary education to \$53.1 billion. That’s a 26-percent increase since I took office. In other words, we understand that resources need to flow to help solve the problems.” A few things were untrue in these remarks. Bush’s proposed elementary and secondary education budget for next year is \$34.9 billion, not \$53.1 billion, according to his own Department of Education. It’s his total proposed education budget that is \$53.1 billion. More importantly, there is no next-year “boost” in this budget. Elementary and secondary education received \$35.8 billion in 2003. Bush’s 2004 budget cuts that back nearly a billion dollars, and the overall education spending in his budget is the same as the 2003 level. Instead of a “boost,” there is the opposite–a decrease. Perhaps like Rumsfeld–and Cheney and Wolfowitz–the president merely was overstating.

(via Tom Tomorrow)

Twenty Questions

Why don’t we have answers to these 9/11 questions?

  1. What did National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice tell President Bush about al Qaeda threats against the United States in a still-secret briefing on Aug. 6, 2001?
  2. Why did Attorney General John Ashcroft and some Pentagon officials cancel commercial-airline trips before Sept. 11?
  3. Who made a small fortune “shorting” airline and insurance stocks before Sept. 11?
  4. Are all 19 people identified by the government as participants in the Sept. 11 attacks really the hijackers?
  5. Did any of the hijackers smuggle guns on board as reported in calls from both Flight 11 and Flight 93?
  6. Why did the NORAD air defense network fail to intercept the four hijacked jets?
  7. Why did President Bush continue reading a story to Florida grade-schoolers for nearly a half-hour during the worst attack on America in its history?
  8. How did Flight 93 crash in western Pennsylvania?
  9. Was Zacarias Moussaoui really “the 20th hijacker”?
  10. Where are the planes’ “black boxes”?
  11. Why were Donald Rumsfeld and other U.S. officials so quick to link Saddam Hussein to the attacks?
  12. Why did 7 World Trade Center collapse?
  13. Why did the Bush administration lie about dangerously high levels of toxins and hazardous particles after the WTC collapse?
  14. Where is Dick Cheney’s undisclosed location?
  15. What happened to the more than \$1 billion that Americans donated after the attack?
  16. What was the role of Pakistan’s spy agency in the Sept. 11 attacks and the subsequent murder of U.S. journalist Daniel Pearl?
  17. Who killed five Americans with anthrax?
  18. What happened to the probe into C-4 explosives found in a Philadelphia bus terminal in fall 2001?
  19. What is in the 28 blacked-out pages of the congressional Sept. 11 report?
  20. Where is Osama bin Laden?

(via MeFi)

Hu's on first?

Seeing as how something tells me this is a good day for a little levity, and I keep getting laughs out of these, I’m continuing on a theme here. Hopefully nobody minds too terribly much! I actually had this posted on another blog a while ago, but here it is again.

Hu’s on first?

We take you now to the Oval Office…

George: Condi! Nice to see you. What’s happening?

Condi: Sir, I have the report here about the new leader of China.

George: Great. Lay it on me.

Condi: Hu is the new leader of China.

George: That’s what I want to know.

Condi: That’s what I’m telling you.

George: That’s what I’m asking you. Who is the new leader of China?

Condi: Yes.

George: I mean the fellow’s name.

Condi: Hu.

George: The guy in China.

Condi: Hu.

George: The new leader of China.

Condi: Hu.

George: The Chinaman!

Condi: Hu is leading China.

George: Now whaddya’ asking me for?

Condi: I’m telling you Hu is leading China.

George: Well, I’m asking you. Who is leading China?

Condi: That’s the man’s name.

George: That’s whose name?

Condi: Yes.

George: Will you or will you not tell me the name of the new leader of China?

Condi: Yes, sir.

George: Yassir? Yassir Arafat is in China? I thought he was in the Middle East.

Condi: That’s correct.

George: Then who is in China?

Condi: Yes, sir.

George: Yassir is in China?

Condi: No, sir.

George: Then who is?

Condi: Yes, sir.

George: Yassir?

Condi: No, sir.

George: Look, Condi. I need to know the name of the new leader of China. Get me the Secretary General of the U.N. on the phone.

Condi: Kofi?

George: No, thanks.

Condi: You want Kofi?

George: No.

Condi: You don’t want Kofi.

George: No. But now that you mention it, I could use a glass of milk. And then get me the U.N.

Condi: Yes, sir.

George: Not Yassir! The guy at the U.N.

Condi: Kofi?

George: Milk! Will you please make the call?

Condi: And call who?

George: Who is the guy at the U.N?

Condi: Hu is the guy in China.

George: Will you stay out of China?!

Condi: Yes, sir.

George: And stay out of the Middle East! Just get me the guy at the U.N.

Condi: Kofi.

George: All right! With cream and two sugars. Now get on the phone.

(Condi picks up the phone.)

Condi: Rice, here.

George: Rice? Good idea. And a couple of egg rolls, too. Maybe we should send some to the guy in China. And the Middle East. Can you get Chinese food in the Middle East?

— by James Sherman

Dean 'near-perfect' in latest debate

I missed another debate among the Democratic challengers last night. Unlike the last one, though, this time Dean apparently strongly held his place as the definite front runner. Two quotes from some of the various recaps caught my eye this morning:

Slate’s William Saletan had this to say:

Howard Dean’s performance was near-perfect. Strategically, Dean is way ahead of the pack. He has fulfilled the affirmative part of the campaign: giving people enough reasons to vote for him. Now he has the luxury of focusing on the negative part: dispelling the reasons to vote against him. Accordingly, his preparation for the last two debates seems to have focused on acting presidential and conveying competence in military and foreign policy. Tonight he accomplished both. He was at ease and in command.

And according to Adam Nagourney and Jodi Wilgoren of the New York Times, Kerry is feeling the pressure from Dean:

The dominance that Dr. Dean has enjoyed, and the corresponding exasperation that has caused his rivals, was clear even before the candidates sat down in Baltimore tonight. Senator Kerry was talking to reporters before the debate here, where he was repeatedly questioned about Dr. Dean’s standing in the race and things that he had said.

After Mr. Kerry finished his news conference and began walking away with an aide, David Wade, a live microphone picked him up muttering with evident annoyance: “Dean, Dean, Dean, Dean.”

Sorry, Kerry, but from everything I’ve read, and what little I’ve seen, you just don’t impress me. I’d vote for Kerry if he got the nomination, if only to vote against Bush, but I’m really hoping that it is Dean that gets the nomination.

In fact, I’m actually looking forward to subscribing to whatever cable package I need to next year, just so I can watch a Bush/Dean presidential race debate. The thought of that lying, hedging, mealymouthed stumblebum of a president trying to go up against the confidence, poise, and fire that Dean so often shows (and is apparently getting much better at as things progress) is incredibly amusing. I’m definitely looking forward to actually being able to see Bush fall flat on his face come 2004.

(via Mathew Gross, Kos, and Len)

Good God, this is frightening

Planning a trip anywhere next year? It might not be a bad idea to make driving plans instead of flying — since the US is planning to start flagging and detaining travellers at the airports.

In the most aggressive — and, some say, invasive — step yet to protect air travelers, the federal government and the airlines will phase in a computer system next year to measure the risk posed by every passenger on every flight in the United States.

The new Transportation Security Administration system seeks to probe deeper into each passenger’s identity than is currently possible, comparing personal information against criminal records and intelligence information. Passengers will be assigned a color code — green, yellow or red — based in part on their city of departure, destination, traveling companions and date of ticket purchase.

Most people will be coded green and sail through. But up to 8 percent of passengers who board the nation’s 26,000 daily flights will be coded “yellow” and will undergo additional screening at the checkpoint, according to people familiar with the program. An estimated 1 to 2 percent will be labeled “red” and will be prohibited from boarding. These passengers also will face police questioning and may be arrested.

The system “will provide protections for the flying public,” said TSA spokesman Brian Turmail. “Not only should we keep passengers from sitting next to a terrorist, we should keep them from sitting next to wanted ax murderers.”

Okay, ignoring the “ax murderer” line for now — surely one of the most blatantly idiotic and ripe for ridicule statments reported in the press lately (which is saying something, given our current president) — let’s just take a look at the numbers here. The article mentions 26,000 daily flights. Assuming 100 passengers per flight (quite possibly a low estimate), that’s 2,600,000 people screened per day. Of those, up to 8 percent — 208,000 people — will be “yellow tagged” for extra screening. One to two percent — between 26,000 and 52,000 people — will be “red tagged”, questioned by police, and possibly arrested.

Per day.

That’s insane.

From later on in the article:

The existing system identifies certain passengers as risky based on a set of assumptions about how terrorists travel. For instance, passengers are flagged for additional screening if they bought a one-way airline ticket, or if they paid with cash instead of a credit card. Passengers who present a threat under these and other criteria are issued boarding passes that bear a coding of “SSS” or \”***.\”

Well, that explains some of the fun I’ve had travelling over the past couple years. While the measures quoted above were enacted after I moved to Seattle, when I did move here, I did so by purchasing a one-way ticket (since I was moving, there wasn’t much sense in a round-trip flight), and doing so with cash (technically a check, but it certainly wasn’t by credit card, as due to my own goofs in past years, my current credit rating doesn’t allow me to get a credit card). Since then, when I’ve travelled, though the flights have been round-trip and purchased (probably) by credit card, the tickets have been purchased by people other than myself (usually my parents, when I’ve visited Alaska) — and I’m guessing that that’s quite possibly another flag. Either that, or I’m just naturally threatening, since I’ve been pulled out of the line on every flight I’ve been on since Sept. 11 for extra screening. This doesn’t bode well for my chances on future flights under the new system.

Under the new program, the airline will send information about everyone who books a flight to the TSA, including full name, home address, home telephone number, date of birth and travel itinerary. If the computer system identifies a threat, the TSA will notify federal or local law enforcement authorities. The agency has not indicated the number or type of personnel needed to oversee the program.

The TSA will check each passenger in two steps. The first will match the passenger’s name and information against databases of private companies that collect information on people for commercial reasons, such as their shopping habits. This process will generate a numerical score that will indicate the likelihood that the passenger is who he says he is. Passengers will not be informed of their color code or their numerical score. The second step matches passenger information against government intelligence combined with local and state outstanding warrants for violent felonies.

All of your personal information will be used to catalog and profile you, including shopping habits. Don’t splurge on a new toy you’ve been saving for — that’s outside of your normal shopping profile, and you must not be you! Don’t buy an present for a friend that isn’t anything you’d normally buy. And for god’s sake, don’t suddenly start buying a lot of liberal anti-government publications — you’re obviously a terrorist! The worst part is, I’m not sure that I’m actually overreacting here.

The ACLU is listing their five problems with CAPPS II. In brief:

  1. The Black Box: Americans Judged In Secret
  2. Effectiveness: This System Will Not Make Us Any Safer
  3. Mission Creep: Build It And It Will Grow
  4. Due Process: No Notification, No Correction, No Appeal
  5. Discriminatory impact: the potential for systematic unequal treatment

Salon is also looking at this, though while I’ve yet to read anything but the teaser, it seems they’re looking at another angle:

It’s at once an Orwellian prospect and a potential gold mine for the travel industry: A database of the type envisioned by the government would allow hotels and airlines to get their hands on your lifetime itinerary.

And, lastly, there’s some good (frustrated, upset, pissed off, sarcastic) commentary in the MetaFilter thread about this.

As opposed to the standard color coding system that takes place outside of airports of white and brown…

jonson

Hmm. In addition to the always popular “Driving whilst black”, doubtless we shall now have added “Flying whilst muslim”. Phew. Thank goodness this is the land of the free, and not some tyrannical regime that locks up innocent citizens for nothing, eh?

kaemaril

So, rather than address some very real security issues, the TSA gives us a horribly flawed system ripe for abuse and the illusion of safety procured at the expense of civil liberties. Gee, thanks.

UnReality

So the logical next step might be to make the non-green passengers wear something to make them more identifiable. I don’t know…how about an armband with a yellow star? (Presumably a red star wouldn’t be needed since the exceptionally non-green would just be taken out back and shot.)

327.ca

I am of the belief that things like this are leaked in an effort to gauge public opinion. It is therefore imperative that those who disagree with it be as vocal as possible.

jpoulos (emphasis mine, however)

Just as an paranoid aside: what, exactly, stops them from implementing a similar system – you know, just to make sure you’re not sitting next to a terrorist or axe murderer – on trains and buses? I’m sure nobody could object too strenously to being “profiled” upon buying a train or bus ticket. Could they? Maybe a few random bus and train “inspections” every so often by the police, making sure you’ve got a valid right to travel … after all, travel is a luxury and not a right :)

kaemaril

The Doctor is in!

Real life imitates art.

(via Dori Smith — sorry for the word-for-word copy, but with four words to work with, it seemed silly to rework it)

Update:

Of course, the thing about flash mobs (at least originally) is that they were underground, unpublicised, seemingly-spontaneous events. With this particular one originating in a comic strip, being turned into reality, and then posted around the ‘net (here, Dori’s post, Blog for America, The Democratic Primary 2004 Thread, The Mediaburn Radio Weblog, Pacific Views, and probably many others), doesn’t that more or less kill much of the original spirit of the ‘flash mob’ meme?

Or maybe I’m just grumbling again.

New Patriotism

Newsweek asks this week if it may be time for a New Patriotism. I’d say yes.

…Was it patriotic for the White House to instruct the EPA to put out a press release after 9/11 saying the air around Ground Zero was safe when there was no evidence for it? Was it patriotic to invade Iraq when there was no sign of an imminent threat and plenty to suggest that it would seriously detract from the war on Al Qaeda? Was it patriotic for the White House to allow American companies that reap millions in contracts with the Department of Homeland Security to incorporate in Bermuda in order to avoid paying taxes?

Perhaps most important, is it patriotic to define patriotism the old-fashioned way — as a kind of narrow nationalism? That jingoistic definition is carrying a price for the president, who must now go on bended knee to allies he so recently scorned. When you’re spending \$1 billion a week in Iraq, dissing our friends, as Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld have done consistently, seems to be a tad … counter-productive. Those “freedom fries” in the House cafeteria are burning us now; those gibes that John Kerry “looks French” don’t look so clever.

(via Robert Scoble)

Fifteen

In 15 minutes, he attempted to make up for 15 months of misleading the American people and 15 weeks of mismanaging the reconstruction.

— Howard Dean responding to President Bush’s address to the nation, via CNN

Debate wrapups

While I didn’t get to watch tonight’s Democratic debate, there’s a good wrap up from the New York Times, and some very interesting discussion in comment threads to posts on Daily Kos and Blog for America (in three seperate threads).

From the gist of what I’ve read so far, it seems that while Dean wasn’t at his best, he did hold his spot at the top of the pack, while Lieberman came off like a complete ass. Some of the most interesting comments are on the Blog for America threads — hardcore Dean supporters who realize that Dean wasn’t at his best, and rather than either despairing or blindly declaring him the ‘winner’, they’re offering lots of constructive criticism and ideas on how to approach later debates. Neat to see, it’s a much more real form of support that one usually sees in the political arena.