Comcast Joins the National Security Team

Comcast, the nation's second largest Internet service provider, has teamed up with the Feds to monitor personal email, voice, and overall web traffic. Comcast will hire one person as its reconnaissance and analysis of subscriber intelligence specialist.

In addition to holding a snazzy title and having access to millions of people's personal lives, the engineer will work closely with the Feds in monitoring cyber crimes.

For your safety, Comcast is now in full compliance with the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), a legislative act requiring all Internet service providers to install gear that allows for easy wiretapping.

I don't know about you, but I feel much, much safer knowing someone is out there monitoring my web traffic. From cyber terrorism to software pirating, I have no doubt the one person Comcast will hire will be able to successfully defeat all forms of web terror.

Oh Man...

You almost - ALMOST - have to feel bad for John McCain after viewing this clip. You know you've really screwed something up when FOX News is making fun of you.

Burma Intervention Remains on Front Burner

At the Weekly Standard, anyway.

One would be hard-pressed to find another magazine that vehemently supports intervention and endless conflict as much as Bill Kristol's Weekly Standard. How a man like Kristol still has an outlet for his demented beliefs is beyond me, and it never ceases to amaze me how short of a memory Kristol and his staff must have after getting the Iraq War (as well as every other major foreign policy decision) almost exactly wrong.

But I digress. I normally make a daily trip into neocon hell--visiting National Review, Weekly Standard, etc.--partially for laughs but mostly because I'm curious to know what makes such evil minds work.

Most articles on neoconservative sites are predictable in their analysis of an issue or a person. Like talk radio, they follow a similar strategy: complain incessantly, offer no coherent solution to the problem (except war and intervention, of course), cram heavy doses of patriotism down your audience's throat, ALWAYS blame someone else for your mistakes. Oh, and above all, the American government is benevolent and infallible.

The linked article reeks of typical neocon ignorance. Although the entire article is a brief journey into the mind of two madmen, the second paragraph is what shocked me most:

The Burmese regime is guilty of atrocities far worse than the "criminal neglect" Secretary of Defense Robert Gates ascribes to them. It is guilty of crimes against humanity. Prior to the cyclone, the regime received dozens of warnings from India that the storm was on its way--yet did nothing to prepare its citizens. When the cyclone struck, the government sat on its hands and refused international help. Neither material aid nor aid workers were allowed to reach the victims, causing the needless deaths of tens of thousands. A trickle of assistance has gotten in, but aid workers are still restricted and much relief has been seized and sold on the streets. The junta now declares the relief phase is over: Its military thugs are forcibly evicting thousands of people from their shelters, even though they have no homes to return to. An estimated 2.5 million people have been displaced by this crisis.

Hmmmm, kind of sounds like a situation from three years ago, doesn't it?

It is not until the last half of the article that we discover the author's solution to the humanitarian crisis. True to form, their recommendation should surprise no one:

The United States, with a democratic coalition that could include Great Britain and France, should prepare immediately to intervene in Burma to ensure humanitarian aid reaches the tens of thousands of cyclone victims whose lives are still at risk.

Given the success of America's "Coalition of the Willing" in Iraq, I'm surprised Britain and France aren't beating down our door to begin immediate intervention. You can't make this stuff up.

When did the mentality that America needs to use its military force to intervene in humanitarian crises seep in to the American way of thinking? Have no other options been considered, like, say, non-military relief organizations like the Red Cross and UNICEF? I'd like to think natives would be more receptive towards receiving aid if it was not provided at the tip of a bayonet.

Then again, the bayonet may be what the ruling government fears most as it may incite an internal revolution and oust the regime. The authors address this issue towards the end of the article by quoting a letter from Burmese democracy groups to President Bush (emphasis mine):

"Intervention will be seen as divine intervention by the Burmese people, not only to help the cyclone victims but also to finally free the entire nation from the military yoke," wrote a coalition of Burmese democracy groups to President Bush. "Please do not compare Burma with Iraq, because Buddhist monks, students, Burmese patriots will happily assist you with whatever you need to go inside Burma and help the cyclone victims and entire nation Many concerned Burmese citizens are willing to join the intervention. Please do not waste precious time."

Aside from accepting military force as the only means available to provide aid to Burmese citizens, there are two things wrong with citing this letter as justification for intervention. First, there's the question of honesty; specifically, are US forces there to provide humanitarian aid or to overthrow the government? Second, what's preventing these "many" Burmese citizens from rising up and overthrowing their government on their own?

In my view, the authors are suggesting that the revolution--should it occur--is simply a byproduct of the greater good that arrives with American military aid. If my view is correct, then the authors have also (in a subtle way) provided justification for their belief that military resources are the only viable option for relief efforts. It's as if they're saying, hey, let's use the military to distribute aid...and if a revolution happens, all the better!

The problem is, America has been down this path before and it hasn't worked out well for us. America has ostensibly rushed to the aid of oppressed people throughout the world for the greater part of the past one hundred years, sacrificed millions of lives and unknown quantities of treasure and dignity, and for what? How many more times are we going to fall for the ruse that American military muscle is necessary--and the only viable means--to change the world for the better?

I'm not suggesting that life is peachy in Burma and that the Burmese are not living under an oppressive regime. To believe such nonsense is to subscribe to the simplistic viewpoints of the faux intellectuals writing articles like this. What I am saying is that military intervention has not worked in the past, and it is likely to fail miserably in the future. Further, there are other reputable (non-military) agencies--like the Red Cross and UNICEF--that are capable of providing aid during a crisis of this magnitude...yet those options are conveniently ignored by the authors (I consider UN intervention to be the same as using military assets to distribute aid). Until someone can explain to me how responding to a natural disaster, where a massive amount of damage was done to property and infrastructure, with even more destruction of property and infrastructure via military force is good for a country, I'll remain steadfast in my belief that the best relief is the kind that is not accompanied by bayonet.

Finally, if the authors are so hell-bent on overthrowing the oppressive Burmese government, I have a suggestion: become a mercenary, move to Burma, and join the "many" other Burmese citizens who are hungry for revolution. Keyboard killers have no qualms when committing American service members towards their pet projects like overthrowing a government, yet I'd be willing to bet the ranch that they'd never put their money where their RAM is when the revolution came calling for volunteers.

Police District

(From the Washington Post)

In response to a recent surge in violence in the Northeast DC's Trinidad neighborhood, residents have been forced to endure at least five days of police checkpoints aimed at squelching the flow of guns and drugs into the area.

Similar projects designed to recover firearms and quell violence in the city have been flirted with periodically, but an all-out police state-like (dare we suggest Baghdad-esque?) check point system has yet to be enacted within the city.

The program is not without precedent. The article references a similar procedure in New York in 1992, where police cordoned off sections of the Bronx and queried drivers (not pedestrians) about their reasons for being in the area. Individuals who did not have a "legitimate" reason to be in the area were told to leave the vicinity. Anyone resisting police orders to vacate the area were arrested for interfering with police business.

DC's latest "Papers, please" operation is part of a series of larger initiatives attempting to find legs within the city. Other programs, like the Orwellian "Safe Homes" initiative and the militaristic arming of police officers are likely to be enacted in the near future regardless of community backlash. Forever shrouded in the usual rhetoric that such programs are for "community safety" we can be sure other, more oppressive programs are in the works should DC's high crime rates continue to rise or remain at present levels.

Checkpoints, semi-automatic rifles, and warrantless home searches do nothing to stop crime. At best, such practices provide a temporary reprieve from violence. Whenever and wherever oppressive programs are enacted, it is always the individual who must surrender his or her freedoms for the illusion of safety. The assumption is always the same: the police know what's best for the community, the citizenry are helpless to defend themselves against crime.

Maybe I'm ignorant, but I think sane, reasonable people, when confronted with the news of increased violence in one part of the city, would go out of their way to avoid coming in contact with the crime-infested region...but that's me.

If the DC police department were truly interested in solving the high crime rate in the area, a good place to start would be lifting the city's absurd ban on guns and decriminalize the possession, usage, and sale of drugs. Given the general attitude towards guns and drugs in the city, however, it's best not to hold your breath for any radical changes in that respect. Another--less radical--measure police can take would be to listen to the criticism offered by of 20 year Trinidad resident Wilhelmina Lawson and become more community minded.

The natural consequence of police state-like measures in any community is increased tension between residents and police officers, ultimately leading to higher crime rates. Given that police in Northeastern DC are already viewed as "not community minded," it should surprise no one that this initiative will fail to achieve its stated goals.

Our "Peace" Candidate

Obama's speech at American Israel Public Affairs Committee should dispel any illusions that a foreign policy debate containing any semblance of substance will take place this fall.

In front of about 7,000 people, Obama reaffirmed America's steadfast support for Israeli security and identified Iran as public enemy number one with respect to peace in the region. Undoubtedly, Obama's speech was meant to convey a stronger, tougher candidate than the one attacked by John McCain in recent days.

Obama delivered his speech just two days after Senator McCain spoke from the same podium. Predictably, McCain drew upon the usual pro-Israel/pro-war talking points that have been hammered into Americans for as long as I can remember: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denies the holocaust and compares Israel to a stinking corpse, Israel must be defended at all costs, Iran is seconds away from acquiring a nuclear weapon, etc. There's not much room for interpretation when it comes to McCain's position on American/Israeli ties - his stance is as simple as McCain himself.

Less predictable, though still unsurprising, was the tough talk emanating from Obama. To his credit, Obama did attribute Middle Eastern instability (and the strengthening of Iran) to American presence in the region. However, shortly after making the above statement, Obama identified Iran as the greatest threat in the region, then delivered this confusing remark (emphasis mine):

The Iranian regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race, and raise the prospect of a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists. Its President denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.

At best, Obama is pandering to his audience; at worst, his charade as the "peace candidate" is over. While Obama does assert his belief that American troops should be redeployed out of Iraq, it's important to remember the terms "redeployment" and "peace" are not synonymous. Obama's belief in the expanding the military by 92,000, coupled with his bellicosity towards Afghanistan and Pakistan, leave little doubt that Obama and McCain differ in degree--not substance--when it comes to the War on Terror.

The illusion of choice is not a choice. Sadly, millions of people will rush to the polls to vote for the "anti-war" Obama, when in reality they're voting for nothing more than a new manager in the War on Terror. As was the case between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, what differences exist between McCain and Obama are merely cosmetic - and those who desire war will continue to get what they want.

That said, I expect any foreign policy debates between Obama and McCain to center on tactics and not philosophy. The belief that overseas American military presence is necessary in order to protect our vital interests (including Israeli sovereignty) is the universally accepted premise in every foreign policy debate. Let the "debate" begin...

Bernanke and Inflation

Yesterday the chairman of the Federal Reserve, "Helicopter" Ben Bernanke, announced that a weak US currency posed a risk to inflation. He also danced around the rumor that the US Central Bank would raise interest rates in the coming months.

At first glance, Bernanke's statement may seem logical. After all, while most people understand that inflation is indeed a bad thing, the causes of inflation are widely misunderstood.

If what Bernanke says is true--that a weaker US currency poses a risk to inflation--one might also subscribe to the theory that wet sidewalks cause rain. In other words, Bernanke confused cause and effect; a weak dollar does not pose a risk to inflation - inflation is the result of a weaker currency.

As in Mother Russia, so in USA

(From New York Times via LRC Blog)

All kidding aside, the similarities between the tyrannical regime in Russia and the burgeoning one in the United States are becoming a bit strange.

According to the New York Times, Russian television (heavily influenced by the Kremlin) is no place for critics of the Russian government to voice their concerns. Dissenters from former President (now Prime Minister) Vladimir Putin's regime are digitally removed and/or not allowed to question the Russian government.

Individuals who find themselves out of favor with the government-run television programs are placed on "stop lists" and are essentially black balled from making television appearances. The article is unclear as to whether the Kremlin maintains an "official" stop list or if the list is managed independently by television stations with knowledge of Kremlin likes and dislikes.

The article's author sounds appalled at the idea of the Kremlin censoring dissenting opinion, and I got the impression he was insinuating that such atrocities could never happen in America. After all, this is America - land of free speech, baseball, apple pie, and all that good stuff right?

In a series of damning posts (here, here, here, and here), Glenn Greenwald outlines America's version of the Kremlin, wherein network television "stars" acted as cheerleaders for the Bush Administration and failed to perform their duty as journalists. One particular quote from Charles Gibson succinctly sums up the media's relationship with the Bush Administration when he averred, "It's not our [the media's] job to debate them, it's our job to ask questions." (Video)

Additionally, evidence exists that the Pentagon handpicks/handpicked military analysts who are/were friendly to the Bush regime and its pro-war agenda. Such actions not only stifle meaningful debate, they also force the media to comply with Pentagon rules or risk being cut off from information about the War on Terror.

The New York Times' effort to feign shock upon the realization that the Kremlin actively censors dissenting opinion in Russia--especially when similar things happen here--strikes me as both darkly comedic and ironic. It seems the blueprint for controlling public opinion works the same regardless of a country's political philosophy or commitment to individual freedom.