Putting the Victim on Trial

I'm really not too surprised (a little surprised and disappointed) that the Jury found Zimmerman not-guilty of murder (of at least Manslaughter) after Zimmerman confessed to hunting down and murdering Trayvon Martin. The defense did a good job of putting Trayvon on trial and the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt", and so letting the defense make up a bogus theory about Trayvon attacking Zimmerman worked for them. Stand your ground was designed to legalize murder if the murderer is a white man who can establish he "reasonably believed" he was the one who was being attacked. And that was the premise of local authorities from the beginning. Trayvon was guilty of eating skittles and walking while black and wearing a hoodie in the rain. Wrong place wrong time. Summary:

One: the standard was "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Never mind that the man confessed to murdering him.

Two: The defense lawyer was allowed to put Trayvon on trial and play on racist fears.

Three: The prosecutor was unwilling to even challenge directly Zimmerman's lies about being attacked.

Good news is that this also was a Federal Crime (at least until the Gang of 5 Corrupt Judges get hold of it) and so

Once the Feds investigate this perp they'll see that:

Zimmerman violated Trayvon's civil rights

and probably Federal Hate crime laws;

and the local authorities did too by trying to cover up the crime.

And of Course, as always there is a larger issue lost in the mix here. One reason for the very lousy handling of Zimmerman's open and shut case is that Zimmerman's dad is a very powerful person who used to be a judge in Virginia. That side of "extrajudicial lawlessness" by our own authorities and their kin folks is a form of corruption, not just "how things are." Zimmerman's case should have been handled the same as anyone elses, but we seem to have one law for the powerful and wealthy, and another for everyone else. That should outrage at least 90% of us.

But finally, I've decided that these assholes don't deserve the attention they get. We have to fight them, at least partly, by contrasting their small, shallow and fearful behavior with the kind of behavior we'd like to see. We have to be the change we want to see. We have to be bigger then them. They can go into that hole to hell they dig. I'm thinking of Walt Whitman. I'm thinking of Bette Midler.

Meanwhile, we all should sign NAACP's petition asking the Justice Department to investigate:

Petition;

http://www.naacp.org/page/s/doj-civil-rights-petition?source=GZnotguiltyshareFB&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=GZnotguiltyshareFB&utm_content=share

Justice Department:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/14/justice-department-george-zimmerman_n_3595835.html

Further Reading:

http://occupydemocrats.com/zimmerman-may-be-not-guilty-but-america-is-guilty-as-charged/

But this is what I'd rather listen to:

http://www.upworthy.com/bette-midler-didnt-know-this-was-going-to-be-caught-on-tape-that-makes-this-even-more-amazing

Bottom up Repression

While we are entranced with "fearless leader" fascism and people like Mussolini, or Hitler, an examination of fascism around the world finds that visionary leaders like them are rare, and most Fascist movements have not been the genius of a single person, even when a single person gets credit for them. Franco was the general who prosecuted the coup and civil war that established Fascism in Spain, but he wasn't even its ideological founder. Pinochet was simply first among a cabal. The leader of Portugal's fascism movement was selected as an economist who promised to fix Portugal's economy. Fascism loves it's fearless leaders and tries to find them, but if they don't perform as expected they do get dumped. The politicians and military strategists are really like Dogs on a leash. Juan Peron was dumped by his own founders when he crossed path with the wealthy and Catholic Church. Mussolini was dumped by his own followers, put back in power by Hitler, and eventually hung upside down from a Fence. Fascism is not kind to fearless leaders who don't live up to those holding their leash. When Juan Peron's second wife tried to continue ruling Argentina after coming to power from his enthusiastic backers -- when those backers saw she was not following orders they staged a coup.

Argentina's reign of terror was managed by three drunken military leaders from the Navy, Army and Air Force. They militarized the police, tried to capture and kill anyone who was a socialist. And since they were using Ayn Rand's definition of socialism as equal democracy, and Hayeks premise that any socialism (including social democracy) inevitably leads to left wing fascism, they went to war with most of the urban population. They sent teams of soldiers around the country in Ford Falcons snatching people, torturing and secretly trying them, and then dumping their bodies in the Ocean (or other still not found places), and all on the motto "you must have been guilty of something."

Fascism is usually about defeating socialism and reestablishing order, so it is often as "bottom up" in it's implementation as any other movement. Just the bottom is usually the land-lords, business leaders, and military officers. It's also advertized based on nationalism. So it's entirely possible for fascist states to go to war with each other. When Hitler started his "unification" program targeting his home state of Austria, the Austrians resisted. They had a dictator named Dolfuss who was an admirer of Mussolini, not Hitler. The little guy was trying to get control of Austria by imposing martial law on workers, killing Union leaders, and breaking Unions. His economic advisor was Von Mises and the two were close enough so that when Dolfuss sent his wife to refuge with Mussolini, Von Mises sought a chair in Switzerland. Dolfuss tangled with the Nazis and they sent an assassination team to kill him. But before that they threatened Austria and Mussolini backed his little friend Dolfuss. Mussolini threatened to go to war with Hitler. A lot of folks would have liked this. But Mussolini met with Hitler and liked that little guy better than the other little guy. He withdrew support for Dolfuss, looked the other way, and Dolfuss was assassinated by a team of Nazis in broad daylight. Von Mises went to Switzerland and then on to the US; and pretended to be anti-Fascist the rest of his career. Fascists can and do go to war with each other.

Argentina was like an enthusiastic dog during the Reagan program to repress socialism in the Americas. They sent teachers to El Salvador to teach the Salvadoreans (as if they needed teaching) how to "collect intelligence" through torture more efficiently. They were backed by Reagan and Thatcher in the whole operation Condor and anti-"Communism" effort. The Vatican backed them, while pretending to be pissed that they were killing over-enthusiastic monks and nuns. The Vatican had it's war on Vatican II and "liberation theology" and it made a grand alliance between nominally warring parties.

But then the Argentines attacked the Falklands. Fascists can go to war with each other, and this is because they always are serving oligarchs. Fascism has always been elitist, and if the fascist parties elevate leaders to be "new oligarchs" they do so serving the old oligarchs or the "old oligarchs" yank their leash.

An Evil Innocence

An Evil Innocence

Refrain: They are isolated from what they don’t know

Their jack booted thugs go where they don’t go

You’d better listen to their orders and take it slow

Or they will take you in their hands.

They send their jack booted thugs out to commit crimes

While they lounge in country clubs or play rounds of golf.

They own the courts and they own politicians,

And they laugh at the Godfather for being too soft.

Refrain

They live in a country club built over hell,

With bypass venting so they don’t smell its smell.

They dance on a dance floor carried on the backs

Of lost souls writhing and suffering under the floor.

Refrain

And they admit visitors and they admit members

From among the best and brightest and the cleverest;

People who climb party lines, but never Mount Everest,

And people who snort cocaine lines while writing drug laws.

Refrain

And they have it so good, they want it understood,

That no one else can have life or liberty.

So they make men dogs and put them on leashes

And give them jackboots and give them guns.

Refrain

And their jack-booted thugs walk among us like kings,

Trailing long leashes and stinking of hell.

And fill us with lies and fill us with hate,

And try to destroy whatever they can’t own.

Refrain

And we fight them at risk of injury and pain,

And to avoid falling into their spell.

For they are really small people with no sense of smell,

Standing on a platform over hell.

Finished in Honor of “Vaginal Probe” Governor McDonnell

Christopher H. Holte

"Coddling" the Giant Oligarchic Companies

Fareed Zakaria writes in the Washington Post:

"The American economy is sputtering and we are running out of options. Interest rates can't go any lower. Another burst of government spending -- whether a good or bad idea -- looks politically impossible. Can anything protect us from the dangers of stagnation or a double dip? Actually, there is a second stimulus that could have a dramatic effect on the economy -- even more so than government spending. And it won't add to the deficit."

Nevermind that it is only the commoners such as me, who see the "economy sputtering" and there is clear evidence that well financed politicians are blocking every effort to invest in infrastructure or redressing the massive inequality and dispossession that has been getting worse and worse, since Reagan was elected. Fareed is offering up a bait of spending money that workers around the country earned for their companies at one time and is now offshored instead. At least 1.6 trillion of which is "permanently invested offshore" as part of tax avoidance and offshoring schemes aimed at leveraging slave wages in other countries and tax avoidance here. (NY Times article) and as happened with about 400 billion they repatriated in 2004, they are trying to sell the USA on letting them repatriate the money at low tax rates on grounds that they'll invest it here, when - as happened in 2004 such repatriation will most likely go to CEO salaries and bonuses as it did in 2004. The New York times article recaps that:

" it led to no discernible increase in American investment or hiring. On the contrary, some of the companies that brought back the most money laid off thousands of workers, and a study by the National Bureau of Economic Research later concluded that 92 cents on every dollar was used for dividends, stock buybacks or executive bonuses."

Nevermind that government tax breaks unless they come as specific exemptions only result in more money in executive and financier coffers, or that our various companies have been running a rigged, union busting, pension stealing, cheating system of corporate governance that has resulted in that 1.8 trillion declared and even more undeclared money hidden around the world in secret accounts. But of course the CEOs didn't come out and remind him of that. Instead he talks indirectly of the benefits "if only" the honorable CEO's would spend that money here. We tried that, they pay no attention to carrots when they can dig into the nation's wealth in other ways. So Fareed notes:

The Federal Reserve recently reported that America's 500 largest non-financial companies have accumulated an astonishing $1.8 trillion of cash on their balance sheets. By any calculation (for example, as a percentage of assets), this is higher than it has been in almost half a century. Yet most corporations are not spending this money on new plants, equipment or workers. Were they to loosen their purse strings, hundreds of billions of dollars would start pouring through the economy. These investments would probably have greater effect and staying power than a government stimulus.

And other reports put the estimated money hidden abroad even higher. But so far carrots haven't gotten us any "stimulus" and Obama's begging and cajoling them is taken as "anti-business." "Pro-business" means letting them bring that money home as bonuses and for them to buy up foreclosed properties with. In other words, the switch is that none of that money would actually go to stimulus unless it is highly taxed. I say tax it all.

To be clear: There is a strong case for a temporary and targeted government stimulus. Consumers and companies are being very cautious about spending. Right now, government spending is keeping the economy afloat. Without a second stimulus, state and local governments will have to slash spending and raise taxes, which will produce a downward spiral of higher unemployment, slower growth, lower tax revenue and a larger deficit. Joel Klein, the New York City schools chancellor, told me that when the stimulus money runs out at the end of this year, he will be forced to lay off 5,000 teachers. Multiply that example a thousand times to get a sense of what 2011 could look like.

Of course the obvious fact that we have these CEOs, their companies, and their well heeled investors paying lower tax rates than unemployed Steel workers, while lobbying for lower wages and fewer benefits for the 99% of us nation-wide (actually world-wide) doesn't seem to connect with Fareed. Fact is none of them pay their fair share of taxes, and the afore mentioned New York time article showed that the "offshoring" is also just a means to funnel more wealth to their officers and leading investors. The irresponsibility and cheapness of our wealthy has a direct relationship to the loss of jobs for teachers, fire-fighters, police and workers across the country. Who will buy their products if they don't invest in the USA? Chinese, Vietnamese, etc.. of course silly. And our folks will soon be poor enough to be willing to work for slave labor wages.

Fareed buys into their sales pitch:

But government spending can only be a bridge to private-sector investment. The key to a sustainable recovery and robust economic growth is to get companies investing in America. So why are they reluctant, despite having mounds of cash? I put this question to a series of business leaders, all of whom were expansive on the topic yet did not want to be quoted by name, for fear of offending people in Washington.

NO they should fear offending the vast majority of Americans who have supported, funded, and once staffed these companies; and are now getting the shaft from them.

"Economic uncertainty was the primary cause of their caution. "We've just been through a tsunami and that produces caution," one told me. But in addition to economics, they kept talking about politics, about the uncertainty surrounding regulations and taxes. Some have even begun to speak out publicly. Jeffrey Immelt, chief executive of General Electric, complained Friday that government was not in sync with entrepreneurs. The Business Roundtable, which had supported the Obama administration, has begun to complain about the myriad laws and regulations being cooked up in Washington."

General Electric moved a lot of it's manufacturing abroad. Now they claim they are moving them back home. But they don't want to invest here unless they can do it on their terms. In other words, they ware witholding investment as part of a game to force Americans to accept corporate rule. Like John Galt's team in Atlas Shrugged, it's basically a financial strike at American Workers, bureaucrats and the people of this country in general. "Economic uncertainty?" Bullhocky, they know that they can get firesale prices if they hold off, and more importantly they are trying to extort tax breaks from a congress that is just flaccid enough to give into their designs. More "laws" and "regulations" is code for "we won't be held accountable."

He quotes a CEO as saying:

One CEO told me, "Almost every agency we deal with has announced some expansion of its authority, which naturally makes me concerned about what's in store for us for the future."

So they lobby for de-regulation and fund the Tea Party instead. And he quotes Another as:

.... pointed out that between the health-care bill, financial reform and possibly cap-and-trade, his company had lawyers working day and night to figure out the implications of all these new regulations. Lobbyists have been delighted by all this activity. "[Obama] exaggerates our power, but he increases demand for our services," super lobbyist Tony Podesta told the New York Times.

The combination of 1.8 trillion dollars and lobbyists can certainly get a lot done.

"Most of the business leaders I spoke to had voted for Barack Obama. They still admire him. Those who had met him thought he was unusually smart. But all think he is, at his core, anti-business. When I asked for specifics, they pointed to the fact that Obama has no business executives in his Cabinet, that he rarely consults with CEOs (except for photo ops), that he has almost no private-sector experience, that he's made clear he thinks government and nonprofit work are superior to the private sector. It all added up to a profound sense of distrust.

All that is smoke. They know it is smoke. The Obama administration has been the most business friendly Democratic Presidency the business community has ever seen. The man has reached out over and over again to accommodate them. And if they get what they want with the two trade agreements they are negotiating they'll have almost complete impunity and immunity from laws they don't like. So what they are really saying is "we want it all" -- they want their 1.8 trillion in bonuses and stock options -- not to pay any taxes on it.

Fact is they act like they own us

He concludes:

Some of this is a product of chance. The economic crisis forced the government to expand its authority in dozens of areas, from finance to automobiles. But precisely because of these circumstances, Obama needs to outline a growth and competitiveness agenda that is compelling to the business community. This might sound like psychology more than economics, and the populist left will surely scream that the last thing we need to do is pander to business. But the first thing we need is for these people to start spending their money -- soon. As a leading New York businessman who publicly supported Obama during the campaign told me, "their perception is our reality."

Maybe they have a point. We need industrial policy, and corporate CEO's need to have executive advisory roles on a board of governors. They have much more power than that currently. It's just all from behind closed doors. And given the revolving door and the fact that corporations write much of our regulations and laws lately. I have trouble taking them at face value. Also given Obama's administration habit of coddling them up until now, and CEO tendency to have a ruthless and thankless negotiating style. I don't believe them.

No what we need to do is to tax the hell out of that 1.8 trillion and yes, stop coddling CEOs and demand them to earn their money instead. My perception is that these are greedy b*st*rds. And Coddling them will only allow them to run yet another swindle on the taxpaying public, employees and their customers. And yes we need a growth agenda -- spend that money on infrastructure, invest in our people, decentralize our industry, and stop coddling the oligarchs. And yes, we need to reform our regulation process. Just not at the demand of often irresponsible industrialists.

Sources and references:

Fareed Zakaria is editor of Newsweek International. His e-mail address is comments@fareedzakaria.com.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/04/AR2010070403856.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/22/business/for-us-companies-money-offshore-means-manhattan.html

NSA who is that?

Living Down the Street from NSA

I've been following the NSA scandals and related matters since I was a teenager and found out that there was this super secret organization down the road from my house which pretended it didn't exist and hired Marines to guard it. I heard all sorts of stories and knew people whose Daddies couldn't talk about what they did for a living and worked there. One day I took a few tests to see if I could work there. Never did get a job there. I'm kinda glad now. The place was known as the National Security Agency (NSA).

The Marines Attack Savage

One day, summer, (I think 1977) a couple of marines from NSA were engaging in recreation at the Savage Maryland Swimming hole on the Little Patuxent (we always called it the Savage river, sort of a joke), and some local toughs roughed them up. I was at work in the Savage IGA and along came a bunch of military vehicles and folks looking for those toughs. I believe an entire platoon of Marines moved through our town that day and they found the two guys I heard and roughed them up.

NSA vs NSA

Shortly after that the Marines were replaced with Hired Guards. Never got that job either. I finished College and was in Buddhism and an organization that called itself "NSA" Nichiren Shoshu Sokagakkai, but was really a branch of a Japanese "New religion." I really thought I could save the world with "Nam Myoho Renge Kyo" for about 20 years from 1974 to 1994. During that time, NSA the spy org, receded to the back of my mind except as a potential employer. Never did get a job there. They require really scary polygraph tests and since I only know I was born in Corona because it says so on my birth certificate, just the thought of all those wires scares me. I got a job out of college, 1978-1979 working for a microfilming company called Datacorp. The place operated 24/7 and I burned out after 2 years. Fell in love with a girl who didn't really love me back. Unemployed. Soon after that in the early 80s I made friends with a Polish dissident named Helena and she got me to help one of her German dissident friends leave Germany. Eventually I did get her out of there. It took about 4 years and a trip to East Germany around 1982. When I came back I almost married a Brazilian. I was out of the running for ever having a security clearance. I did have friends in Buddhism who were in security. At that time many of them lived at Fort Meade. I had a weird life. Explaining that during a polygraph test would have been a challenge.

It turns out the way around all that is to join the military, get a good job assignment, and they then take care of all that stuff. Civilian tracks are much harder. For me getting into my career was a catch 22, got degree, but they wanted "experience" or a "clearance", how do I get that? In the late 70's and early 80's even the military wasn't hiring for good jobs. I should have joined anyway. I took my bachelor's degree and applied it to humping furniture. Got hired by a moving and storage company.

Trying to get into a Programming Job

I had done deliveries of microfilm from 1978-1980. But when I blew that job I found myself unable to continue working with Computers and programming. I took classes. I took a job with a Moving and Storage Company. I wasn't doing programming but my company, Burnham Services, got contracts. My company got some real good contracts delivering stuff for IBM and other Computer manufacturers. I removed or delivered Giant computers and replaced them with ever smaller units. From 1983 or so til I quit approximately 1988. I mostly worked in the Warehouse. Though I participated in some big moves and did whatever they asked me. I married my wife in 1984 and had a son. In 1987 I had a daughter. In 1988 my X became my X and left me, twice. Around the end of 1988 my house would be hit by a drunk Driver.

Shipping Computers

We had contracts to deliver the first PC's. These were big IBM machines with floppy drives as big as vinyl records and limited amounts of memory. I was expert at tracking down missing shipments, but also good at loading and unloading trucks so I was constantly involved in finding and tracking shipments and machinery. Around 1987 or 1988 our company was expanding so much that we were getting contracts in cities where our non-union status was a handicap. I would have joined a union in a heartbeat, but management was religiously against them and operated like the inquisition on the subject. We tried to open a branch in a Union city and there was a shooting war! Our drivers were carrying guns and showing me bullet holes when I was loading and unloading them. We had something called the "Burnham Express" and I was detailed to make sure they got in and out on schedule like a clock. I was proud of that job. It also took me off the night shift where I'd been for a long time. Anyway...

Around that time, we started shipping things with classified markings. Why they shipped them through our warehouses made no sense to me, but we were doing it. We had stuff marked for NSA, State Department, Commerce department, and other places I was sure that if I talked about somebody might off me. Around that time we had shipments going to places like NSA. The people who delivered them had to have clearances. I watched every day, while driving to work as they expanded the NSA buildings. They built 2 buildings with an inner shell and an outer shell, and I believe the purpose was for electronic shielding.

People I knew who worked there told me stories. I learned NSA was not supposed to spy on Americans, but could collect useful information from the key presses of a manual type-writer and that most encrypted messages and other measures were a waste of time. I'm sure some of the information was disinformation, but folks working for NSA proudly took credit for the USA defeating communism even before the Berlin Wall Fell. NSA collated the information from other agencies, I heard, and that information included the ability to read license plates from space. The person who told me that later denied he said it. Maybe it was hype. But that is how NSA was to folks who lived in it's neighborhood. Super Secret, staffed with paranoid people who didn't want you even walking near, and who patrolled the grounds with arms in armored vehicles -- and that was before the Berlin Wall Fell.

Inslaw and Me

Almost a year into working the "Burnham Express", we had some of our machines start disappearing. Funny thing is this was after we upped the security with razor wire and a guard tower. Our warehouse was so secure I used to consider how easy it would be to turn our giant warehouse into a prison.

Anyway, I came into work one morning, around 1986-87 and my immediate boss, a guy named Ray, asked me if I'd seen or moved these particular boxes with computers in them. I hadn't of course, but I spent the next hour trying to help him find the missing equipment. Over the next few months more machines started disappearing. These computers had software pre-loaded on them, and that apparently was what the thieves were after. But what was astounding was who was involved in solving the problem.

Around the time the machines started disappearing we had had some visitors from our headquarters in Burlington Alabama. The only thing that impressed me about them was that they were very much Southern boys. A couple of them were very smart, but they fairly reeked of ambition. A few of them showed up to "help" us with inventory issues. They showed up before the "secret" machines started disappearing. In retrospect I know what happened was an inside job. But I was idealistic.

Soon after a whole team showed up. They were there to "help" with the missing machines. After a short time, one day Ray was ordered to take all the machines that were special order and wrap them with police tape. I asked him "why not put a camera on the machines." We thought this was like putting a target on the machines the thieves were after, but the orders came from the office. We knew they were loaded with specialized financial tracking software. Somebody wanted them. I told my boss he should put some security cameras pointing to the boxes and hide the cameras. He was ordered by the Inventory specialist a guy named "Max" not to. I go home. Next morning two more boxes were gone.

That became a pretext for firing everyone in charge, who happened to not be involved with the missing machines. My Manager Roy and his assistant were both cool guys who were dedicated, loyal and worked very hard. Roy Arnsmeier would work right alongside you and was like the energizer bunny. He took B12 shots that he credited for his energy. He managed multiple locations and was really good at his job. The two of them were out of town when all this was happening, yet for some reason the senior management fired them, and put these inventory specialists in charge of our branch.

"This Never Happened" – Buying the Company

Shortly after that they got investment money I was told came from either China or the Saudis, and bought out the company. Max became a wealthy guy. But what was funny is that as soon as they fired my rather innocent manager and his assistant, the boxes not only stopped disappearing but I was told by our Security Manager in very serious tones "This Never happened."

I can't prove this story ever occurred as I remember it, except I was a witness. It was curious that all this was occurring as a family known as the "Inslaws" were suing the Federal Government for stealing their software. The Promis Software the Inslaws sued about, was probably what was loaded on the machines that went missing. I'll never know who stole the machines, but it is probably whoever bought Burnham Services around the same time.

Suicided?

The investigator Danny Casolaro suicided in 1990 for investigating INSLAW. I understood the software developer also committed suicide, but I can only verify Danny's death. My involvement ended shortly after that when I quit and went looking for a job that had some future for me. That was the 80's. I pretty much have about 90% confidence that I know who really done it. Max Herring. The man is resting in peace now so it doesn't matter, but I'm pretty sure he was involved in something related to CIA/NSA with that incident. Don't know if those machines were going to NSA or somewhere else, but I suspect the thefts were an inside job, maybe even part of a larger deceptive plot. I only got to go to NSA once for that company, that was on a delivery. But spy spooks frighten me, (dead spooks don't) so I'm glad. Never did get a job there. I moved from near Savage to DC. Eventually moved into a tiny studio apartment.

1990's and CDSI

In the 1990's I got to interview for some IT jobs near NSA. I got in with a company that had a huge variety of computer work, CDSI. I ran their old mainframes, delivered stuff all over the place, and eventually started getting contract assignments. I literally started in the mailroom! When a contract ended, they'd find me a new one. I finally started getting into IT and they let me test programs and was prepared to become a programmer. Learned all the languages of the time: C, COBOL, Fortran, Java, and some of the old ones; PASCAL, ADA, PL/1, and most usefully I learned SQL. A select statement may have different syntax in MySQL versus Oracle, but the concepts are identical. I was finally doing my career finally. I was trained as a Tester and could write computer programs. A few times I got close to getting one, but never did get a job at NSA.

Did work for a Navy Contract. As a tester I got to work on pay and personnel subjects. Also some security subjects. NSA is the go to source if you want to understand cryptology, encoding and the rules for cyber-security. I learned a lot from the Navy, mostly from NSA or DISA sources. But I didn't have that top secret clearance, and it was a struggle to get the majority of the jobs. NSA was expanding in the 1990's. The Security establishment doesn't care whose president, just so long as they can be left alone to "protect" Americans from "enemies" "foreign and domestic." NSA wasn't supposed to be spying on people in the United States. But we also had that 5 eyes thing. I was told we did intelligence sharing and our friends shared critical information about our people with us. It's easy to get a warrant for watching a genuine spy. And it's easy for a whistleblower or dissident to get labeled as a spy. A lady in my Apartment complex claimed she was arrested and tried by a secret court in Virginia. She didn't tell me what she was arrested for and I figured she was nuts. Secret courts in the USA? What's that? Shouldn't that be all over the news? I worked that company until 2000.

2000's,

In 2000 or so I got a job at BLS. We had a Secret Service Office right over head whose whole job was to make sure that none of us invested in anything or misused our advance knowledge of employment and economic data. I had advance notice I was being spied on, and it didn't bother me. I learned all about Databases, got to do some minor scripting and testing, but mostly maintained several databases and released employment information to the Public on a tight schedule. We were always within a second of release time. Never one second early, and rarely more than a second or two late. By being perfect I made the job look easy. They had hired me in case anything went wrong. As a contractor I'd be easy to fire should there be an early release or a breach. I could have been fired for someone elses malfeasance I found out later. We had one breach due to cell phone use down in the Reporter's area. We left all our records out and went to lunch, and when we came back we were fine and the miscreant identified. That is prophylactic security, and I'm fine with that -- no need for a scapegoat like me.

After I left that job I became an Requirements and process maven, and learned about information architecture, acquisitions and related laws. Since contracting is impermanent I was always looking for another position after each contract got to end. So I've applied to NSA several times, and been around some of their IT projects. I can pretty much verify that most of what is going on is based on cool technology being used to get information to go after terrorists. I also know that NSA has had the ability to spy on anyone it wants and has had that technology for most of it's history. In the right hands this is benign. In the wrong hands this is 1984. I'm worried. Not about Obama, but all the enthusiastic prosecutors waiting in the wings. It's they who have criminalized whistle-blowing and real dissent. I got to work with military medical IT and that was cool. The irony is, there I was pushing for better security. The medical folks are supposed to protect Personally Identifiable Information, and that requires that people only have need to know access limited to their area of concern and not only their clearance. There are ways to filter information so that people see what they are supposed to see. Better security means security that respects privacy rights, prevents unauthorized access, and defines unauthorized access to include sketchy access from corrupt officers. I was always puzzled by hard it was to get standards adopted.

Summary

Fact is good security is compatible with Democracy, but it involves letting the people watch the watchers and requiring all the evidence on the table. The day when "sources and methods" was a legitimate secret, probably should be over. I found out that the entire world operates security in similar manners. Some do it better than us (the Israelis), some more brutally (The Russians), some idiosyncratically (the Chinese). Bad Security is tyranny. Good security is simply boundary enforcement -- which is the heart of all people's rights.

There are lots of jobs in the spy business if you already have a clearance; mostly for people who know how to use and access a database, or search data. Meta Data has become an important business, and the ability to data mine personal information has become important to marketing, finance, as well as to law enforcement and the spook business. These cats are out of the bag and can't be put back. But we can put some strict controls on the acquisition and use of data. It is not legitimate property of companies or third parties. It is our personal data and therefore our personal property by right, and therefore someone taking ownership of it who is not trustworthy by us is a violation of public trust and usurpation. Once we understand that the real issues start to be clear. I've lived with NSA all my life. NSA never has scared me. It's those sketchy people who use their power for personal benefit who scare me.

Thanks to 9/11 the pretend wall between NSA spying outside USA and inside has vanished. I follow NSA in the news. Stories like how they started storing info from the internet even before the internet was commercialized, how they can store conversations from every phone on earth. More stuff that I couldn't share if I knew. Oh yes, it's an organization to be scared of. And NSA capabilities have a tendancy to become private powers. I run into folks who've spent time in jail because the NSA believed they had disrespected it; not even broken a real law. 30 years ago A Guy like Edward Snow never would have made it to Hong Kong and there was no NSA and there would have been no Edward Snow after he tried to leak that information. Oh yes, they can be very scary folks. Never did get a job there, probably never will. I'm telling this story because I've finally giving up on the prospect. Seriously, NSA you still can shut me up easy. Hire me. I'm not a tattle tale.

Written 6/14/2013, updated a little in 2019

https://www.wired.com/1993/01/inslaw/

Redeeming God from the Charlatans

One reason I've been redeeming the theological approach to arguing for progressive ideas is that unless religious interpretation is done honestly the field is left to religious demagogues and outright swindlers. When intellectuals fled the field of theology to rejectionist atheism, they also left the field to authoritarian literalist interpretations of religion. More importantly, by rejecting religion as a whole many of them opened themselves up to a kind of spiritual angst not moderated by the kind of guidance that enables moral and reasonable people to put away "the things of childhood" for mature an more nuanced understanding. A lot in religion is anaecdotal, allegorial, metaphorical, metaphysical, thought experiment, or designed to enable exposition of moral points. Religious dogma is often intended for a child's understanding or for those too busy to think deeply. All spiritual people are borderline atheists. An honest person struggles to decide what parts of his or her heritage are myth and legend, and what parts to take literally. We are enjoined to believe, but to also follow the material truth when it's not misleading us. We don't have to believe literally. And we don't have to accept authoritarianism or dogma. The authority should come from the reasonableness of the arguments and the context of the proofs.

There are spiritual and moral reasons for not rejecting "religion" and staying in the fray. Religious information is institutional wisdom. And if the authoritarians trot out sophistry, much of that is falsifiable and the library still contains the arguments and truths to refute such sophistry. A wise person can use exegesis to refute such sophistry, as John locke did the "divine right of kings" in his "Two Treatise on Government." Common folks had been doing this refutation in a brief slogan dating to the thirteenth century; "When Adam spat and Eve span, who was then the nobleman?" The reason this works and the reason it is needed is that behind most tyrannical decision making are selfish and self-interested reasons, and religion has been pitted against greed, anger and arrogance all along -- even when it's own officers; popes, monks, polemicists have been thoroughly flawed people. So the myth is at odds with the reality? The myth is often an exemplar for virtues necessary for people to play a functional role in society. There are gems of wisdom in even the most flawed of arguments, and one can discern the truth from a pack of lies by observing what happens when the lies are tried.

So I don't reject the religious, just their authoritarian and poorly reasoned arguments. I admire their courage and efforts to do the right thing. And if they are honest people they'll make at least some decisions honestly. If they are dishonest people they'll gradually expose the twisted minds behind the fawning smiles.

I don't know if there is a All Wise, all Knowing God, and don't see much evidence in this world that God is sentient, but I can assume that Universe is a Creator, and I can pray that God actually cares while acting as if he might. That doesn't mean I believe in God. I still haven't been talked to by a burning Bush, and probably would check myself in for treatment if one talked to me. But that doesn't mean I'm an atheist either -- the subject is too important to leave to charlatans. I'm also not agnostic. I know the Universe is self-created. I only pray that somewhere in all that vastness there is the capability to wake up, and that we humans will wake up. I have faith that man will do so one day. That faith demands that I strive to do something in the moment to help make it soon.

Supreme Court does the right thing -- More or less

Supreme Court Ruled Genes can't be Patented

And so one of the more hopeful nuggets in a sea of pro-corporatist and pro-rent seeking decisions is todays almost theological rendering of the court against patenting genes. My only problem is that animal and plant genes shouldn't be patented either. At least not without strong caveats to prevent the kind of behavior where a company like Monsanto sues down-wind farmers oppressively because they can't contain their genes in their sold product. Patenting genes and other intellectual property grabbing is mostly unjustified usurpation of the commons. The decision was unanimous but the fight isn't over:

"The justices took the position offered by the Obama administration -- DNA itself is not patentable but so-called "cDNA" can be. Complementary DNA is artificially synthesized from the genetic template, and engineered to produce gene clones."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/13/politics/scotus-genes/index.html?on.cnn=1