The computer era has largely been marked by a willingness of users to go with the easiest security options available even when those choices weren't terribly secure. Recent developments in courts and the industry may give users reason to re-think that approach, however.
A quick word on the TSA scanner/pat-down outrage, after reading Digby's piece on "security theater", and TSA Administrator John Pistol's op-ed in yesterday's USA Today.
I attended Yom Kippur services a few months ago at Temple Beth Am synagogue in Williamsville, New York, as I do pretty much every year. Every year patrons are asked to remove objects from their pockets and are patted down. I was, it went smoothly, and I went on my way.
I was in Charlottesville last Saturday for a Dave Matthews Band show, and I was patted down before entering John Paul Jones Arena, like every other patron.
I will be home for Thanksgiving this week and will attend a Buffalo Sabres game on Friday, and will be patted down, like I am at every Sabres home game.
The attendance at these three events, non-overlapping, is just under 35,000 people. Yet those screenings were and always are so pathetically cursory that I often joke with my companions on the way in about the knifes or other weapons I could have easily hidden in my shoe, under my belt, or any number of other places. If they can't stop a guy like me from bringing a weapon in, they sure can't stop someone a lot better and more dangerous than me. But hey, we shouldn't go too far into people's privacy- just far enough to keep people feeling safe.
And you know what? That's the real security theater, here- not the airports. It's the events that have tens of thousands, even a hundred thousand people attending, but don't involve an airplane, so just-a-little-screening-but-not-too-much will do. Often it's because of money- I bet some authorities would like to have screening at every DC metro stop, but it's not doable. And I don't want my civil liberties violated, but I'd also like to not get hurt attending a concert, or religious service, or sporting event. Yet when TSA decides it will do that job, except doing it in a way that is far more thorough, people feel violated.
I don't know what the balance is, and I don't pretend to be a terrorism expert. And the new procedures have certain civil liberty concerns. But I will say that the new TSA procedures aren't the outrage, to me. It's in what Digby writes:
It's not like the they haven't shown that they are creative enough to do something other than blowing up an airplane to make their point. Look at the London and Madrid subway bombings or the Mumbai operation or that horrible Chechen school hostage taking.
Exactly. Terrorism goes far beyond the airports. The outrage is what is not being done to improve just-a-little-screening-but-not-too-much checks- or none at all.
Having reached it's 75th birthday, Social Security cuts are now being considered by the federal deficit commission. Survey data shows, however, that this action is wildly unpopular with a majority of Americans, as Social Security has historically held high levels of public support, and continues to do so. People have doubts about the program's solvency in the long-term, and this is an issue that needs to be addressed in a meaningful way. Americans are against using the Social Security fund to reduce the federal budget deficit, showing that, despite difficult economic times, the social contract and programs that contribute to the common good are salient.
According to a recent survey by CNN, 55% believe there will inevitably be cuts to benefits eventually, showing a substantial increase from 32% in 2005. In addition, 60% believe the Social Security system will not be able to pay them benefits when they retire, and 62% opine that it is somewhat or very unlikely that the Social Security system will last another 70 years.
The White House is calling the maneuver "a multi-layered effort to target illicit networks trafficking in people, drugs, illegal weapons and money.” But in practice, beefing up border enforcement under existing federal programs has only drained our government resources, has put into serious jeopardy our commitment to due process under the law, and has presented serious human rights implications.
For example, Operation Streamline, an existing Department of Homeland Security program, was instituted in 2005, and mandates the federal criminal prosecution and imprisonment of all people who cross the U.S.-Mexico border unlawfully.
Do you know one? Perchance your mother, father, brother, or sister is a person you would characterize as lovingly protective. He or she maybe an individual who works to shield loved ones from harm. This fine fellow or femme plots and plans in an attempt to prevent any crisis. People come to depend on caring souls such as he or she. Indeed, you may be the cautious crier who actively expresses concern for the health and welfare of those you treasure. It is a tough task, but you, or someone in your life may have assumed responsibility for the well-being of another. Surely, someone must keep us safe and sane. One never knows who might lurk or linger in the halls, bathroom stalls, on a plane, boat or train. Credentials must be checked. If family and friends cannot safeguard us from the crazies and fanatics certainly, our sweet Uncle Sam will.
I'm going to keep my comments here short as I say that Rachel's speech below offers a fantastic way to approach a 21st century infrastructure policy.
While I don't particularly agree that the "second age" of infrastructure has entirely passed nor that development has declined as a serious motivation/argument for infrastructure investment (tell that to the poor folks in the Central Valley without a working water system), this and other minor quibbles are really secondary. The broader point, that water (and other) infrastructure investment makes our country stronger, more secure, and yes more globally competitive is central to defeating the Dems who only want to put money into retro-grade projects as well as the Republicans who don't want to invest anything into our country.
The introduction immediately below is by her dad, who is a prominent water attorney in the Bay Area familiar to some fellow water geeks in San Francisco. The speech is below the fold.
---
Pursuant to your request, I am attaching a copy of the remarks my daughter, Rachel Maddow, delivered at the Fall Conference of the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) on Wednesday, December 3, 2008, in Long Beach, CA. Her speech was the "keynote" address of the Conference. ACWA is the trade and lobbying association of approximately 500 public agencies that are in the "water business" -- i.e., ACWA's member agencies are the entities that distribute water for use by the vast majority of Californians for domestic, municipal & industrial, and agricultural purposes.
Amnesty International reported yesterday that China is the world's top executioner. From ITN News in the UK:
But as with everything else in life, there are unseen ties that link China's use of the death penalty with the United States' use of torture in conducting the "war on terror".
In Part One, I presented the argument for viewing conservatism as a form of identity politics, showed how differences on issues between liberals and conservatives are much smaller than differences on candidates, and showed that conservatives--even self-identified extreme conservatives--support welfare state spending. In Part Two, I examined two cognitive models that distinguish liberalism and conservatism., both of which show reasons why conservatism is associated with a constricted notion of identity, while liberalism is more diffuse.
Now, in Part 3, I address how to construct a diverse liberal identity. The key to doing so lies in weaving together issues, values and narratives, and doing so with a diversified messaging and organizing strategy. To bring things solidly down to earth, I will focus on two key concepts that I believe have tremendous potential for liberal politics, both in 2008, and for decades to come. These concepts can be expressed in a simple pairing: "dignity and security for all."
As I will explain, there is more than just a rhetorical echo of another famous liberal formulation, "liberty and justice for all." In a very real sense, dignity is the lived foundation for justice, just as security is the lived foundation for liberty (this is a key aspect of Locke's social contract theory). What's more, when these concepts are presented together, they represent a fuller and more robust expression of Franklin D. Roosevelt's "Four Freedoms" --freedom of speech and expression, freedom of every person to worship in his own way, freedom from want and freedom from fear.
Thus, what I am arguing for is a new articulation of core liberal values in a form that pro-actively responds to 40+ years of rightwing slander, as well as the realworld challenges of the 21st Century. To accomplish a lasting political realignment--along the lines seen in 1930/1932--we will need to change the basic contours of the politically possible, which means the politically imaginable. Fortunately, we've done it before. We can do it again.
STATE BLOGS
