Date posted: April 25, 2008 - Friday
Title: TW3 04/25/08
Current mood: discontent
It May Not Be Illegal, But It Ain't Right
The news coming out of Texas (and now possibly Utah as well) is bad enough. Young girls being married to older man as a part of the religious practice of a polygamous sect offshoot of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But there's a new wrinkle now.
Sect founder Warren Jeffs and some of his the leaders of his movement were paid $1.7 million by the Federal government for defense contract work between 1998 and 2007. The U.S. Air Force and Defense Logistics Agency purchased airplane parts from companies owned and operated by members of the FLDS (Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).
At one point money from those contracts produced approximately $50,000 a week that went into church coffers.
A private investigator who monitors the sect said the money was used to build Jeffs' compounds around the country including the one in Eldorado, Texas that was recently raided.
The Department of Defense defends the contracts awarded to the companies in Utah, saying it does not discriminate against any religious affiliation or marital status when considering vendors. "The Department of Defense awards contracts on the basis of who can most effectively meet our requirements for supplies or services at the most reasonable cost to the taxpayer," said Geoff Morrell, a Pentagon spokesman.
The Pentagon did say illegal activity could cause the denial of a contract award or a revocation of an existing contract. It also said it is unclear if Jeffs' name appears on any of the contracts. The companies were managed by other members of Jeffs' sect.
Adding to what will probably a public outcry over these contracts is the fact some of them were awarded and continued after Jeffs made the FBI 10 most-wanted list.
So, technically, the Pentagon may have been within the letter of the law in its' dealings with members of the sect, but that doesn't necessarily make it right.
Spies, spies, everywhere spies
On Tuesday police arrested an 84-year-old man as a spy. He is accused of passing military secrets to the Israelis between 1979 and 1985 when he was an employee at a military arsenal in Dover, New Jersey. The information dealt with nuclear weapons and the F-15 airplane.
Supposedly Ben-Ami Kadish was handled by the same Israeli overseer (designated CC-1 by an FBI counterintelligence agent) that handled Jonathan Pollard, a spy captured in 1985. Pollard was a civilian intelligence analyst for the U.S. Navy and provided information to CC-1 among others. He pled guilty to one count of espionage and is serving a life sentence. His case has been a real friction point between the U.S. and Israel because of Israel's continued insistence Pollard be released from prison.
OK, so my questions are many.
Why did it take some 22 years to arrest this guy for what he had supposedly done?
The FBI has been watching him for years. It documented Kadish's trip to Israel in 2004 and knew he had met again with CC-1 who had left the U.S. probably in 1985. It says he has maintained contact with the Israeli agent and even talked to him in March of this year. The FBI interrogated Kadish on March 21 and asked him specifically if he had contact with CC-1 and he denied it.
A State Department spokesman said the arrest does not have any new implications for U.S. national security.
So, again, my question -- why now?
I'm not saying his actions (or alleged actions) are justifiable, but what caused the delay in acting? And if what he may have done in the past holds no new problems today, why make such a big deal of it now?
What do I suspect? More political bullshit. I think this arrest is just another propaganda piece by the Bush administration. It looks like they are doing something in defending the country. It's just another red herring the current administration is putting before the American public to justify things like an oppressive Patriot Act. And to drum up support for continued Republican control of the White House.
On Wednesday the FBI announced the arrest of another man for trying to sell personal information about thousands of military personnel. Randall G. Craig Jr. was arrested the previous Friday for attempting to sell the names and social security numbers of thousands of Navy service members "to a person he believed to be an intelligence officer for a foreign government." He was charged by a Houston, Texas grand jury with aggravated identity theft and exceeding authorized computer access for personal gain.
The FBI spokeswoman, Shauna Dunlap, said this wasn't a case of an actual spy, but of an undercover operation and no information was compromised during the agency's investigation.
OK, this one is a little more valid than the last one, but I wonder again about the timing.
Oh, No We Can't Have That
Showing the deep concern for the American working people, Senate Republicans blocked a bill Wednesday that would have made it easier for people to sue over pay discrimination. (Sarcasm intended.)
The bill was an attempt to roll back a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that limited such cases. To their credit, several Republicans joined Democrats in trying to stop the filibuster against the bill, but the vote was four short of bringing the bill to the floor.
Republications claimed the bill would unleash a flood of lawsuits.
Really? If things are so fair already, why would there be a flood of lawsuits?
The bill is called the Fair Pay Restoration Act and it was intended as a response to a 2007 Court decision that said a person must file a complaint for pay discrimination within 180 days of the act taking place. This bill would have reset the filing clock with every paycheck. Supporters of the bill said each paycheck is a discriminatory act. The court said such a deadline protects an employer "from the burden of defending claims arising from employment decisions long past."
Apparently the Court thinks it's OK to discriminate as long as you can hide evidence for 181 days.
The original case which brought about the Supreme Court decision was filed by Lilly Ledbetter who discovered late in her career with Goodyear Tire and Rubber that men doing similar work as hers were being paid from 15 to 40 percent more.
Complicating the whole thing was a statement by a Republican Senator who said the vote was only brought up to stall action on a bill on veteran benefits which is pending before the Senate. Of course a Democratic Senator responded by saying his colleague was only complaining as a way to stall debate on that same veterans' bill.
Whatever the other bullshit, the idea of essentially giving employers a blank check to discriminate in pay if they can hide it for six months is not only wrong, but, I think, borders on criminal.
Yep, Gotta Learn Them Kids
Ask almost any front line educator and you will get the opinion the "No Child Left Behind" Act is an unmitigated disaster. While intended to improve performance in schools (under a heavy-handed decree that threatens to take control away local authorities if they don't live up to government standards) the bill seems to have lead to a dumbing down of expectations in favor of only teaching the test that will be given. (OK, this may be an oversimplification on my part.)
The act is also another example of the Federal government demanding something of states and individuals with no provisions implemented to pay for those demands.
Convinced it has the ultimate answer to problems in education, the Bush administration has been pushing the program and now has proposed major changes that would tighten oversight of public schools.
Congress has been working on changes to the act, but the administration thinks it is taking too long and now wants to unilaterally place its' own stamp on how the law is carried out. If the act is not renewed in Congress it would continue as originally written.
The changes proposed would tighten requirements on calculating high school graduation rates and impose a national standard formula to be used by all districts. It would also require low-performing schools to better inform parents about a key requirement of the original law -- that certain children be given access to government-funded tutoring or the chance to transfer to a school with better test scores.
One organization has said the bulk of the proposed changes would tighten accountability and make it more difficult for schools to comply with the federal law. And those schools that repeatedly fall short of the benchmarks would face sanctions, up to mandatory restructuring. Jack Jennings, president and chief executive of the Center on Education Policy, also said the changes would, "cause more resentment against the law."
Having witnessed for years the slipshod manner in which the government approaches and attempts to solve problems, I can't see where this 'improvement' in the law would be of any help. I have family involved in education and there isn't much good said about this law or its' impacts on learning and children. I agree we need to find a way to help our children learn and improve, but using a club to enforce standards and not allowing for creative solutions to problems just isn't the way to go about it. And making teachers and administrators fear for their jobs if they don't reach the goals set by the government only leads to a system that looks for compliance at all costs and not at the real benefit to children.
Yeah, We Want Them Healthy, But Not Too Healthy
Again showing its' compassion, the Bush administration last year blocked states from offering health benefits to children that weren't covered under the State Children's Health Insurance Program.
The Government Accountability Office has now said the administration violated federal law in doing so. This makes the outlook for the administration grim in battling several lawsuits brought against the program.
California and several other states had challenged the limits of the program which say you can only offer health insurance to children in homes which have an income that falls below 250% of the poverty level -- about $44,000 for a family of three.
Nearly a decade ago Congress granted itself the ability to disapprove broad regulatory rules (as those proposed or enacted by states attempting to expand the health insurance). The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid did not follow that process when it sent out letters telling states they could not expand the limits of the children's health insurance program. The letter said states couldn't expand the limits until they proved they were serving 95% of the children below the poverty level. It also said children who lose or abandon private insurance coverage had to wait a year before being covered by the government program.
Yep, makes perfect sense to me. God forbid a state government should want to cover more children with health insurance than the Bush administration wants.
Quickies
This is more a personal observation than a "news" report. I was watching HBO tonight and they were hyping an upcoming movie about the Bush-Gore election; "Recount". One of the characters in the trailer said, "Soon the stain of the Clinton administration will be washed away." The character then talked about the high standards the incoming administration would have.
I don't know if it was just dialog from the movie or someone actually said it. But if it was an actual quote I am just amazed. I think about the last eight years under the Bush administration and I just marvel at the bullshit people involved in politics can utter and believe it.
Marking another 'high' in the way the government spends out tax money, the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) is putting electronic circuitry into bugs as a new defense weapon.
That's right, I said bugs.
HI-MEMS (Hybrid Insect Mico-Electronic Mechanical Systems) raises insects filled with electronic circuitry which could be guided by GPS technology to specific targets for surveillance missions. Scientists at DARPA say the bugs could carry one or more sensors like a microphone and relay back information.
So the next time you see a cockroach in your kitchen it just could be a spy for the Pentagon to make sure you're not passing secrets to a foreign country.
I'm sure the ACLU does a lot of good. But it can also be a total pain in the ass.
Recently the organization weighed in on the case involving the children taken from the polygamist compound in Texas. It said the rights of the children may have been violated when they were taken from the compound by Texas authorities.
Really? So what about the children's' rights to not be married to older men against their will? Or their rights to live without being the sex slaves of a religious leader who uses their bodies as rewards for his older male followers?
Interesting television ads this week. There were several commercials that hyped the value of using a real estate broker. They also hyped the old adage your home is some kind of financial investment as opposed to being a place to grow your family and your life.
I have always been opposed to this idea. I can see where it took root in a society where we move around more and change careers and locations every few years. When we lived in one place all our lives people only cared about the comfort of the home and the way it served the family. As we grew into a nation that seems to pursue the almighty dollar above almost everything else I guess it was only natural to start thinking of the house as a way to grow wealth.
But I still think it's a ration of crap. And with the housing market sagging more all the time (this week a story said the new housing market was slower than it had been in years) I guess advertisements to benefit people who make their living from selling houses was only to be expected.
Ever resourceful, lobbyists are finding a way around the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. While they are prohibited from buying a Congressman a $20 breakfast, now they just make a campaign contribution (usually far in excess of the cost of the meal) and have the legislator pay for his own breakfast.
This led to things like a pair of lobbyists flying chefs in from California to prepare a meal in their home for a couple of senators. And, a fundraiser at the new Washington Nationals baseball stadium with a "suggested donation" to the campaigns of the attending legislators of $5,000 for political action groups and $1,500 for individuals.
Housing foreclosures have brought a host of unwanted 'tenants' to abandoned homes. Partying college students, homeless, drug labs and rats have moved into houses lost in the mortgage crisis in Florida. And the latest infestation is bees. Apparently bees are getting into the abandoned homes and establishing colonies. Bee removers will gather up the insects if they are outside, but can't gain access to the interiors
