New Year’s Resolutions By PAUL KRUGMAN, NYTimes

[T]here can be no illusions: President Bush has turned this country sharply to the right, and this election will determine whether the right’s takeover is complete. …

Beware of personal anecdotes. Anecdotes that supposedly reveal a candidate’s character are a staple of political reporting, but they should carry warning labels.

For one thing, there are lots of anecdotes, and it’s much too easy to report only those that reinforce the reporter’s prejudices. The approved story line about Mr. Bush is that he’s a bluff, honest, plain-spoken guy, and anecdotes that fit that story get reported. But if the conventional wisdom were instead that he’s a phony, a silver-spoon baby who pretends to be a cowboy, journalists would have plenty of material to work with. …

Look at the candidates’ records. A close look at Mr. Bush’s record as governor would have revealed that, the approved story line notwithstanding, he was no moderate.

USATODAY.com – Federal surveillance technology to be tested at T.F. Green

A system able to detect ”unusual activity” by anyone inside the airport. For example, the technology could identify an individual who has put down a piece of luggage and left, and then track that person moving through the airport, Cheston said. …

Cheston brushed off concerns about a Big Brother-type of system.

“Everyone should know that if they’re coming to the airport, they’re going to be looked at […],” he said.

…every single second — how long before this extends to people who have ever been at an airport? mjh

Government Computer News (GCN) daily news — federal, state and local government technology; TSA seeks vendors to detect terrorists by checking public data

The Transportation Security Administration has invited proposals from contractors to perform advanced terrorist threat analysis of the agency’s job candidates and employees.

”The analysis should be able to confirm an individual’s identity using public records data, and use that confirmed identity to provide insight and information as to whether the individual presents a potential terrorist threat or has possible connections to potential terrorists,” the agency said in a procurement notice posted Dec. 17.

Makes sense to check your job applicants and employees, doesn’t it? Read on.

The Homeland Security Department agency said potential terrorists might not be on watch lists and might ”try to achieve relative obscurity by constructing typical lifestyles on U.S. soil. In so doing, they will develop an ‘electronic footprint’ of publicly available information that can be acquired and used as a key input for” terrorist threat analysis.

Some terrorists who have not established a significant or useful electronic footprint may still be detected by their lack of such a footprint, TSA said.

Follow the logic: you’re suspicious for leading a normal life and you’re suspicious for leading an unusual life (for having a ‘footprint’ or lacking one).

The procurement notice says the contractor should be able to analyze the records of at least 30,000 individuals in 120 days. Contractors will be required to provide a facility approved for top-secret work and employees with top-secret security clearances.

Responses to the solicitation were due yesterday afternoon.

Finally, note two things: the need to analyze 30,000 people in 120 days (must be planning a lot of job applicants at TSA). Also, this bid was open for exactly 1 week — probably only enough time for someone with lots of computing power and advance insider notice to put a bid together. Halliburton or EDS — which do you want spying on you? mjh

Even a non-political publication like American Archaeology sees the threat of the Bush administration.

The following excerpts are from an article not available online. The article documents the Bush administration’s efforts to privatize everything — the end of public service. Searching for ”efficiency,” Bush would have every civil servant replaced with Wal-Mart employees making less than minimum wage. mjh

The Potential Threat of A-76
A Bush Administration Initiative Could Have Grave Consequences For Public Archaeology.
by Elizabeth Wolf

Circular A-76, first drafted during the Eisenhower Administration and revised by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) over the years, is the government’s vehicle for conducting public-private cost comparisons. President Bush says A-76 “competitive sourcing” promotes government efficiency and gets the most bang for the taxpayer’s buck even if the jobs ultimately stay in the public sector. …

The manner in which the A-76 process was initiated took a heavy toll on the morale of the [Southeast and Midwest Archaeological Centers’] staffs [mjh: and their budgets and time].

Competitive sourcing is the most controversial component of the President’s five-part Management Agenda. [It is seen by some] as a bald attempt to shrink the civil service and reduce government accountability to American citizens.

Welcome to American Archaeology

American News | 12/23/2003 | United States leaps back into nuclear arms race Daniel Sneider, San Jose Mercury News

Buried in the energy bill signed by the president earlier this month are three little lines. The amounts are small, but together they do nothing less than put the United States on the road to developing and eventually testing new nuclear weapons for the first time since the end of the Cold War. …

The administration portrays this as part of a revamping of our nuclear arsenal to meet new threats, including the spread of weapons of mass destruction to so-called rogue states. But the military has never asked for nuclear weapons to meet that threat. …

”This administration has made it clear that they’ve gone back into the nuclear weapons business, big time,” says Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., one of the most knowledgeable members of Congress on this issue….

The advocates of this shift are now firmly in command of nuclear policy in the Bush administration and are moving rapidly to implement their views. And while there is room to carry out research in these areas, there are great dangers as well. …

Battlefield nuclear weapons blur the line between nuclear and conventional weapons, undermining the firebreak against nuclear use that held since 1945. This is even more troubling given the administration’s declaration that it won’t hesitate to strike first if it believes rogue nations or organizations have weapons of mass destruction. It lends credence to North Korea’s propaganda that it needs its own nuclear weapons to counter this threat.

Countless articles refer to the Bush administration “moving rapidly” on various radical changes. It’s as if they’re afraid they’ll be found out and thrown out and, therefore, must change everything NOW. mjh

Administration Is Exempting Alaska Forest From Protection By JENNIFER 8. LEE, NYTimes

The Bush administration announced on Tuesday that the Tongass National Forest in Alaska, the largest in the country, would be exempted from a Clinton-era rule, potentially opening up more than half of the 17 million-acre forest for more development and as many as 50 logging projects. …

The roadless rule was put in place after a two-year process that included 600 scientific studies and two rounds of public comments that generated almost two million responses, most of them in favor of the rule. …

The Tongass National Forest, with 16.8 million acres, has been particularly contentious because of its environmental symbolism as the only temperate rain forest on the continent.

“This is the rarest forest type on earth and it needs to be protected,” said Jeremy Paster, a forest campaign organizer for Greenpeace.

Philadelphia Inquirer | 12/21/2003 | Trudy Rubin | Are we safe? We can’t know

Has the capture of Saddam Hussein made Americans safer?

Howard Dean’s claim to the contrary set off a political firestorm last week as other Democrats flayed him and Republicans watched with satisfaction.

But Dean’s question is more complex than either party admits. …

“If he were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger. That’s what I’m trying to explain to you,” he told Diane Sawyer, as she kept asking whether the weapons of mass destruction threat had been imminent or hypothetical.

“What’s the difference?” the President asked.

The difference, of course, is that the administration based the war on the claim that Hussein had the weapons already. In reality, the White House rallied Americans to fight an unknown unknown.

Ironically, however, the invasion of Iraq and Hussein’s fall have unleashed their own future dangers – more unknown unknowns.

Iraq is unstable, its political direction unclear. … Democracy? Iraqis have no civil society, no democratic institutions – and it will take decades to build them. …

Things may get better. … Or it may prove a lost opportunity, and terrorism may worsen. We just don’t know yet. That’s why Dean’s question is relevant – and hard to answer. There are too many unknown unknowns.