Dr. King's birthday is coming and has been my tradition, I've been thinking about doing a post. The first year of this blog, I linked to text and recordings from a couple of his more famous speeches and last year, I quoted from his big antiwar speech which was just recently cited in a Washington Post op-ed, which also tried to paint it in the context of Iraq.

Right now, I have a couple of ideas about things that I could write and perhaps we'll have to see if life will allow me to get something done in time to honor the man and his legacy, but as I was rolling through some thoughts, I struggled to remember a roadside historical marker that I believe was in central Virginia. This prompted me to start looking at the more than thirteen hundred titles that adorn those found in the Commonwealth and though I did not find the one for which I was looking, I did notice one marking the "Origin of Lynch Law". After absorbing the enormity of this thought, I flashed over to Wikipedia, where I read their entry on "Lynch Law", followed by the one entitled "Lynching in the United States".

This second Wikipedia entry told me that Tuskegee Institute started documenting lynchings within the United States starting in 1888, which they continued until 1968. And a google offered the following table of statistics, plus someone else's research listing of the documented lynchings between 1865 and 1965 or as the author calls it; "The Lynching Century".

( Lynchings, by State and Race )

I describe myself as being pro-choice and I consider the other side, right-to-life. Within these two monikers, the very essence of our beliefs are communicated; I believe that a woman's right to choose is of utmost importance, while those on the other side of the question assign more weight to the rights of a fetus.

This post was prompted because as I was leaving the store after buying a tomato for lunch, I noticed a Snap-On Tool truck making a delivery next door, which had a billboard attached to the back espousing the value of their tools. I assume the independent dealer had written "Choose Life" in block letters, along the top margin of the pre-printed sign and I thought about how I'm not offended or bothered by the term because it too, seems to support a woman's right to choose.

(x-posted)

He proposed atop the Eiffel Tower, got married in a fifteenth century Italian castle, with both the bride and groom dressed by Armani and their path was flanked by flag bearers dressed in medieval costumes, as they walked to the roll of drums. Plus, Bocelli sang at their reception. I hate Tom Cruise! How is anyone supposed to compete?

÷÷÷
Completely unrelated and in response to Attorney General Gonzales address at the Air Force Academy this afternoon, I'd like to quote Ben Franklin; "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Three things have converged to set me on a course of thinking. The triggering events for these thoughts are real, but the hypothetical scenario drawn should be considered an exercise in rhetorical questions; Real events or people should not be inferred. By no means should this post be interpreted as anti anything or an illustration of cause and effect, it exists only because I'm thinking about the question and the perpetuation of freedom, civilization and constitutional government is its only goal.

( And as I often do, I'll begin by drawing a map )

(x-posted)

As virtually everyone has heard, last week the New York Times and two other newspapers broke a fairly benign story that revealed federal investigators are following the money trail, when it comes to terrorists. I didn't comment on this earlier because for the life of me, I can't see anything too far out of line in the original story. Why wouldn't they monitor the flow of funds? Hasn't this been a part of our arsenal in the Drug War, organized crime and other money laundering investigations for years, if not decades?

In the days following 9/11, we were told that there had been an unusual amount of shorting and put action against the airlines and the insurance companies which were affected by the attacks. Though I didn't really follow the story afterward, a quick search brings up this article from the Chicago Tribune dated September 19th, 2001 which draws attention to the issue and which marks the creation of a task force to aid in the financial investigation.

We've seen testimony on Capital Hill that the post office can't afford to inspect every domestic package shipped, but things originating from outside our borders are given different consideration. When I go to Kroger's and use my frequent shopper card to buy a "participating item", I accumulate points toward an iTune download. This card also keeps up with my purchases of baby and pet items, plus film development and it gives me points toward discounts on a future purchase. Why would anyone expect anything less from an international conglomerate that facilitates global money exchanges?

As Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post and others have pointed out over the past few days, the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) has a website, as does the investigative body. They sponsor the largest financial trade show in the world and publish a magazine. SWIFT, a cooperative owned by more than 2,200 organizations and which services over 7,800 financial institutions worldwide makes no secret of their role in interbank communications and their willingness to cooperate with official investigations. Perhaps the most impressive thing that I learned from the piece in the Times, the Belgium group had actually taken steps to pro-actively reduce the scope of the US inquiries.

If all this is known and not a secret, one has to wonder why the administration and their mouthpieces have been batting around words like "treason" and so loudly calling Times to task. I'll admit that though I remember the stuff post-9/11 and I've only assumed that they have remained on the ball, I didn't have a name or direct knowledge of the government's investigative methods. But, I don't have an interest in money-laundering and other than an old company which I considered launching with an English partner and English investors, plus participation in a couple of global money market accounts; I can't say that international money transfers has occupied many of my wakened thoughts. It's just not my business, but I were an international terrorist, I'm sure my priorities would be different and I would've had full knowledge of this non-secret organization and how their structure might effect my efforts.

It's a newspaper's job to investigate and reveal anything that may be of importance which crosses their desk. The only acceptable exception would be if there is real possibility, it could directly put someone's life in danger. Sometimes these stories bear fruit, like the previously revealed NSA wiretapping story or the database of everyone's calling patterns and sometimes they don't amount to much of anything new. To take a step back from the inflammatory idea of national security with another example; Yesterday's Albuquerque Journal had a story below the fold disclosing that Burlington, Northern and Santa Fe Railroad contributed $50,000 to the Democratic Governor's Association, which Bill Richardson is the current chairman. The paper couldn't find any evidence concerning a quid quo pro with the Governor's "train to nowhere" or the "train to the future", however you'd like to look at it and they found that the company had donated similar amounts to both the Democratic and Republican organizations for years and under every chair. This investigation, much like the most recent one undertaken by the New York Times didn't really reveal anything that a random person with an interest couldn't have surmised, but by publishing this information; Freedom was served.

I could summarize the situation, but this clip from Reuters says it all;

Specter had written to Cheney to protest his role in what the Pennsylvania senator said was a larger White House effort to keep the courts and Congress from examining constitutional questions raised by the warrantless eavesdropping program. He said Cheney had asked Republicans to oppose "any ... hearing, even a closed one" and advised lawmakers that the companies were "not to provide any information to the committee as they were prohibited from disclosing classified information."

(More Info: WaPo, NYTimes)

As the report circulated about a loud bang in the parking garage for a US House office building, the stock market took a breather by showing a sharp dip until things were better defined and as the news coverage got underway. All of the District's schools went into lockdown for two and a half hours, security tightened throughout the city, the Rayburn Building was closed for more than four hours and the US Capital initially closed, reopened, closed and then re-reopened.

At 10:45 AM, the Capital Police broadcast the following email;

This is a message from the U.S. Capitol Police

1. If you are in the Rayburn HOB then Shelter in Place. Quickly move into the nearest interior office space or interior hallway and away from windows. The Capitol Police are investigating reports of gunfire in the Rayburn HOB.


2. If nearby, grab Go-Kits and personal belongings.


3. Close doors behind you, but do not lock.


4. Remain calm.


5. Await further instructions. Do not leave the building.

CNN talked to three guys who had been working on an elevator around 11:40 and they said that it was most likely them that had made the noise. There was no mention of this scenario at the two police press conferences, I watched before leaving the house because it was obvious what had happened and that the whole thing was an incredible overreaction.

At 1:57 PM, an email circulated that read;

The Capitol Police are continuing the floor-by-floor search of the Rayburn HOB.

1. During the search, the police officers will knock 3 times on each office door, announce "United States Capitol Police", knock 3 additional times, and then voice the code word


2. Unlock and open your office doors for the police and cooperate with all police instructions.


3. All occupants of the Rayburn HOB should remain in their offices until the Capitol Police announce that it is safe to exit. 4. If there are special concerns about the identity of the person knocking on your door and you need to verify their identity, call -- .


4. The Cannon and Longworth HOB's and the Capitol remain open for persons to access and exit. Access to the Capitol is limited to official business only.

As the room to room search was being conducted, a House Intelligence Committee, open-door hearing continued with minimal interruption. Two Washington Post reporters were in attendance and through their account of what took place after adjournment, we learn that a Capital Police officer entered around 1:30 and announced that soon a tactical team would sweep the room. They will be heavily armed and very loud, so please follow instructions was his suggestion.

Forty minutes later, the officer returned and asked the three Congresspeople who hadn't ignored instructions and left the area, if any of them were carrying weapons. Around 2:30 PM, the doors were unlocked and a tactical team entered, ordering everyone to put their hands on their heads. Then, they asked if anyone did not belong in this room, before they marched the citizens down the hall, hands on their heads and through a metal detector. It was after this point, the hearing witnesses and participants were released from custody and ordered out of the building.

It wasn't until 3:18 that the all-clear was sounded and things could get back to normal. The official explanation was that the elevator crew had been using a pneumatic hammer and it had most likely made the noise.

What did we learn?

A single phone call, which in this case came from a Congressperson's office, but the Police Spokesperson claimed ignorance all day, so they may have acted the same if it was a regular person or an anonymous call from a disposable cell; But, a single phone call reporting a suspicious sound had repercussions throughout our system and because of the idiotic idea of a lockdown, which we've allowed law enforcement to sell since Columbine, the situation was prolonged, intrusive and needlessly put people in danger.

The USA Today has an exclusive revealing that the NSA has attempted to build a database of every call placed within the United States. The pretense is that they are studying calling patterns and social networking to better identify suspect communications. I am mixed on the reasoning because it makes strategic sense for someone to propose such an effort, but I don't know that I trust these calls to remain unheard, so I must unequivocally oppose the program unless absolute and verifiable safeguards were put in place.

What I find most interesting is that every major phone company has voluntarily participated, except Qwest. The former US West is the major telecommunications company in fourteen Western and Northwestern states. There are some interesting quotes and a big window into the company's concerns, especially in the last part of the piece. I'd say on the surface, I'm glad my problem-plagued carrier has steadfastly refused, but I also know that the overwhelming majority of domestic, homegrown terrorists have either resided or trained within Qwest's coverage area. So, though I'm happy at least one company has stood for my rights, I also have to be a little concerned that those who may be more likely to commit acts of terrorism within our borders could be escaping detection.

My daughter has been "training" for a March of Dimes walk-a-thon, so we've been trying to walk her at least a mile a day. We're thinking that by incrementally increasing the distance, she may be able to walk the three miles for charity. Because it's my wife and some other mothers that'll be on her "team", usually I don't have anything to do with this training, but the other day, it fell upon me.

Being efficient, I walked her to the local grocery and pushed the stroller alongside. As we were going, she'd read to me the various signs and this led to discussion on abbreviations. On Bullock, there's a yellow speed limit sign that ends with "m.p.h." and that led to a discussion about measurement. I explained that a person's speed is calculated by saying that if they drove that speed for an hour, this is how far they would've gotten. Of course because she's a kid, it prompted her to ask about airplanes.

I told her, as I made it up in my head, that an airplane is a modern invention that came about after the invention of cars, so it uses some kind of miles. I know that there's such a thing as aeronautical miles and it uses miles as a basis, but I'm not sure if they use regular miles or aeronautical miles as a measure of speed, or how the two are different. Back in the old days, people would talk about how many day's walk someplace would be, for example, it's probably a two day walk to Albuquerque and as they started riding horse everywhere, they switched to it being how many day's ride. Albuquerque looks to me that it'd be a day's ride, but now it only takes a little over an hour for us to drive in the car.

Before cars, the only way to figure out distances would be for a person to count their steps, measure with a long ruler or do fancy math with a really good map. Nowadays, we measure distances in miles because we can count it on a map and because a car has a device that does the math for you. It counts how many times the wheels turn and that tells you how far, you've traveled. Boats, one of the oldest ways to travel, measures distances in knots. After people learned to walk, they wanted to know what was on the other side of the water, so they invented a boat. Back then, they had no concept of miles, so and I'm just guessing, but we can look it up when we get home; They probably tied knots in a long rope and calculated speed and distance by how many pieces of rope it was to a place and how fast they'd go past the knots.

Another jury-rigged measure that I could think of on the side of the road were hands. A horse is so many hands high because if somebody stacked their hands, one on top of each other, as I was demonstrating, they'd know how tall their horse was. Back in the old days, not everybody had a ruler and everybody didn't know how to use it. That's why they teach you this school.

Thus, concludes the conversation between the dude who makes it up and his daughter in kindergarten portion of this post, but as an aside and on the subtopic of the walk-a-thon; A couple of weeks ago, my wife co-hosted a birthday gathering for a local Mom, who is active in the Catholic church. Among the attendees were a few ladies that were previously unknown, but they are good friends with the birthday girl, so they were invited. When my wife whipped-out her walk-a-thon info, "no pressure", one of the Catholic women announced that she thinks the March of Dimes advocates prenatal testing, so they could be pro-abortion. Needless to say, my wife didn't recruit any additional members for her team at the Brew Pub that night.

Another measure that may not be entirely accurate is the breathalyzer. According to news reports, it has become popular for defense attorneys to request the device's programming code, so that it could be analyzed by an outside agency. Up to this point, the manufacturer of the Intoxilyzer has refused to release this data based on it being a trade secret, so some DWI cases have been tossed from court because they've successfully questioned the validity of the measure.

On Thanksgiving morning, a drunk driver plowed into an Albuquerque taxi, killing the driver and both passengers. The drunk driver has been charged and the bar at which he was drinking has been cited for over-serving. Yesterday, the State of New Mexico charged the bar and the bartender that served the dead guys, also for over-serving, but for the victims.

Unfortunately, no video is available and the bartender who was cited refused comment under advisement of her attorney. Another bartender did say on camera to a reporter, "When you drink responsibly and you call a cab for a ride, I don't see how that's something that should be punished." Apparently the reporter took her quote to a spokesman for the state and he replied, "Why would you serve someone to the point they needed to call a cab?".

Last night's report concluded with the information that in New Mexico, a bar can be cited for serving someone past .14, which is almost twice the legal limit of .08. The spokesperson's response initially raised my hackles, especially in light of the Texas experiment, where ABC officers have been going into bars and charging patrons with being publicly intoxicated before they've even left the building. What wasn't included in the television report, but was part of the article in this morning's paper; One crash victim had a blood alcohol of .12 and the other came back at .298.

Perhaps Rummy and his "special friend" are over-compensating, but this just in; "The Pentagon Spies on Gays".
---

On a semi-related note, from today's Pentagon briefing;
"Woodward's book is not the Bible... Some of you may not know that."
---

And, while I'm at it (semi-related to the documentation for the first link);
"Listening to The Clash and Led Zeppelin Could Get You Detained".

Last October, I noted a suggestion from a BT futurologist that MP3 players could be built into breast implants. This morning, I saw an article from 2004, explaining a valid Microsoft patent for using skin to conduct power and data. Reportedly, both humans and pets are covered, as is the concepts of simulating a keyboard onto or with the body, plus regulating flows based on device location.

The person who designed the invitation to the New Mexico Advertising Federation's "Addy" Awards had something else in mind, rather than the first thing that has apparently popped into a lot of people's heads. "Nobody thought about it from a political standpoint" and "we were in the middle of a metaphor" are two quotes from the designer and "It's your Baby" is the event's theme. (For maximum effect, use a mouseover to read the captions and perhaps get a better understanding of the intent.)

I don't think I have many people reading from South Dakota, but because I'm not one to hide my political beliefs and due to the nature of the 'net; A seemingly knowledgeable woman has promised a three-part series on setting up a abortion clinic. As of this writing, she has only published part one of her procedural step-by-step and though she promises not to be dissuaded by all of the negative trolls, she hasn't finished the additional parts. Just as I realize that few, if any read me from South Dakota, I also believe that no one is going to set up their own clinic or even read her entire post, but information is power and the web knows no bounds.

Years ago, when the World Wide Web was just being born and when most naked pictures were being traded on Usenet, there was a flood of nudist images that looked to be scanned from a magazine, but that I theorized may be an effort at entrapment because all the filenames started with an "aa_" and the Amateur Action BBS case was still very much in the news.

A websearch in support of this post shows that the images I remember probably did not come from the high profile test case, but because most of them featured young people below the age of consent, they always scared me and I was certain not to ever keep any copies. Though, I would see them on the Usenet while using a long gone computer.

This past week's Parade Magazine had a dramatic quote on the cover to promote a feature story about child pornography. The author does leave himself a couple of outs, but from an objective reading of the piece and though he does use a couple of extreme examples, it appears that he lumps simple photography into his mix.

Many of us have seen a story or two about an overzealous photo clerk calling the cops because some parent was developing pictures that contained a nude shot of their own child. And, what brings up this subject today is a case currently being tried in Santa Fe; Mark Rendleman is an area artist who had some photos of his nude children and for reasons not quite clear, one of the kids' mother went into his home while he was out of the country and gave the pictures to the FBI. According to news reports, she may have learned of their existence after her daughter had watched an episode of Oprah. The photos were never displayed or shared outside the home. It's a long and complicated story which has been bouncing around New Mexico courts for a few years.

Right now, the case has been remanded back to the district level and yesterday, the judge dismissed one of the remaining charges because he felt that by criminalizing a series of photos depicting the child eating breakfast in her pajamas, then changing clothes, he'd be putting other families into legal jeopardy. So, using the guidelines set forth by the appeals court, the judge dismissed a felony charge. (As for the remaining count, the news reports haven't been very clear, but the implication is that it involves a nude child riding on his shoulders and like photos, so physical contact with the genitalia actually occurred.)

The guidelines were as follows;

• Whether they focus on the genitals.


• Whether they are sexually suggestive.


• Whether they show an unnatural pose.


• Whether they show a naked or partially clothed child.


• Whether they show a child acting in a "sexually coy" manner.


• Whether they are designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer.


• Whether they are identifiable as "hard core pornography".

So, we've learned from the Amateur Action case that anything connected to the phone lines, the internet or sent through the mail are subject to local standards from any where in the country, but in New Mexico, it appears that the above standards apply. And, based on some quick googling, it appears that this same standard might be valid nationwide, or at least that's my judgment after looking at the style of photos on this site and especially on this other, which contain some that were posted to Usenet, all those years ago.

In an article about a Federal Judge ordering the White House to turn over documents related to their domestic spying program, we find the following paragraphs;

On Capitol Hill, lawmakers also have been seeking more information about Bush's program that allowed the National Security Agency to eavesdrop — without court warrants — on Americans whose international calls and e-mails it believed might be linked to al-Qaida.

After a two-hour closed-door session, Senate Intelligence Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said the committee adjourned without voting on whether to open an investigation. Instead, he and the White House confirmed that they had an agreement to give lawmakers more information on the nature of the program. The White House also has committed to make changes to the current law, according to Roberts and White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino.

"I believe that such an investigation at this point ... would be detrimental to this highly classified program and efforts to reach some accommodation with the administration," Roberts said.

And a little further down, we find a couple of additional, scattered paragraphs;

West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the Intelligence Committee's top Democrat, said the White House had applied heavy pressure to Republicans to prevent them from conducting thorough oversight. He complained that Roberts didn't even allow a vote on a proposal for a 13-point investigation that would include the program's origin and operation, technical aspects and questions raised by federal judges...

Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., told a forum at Georgetown University Law School Thursday night, "You cannot have domestic search and seizure without a warrant." He is drafting legislation to require the foreign surveillance court to review Bush's program and determine if it is constitutional.

Which after we reposition out tinfoil hats and flip to a whole other article from this morning, we'd see;

Sen. Arlen Specter helped direct almost $50 million in Pentagon spending during the past four years to clients of the husband of one of his top aides, records show.

Specter, R-Pa., used a process called "earmarking" 13 times to set aside $48.7 million for six clients represented by lobbyist Michael Herson and the firm he co-founded, American Defense International. The clients paid Herson's firm nearly $1.5 million in fees since 2002, federal lobbying records show.

Both, Mr Specter and the lobbyist deny any wrongdoing.