New Media Alliance - Blue Collar Muse

- By Ken Marrero

Jim Cooper, Democrat from Tennessee’s 5th District, recently got his ears pinned back in a formal committee hearing. Cooper held up a sheaf of papers and went for the kill while questioning Glenn English, CEO of the NRECA, a national coalition of electricity providing cooperatives. Cooper stated the material he was talking about came from the NRECA’s private, password protected site which he had accessed. At that point, English said he regretted Cooper’s introduction of the topic and noted that NRECA counsel had advised him Cooper was under investigation for criminal violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

As expected, Cooper denies any wrongdoing. He first asked the NRECA for the information and was refused. He later obtained the username and password from an NRECA employee which he used to access the site and get the information he was previously denied access to. In a Clintonesque distortion of language, Cooper now equates using the login information of another with being personally authorized to view the site. Would Jim object if someone with a key to his office, say the cleaning woman, gave her key to someone who used it to enter his office and rifle his files? Exactly! But one man’s authorized entry is another man’s breaking and entering. Cooper further justified his actions by saying NRECA’s customers had the right to know what was going on.

While opinions vary as to the law in these cases, the statute mentioned seems pretty straightforward. It appears there are a couple of places which may provide Cooper some legal problems. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act states in part,

a) Whoever– …

(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains– …

(A) information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, …

C) information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication;

and,

a) Whoever– …

(6) knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section 1029) in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization, if–

(A) such trafficking affects interstate or foreign commerce;

have broken the law. The definitions of the terms “exceeds authorized access", “financial record” and more are provided later in the document. They don’t help the Congressman’s cause.

Whether Jim Cooper’s actions were criminal would seem to boil down to: 1) Did Congressman Jim Cooper access the site in question? 2) Was he authorized to do so?; 3) Does the site contain any financial records?; 4) Do any site records pertain to either interstate communication, commerce or both?; 5) Did Cooper obtain the password via any means definable as “trafficking"?

#1 -The video records Cooper’s admission he was on the site. Check! #2 - Having been denied access to the information previously, Cooper knew he was not authorized. That he bypassed that denial in the way he did further demonstrates he knew he was not authorized. Check! #3 - Also per the video, Mr. English testified the site contained both 401K and retirement records for NRECA associates. It is not unreasonable to assume those records related to financial institutions as the NRECA is not itself a financial institution. Check! #4 - The NRECA is a national coop with 900 members in 47 states. That settles the question of do the affairs of the NRECA include interstate commerce and might their site contain interstate communication. Check! #5 - This would depend on the definition of the term “Traffic". What did Cooper do to get the login information? Must money change hands? Could providing something non-monetary, but valuable, such as promising to take care of the leaker if discovered and find him work elsewhere be considered trafficking? If so, perhaps a final - Check! - is in order.

As mentioned, Cooper denies knowledge of any FBI investigation. Of course he does. The situation definitely could produce one. Is it happening? We’ll have to wait and see. Cooper gets cover from the FBI itself as they don’t comment on ongoing investigations. Cooper could be lying through his teeth and we wouldn’t know until the FBI goes on the record. Of course, the Congressman could always “authorize” the FBI to “release information we’ve been denied access to previously” on the premise that, especially in an election year “the citizens of Tennessee’s 5th District have the right to know if their Congressman engaged in illegal activities” punishable by either 5 or 10 years in the slammer for a first offense and possible fines on top of that. Those of you with some time on your hands, stop by and enjoy the shades of blue I can turn while holding my breath waiting.

Cooper, by any estimation, is not a powerful or influential member of Congress. He merely fills a seat and the “D” after his name provides power for those who are. Just another career politician who knows nothing of life outside the Beltway. Despite being a Rhodes Scholar, he isn’t even bright enough not to confess to a crime on video. Is this the sort of politician we want in Washington? Do we really want someone making laws for the rest of us who cannot be bothered to obey them himself? There’s an election coming where we can decide exactly that. See you at the polls.

Blue Collar Muse

- By Ken Marrero

I was thinking earlier today about the huge numbers of Democratic distortions and outright deceptions swirling around in the news. Nancy Pelosi calling drilling a GOP hoax and continuing to blame Republicans for gas prices; Dennis Kucinich and other Democrats deflecting attention from their historic 91% DISapproval rating by renewing calls for W to be impeached; their deafening silence on how badly the war in Iraq is going and their insistence on sticking the many with the tab for the greed and ignorance of a few in housing speculation. All of these things and so much more await the nation foolish enough to grant these people additional power in November in the name of ‘Change’. What we need a change from is Democratic policy!

Just exactly how bad would it be for Democrats to be in charge of both the White House and Congress? While there is no way to tell for sure beyond the incontestable “Very, very bad!", we have a fly-on-the-wall view of the destruction awaiting America’s millions. It was provided by none other than Democratic icon and NY Senator Charles “Chuck” Schumer.

Most of you are by now aware of the failure of either the second or third largest bank in US History on Friday, July 12th, 2008. Depositors staged a run on California based IndyMac to the tune of $100 million! The bank collapsed and was taken over by the federal government who opened up again this morning for business as usual. Well, except for the depositors with balances over the FDIC guaranteed $100,000 limit. As of this writing, there’s no word on what happened to balances over that amount although the first $100,000 is safe.

What you may not be aware of, as I was not, is WHY there was a run on IndyMac. I assumed, incorrectly, it was related to the subprime mortgage bailout and poor loan management and performance by IndyMac. Subprime mortgages are involved. They provided the weakness IndyMac was dealing with. However, that’s not why depositors broke the bank and headed for the hills with their cash.


Erick Erickson at RedState has the scoop. It seems Senator Schumer was not content to notify the Office of Thrift Supervision, IndyMac’s regulator, of his concerns about IndyMac’s condition and stability. Beyond that responsible notification, Senator Schumer made his concerns very public via a series of strategic leaks. When the public got wind of his concerns, they panicked and destroyed a financial institution.

This is not simply my highlighting a Democrat’s bad behavior. The Office of Thrift Supervision’s Director, John Reich, issued a written statement laying IndyMac’s collapse at Charles Schumer’s feet.

“As a regulator of insured depository institutions, we do not publicly comment on the financial condition or supervisory activities related to open and operating institutions,” Reich wrote. “We believe it is critically important to maintain the confidentiality of examination and supervision information.”

He went on: “Dissemination of incomplete or erroneous information can erode public confidence, mislead depositors and investors, and cause unintended consequences, including depositor runs and panic stock trades. Rumors and innuendo cause damage to financial institutions that might not occur otherwise and these concerns drive our strict policy of privacy.”

Senator Schumer evidently felt such a responsible handling of matters such as these was, itself, irresponsible and needed a little nudge in the right direction from his office. He did not deny or even apologize for his actions. Instead he justified them in a statement issued through his office in which he said,

The home loan bank system has an obligation to lend responsibly and police its members. But it has not been doing its job. We have found the only way to get the home loan bank system to act appropriately and positively is to make public the concerns we’ve already expressed privately.

Schumer’s hubris and arrogance as evidenced by his actions were summed up in a statement by former US Comptroller of the Currency John D. Hawke.

“If Schumer continues to go public with letters raising questions about the condition of individual institutions, he will cause havoc in the banking system,” Hawke said.

“Leaking his IndyMac letter to the press was reckless and grossly irresponsible. I don’t see how he can be trusted with confidential information in the future. What this incredibly stupid conduct does is put at risk the willingness of regulators to share any information with the [congressional] oversight committees. After this, you’d be crazy to share information with Schumer.”

I opened with noting this post would give you a glimpse into government with Democrats in control. Hawke’s comments are all the description one needs when contemplating such a horror. Havoc causing; reckless; grossly irresponsible; untrustworthy; incredibly stupid; putting [America] at risk; not to be privy to confidential or delicate information. One Senator, acting as he saw fit with no thought or concern for the people affected, decided to impose his will on a segment of the American people. That they weren’t people who could hold him accountable for his actions at the ballot box is even more disgusting. His actions have done incalculable harm to the economies, jobs, futures and dreams of thousands of people associated with IndyMac; the very little people Schumer and company ceaselessly tell us they look out for.

There’s some looking out to be done here, all right. America had better look out for itself and vote, not just “No!", but “Heck, NO!” to any Democrat seeking office in November. If we don’t, we can all sit back and look out for more destruction born of arrogance headed down from the heights of Capitol Hill courtesy of Democrats.

Discuss this personally with Blue Collar Muse

- By Ken Marrero

The powers permitted to Government ought to be few and well defined. So believed James Madison. Nowhere is this more true than in the area of “police power". It should be noted the Constitution only extends police powers to the federal government in case of “counterfeiting, treason, piracy and offenses against the laws of nations.” Which makes for disturbing news from Homeland Security. Seems citizens need to be aware of yet more when flying.

Walter Williams illuminates. There is a new federal offense for air passengers. Called “nonphysical interference", it carries up to $1,500 in fines for distracting a Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) screener’s attention from what he is doing. Williams writes the definition of

… nonphysical interference is solely up to the discretion of a TSA screener since it isn’t defined in the regulations. TSA agents can levy fines for a passenger disagreeing with the behavior or arrogance of a screener.

Williams reports hundreds of accounts of rudeness by TSA employees. In March, 2004 alone there were almost 3,000 formal complaints about TSA behavior, none of which resulted in disciplinary action. This from folks who now have authority to fine and arrest you for “interfering” with their duties! This doesn’t inspire confidence in the proper exercise of power.

Even worse, Williams also reports TSA has an entirely new position. Behavior Detection Officers (BDO) are now examining body language, facial expressions and other behavior to determine which passengers exhibit behavior warranting a more detailed screening. Bob, a trained BDO blogging at TSA’s ‘Evolutions in Security’ blog, defends the practice. He notes,

The program was designed by Paul Ekman (PhD), … He’s been studying behavioral analysis for the past 40 years and has taught the TSA, Customs and Border Protection, CIA, FBI and other federal agencies to watch for suspicious facial expressions of tension, fear or deception. … After passing along his skills to US Customs, their “hit rate” for finding drugs during passenger searches rose to 22.5 percent from 4.2 percent in 1998.

and further relates

Between July 1, 2007 and February 7, 2008, 514 people were arrested after being referred for additional screening or directly to law enforcement officers by behavior detection officers. The arrests include unlawfully carrying concealed firearms or other weapons, possession of fraudulent documents, transporting undeclared currency, possessing illegal drugs, immigration law violations, and outstanding warrants.

I’ll admit the technique increased US Customs’ hit rates over 500%. I’ll also note it still failed over 75% of the time. That hardly seems a scientific result to brag about.

Bob says BDOs might have flagged some of the 9/11 terrorists and “subjected them to secondary screening and questioning.” That might have saved lives. And it sounds low key. Citizens are singled out for searching and a few questions and bad guys get busted. However, the WSJ reports BDOs are “agents … trained to watch what [citizens] … do and ask pointed questions to raise their stress levels … to conduct rapid-fire questioning to find inconsistent stories.” That’s a different scenario and the potential for abuse is obvious.

If we apply Customs’ 75% failure rate to Bob’s 514 arrests, over 2,000 innocent passengers were intentionally upset, provoked and abused in producing that result. Of the list Bob touts, only “firearms and other weapons” impact air travel safety, the real job of TSA. How many of the 514 busts were weapon related? 5? 25? 100? Allowing 25 undetected weapons through would be a 1% failure rate. Doing nothing would have vastly improved TSA performance.

This is an apples-to-apples comparison. Because a 75% failure rate detecting bad guys by behavior equals TSA’s rate for detecting bombs at the airport! Publishing figures USA Today says “stunned security experts”, the TSA itself admitted failing to detect 75% of bomb components it tried to sneak past screeners at Los Angeles International Airport. At Chicago’s O’Hare, the failure rate was 60%. These figures are from 2007. But the paper also reports “Tests earlier in 2002 showed screeners missing 60% of fake bombs. In the late 1990s, tests showed that screeners missed about 40% of fake bombs …”

In what should have been a highly touted result, the best screening results came from private screening companies. In 2007, “San Francisco International Airport screeners, who work for a private company instead of the TSA, missed about 20% of the bombs, the report shows.” In 2002, “… screeners failed to find fake bombs, dynamite and guns 24% of the time. The TSA ran those tests shortly after it took over checkpoint screening from security companies.” TSA could immediately improve results by over 200% if they simply privatize the process!

Something needs to change. The figures paint a dangerous and unflattering portrait. TSA has had a 150% turnover in personnel in just over 6 years. This means inexperienced employees, often with only basic training, are on the job. There is little in the way of technology to make up for the inexperience. This produces pressure on frontline TSA personnel. Top that off by allowing an agency without police powers to increasingly look like police and act like police and we create what ‘Consumer Reports’ calls “A ‘facade of security’”. We also have the real threat of creating the very environment terrorists desire; innocents victimized by authority in response to terrorism.

I wish I had solutions. I don’t. But it seems our current solution is becoming worse than what it seeks to prevent. Increasing TSA authority is the wrong response. We need less confrontational, more successful and, dare I say, non-governmental options. The goal is not safety at any price or even merely safety. It is safety within the constitutional bounds of smaller government and undiminished personal liberty. We’re at another one of those crossroads. Choose wisely.

Blue Collar Muse

- By Ken Marrero

Last week I wrote about the plight of Nashville’s Joy Ford, the country’s latest victim of Eminent Domain abuse by government. Nashville’s Metropolitan Development and Housing Agency (MDHA) has begun legal proceedings under Eminent Domain to condemn and seize Joy’s business. It has prospered at the head of Music Row for almost 30 years. Now it is “blighted” and must be bulldozed to make room for $100 million dollars worth of development by a private firm in Houston, TX. I said last week, this case is every bit as bad as Kelo vs New London in 2005.

Possibly anticipating the nation’s outrage over Kelo, Justice John Paul Stevens, writing in his Kelo opinon, said, “… nothing in our opinion precludes any state from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power.” In the aftermath of Kelo, according to Property Fairness, 27 states, including Tennessee, took Justice Stevens’ encouragement and attempted to do exactly that in 2006.

The problem, of course, is not in the attempt but in the accomplishment. The Tennessee Bar Association published an excellent analysis of Tennessee’s new law. The short version is that, in Tennessee, little was accomplished beyond political posturing. It is Tennessee’s 2006 failure to further restrict its takings power which leads directly to MDHA’s 2008 actions against Joy Ford. Speaking of the effectiveness of Tennessee’s legislation, Drew Johnson, President of The Tennessee Center for Policy Research noted,

“Tennessee’s new eminent domain law is a joke—and the joke is on property owners across the state,” … Tennesseans aren’t any more secure from having their property taken than before the law was passed.”

In particular, Johnson says that the law’s failure to more clearly define blight and its outright encouragement of eminent domain use to acquire land for industrial parks makes it particularly threatening to property owners.

Three months earlier, State Rep. Susan Lynn (TN-57), offered this evaluation of the law,

… after being worked through committee, this bill essentially guarantees very little protection for Tennesseans when it comes to eminent domain. To quote Sandra Day O’Connor in her dissent of the Kelo decision, the “specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.”

The bill states that ‘public use’ shall not include either private use or direct public benefits deriving from private economic development or private commercial enterprise, including the benefit of increased tax revenue and increased employment opportunities - except in the case where eminent domain is used for; roads, public utilities, private utilities, housing authorities, community development agencies for urban renewal or redevelopment plans; or for industrial parks. Looking at that list, I really can’t think of any exception for private economic development by eminent domain that the bill leaves out.

These 2006 comments by Lynn and Johnson are prescient. Joy Ford’s property is being seized because it is deemed “blighted". Drew Johnson noted the law’s poor definition of blight. According to Ms. Ford, her property is ruled “blighted” because, among other things, it is surrounded by a chain link, barbed-wire topped security fence and is the only building left on the development property. Yet someone, perhaps the developer, has erected a shabbier looking fence around the development site. It goes unreported that both a hotel and Ford’s building abut the same parking lot. I assume the hotel property is not part of the development and so escapes urban “blight” despite also standing alone. Either that or Ford’s building is not the only one left on the property. Further, the reason Ford’s building is the only one left is the Shoney’s and other buildings standing on the site were demolished in anticipation of the development.

I’m trying to determine if these truly are factors in the classification of the Ford’s property as “blighted". If so, how unfair. MDHA and LionStone Group want to buy her property but Ford won’t sell. They move ahead with development plans and clear the land. This has, for them, the pleasant side effect of creating the situation needed to force Ford from her property. Had LionStone and MDHA been required to wait until the property was free and clear before proceeding, a major element of the case against Ms. Ford, that of her “blighted” property, would not exist. How does creating “blight” for personal gain become working for the good of the public?

However, it is Rep. Lynn’s comments which make me wonder if government has not stacked the deck against the citizens they are to represent. A quick read of the bill would lead one to believe Tennessee was seeking to protect Tennesseans from the exact abuse Connecticut forced on her citizens. As Rep. Lynn observes, the bill starts well, noting “‘public use’ shall not include either private use or direct public benefits deriving from private economic development or private commercial enterprise, including the benefit of increased tax revenue and increased employment opportunities …” Unfortunately, the Tennessee Legislature left a loophole in the law. While making an acceptable exemption for traditional uses of Eminent Domain such as “… roads, public utilities, private utilities …” the bill then opens the door to all manner of Eminent Domain abuse by also exempting cases “… where eminent domain is used for; … housing authorities, community development agencies for urban renewal or redevelopment plans; or for industrial parks.”

The very issue which enraged the public in the Kelo decision, taking private property for private economic development to increase the city’s tax revenue, is not forbidden to government. In fact, the mechanism for government to do precisely that is written into the law. Government is forbidden from directly taking your property to develop to improve tax revenues. But agencies created by government whose purpose is development can do so. How did such disregard for citizen’s rights become law and an example of preserving the rights of citizens?

I’d like an answer to that from the Legislature. I’m sure Ms. Ford would, too. But for her, time is running out. The Legislature ran out of town at the end of the session. Too bad MDHA is still here and they’ve given Ford until just the middle of September to vacate the premises. After that, the wrecking balls start swinging. That’s long before the politicians responsible for this mess swing back through town. Stay tuned for more on this here …

Blue Collar Muse

Near the beginning of The Declaration of Independence, these words appear.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

It is here, a 30 second read into the birth of our nation, we find the most important right which government is to secure, the Pursuit of Happiness.

The Declaration establishes three foundational rights. The Constitution generally amplifies them, outlining ways government may not prevent us from exercising them. Our Right to Life is partially expressed in our Right to Keep and Bear Arms to defend that Life if threatened. Our Right to Liberty is partially expressed in our Right to Due Process to ensure any restraint on that Liberty is just.

One Right listed in the Declaration is different. It has no amplification in the Bill of Rights. The least discussed, it is the most important - the Pursuit of Happiness.

The Pursuit of Happiness is different in that it guarantees nothing. Other Rights we enjoy enumerate a concrete something. We have Freedom of Speech. Speech is a “something” that is mine. Just so with Life, Liberty, to Bear Arms, the Press - at the end of each we find something tangible. Not so with the Pursuit of Happiness.

Pursuing Happiness is the only Right which does not define an outcome. We are not guaranteed Happiness, just the Pursuit of it. We are not assured the road will not be difficult or poorly maintained, merely that it is there to be traveled. Because of this, the Pursuit of Happiness is our most precious Right. Because phrased another way, it guarantees our Right to Fail.

Happiness is different for every man. Our dreams are as individual as we are. It would have been folly to try to define Happiness; folly to determine the best path to Pursue it. Pursuits may be long or short; easy or difficult; straightforward or complicated. While I am grateful for the straightforward, short and easy ones, it is the value in the complicated, long and difficult ones which the Declaration anticipated. Because the Pursuits teaching us the most, both building and revealing character; producing the most opportunity for us, are the difficult ones or the ones we fail to complete at all.

Thomas Edison tried over 4,000 different prototypes of the light bulb before realizing his goal. He is reported to have said, “I have not failed 4,000 times. I have discovered 4,000 ways not to create an incandescent light bulb!” Undaunted by failing in his Pursuit, Edison learned from each. It was because of, not in spite of, his failures, that he succeeded. Even the simplest Pursuits face obstacles. A man’s response to them determines not just his success in Pursuit of that specific Happiness. It determines his success for all future Pursuits as well.

Do we persist in adversity? Do we work as hard in anonymity as we do in the limelight? Do we collaborate or insist on solo Pursuits? There are a myriad lessons to be learned. Most of them are only learned through failure. As it is said, “Most good judgement comes from experience! Most experience comes from bad judgement!”

It is here where a man’s success or failure in his various Pursuits is determined. Because along with recognizing man’s Rights, the Declaration notes men institute government to secure them and that government does so only with the consent of the governed. It thus becomes vital for the governed to so value the Right to Fail they refuse to consent to any plan by government to take it from them. They must consent to striving in an environment, secured by government, in which failure is a valued result.

If We The People consent to government which takes away our Right to Fail, we consent to government which will take away our other Rights as well. Securing a government with power to eradicate our individual Pursuits, we secure a government with power to define our individual Happiness. When Happiness is defined for the many by government, individuals must surrender the rest of their Rights to facilitate the government’s Pursuit. Those refusing to do so are threats both to government and the governed. We all know how threats are dealt with.

This is the question Americans must answer. Will we be allowed to fail or not? The Left, and far too many on the Right, say, “No! No one must fail!” There remains, however, a minority which understands the value in failure. It understands the pain in little failures along the way are motivation to great Happiness at the end of the Pursuit! It understands failure is not an impediment to Happiness, it is a stepping stone to a successful Pursuit. It knows temporary suffering in a failure while Pursuing does not compare to the eternal suffering in failing to Pursue at all.

Celebrating your Independence today, understand what it means to be Independent! It means your success or failure in the Pursuit of Happiness depends on you, not the government. It means you not only can, but will, fail while in Pursuit. When your Rights are secured by government and not defined by it, you embrace failure as a blessing and not a curse, as a teacher and not a thief. You truly have Life, you are truly at Liberty, you have the best chance for a successful Pursuit!

In college, I hung a poster on my wall which read, “A ship in a harbor is safe. But that is not what ships were made for!” Enjoy your Pursuit! Godspeed!

Blue Collar Muse