Welcome to Masterpiece Security Theater

In Darrin Nikolaisen’s blog post “Pat Downs and Body Scans,” he explains the growing concern about the Transportation Security Agency’s implementation of full body scanners and vigorous pat downs. He details the public’s mounting apprehension toward receiving a high dose of radiation or being aggressively fondled by TSA agents in order to board a plane. While he empathizes with those who feel violated by the new security measures, Nikolaisen defends the TSA in stating that “passengers should give up some of their rights for the greater good of those around you.” I respect Nikolaisen’s opinion and I think he did an excellent job in this blog post. I found it to be quite articulate. However, I believe a more thorough cost/benefit analysis would expose the discrepancies in the endorsement of these procedures.

Allow me to introduce you to Michael Chertoff, the former U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security under President George Dubya Bush.
Chertoff is a co-author of the USA PATRIOT Act, which was an act of Congress that removed some of the liberties of the American people in the name of safety. It was signed into law on October 26, 2001 in a response to the events of September 11th. Is it just me, or do the proximity of those two dates seem weird to anyone else?

Imagine you are at a restaurant. You order an entrée and begin a casual conversation with your company. Three minutes later, the entrée appears in front of you. Where did it come from? It certainly wasn’t made-to-order. That entrée is the Patriot Act, and it arrived suspiciously quickly. Usually, an Act of the U.S. Congress takes months or years to prepare. The Patriot Act was introduced to Congress on September 20, 2001, just nine days after September 11th. I’m no conspiracy theorist. I’m just sayin’: rather strange. Don’t you think?

Michael Chertoff was also the first to use his former government credentials to advocate for the use of full body scanners at airports, shortly after the failed Christmas-day bombing attempt last year. When interviewed on the topic, he never mentions that a client of Chertoff Group, his security consulting agency, is Rapiscan Systems, the company that makes the body scanning machines that are being sold to the government to be placed in airports across the U.S. (Washington Post) This implicates a huge conflict of interest. One can plainly see that his intentions are to the benefit of his company and clients, and not of the American people.

“Pat Downs and Body Scans” makes no acknowledgment of the welfare of the minors that are forced to be photographed or touched inappropriately. There are claims that the images are deleted immediately after being viewed by TSA agents, but something tells me that that is an outright lie. I get the feeling that, in the event of a successful in-flight suicide bombing, the body scanner image of the suspected terrorist would be pulled up immediately for review, perhaps out of the “Recycle bin.”

Darrin mentions that, as of now, we still maintain the right to opt out of being x-rayed. In the case of an “opt-out,” the entire surface area of the passenger’s body is thoroughly and invasively “patted down,” including primary and secondary external reproductive organs. Indeed, this means the folds of the vulva, penis, and breasts will be groped by a stranger of the same sex. This is one of the reasons that I refuse to fly.

I also rejoinder Darrin’s support for the new security measures with reasons why scanning American citizens as they fly from city to city within the U.S. will not prevent a terrorist attack. First of all, full body scanners are not being implemented at airports in most countries outside of the United States. If a bomb-wielding maniac successfully boards a plane in Yemen or Germany and detonates it on its way to the United States, I think we would quickly realize that all of these heightened security efforts were in vain.
Darrin mentions that the body scanners are worth-while because they are able to detect objects inside body cavities. However, full body scanners are not able to scan for objects inside body cavities. They are only good for capturing a detailed image of your “junk.” And we know that terrorists are not disinclined to insert a bomb into a bodily orifice. They would only need to set a timer for mid-flight detonation, eliminating the need for an external detonating device.

Altogether, I thought Mr. Nikolaisen’s blog post was informative, organized, and very interesting. And while I may not agree with what he has to say, I will defend to the death his right to say it; a perfect example of the freedoms that we, as American citizens, should never surrender. After all, we do have the greatest constitution in the world; we should work a little harder to preserve it.

Hey hey! Ho ho! No Blood for Acevedo!

In October 2008, the City of Austin began implementing a “No Refusal Weekend” policy to be enforced on holidays, during which anyone suspected of a DWI can and will be forced to submit to a blood alcohol test to definitively determine the suspect’s Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) which will ultimately be used against them in the court of law.

Non-profit organizations like Texans for Accountable Government and Square Patrol of Austin believe that the “No Refusal” policy is an infringement on our civil liberties, a violation of the Texas Transportation Code and a blatant disregard for the US Constitution. They, as I, appreciate the efforts to eliminate drunk driving, but they disagree with a law officer’s authority to forcibly remove blood from an individual. Square Patrol goes as far as to offer a free designated driver service from 10:00pm to 3:00am, seven days a week. There are ethical ways to reduce drunk driving and convict criminals, but stealing a person’s blood is just not one of them.

Texas Transportation Code, Section 724.011, “Consent To Taking Of Specimen,” allows officers of the Austin Police Department to obtain a blood sample from individuals suspected of driving while intoxicated.

However, Texas Transportation Code, Section 724.013, “Prohibition On Taking Specimen If Person Refuses” details the exception to the rule: “Except as provided by Section 724.012(b) [if an individual is injured, if there is a person under 15 involved, or if the suspect has a previous DWI conviction], a specimen may not be taken if a person refuses to submit to the taking of a specimen designated by a peace officer.”

This means that APD’s "No Refusal" policy is in direct violation of the Transportation Code, and many believe they are asking for a lawsuit.

During “No Refusal” Weekends in Austin, if you are apprehended under suspicion of Driving While Intoxicated and if you refuse a blood or breath test, there is a judge nearby ready to issue a warrant and a nurse waiting to take your blood by force. The extreme levels that authorities are willing to go to, in order to obtain indicting evidence, seems excessive. Why aren’t regular field sobriety tests enough to make an arrest?

I make it a point never to drink and drive; but about a year ago, an old roommate of mine stole my car, went to 6th Street, and sideswiped another vehicle while driving home on IH-35 at two o’clock in the morning. Although she refused the field and breath sobriety tests, she was still arrested and convicted of Driving While Intoxicated. In this case, a blood draw was not necessary for an indictment, and she was not able to slip through the cracks of the legal system, despite prolonging the process by hiring a lawyer in an attempt to have the DWI charges dropped. Whether you refuse or not, you’re still spending the night in jail.


Many claim that regular, non-chemical, field sobriety tests are intended to make you fail. It is true that these tests are difficult to perform, even when sober; they can, therefore, easily result in a wrongful DWI charge. There are three types of field sobriety tests currently used by law enforcement across the nation: Walk-and-Turn (WAT), One-Leg Stand (OLS), and Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN).

I contend that no one can walk heal-to-toe in a straight line without wavering, yet this is used to test your “normal” walking ability. I’m a young, healthy 24 year old woman, and I cannot stand on one leg for 30 seconds without appearing inebriated. The only field sobriety test that comes close to being a valid physiological test is the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test in which the suspect tracts the officer’s pen or finger from left to right. The officer will be “trained” to watch for jolting of the eyes as they reach maximum deviation at the far left and far right, which occurs in individuals that are intoxicated. However, it wouldn’t take a rookie to misinterpret the results of a test like this, especially if it is dark outside, or if the suspect is nervous or has a flashlight in his eyes.

However, in a well-lit judicial double-wide, or a portable court room appropriately named the "BAT Mobile", these tests may prove to be more accurate. Officers are also told to use their own experience to determine if an individual is intoxicated. The smell of alcohol, slurred speech, or swaying is enough probable cause for a Driving While Ability Impaired (DWAI) arrest. Furthermore, Rubberstamping search warrants on-site robs citizens of their Fifth Amendment right to due process.
Since the Austin Police Department has begun the “No Refusal” program, the department has performed 178 blood tests. Of those 178 tested, 70% were found to be twice the legal limit. Are the visible signs of someone twice over the legal limit not enough to make an arrest? I find it hard to believe that blood tests were necessary in such cases where the suspect can’t even focus long enough to make adequate eye contact with an officer. Blood draws are simply not necessary.

This is not about drunk driving at all. This is about our civil liberties. When our government is given the power to infringe upon the rights of criminals, they maintain that same power against all of us. The goal of government is to incrementally inch power away from the people. We can trust that, once removed, that power will not be returned.

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)

A Weed is but an Unloved Flower

An enlightening editorial by my dear colleague, Anival Valadez, entitled “Weeds,” offers an aberrant view on marijuana use in the United States. I believe his blog post represents the burgeoning attitude toward marijuana legalization, especially among America’s youth. His comparison of the illegalization of cannabis to the 1920s prohibition of alcohol is right on. A brief history of how marijuana became illegal in the United States will illustrate how our government exploits laws and manipulates the minds of the people to further their agenda and benefit their elite cohorts.

During the 1930s, marijuana was perfectly legal in the United States. You would skip on down to the neighborhood bar (or underground “speakeasy” during prohibition times) in your flapper dress or fedora hat, order an illegal Tom Collins and light up a joint. It was fashion-forward and socially acceptable.

At the time, cars were manufactured to run on ethyl alcohol which was something Mr. John D. Rockefeller despised, since he owned a monopoly on the nation's oil, the Standard Oil Company. Through Rockefeller’s corporate influence, the government ultimately banned the production and sale of alcohol. Automobiles were forced to switch to gasoline, making our friend Rockefeller one of the wealthiest, scummiest tycoons in our nation’s history. Soon after the switch, the prohibition on alcohol was repealed.

Fear mongering, propaganda, and law enforcement have conditioned past generations to believe in the evils of marijuana use. However, I believe there’s a change in the air as a more progressive way of thinking emerges. Mr. Valdez mentions the multiple medical benefits of THC compared to the harmfulness of alcohol. It is counterintuitive to legalize and regulate the sale of alcohol which causes liver cirrhosis, alcohol poisoning, car accidents, and bad tattoos, while marijuana, with no negative implications, is practically punishable by death! Perhaps not death, but a nasty mark on your permanent record.

Mr. Valdez also compares the ease of access of marijuana and alcohol to teens. I can attest that, in my youth, it was extremely easy to buy pot. Meanwhile, alcohol was much harder to come by. My friends and I would not risk stealing liquor from our parents because they represented a policing and judicial force that monitored the levels of their home supply, and would arrest, convict, and sentence upon any offense. I validate Mr. Valdez’s point: “Whatever we outlaw will still be consumed.”

Mr. Valdez negates marijuana’s “Gateway Drug” theory as pure propaganda, citing that it is a non-habit-forming non-narcotic. Mr. Valdez also argues that legalizing and regulating the production and sale of cannabis would create jobs and provide taxable goods and services that would bolster the economy and generate revenue. Perhaps the government views criminalizing the public as a more viable source of state income. If you have to post bail and pay fines and court fees, that’s money in the government’s pocket and out of the economy. If that is their idea of catching up with China (who passed us up in this race many miles back), we need to have more frank and open discussions, and put a permanent end to the anti-weed propaganda. Congratulations to Mr. Valdez for a informative, attention-grabbing editorial post.

"Because those liberal freaks go too far"

Climate Change on the Back Burner, Stir as Needed

As the Senatorial election season nears an end, we have yet to hear any mention of campaign promises or calls to action regarding climate change. What is shaping up to be possibly the most devastating global occurrence is taking a back seat to more local, myopic issues like the economy, immigration, state and national debt, and, perhaps above all, calumnious political mudslinging. While most of these issues are very important, they are less likely to wipe a nation off the face of the Earth in 24 hours.

According to Dr. Aiguo Dai of the National Center for Atmospheric Research’s (NCAR) Climate and Global Dynamics Division, global climate change will result in severe and prolonged drought across North America and other continents including Eurasia, Africa, and Australia by 2030. In fact, Australia already experienced an unexpected and unpredictable dust storm in September of 2009. The plume of dust shrouded the eastern coast of Australia with a red-orange blanket that dropped temperatures and was visible from space. There is very little mention of its possible link to climate change (dailymail.co.uk).

"We are facing the possibility of widespread drought in the coming decades, but this has yet to be fully recognized by both the public and the climate change research community," says Dr. Dai. "If the projections in this study come even close to being realized, the consequences for society worldwide will be enormous." (ens-newswire.com)

This means 1930s-Dust-Bowl-type natural disasters or worse. I would venture to say that we would not be ready for another Dust Bowl, as evidenced by our “preparedness” for 2005’s Hurricane Katrina, a category 5 hurricane that devastated the northern Gulf Coast which is an area that is not unfamiliar with multiple hurricanes per year (hsph.harvard.edu). Even with scientific data showing that hurricanes would worsen with increased climate change over the decades, Louisiana was still disturbingly underprepared. What makes us think a giant dust storm sweeping across the United States will phone ahead for reservations?

Overall, I think we are paying less attention to this issue than is warranted. The recent economic downturn left an overpoweringly bad taste in our mouths and the unemployment rate and national deficit are still top priority. As Peter Applebome of The New York Times puts it, “anything portrayed as a tax is a loser this year, hence the fate of cap-and-trade” (nytimes.com). As Republicans sweep into their Senate seats this November, their opposition to cap-and-trade legislation will ensure its location on the back burner, at least temporarily (npr.org). It may take another natural disaster to incite a greater sense of urgency among our public and politicians. Hopefully, all we need is a strong enough economy in order to advert our attention to the more distant future. I think time is running out and our current focus on clean energy, although helpful, is simply not enough. At the very least, politicians can voice the need for improved evacuation and refuge strategies. Preparation for the worst should begin now.

Criminal Action Warranted!

David Dayen is the News Desk Editor for the left-leaning online news site Firedoglake.com. The site reports for its largely liberal audience on political topics at a national level. In his October 14th editorial “Democrats: Foreclosure Fraud Not ‘Technical Errors,’ Regulatory and Criminal Action Warranted,” he criticizes the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) for trying to pass off the foreclosure freeze by banks as due to procedural errors rather than acts of fraud. So far, six Democratic Senators have sent letters to the Acting Director of the FHFA, Ed DeMarco, requesting that he take serious action toward the mortgage servicers who were responsible for the day-to-day management of the mortgage loan accounts (Dayen).

Dayen argues that the banks should be penalized for their sloppy paperwork, systemically flawed policies, and total disregard for quality control. He goes so far as to say that “we should be filling out criminal charges” against the banks, and I agree. The banks have been bailed out and defended by our government on multiple occasions, when it seems they don’t have enough respect for the public to do their job competently. It becomes more and more apparent that the mortgage lenders' main priority is making money, even by criminal means.

Dayen supports the Democrats’ suggestion for a full moratorium on foreclosures while servicers work with homeowners to review and modify the mortgage loans, some documents of which have turned up missing altogether (Dayen). While investigations are still ongoing, I think it is unlikely that criminal charges will be pressed against the banks in question, which is unfortunate because, in my opinion, simply having such shoddy, negligent policies accompanied by the subsequent illegal eviction of homeowners should be enough to prosecute the responsible banks. This would also ensure that compensations would be paid to the families who have moved into a newly foreclosed home, only to realize later that it was wrongfully repossessed and sold, and must be returned to the rightful owner; That is, if the title insurers decide not to make good on their promises, which I am sure they will.

For now, Dayen writes, the most we can hope for is continued intense pressure on the banks to right what they have wronged and to update their standard operating procedures. He is right to suggest that the banks may have committed some serious crimes that should be thoroughly scrutinized before letting them off the hook. I think his comments are in the best interest of the people, rather than the bankers.

A Census Spotlight on Poverty in America

As 44 million Americans live in poverty, a crisis grows - September 28, 2010

In an editorial in the Washington Post on September 28th, titled "As 44 million Americans live in poverty, a crisis grows," Opinion writer Katrina vanden Heuvel writes about the poverty crisis in America. She claims that “[Americans] know what needs to be done to reduce poverty," adding "...[but] who will fight that fight?” (Vanden Heuvel).

Vanden Heuvel points out some interesting and upsetting facts about poverty statistics in America. According to a report released by the Census Bureau on September 16th, 14% of Americans are living in poverty by it’s legal definition. The rates prove to be higher for Latino and African American families. Vanden Heuvel cites Law Professor G. Edelman of Georgetown University. Edelman takes the stats a step further by subdividing them into “poverty” and “extreme-poverty.” The latter is defined at income of $11,000 annually for a family of four, rather than $22,000 as with the former. Edelman states that “43% of the poor (slightly over 100 million people) are extremely poor.”

The author of this editorial identifies the structure of the economy as the culprit, not the people. Half in Ten is a coalition working to cut poverty by half in 10 years. They suggest progressive solutions to the crisis such as renewing the TANF Emergency Fund, which expires on 9/30/10, as well as making Obama’s Recovery Act reforms permanent. Those reforms offered child tax credits and earned-income tax credits following the “Great Recession” (Vanden Heuvel).

This article is aimed at its large left-leaning audience who recognize progressive political action as the best source for resolution. Vanden Heuvel presents Congressional solutions such as terminating the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000 per year; Professor Edelman says that that same missing revenue could be going toward aiding those in need. Edelman also advocates making it easier for people to join labor unions. The Employee Free Choice Act is a legislative bill that is currently being considered by Congress that would potentially give unions the authority to bargain with employers and increase penalties for employers that discriminate based on union involvement. I think that would have more of an immediate effect in the Northern states, but it may increase union involvement in the South, as well.

Vanden Heuvel is an established Opinion Writer for the Washington Post. She has covered topics such as job creation, labor unions, economic stability, and the Afghanistan War. I agree with the possible solutions to poverty in America as presented in this editorial. I believe the government can and should be doing more to help the poor during a crisis that the people have no control over and did not cause.

Obama, Justice Department Weighs Appeal in 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Case

On September 10, 2010, a federal judge in California ruled that the infamous Don’t-Ask-Don’t-Tell (DADT) policy of the U.S. Military is unconstitutional. The law, as it stands, prohibits gays and lesbians from serving openly in military forces; it allows homosexuals to serve, but prohibits them from revealing their sexual identity, as well as anyone else from inquiring about their lifestyle. US District Court Judge Virginia A. Phillips argues that the defendants of the DADT policy are unable to prove that it is an essential part of sustaining the military’s solidarity and preparedness. Judge Phillips plans to issue a permanent injunction prohibiting the military from exercising DADT among their ranks. The government may then appeal the ruling. The Justice Department is currently reviewing their decision on how to proceed, but has made no announcements.

The authors of this article, de Vogue and Dwyer, seem to think that the ruling by the California judge has put President Obama between a rock and a hard place: between his duty to “defend established law” and his campaign promises to repeal the discriminatory military policy.

Obama now admits that only Congress retains the ability to repeal the law, and until this happens, he is obligated to defend the policy in court. Several top military officials have sided with the repeal. However, the law will remain in effect until it is formally addressed by Congress.

This article is one of many that emerge on a weekly basis covering the controversy of open homosexuality in the military. It's important to pay attention to the plight of those still struggling for some of their basic civil liberties in the 21st century. Our military personnel deserve equal love and respect, no matter their preferences or God-given sexual orientations.