Lead, Follow, or Get Out of the Way

As that great rhetoritician Thomas Paine is reported to have cautioned those who had misgivings about the revolutionary principles that had created America:

A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice.

Those Democratic Senators still on the fence or opposed to Judge Alito’s cloture vote today would do well to heed our Founding Father’s caution about the ills of moderating one’s stated principles at 4:00 PM today, when the cloture vote on the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the US Supreme Court begins.

Make no mistake:  today’s cloture vote is a vote about principles, not Senatorial temperament.  It is a vote that will tell both sides whether Democrats are mere politicians — spineless, pandering, and unprincipled, as our enemies have charged for the last five years — or whether they are principled representatives of the masses who sent them to Washington to speak for us.  Democrats who really are Democrats, who stand for liberal principles and a government that provides equality and freedom for ALL — not just for the wealthy, white and male — simply cannot justify failure to oppose cloture for temperamental reasons, such as deference to the President’s choice or the politeness of “moving on” merely because the nomination appears to be supported by the Senate majority.  This is because the fight against Judge Alito is a critical fight in the larger war to ensure that the Supreme Court remains the key protector of the fundamental rights and liberties that the last 60 years of Court jurisprudence has created, for those previously left out of any meaningful vision of America.  

In other words, contrary to the platitudes spoken by Democratic strategists and pundits, both in the media and in the blogosphere, who are always quick to soothe those who wish to fight with the hollow solace that “a Democrat is always better than a Republican”, it is not enough now for Democrats to continue to insist they are for all the “right things” while in the name of “cooperation” and “politeness” they continue to lay down before the immoral juggernaut of the current Republican majority in the Senate.  They must instead draw a line in the sand of their principles.  They must throw down the gauntlet and fight to the death for the protection of those “right things” — Democratic Party principles.  Those principles have fallen, time and time again over the last 22 years since Satan sent Ronald Reagan to lead the nation, increasingly the victim of political compromise, political temperance, and political expediency.  Merely because Democratic strategists and pundits have been trying to be “fair”, “compromising”, and “polite” in the name of winning majority votes in the court of popular opinion that only an idiot still believes will ever come.

Why Judge Alito is wrong for the Court at this time, and why it is NOT the duty of the Senate to appoint him despite what President Bush wants has been carefully and thoroughly written about and analyzed in every medium possible.  That those arguments did not persuade the majority of gatekeepers, our Senators, to reject him merely confirms that today in the Republican-controlled federal legislature, party is the only true loyalty, not principles.  Yet as Paine wrote in his Dissertation on The First Principles of Government, it was never intended that our Constitution be used to enshrine government by political party.  Instead

It is the nature and intention of a constitution to prevent governing by party, by establishing a common principle that shall limit and control the power and impulse of party, and that says to all parties, thus far shalt thou go and no further.

That this was intended to be true within the context of Senate confirmations of Presidential nominations that have been made for the right-wing pandering reasons that are evident with Judge Alito’s nomination is indisputable.  As Alexander Hamilton made clear in Federalist 76:

To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity.

In light of what our founding fathers have told us, it is not enough for Democratic Senators like Robert Byrd to have secured their place in history emphasizing the Senate’s duty to the beloved Constitution to fight Executive Branch excess, and fighting against the Bush Administration’s threats to Separation of Powers, while arguing that it is somehow ill-tempered or impolite to fight against Judge Alito because it is guaranteed that he will deliver yet another vote in favor of the most violative of checks and balances doctrines, substantive Unitary Executive Theory, to the High Court.  The same Senator who, based on what I presume were heartfelt even if immoral and racist principles, waged the longest filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act cannot now argue with a straight face that principles do not matter far more than any message of “impoliteness” or “lack of faith” that filibuster of Judge Alito may send.

It is not enough for Democratic Senators like Barbara Mikulski and Blanche Lincoln or even Republican Senators like Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins to steadfastly claim to be pro-choice women, yet refuse to draw their line in the sand on Judge Alito, when they know that the only truly guaranteed protection for an abortion right of ANY kind in America (no matter what disagreements we pro-choicers have about the scope of the right, we have NONE when its fundamental existence) flows in most states directly and ONLY from United States Supreme Court jurisprudence.  And when they know with virtual certainty that both the Supreme Court and many individual states will shift hard against abortion of ANY kind being a right if Judge Alito is elevated to the highest court in the land and either undermines or outright overturns the Court’s privacy jurisprudence, including Griswold, Casey and/or Roe.

It is not enough for Senators like Daniel Akaka, Barack Obama and Ken Salazar to fight (even if rarely in direct racial terms) for or against policies that disproportionately affect their own people (i.e. those who share their minority race and/or ethnicity) who normally suffer the worst effects in the laissez-faire America that has been in gestation since Reagan Revolution and has now been born in the policies Emperor George Bush.  They must also now stand and fight against the elevation of Judge Alito to the Supreme Court when his well-known legacy in the Third Circuit makes plain time and time and time again that the Courthouse doors — would be virtually welded shut against us – whether US born or immigrant, Black, Latino, or Native.  When they know that the highly shaky shelter we have found over the past 60 years for our rights to do everything from work to marry as equals was built primarily on the foundation of Supreme Court jurisprudence.  When they know that, our people will likely be the first and hardest to fall under the cruel scythe of the facially benign legal tyranny of a still largely racist, ethnocentric and classist (yet largely self-unaware) American majority if Judge Alito is elevated and shifts the Court’s view of what the Constitution guarantees to those who simply cannot buy their government’s loyalty.

It is definitely not enough to have a sincere desire to just “move on” even in the name of helping the truly desperate in their hour of greatest need, as Senator Mary Landrieu should know.  Particularly when those most in need include the poor, people of color and women.  The very same constituencies — which together make up the plain majority in Louisiana — who will lose far more long-term than they will gain short-term if Judge Alito’s elevation is permitted to shift the Court away from the populist principles historically advocated — through filibuster, no less — by one of the state’s most controversial yet loved figures, the assassinated Senator and legendary populist Huey P. Long.  The Senator has a duty to ask herself plain today:  what would Huey P. Long have done? I believe in Mary Landrieu’s case, both Senator Long’s history and her own before she moved into the DLC middle speak for themselves.

There is only one thing that matters today, for each of these and others wearing the label “Democrat” on the Senate floor today:  standing firm for Democratic principles, the same principles our party champions to the grassroots each and every time it seeks our support at the polls.  In the context of Judge Alito and what his appointment will do to the Court, there is only one vote that is consistent with these stated principles, which the primary reason that the Democratic Party has not otherwise become an utter irrelevancy to most on the left:  a vote against cloture on the floor of the Senate this afternoon.

That neither the Democratic-voting public nor our Senators will relinquish the fight against Judge Alito’s confirmation based on our principles would be fully justified by America’s revolutionary tradition, even if we lose.  Perhaps, especially if we lose.  For, as Thomas Paine also wrote, in The Crisis No. I:  

These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated.

.

Those words are apt now.  Because we are at war, and perhaps making our meaningful Last Stand.  A Last Stand being led by Senator John Kerry (a man who under other circumstances could never lead this particular Sapphire given his utter repudiation of his promise to Black voters last November, but who nonetheless gets sincere thanks from me for stepping up — for whatever reasons, selfish or not — when it seemed that no one else would) and Senator Ted Kennedy (who like his revered late brothers, John and Robert will be remembered as a true hero of the left in the fight for the Court, no matter what outcome, because of his eloquent opposition to Judge Alito for all the right reasons).  A Last Stand that many, myself included, see as the last attempt to save the Last Bastion of Hope for many — the United States Supreme Court — from being lost in the larger right-wing war to take over this country.  Saved from becoming the third branch of the Republican Reich (the first two arms, the Executive and Legislative, already well-seized by those who abhor most of the progress of the last 60-70 years in America whether for small-minded or outright greedy reasons).  Saved for at least the next 25-30 years from an otherwise guaranteed backwards retreat from America’s judicial attempts to ensure a free and equal America, when that equality is measured by gender, race, ethnicity, disability, economic status or age.

If the finger in today’s political wind is to be believed, the outcome of today’s scheduled cloture vote is right now too close to all.  That itself is a victory, when but five days ago we seemed poised to merely repeat the utter rollover that Democrats gave Justice John Roberts just three months ago.  We are so close, and we know what is at stake. So, despite five days of battle blitz via fax, e-mail and telephone — we simply must keep going.  Never stop.  As long as we don’t stop, neither can our elected Senators.  Or if they do, at least it will be clear that it is to their peril, if it isn’t clear that the nation’s peril itself is all that requires action right now.

Finally, to Democratic Senators and Republican friends who STILL just don’t get it, I’ll end by telling you plain the same thing that, purportedly, Thomas Paine also once said.  

This is your Constitutional and moral duty on the Senate floor today:

Lead.  Follow.  Or get out of the way.

Death by Reason of Insanity

Taking the advice of a woman far smarter than I where blogging is concerned, I’m posting this — a comment that I left on the smart person’s great left wing blog here and in several other places to hopefully spur others to serious thought about what happened yesterday at Miami International Airport – the killing, in the name of safety, a man named Rigoberto Alpizar by members of the United States Federal Air Marshal Service.
I was, last night, quite torn and troubled about what had happened, since this is by all accounts the first time since 9/11 that the US Marshals have exercised their privilege on an aircraft to kill someone if they believe that person poses a greater harm.

This story had me heartsick and quite conflicted yesterday afternoon.  But this morning, I woke up awash with what what I labeled in my comment on MLW as my really dumb questions.  I sure wish that the Air Marshals would answer them:

<u>Dumb Question #1:</u&gt  Don’t most male passengers traveling internationally keep their passports/identifying paperwork somewhere other than in their pockets, given the high risk caused by loss of these items – and wouldn’t an arriving international passenger need that item first thing upon disembarking?

OK this is my bias coming out, but the very first thought that popped into my mind when I heard the “reaching into a backpack” part was this:

Amadou Diallo

<u>Dumb Question #2:</u&gt  If it is true that this man was arguing with his spouse for much of the first leg of this flight from Quito, and this gave the marshals cause for concern, why did nobody warn Miami in advance that this possibly unsafe/unstable/terrorist person was coming so that beefed up security could have been waiting for him?

I’ve heard of them turning planes completely around for an overly drunk belligent passenger who is of no harm to anyone but him/herself.  Certainly, the folks with the cuffs can and regularly do detain/arrest passengers who are “suspicious” based on in-flight conduct.  Yet this guy was allowed to travel, disembark, go through customs, and reboard without anyone even attempting to discern what was the matter?

<u>Dumb Question #3:</u&gt  Is it truly believable that anyone could have gotten a “bomb” or other dangerous piece of material past security in Ecuador that American Airlines and every other US based carrier has imposed for all flights traveling into the US?

At present, I cannot even get a cigarette lighter past security.  It is caught in the XRay machine.  How could a person just get a bomb through security in their carry-on luggage when you can’t even get through with fertilizer residue on the bottom of your shoes? We’re not talking about an international carrier that might, perhaps, be less diligent than a US carrier.  We’re talking about American Airlines, the owner and operator of 2 of the lost 9-11 aircraft.  That backpack was without question looked into when he boarded the flight.

So what changed during the time between Ecuador and landing in Miami?  Is this an international plastiques expert that just managed to end up on board and jerryrig something in the lavatory mid-flight and, if so, wouldn’t whoever actually looks into passenger manifests under the TSA program (or whatever it is called these days) have known that a weapons expert was on board?

<u>Dumb Question #4:</u&gt  How is it that the air marshals heard him say he had a bomb but did not hear his wife screaming down the aisle of the plane after him about his mental illness?  And how is it that the air marshals managed to hear this when presently, not a single passenger, boarding passenger, or airline employee/airport worker claims to also have heard it?

Maybe it was a language thing – maybe they don’t teach the marshals Spanish.  Although I understand that the (brand new) widow was also screaming in English.  Maybe it’s a culture thing: they don’t understand that right now, even the US Supreme Court acknowledged in Illinois v. Wardlow that the mere possibility of police confrontation can cause innocent people to run away (or try to, before they usually get shot dead).  As the late, (in)famous Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote:

Respondent and amici also argue that there are innocent reasons for flight from police and that, therefore, flight is not necessarily indicative of ongoing criminal activity. This fact is undoubtedly true, but does not establish a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Even in Terry, the conduct justifying the stop was ambiguous and susceptible of an innocent explanation. The officer observed two individuals pacing back and forth in front of a store, peering into the window and periodically conferring. <u>Terry</u&gt, 392 U.S., at 5–6. All of this conduct was by itself lawful, but it also suggested that the individuals were casing the store for a planned robbery. Terry recognized that the officers could detain the individuals to resolve the ambiguity. <u>Id.</u&gt, at 30.

In allowing such detentions, Terry accepts the risk that officers may stop innocent people. Indeed, the Fourth Amendment accepts that risk in connection with more drastic police action; persons arrested and detained on probable cause to believe they have committed a crime may turn out to be innocent. The Terry stop is a far more minimal intrusion, simply allowing the officer to briefly investigate further. If the officer does not learn facts rising to the level of probable cause, the individual must be allowed to go on his way.

Who knows? Maybe it’s because the Air Marshals follow neither the Supreme Court nor the newspaper, and thus did not truly understand that, contrary to myth, not every completely harmless person” views being approached by the police as a benign event and stands still secure in their innocence, even now that we are fighting our war on terror.

<u>Dumb Question #5:</u&gt  Is it really plausible that a terrorist could decide that it was more important/showy/terror inducing to wait until landing in Miami to detonate an explosive on an airport jetway that might, if he’s lucky, kill 20 people, instead of blowing his arriving flight up mid-air and killing with certainty more than 130?  Or blowing his stash in customs, which he had already come through and cleared, and kill God knows how many people from all over the world?

This is the one that is sticking with me the most, today.

But not as much as the words “Amadou Diallo.”

The good news? Here, just off the presses:  Dubbya says that the air marshals did the right thing.  And, as we all know, if Dubbya says that a government employee with responsibility for our homeland security is qualified and doing a good job, then it’s true.  

Or is that doing a heck of a job?

Oh well, fighting terrorism is hard work.  Federal air marshals, like all law enforcement officers, never shoot people who are of no danger to anyone.  They are always careful and reflective (which I’d like to think anyone packing heat should be).  After all, even the U.S. Supreme Court says that use of deadly force has a limit.  People like this psychologist hired to do a study for Walter Reed Army Medical Center simply don’t understand why if we worry too much about law enforcement mistakes shooting innocent people, the terrorists will have won:

During the investigation of the domestic complaint, 19% of students shot the hostage. . .Moreover, 97% failed to meet the criterion of 70% of their rounds hitting the suspect. . .. Many of the students fired blindly, from the minimal cover available. Trainees were expected to call for backup in high-risk situations and had also been taught that if using their radio while their weapon was in their hand, the weapon should be kept in the dominant hand. Seventy percent failed this element by switching the weapon to the weak hand, in order to operate the radio in the dominant hand. The approved response for coping with the “dud” round that fails to fire is to tap the magazine, rack the slide and reengage the threat. The majority of the students failed this element, resorting to a variety of methods, all less desirable, to clear the malfunction. . . During the IA investigation, only 43% of students could accurately describe their shot placement. . .and only 57% could accurately identify the exact moment when the situation and doctrine first justified the use of lethal force.

Hmm.  Well, we have to give law enforcement, especially the Air Marshals, the benefit of the doubt.  After all, they are only there to protect us.  Even if they sometimes overreact just a little bit.

Especially when you are mentally ill.  Or Black/not white, like Amadou Diallo.  Or now, it seems, both nonwhite and psychotic, like the late, not yet-quite-lamented by anyone but his family and neighbors (all of who say he was a pretty OK guy), Rigoberto Alpizar.

Blast from the Past II – The Hangman’s Noose

All those in the liberal and progessive world who keep insisting that racist hatred of Black folk is “in the past” need to spend more time mining the news.  I wrote about the “Whites’ Only” signs at Tyson Chicken in Alabama last week.   Here’s some more fun in the news:

Hangman’s Noose at Black Man’s Door

Now, this is when I come right out and say it: had this happened to me, my family would have had to come get me out of county. The excuse made (“I put it at his door just to store it”) is a crock of shit, and only the most deliberately obtuse would buy it. (My gut says that if indeed the perpetrator was ignorant of the symbolism, a highly unlikely situation since this person was born in the US — and Iowa is notorious for quietly simmering racial tension, so he grew up with this — then someone else put him up to it, knowing full-well what the likely reaction would be.)

Store it? How about in a bag? How about on the floor? How about in his mailbox with a note asking “What do I do with this piece of shit?”

Today’s Quiz:  What legitimate reason does a noose have to even exist at the US government’s metal shop or anywhere else in the National Park Service? Since when does someone need a noose to do anything with metal or parks?

Answers:  None.  You don’t.

Notice what happened, though, after the perfectly human response to this symbol occurred back in June (i.e. the brother started kicking the ass of the person who did it):

  1. The two persons of color involved were both put on administrative leave – the victim and the perpetrator – but just for one day, each. Equal punishment for equal crimes? Psychic attack on Black person vs. fighting in retaliation.  I guess in a world where Black folks are supposed to just put up with meta-aggression with a smile, one that is actually human instead of super-human is just as much a problem as the person who provoked him.
  2. The National Park Service has done diddly squat to address the matter in the two months since this event, even after an EEOC complaint was filed.

I await with baited breath hearing the words “Get a Rope”.   That’s the only place you can go from somewhere like this.

Let’s see, in just the past six months the following have made mainstream news:

a) Whites’ Only Signs posted: Tyson’s Racist Chicken

b) The Return of the Public Servant Siccing Dogs on Black folks: Black Bait for Fishing Dogs

c) The Return of the Burning Cross all over the county: Here’s just one recent example Racist Cross-Burning – Yet Again

(As a bonus, the burning cross is now become an equal opportunity terrorist symbol Anti-Gay Cross-Burnings)

Reviewing these stories in light of the number of hate crimes that haven’t made the MSM leaves one incapable of doing much more than putting one’s head in one’s hands.

I’ve said it before and I”ll say it again: dismissing these things as isolated events fomented by rare, deranged minds is a serious mistake.  I wish it were that simple.  I genuinely think that these events, which are increasing in frequency, presage a return to the honest anti-Black racism that has been the ugly, unresolved legacy of the country and its history (as opposed to the dishonest stealth kind we’ve all been putting up with for the last 25 years since Dr. King guilted white folks to death.) There will be more of them. Except that now, the targets aren’t just Black: our very diversity makes it far too easy to engage in the Hate of One’s Choice.<sup>TM</sup&gt

Given that our government is failing to nip in the bud the racist sentiments against Iraqis that allow most folks to continue to justify our unjustifiable war of aggression, it makes perfect sense.  You can’t control hate, once it’s out of the box.

(And folks wonder why many Black people amongst ourselves are asserting that it is time to circle the wagons in our self-defense again.  /sigh)

The Making of a Martyr: Bunnatine Greenhouse

[From the diaries by susanhu with minor edits.] Let’s talk about Halliburton, no-bid contracting and a kick-ass public servant named Bunnatine Greenhouse who needs liberals who say they care to make some noise on her behalf.


Bunnatine Greenhouse’s story is told at Whistleblowers.org.

Mrs. Greenhouse (it seems she likes to be called Bunny, but since I was raised right and she’s old enough to be my mama, Ms. Bunny will have to do) has a big, big problem.

Ms. Bunny’s problem is that, despite having been the highest ranking civilian member of the Army Corps of Engineers; one of highest ranking woman in federal government service; and despite having had a distinguished and untarnished career as one of this country’s highest ranked procurement officers; she is about to be ignonimously shitcanned “for cause”. Apparently, Ms. Bunny’s personal Waterloo is coming in late September, when her “performance plan” runs out.

Besides, in this case, if Ms. Bunny is not canned, Ms. Bunny’s hell raising over KBR’s no-bid contracts in Iraq will never stop being a thorn in the side of the Department of Defense, Dick Cheney…or President Bush.
(Cross Posted at my blog, Political Sapphire, MLW and DailyKOS)

A little history of the problem for those not in the know despite the avalanche of articles written about Halliburton and KBR right around last year’s presidential election:

In early 2003, Kellogg Brown & Root aka KBR (a fully owned subsidiary of Halliburton Corporation, and the former stomping grounds of Vice President Richard aka “Dick” Cheney) was awarded several contracts in anticipation of the invasion of Iraq. Anyhow, one of those pre-war KBR contracts was for restoration of Iraqi oilfields, which our brilliant strategists just assumed would be set on fire by Saddam and his minions as they were going down to defeat. It was called the “Restore Iraqi Oil” (RIO) Contract. What was notable about these contracts is that they were no-bid. A no-bid contract is one where a company just gets picked for the job. Just Because. With no competitive bidding process. With no preceding Request for Proposals/Requests for Quotation (the central process for all government contracting; since government contracts are paid with your and my tax money, that money is supposed to be freely available for all qualified businesses to compete for – publicly.)

KBR got billions of dollars ($7bn, in the case of the RIO contract that has become Ms. Bunny’s downfall) in “sole source” contracts in this fashion during the lead-up to the Iraq invasion. (Last election cycle, folks tried to make an issue of Dick Cheney’s relationship/involvement in that process. It got drowned out in the noise machine. Go figure – but part of it may be that because, if you believe Ms. Bunny’s story, folks were focusing on trying to find the smoking gun in the hand of the wrong neocon). I’m not going to spend a lot of time rehashing the details of either KBR or RIO because frankly, the details have been blogged to death by folks far better than I, and can be found with the most straightforward google search – or search on DailyKOS, Atrios, or a number of other prominent sites. I will just link this Waxman Letter to Condi just so that folks can get an example of the type of stuff that went on in Iraq in the name of KBR contracting, most of which is seeing the light of day only through the steadfast commitment of Representative Henry Waxman, and most of which is still being completely ignored by the media and by the American People – who have the audacity and the nerve to vote for corporate criminals like Bush and Cheney and against honest Democrats because we purportedly are irresponsible with the public fisc!

According to Ms. Bunny, the negotiation and preparation of the RIO contract was unique, in her 20 years of procurement work, for several reasons: (a) it had been assigned to the Army Corps, which has no experience in procurement of this type; (b) despite that assignment actual control over the process of negotiating and agreeing to contract terms remained with the Army and the Office of the Secretary of Defense (last time I checked he was named Donald Rumsfeld.); (c) KBR was an integral part of internal Army Corps discussions about the contract, something that is anathema to the process of objectively selecting a government contractor; and (d) the contract was written so that any contractor who wanted to bid for the work going forward after the minimum term had to submit a bid that conformed to KBR’s already existing plan/proposal – a requirement that could never be met because KBR’s proposal had not been disseminated to any of its competitors, and KBR had not authorized it to be shared with anyone.

Apparently, Ms. Bunny had expressed some disquiet with each of these issues as things were progressing. But, in the end, the country was on the brink of war, and Ms. Bunny is a good American. So, Ms. Bunny (who I really wish I could meet – how she worked this was so wonderfully Sapphire; and yes as the name of my blog tries to reflect, being Sapphire can be a good Black woman thang at times, when it comes to calling it as we see it, and to hell with what people think) decided to object to the only thing she could object to at the time: – the contemplated 5 year term of this sole-source, no-bid contract, divided into 2 mandatory years and 3 1-year renewals. Ms. Bunny did something to ensure that it would never be said that she hadn’t objected, should that ever be said. (This is just me with my lay psychology on, but I suspect at the time Ms. Bunny was also concerned about making sure later that nobody could say she didn’t do her job; I’ve been there when it comes to needing to CYA.) She did something extraordinary.

Instead of sending a memo, which Ms. Bunny says have a tendency to come up missing, Ms. wrote her objection on the original, document-number controlled, fully executed copy of the KBR RIO contract itself. Just so that as the contract documents continued up the chain of authority, her superiors in DoD would know that she had at least tried.

Here’s Ms. Bunny’s opinion about the RIO contract, in her own words:

I caution that extending this sole source contract beyond a one-year period could convey an invalid perception that there is not strong intent for a limited competition.

And, just to make sure that it would not be overlooked in subsequent compliance checking, she neatly wrote it right next to her (required) signature on the contract.   Just in case.

You Go, Ms. Bunny.

This is when the right-wing Republican hubris part of the story kicks in. I suspect in retrospect that her superiors wish they’d just shredded that version, reprinted it, and gotten it resigned.
Except they didn’t. They first instead tried to persuade (pressure) her to withdraw her objection.

She said no.

That’s when the powers-that-be over Ms. Bunny’s head at the Army Corps made a serious tactical error.

They tried to stand on her neck and demote her, after giving her the first negative performance evaluation she’d ever had working for government. The jist of it? Not that Ms. Bunny was lousy at procurement, not that Ms. Bunny was no longer a workhorse fully committed to the mission of maximizing public benefit from federal government procurement, but instead that Ms. Bunny “was hard to get along with” and “nobody liked her.”

I can see why not, given that they’d been riding herd on her for speaking her conscience in connection with Kirkuk Oil Fields contract and she’d made clear that her job was to honestly and prudently manage public funds, not to get in bed with KBR just because some pretty powerful people — including those in the Vice President’s office — wanted her to.

Ms. Bunny’s demotion was going to be to a desk job in which she no longer had the responsibilities or staff or budget she’d been managing to nothing less than stellar reviews for the preceding 15 years.

(Yes I know, all lovers of ABW’s out there: MIS-take. Someone obviously didn’t tell these folks about going after Black women whose backs are up and trying to pressure them to do anything. Free copy of ABW’s Guide to Life courtesy of me to the Army Corps of Engineers; and an extra, autographed copy to Dick Cheney).

So, since it was clear how things were going to be, Ms. Bunny — dedicated, public servant — got a lawyer. And the Army Corps backed off – at least for a while.

However, on June 27, 2005, as part of the ongoing investigation into KBR’s contracts and what appears to be $1,000,000,000 (yes that’s billion with a “B”) in KBR bills that Pentagon auditors admit are extremely shaky (you can read about it here), Ms. Bunny testified before the Democratic Policy Committee looking into the Halliburton/KBR feeding at the public trough.

Three days before this, Ms. Bunny had been warned by the General Counsel’s office at the Army Corps that testifying “would not be in her best interest.”

But she didn’t care. As Ms. Bunny told the Democratic Policy Committee:

I have been involved with government contracting for over twenty years. . . .I can unequivocally state that the abuse related to contracts awarded to KBR represents the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed during the course of my professional career.

You can read all her testimony by taking this link and then clicking on the adobe acrobat link called Bunnatine Greenhouse’s Testimony

One thing you have to give the Army Corps credit for – they keep their promises. Ms. Bunny’s testimony indeed was not “in her her best interest.” Personal interest, that is. However, with a lawyer in tow and a stellar performance record with the Pentagon, yet having a situation where Ms. Bunny had defied her superiors’ commaand that she not testify in a public hearing, the Army Corps was left few options with which to go after her for what was now a highly public assertion about the cronyism that was favoring Dick Cheney’s favorite company.

They took the only one they had, it seems — because it appears that shortly after her June testimony, Ms. Bunny was placed on a 90-day “performance plan”. As anyone who has ever worked at a large company or government agency knows, “performance plans” mean only one thing in Human Resources lingo: you have 90 days to “shape up or ship out.” At least officially. Unofficially in Ms. Bunny’s case, since there has never been any discussion, debate or even hint by the Army Corps that Ms. Bunny’s work was inferior and needed improvement (and lots of written evidence suggesting otherwise), it means that Ms. Bunny’s stellar career with the Pentagon is coming to an end.

They put Ms. Bunny on a performance plan immediately after her testimony, in anticipation of firing her for cause. How do we know she will be fired “for cause”? Because I have never seen an employee who was “performance planned” who wasn’t. “Performance planning” as any truly honest employer will tell you, is generally done for one reason and one reason only – so that there is a written record of “cause for termination” and the employer’s attempts to “correct” presumptively inadequate (I’ll go over that presumption in a minute) employee performance. It is most often used when you have a situation with a protected employee (and, as a civil servant, Ms. Bunny is indeed one of those; she is also Black and female, two suspect classifications when it comes to employment discrimination) whose previous written performance evaluation records do not support a finding that the person is doing their job badly. Or, in the case of Ms. Bunny by all accounts before October, 2004, when the written record proves that they were doing an exemplary job.)

So, almost without a doubt, Ms. Bunny is soon going to be going to court.

The trouble with going to court, however, is that it is notoriously unsympathetic to whistleblower claims despite federal whistleblower laws, which are intended to protect federal workers who come forward to protect us all. I by no means am an expert on these laws — this is not my area of practice. But it seems to me that the biggest trouble with the whistleblower law as it is written is this: it essentially requires the employee under fire to prove the wrongdoing.

This might be tough in Ms. Bunny’s case, since unbeknownst to her (she was out that day; she reports they knew she would never sign it; something that given her position would have been required) the Army Corps issued a waiver to KBR relieving it from the cost reporting requirements that otherwise governed the RIO contract, after the Pentagon auditing arm confirmed that KBR and Hallburton was overcharging and underperforming.  Given this waiver, Ms. Bunny’s objection to the contract based on its time provisions might not be enough.  In theory, the decision to enter into the RIO sole source contract was an act of discretion, in this case one that was taken in what will no doubt be referred to as the exigency of war. It does not appear, standing alone, to be per se illegal.  Again, I am not an expert in this area, but the whistleblower laws do not appear to protect workers objecting to merely foolish or theoretically improper acts – only to clearly illegal ones.

At a minimum, Ms. Bunny’s case is likely to involve not just her proving that she was retaliated against for complaining but also that she — legally — had something to complain about, especially after the waiver was done.

So Ms. Bunny needs our help. Right now, only Representative Waxman appears to be on the case. More in Congress need to intervene and demand that the circumstances of the waiver be examined, that KBR be required to come forward despite the waiver by the Army Corps. Recognizing that a Republithug congress is not likely to do this, we should at least make enough noise to keep this issue front and center. Not just because Halliburton/KBR is growing fat off the public teat (all while feeding our soldiers rotten food!). But also because those few who are brave enough to stand up — like Ms. Bunny — are being hung out to dry.

The IRS, ChoicePoint, Nature’s End, and You

(Crossposted at my very-new, and “not really presentable because I don’t know HTML and my 14 year old demands hard cash for helping” blog Political Sapphire and also at DailyKOS)

This is a small news item that seems to have been overlooked (if there was a diary on this I missed it and none came up during a search), no doubt because of Dubbya’s speech and the important decisions coming from the Supremes in the past week, but I think it’s still important.  It evokes, in my mind, a further consolidation of control within a centralized, federal government, over the one thing most Americans all agree should not without limits be accessible to the federal government – the personal, private details of our financial and other lives.

This week, the IRS confirmed that it had just awarded ChoicePoint Data Systems a 5 year, $20M contract to provide even more specialized data to the IRS for use in tax collections:

ChoicePoint, IRS’ New Global Partner in Tax Collections
But ….wait a minute: Is this the SAME ChoicePoint that was forced to admit the theft of personal data it maintained on more than 100,000 Californians, and ultimately hundreds of thousands more non-California, only because our demned librul Kerry-voting state passed a mandatory reporting law out here a couple of years back over fierce business opposition?

ChoicePoint, Caught with Its Pants Down

Hmm – I believe it is.

Isn’t this the same ChoicePoint that we found out last week had actually SOLD the personal data to a ring of identity thieves?

ChoicePoint: Preferred Supplier of ID Thieves Worldwide

Why I’ll be damned- it sure is.

And didn’t someone already discover earlier this year, much to our chagrin, that much of our personal tax return data is already less secure than we’d assumed, in large point because of a linkage between IRS data bases and ChoicePoint databases:

ChoicePoint, the IRS & You

ChoicePoint, the IRS & You Round II

Well, foo. I knew that name ChoicePoint sounded familiar.

If there is any universal rule of Big Business in America TM, it is this: incompetence truly is its own reward, particularly if you are a government contractor:

ChoicePoint Making Bank in 1Q, 2005

$20M Reward for Consistently High Quality – NOT – Services

Of course, ChoicePoint has managed over the years to get a dead lock on just about everything you could ever need to be evaluated for: your ability to rent an apartment, get auto insurance or even get a job:

ChoicePoint Knows All

If you want to know how wide ChoicePoint’s reach has become, take a gander at this person’s summary of what was in his ChoicePoint file:

Checking Out a ChoicePoint File

ChoicePoint might say that people like the gentleman who perused his file above writer above, and me, are being unfairly harsh and overly alarmist about what is clearly a “public good”.  In ChoicePoint’s own words:

“ChoicePoint helps businesses, government agencies and nonprofit organizations make better decisions through information and technology solutions. Each year, ChoicePoint helps more than seven million people get the jobs they deserve and more than 100 million people get fairly priced home and auto insurance. Small businesses can obtain affordable commercial insurance because of our products. Businesses grow revenue with our marketing services and cut costs through our authentication and anti-fraud tools. Government agencies use our data and technology to fulfill their missions in all parts of the world…” One thing is clear – ChoicePoint sees itself as the savior of all that is holy when it comes to saving business people from having to make their own, independent decisions.”

In other words: “Smarter Products, Safer World”

I can’t speak for you, but when I think of “Big Brother”, a single entity with this much detailed information about our individual lives readily comes to mind. Well, now that single entity is getting even more intertwined with our government’s operations than it already was. Indeed, government embedding now appears to be a primary ChoicePoint business strategy. That is definitely Not Good.  But I shouldn’t be alarmed.  Note the soothing language ChoicePoint uses to describe the results of its systematic data mining: seven million people getting “the jobs they deserved” and small business and individuals getting “fairly priced insurance” — all thanks to ChoicePoint’s never ending vigilance in aggregating your personal data (whether the data is actually correct or not) about each and every one of us.

And that’s why this tiny little IRS contract with the Feds (tiny compared to Halliburton, anyway) is nonetheless a Big Deal.  Remember that ChoicePoint claims that it has managed to aggregate data for damned near every adult in the United States. Now, this might not be so bad, except that ChoicePoint is also embroiled in lots of litigation because it has a couple of teensy problems: (a) getting shit wrong when it comes to aggregating its data on individuals and (b) maintaining extremely sloppy security controls over its data.  
ChoicePoint’s Perfect Data I
ChoicePoint’s Perfect Data II

The fully predictable result? Exponentially increasing numbers of people facing serious life problems because of a bogus ChoicePoint report being relied upon as gospel by its business and or governmental recipient (a reliance that is never attacked, especially when it’s in connection with credit and banking, because as we know, the computers used by our banks, our lenders, our landlords and especially our government, are NEVER wrong).  Even though the problems are now well known, we are still asked to believe that folks “getting the job they deserve” and receiving “fairly priced insurance” because of the private market’s reliance on ChoicePoint data outweighs the risk of harms that logically can flow from ChoicePoint’s fully-demonstrated incompetence in investigating, aggregating and reporting private personal data.

When you look at the impressive track record of data security failures and outright screw-ups that ChoicePoint has been responsible for over the years, its reassurances suddenly don’t seem all that believable.  And they shouldn’t be – because today, ChoicePoint data is increasingly used for just about everything.  It is not too hard to find evidence of this.  Look closely, and you will find increasing reliance by employers on ChoicePoint data for all of the following:

To screen job candidates:  ChoicePoint and HotJobs

To underwrite efforts to obtain insurance for claimless applicants: ChoicePoint and Your Insurance

or even

Deny apartment hunters a right to a roof over their heads: ChoicePoint and Your Apartment Search

The Feds have increasingly relied on ChoicePoint over the years. That reliance started with the FBI and now, as we can see, it has reached what is in my mind the most frightening federal agency of them all, in terms of its power to truly screw the financial survival of the average citizen with only a single mistake: the Internal Revenue Service.

It is bad enough that the IRS has always benefited from a little known, yet long-standing rule of law that most folks don’t even know about; specifically, if a government employee gives you advice, and that advice turns out to be wrong under the law, that advice is not binding on the government. But now, we are simultaneously increasing use by the government on aggregated data to “crack down” on “tax scofflaws” <sup>TM</sup&gt at the same time we are facing a soon to be decreased ability to sort tax problems on our own. This ChoicePoint announcement comes on the heels of the IRS’s new efforts to jettison its taxpayer assistance centers and cutting its public telephone hours – the most direct ways that individual taxpayers can try and cut through the IRS’s often insurmountable barriers to resolving tax problems, whether legitimate or completely bogus:

IRS Backing Away from The Public

(68 out of 400 centers to close; a 15% cut in offices; and closure of 3 primary call centers)

There have been many folks who have written about the question of personal privacy lately.  Most seem to have focused on the easy-outrage things like government access to medical records relating to reproductive rights and the PATRIOT Act.  Each is indeed a deeply troubling aspect of the privacy problem rapidly developing in our supposedly liberated, free country since 2000.  IME, an equally troubling, quite dangerous invasion is represented by the quiet, yet systematically increasing, data aggregation and consolidation about individual at the federal and state level.  It has been done so quietly, and sold to us so effectively as the way “efficiency” for us all, that nobody “political” seems to be all that fussed about it.  

Most folks, even those who do not trust King George<sup>TM</sup&gt any farther than they can throw him, still tend to scoff when folks raise the spectre of the government’s ability to control our lives individually becoming increasingly consolidated. Yet the foundational pillars of just such a system are increasingly in place, and it is only looking at the quiet adoption of many laws and regulations that one can get a picture of the whole, and think about the possibilities. We have already all been reduced to numbers, rather than people, through the misuse in violation of statute, of the social security number as a personal identifier. That personal identifier became the backbone for implementation of personal profiling through scoring (whether it’s FICO scoring, insurance underwriting scoring, or even scoring when it comes to determining who will get access to life-changing higher education, and who will not). But previously, that scoring was largely driven by the private sector, whose primary concern is and remains money and financial risk. It therefore seemed far less threatening to the right of privacy. Now, however, it seems clear that the federal government itself is shifting to methods of interacting with us as citizens that are grounded in the concept that it is alright to use data about each one of us for whatever purpose the government sees fit, however inaccurate that data might be, with the burden firmly kept on the individual, rather than the state, to ensure the accuracy of that data or suffer the consequences if they don’t.

It’s not that much of a theoretical leap from where things stand today to far more insidious uses of personal data by the government itself – most notably, the use of data aggregation and profiling to determine who has access to privileges, or, more dangerously, who should be targeted individually for adverse consequences. Indeed, several books have as central themes the concept of a Big Brother government with so much access to and control over critical about individuals that a person can no longer undertake anything in day to day life without the federal government not only knowing about it, but having the power to stop or change it.

One of the most effective thematic considerations of this is in an environmental novel called Nature’s End written by James Kunetka and Whitley Strieber some 20 years ago. In that novel, a political madman hiding behind his role as a saintly religious leader a la Ghandi has persuaded most governments of the world, through their electorates, (including ours) that the only solution left to save humanity in the face of massive environmental collapse is a computer based random-selection suicide pact that will kill 1/3 of all those human beings still alive. This is an old book, which horrified me at the time for both the environmental and political issues – and I can’t say that it is necessarily the best writing I’ve ever read either, despite its compelling themes. But Nature’s End actually horrifies me MORE now than it did then, not just because of the increasingly-possible environmental collapses described, much like in Silent Spring. My current horror in reading and thinking about this novel, which I recommend despite its literary flaws, is in thinking about the deliberate access to and manipulation of human lives made possible only because of the limitless reach of computer based information about people and the intertwining of that information with the actual ability to do day to day live. For example, the novel’s hero – a journalist called a “convictor” because his job is to use computerized algorithms to parse and analyze human speech patterns in connection with available data to “get behind” and “expose” the hidden truth behind the public façade shown by public leaders, including in this book the publicly-saintly Gupta Singh who advocates mass suicide and systematically takes control of the convictor’s entire life to try to destroy him once he begins “convicting” Singh.. In the novel, his centralized life data is the hero’s only means to access everything from his money to the medical treatments he must have to stave off the aging process – and it is willfully used by his political enemy to create a situation where he cannot really run, he cannot really hide, and he cannot really survive so long as he pursues a political agenda against the genocide.

I will not even discuss in detail the central role that centralized computer access to individual data and lives played in another book discussed often today as we descend into a quasi-theocracy: The Handmaid’s Tale. Yet everyone who has read it is well aware of precisely how the theocratic state was able to take instantly and simultaneously disempower and take control of the lives of every woman in America (which promptly, after Congress was murdered, became known as the Republic of Gilead).

These types of things are what keep me up at night, sometimes, even as occasionally I bitch-slap myself and say that I’ve gone truly over into TinFoil Hat Land by such worries. But I’m not the only one who thinks about this type of thing:

When You Become the Commodity

There are actually federal government agencies with slightly more power over the individual than the Internal Revenue Service. However, I’d wager that only the IRS, in large part because of its nightmarish at the extreme but extraordinary day-to-day powers of immediate advance property and income seizure subject only to court-based adjudication that can take years to accomplish (if you can afford it, and most of us cannot) strikes terror in the hearts of most people, Democrats and Republicans alike. And I admit that the fact that Bush’s IRS is increasing its reliance on ChoicePoint – a proven winner when it comes to fucking people’s personal information up – for its collections activity scares the crap out of me, when I look at it in the larger picture of government consolidation of information about each one of us – a consolidation we appear powerless to stop at this point.

I don’t know. Maybe I’m just worrying for nothing.

If you think you can rely on the existing rubric of federal and state laws to protect you from errors and harm, I can say with certainty, as an attorney who sees pro bono at least 1 person every 2 weeks whose identity has now been stolen: you can’t. Take a good look at some of these rather frightening examples:

Read `Em and Weep Stories

What can you do? Well, for starters, take the time to know exactly what is out there about you, and make sure it is correct. It’s not just something to do “when you have time”. It’s something to do NOW, if you haven’t already. Then, remain vigilant. And talk about this problem, to your neighbors. We may all be Red Staters and Blue Staters, but IME the notion of government “knowing too much” about us is something that everyone but the most rabid wingnut views can get fired up about. This is a great organization whose page everyone should diary.

Privacy Rights Clearinghouse