HeidiAllen.com

Gas prices are obviously impacting a lot of people and businesses here in the US, but we still have it easy compared to many other countries.

In Costa Rica, gas is currently $4.72 a gallon. In the capital of San Jose, that nation’s most populous city, emergency services will be cutting back from 3 ambulances to 2, because they can’t afford the gas. Emergency calls to EMS will now be prioritized, and ambulances will only be dispatched to the most serious cases.

Taxis are no longer driving around the city looking for customers. Instead, they line up at various locations, waiting for the customers to come to them. When the taxi at the front of the line gets a fare, the rest of the drivers get out and PUSH their cars forward.

All this is going on at a time when Costa Rican president and Nobel Prize winner Oscar Arias has been caught red-handed with a 2 million dollar slush fund made up of government money. Sigh.

And what are we, the world’s biggest consumers, doing about the gas price issue? Apparently, falling for the bull that drilling in environmentally sensitive areas will bring down prices.

This simply isn’t true. See the actual Department of Energy analysis at the end of this post for the facts.

Meanwhile, when I called a senator’s office recently and asked his aide to tell the senator that I support reigning in oil market speculators, he responded, “Oh, so you want to REGULATE the free market?!!!”

“No,”, I replied. “I want to protect the free market and the American people from what the speculators are doing to them. Wouldn’t that be a less costly and faster way to deal with high gas prices?”

He spouted a bunch of talking points that supposedly “proved” me wrong. I researched them after I hung up and discovered that he didn’t have a leg to stand on.

And that’s where we’re at. Talking points versus facts. Given our recent history, don’t expect facts to win out.

US Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration
“Official Energy Statistics from the US Government”

May 2008: Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

“With respect to the world oil price impact, projected ANWR oil production constitutes between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030, based on the low and high resource cases, respectively. Consequently, ANWR oil production is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices. Relative to the AEO2008 reference case, ANWR oil production is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light (LSL) crude oil¹⁸ prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 in the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 in the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 in the high oil resource case. Assuming that world oil markets continue to work as they do today, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) could neutralize any potential price impact of ANWR oil production by reducing its oil exports by an equal amount.”

2007: Impacts of Increased Access to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Lower 48 Federal Outer Continental Shelf

“The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017.”

Evidence is now coming out that a former State Department official appointed by President Bush may have been involved in a scheme to sell nuclear weapons secrets to Turkey. While this has been largely ignored in the US press, it’s received quite a bit of attention overseas. In part, this is because Valerie Plame was part of the team investigating the case before it was abruptly shut down. As it turns out, Marc Grossman, the State Department official, is the man who originally circulated the classified document identifying Plame as a covert agent.

The White House has clearly been paying attention. On January 23rd, President Bush issued a press release announcing the proposed Agreement for Cooperation between the United States of America and the Republic of Turkey Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy. Despite the new evidence to the contrary, Bush says,

“U.S. agencies received … information implicating Turkish private entities in certain activities directly relating to nuclear proliferation. … My Administration (is) confident that the pertinent issues have been sufficiently resolved and that there is a sufficient basis (as set forth in the classified annexes, which will be transmitted separately by the Secretary of State) to proceed with congressional review of the Agreement and, if legislation is not enacted to disapprove it, to bring the Agreement into force.”

Unless Congress acts to stop it, this agreement will go into force on April 21st or 22nd. It will provide all the cover needed to sell not only nuclear information and technology to Turkey, but materials as well. Let us not forget that Turkey aided A.Q. Khan, the Pakistani physicist, in selling nuclear hardware and information to Libya, North Korea and Iran.

I urge you to contact your Senators and Representative and ask them to stop the next round of nuclear proliferation before it starts… by killing this agreement. Thanks in advance for your efforts.

(cross-posted to the Daily Kos)

On February 12th, 1999, Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison gave a closed-door statement on her reasons for voting to impeach then-President William Jefferson Clinton. As you might expect, she listed perjury as a primary reason, but she listed many others, including a forceful argument for presidential impeachment without an indictable crime.

Early on she says, “I was reminded as well, however, that the laws of our Country are applicable to us all, including the President, and they must be obeyed.” I’ll assume that this includes laws dealing with government surveillance of civilians, as well as those applicable to outing an undercover CIA agent.

While describing Clinton’s deposition, she says, “…the Judge and participating counsel for the parties, either knowingly or unknowingly, formulated a definition of the meaning of the words ‘sexual relations’ to exclude certain forms of human contact that in their commonly accepted meaning would be included.”

And what of changing the words “covert operative” to exclude their commonly accepted meaning?

She goes on, “It was alleged, among other things, that the President coached, manipulated, and influenced false testimony of witnesses…”.

It is alleged that Vice-President Cheney did all this in preparation for the Scooter Libby trial.

“…engineered the hiding of gifts and evidence that was subject to subpoena…”

As opposed to Rove using the RNC email server so that a subpoena wouldn’t turn up evidence against him?

“While under oath before the Federal grand jury, the President gave perjurious testimony before the grand jury…”

Yet, when discussing the Scooter Libby trial, Senator Hutchison said, “…I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn’t indict on the crime…”

In her 1999 statement, Hutchison says, “…engaging personally and through his subordinates and agents in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony…”

Perhaps the Senator has forgotten that she engaged in that behavior herself, with the help of Karl Rove.

But then, my friends, Senator Hutchison makes one of the most interesting arguments for Presidential impeachment that I’ve read:

“I do not hold to the view of our Constitution that there must be an actual, indictable crime in order for an act of a public officer to be impeachable. It is clear to this Senator that there are, indeed, circumstances, short of a felony criminal offense that would justify the removal of a public officer from office, including the President of the United States. Manifest injury to the Office of the President, to our Nation, and to the American people, and gross abuses of trust and of public office clearly can reach the level of intensity that would justify the impeachment and removal of a leader.”

Well said, Kay.

I’m crossposting this from my dairy at the Daily Kos.

As I mentioned in my previous post, Texas Republican Representative Henry Bonilla became the Chairman of the American Dream PAC in 1999. The PAC has had an amazing and checkered history.

The PAC’s website was taken down in 2002, shortly after their Executive Director/Treasurer Lydia Meuret was convicted of embezzling roughly $120,000. An LA Times article had this interesting quote:

“Had there been any checks or balances, it probably never would have happened,” she said recently, as she prepared to begin serving a 15-month prison term. “I would just write myself checks.”

Meuret was simultaneously the Treasurer for Republicans for Clean Air, a PAC that seemingly sprang out of thin air and ran ads in key states in 2000 against Senator John McCain. They depicted then-Texas Governor George W. Bush as friendly to the environment and McCain as a polluter, and were widely credited with swinging the Repubican presidential primary in Bush’s favor.

The PAC was funded by Sam and Charles Wyly, brothers, Bush Pioneers and tax evasion suspects. It had no street address or phone number. The only officer listed was Meuret and the PO Box, which was also used for the American Dream PAC, was registered to Meuret.

When McCain’s Deputy Campaign Manager filed an FEC complaint against Republicans for Clean Air alledging excessive contributions, failure to report a contribution, failure to register and report and exceeding the $25,000 annual contribution limit, Meuret sought to distance herself. The Washington Post reported…

“But Meuret said she knows next to nothing about Republicans for Clean Air, except the “consultant” who hired her and told her not to reveal his name. She added that a news release would soon be distributed ending the mystery of who aired the ads. Yet there was no announcement.”

The unnamed consultant was Jeb Hensarling, Meuret’s predecessor as Treasurer for the American Dream PAC. Hensarling has since become the U.S. Representative for Texas District 5 and was elected just yesterday as the Chairman of the Republican Study Committee.

Since its founding, the American Dream PAC’s stated mission has been…

“Hard work. Strong families. Free markets. Individual liberties. The ideals of the American Dream form the foundation of our Republican Party. Today, the American Dream PAC is leading the charge to help minority GOP candidates across our nation implement these precious values.”

However, as the Washington Post reported in 2003, that mission was all but abandoned towards the end of 2000. That was when the last slate of minority candidates, featured on the PAC’s website, received their contributions.

Then, in 2002, Meuret filed a Texas Ethics Commission report claiming that the PAC had contributed to the campaigns of 3 more minority candidates. But did they? Those contributions didn’t show up in the PAC’s FEC filings.

Despite the scandals and the current lack of a street address, phone number, known board members or a website, the American Dream PAC continues to bring in more money every year. This year, their receipts (so far) have totalled $113,405, most of which has been spent. The largest PAC contributor has been the United Parcel Service PAC with $15,000, bringing their all-time contributions total to $35,000. UPS also gave $54,000 to Texans For Henry Bonilla.

Why would UPS drop $89,000, plus great photo ops on a single politician? I’ll leave that to someone else to figure out.

I’m crossposting this from my diary at the Daily Kos. San Antonio Express News columnist Carlos Guerra used some of my research in his column today.

The Texas District 23 House race is one of the few still to be decided this year. On December 12th, voters will choose between Republican Henry Bonilla and Democrat Ciro Rodriguez. Bonilla called a press conference yesterday (Dec. 4th) to accuse Rodriguez of ties to terrorists and to insinuate corruption. The charges were so ludicrous that, at first, only San Antonio’s WOAI was willing to touch the story.

But what of Bonilla’s record? During the 2004 campaign cycle, Bonilla accepted $1000 from the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe, as part of the Jack Abramoff bribery scandal.

Texans For Henry Bonilla received $8500 from defense contractor ADCS, the main co-conspirator in the Duke Cunningham bribery scandal. Bonilla is on the House Defense Appropiations Committee.

In addition, Bonilla’s political fund, the American Dream PAC, received a $3000 contribution from ADCS in 2005.

Strangely enough, one of Bonilla’s largest 2005-2006 campaign contributors ($20,000) was… the American Dream PAC. Bonilla heads the PAC, and has done so since 1999. He awarded himself the highest contribution ever given by the PAC. (Tom Delay comes in second with half that.) He also used the American Dream PAC to give himself $5000 in 2002. I’m baffled as to why Bonilla, using the Texans for Henry Bonilla PAC, would donate $15,000 to the American Dream PAC, only to receive most of it back as campaign contributions.

The American Dream PAC was founded to provide financial assistance to minority Republican candidates. However, since Bonilla has taken over the organization, most of their contributions have gone to non-minority candidates, Tom Delay’s defense fund, the Texas GOP redistricting fiasco and an embezzlement scheme for which one of their former treasurers was convicted in 2003.

Other interesting American Dream PAC and Texans For Henry Bonilla contributors include Enron, convicted felon Jeffrey Skillings, Arthur Andersen and Reliant Energy, all of whom contributed in 2000-2001 during the time that they were colluding to game the California energy market, leading to its collapse. Enron’s last contribution was made 2 weeks after the SEC investigation into their dealings began, and a mere 3 days before Kenneth Lay announced that Enron had overstated its profits by $586 million.

Given that the FEC says Texans For Henry Bonilla has had 5555 individual contributors, I’m sure I could find much more than this, but my time is limited. Regardless, the facts above show clearly that Bonillas in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

You may remember a few months back when it was disclosed that over 25,000 documents in the National Archives had been reclassified as secret since 1999. In response to the public outcry, the Archives did a sample audit of 1,353 documents.

Their results were released 4/26/06, but didn’t make the news. I only discovered the report just now when I went directly to the National Archives news page. According to the press release:

Archivist Weinstein said, “More than one of every three documents removed from the open shelves and barred to researchers should not have been tampered with. That practice, which undermined the National Archives basic mission to preserve the authenticity of files under our stewardship, must never be repeated.”

Another interesting discovery was that 17,702 of the documents were reclassified by the US Air Force. This makes me extremely curious. What are they trying to hide?

Supposedly, agreements have been made that will keep this from happening again, and the “National Archives will work with the agencies to ensure that documents removed erroneously or improperly from open shelves at the National Archives will be restored to public access as expeditiously as possible.”

Personally, I hope that public watchdogs keep a close eye on all this. You can read more here.

I’d like to take a moment to stick up for a couple of people that I hate.

First up is holocaust revisionist David Irving. I’m Jewish, but I understand that a nation’s freedom of speech is only as strong as the offensiveness of the speech that it defends. Austria has now sentenced Irving to a 3 year prison term, apparently to prove to critics that they’re no longer glossing over their Nazi past.

Second up is Saddam Hussein. You read right. Everyone knows that the man was an evil, murderous dictator. It’s still not acceptable to lie about him just to forward one’s own political agenda. Donald Rumsfeld published an op-ed piece in the Lebanese Daily Star today claiming that “Saddam Hussein’s mass graves were filled with hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis.”

C’mon, Donald. That claim was debunked back in July of 2004. Couldn’t you have made your point with the actual number of victims? 5,000 human beings murdered is horrific enough.

This lie is particularly despicable coming from the man who, in 1984, was in Baghdad meeting with Hussein’s foreign minister on the day that the UN confirmed Hussein had used mustard gas on Iranian soldiers. Rumsfeld still spent the afternoon restoring normal diplomatic ties between Iraq and the United States.

During the time that Rumsfeld was Reagan’s Middle East envoy, the US sold two fleets of helicopters to Saddam. These were later used to drop poison gas on Kurdish civilians. Rumsfeld had no comment at the time. Now he mentions it whenever he wants to play on our outrage.

Towards the end of the op-ed piece, Rumsfeld makes a statement that isn’t supported by anything else in his article. He says, “We are fighting a war in which the survival of our way of life is at stake.”

Huh? Where are the facts or logic to support that amazing claim? Then he ends with a statement that is at once ironic and nauseating:

“…truth is on our side, and, ultimately, truth wins out.”

Oh, Donald, Donald… I wish you knew what truth was.

Ladies, has your guy made one fag joke too many? Wanna watch him become a bellowing, hyperventilating ball of irrational fury? Show him this study.

More here and here.

For the record, my guy doesn’t make those kinds of jokes and merely chuckled when he learned about the study, but I had a less pleasant experience with an acquaintance who shall remain unnamed.

When I first heard the news of the killing of Rigoberto Alpizar, the Costa Rican-American who was shot by US air marshals at Miami International Airport this past week, my thoughts immediately turned to Jean Charles de Menezes. Menezes was the Brazilian man shot and killed by London police officers in a subway car on July 22nd of this year.

The day of the shooting, police identified Menezes as a terrorist suspect whom they believed was carrying a bomb and who’d acted suspiciously. Media outlets claimed he’d jumped over an entry barrier, run from police and was wearing a bulky coat suitable for hiding explosives. The police allowed these claims to go uncontested. Undercover agents claimed Menezes advanced towards them even after they identified themselves as police, and that they were forced to shoot him to keep him from detonating the bomb.

As evidence to the contrary mounted, with witnesses providing their own accounts, security footage that disproved at least one official claim and one officer who been involved providing conflicting testimony, officials began to distance themselves from the story that had been repeated worldwide.

By the time the dust settled, every major claim had been proven untrue. Menezes was officially cleared as innocent. Unfortunately, far fewer news outlets relayed this fact than had relayed the initial claims.

A similar thing is happening with the case of Rigoberto Alpizar. The official story is that Alpizar ran erratically up the airplane aisle shouting that he had a bomb. Air marshals ordered him to stop, but he forced his way out of the plane. On the jetway, air marshals ordered him to lie on the ground. Instead, he again claimed to have a bomb and reached into his backpack, leading the marshals to believe he was about to detonate it. To prevent this, they shot him. Shortly thereafter, they searched and detonated his luggage, which proved his innocence.

At least seven witnesses now say that Alpizar didn’t say anything at all as he ran towards the plane’s door; only that, before rising from his seat, he shouted “I have to get off!”. They say that Alpizar’s wife, Anne Buechner, ran after him, shouting to airline employees that he was bipolar and hadn’t taken his medication.

When it became clear that Alpizar was going to exit the plane, his wife turned back to get her own luggage and follow him. Clearly, it wasn’t obvious to her that this had become a life or death situation. One problem was that the air marshals were undercover and at a distance, with one wearing a Hawaiian shirt. Alpizar exited onto the tarmack, and witnesses heard the air marshals shout “Stop!”. This is when air marshals say they ordered Alpizar to lie flat on the ground.

One passenger pointed out to reporters that Alpizar was wearing a fanny pack. “You can’t get on the ground with a fanny pack”, he said. “You have to move it to the side.” This may have been the movement that air marshals misconstrued as an attempt to activate a bomb.

Buechner attempted to run outside to again explain to the air marshals why Alpsizar was behaving strangely, but was stopped by fellow passengers who were concerned for her safety. Just then, 5 or 6 shots were fired, killing Alpizar.

One witness who helped to console her after the shooting says Buechner said her husband had believed there was a bomb on the plane and was trying to get to safety. It’s possible that Alpizar said something about a bomb to the air marshals once he was outside, but that they misinterpreted his meaning. For the record, Alpizar was a 20 year+ US resident who spoke fluent English.

As for why a man who had already been diagnosed as bipolar would stop taking his medication prior to boarding an international flight, the answer may lie in a little reported fact. Alpizar and Buechner had been working as medical missionaries in Quito, Ecuador. Just before catching their plane back to the US, Buechner’s fanny pack was stolen. It’s likely that Alpizar’s medication was in that fanny pack.

In addition to the lack of medication, travel and sleep disruptions can aggravate bipolar disorders, but the resulting behavior is rarely a danger to others. Unfortunately, in this tragedy of errors, a man lost his life.

No-one would claim that the air marshals involved didn’t believe they were protecting the lives of the other passengers. They had little time to decide on a course of action, and all of us are wiser in hindsight. However, it seems clear that their minds were already set on a particular scenario, regardless of a reality that didn’t fit. Why would a terrorist get up, announce themselves and then run to detonate their bomb where it would do the least damage? None of us are served by excessive paranoia and an investigatory system that is anything but transparent.

Witnesses didn’t hear Alpizar say anything

Wife mentions Alpizar was afraid there was a bomb on the plane

Wife’s fanny pack was stolen prior to flight

Experts: Travel, Sleep Disruptions Can Aggravate Bipolar Disorder

None of 7 witnesses MSNBC interviewed heard the word “bomb”

My newest article will soon be published by the Bulverde Standard and its sister newspapers, but you can read it here first:

FEDERAL & STATE WIRETAPS RISE 19 PERCENT

The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts is required by law to release an annual report on federal and state wiretaps. These are wiretaps not covered under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, indicating that they aren’t related to espionage or international terrorism. The report also omits wiretaps by city and county-level law enforcement agencies.

The press release for the most recent U.S. Courts report is titled ‘Authorized Federal and State Wiretaps Rose 19 Percent in 2004′.

http://www.uscourts.gov/Press_Releases/04wiretapreport.pdf

The release states, “No requested applications were denied in 2004.” It also offers this:

“Seventy-six percent of all applications for intercepts in 2004, 1,308 wiretaps, cited drug offenses as the most serious offense under investigation. Nationwide, racketeering (138 orders) and gambling (90 orders) were specified in 8 and 5 percent of applications, respectively, as the most serious offense under investigation. The categories of homicide/assault (48 orders) and larceny/theft/robbery (39 orders) were specified in 3 percent and 2 percent of applications, respectively.”

One must wonder why homicide doesn’t rank as the “most serious offense”.

The press release goes on to say, “The most common location specified in wiretap applications was “portable device, carried by/on individual”, a category that includes portable digital pagers and cellular phones. In 2004, a total of 88 percent (1,507 wiretaps) of all intercepts authorized involved portable devices such as these.”

Two relatively new mobile phone features make them particularly well suited for surveillance: global positioning data, which allows the phone’s location to be tracked at all times, and a stealth mode that allows the phone to transmit conversations while appearing to be off. The former, called E911, is in all new mobile phones, so that emergency service personnel can track the location of 911 callers. The latter, which is only in specially built phones, is suspected in the theft of trade secrets, which is why some corporations no longer allow mobile phones to be carried into closed-door meetings.

Meanwhile, buying a device that would block cell phones from operating within the range of a private conversation is still illegal, thanks to the FCC, who says these devices interfere with the rights of those who lease cellular spectrums. Of course, as many privacy advocates point out, enforcing this ruling is nearly impossible, since it’s very difficult to tell why a device isn’t picking up a signal. As a result, there’s been a boom in business for companies that sell “cellular jammers” and “cellular phone blockers”.

Why should any of this concern you? Many Americans will tell you that they’re not bothered because they have nothing to hide. A quick glance at history, however, shows that law-abiding citizens are frequently the targets of surveillance operations. Whether one studies the McCarthy era, the Cointelpro operation or the post 9/11 surveillance of activists, students and others, it’s clear that innocence doesn’t always protect you.

The Patriot Act, which is largely responsible for the increase in wiretaps, is coming up for reauthorization in early December. Senate and House leaders met on November 17th to hammer out an agreement that leaves the most controversial aspects of the Act untouched. For example, the FBI can still gain access to the business records of ordinary Americans who aren’t suspected of any wrongdoing, and they can do so without notifying their target.

Another provision gives the FBI broad powers to serve businesses with “national security letters”. These letters require a business to disclose confidential customer information without notifying the customer. Prior to 9/11, national security letters were limited to a narrow set of circumstances, and only about 300 were issued each year. Currently, over 30,000 are issued annually.

The November 17th congressional agreement amends the Patriot Act to allow businesses to notify customers whose information will be disclosed, but only if the business proves in court that such notification won’t endanger diplomatic relations, national security or public safety. The government is under no such burden of proof. If it says that any of these will be endangered, the business loses its case, making it unlikely that national security letters will be challenged by anyone.

Absent a sudden public outcry, the reauthorization of the Patriot Act is likely to go as planned, and next year’s wiretap report will undoubtedly show yet another increase in federal and state surveillance.