Sleepycatz

It’s 3 Am and Monsters Are Under My Bed

When I first saw Hillary Clinton’s 3:00 Am ad, I found it annoying. As I’ve considered it over the past week, however, I now believe it (and the strategy behind it) are opposed to everything this election means to Democrats and progressives.

For nearly seven years we have been told to fear: fear everything from shoeless foot soldiers preparing to bring down the tallest building in North America to incompetent terrorists threating to deliver pizza to a heavily armed military base, and mapless idiots under the delusion they could blow up an airport. The message generated by the administration’s perpetuation of fear is a simple one: follow us or die. By employing the same nebulous enemy or critical situation, the Clinton ad perpetuates the same fear based arguments made by the current administration. The ad utilizes the middle of the night phone call to engender a foreboding threat emerging from unknown darkness. The visual queues of the ad suggest that we –innocent child-like– Americans are asleep and thus oblivious to the threats that surround us. Instead of trying to educate Americans, or ask them to extend their understanding of the real threats that face America, the Clinton campaign has told us (in this ad) to stay asleep, to simply count on a ‘leader’ to protect and shelter us — like a worried parent. It is the personification of the president as protector and guardian. This is no different from the current administration’s arguments that it must torture, spy, and deceive in order to protect us. The price for this bargain of security is unquestioned loyalty. The mantra “we’ll keep you safe, but don’t ask how or why” is constantly implied and reinforced by accusations of naiveté and disloyalty by those defending the bargain.

It is imperative that our political leaders begin treating the American people as adults deserving of information and explanation, instead of tired children hiding under their covers from monsters. Ms. Clinton seems bent on pursuing the latter course and eager to battle with John McCain over which of them will be the more protective parent to the napping cherubs they envision the populace to be.

War on Privacy

This week one of the nation’s top intelligence officials made a startling announcement:

Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguard people’s private communications and financial information.

Safeguard from whom? should be the question that is asked of Mr. Kern. I doubt very much that al Qaeda or Syria cares where our day to day travels take us , but my boss might, your insurance company might, political opponents might. What Mr. Kern is insisting upon is a surveillance state - one in which government collected information is seamlessly shared with business collected data. For instance: you go to an ATM at 8:00 Am, Stop and buy a coffee at 8:30 Am using a discount card, punch into work at 9:00 AM - respond your e-mail & make calls, drive home via a tollbridge at 5:00 Pm, stop off for a drink at 5:30, then go home and read your personal e-mail, visit and adult website, maybe read some blogs; the government would now know exactly where you were during the day, and what you were doing. Perhaps you visited a blog which was critical of government policies; you might now find yourself undergoing additional IRS auditing - after all it’s happened before, or find yourself bared from flying. What Mr. Kerr is suggesting is even a bit more nefarious: a two way street in which businesses have access to to personal data for their own purposes. Perhaps your employer is devout and decides to fire you because you consume pornography — there is currently no law which protects employees for actions unrelated to their work. Perhaps your health insurance company decides you are consuming too much alcohol and decides to raise your premium or drop you. All of these things are more than possible, they are probable outcomes of Mr. Kerr’s policy. Information, it has been said, is power, and once made available those with the information will make the most use of it as possible.

Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, James Monroe, and James Madison all published their works under pseudonyms — anonymously. And they all did so at a time in which the future of their country was far less certain then it is today. Mr. Kerr, and the administration, keep arguing that we are in greater peril today then we have ever been before. But there is little to no evidence of this. If our country is in peril, it is from the incompetence and hubris of its leaders, not from any outside force. But these same leaders cry for more power to help assuage the fear their own policies have created. Should Mr. Kerr and his administration get their way, we and future Americans will quickly learn to fear our own government and its powers. To quote a popular film, “People should not fear the government; Government should fear the people.”

Men of Steel

It has now become apparent that –with the support of Sens. Schumer and Feinstein and the insane hyperbole of President Bush– Judge Mukasey will be confirmed as the next Attorney General of the United States. It is nearly inconceivable that a man who who believes that the President has the right to detain citizens and residents without charge, and who has called for secret courts of prosecution, could be confirmed as the chief legal representative in the United States. Yet, these are the times in which we live: Times filled with fear and uncertainty. It is in these times that an old ideology has risen to prominence: The ideology of authoritarianism.

Authoritarianism should not be confused with fascism –though one may lead to the other and vice-versa. Where the later seeks to unite a country under single cooperative rule lead by a charismatic leader, authoritarianism seeks only the goal of power for its leader, and his small band of loyalists. Where fascism uses nationalism and fear to unite the people into a fasces, authoritarianism primarily uses fear to maintain power, with little concern of uniting people in anything other then fear of itself or its prescribed enemies. Authoritarianism is the poor man’s fascism. It requires little to intellectual honesty, but offers the same ultimate power to its leaders.

The current authoritarian crop is found among the leading candidates for the Republican nomination for the Presidency of the United States. These men are engaged in a battle to prove which is stronger. They argue as to which will more quickly throw off the burdensome weaknesses of law (national or international), or which has the strength of will to incarcerate and abuse more of their enemies. These are men of steel. They argue for the preternatural power of the Presidency. They acknowledge no limits on this power; for they believe that that the next president must expand upon the powers the existing one. This, they suggest, must be done until the Presidency is indistinguishable from the Roman office of Dictator: an office with unlimited power to protect the state.

Among the prospective Duci, John McCain –the only combat veteran– has suggested that America cease torturing its detainees. Mr. McCain has been mocked for his stance in the past, and met with the equivocation argument of “we’re no worse then the evil we are fighting;” an argument used to justify nearly every atrocity throughout history. Mr. McCain has suffered for his beliefs among the base of his party –he is presently polling third or fourth. And though Mr. McCain believes in the authoritarian office of President, this is not enough to satisfy many. His party stalwarts believe that a single iron willed leader is the only thing that can save them from the enemy they have created in their fear. They will trust only a man who has the vision to see beyond law and reason and into the depths of their fears and dreams for order and vengeance.

For nearly one hundred years, our country had hosted two great political parties, both of which vied for political dominance generally within the framework of our laws and government. Even in the worst days of our republic in which the most heinous decisions were made (such as Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus and Roosevelt’s internment of American citizens) the acts were made with the full knowledge of the other branches of our government and with lawful review. But today, one party insists that one part of our government –the excellency of the Presidency– must be allowed to operate in secret, with secret expansive powers which no court nor man can hold to account. The Republican party has chosen an expedient path of authoritarianism in hopes that the fears and desperation of the American people match those of the party’s financiers and base. The other party, the Democratic Party, has showed itself either too afraid or too covetous of these new powers to act against its political adversaries. This party has shown itself to lack any will of leadership, authoritarian or otherwise, and thus struggles for unity and direction. The base of the Democratic party has been clear in its demands, but the leadership has ignored their calls and has pursued appeasement through ‘moderation’. The Republican party has offered a vision of the future, though be it a frightening one. The Democratic party, however, has been able to provide little evidence that it is opposed to the authoritarian ideas from across the aisle, or that it has the will to govern at all.

Our republic is in danger. But it is not threatened from without, but from within. It is threatened by those who seek to use its offices to gain ultimate authority; it is threatened by those pundits and politicians who cynically see all of politics as a win/loose game; and it is threatened by a frightened and apathetic public who seek quick fixes over reasoned understanding. It is only this final element which may be changing. There are growing voices outside of the pundits and politicians calling for introspection and change. It remains to be seen whether those voices will be heard by those threatening our nation.

Security through absurd obsurity?

Those who know me know I have a problems with the notion of security through obscurity — the idea that one can achieve some measure of real security by hiding the item or knowledge which needs to be protected. As a security measure, obscurity has been around since man first hid from a predator. It has never been a consistently successful strategy. The pilfered tombs of the Pharaohs illustrate that no matter how cleaver or determined one is to hide something away, an equally cleaver thief will eventually find the treasure. That the most guarded secrets of the cold war usually flowed between adversaries in a matter of weeks speaks to the ineffectiveness of obscurity when confronted with a determined and resourceful foe. Nonetheless, obscurity remains with us as a natural response to threatening situations. The desire to protect ourselves, or our possessions, immediately invokes the evolutionary response to hide from threats.

I was fascinated to read a recent NY Times article on the obscurity devices of Aya Tsukioka. Ms. Tsukioka has created camouflaging fashions for Japan’s urban dwelling population. Though violent street crime is down in Japan sensationalist news reports have created an air of fear among city dwellers. Among Ms. Tsukioka’s inventions is a skirt which allows the wearer to disguise oneself as a vending machine:

The wearer hides behind the sheet, printed with an actual-size photo of a vending machine. Ms. Tsukioka’s clothing is still in development, but she already has several versions, including one that unfolds from a kimono and a deluxe model with four sides for more complete camouflaging.

Other creations by Ms. Tsukioka include a purse which can be disguised as a manhole cover — presumably to be thrown into the middle of the street when the carrier feels threatened — and backpack which allows a child to disguise her/himself as a fire hydrant.

There is something more then a bit disturbing with the idea that women and children should need to take on the appearance of common inanimate urban objects in order to protect themselves. Certainly it can be argued that historically these two groups have been objectified in this manner for thousands of years, and the need/desire to obscure the body in this manner is a reflection of a conservative cultural mindset. Fear, in general, tends to evoke the most primitive of responses in the human mind. The response suggested by Ms. Tsukioka’s creations is that we need to hide our humanity until the fear passes. I couldn’t disagree more.

DHS Deceit

For the past couple of weeks some friends and colleagues and I have been discussing a CNN story on the vulnerability of SCADA controlled generators. The story fed to CNN by the DHS is that power generators, under SCADA control, can be destroyed via cyber attack by telling or tricking the PLC into over-cycling the generator and thus adversely effecting the local or national power grid . After some discussion, most of us have decided that the story is largely bunk. Even if we ignore the fact that the generator shown in the DHS video appears to in the ~1500 kW size range (significantly smaller then the multi-megawatt generators used for local or regional grid generation), the idea that a critical piece of power generating equipment would lack a something as simple as a mechanical governor - an 18th c. technology - let alone an electronic one to prevent the system from operating beyond safe levels seems patently absurd. An electrical engineering friend has suggested that the current steam turbine generators used by utilities do not currently include deep levels of automatic systems — so any such attack on a utility could never effect online turbine speed. Additionally, even if such a vulnerability did somehow exist is would be very simple to insert PLC programming which did not allow for the system to run out of tolerance.

So why would DHS release such a report — we know why CNN engages in fear mongering where ever it can. The purpose seems to be alluded to near the end of the piece where CNN explains that the DHS cyber-security budget is a scant 100 million dollars. The goal here seems to be to get people riled up to pressure congress to flood DHS with more money. As fear-mongering coup de grâce, CNN finds someone to say that Iran has the same generators, SCADA systems, and passwords as those used in America. This is so appallingly absurd and transparent it simply causes my head to spin.

The problem is, that there are security concerns with SCADA systems and the desire of managers to save money and place them on an Internet connected network. The problems though instead of being related to evil cyber-terrorists are much more mundane. Such as the effect of Viruses, Trojans, and Denial of Service Attacks on these systems. If a virus should interrupt communications with a water filtration control system, for instance, this could cause response problems leading to some contamination. Fighting viruses, however, does not get you billions in taxpayer funding. Nowadays only the most fearful scenarios get the money — regardless of merit.

The Grand Diversion

The United States Senate, the most deliberative body in the world, this week affirmed,in a bold move, by a vote of 72 to 25 that

A recent attack through a full-page advertisement in the New York Times by the liberal activist group, Moveon.org, impugns the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces.

Just to be clear, the advertisement did not suggest that Gen. Petraeus received his bronze star under false pretenses or behaved questionably under fire; yet, these assertions were made quite regularly against a decorated officer by those now rushing to defend the honor of the military. Additionally, the doggerel presented in the MoveOn ad did not go so far as to suggest that Gen. Petraeus is an enemy of the United States, as so many others have suggested, using a similar lyrical device, of a sitting United States Senator. There is an inherent hypocrisy in the Republican discourse being foisted on America. Under the rules of this discourse proponents of the administration are always presenting logical facts while those who question the administration are always ‘playing politics’ or worse, unpatriotic cowards. The fact that a minority of Democrats in the Senate failed to vote against the measure only reinforces how successful this hypocrisy has become.

Meanwhile, on the same day that the US Senate voted to condemn the uncouth folks at MoveOn.org, three American soldiers lost their lives in Iraq. That’s three Americans who will never see their family or loved ones again; three Americans who cannot pursue their dreams and hopes; three Americans who cannot participate in debate over Iraq.

Of course, unsatisfied with the bloodshed in Iraq, on the same day the condemnation of political speech was approved by the Senate another was introduced by supporters of Gen. Petraeus, one which would allow the President open authority to extend his war to Iran. And it can be guaranteed that anyone questioning the need to offer up more human suffering in sacrifice for the honor of of military will be dismissed as unamerican or defeatist.

The Cult of Deimos

Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed S.1927 - The Protect America Act. The act passed early Saturday morning by the Senate gives the president unfettered power to surveil any person, or persons, within the United States as long as he ‘believes’ that his is also surveilling someone outside the country as well. The act specifically exempts any such surveillance from judicial oversight. With no requirement of a warrant, and no one allowed to oversee the orders of surveillance, the president may now legally spy on any American citizen he likes. Marty Lederman has some excellent analysis of the act at Balkinization.

So how did we arrive at this point? A place where our government betrays its founding principle — the checks and balances of power — in the middle of the night, and where our own leaders are given the absolute power to intrude into our private affairs legally? The reason and cause is simple: fear. Democrats voted for the act because they feared that the president would accuse them of liking terrorists if they didn’t. Or worse, if a terrorist attack occurred the president would blame them for the attack. Republicans voted for the act because they were afraid of appearing unsupportive of the president, and, also, feared the accusation of liking terrorists.

Fear has become the overwhelming force which drives our country. We righteously worship it. Like supplicants at the alter of a jealous God will will do anything to appease it. We will offer up our rights and liberties; we will sacrifice our democratic heritage; we will allow our country to wage endless wars, and we will consume giant sport utility vehicles or any other goods to assuage the God of fear. Like any cult, fear has its high priests and deacons: like those who claim that western civilization is but a single terrorist attack away from collapse and ruin or those who suggest that debate or discussion is, in the very least, capitulation. For fear, as a master, cannot tolerate rational discussion and dissent, it survives and breeds through ignorance, hyperbole, and the all too human desire for power.

In 1955, poet Allen Ginsberg penned his masterpiece Howl. In his epic, Ginsberg hearkens post-war America to Moloch, the God of industrialized conformity and decay, which demands the sacrifice of our lives and those of our children. Today, post-9/11, our new lord has become Deimos — child of Aries and Aphrodite (War and Lust) and brother of Phobos (terror). But today we have no great poet or statesmen to calm the fever of our devotion to Deimos. They are all at the alters awaiting their turns to make sacrifice or offer prayers of protection. Deimos, like Moloch, can never be appeased. He will always want more; the next offering must always be greater then the previous. As with all cults, followers will eventually fade, and the priests will keep the pyres burning for years beyond necessity. But the God, and his priests, will never return the sacrifices made by the people in their moment of faith.