An article in Jurist on Friday reported that:

Stimson predicted that “when corporate CEOs see that those firms are representing the very terrorists who hit their bottom line in 2001 those CEO’s are going to make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms.” The former Navy lawyer said “It’s shocking…The major law firms in this country…are out there representing detainees.”

Predictably, the law firms came back fighting. One lawyer said:

Apparently, the Bush Administration has no good answers to the legal and moral travesties at Guantanamo, so they have decided to fall back on good old-fashioned lawyer bashing in a desperate effort to change the subject. It is bad enough that they have consistently flouted the Supreme Court’s 2004 ruling that the detainees are entitled to habeas corpus. Now they are attempting to prevent the detainees from having legal counsel at all. It is truly incredible that Stimson, an attorney himself, does not appear to understand or care about the fundamental obligation of lawyers to represent unpopular and indigent clients.

We and the other habeas counsel are very proud of the work we are doing on behalf of the Guantanamo detainees, and we are confident that the vast majority of our corporate clients feel the same way. The true “news story” here is not that prominent law firms are trying to get the detainees a fair hearing but that the Bush Administration is trying to deny them one.

What the Bush Administration apparently didn’t anticipate is that there is suddenly a certain cachet to this pro bono work. Word has it that several large firms not mentioned in the story are letting it be known that they, too, are representing detainees.

Overnight, a Guantanamo defendant has become the chic new law firm accessory, like an adopted baby in Hollywood.

Well played, George.

Buff.

What we have is kabuki theater, not security. Only people with very little insight would believe these measures actually increase our safety. Security you can see offer very little protection. Any frequent flyer can tell you 20 ways a terrorist could evade the observable system. I could go into detail but I’m not interested in winding up in at Gitmo.

As Quindlen explains:

The whole cockeyed system has become a symbol of the shortcomings of government programs and responses. It’s expensive, arbitrary and infuriating; it turns low-wage line workers into petty despots. And instead of making Americans feel safer, its sheer silliness illuminates how impotent we are in the face of terrorism.

Suffice it to say that every scientist I’ve asked says the 3 oz. bottle/quart-size plastic bag requirement is pure nonsense. Why not be honest and acknowledge that you can make a set of fake fingernails (or a 3 oz. bottle) out of plastique? But instead of figuring out what the real risks are, and addressing them in some efficient order, this government in its infinite wisdom has decreed what kind of deodorant I use.

And, as Quindlen notes, this nonsense is expensive. But she failed to describe the full cost, which includes the extra hours spent checking in at airports, and time waiting for checked bags. This faux security adds up to a huge tax on travelers, from the airport security fees added to every ticket to the extortionate price for a “secure” bottle of water to bring on a plane.

There is also a significant amount of pilferage from unlocked luggage. I’ve lost power cords and other computer equipment, and the airlines frankly admit that theft is up. How can we keep terrorists from putting things ON our planes if we can’t stop TSA and airport employees from taking things OUT of our bags? Maybe they only search people on their way to work!

Two weeks ago, I left my lumbar cushion on a plane arriving from Mexico. Because I had already entered customs, they would not let me return to the plane although I realized immediatly that I had done it. Airport personnel assured me that the plane would be searched and cleaned, because it was coming in from Mexico. That made sense, because Mexican airport security is even more of a joke. Effective security procedures would require that flight to be checked carefully for items left onboard before it took off.

But despite my immediate request to the airline—made in the airport that is that airline’s hub—I never got my pillow back. The airline swears it was never turned in. Either the plane was not checked, the item (left in a seat) was somehow overlooked, or it was taken by airline personnel.

Sigh. Just another tax on travelers.

Shame on this Administration for imposing these needless and wasted costs on travelers under the sham of national security.

Buff

Derived from one of my favorite words:

ab·ste·mi·ous [ab-stee-mee-uhs] adjective

1. sparing or moderate in eating and drinking; temperate in diet.
2. characterized by abstinence: an abstemious life.
3. sparing: an abstemious diet.

[Origin: 1615–25; < L abstémius, equiv. to abs- abs- + tém- (base of témétum intoxicating drink) + -ius -ious] Related forms

ab·ste·mi·ous·ly, adverb; ab·ste·mi·ous·ness, noun

Dictionary.com

I don’t recommend this for everyone. In fact, I strongly urge you not to follow my advice. It would collapse the U.S. economy, which is teetering on the point of consumer spending. A downturn in consumerism would be bad not only for America, but given the balance of trade, bad for the whole world.

And it would also prevent the U.S. from raising interest rates again. That would be both good (stimulating to the economy) and bad (we have huge deficit to fund). Higher interest rates would attract more buyers for U.S. debt, and more domestic money from the stock market and into bonds. But it would not be great for the stock market, for wages, or for production.

If you’re conflicted, as I am, about supporting this economy by buying one more cashmere sweater from Target, do us all a few favors in the new year. Here are a couple of relatively painless ways to help yourself and the country without consuming wastefully:

• Pay down your debt.
• Buy a hybrid or electric car.
• Buy locally-grown food, even if it costs more.
• Support women-owned and minority-owned businesses.
• Contribute to local and international charities that consume American-made goods, like Habitat for Humanity and One.
• Buy goods from the companies supporting Product(Red)

Product(Red) is a brilliant project that links the most popular consumer products and good works. Product(Red) has built a coalition of powerful brands (iTunes, Gap, Motorola, Converse, and even American Express—the only credit card I carry) to provide anti-retroviral drugs for people with AIDS in Africa. It makes spending good work, and good works hip.

My niece, Kate, turned me on to One, and bought me Product(Red) iTunes this holiday. It was the perfect gift, creating joy for the recipient, satisfaction for the giver, royalties for the musicians, profits for Apple, money for health care in Africa, and not a scrap of waste anywhere on the planet.

That’s the perfect amount of consumption, in my abshopious world!

Buff

The BMI, or Body Mass Index, is a ratio of weight to height. It’s a convenient (but not precise) way to tell if you need to lose or gain weight. You can calculate yours at the press of a button.

The scale for the general population is:

• Underweight = <18.5
• Normal weight = 18.5-24.9
• Overweight = 25-29.9
• Obese = BMI of 30 or greater.

I say “not precise” because it doesn’t take into account more subtle measurements of fat to muscle mass. Buff, being buff, hovers in the low 20s but I am not skinny. Arnold Schwarzenegger is obese according to this chart, with a BMI of 33.

According to the National Institutes of Health, a “high BMI increases your risk of developing type 2 diabetes by up to 66% and your risk of hypertension by as much as 29%.”

I am strongly in favor of keeping the weight off, and remaining active and fit. But it’s a little unsettling to note that BMI has suddenly become a means of limiting opportunity.

In order to combat extreme thinness among models, Italy recently passed a law that prohibits models who have a BMI of less than 18.5 from working. And in China, government officials have set adoption standards that bar adoption by a foreigner with a BMI over 40.

There are good reasons to stay within the 20-29 range, good reasons to discourage eating disorders, and to encourage weight loss. But something in my libertarian marrow is riled by governments telling us we can’t work until we bulk up, or take care of children until we slim down. With the best of intentions, both regulations set disturbing precedents.

It’s a little Aryan for my taste.

Buff

• During a hiring discussion, a male faculty member blurts out, “Don’t we have enough women?” The faculty is less than 25% female.
• During a discussion, concerning the use of a form for job interviews, a professor (who taught labor and employment law) complains, “I don’t want to fill out a form. I just want to see if I like the guy.”
• During a discussion about two female applicants, a male faculty member speaks in favor of one of the candidates by saying, “She would be a lady-like role model for our students.”
• During a discussion of a candidate with many publications, a male faculty member comments, “But she co-authored these with her husband.” No comment is made about any male candidate’s co-authored articles.
• A male writing instructor is hired at the law school from another part of the university, and is brought in at his current salary. At that salary, he is making more than the female who supervises him. The salaries were both approved by the dean, who felt no adjustment was in order since he had not set the male instructor’s salary. Only when this disparity is the subject of a complaint by female faculty is the supervisor’s salary increased.
• Two new professors are hired, neither with any teaching experience. The male, who is older by 20 years, is paid substantially more than the female. When this disparity is brought to light, the dean cites “practice experience” as the justification for the difference in pay. At no time during the hiring process was “practice experience” listed or considered as a job criterion.
• A female full professor discovers that a male associate professor is earning $7,000 a year more. When she complains, she is told that the associate professor is entitled to a higher salary because he has been teaching for more years.

In none of these cases was discrimination acknowledged as the reason for the disparity in treatment. In every case, the parties setting standards and salaries for jobs felt confident that they were acting without the slightest bias, but based upon concerns about “qualifications” and “quality.”

And therein lies the problem. In too many cases, male professionals come to the table with credentials and experiences that other male professionals deem valuable. I call this process “the presumptive piece of the pie.” A white male hire is presumed to be qualified, and his experiences (particularly experiences shared with white male decision-makers) are deemed valuable. He comes to the table with that presumption on his plate. Unless he eats his pie or throws it in someone’s face, he goes through his career with that presumption of entitlement.

A woman comes to the table with nothing on her plate. She has to bake her pie, and often, to serve it up with a humble smile. Although women are no longer explicitly perceived as “affirmative action hires,”—not deserving of their positions—the factors that go into decisions to give women a promotion or a raise differ from those applied to men.

Here’s another example: A female professor facing tenure is told that she needs to have two articles accepted for publication before her application is due. She meets this requirement. During the discussion of her promotion, a male professor complains about her as a teacher, and notes, “She lets everyone talk.” No pie.

A male professor submits his application with one unpublished (albeit long) article and the faculty votes to grant him tenure despite his failure to meet the standard. During a heated debate about the fairness of this decision, one male faculty member shouts at his female colleague, “He went to the University of Chicago, for god’s sake!” The pie.

The persistent pay gap isn’t news. Similar statistics show up all over professional careers. A 2006 study of the Allegheny County Bar Association found that nothing occurred in a 15-year span to narrow the pay gap between male and female lawyers. The number of female law students has been hovering around 50% for years, but only 16.8% of large law-firm partners are women, according to a 2004 study. Firms used to say that this was a “pipeline” issue, arguing that the number would increase as more women entered the profession. But it didn’t happen. Why? The pie.

Law faculties show a leaky pipeline as well. While almost half the tenure-track positions are filled with women, only a quarter of tenured professors are currently female.

Women are not immune to pie presumption. We expect more of ourselves and ask more of our female peers, perhaps because we know (consciously or not) that more will be expected of a woman, that both students and colleagues will judge women by different, and harsher, standards. And finally, that we will be judged by the success of other women, a process from which white men are immune.

The fact that there are many outstanding, highly successful women actually works against female professionals in many cases. These exceptions are regularly cited as evidence that there is no discrimination when women complain. A faculty with few women hires a woman for a chaired position. A faculty that will not grant full professorship to a woman “proves” that there is no discrimination when it hires a proven star from another school.

Do some women work less? Yes. But with a reward system this slanted, who can blame them? With spouses who may not have the time or the inclination to parent equally, some women value time more than money. But the economics of this choice work against women.

Suppose a woman takes a year off from her career at 35 to have a child. During that year, she does not receive a 10% raise that she otherwise would have received. A man takes a year off from his career at 55 to receive treatment for prostate cancer. He does not receive a 10% merit raise that he otherwise would have received. If they both started at age 35 earning $35,000 a year and receiving 10% raises every year, at age 65, the woman’s choice has cost her $200,000.

Biology cannot write economic destiny. A pay gap of 25% (and climbing) cannot be blamed on women, whether we are having children, failing to fight aggressively for parity, or collapsing in exhaustion. These statistics are just another pie. This time, in the face.

Buff

It’s a brilliant insight. The right wing believes that television and movies are systematically deconstructing our morals. Perhaps they’re right. Perhaps police procedurals like NYPD Blue and The Shield, and intrigue sagas like 24 and Alias have contributed to a general impression that we don’t need to protect the rights of the accused, or observe the rule of law, because they are an illusion—a flesh-colored bandage on the oozing truth.

“Most people” apparently believe that civil rights—protected domestically or internationally—cost us security. In fact, as is becoming increasingly apparent, the facade of security is costing us our democracy.

Let’s not confused satisfying entertainment with satisfactory domestic policy.

Buff

I’m free, I assume as the result of the mid-term elections. The Rs figure it’s only a matter of time before Jane Harmon or one of her colleagues shows up in Cuba to kick ass and take names.

Last night I had a rare insight into the minds of the ruling junta. I heard the Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, speak about his plans to increase national security without trading privacy.

First, let me say that he is a calming presence. Not one of the Administration double-speakers or red-faced blusterers, he is intelligent and thoughtful. His ideas appear logical.

That is, until you actually listen to what he says. He sets up brilliant but false analogies to defend his proposals, arguing that no right-thinking person could reasonably disagree. But I do.

Plan Number 1: secure the borders, which in his plan means national identity cards for all Americans, and indeed, for all the world. He says that we have to be sure that passports are not phony (with his understated tone, I thought he said “phone passports” as first.) He tossed off words like “biometric” and “secure” without mentioning the obvious “database” that would be required to make such a system fully functional.

While he talked about taking all 10 fingerprints of people coming from outside the United States (instead of the current two), he did not mention what specific “biometric” identifier he expected American citizens to provide. I’m pretty proud of the fact that Buff’s fingerprints (much less her DNA) have never been taken (okay, one thumbprint when I took the GMAT, but I really, really doubt that Homeland Security has created a database of the thumbs of potential MBAs . . . but I could be wrong.)

Chertoff said that they want all 10 fingerprints for those entering the country because they intend to start collecting “latent fingerprints” (his precise words) from terrorists abroad. How are they going to get them? Take fingerprints from bomb-making sites and safe houses and at the infamous Al Qaeda schools for terrorists. How are they going to assure that these fingerprints belong to actual terrorists? He never said.

So I have a suggestion: Busboys For Al Qaeda. Someone has to be clearing away the dishes from all those conspirator monthly dinners. The CIA should recruit undercover agents to work for Al Qaeda’s caterers. They can collect fingerprints from all those teacups, and send them to Washington. America will be safe (and how hard could it be? I mean, we know where they are, right?)

And of course, we can’t complain about privacy because what’s the difference between giving two fingerprints and ten? And why do foreign nationals have any right to privacy when attempting to enter the United States anyway? No argument here.

The real problem—never mentioned,of course—is that there is no way for the accused terrorists to prove that they were just having lunch in the local souk and not making bombs. There’s nothing to keep the Sunnis and Shiites from turning over each other’s fingerprints willy-nilly. Or for that matter, to keep the TSA from turning over mine.

His second plan, to be applied to American citizens, could have been written by George Orwell himself. Chertoff argued that better passports (he never said, “identity documents” although that’s what they would be) would—this is the really good part—actually protect Americans’ precious privacy because they could be used to prevent identity theft!

That one left me rolling on the floor. Personally, I’d love it if MBNA had to stop issuing credit cards to anyone with a pulse (including a dog.) I’d love if if they couldn’t turn over the card until someone showed up at my door to check my biometric passport. But somehow, I don’t see the bloated credit industry (which contributes millions to political campaigns) letting that happen.

But I have to offer props to the Homeland Security analyst who came up with that brilliant justification for domestic biometric data collection.

It’s all a moot point in my case. I’m going to cave in and apply for the new security clearance, for which I will pay a couple of hundred dollars, because it will allow me to cut through the security lines at airports. I’d pay even more if they’d let me keep my shoes on and bring my hair gel. So me the real trade-off is between national security and frizzy hair. If the Department of Homeland Security had an ounce of marketing savvy, they’d trade Botox for DNA samples, and Americans would line up to make the trade.

Like any frequent traveler, I could list here the myriad ways that you can defeat the airport security system, but I’m not interested in returning to Guantanamo just now. And if I explain how my computer power cord can be used as a weapon, well they’ll just make me leave it behind.

Because if it’s good for national security, it can’t be bad for the nation. Or as Barry Goldwater never would have said, “Extremism in the defense of security is no vice.”

I hope I’m dead before our children’s children express their disgust at our sheep-like compliance with these ineffective, absurd, and repressive security measures. I hope someone finds this blog and notes that at least Buff Crone noted that all this “security” is nothing more than kabuki theater, played out at at taxpayer (and traveler) expense, and that the only people it protects are in this do-nothing Administration.

Buff

Although my first reaction was to laugh out loud, it isn’t funny. I’m sure it isn’t funny for his friend, although I’m guessing the medical response team was hovering nearby. Can’t you imagine the Secret Service radio chatter in the immediate aftermath:

Darth down! Darth down! No, correction: Darth shot Harry. It was a mistake. I think. Hard to say what he was aiming at.

Yeah, and Iraq was close to Iran.

Who would ever agree to go hunting with a man whose past behaviors include:

• offering a hearty “fuck you” to Patrick Leahy on the Senate floor,
• outing a CIA operative out of spite, and
• going to war to prove his neocons cronies right, nya, nya, nya, damn the consequences?

I hope some duly-elected judge out there in Texas (his real home state, by the way, not Wyoming, which merely issued his driver’s licence) sentences him to an anger management class.

Scooter, consider yourself warned.

Buff

P.S. From John Stewart on Monday:

Harry Whittington is the first person shot by a sitting Veep since Alexander Hamilton.

Maybe I wouldn’t feel so bad if the Administration’s plans for Iraq hadn’t included handing $82 million in cash to a convicted felon who doled it out to his friends.

Meanwhile, in wake of the State of the Union, the President is systematically shredding our domestic safety nets, from student loans to Medicare and Social Security.

Instead of retiring, I’m thinking of going into government contract work. After all, the President wants to privatize Social Security, and believes that the free market can cure our fiscal flu. I’m sure the war will still be going on, and we still have to bring democracy to Iran. Plenty of work for everyone, and I bet it will be easier to get our prescriptions filled there than here.

Buff

• Anyone ready to celebrate the results of free elections in the Palestinian territory, for example?

• Or believe that a president with crude oil running through his veins (to say nothing of his bank account) is talking “seriously” about reducing our dependence on oil?

• Or that we are making “progress” in Iraq, where the deaths keep mounting, along with the bribes, corruption, and fundamentalist opposition?

• Or the success of our war on terrorism, which has predictably resulted in our own freedom being measurably curtailed?

I honestly can’t believe that Bush can argue with a straight face that his domestic eavesdropping is legal. Of course, with Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court, our understanding of “legal” is certainly going to change.

Bush’s presidency reminds me of nothing so much as “The Hunting of the Snark”:

“Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice: That alone should encourage the crew. Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true.”

By the way, if you can no longer keep track of the scandals that would have led to the impeachment of any previous Administration in recent memory, Salon has developed a handy checklist of the 34 Bush Administration crimes currently under investigation. They recommend clipping it and sending it to Senator Harry Reid.

Buff