redlami

Blog forwarding

2010-01-14T19:30:00.001-05:00

I've started blogging at WordPress.

IRS Downgraded Large Financial Services Audits

2009-04-09T13:08:00.000-04:00

Newly released data from the IRS show that only 15% of large financial services companies — those with $250 million or more in assets — were audited in 2008, compared with 64% of all other similar sized corporations. And when they were performed, these financial service audits appear to have been less thorough than those in other industries.

In addition, fewer of these audits were being performed by the IRS agency group with special expertise in large financial service corporations, while the number performed by other IRS groups more than doubled since 2004.

You can get the background and data tables in the full report by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. Here are some highlights:

Last year, looking at the largest corporations with assets of $250 million or more, nearly two out of every three returns (64%) filed by large corporations outside of the financial services sector were audited by the IRS. In contrast, for the more than 10,000 of large financial services companies, only 15% of them were audited in FY 2008. As TRAC documented in a 2005 report, the problem is not new. Thus, unlike the situation for the rest of large corporate America, the IRS in recent years has not regularly examined the returns of the large financial services companies.

Less Time Devoted to Financial Service Audits

When a financial services firm was audited, the thoroughness of the audit — measured by the average hours the auditor spent — also was very different. For example, focusing only on the largest companies audited — those with $20 billion or more in assets — the audit for companies not in the financial sector averaged 3,145 hours of direct examiner time. Despite the unique challenge of understanding derivatives and the like, however, the audits for financial services giants averaged 1,695 hours, about half the time the typical audit took for all behemoths. This was not simply an anomaly; the identical pattern was found for all of the other categories of large corporations.

Fewer Financial Service Audits Performed by FS Specialists

Because of the shrinking resources IRS was giving to the auditors in its Financial Services group, there has been a dramatic shift in which industry group is conducting audits of financial services firms. During FY 2004, the Financial Services group conducted most of the audits of the large financial services companies. But during the last five years the actual number of such audits declined by 27%. In contrast, over the same five year period, the audits completed of large financial companies by the four other nonfinancial industry groups more than doubled, up by 131%. The end result: the group that is currently charged with the responsibility for policing the financial services sector is today not conducting the majority of audits of large financial services corporations. This was true even for the largest of the large corporations, those with assets of $20 billion or more.

The Nucular Option

2008-10-03T09:16:00.002-04:00

There's a war on. One of words, not bombs.

Language doesn't sit still. Dictionaries don't dictate usage, they reflect it. And for years I've heard to this sneering mispronunciation of a scientific term take root in the sidewalk cracks of everyday life.

I've read a few theories. One is that "nucular" was used by military folk when referring to "nukes" (nuclear weapons). Another is that in English, the "cu-lar" sound is more common (particular, molecular, circular) and easier to say than the "cle-ar" sound. Although "likelier" doesn't seem that hard to say.

Whatever the origin, it seems that saying "nucular" is meant to label the speaker as being anti-elite, anti-Northeastern, anti-establishment (forgetting for the moment who happens to be holding the White House). It says "I'm just plain folks, don't be afraid of me, I'm not one of those smart guys (or gals) trying to trick you. You can trust me."

Know what? When someone says "trust me" is the time to open the horse's mouth wide and check out those teeth.

Now I don't feel any shame in being considered intelligent or educated. And I like the idea of smart people running things (with proper oversight, as braininess is no prevention against greed or narrow self-interest). I feel much safer driving over a bridge or using a computer or riding an elevator in a building created by someone who knows how to pronounce a scientific term correctly.

But more and more, using the "correct" pronunciation seems to be shorthand for "I'm an arrogant asshole and I'm going to use my cleverness to screw you first chance I get."

Unfortunately, after sixteen presidential years of "nucular" -- by the folksy Clinton, who seemed to pronounce it either way, and the sneering Bush, who seems to want people to forget he's a Yalie -- the prospect of "nucular" as an acceptable pronunciation seems to be getting likuler all the time.

Despite Rhetoric, DHS Not Really Fighting Terror

2007-05-30T11:58:00.001-04:00

The new TRAC report on DHS Immigration Enforcement has gotten extensive coverage by the traditional news media, including CNN, the Washington Post, the Associated Press, Time, US News and World Report and the Orange County Register. It's also been picked up in the blogosphere, by Bruce Shneier and others.

Based on some of the comments I've read, I think it makes sense to clarify and summarize some key points of the study:

Despite rhetoric by DHS' immigration agencies (ICE and CBP) that fighting terrorism is their most important job, 99.98% of DHS immigration cases in the last 3 years have nothing to do with national security or terrorism.

Of the 620 criminal prosecutions by the Department of Justice that were labeled international terrorism, domestic terrorism or terrorism finance, only 31 had any involvement by DHS. In other words, DHS had no role in 95% of terrorism related criminal prosecutions.

In a similar 3 year period ten years ago (1994-1996) there were 52 terrorism and 185 national security cases handled in immigration court. Before 9/11 those numbers were down to 12 and 106 (1999-2001). Since 9/11, those numbers have barely changed -- 12 terrorism and 114 national security cases in 2004-2006.

One logical conclusion is that the DHS really has very little to do with fighting terrorism. TRAC co-director David Burnham was quoted in the CNN article as saying "The DHS claims it is focused on terrorism. Well that's just not true. Either there's no terrorism, or they're terrible at catching them. Either way it's bad for all of us." By that, I believe he meant that it's bad for us if we've created this huge bureaucracy to fight terrorism if the threat's not there, and of course it's bad for us if the threat is there: because the DHS sure isn't finding it.

John and Mary at the Night Eagle Cafe

2007-05-19T19:32:00.000-04:00

Last week I was skimming through the Central New York folk music concert calendar compiled by local folkie Larry Hoyt. I was surprised — and thrilled — to find playing nearby a new incarnation of an old favorite act: John and Mary and the Valkyries.

John is John Lombardo, one of the founding members of 10,000 Maniacs, and co-writer of some of their most groundbreaking songs such as My Mother the War, Tension and Can't Ignore the Train. Having left the band just before they achieved mainstream popularity, John has been referred to as the "Pete Best of Jamestown," referring to another young man who left a band from a working class town before that band achieved notoriety.

The Mary would be, yes, Mary Ramsey, who did some session and touring work on the last two 10,000 Maniacs albums before Natalie Merchant went solo. Both John and Mary rejoined the band after Natalie left, staying for two more albums.

I was a relative latecomer to 10,000 Maniacs fandom, having seen only 4 shows with Natalie Merchant, all of them after John had left. John and Mary were actually the opening act at one of these, at Oswego on 10/21/90; I was on a date with my current wife, who got sick during the Maniacs' set. We had to leave early, but not before I was smitten by John and Mary’s upbeat folkie feel (and totally depressing lyrics). I picked up their first CD Victory Gardens there and it was immediately in constant rotation along with all my Maniacs CDs. It was similar in feel to the first few Maniacs albums; not surprising, since John wrote most of the music in the band's early days. The followup, the Weedkiller's Daughter, was even better.

I was a pretty dedicated John and Mary fan. For example, I once drove from Syracuse to Fredonia and back (round trip, about 6 hours) for a John and Mary show. But as time went on (and kids arrived), my acceptable radius for attending their concerts kept shrinking: the outer limit became Buffalo, then Rochester, then Oswego or Ithaca. By 2001, it became clear the Maniacs weren't going to regain commercial success and the tours stopped happening. I think I saw John and Mary a few more times after that, once at a bar in Syracuse. They put out one more indie album, The Pinwheel Galaxy, but it didn't really grab me. Maybe it was because my musical taste had turned more sharply toward folk -- I saw the Nields open for the Maniacs in Geneva NY and was hooked, and from there discovered Dar Williams, Dave Carter, Ellis Paul and other shining lights of the northeast folk music scene. Mary moved out to California and John and Mary were pretty much history as far as I knew.

Still, The Wishing Chair and The Weedkiller's Daughter remained two of my all-time favorite albums. So now maybe it's easier to understand my excitement at finding out John and Mary had a new group and were working on a new album and would be playing at the new Night Eagle Cafe in Binghamton, only a 90 minute drive away. With a lot happening in my family this weekend it was complicated to arrange, but I managed to get on the road early enough to arrive around 7:30, just in time to catch the end of the soundcheck. I was a little worried that nobody else was there yet, even though that's when the doors were supposed to open. I've been to a few shows where I was a large fraction of the audience; luckily that wasn't the case tonight.

I was quite pleased to see 10,000 Maniacs' Jerome Augustinyak on drums; Jerry is probably the best drummer I've ever seen, and I've seen some pretty good drummers, including Jerry Marotta, Eddie Hartness (of Eddie from Ohio) and Dave Hower (from the Nields). John saw me waiting outside and gave me a nod of recognition, which made me feel like it had already been worth the hassle of getting there: many musicians have told me they enjoy recognizing a friendly face when they're on the road.

After the soundcheck, John sat and chatted with me for a few minutes before the show started. I never know what to say in these circumstances, I think I muttered something about my oldest kid, the one who at 18 months old danced in a diaper in front of them at the Great Blue Heron Festival, was now 14 and as tall as me. I showed him some family pictures that were still on my camera and listened to him talk about where his life is and the state of live music in Buffalo. I've always enjoyed getting a minute or two with John; he's very friendly and serious and low-key and knows a huge amount about art and music. Listening to him is like auditing a college lecture by a very cool professor. I was disappointed when he said they wouldn't do a lot of their old stuff, but he showed me the set list and there was enough good old stuff there to get me in a very positive frame of mind. As was typical for a John and Mary set, there were a mix of old Maniacs tunes that John co-wrote, John and Mary songs, and a few interesting covers, although missing were the traditional but obscure folk tunes that used to be a John and Mary staple. Also missing were any songs from the forthcoming John and Mary CD; according to John it's 90% done and they're hoping to have it ready for July 4 and the Great Blue Heron festival.

The show itself was wonderful. The band was tight, which isn't surprising since in addition to Jerry (who was filling in for drummer Rob Lynch) the band included John's old friends Patrick Kane (lead guitar) and Kent Weber (bass). I can never get enough of Mary's 5-string Zeta; I enjoyed what I got but there was less of her blistering solo work than in some past concerts. And of course, she didn't pick up a guitar (which she plays, though rarely) or accordion (yes, I've seen her play one). I took some crappy video with my Canon PowerShot which I'll share provided you don't take me to task on the lack of visual or aural fidelity.

The first clip is Clare's Scarf, which has an interesting origin: John took a tape of the first song he and Mary wrote together, Piles of Dead Leaves, and played it backwards, and decided he liked the sound enough to make another song of it.

The second clip is Can't Ignore The Train, which is probably my favorite Maniacs song of all time. I shared this with John before the show, which is probably why he dedicated it to me:

Overall, it was a great night out. In a more perfect world, John Lombardo would be much better known than he is. But we don't live in a more perfect world. I'm just thankful that I happen to live in the one with which he and Mary Ramsey have chosen to share their music.

IRS Goes Easier on Biggest Corporations

2006-12-21T09:24:00.000-05:00

When called on the facts that they're conducting fewer audits of large companies (assets over $250 million), and spending less time when they do, the IRS disagrees that it's giving the big boys a break.

The facts, contained in a new TRAC report and covered in the NY Times and elsewhere, are that the IRS has reduced the time spent on each audit by 21 percent in the last five years, to 958 hours from 1,210 hours. At the same time, the number of actual audits, which had increased in the last two years, has fallen back to the level of 2002.

(Keep in mind that companies of this size, while filing only 0.2% of all corporate returns, control 90% of all corporate assets and receive 87% of all corporate income, according to data from an earlier TRAC report.)

The IRS responds that they're just leaner and meaner:

IRS spokesman Terry Lemons said the agency strongly disagreed with TRAC's conclusion that the biggest corporations were getting off easy. "Large corporations are not getting easier treatment," he said. "They are hearing more often from us and getting bigger tax bills."

He said that, between 2002 and 2006, the recommended levy per return for audits of corporations with assets of $250 million and up had gone from $3.65 million to just under $6 million.

Now, it's plausible that the IRS is enforcing the tax laws more effectively, and that's why they are able to increase the total tax collected from big companies with less auditing. (The IRS says that $48.7 billion in enforcement revenue was collected in fiscal 2006, up from $47.3 billion the previous year, a 3% increase.) But that's not the only possible explanation.

It might also be that more big companies are just plain cheating more. If they know it's less likely they'll be audited, and the audits that are conducted will be quicker and less thorough, then there's greater incentive to cheat. So perhaps there's a lot more tax cheating going on, and that 3% increase in tax revenues from these companies is just the easy-to-reach low-hanging fruit.

The big problem is that the IRS has stopped providing the information that would make it possible to know which of these scenarios is true.

Prof. Sue Long, a director of the Syracuse clearinghouse, said getting the data used in the research had been a problem. The I.R.S., Professor Long said, initially turned over a small number of pages of data in May after Judge Marsha Pechman of Federal District Court in Washington directed the I.R.S. to resume complying with a 1976 order to make the data available. Later, after she complained, the I.R.S. turned over much more data.

Professor Long said the data was a mess. "It took us months to sort it out," she said.

"They told us they had given us all of it, but we noticed from the page numbers in the upper right hand corner that they had not and it turned out they had given us less than 1 percent of the data" that the university researchers eventually received, Professor Long said.

In addition, she said, it is difficult to tell if the data is complete because the I.R.S. will not provide an inventory.

No administration enjoys having independent watchdogs look over their shoulder, but the level of secrecy and FOIA non-compliance by the Bush administration is unprecedented. The new Congress will likely be able to do little to improve the FOIA climate, that will have to wait until 2008. For now we see through a glass, darkly.

Supreme Court Rules For Immigrant Rights

2006-12-08T13:35:00.000-05:00

This past Tuesday, the Supreme Court struck down a lower court ruling that would have made it much easier for the Administration to harass and deport legal immigrants. As reported in the NYT:

The Supreme Court rejected the government's interpretation of immigration law on Tuesday, ruling that a noncitizen is not subject to mandatory deportation for a drug crime that, while a felony in the state where the crime was prosecuted, is only a misdemeanor under federal law.

The 8-to-1 decision restored to one category of immigrants, caught in the nearly impenetrable maze where immigration law and criminal law meet, the ability to avoid automatic deportation and the other dire consequences of being guilty of an "aggravated felony."

Here's a reference for aggravated felony. But in a nutshell, under U.S. Immigration law, a legal immigrant can be deported for immigration violations, national security and terrorism activities, or criminal violations. With the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Congress got specific about the kinds of crimes that would justify deportation by creating the concept of aggravated felony, which specifies as grounds for deportation murder, drug trafficking, and illegal trafficking in firearms and destructive devices.

The list of offenses that fall under the "aggravated felony" category was expanded several times, and include even some misdemeanor offenses. Results of an aggravated felony decision are severe, and include the following:

Ineligible to stop deportation. Many other deportable offenses allow a non-citizen to be able to apply for "waivers", or exceptions, to deportation. But no exceptions are available to aggravated felons.

Unable to apply for other legal immigration status. Many persons with other violations, including some criminal violations that make them deportable, remain eligible to apply for asylum, lawful permanent residence (green card), and other routes to legal status spelled out in the INA if they meet other qualifications. Aggravated felons are disqualified from almost every provision of the law that would enable them to legalize their status or to retain existing legal status, such as a green card.

Guaranteed to be detained. Aggravated felons, in addition to several other types of non-citizens, fall within the INA's "mandatory detention" provisions. This means that most will be detained until DHS is able to effect their deportation.

Less access to immigration court. For the most part, non-citizens can only be deported after an Immigration Judge conducts a hearing and signs an "order of removal (deportation)". However, the INA allows DHS to deport aggravated felons who are not green card holders "administratively", that is, within the agency without having to take the case before an Immigration Judge.

Less access to federal appeals courts. Aggravated felons are among a group of deportable non-citizens who have fewer legal rights to request a federal judge hear their case on appeal.

Permanent ejection from the US. Most non-citizens who are deported from the US are not eligible to apply to return legally to the country for a period of from five to 20 years depending on their circumstances. But aggravated felons are permanently disqualified from ever returning to the US for any reason.

The law does not apply to illegal immigrants, and it has not been used primarily against recent immigrants either. In fact, the median length of residence for individuals charged under this law has been 14 years. That means half the people charged have been legally living and working in the
United States for 14 years or more.

I'm particularly heartened by the lopsided decision. Lone dissenter Clarence Thomas basically stated that if Congress had meant for aggravated felony to only apply to felony offenses, it should have said so.

What Is The FBI Doing? An Essay in Pictures

2006-11-06T11:04:00.001-05:00

The following are based on the FBI New Findings released today by TRAC

Staffing is up...

Particularly intelligence staffing (you know, the people looking for the terrorists)

So the question is, what is the FBI doing with all this extra staffing? Are they referring more cases to the US Attorneys? No, referrals are down:

So then maybe the referrals are higher quality? No, more of the referrals are being rejected by the US Attorneys, including terrorism referrals:

and terrorism prosecutions are down

as are sentences

So, exactly what is the FBI doing these days? Let's see who's being prosecuted based on FBI referrals...

White collar criminals? No, white collar crime prosecutions are down:

same for drugs

and organized crime.

In fact, total prosecutions are down.

So, is there any area where FBI referrals are leading to more prosecutions? Yes, one.

Obscenity and pornography prosecutions are up.

Your FBI. Keeping you safe from porn.

Candidate information

2006-10-24T13:07:00.000-04:00

I'm going along with Chris Bowers' plan to Googlebomb the election, or at least some of the Republican candidates. Here, then, is the list:

--AZ-Sen: Jon Kyl
--AZ-01: Rick Renzi
--AZ-05: J.D. Hayworth
--CA-04: John Doolittle
--CA-11: Richard Pombo
--CA-50: Brian Bilbray
--CO-04: Marilyn Musgrave
--CO-05: Doug Lamborn
--CO-07: Rick O'Donnell
--CT-04: Christopher Shays
--FL-13: Vernon Buchanan
--FL-16: Joe Negron
--FL-22: Clay Shaw
--ID-01: Bill Sali
--IL-06: Peter Roskam
--IL-10: Mark Kirk
--IL-14: Dennis Hastert
--IN-02: Chris Chocola
--IN-08: John Hostettler
--IA-01: Mike Whalen
--KS-02: Jim Ryun
--KY-03: Anne Northup
--KY-04: Geoff Davis
--MD-Sen: Michael Steele
--MN-01: Gil Gutknecht
--MN-06: Michele Bachmann
--MO-Sen: Jim Talent
--MT-Sen: Conrad Burns
--NV-03: Jon Porter
--NH-02: Charlie Bass
--NJ-07: Mike Ferguson
--NM-01: Heather Wilson
--NY-03: Peter King
--NY-20: John Sweeney
--NY-26: Tom Reynolds
--NY-29: Randy Kuhl
--NC-08: Robin Hayes
--NC-11: Charles Taylor
--OH-01: Steve Chabot
--OH-02: Jean Schmidt
--OH-15: Deborah Pryce
--OH-18: Joy Padgett
--PA-04: Melissa Hart
--PA-07: Curt Weldon
--PA-08: Mike Fitzpatrick
--PA-10: Don Sherwood
--RI-Sen: Lincoln Chafee
--TN-Sen: Bob Corker
--VA-Sen: George Allen
--VA-10: Frank Wolf
--WA-Sen: Mike McGavick
--WA-08: Dave Reichert

Walsh Seeks Embryo Vote

2006-10-18T09:23:00.000-04:00

In last night's debate against Democratic challenger Dan Maffei, incumbent Republican Jim Walsh was asked if he's ever thought of changing his mind on his opposition to embryonic stem cell research. My eyebrows were certainly raised by his response:

No, I absolutely believe that there's a life in those embryos and that if we destroy it for whatever reason that's the destruction of a life.

I wonder if Walsh realized what he said. It's not just embryonic stem cell research that should be against the law, but also in vitro fertilization and first trimester abortions, all of which would be murder if a fertilized embryo were to be recognized as a human life.

A clever approach if you think about it. If all of CNY's embryos had been given constitutional rights 18 years ago when he was first elected, they'd now be of voting age, and they'd owe their lives to people like Walsh.

Unfortunately, Walsh hasn't had any visible effect in moving the Right-to-Life agenda. Which begs the question: is he hypocritical or is he ineffective? Or maybe it's just another case of a cynical Republican dangling red meat in front of conservative voters.

More reactions to the debate

The stem-cell issue wasn't the only pandering to the right wing. Walsh also offered up more standard Republican tropes such as:

equating illegal immigration with terrorism
maintaining that we need to legalize illegal domestic wiretapping in order to fight terrorism
whining that Democrats will increase taxes
declaring that Foley was just one bad apple, and then not nearly as bad as Democratic bad apples of the past

Walsh even denounced Maffei as a "carpetbagger" despite Dan's having grown up here and having Syracuse roots that go four generations back.

Local media starting to get it

I've noticed recent coverage of the race in the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle and the Syracuse Post-Standard is starting to look more even-handed. It used to focus on "who's this Maffei guy, anyway?" but now I've seen more discussion of the real differences between the two candidates, with Maffei being given weight as a viable option. For example, from the Syracuse paper:

It's a race that Robert McClure, a Syracuse University political science professor, said he won't be calling before Nov. 7.

"In 1996, Jim was not the person of stature on the Appropriations Committee he now is. He was just beginning his climb through the Republican hierarchy and his seniority had not really begun to reap the kinds of benefits for the district that I think it now does," McClure said.

"On the other hand, I think the mood is different today. In 1996, the country was not in a particularly sour mood. That's not the case now. There's an underlying nastiness and negativity that I think is different."

And the Rochester D&C article gives Maffei the first and last word:

"It's time to change the priorities in Washington," Maffei said, criticizing Walsh for voting with President Bush more than 90 percent of the time.

and

Walsh said the area's economy is "outstripping the rest of the state."

"The congressman is in a state of denial," Maffei replied, saying corporations such as General Electric, Carrier, Eastman Kodak and Xerox are now shadows of what they once were.

Walsh feeling the heat

In the debate, Walsh seems to be running away from his record, instead complaining about his challenger: Dan's not from around here, Dan's money comes from George Soros (mentioned twice in the debate), Dan's message is one of "doom and gloom." (As if anyone in Syracuse actually thought things were all funny and sunny?)

But I think Walsh is finally starting to realize that his biggest obstacle to reelection isn't his Democratic challenger, it's the voters who live in his district. At least those pesky liberals who show up at debates and ask uncomfortable questions like why he's voted with Bush 90% of the time. So, according to a statement released yesterday by the Maffei campaign, Walsh is trying to keep them away from the debate:

...in a letter to Syracuse CBS affiliate WTVH 5, which would televise the debate live on October 23, Walsh has sought onerous restrictions, including:
Excluding students and faculty from even attending the debate on their own campus;
Limiting the kinds of questions that can be asked; and
Prohibiting audience members from even asking questions.

Come on, Jim. It's been a fine ride. Your kids have gotten good jobs in Central New York (about the only ones who have, of course). You haven't been touched by even a hint of scandal. But it's been 18 years and it's time for a change.

Maffei and the Empire State Strike Back

2006-10-13T12:08:00.000-04:00

Our man Dan Maffei has reached the big time... not only is he quoted extensively in a Washington Post OpEd today, but he provides the title of the piece:

"It's 'The Empire State Strikes Back,' " says Democrat Dan Maffei, a former congressional aide who is running a surprisingly strong race against Rep. Jim Walsh, the Republican incumbent, in a district that stretches from Syracuse to the Rochester area.

Maffei sees the immediate trend toward Democrats powered by frustration with President Bush and the Iraq war. But it is also rooted in long-term factors: the economic troubles of many Upstate communities, the area's "libertarian" leanings on cultural issues and the homelessness felt by many moderate Republicans in the face of a national party increasingly dominated by conservatives.

"Bush Republicanism," Maffei says, "is not for them."

Upstate New York voters, even Democrats, tend conservative in the traditional sense of the word. In NY-25 this explains, in part, why Republican incumbent Walsh has faced no credible challengers in the last 7 elections (last time around, he ran unopposed). Other reasons for Walsh's longevity include an overall rightward shift in the electorate, and a gerrymandered district that pairs urban Syracuse with a wide westward suburban and rural swath.

But this story is huge, because it's the first time Maffei's really been noticed outside the local media, which have tended to downpedal Maffei's campagin. With this story, he's broken through the "is he for real" barrier that faces any first-time challenger against an entrenched incumbent. Other recent accomplishments by Dan Maffei include:

standing strong in the first of three debates against Republican incumbent Jim Walsh (I'll be watching the rebroadcast tonight)

garnering a campaign stop yesterday by Hillary Clinton

qualifying for Red to Blue funding

Dan Maffei has proven his viability as a candidate, and I think that may have been all that stood in the way of his riding a national and statewide Democratic wave (with Clinton and Spitzer atop the ticket) next month.

And in the big picture, Maffei taking NY-25 is very representative of the Democrats chances of winning control of the House. But don't just take it from me — the editorial by E. J. Dionne Jr. includes this telling quote from former NY Senator and power broker "Pothole" Al D'Amato:

D'Amato, normally a happy Republican warrior, is in a blue mood about November. "You have a foreign policy which is groping and a domestic [Mark] Foley scandal, so you have a lot of disaffected people, and I think it's going to result not only in the Democrats taking over the House, but also with substantial numbers."

Then They Chuckle At You...

2006-09-28T09:44:00.000-04:00

Buried in today's Syracuse Post-Standard under this story about the election for the county Democratic party chair is coverage of Maffei's internal poll showing him within striking distance of Walsh.

First they ignore you.

The poll isn't causing much of a stir in the incumbent's camp, said Dan Gage, Walsh's spokesman.

Then they chuckle at you:

"It's not a 4 percent race," said Gage with a chuckle. "Have all the negative ads had an effect? Yes, you throw enough mud and some it it's going to stick, but it's not going to affect it that much."

He said the Walsh campaign has done polls that show very different results. It is the campaign's policy, however, not to release their internal polls.

The only reason I can imagine for them not releasing their own numbers is because they're not enough better than Maffei's.

How does it go next? Oh yes. Then they fight you. I'm waiting for Walsh's campaign to admit that their popular, household-word, "famous before he was born" 9-term "moderate Republican" incumbent boss has squandered a 29 point lead and is now in a dogfight with a virtual unknown.

And then you win.

I hope so, especially after hearing how "moderate" Republican Walsh yesterday voted against habeas corpus and for torture.

Walsh's Huge Lead Over Maffei Evaporates

2006-09-25T16:04:00.000-04:00

A new poll has some great news: Benenson Strategy Group. 9/20-21. Registered voters. MoE 4.85% (March results)

25th Congressional District

Walsh (R) 44 (52)
Maffei (D) 40 (23)

According to these numbers, 9-term Republican incumbent Walsh has managed to lose a nearly 30 point lead to Democratic challenger Dan Maffei, and is now in a statistical dead heat, according to results of a new poll by Democratic pollster Pete Brodnitz of Benenson Strategy Group

Walsh's favorable/unfavorable ratio has gone from 56/20 to 51/36, pretty low for a long-term incumbent without a hint of scandal. Maffei's name recognition is still low; his favorable/unfavorable ratio has gone from 6/2 to 24/13.

Granted it's a commissioned poll, but even so these numbers come as a real shocker. Maffei's team and other parties have done a good job of tying Walsh to the rubber-stamp Republican congress.

"Jim Walsh has never been held accountable for his record of voting lock-step with George Bush. I'm exposing that record, and voters are angry about what he's been doing," Maffei said. "Once voters learn the truth about how he votes, his support evaporates."

"Voters are smart they already knew that George Bush and the Republican congress were hurting upstate New York, and now they are learning that Jim Walsh just goes along," Maffei continued.

This is excellent news and should increase Democratic chances of taking control of the House.

Running from Bush, Walsh Changes Tune on Torture

2006-09-21T16:08:00.000-04:00

Jim Walsh (R, NY-25) is clearly feeling the pressure.

According to this article in today's Syracuse Post-Standard, Walsh is one of four senior House Republicans who are bucking Bush on detainee torture:

Walsh and his colleagues called for Bush and Republican leaders to maintain the U.S. commitment against prisoner abuse as spelled out in the Geneva Conventions.

"It's sort of an issue of conscience for me," said Walsh, R-Onondaga, noting that he differed with the Bush administration last year on issues surrounding the use of torture.

Quite a turnaround for a man who has voted with Bush 9 out of 10 times in the last 6 years.

Interestingly, neither the Post-Standard article nor the AP story identify any of the other "senior House Republicans" who are opposing the torture bill. Which suggests to me that the impetus for the letter must have come from Walsh's own office, meaning he's feeling the pressure from the Dan Maffei campaign, which has recently been highlighting Walsh's voting record.

There haven't been any polls released lately on this race, though I understand the Maffei campaign is working on one. My guess is the Walsh campaign has done a poll and is none too pleased with the results.

Update: The other four are identified in this AP story:

Bush also faced problems in the House, where GOP moderates Christopher Shays, R-Conn., Michael Castle, R-Del., Jim Leach, R-Iowa, and James Walsh, R-N.Y., publicly threw their support behind the bill opposed by the White House. The four Republicans told Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, that any House bill must maintain the dissidents' principles.

I haven't checked yet, but I will not be surprised to find out that Shays (CT-04), Castle (DE-AL) and Leach (IA-02) are in tough races.

A Softer World, E-mail Spying and Signal to Noise Ratio

2006-09-15T12:14:00.000-04:00

Have you ever lied about your age, income or political affiliation on a survey just because you don't think anyone really needed to know that much about you?

Have you ever said "no, thanks" to a pollster because you worry that polls make people think there's nothing they can do to affect the outcome of an election?

Have you ever contributed to the failure of a top-level corporate plan that was devised with no rank-and-file input?

These thoughts all came to mind after I saw today's edition of A Softer World, one of my favorite web comics, created by Emily Horne and Joey Comeau:

text: i FREEDOM FIGHTER BOMBING love you whether you reply JIHAD or not
if my GODLESS WESTERN PRESIDENT letters are flagged
our love will outlive us in their SUBWAY SARIN GAS computers

The comic also made me wonder about whether there really is a vast NSA email database, and if so, what we could do about it. But first, a little about signal-to-noise ratio.

Once upon a time, before I started working for a small independent government watchdog, I worked for a small defense contracting firm as an electronic intelligence analyst. One of my jobs was to calculate the effectiveness of a radar system. Most people have a rough understanding of how a radar system works: a beam of electromagnetic radiation (ie, light, but at a higher frequency that we can't see) is shined at your car. Some of it bounces back at the radar detector. The speed of the car shifts the frequency of the light a little bit, and the radar receiver figures out from this shift just how fast you were going.

But while you're driving down the lane, there are lots of things going on around you that might also be reflecting the radar beam back to the detector. This creates noise, which is basically as everything else that the receiver picks up that isn't reflected directly back from your vehicle. If the ratio of the signal strength to noise strength is high enough, then the detector is reliable enough to identify transgressors.

Countermeasures

If you have no problem with the radar, then you can just drive the speed limit. But suppose you wanted to avoid having your speed detected, what could you do? One way would be to use a radar detector, which can alert to when the radar's on you. This is called a "passive countermeasure." The problem is, it might already be too late; if you see the radar then the radar sees you.

What you really want is to decrease the effectiveness of the radar by lowering its signal to noise ratio. You could start with your car. Most cars behave like mirrors to a radar beam: big blocks of metal that shine a lot of the energy directly back at the detector. If you had a lot of money you might be able to design a vehicle using difficult-to-detect composite materials like the Air Force uses, making sure your car's innards (like the radiator) are properly designed as well. This might be somewhat expensive, and your unique vehicle would soon be covered in the local media, making your attempts at stealth rather moot.

Another passive countermeasure would be to get a scrambler that mangles the radar signal and reflects it back with confusing information. The problem here is that acting alone you can't really return enough power to reliably confuse a well-designed receiver.

You could send out your own signal to try to jam the receiver; this is called an "active countermeasure." The problem here is that you don't necessarily know all the details of how the receiver works, so you'd have to put out a lot of power, and the receiver might be able to detect what you're doing (which is probably illegal).

Going it alone is clearly not the answer.

But what if you managed to get a lot of other people to, even those driving below the speed limit, to jam just a little bit, each one using a little power but in different frequencies, or scrambling a little bit, or modifying their cars just a little bit? All together, you might be able to increase the noise level enough to make the radar unreliable.

What does any of this have to do with NSA spying on our email?

This brings me back to today's edition of A Softer World. I'm no expert, but it's possible that the NSA software that scans email is looking for certain words and phrases (the signal) against the background noise of millions of "uninteresting" emails. What, I wonder, would happen if those triggers became so common that they no longer worked to identify the signal, but instead became part of the noise?

There's a danger of course if nobody goes along with you. After all, what do you think would happen to the first few people who started sending out emails with "Jihad meeting, bring your own anthrax" as the subject line. And of course, I'd rather see constitutional protections for our privacy, and at the very least, some kind of law banning warrantless domestic surveillance (what, we already have one of those?). Still, I can daydream about living in a society where the masses rise up and flood the net with emails titled "I'm mad as BUSH SUCKS hell, and I'm not going to take it TERRORISM PLANS anymore!"

Disclaimer: this message is for enterainment purposes only and is not intended to undermine or compromise any legal antiterrorism activity

The War on Terror: We're Winning, So Why Aren't We Safer?

2006-09-03T17:33:00.000-04:00

Prosecutions against suspected terrorists have dropped sharply in the last few years, according to a report on U.S. federal criminal terrorism prosecutions since 9/11 released today by TRAC. More than 9 out of 10 referrals received from various federal agencies like the FBI and DHS are turned down by the Department of Justice.

Not only that, but even when cases are prosecuted, sentences are light: of over 6400 cases referred since 9/11/01 that have been completed (that is, not still pending in some way),

Only 14 (one percent) received a substantial sentence -- 20 years or more.

Only 67 (5 percent) received sentences of five or more years.

Of the 1,329 who were sentenced, 704 received no prison time and an additional 327 received sentences ranging from one day to less than a year.

The DoJ would, and in fact does, say that the reason for the small number of convictions and few long prison sentences is becase they've successfully disrupted terrorist activity. According to a quote in the Associated Press story based on the report:

[Justice Department spokesman Bryan] Sierra said, prison sentences are "not the proper measure of the success of the department's overall counterterrorism efforts. The primary goal ... is to detect, disrupt and deter terrorist activities."

To me, that has as much a ring of truth as "we fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here." But as Bill in Portland Maine likes to remind us nearly every day, the DHS threat level hasn't gone below Yellow (Elevated) since it was instituted March 12, 2002. If we've been so much better at disrupting terrorist activity since 9/11 that the median sentence has gone down from 41 months to 20 days, then doesn't that mean we're safer? It's all in the numbers they won't tell us...

"There are many flaws in the report," said Justice Department spokesman Bryan Sierra. "It is irresponsible to attempt to measure success in the war on terror without the necessary details about the government's strategy and tactics."

But DoJ officials have refused to give TRAC and other interested non-government parties those kinds of details, on the grounds that doing so might undermine anti-terrorism enforcement. Still, the details that are available tell a story very different from the one the DoJ would like you to buy: for example, most of the convictions obtained haven't even been on terrorism statutes: two-thirds have been on fraud charges. And half the convictions were obtained in the Eastern District of Viginia. Why?

Critics note that the heavy concentration of international terrorism referrals in Virginia East strains the principle that defendants should be brought to trial in the district and state where their crime occurred. They also argue that prosecutors favor bringing cases here because the juries in the area near the Pentagon naturally have a large proportion of active and retired military personnel and its circuit court of appeals is among the most conservation in the United States.

So what have we got? International terrorism is on the rise, but 90% of referrals never even get prosecuted by the DoJ, cases that do get lead to convictions end up with small sentences, even when tried in the most conservative courts in the country. But the threat level remains high.

This is patently absurd. Either the Bush administration has been successful in keeping terrorists in check, in which case the threat level should be lowered. Or else they've been incompetent at waging "the war on terra", in which case they have no more right to claim success in domestically than they have in their Iraq or Afghanistan wars of choice.

This September 11, there will no doubt be many official statements touting the successes of the War on Terror as well as the need to remain vigilant. And afraid. But even as Republican candidates scurry like rats from this sinking administration, we need to tar them (as well as certain Democrats) for their past support for using a horrible terrorist attack as an excuse for an increasingly undemocratic abuse of executive power. Reports like TRAC's kick another leg out from under the increasingly shaky table that is the GOP platform.

Gonzales and Immigration: Reform or Smokescreen?

2006-08-10T13:06:00.000-04:00

Yesterday (as reported in the NY Times, LA Times and elsewhere) Attorney General Alberto Gonzales issued a long-awaited review of the Immigration Courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals. Now, I'm jaded enough to worry whenever anyone in this administration talks about "reform" because what that usually means is "screw the people who are already getting screwed, just more discreetly." Even so, I found it interesting to peruse the 22 suggestions contained in the report. Below are just a few examples:

3. Examination on Immigration Law

Immigration judges and Board members should be proficient in the principles of immigration law. To ensure that is true, all immigration judges and Board members appointed after December 31, 2006, will have to pass a written examination demonstrating familiarity with key principles of immigration law before they begin to adjudicate matters. The Director of EOIR will develop such an immigration law exam and submit it to the Deputy Attorney General. The Director may consider the appropriateness of a training course prior to the administration of the examination.

Requiring immigration judges to actually demonstrate that they know something about immigration law? What a revolutionary concept! Now if only we could require our presidents to know something about the constitution...

22. Expanded and Improved EOIR-sponsored Pro Bono Programs

The Director of EOIR will consider forming a committee to oversee the expansion and improvement of EOIR's pro bono programs. Such a committee will be composed of immigration judges, representatives of the Board, other EOIR personnel, representatives of the Department of Homeland Security and the private immigration bar, and any other participants whom the Director deems necessary.

I'd say that this reform is way overdue, when you consider that having an attorney greatly improves an applicant's chances of being granted asylum. (As seen in the table at right, asylum is denied 93% of the time if there's no attorney, but only 64% of the time if there is.)

And speaking of asylum, this is my personal favorite...

8. Analysis and Recommendations Regarding Disparities in Asylum Grant Rates

A recent study has highlighted apparent disparities among immigration judges in asylum grant rates. The Director of EOIR, in consultation with the Acting Chief Immigration Judge, will review this study and provide an analysis and, if appropriate, recommendations to the Deputy Attorney General with respect to this issue.

I'm sure it's entirely coincidental that this report came out just 10 days after the TRAC report on Immigration Judges to which this item clearly refers.

There's a lot more in there, and as I'm not an immigration policy expert, I'll leave it to others to comment about whether or not this represents a serious effort at real reform or just more smoke and mirrors. What I feel is important, however, is that this administration is clearly scrambling to do damage control on what was supposed to have been a no-brainer Republican "divide and conquer" campaign strategy. By continuing to hammer on this issue, I hope that progressives can blunt the power of conservative xenophobia.

Immigration Asylum Denial Rates All Over the Map

2006-08-08T14:43:00.000-04:00

Asylum is a legal status sought by a non-citizen who claims to be afraid of harm in their home country. The process by which asylum is granted or denied is very complicated, but sometimes it all comes down to whether an immigration judge says yes or no. The average rate of denial is about 65%, but according to a recent study on immigration judges...

Denial rates for the 208 judges ranged from a low of 10% to a high of 98%.

Expressed another way, the data showed that while ten percent of the judges examined denied asylum in 86% or more of their decisions, another ten percent of the judges had denied asylum in only 34%.

Why so much disparity?

This report goes into detail in order to document and understand the sources of the disparities in denial rates. Ultimately, it comes down to the individual judge: even similar cases in similar jurisdictions yield widely varying denial rates.

Something to keep in mind, however, is that these immigration "judges" are actually employees of the Justice Department, some of whom were previously employed as DHS prosecutors. While the report doesn't actually examine whether there is any correlation between previous employment and denial rates, it does quote Attorney General Alberto Gonzales as saying that there were some whose conduct

"can aptly be described as intemperate or even abusive and whose work must improve."

Gonzales has launched a top-level investigation, but I fear I've gotten so cynical that I suspect all the investigation will serve to do is allow the administration to say "we don't comment about matters relating to an ongoing investigation." In fact, both the Justice Department and its branch which oversees the Immigration Courts (the Executive Office for Immigration Review, or EOIR) have in fact declined to comment on the report, EOIR citing a strict "no interview" policy.

Glass one-third empty, or two-thirds full?

Wingers like Debbie Schlussel might find some cause for joy in these numbers, stating

And Judge Mahlon Hanson of Miami topped the list, rejecting 96.7% of the 1,118 claims for asylum before him. That's our kind of judge.

...

We're glad to see that judges like Mahlon Hanson exist and wich there were more. Unfortunately, there are also immigration judges like New York Judge Margaret McManus, who rejected only 9.8% of 1,638 cases before her. That means she let almost 1,500 of these aliens in. Sucker.

But ultimately, conservatives and progressives alike tend to be dismayed at the pronounced lack of uniformity with which judges grant or deny asylum.

Details, details
As part of this study, TRAC has also compiled individual reports on over 200 judges, with specific attention to the nature of their asylum cases and decisions. So, for example, you can find out that Schlussel's hero Judge Hanson was an INS lawyer for 8 years before being appointed an immigration judge, whereas Judge McManus' background includes a stint with the Legal Aid Society's Immigration Unit.

Why should we care?

Conservatives are using immigration as a tool for rallying their base. I believe it's important for progressives to understand the issues behind the anti-immigrant hysteria, and be able to counter the kind of "immigration reform" being put forward by xenophobes like Schlussel and Pat Buchanan.

Minimum Wage Map by State... What A Surprise!

2006-06-22T08:34:00.000-04:00

With no increase in the minimum wage again this year, it's up to the states to try to help provide workers with liveable salaries. So I decided to take a look at what the U.S. Department of Labor says about minimum wage laws across the country. They provide this helpful map (click for larger image):

Gee, I thought, that looks kinda familiar almost. What would happen if I change around the color choices a little? (again, click for larger image. note: updated to reflect more recently passed Michigan and Arkansas minimum wage laws)

Ah! Now I know where I've seen that before!

Not quite identical mind you, but eerily similar:

x-posted to dailyKos

Will Republicans Sing "Let's Impeach the President" This Summer?

2006-05-17T19:51:00.000-04:00

This is a prediction, and you know how predictions go: if I'm right, I get to crow about it. If I'm wrong, we will all politely forget that I made such an ass of myself.

It is well established that Bush's flagging poll numbers are bound to hurt Republicans running for House and Senate this summer. At the very least, there are indications that Republican candidates believe this to be the case, with some even avoiding appearances with Bush in their home states and districts. And there are more noises from Congress that sound like disagreement with the Administration, although as the tax cuts show, that disagreement falls short of actually affecting legislation that could turn things around.

But if polls continue to show increasing likelihood in a turnover of the House and possibly even the Senate, I predict the Republicans are going to need a stronger show of strength, albeit one which still doesn't displease their base. And President Bush's low approval ratings give them one.

Holding impeachment hearings in the House and then letting the president off the hook ("just like Clinton", they'll say) will give Republicans their "Lieberman moments" of standing tough against the White House. Then they can woo the independent and conservative Democratic voters without having to actually pass any legislation that benefits those voters.

On the other hand, not impeaching just leaves them vulnerable to having Bush hung like an albatross around their necks by an increasingly invigorated and funded Democratic opposition come fall. And if Democrats can take either the House or Senate, then it's much more likely not only that there will be impeachment hearings, but other investigations that could mean not only lost elections but jail time as well.

DHS Stonewalls on Immigration Data

2006-05-12T09:42:00.000-04:00

In the past year, the directors of the research center where I work (TRAC) have sued the IRS (and won), sued the OPM, and has now sued the DHS for release of records to which the public have a legal right under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The latest suit, filed this week in DC, is for information about the handling of criminal cases (arrests and convictions) of non-citizens.

[Link] The questions of what US government policy on immigration should be, and how federal immigration laws should be enforced, are currently issues of great controversy and substantial public debate in the Supreme Court, Congress, the White House, and the public. [...] Given the present debate over immigration law and immigration policy, it is essential that the public, and decision-makers in Congress and the Supreme Court, have access to the broadest possible information regarding the effects of US immigration enforcement on aliens.

I believe making this information public is important to Democratic hopes of making gains in the midterm elections.

This morning I listened to a report about San Bernadino's ballot initiative that would among other things turn landlords into immigration cops. Add this to initiatives in Colorado and Phoenix, and it's becoming clear that immigrants wanting to work is this year's version of gays wanting to marry: a local wedge issue that ought to be getting fairly dealt with at a national level, but one that is being exploited locally in order to get out the wingnut base to the polls.

This approach will only work however if rational discourse about our immigration policy and how it is being administered can be suppressed. That means keeping secret how these cases are being handled, similar to how this administration has worked to hide the treatment of prisoners at Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and in the torture palaces of eastern Europe.

For example, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has apparently "upgraded" its interpretation of the definition of aggravated felony, which is one of the grounds used to deny immigration benefits.

A term created by statute to refer to a list of crimes. A person convicted of one or more of these crimes becomes ineligible for many types of immigration benefits, such as obtaining a green card or being naturalized to become a U.S. citizen. He/she also becomes much more vulnerable to removal (deportation) from the U.S. Some of the listed crimes also require a prison sentence of a minimum length. For example, U.S. law says that a person has committed an aggravated felony if he/she is convicted of a "theft offense or burglary offense for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year." Criminal convictions in the past also count toward a decision now about whether someone has committed an aggravated felony. The list, scope, and consequences of aggravated felonies have been expanded over the years by Congress and by court decisions.

One example is found in the case of Lopez vs. Gonzales. In this case, one of the reasons for deporting Jose Antionio Lopez was his conviction of aiding and abetting cocaine possession, a felony offense in South Dakota which would only be considered a misdemeanor under federal law.

Prior to this case, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) would only consider aggravated felony to be crimes which would have been felonies under federal law. But the BIA retroactively changed the rules to consider Lopez's crime aggravated felony and therefore grounds for deportation and denial of other rights.

This summer, the case will be taken up by the Supreme Court. TRAC feels that release of the requested information by DHS is vital in order to have a reasoned immigration debate. Which, apparently, is precisely why this administration refuses to release it.

Why Colbert is (Still) Important

2006-05-02T09:52:00.000-04:00

Certainly there are plausible reasons why the story of Stephen Colbert at the White House Corresponents Dinner last Saturday didn't get much coverage in the traditional media. It can be argued that he wasn't funny. Or that he's just a comedian -- how much ink did Cedric the Entertainer get? Or that it was an insiders' party, and they want to keep it that way. But there are other stories here, and important ones. And those stories are out, and the media can't ignore them because they won't go away. I'll mention three of them.

The Coverup

One story surrounds the large number of people who think something is being covered up. You can't dismiss them as conspiracy theorists and the tinfoil hat brigade. Just go to blogsearch.google.com and type in "Colbert blackout". Perhaps, had it been covered, the story itself might have died down by today. But a coverup, real or perceived, can take on a life of its own. Just ask Karl Rove.

The Bypass

Another story is how the traditional media have been bypassed by streaming video (for the source material) and blogs (for the discussion). Whether you thought Colbert's performance inspired or pathetic, within hours you could find dozens who agreed with you. Not only didn't it matter much whether Colbert's routine was covered by the Washington Post or CNN, by the time they could have covered it, much opinion had already coalesced around these two poles.

The Big Lie
The third story is the beginning of the end of the "liberal media" lie. We could all see the reactions in the audience: if the media were really so "liberal" then why weren't they laughing? The age of Bill Paley giving Ed Murrow free reign is long gone. Whether they can't, won't, or don't want to speak truth to power, the perception is growing that the media are muzzled by their owners. As Colbert stated, "reality has a well-known liberal bias".

I believe we're reaching a tipping point, where the "middle of the road" voter is going to decide to "give the other guys a chance" by either voting or looking the other way come next November. If there's a chance to turn things around, I believe it will depend on breaking the stranglehold the traditional media have had on framing the stories that make up our political consciousness.

Thank you, Stephen Colbert.

Mighty Morphin' Power Preznit

2006-04-26T11:46:00.000-04:00

This fabulous piece of artwork was generated by my friend Doug Shaw. Click on the picture to see it change back and forth:

How We're Winning the War on Terror (on Paper)

2006-04-21T13:20:00.000-04:00

A recent Knight-Ridder report on the "increase" in terrorism attacks suggests that the scary numbers (over 10,000 in 2005) are partly due to changes in the way terrorist attacks are counted. This is consistent with the way the numbers have been inflated to make domestic prosecution of the war on terror look better. Consider this table, which I generated from TRAC data based on what the US Department of Justice refers to as Internal Security/Terrorism cases:

The first line looks great... terrorism convictions are up over 1300% since 2001! (Note: these data are for fiscal years, which end in September of each year, so fiscal year 2001 ended 9/31/2001, which makes the years 2002-2005 a good way to gauge the post-9/11 response.) But the closer you look, the less attractive these numbers appear.

Even though we've had a lot more terrorism-related convictions since 9/11, the percentage of those convicted who get jail time has gone down, from 83 percent in 2001 to 72 percent in 2005. There was a steep decline in the first years after 9/11, and the conviction rate has increased since then but still not to the level it was in 2001.

But I think the really telling numbers are found in the sentences. The average sentence in 2005 was 32 months, over 25% shorter than it was in 2001. Moreover, the median sentence has dropped from 21 months to essentially zero! A median means half got more, half got less... so over half the terrorism convictions after 9/11 resulted in basically no prison time.

This offers more evidence that the offenses for which convictions were attained since 9/11 are actually far more minor than what been considered terrorism pre-9/11.

A less-recent but more complete and still-relevant analysis of post-9/11 terrorism enforcement can be found in this TRAC Terrorism Report.

Federal Judge Slaps IRS With Its Own Deadline

2006-04-05T09:17:00.000-04:00

An earlier post told how the IRS was being taken to court to get it to comply with a 30 year old order to provide data to a tax researcher. On Monday, the judge in the case ruled that the IRS must provide all the data requested.

SEATTLE, WA - A federal court has ruled in favor of a widely recognized researcher seeking detailed statistics from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) about how the agency enforces the nation's tax laws. Judge Marsha Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington ordered the IRS to turn over statistical data to Susan B. Long, a professor at Syracuse University and co-director of the non-profit research organization Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC).

This is clearly good news for anyone who wants more (any) transparency in government. But if you read on, it gets even better...

Pechman ordered production of the requested reports within 14 days, placing the IRS under the same compliance deadline (April 17) that the rest of the nation faces for tax returns. The court also ruled that Long is entitled to an award of attorneys' fees for enforcing the order.

In what seems like a punitive move, it has to turn over the data under the very same deadline the rest of us face each year. Not only that, but the IRS must also pay the legal fees in the case. This is far from automatic in a FOIA case; the court considers 4 criteria when asked to award legal fees:

(1) the public benefit from disclosure, (2) any commercial benefit to the plaintiff resulting from the disclosure, (3) the nature of the plaintiff's interest in the disclosed records, and (4) whether the government?s withholding of the records had a reasonable basis in law.

The court found in favor of Ms. Long in all four criteria.

This small case is should be a very big deal across the political spectrum. One of the lawyers in the case, Scott Nelson of Public Citizen, put it well when he said:

"The court's decision not only vindicates the public's right to information, but also serves as a powerful reminder to agencies that the courts can hold them accountable and that they act at their peril if they disregard court orders."

Want to avoid an IRS audit? Be a millionaire!

2006-03-28T13:33:00.000-05:00

The IRS continues to illegally withhold information that would allow its auditing procedures to be reviewed. But a just-released analysis by TRAC of new IRS data makes it clear that the agency continues to go after the poor while giving a free ride to the rich:

Syracuse, March 28 -- According to new data from the Internal Revenue Service only 30 of the nation's thousands of millionaires were subject to a face-to-face IRS audit in 2005. The very small number selected for the traditional and sometimes intensive audits were drawn from 184,054 individual tax returns reporting a total positive income of $1 million or more.

That's thirty out of more than 180,000 millionaires, or about one in 6000 (.016 percent). In comparison, the face-to-face audit rate for middle income taxpayers (between $25,000 and $200,000) is about one in 500 (.19 percent). So if you aren't rich, you're more than ten times more likely of being pulled in for a face-to-face audit than your average millionaire.

Even if you factor in "correspondence audits" in which the IRS sends you questions in the mail, the rich (over $200,000 annual income) are much less likely to be audited. In fact, taxpayers who make less than $25,000 are approximately twice as likely to be audited than those who make more than $200,000 a year.

So the best way to avoid getting called in by the IRS is clearly to be a millionaire. And if you're a business, having over a million dollars in assets is still the best policy, as these richest companies have avoided the sharp increases in audit rates that smaller companies have endured:

According to the IRS, corporate audits were up by a whopping 69 percent. However, the audits for companies with assets of $250,000 or less increased by 246% over the year before, those with assets of $250,000 to a million increased by 155% while those with assets of $1 million or more increased 18%.

To get the fullest picture, you should read the full report. What's clear though is:

The IRS is going easier on rich individuals and corporations
It's pumping its numbers by counting letters as audits, while it continues to cut auditing staff, and
It's illegally hiding information to keep you from finding out the full extent of its shenanigans.

The so-called "conservative" legislators who want to "keep the government off the people's backs" are going to have a lot of explaining to their constituents if they continue to do nothing about this outrage.

Antiwar Protester's Civil Disobedience Equated with Terrorism

2006-01-25T11:10:00.000-05:00

Yesterday's NY Times reports on the first sentence handed down for one of the St. Patrick's Day Four anti-Iraq protestors:

"You have obvious contempt for the laws of the U.S., and it bothers me," the judge, Thomas McAvoy of United States District Court, told the protester, Daniel J. Burns.

Oh how I wish there were more judges like McAvoy who'd get tough with people who show contempt for federal law! Like a certain occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Sadly, this case doesn't seem to be about breaking the law, it's about vilifying the opposition.

The first time Daniel Burns was tried, in state court, the trial ended in a hung jury. That didn't stop US Attorney Miro Lovric, who prosecuted him for trespassing, damaging government property and conspiracy. As it turns out, he was cleared of conspiracy charges but still sentenced to 6 months. OK, I believe that for this kind of protest, you should anticipate the possibility of having to do some time. I'm not arguing that. But some of the statements by the judge and prosecutor strike me as bordering on the absurd. Like this, from Lovric:

Mr. Lovric, an assistant United States attorney, argued that the defendants were on a "slippery slope" to committing violent acts like the Oklahoma City bombing.

Excuse me? A group of Catholics protesting an illegal war by engaging in an act of civil disobedience wherein they poured their own blood on the floor is equivalent to an act of terrorism that resulted in the death of hundreds? That's like saying agreeing with Michael Moore will set you on a slippery slope toward enlisting with Al Qaeda.
And then there's this one, also from Lovic:

...the prosecutor said that Mr. Burns was among a group of people who recently traveled illegally to Cuba to protest outside the United States military base at Guantanamo Bay. "His attitude is very arrogant," Mr. Lovric said. "He knows best and what's good for the country."

If I'm not mistaken, this case had nothing to do with travel to Gitmo. And if arrogance and acting illegally because you know what's good for the country are criminal offenses... well, let's just say I wonder if the DC US Attorney's taking notes.
Finally, there's this by McAvoy:

In sentencing him, Judge McAvoy said that he did not believe Mr. Burns was a "bad person," but that he could not understand how someone who thought the country had broken laws could break laws in protest.

Really. I mean, who ever heard of anything like "civil disobedience?" I'm sure they never covered that in law school or anything.
I believe the sentence and these comments by the judge and prosecutor are examples of attempts to vilify a principled opposition, and keep the public ignorant of the democratic history of civil disobedience by equating any criticism of our government with terrorism.

Renegade IRS to Tax Researcher: Drop Dead

2006-01-10T14:05:00.000-05:00

As mentioned in my previous post on this subject, the IRS has been violating a nearly 30-year old court order to release information under FOIA. Well what does it matter if a University researcher doesn't get a little data? A lot, according to David Cay Johnston in an article in today's New York Times:

Much of what the public knows about the efficiency, effectiveness and evenhandedness of the revenue service and other big federal agencies is based on the figures that Professor Long collects and posts.

The article goes on to describe how the IRS pleads ignorance but still plans to break the law in defiance of all three branches of government.

The senior national spokesman for the tax agency, Frank Keith, wrote to Professor Long in June 2004 that he had lawyers examine her assertion that the agency was required to provide the data. After extensive research, Mr. Keith wrote, the lawyers concluded that no court order existed and that "accordingly, the I.R.S. is not in violation of any standing injunctions."

Professor Long responded by sending Mr. Keith a copy of the order. Mr. Keith said no one now at the agency was aware of it.

"We thought we were providing this information voluntarily," he said.

OK they didn't know. Makes them look a little foolish, but let's allow that mistakes happen. Now that they know, they'll fix it, right?

The agency has no plans to release the information, Mr. Keith said Friday. He argued that Professor Long's latest requests went far beyond the order, covering costly detailed information that could inadvertently allow the identification of specific taxpayers.

Professor Long said that was false. "There is no change in what we have asked for, and they know it," she said.

Got that? First they didn't know there was a court order. Now that they know, they've decided that, in spite of a U.S. Federal Court Order and a 29 year history of providing this information, it just costs too much. And of course, there's no indication that the President has given them license to stonewall and violate the law. After all,

President Bush signed an executive order last month "to ensure appropriate agency disclosure of information." In a meeting with newspaper editors last April, the president said, "The presumption ought to be that citizens ought to know as much as possible about the government decision making."

So to recap: we have a Federal Agency knowingly violating a law passed by Congress, defying a court order issued by the Federal Judiciary and operating in defiance of a signed Executive Order.

If our system of checks and balances continues to degrade, then I believe this kind of out of control behavior by our government is likely to become more and more common. If we ever find out about it.

Above the law: Bush's IRS defies court order

2006-01-06T10:01:00.000-05:00

It's not just at the top; disregard for the law runs rampant at all levels of this Administration.

Violating a court order that has stood for nearly 30 years, the Internal Revenue Service since mid-2004 has knowingly stopped providing detailed statistics about how the agency enforces the nation's tax laws.

A motion just filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington attempts to compel the IRS to comply with its 1976 order.

The legal challenge was brought by Susan B. Long, a Syracuse University professor of Management Information and Decision Sciences who has been studying the IRS since she was getting her Ph.D at the University of Washington in the early 1970s. A widely recognized expert on US government data, Long also is the co-director of TRAC, which for more than ten years has published a series of reports on the performance of the IRS.

Go to http://trac.syr.edu/foia to see the press advisory, the motion and the original court order.

TRAC's most recent motion is separate from its still-pending April 14 lawsuit filed against the IRS in the District of Columbia. In that action, TRAC charged the agency with illegally withholding selected information about its operations, claiming without substantiation that some of the requested material would compromise homeland security.

TRAC also has FOIA suits pending in court against the Office of Personnel Management and the Executive Office for United States Attorneys. In addition, TRAC has initiated administrative FOIA requests against several agencies in the DHS and the separate Justice Department divisions handling civil and environmental matters.

Info on 900,000 US workers is suddenly secret

2005-12-07T10:28:00.000-05:00

In a blow to anyone trying to ferret out corruption and cronyism in the Bush Administration, The Office of Personnel Management has started withholding information on over 40 percent of the civilian workforce (excluding the US Postal Service). This kind of data has been public since 1816. Public Citizen and TRAC filed suit yesterday in District Court in order to force the OPM to release this data in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act.

If this were about protecting the privacy rights of federal employees, I might be more sympathetic. Hell, I might even have respect if this were about national security. But OPM has made no statement as to why they are holding back these records. Now, I work in the FOIA realm, and I know that no administration likes to be second-guessed. Still, I'm amazed at the diligence of this Administration in suppressing discussion of its (in)competence, whether it's attacking dissenters, co-opting the media, or illegally withholding information. Even if the lawsuit succeeds, the administration will have successfully stalled in releasing the data, thereby making it harder to use personnel records to identify fraud, waste and cronyism.

You can read the full press release and background info on the TRAC website.

TV Time

2005-10-19T10:25:00.000-04:00

Last night's chalice circle topic had to do with our relationship with food. Nobody but the leader knew the topic, and everybody but him brought food. Hah.

I got home pretty much after everyone had fallen asleep, so I cleaned up the kitchen and cycled some laundry and fed the cat. Then I stayed up for the Daily Show and the Colbert Report.

Jon interviewed Bill O'Reilly. Jon was a gracious host but didn't let Bill get away with much. Like this exchange:

Bill: There's a lot of bad people out there and it's our job to go after them.
Stewart: So when are you going to start?

What I realize TDS was doing by having O'Reilly on was giving their viewers a chance to see just who Colbert is parodying (how many Comedy Central viewers actually watch Fox News I wonder?) and that's why Jon didn't go too tough on him... it was a better lead-in for Colbert to give O'Reilly plenty of leash and let him foam at the mouth a bit. Which he did of course. 'Twas fun.

Colbert is clearly still ironing out the wrinkles in the show, at one point confessing how hard it is to fill a show with 22 minutes of news. But I enjoyed that as well. I'm going to miss them both when we dump our cable. But at least we'll still have it tonight for the 2nd season premiere of Drawn Together.

Wow this is the most focused I've been on TV since the last election.

The Syracuse Fast Break

2005-10-14T09:18:00.000-04:00

Last night our minister met with the 15 or so people who did the three-day fast that coincided with the end of his month-long one. He'd prepared a wonderful and simple meal.

Before we ate, though, we lit candles and read aloud the names of the servicemen and women who had died in Iraq since his fast started a month ago (there were about 50 I believe). And remembered that many more Iraqis whose names we don't know have died as well. And then we sang "Spirit of Life", one of my favorite hymns.

The meal started with a single strawberry for an appetizer; my appetite didn't need much encouragement. But we all took our time nibbling at our strawberries, enjoying the texture and flavor. Then we had a tasty apple-squash soup the minister had prepared, along with some lovely homemade challah bread prepared by one of the other fasters. For dessert, the minister served up a very nice pear and raspberry custard.

I was fortunate to be sitting at the minister's table, and so once we started eating, got to hear some of his stories about food-related experiences during the month, some of which were pretty funny. (Note to self: if you want to have good anecdotes, you need to do something unusual once in a while.) We also talked about ritual and community aspects of eating, and I surprised people with the fact that my wife has made sure we eat dinner all together, with a chalice lighting and reading first. Of course I wasn't home last night, but my family wasn't all that deprived: they had Chinese take-out.

Afterwards we chatted about our experiences. Most felt what I did: a bit of a high, lightness, clarity, calm. More energy. A few had negative experiences: headaches, nausea, lack of energy. One of the things many noticed was that we were more deliberate, more intentional about everything. Perhaps it's just because we were being so intentional about food, and that touches so much of what we do.

We also talked about how hunger is part of many people's lives, whether because of choice, eating disorders, or poverty. How even 150 years ago many people needed to make sure their root cellars were full up by now or else they'd starve in the spring. Talked about eating locally and seasonally as a way to reduce energy consumption, or how as energy prices rise we might not be able to afford the luxury of fresh strawberries in October. One woman suggested it might be nice to do this regularly, like every 6 months. Yeah. Fasting is a good place to visit. I want to go back.

But I did enjoy eating again. And this morning, I slowly savored every bit of the eggroll my family saved for me.

Fasting Journal, day 3

2005-10-13T08:38:00.000-04:00

I didn't get around to writing yesterday. Probably because it was busy at work and because I didn't feel like withdrawing from my family in the evening.

One of the interesting things is that I'm not really missing food, it's more like breaking the habit of eating. I'm paying a lot more attention to the way things look and smell (the air this morning was delightful). Things appear sharper, clearer to all my senses. I feel high.

I think I have more energy. After downing some fruit juice, I enjoyed a half-hour run with Oldest Son yesterday. I've had no trouble focusing at work. In fact, it feels like I've been more productive, though that might just be a placebo or observer effect.

I feel calmer too. Last night at home things were very hectic and it was the kind of night that would normally have had me blow my stack, but I felt oddly even. I don't even feel like I need as much sleep: this morning I woke up after only about 6 hours and felt quite rested.

I'm wondering if caloric deprivation is something humans have evolved to manage: if we're geared toward cycles of feast and famine? If so that could explain the extra energy I feel. I don't think it's "natural" to eat the equivalent of a feast three times a day.

No startling insights, but I have been thinking about things. Yesterday on NPR they were talking about whether and when to withdraw troops from Iraq. I remarked that we should consider the state of that country, the old "we broke it, we bought it" notion before we just unconditionally start withdrawing forces. My wife asked me if I wasn't doing it to get the troops home, what was I fasting for? I thought for a few seconds, and said "for peace".

I think making peace is a lot trickier than walking away from fighting.

Tonight a group of us at church are meeting to break fast with the minister. In a way I'm starting to mourn my fasting self. I know I can't continue to not eat, but it feels a shame to have to start. I remember this feeling from the last time I did an extended fast, having to slowly make myself eat again. I think I can understand eating disorders a bit better, so much of eating is about habit and mental state.

Fasting Journal, day 1

2005-10-11T18:45:00.000-04:00

It's only the first day of my three-day fast, and already I am becoming enlightened. So far I have learned that:

Quitting coffee three days before starting a fast is a Good Idea.

I do not particularly like carrot juice.

My office is a comfortably close distance to the nearest toilet. My car, however, is not.

When I don't eat, I get hungry.

More wisdom to come...

Holy days

2005-10-10T22:25:00.000-04:00

Tonight I've begun a three day fast. I ate dinner tonight, my wife's pasta e fagioli and two of the small, delicate chocolate chip cookies my son baked. Not quite three days really, but I don't need to quibble. Until Thursday night it's juice, herbal tea and water. No cookies, no wasabi peas, no midafternoon "walks" that happen to swing by the campus CVS and result in a bag of candy following me back to my office.

Why am I doing this? I admit I wasn't sure when I signed up, it just seemed like a good idea. But I've given it a little thought and have settled on three interlocking themes: solidarity, discipline, and healing.

Solidarity with my minister, who I consider one of the few spiritual leaders I've ever had reason to want to follow. He's been at this for most of a month. He's garnered attention, and not just for himself, but also for his congregation, his religion, and all the other people who oppose this unjust and undeclared "war" and feel powerless to do much about it.

I'm also doing it in solidarity with other members of my congregation, and on behalf of the others who may not be participating, or at least not to the same degree, but who I know are behind us. The way I used to support, in spirit, the members of my other congregation who marched in protest of the School of the Americas. It's a small thing, but something I can do.

Fasting is an opportunity to practice a spiritual and physical discipline. For several days I've been cutting out the unnecessary eating, and the alcohol and caffeine, in preparation. It complements the running begun mainly to help my Oldest Son get started but which is gradually changing from dreaded chore to antcipated activity.

The last time I fasted this long was about 20 years and 20 pounds ago, but I still recall the clarity and lightness I felt. I'm hoping for some of that sense of focus, and some of the extra time not spent obtaining, preparing, serving, and consuming food. Of course a good deal of that time will be spent peeing, but some of the time left will be for being aware of my thoughts, recording and perhaps sharing them.

I've never been much for meditation, at least the way I've understood it. But I've always known of and believed in the healthful effects it can have. I just haven't accepted the religious language attached to it. It's similar to the way spinal manipulation helps my back despite my not believing everything my chiropractor says.

For months now, maybe years, I've been focusing on ills and hardships. From the grand scale of hurricanes and earthquakes, war and pandemic, down to the financial, physical and emotional problems that are inescapable in a household, a family.

Like nearly everyone who wakes up in the morning, I feel there must be some purpose to each day. But I believe as Rev. Nick Cardell said that it is I who must give dignity to my life if I am to be worthy of the design, or build upon the accident. So I don't expect any lightning bolt answers from on high or even within, just some quiet time to understand the voice inside me.

And maybe in some tiny way, the healing I can work on myself will ripple outward, through my family, my congregation, my community, my country, the world. It's not much, in the way one grain of sand isn't much, and yet a brick building can't exist without all those grains of sand.

This fast then is my holiday, holy days, during which I both engage and detach from the world around me. A time I try to regain some balance lost, for me and my world.

NIDS: cutting-edge or quackery?

2005-10-03T10:15:00.000-04:00

I was on a panel at a local autism/aspergers conference this past weekend. I'm glad I went, both to represent parents and people on the spectrum, and to keep an eye on what therapists and parents are being sold as autism treatment.

In the first presentation, a nurse representing the NIDS (Neuro-immune Dysfunction Syndrome) camp, used a great deal of "we think" and "hypothesis" type language, a big improvement from when I met her a few months ago and she was talking about how "we KNOW what causes autism".

But I'm still uncomfortable with a lot of what they say: there's a lot of talk about normalizing the immune system, as though they had already established a causal relationship between immune response and autism (they haven't even attempted any studies AFAIK). To say nothing of any efforts at testing whether or not the NIDS Protocol (dietary mods, antivirals and antifungals and antibiotics) actually does anything useful to help kids with autism (it's always kids, you know). The line is basically get the kids' immune responses "normalized" and then they get therapy.

I guess if the therapy works, it's because of the NIDS protocol. And if it doesn't, it must be the wrong therapy.

I just read this entry on quackery in Prometheus' blog and I think it describes Goldberg's approach very well. His approach takes difficult to diagnose disorders (CFS, Autism) and replaces them with made-up diseases (CFIDS, NIDS), and adds a protocol that requires special expertise to design and administer, tests that take special expertise to interpret, and promises nothing at all.

So I'm going to keep my eye on the NIDS crew. So far they seem to be flying largely under the radar of the mainstream autism establishment.

White-collar criminals get more get-out-of-jail cards

2005-09-28T15:25:00.000-04:00

In what should come as no surprise to anyone playing "find the Brownie", a new study by Syracuse University's TRAC reports that US federal prosecutions of white-collar crime are down:

Of the four principle groupings of federal prosecutions, the smallest concerned white collar crime violations -- 8,626 prosecutions in FY 2004. While the information from the U.S. Attorneys showed the total for these cases had remained essentially unchanged from 2000 to 2003, it documented a decline of about ten percent from FY 2003 to FY 2004. Estimates for 2005 indicate that the decline is continuing.

Drug prosecutions are also down. Immigration prosecutions, on the other hand, have doubled from 2000 to 2004. Weapons prosecutions appear to have levelled off, and terrorism cases are still just a very small percentage of the total federal prosecution workload.

Read the full report

Who's suffering?

2005-09-23T08:54:00.000-04:00

In a WaPo story about the Roberts hearings, I came across this paragraph:

Sen. Sam Brownback, who skipped most of the hearing, didn't agree with that bit about law trumping philosophy. The Kansas Republican arrived at the hearing room with a 14-year-old girl suffering from Down syndrome and, as the smiling girl stood behind him, made an impassioned anti-abortion argument. We "celebrate her," Brownback said, "and yet in the womb, 80 percent are killed."

What bothers me about it is the description of the smiling 14 year old girl "suffering" from Down syndrome. It reminds me of descriptions of kids "suffering" from autism so well parodied in Getting the Truth Out. Excuse me, but clearly from the story she isn't suffering, so what is the purpose of that adjective? Emotional manipulation?

I have mixed feelings about talking about people who "suffer" from what are offically classified as disorders or might also be considered deviations from the norm. Yes, it is often difficult for these individuals and their families to function "normally" in our society. But it makes it sound like the condition itself is the source of the suffering, as opposed to the barriers society places in our path. Yes, I said "our" path because as an autistic adult I do consider myself to be well outside that norm. Better at some things than others, and no stranger to discomfort and despair, nonetheless most of my life I was suffering much more from the way people treated me than from any inherent disability.

And if that 14 year old girl could be said to have been suffering, I'd say it was because she was being bandied around as a republican senator's anti-abortion poster child. But thankfully, she seemed happily unaware of the degree to which she was being manipulated.

Which still doesn't make it right.

Syracuse minister fasts for peace

2005-09-18T16:19:00.000-04:00

Rev. David S. Blanchard, minister at First Unitarian Universalist Society of Syracuse, has recently begun a monthlong fast in protest of our continuing presence in Iraq. Here is a letter he sent last week to members of his congregation:

September 14, 2005

Dear Friends,

On Thursday, September 15th I will be commencing a time of fasting. Barring unforeseen complications, I will break the fast on Yom Kippur, Thursday October 13th.

This may strike some of you as a surprise. (It sure surprised me!) I have been thinking and meditating on this for a number of weeks. I have kept my own cousel. I have previously fasted for three and four days at a time, and found the experience to be spiritually deepening. As before, my fasting will follow a regimen that permits limited natural fruit and vegetable juices. And of course, water.

Fasting is an ancient spiritual discipline. Its primary spiritual function, historically, is one of purification. The physical energy expended by the mind, body and spirit is re-channeled from the endless process of consumption and digestion, and is freed to sustain a more engaged state of attention to the eternal, to the holy. They do not call it a "discipline" for nothing.

My decision to do this is centered on another time honored motivation for fasting: that of public witness to injustice. This small act is dedicated to the cause of bringing our military forces home from Iraq. This Sunday, September 18th, I will speak in greater detail about my decision, which was somehow not exactly a decision. I only wish that the President could be here to save me the postage of sending him yet another letter.

I will make it clear to anyone who asks, that this fast is an expression of my vocation as a Unitarian Universalist minister. That our tradition extends the freedom of the pulput generously to its clergy. That I do not speak for everyone who is a member here, but that everyone here does count on me to give expression to my own deepest convictions.

What do I hope for, from you, my congregation? I guess it comes down to patience and prayers. In Sunday, I will offer some suggestions for ways that you too could participate, on some level, in the fast. I will invite people to come together to occasionally share a "dinner" hour with me. I will encourage times of reflection and discussion within the congregation on the larger issues involved. I will ask for creative ideas for marking the end of the fast. I will be fed by your energy and support.

An affirmation in our hymnal says this: "I am only one. But still I am one. I cannot do everything. But still I can do something. And because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do the something that I can do." With such an affirmation of purpose and vision, I begin.

in faith,
David

I consider myself fortunate to have David as a spiritual leader. I'm going to join other members of the congregation in a three-day fast October 11-13 to coincide with the end of his. I'm posting this in a number of places, and asking any of you who feel similarly inspired to share this as widely as you can.

Local news coverage:
http://www.syracuse.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news-1/112685995627180.xml?syrnesreg

Missing Voices

2005-06-28T14:02:00.000-04:00

I remember Paul Winchell as the host of a TV puppet show, "The Paul Winchell - Jerry Mahoney Show" (Jerry was the puppet). I can still remember part of the opening theme song, even though I haven't heard it for over 40 years. I'm such a storehouse of useless information. Winchell did lots of voiceovers that I think were much more memorable than Tigger. For example, he was the "scrubbing bubbles" for Dow chemical bathtub cleaner. I always loved recognizing his very distinctive voice. Much as I do now with Patrick Warburton.

I have fewer fond memories of John Fiedler who I mainly recall as the dweeby guy at the poker table in "The Odd Couple" (movie and TV), but his IMDB entry reads like a compendium of 60s and 70s US television shows. Including such unmemorable duds as "Captain Nice" (which came out the same season as "Mr. Terrific", both of which were trying to duplicate the campy success of "Batman").

Both these voices have been in the background my entire life: kid shows when I was little, sitcoms and action adventure shows in my adolescence and young adulthood, and cartoons I've watched with my own kids. They may not have been Mel Blancs but they had cool voices and I'm sorry they're gone.

End of a chapter

2005-05-31T08:45:00.000-04:00

I became a Unitarian Universalist youth advisor in 1997.

Nearly every Sunday during the school year, I sat in a room with anywhere between 5 and 25 teenagers and basically watched them interrelate and sort themselves out spiritually. Once a year they'd do something like run a worship service for the entire congregation. Several times a year they'd have a sleepover at the church. Which is a misnomer, because generally I was the only one who slept, and that wasn't much. And three or four times a year, the other advisors and I would take a few carloads of them to Buffalo or Schenectady or Albany or Ottawa or Rochester or Ithaca and spend the weekend with anywhere from 50 to 150 teenagers and the adult advisors who made the trip, whether out of love or duty or being worn down by begging.

Then three years ago I took on the youth coordinator position for our district. Which meant all the same stuff as before plus 4 more weekend meetings a year, and the opportunity to work with some of the most involved and dedicated youth and adults.

Both within my congregation and for the district, being an advisor meant taking on many roles. At various times I've felt like a counselor, a babysitter, a confidant, a conscience, an irritant, an ally, a nag, a a defender, a critic, a therapist, an audience, a teacher, a listener, a parent, a friend. I've felt years younger and generations older.

The expression of my religion, my spirituality, became one of service. My mission was to provide a safe space in which these kids could explore what it meant to be human in the world, free of dogma and largely free of judgement. And as they grew, so did I. I learned more about more kinds of diversity than I realized had existed. I learned about racism, but also sexism and heterosexism and ageism and classism and other intolerant isms so abrasive to a young person's soul. I learned when to lead and when to let go. I learned that an adult can intellectually bully a teenager without even realizing it. I learned ways to worship that are both meaningful and powerful. I learned how important and necessary it is to (as the Magic Schoolbus' Miss Frizzle used to say) "take chances, make mistakes, get messy."

In 1997, I attended my very first district youth event, a leadership development conference at May Memorial in Syracuse. That's where I was first exposed to the concept of youth empowerment: adults sharing their power with youth. That "power shared is power multiplied". That experience helped define a role and relationship with youth that would last for years.

This past weekend, I attended my last district youth conference. Of course I hope to drive my kids to their cons when they're old enough, and I do have one more district committee meeting next week, but this was basically the end of my involvement with the Young Religious Unitarian Universalist program. It was fitting that, once again, it was held at May Memorial. Two very impressive young folks successfully staged an event that I had very little confidence would ever take place. An event that managed to be innovating (a day at the beach?) while still meeting the demands of tradition. It was humbling but refreshing to realize there's still so much I need to learn.

Following a very tearful service recognizing those youth who would be leaving the community, and the very joyful call for ice cream that dried most eyes effectively, I had a chance conversation with one of the graduates who I've had the good pleasure to work with. She reminded me that I don't have to mourn that this stage of my life is passing, I can appreciate that it happened and look forward to what's next.

A lot of the time it wasn't easy. At various times, my involvement with UU youth exacted a price from my family, my relationships, my patience and my health. But I can say without hesitation that, knowing what I know now, I'd do it all over again. And I'd probably make a whole new variety of mistakes in the process.

So to all the people who have helped support me, and all the youth who helped feed my spirit while I was supporting them, I say so long, and thanks for all the fish.

What's so great about homosexuality?

2005-05-11T10:40:00.000-04:00

With this additional evidence that homosexuality is wired-in and not learned, I started wondering why it exists. Is there some evolutionary advantage to the species in having males and females who are not sexually attracted to the opposite gender? I've come across some ideas that because gays tend to have fewer offspring, that would give societies relatively more adults. But that didn't seem specific enough to incur an actual evolutionary advantage.

After some quick googling, I found an interesting paper titled Toward an Equilibrium Reproductive Economics of Homosexuality, by Edward M. Miller, Ph.D. of the Department of Economics and Finance at the University of New Orleans. Here's the abstract:

The survival of a human predisposition for homosexuality can be explained by sexual orientation being a polygenetic trait that is influenced by a number of genes. During development these shift male brain development in the female direction. Inheritance of several such alleles produces homosexuality. Single alleles make for greater sensitivity, empathy, tendermindedness, and kindness. These traits make heterosexual carriers of the genes better fathers and more attractive mates. There is a balanced polymorphism in which the feminizing effect of these alleles in heterosexuals offsets the adverse effects (on reproductive success) of these alleles' contribution to homosexuality. A similar effect probably occurs for genes that can produce lesbianism in females. The whole system survives because it serves to provide a high degree of variability among the personalities of offspring, providing the genotype with diversification and reducing competition among offspring for the same niches. An allele with a large effect can survive in these circumstances in males, but it is less likely to survive in females. The birth order effect on homosexuality is probably a by-product of a biological mechanism that shifts personalities more in the feminine direction in the later born sons, reducing the probability of these sons engaging in unproductive competition with each other.

So basically you can consider homosexuality to be too much of a good thing :) I was intrigued that this analysis came from an economist. I shouldn't be too surprised, what is evolution but a cost/benefit analysis played out over the long term?

Here's a link that will get you to the abstract of the paper.

Tax Time

2005-04-12T10:39:00.000-04:00

Our own taxes still aren't done. But this time of year means a whole lot more to me now than it used to, because the place I work puts out an IRS Report each year around this time. We got decent press attention, with good stories from the AP and New York Times and Business Week. You can check the coverage using Google News or Yahoo News.

Of course the IRS rebutted, but their arguments are interesting. One is that our conclusions are wrong because the IRS misclassifies financial services companies. According to David Cay Johnston in the Times:

The I.R.S. said no disparity existed and blamed flaws in its own statistical reporting system.

Oops.

Another is that they have audits of these companies performed by auditors whose expertise is not in finance. This from the Business Week story:

Nolan also said the data categorizes the audits according to the specialization of the auditor conducting the examination, not the company's business.

Oops.

The IRS also says that it's all about where the audits take place. In the AP story:

Nolan said the IRS studies its audit coverage each year to make sure the right number of agents are being sent to the right geographic areas and handling the right type of returns, focusing on areas with a high risk of tax evasion.

Interesting that they'd be able to do this, since they've denied our FOIA requests for geographic audit data on the grounds that they no longer collect that information. Oops again.

We're going to make more news with respect to the IRS later this week. Stay tuned...

A rant against pseudo-science

2005-02-01T13:31:00.000-05:00

In today's NY Times:

Evolution Takes a Back Seat in U.S. Classes

I found the final paragraphs most chilling:

But several experts say scientists are feeling increasing pressure to make their case, in part, Dr. Miller said, because scriptural literalists are moving beyond evolution to challenge the teaching of geology and physics on issues like the age of the earth and the origin of the universe.

"They have now decided the Big Bang has to be wrong," he said. "There are now a lot of people who are insisting that that be called only a theory without evidence and so on, and now the physicists are getting mad about this."

Here's another one: the propagation of electrons through semiconductor material is just a theory. An alternate theory is that computers work because they're God's gift to the righteous, and will ascend into heaven along with the saved come the rapture.

Just like electromagnetic transmission through the atmosphere. You could also believe it's God's breath that carries fundamentalist preachers' messages over the airwaves, and all the other stuff is carried on Satan's.

Jet propulsion? Just a theory. Another, more religiously correct (RC) one is that the hand of God lifts the aircraft from the ground and sets it down safely.

And of course there's all the theory about the transmission of disease, but we already know that AIDS is God's plague on the fornicators, right?

I could go on and on. The point is that anyone who doesn't want to learn science, fine, don't learn it. But (1) don't you dare stop my kid from learning it, and (2) stop using technologies that are derived from "theories" you don't believe are "fact". And you Amish, I'm onto you... those tractors weren't handed down from heaven, and even if you forswear electrical power lines, do you really believe that no electricity at all was used to fill the LP canisters you power your home with?

unintended consequences

2004-12-17T14:49:00.000-05:00

Everything I do has lots of effects I'm not aware of.

I've been staying up late to get some solitude when I've been in social settings (a lot more of them this time of year). Last night I took my littlest to his violin lesson for the first time. He knows his routine, I could just sit and watch, I know one other parent and the teacher Sue, so no problem. Only Sue had her camera and heard that I like taking pictures and so asked me to take some pictures during the class (I guess she's looking at getting some promo shots). No specific instructions, just take some shots. I swear I'm going to have to start telling people I've stopped taking pictures as a hobby and started assembling computers, I'll get fewer requests for help that way! Actually I was tickled of course, and I hope I got some good ones.

But after coming home and running the kids through the bedtime routine, I was eager for some time alone, and as my wife conked out around 10:00, I figured there would be nothing to keep me from hanging out, watching Jon Stewart and assorted TV dreck, surfing, playing freecell, etc. -- if I leave before she falls asleep, there's a chance she won't be able to, and might even come down to join me, in which case she doesn't get enough sleep herself and it throws her off the next day.

But I managed to wake her up when I came up at 2 am. Having been asleep for hours, it wasn't easy for her to go back to sleep. And I could feel her resentment as I tried unsuccessfully to fall asleep for an hour or so.

So I'm going to have to limit my insomniac downtimes and find some other way to satisfy my need to be alone.

In pleasanter news, I'm really starting to enjoy playing "Tanglewood Tree" on mando. There's one part where I'm having trouble picking up the rhythm, and I can't always maintain it perfectly, but it's really starting to click and I'm loving it.

First post

2004-12-07T10:52:00.000-05:00

I've said this too many times to believe it: I'm just trying this out, I'm not sure if I'm going to use it.