Author Archives: Michael Froomkin

Didn’t We Used to Call This Bribery or a Slush Fund or Something?

Posted on October 1, 2007 by Michael Froomkin

Money for nothing, but it surely makes for 'friendships'.

Air Force Arranged No-Work Contract: While waiting to be confirmed by the White House for a top civilian post at the Air Force last year, Charles D. Riechers was out of work and wanted a paycheck. So the Air Force helped arrange a job through an intelligence contractor that required him to do no work for the company, according to documents and interviews.

For two months, Riechers held the title of senior technical adviser and received about $13,400 a month at Commonwealth Research Institute, or CRI, a nonprofit firm in Johnstown, Pa., according to his resume. But during that time he actually worked for Sue C. Payton, assistant Air Force secretary for acquisition, on projects that had nothing to do with CRI, he said.

Riechers said in an interview that his interactions with Commonwealth Research were limited largely to a Christmas party, where he said he met company officials for the first time.

“I really didn't do anything for CRI,” said Riechers, now principal deputy assistant secretary for acquisition. “I got a paycheck from them.”

And how did Congress confirm him? Did they know about this? If not, why not?

Plus, it seems like Commonwealth is a GOP piggy bank.

Concurrent's top three executives each earn an average of $462,000. The company reported lobbying expenditures of $302,000 for the year ending in June 2006, more than double what it spent on lobbying four years earlier.

Concurrent and its subsidiaries receive grants and contracts for an eclectic variety of other activities, including support of faith-based initiatives and specialized welding work. Last year, Commonwealth Research got a $45 million sole-source arrangement to provide reports to the National Security Agency, CIA and other intelligence agencies.

It's a charity, it pays folks big bucks, and it lobbies too. And it's rewarded for all this with money from the black (secret) budget, plus 'faith-based' money which we know is a cover for the GOP feeding its base.

Speaking of which, is there any chance that a Democratic administration will cut off this 'faith-based' funding or will the GOP machine still be at the federal trough?

Posted in National Security | 4 Comments

Meme Watch: “Stink Tanks”

Posted on October 1, 2007 by Michael Froomkin

I like this new phrase, “stink tanks” — organizations masquerading as think tanks but which don't pass the smell test.

Bruce Kushnick, Nieman Watchdog, Corporate-funded research designed to influence public policy, It is clear that we are in the age of “stink tanks,” in which corporate-funded think tanks and well-paid, credentialed academics are hired to make corporate arguments and give the appearance of being independent experts.

…

The think tanks often describe themselves as non-partisan, independent, free-market, free-enterprise, limited-government, or market-oriented. Their expert witnesses often bear credentials such as “professor of” or “former” FCC, FTC, state commissioner, Congressman, staffer.

Some have good reputations for serious studies on economic, political and foreign policy issues, albeit perhaps with an ideological slant. But good reputation or no reputation, when it comes to the telecoms and such issues as broadband, often these groups are nothing more than consulting firms that pursue the goals of the large corporations that are their clients and financial supporters.

Posted in Readings | 2 Comments

Icelandic Army of One Heads Home from Iraq

Posted on October 1, 2007 by Michael Froomkin

It seems that Iceland was one of the countries counted in the 'coalition of the willing' in Iraq — even though it had exactly one soldier on the ground, a press aide. And now, the coalition is down one member because he's going home.

Comedian Andy Cobb has done a video to commemorate this event:

Posted in Iraq | Comments Off on Icelandic Army of One Heads Home from Iraq

Defusing the ‘Ticking Time Bomb’ Scenario

Posted on October 1, 2007 by Michael Froomkin

Defusing the Ticking Bomb Scenario There's no question that the pro-torture folks love to trot out the unrealistic 'Ticking Time Bomb' Scenario in order to justify the use of torture. (It even seems to find its way regularly into Presidential debates.) And then it's onwards down the slippery slope. So it's good to see some serious thought being put into defusing this politically — if not necessarily intellectually — effective argument.

Here's what the Association for the Prevention of Torture has to say about its new report, Defusing the Ticking Time Bomb Scenario:

Defusing the Ticking Bomb Scenario

In June 2007, as part of a series of activities to mark its 30th anniversary, the APT convened a meeting of experts to discuss responses to the ticking bomb scenario. In popular films and television series, on talk shows and news, in academic journals and political debates, the possible use of torture to prevent a terrorist attack in a hypothetical 'ticking bomb scenario' is a hot topic. The dramatic nature of the scenario, and the artificially simple moral answers it seems to offer, have helped it make a significant impression on public audiences. Yet this scenario ultimately seeks to destroy the hard-won absolute prohibition of torture under international and national laws. In presenting certain acts of torture as justifiable, even desirable, in distorting reality and manipulating emotions and ethical reasoning, in leading well-intentioned societies down a slippery slope to legalised and systematic torture, the ticking bomb scenario represents a grave threat to global anti-torture efforts.

Based on discussions at and following the June 2007 meeting, the APT has prepared Defusing the Ticking Bomb Scenario: Why we must say No to torture, always. This brochure provides the general public, human rights advocates, academics and governments with essential arguments against any proposed 'ticking bomb' exception to the prohibition of torture. It exposes the misleading and flawed hidden assumptions of the scenario, and emphasises the toxic effect of torture, like slavery and genocide, on societies that tolerate it. It recalls the fundamental and absolute nature of the prohibition under international law, and describes how the scenario manipulates moral and ethical judgment by obscuring the true moral cost of tolerating any act of torture.

Posted in Torture | 5 Comments

Saul Alinsky Would Be Proud

Posted on September 30, 2007 by Michael Froomkin

I don't have a “feminism” category, as I usually leave that to Ann Bartow, who does feminism better than I can. But in this case, Amanda Marcotte has already done all the work.

QuestionAuthority.gifAnd, strangely, I did't have an “activism” category either until now. Via Pandagon we learn of a high school rebellion against a very stupid “no bags” policy.

As any woman reading this is immediately thinking, the problem with not letting students carry even small bags to school is that female students have a very real need to carry pads and tampons. The danger of bleeding through your pants is statistically much higher than the danger that you’re going to turn out to be a school shooter, but that fact didn’t give the assholes who passed this policy pause.

Realizing that it’s a bit problematic to leave female students bleeding from between their legs with no way to plug it up, the school has tried to compensate by allowing students who are currently on their period to bring small bags to school during their period, but no other time. Anyone who was ever a teenage girl and remembers the high percentages of creepy men—many who work in schools—who enjoy humiliating you by prying into your privacy can see the immediate problems with this policy.

And, in fact, kids were being humiliated by the guards.

The students organized a protest reminiscent of Saul Alinsky's chewing gum rebellion, described in Rules for Radicals. (The students at a strict school complained they weren't allowed to do anything except chew gum. He suggested that they chew lots of it, and leave it around until the administration agreed to their demands.)

The small Sullivan County school has been in an uproar for the last week. Girls have worn tampons on their clothes in protest, and purses made out of tampon boxes. Some boys wore maxi-pads stuck to their shirts in support.

After hearing that someone might have been suspended for the protest, freshman Hannah Lindquist, 14, went to talk to Worden. She wore her protest necklace, an OB tampon box on a piece of yarn. She said Worden confiscated it, talked to her about the code of conduct and the backpack rule — and told her she was now “part of the problem.”

Which shows that we have another school where the kids are smarter than the administration.

Question authority!

Posted in Question Authority | 4 Comments

Sunk Costs

Posted on September 30, 2007 by Michael Froomkin

Should I change from Scrapbook to Zotero?

Posted in Software | Comments Off on Sunk Costs