Jim Cooper, Democrat from Tennessee's 5th District, recently got his ears pinned back in a formal committee hearing. Cooper held up a sheaf of papers and went for the kill while questioning Glenn English, CEO of the NRECA, a national coalition of electricity providing cooperatives. Cooper stated the material he was talking about came from the NRECA's private, password protected site which he had accessed. At that point, English said he regretted Cooper's introduction of the topic and noted that NRECA counsel had advised him Cooper was under investigation for criminal violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

As expected, Cooper denies any wrongdoing. He first asked the NRECA for the information and was refused. He later obtained the username and password from an NRECA employee which he used to access the site and get the information he was previously denied access to. In a Clintonesque distortion of language, Cooper now equates using the login information of another with being personally authorized to view the site. Would Jim object if someone with a key to his office, say the cleaning woman, gave her key to someone who used it to enter his office and rifle his files? Exactly! But one man's authorized entry is another man's breaking and entering. Cooper further justified his actions by saying NRECA's customers had the right to know what was going on.

While opinions vary as to the law in these cases, the statute mentioned seems pretty straightforward. It appears there are a couple of places which may provide Cooper some legal problems. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act states in part,

a) Whoever-- ...

(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains-- ...

(A) information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, ...

C) information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication;

and,

a) Whoever-- ...

(6) knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section 1029) in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization, if--

(A) such trafficking affects interstate or foreign commerce;

have broken the law. The definitions of the terms "exceeds authorized access", "financial record" and more are provided later in the document. They don't help the Congressman's cause.

Whether Jim Cooper's actions were criminal would seem to boil down to: 1) Did Congressman Jim Cooper access the site in question? 2) Was he authorized to do so?; 3) Does the site contain any financial records?; 4) Do any site records pertain to either interstate communication, commerce or both?; 5) Did Cooper obtain the password via any means definable as "trafficking"?

#1 -The video records Cooper's admission he was on the site. Check! #2 - Having been denied access to the information previously, Cooper knew he was not authorized. That he bypassed that denial in the way he did further demonstrates he knew he was not authorized. Check! #3 - Also per the video, Mr. English testified the site contained both 401K and retirement records for NRECA associates. It is not unreasonable to assume those records related to financial institutions as the NRECA is not itself a financial institution. Check! #4 - The NRECA is a national coop with 900 members in 47 states. That settles the question of do the affairs of the NRECA include interstate commerce and might their site contain interstate communication. Check! #5 - This would depend on the definition of the term "Traffic". What did Cooper do to get the login information? Must money change hands? Could providing something non-monetary, but valuable, such as promising to take care of the leaker if discovered and find him work elsewhere be considered trafficking? If so, perhaps a final - Check! - is in order.

As mentioned, Cooper denies knowledge of any FBI investigation. Of course he does. The situation definitely could produce one. Is it happening? We'll have to wait and see. Cooper gets cover from the FBI itself as they don't comment on ongoing investigations. Cooper could be lying through his teeth and we wouldn't know until the FBI goes on the record. Of course, the Congressman could always "authorize" the FBI to "release information we've been denied access to previously" on the premise that, especially in an election year "the citizens of Tennessee's 5th District have the right to know if their Congressman engaged in illegal activities" punishable by either 5 or 10 years in the slammer for a first offense and possible fines on top of that. Those of you with some time on your hands, stop by and enjoy the shades of blue I can turn while holding my breath waiting.

Cooper, by any estimation, is not a powerful or influential member of Congress. He merely fills a seat and the "D" after his name provides power for those who are. Just another career politician who knows nothing of life outside the Beltway. Despite being a Rhodes Scholar, he isn't even bright enough not to confess to a crime on video. Is this the sort of politician we want in Washington? Do we really want someone making laws for the rest of us who cannot be bothered to obey them himself? There's an election coming where we can decide exactly that. See you at the polls.

Blue Collar Muse

The powers permitted to Government ought to be few and well defined. So believed James Madison. Nowhere is this more true than in the area of "police power". It should be noted the Constitution only extends police powers to the federal government in case of "counterfeiting, treason, piracy and offenses against the laws of nations." Which makes for disturbing news from Homeland Security. Seems citizens need to be aware of yet more when flying. Walter Williams illuminates. There is a new federal offense for air passengers. Called "nonphysical interference", it carries up to $1,500 in fines for distracting a Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) screener's attention from what he is doing. Williams writes the definition of

... nonphysical interference is solely up to the discretion of a TSA screener since it isn't defined in the regulations. TSA agents can levy fines for a passenger disagreeing with the behavior or arrogance of a screener.

Williams reports hundreds of accounts of rudeness by TSA employees. In March, 2004 alone there were almost 3,000 formal complaints about TSA behavior, none of which resulted in disciplinary action. This from folks who now have authority to fine and arrest you for "interfering" with their duties! This doesn't inspire confidence in the proper exercise of power. Even worse, Williams also reports TSA has an entirely new position. Behavior Detection Officers (BDO) are now examining body language, facial expressions and other behavior to determine which passengers exhibit behavior warranting a more detailed screening. Bob, a trained BDO blogging at TSA's 'Evolutions in Security' blog, defends the practice. He notes,

The program was designed by Paul Ekman (PhD), ... He’s been studying behavioral analysis for the past 40 years and has taught the TSA, Customs and Border Protection, CIA, FBI and other federal agencies to watch for suspicious facial expressions of tension, fear or deception. ... After passing along his skills to US Customs, their “hit rate” for finding drugs during passenger searches rose to 22.5 percent from 4.2 percent in 1998.

and further relates

Between July 1, 2007 and February 7, 2008, 514 people were arrested after being referred for additional screening or directly to law enforcement officers by behavior detection officers. The arrests include unlawfully carrying concealed firearms or other weapons, possession of fraudulent documents, transporting undeclared currency, possessing illegal drugs, immigration law violations, and outstanding warrants.

I'll admit the technique increased US Customs' hit rates over 500%. I'll also note it still failed over 75% of the time. That hardly seems a scientific result to brag about. Bob says BDOs might have flagged some of the 9/11 terrorists and "subjected them to secondary screening and questioning." That might have saved lives. And it sounds low key. Citizens are singled out for searching and a few questions and bad guys get busted. However, the WSJ reports BDOs are "agents ... trained to watch what [citizens] ... do and ask pointed questions to raise their stress levels ... to conduct rapid-fire questioning to find inconsistent stories." That's a different scenario and the potential for abuse is obvious. If we apply Customs' 75% failure rate to Bob's 514 arrests, over 2,000 innocent passengers were intentionally upset, provoked and abused in producing that result. Of the list Bob touts, only "firearms and other weapons" impact air travel safety, the real job of TSA. How many of the 514 busts were weapon related? 5? 25? 100? Allowing 25 undetected weapons through would be a 1% failure rate. Doing nothing would have vastly improved TSA performance. This is an apples-to-apples comparison. Because a 75% failure rate detecting bad guys by behavior equals TSA's rate for detecting bombs at the airport! Publishing figures USA Today says "stunned security experts", the TSA itself admitted failing to detect 75% of bomb components it tried to sneak past screeners at Los Angeles International Airport. At Chicago's O'Hare, the failure rate was 60%. These figures are from 2007. But the paper also reports "Tests earlier in 2002 showed screeners missing 60% of fake bombs. In the late 1990s, tests showed that screeners missed about 40% of fake bombs ..." In what should have been a highly touted result, the best screening results came from private screening companies. In 2007, "San Francisco International Airport screeners, who work for a private company instead of the TSA, missed about 20% of the bombs, the report shows." In 2002, "... screeners failed to find fake bombs, dynamite and guns 24% of the time. The TSA ran those tests shortly after it took over checkpoint screening from security companies." TSA could immediately improve results by over 200% if they simply privatize the process! Something needs to change. The figures paint a dangerous and unflattering portrait. TSA has had a 150% turnover in personnel in just over 6 years. This means inexperienced employees, often with only basic training, are on the job. There is little in the way of technology to make up for the inexperience. This produces pressure on frontline TSA personnel. Top that off by allowing an agency without police powers to increasingly look like police and act like police and we create what 'Consumer Reports' calls "A 'facade of security'". We also have the real threat of creating the very environment terrorists desire; innocents victimized by authority in response to terrorism. I wish I had solutions. I don't. But it seems our current solution is becoming worse than what it seeks to prevent. Increasing TSA authority is the wrong response. We need less confrontational, more successful and, dare I say, non-governmental options. The goal is not safety at any price or even merely safety. It is safety within the constitutional bounds of smaller government and undiminished personal liberty. We're at another one of those crossroads. Choose wisely. Blue Collar Muse

Near the beginning of The Declaration of Independence, these words appear.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

It is here, a 30 second read into the birth of our nation, we find the most important right which government is to secure, the Pursuit of Happiness.

The Declaration establishes three foundational rights. The Constitution generally amplifies them, outlining ways government may not prevent us from exercising them. Our Right to Life is partially expressed in our Right to Keep and Bear Arms to defend that Life if threatened. Our Right to Liberty is partially expressed in our Right to Due Process to ensure any restraint on that Liberty is just.

One Right listed in the Declaration is different. It has no amplification in the Bill of Rights. The least discussed, it is the most important - the Pursuit of Happiness.

The Pursuit of Happiness is different in that it guarantees nothing. Other Rights we enjoy enumerate a concrete something. We have Freedom of Speech. Speech is a “something” that is mine. Just so with Life, Liberty, to Bear Arms, the Press - at the end of each we find something tangible. Not so with the Pursuit of Happiness.

Pursuing Happiness is the only Right which does not define an outcome. We are not guaranteed Happiness, just the Pursuit of it. We are not assured the road will not be difficult or poorly maintained, merely that it is there to be traveled. Because of this, the Pursuit of Happiness is our most precious Right. Because phrased another way, it guarantees our Right to Fail.

Happiness is different for every man. Our dreams are as individual as we are. It would have been folly to try to define Happiness; folly to determine the best path to Pursue it. Pursuits may be long or short; easy or difficult; straightforward or complicated. While I am grateful for the straightforward, short and easy ones, it is the value in the complicated, long and difficult ones which the Declaration anticipated. Because the Pursuits teaching us the most, both building and revealing character; producing the most opportunity for us, are the difficult ones or the ones we fail to complete at all.

Thomas Edison tried over 4,000 different prototypes of the light bulb before realizing his goal. He is reported to have said, “I have not failed 4,000 times. I have discovered 4,000 ways not to create an incandescent light bulb!” Undaunted by failing in his Pursuit, Edison learned from each. It was because of, not in spite of, his failures, that he succeeded. Even the simplest Pursuits face obstacles. A man’s response to them determines not just his success in Pursuit of that specific Happiness. It determines his success for all future Pursuits as well.

Do we persist in adversity? Do we work as hard in anonymity as we do in the limelight? Do we collaborate or insist on solo Pursuits? There are a myriad lessons to be learned. Most of them are only learned through failure. As it is said, “Most good judgement comes from experience! Most experience comes from bad judgement!”

It is here where a man’s success or failure in his various Pursuits is determined. Because along with recognizing man’s Rights, the Declaration notes men institute government to secure them and that government does so only with the consent of the governed. It thus becomes vital for the governed to so value the Right to Fail they refuse to consent to any plan by government to take it from them. They must consent to striving in an environment, secured by government, in which failure is a valued result.

If We The People consent to government which takes away our Right to Fail, we consent to government which will take away our other Rights as well. Securing a government with power to eradicate our individual Pursuits, we secure a government with power to define our individual Happiness. When Happiness is defined for the many by government, individuals must surrender the rest of their Rights to facilitate the government’s Pursuit. Those refusing to do so are threats both to government and the governed. We all know how threats are dealt with.

This is the question Americans must answer. Will we be allowed to fail or not? The Left, and far too many on the Right, say, “No! No one must fail!” There remains, however, a minority which understands the value in failure. It understands the pain in little failures along the way are motivation to great Happiness at the end of the Pursuit! It understands failure is not an impediment to Happiness, it is a stepping stone to a successful Pursuit. It knows temporary suffering in a failure while Pursuing does not compare to the eternal suffering in failing to Pursue at all.

Celebrating your Independence today, understand what it means to be Independent! It means your success or failure in the Pursuit of Happiness depends on you, not the government. It means you not only can, but will, fail while in Pursuit. When your Rights are secured by government and not defined by it, you embrace failure as a blessing and not a curse, as a teacher and not a thief. You truly have Life, you are truly at Liberty, you have the best chance for a successful Pursuit!

In college, I hung a poster on my wall which read, “A ship in a harbor is safe. But that is not what ships were made for!” Enjoy your Pursuit! Godspeed!

Blue Collar Muse

A friend sent me a link to an editorial from the Hartford (CT) Courant authored by Robert Satter. Mr. Satter is a judge trial referee in Hartford Superior Court and author of "Under the Gold Dome — An Insider's Look at the Connecticut Legislature." He is also, in my opinion, a very dangerous man. He has power and influence and is using them to undermine the foundation on which our country was built.

Connecticut votes in November on whether or not to hold a Constitutional Convention to amend or revise its constitution. Some want to do so to give citizens the right to directly petition their government via the Initiative and Referendum (I&R) process. I&R allows an issue to be voted on by putting it put on the ballot by citizen request as opposed to legislative action.

The I&R process is not well liked by politicians as it usually limits what they can do. It may curtail their ability to raise taxes at will or to take your property if you don't want to sell. As such, it is not easy for citizens to actually get something on the ballot. I&R may be granted by a state's constitution but laws governing the process are made by the legislature. Lawmakers determine how many signatures are needed to get an issue on the ballot and the length of time available to collect them. Such power often impedes the process so effectively it's a wonder initiatives manage to get on the ballot at all. But If Mr. Satter had his way, you wouldn't even have that right. Mere citizens aren't qualified to speak to issues. Satter starts out well enough.

The right of initiative is the right of citizens to propose laws or constitutional amendments that, if approved by a majority vote, have the force of law.

From there, his description of I&R makes it appear those desiring the power to propose a law are selfish, power mad and out to corrupt the process. Well, he's right about that, too. He just got the subject wrong. Satter thinks voters are like that. In reality it's a better description of lawmakers. I&R is a powerful tool for citizens to curb the excesses of government, not the other way around. When Mr. Satter says I&R proposals

... are drafted by private lawyers representing narrow interest groups. Their wording frames the issue and cannot later be changed.

he's arguing that's bad for citizens. Has Satter never heard of lobbyists, lawyers and lawmakers? Are outsider Environmentalists OK as a narrow interest group when seeking to impose their view on the state but citizens who actually have to live with the laws passed too narrow an interest group to have an interest in the law? Mr Satter says,

Those signatures are not spontaneously given by the public, but must be actively solicited. In the initiative states, a cottage industry of signature solicitors has sprung up. In California, it typically costs $1 million to obtain the requisite number of signers.

Does he not understand support for a bill in the legislature does not spontaneously arise? Lawmakers expend huge amounts of time and energy actively soliciting the support of their colleagues. He dismisses the labor by which I&R signatures are gathered and ridicules those doing the work as a "cottage industry". He misleads readers by irresponsibly using the figure of $1 million with no context. If signature gathering is a cottage industry, what sort of "industry" is lobbying the legislature to get an issue on the ballot? Satter does not say where the money comes from to pay for signature gathering, just that it is spent. But these are not tax dollars, they are privately raised funds. If private money should not be used to influence the legislative process, I'll have to point again to lobbyists. Satter doesn't provide the total spent on lobbying the Connecticut legislature when it is in session. Something tells me it's more than $1 million.

But Robert Satter's worst insult to the intelligence and character of voters is saved for later.

And how is the campaign over initiative proposals waged? It is waged by slogans, bumper stickers, 10-second sound bites and by TV ads as if selling toothpaste. The vote is yes or no, up or down. There is not the deliberation and accommodation of the legislative process in which bills are carefully scrutinized by committees of cognizance, subjected to a public hearing, debated in both chambers and ultimately signed by the governor. In that process, all sides of the issue are explored, its relationship to other matters of public policy considered, negotiations between opposing sides conducted, and compromises and changes of wording made. In lawmaking by plebiscite, people rarely read the exact language of the propositions. They vote their general impression of the issue.

Do only I&R campaigns use slogans and sound bites? Does Satter really believe every bill passed is carefully read, deliberated and analyzed before being voted on? Is Satter actually arguing amendments hung on bills at the last second are completely understood and their ramifications tested and deemed acceptable? Is he seriously arguing citizens are incapable evaluating the impact their proposed I&R will have? It is true citizens don't debate the possible impact of the law for a couple of weeks before passing it and hoping for the best as the legislature does. Citizens are forced to live with the actual results of those laws. Tens of thousands of hours of debate and analysis then take place in legislative chambers known as kitchen tables, water coolers, carpools and the like. By the time an I&R is proposed, the issue is well known. Usually because citizens have already asked the legislature to fix the problem and they have refused. In such cases, I&R is often the citizens last resort.

But Robert Satter thinks that's a bad thing. The people of Connecticut, or anywhere else, shouldn't be able to insist their lawmakers really represent them. Citizens are ignorant peasants without the requisite intelligence, interest, time or ability to understand the workings of government. That lofty pursuit is best left to better men. Satter's premise is flawed. His conclusions are wrong. His arrogant contempt for citizens he seems to believe should be ruled over as opposed to represented is offensive. I&R is precisely what Connecticut and every other state without it needs, including my state of Tennessee. Without it, we are at the mercy of elitists like Robert Satter. While he may consider that a good thing, I find the prospect terrifying.

Blue Collar Muse.

On a recent Sunday morning drive to church, I saw this sign. I was immediately struck by two things.

First, it hasn't taken long for players on the Left to start marching to the beat of misinformation, deception and lies that must be part of Obama's campaign if he is to win. He cannot be seen for who he really is or he will lose. Second, this is the Union's marquis, not just Greg Stallings'. How many members believe gas prices are Bush's fault?

Lies and deception? Those are harsh words. However, the question is, are they justified? An objective consideration of facts says they are. The sign's point is the price of gas has increased from $1.46 p/gal to over $4.00 p/gal since 01/01. It was Bush's watch so it must be Bush's fault. Voters should, therefore, punish Bush and the GOP for their mismanagement and vote Democrat this Fall.

However, questions must be asked. Can only politicians impact price or might other factors explain the increase? If politicians are to blame, might a politician other than Bush be responsible?

Market forces and events impact price. 9/11 happened on W's watch and had such an impact. But unless W generated more US hatred in 8 months than Clinton did in 8 years, you cannot conclude price changes after 9/11 were Bush's fault. They may not be Clinton's but they sure aren't Bush's. Yet for Leftist coalition members like Unions, there are no market explanations. It's all political! Where is the Union's objective consideration of the impact of market forces? They offer only political solutions. It doesn't have to be true, just effective. How does misrepresenting the issue serve their members?

If, however, we assume politicians can impact the market, why assume only the Executive branch can? According to Energy Information Administration data, graphing gas's price over time yields interesting results. From 01/01 when Bush took office to 01/07, when Democrats took back Congress, the price of a gallon of gas went from $1.49 to just $2.29. That's just an $0.80 p/gal increase over 6 years! This time frame includes 9/11 ($1.56 in 09/01), the Gulf War ($1.73 in 03/03) and Hurricane Katrina ($2.95 in 09/05)! There were several drops in price during that time. Once the price actually fell below the $1.49 starting price! However, from 01/07 to today the price rose from $2.29 per gallon to $4.11! Almost a $2 per gallon increases in 18 months! 150% worse performance in 25% of the time! There was one dip in price which never neared the starting price! What event marks this time period? Democrats regained control of Congress. So why doesn't the sign read “When Democrats took office gas was $2.29”? Leftists cannot have it both ways. In 2000 they charged Bush was in bed with Big Oil. During the '06 elections, Democrats again blamed Bush for high gas prices and vowed to fix it if only we'd elect them. Americans fell for the lie and Democrats were voted in. How have they performed?

It's actually worse since Congress could reduce the cost of gas tomorrow if they'd rescind the federal tax on gas. All Americans would benefit, including Union members. But it isn't about helping Americans, unionized or not. It's about power for Democrats and their Union allies. If access to tax dollars to dole out is reduced, the Left loses power. It's unlikely Democrats would permit that to happen.

But the real tragedy is not that Unions and Democrats are selling out the country for personal gain. It is that misdirecting the people's attention away from the real reasons for high fuel prices guarantees the problem will not be fixed. Is this really the sort of representation Americans need in Union halls and legislatures? It cannot be said too many times. The Left says they are for the common man. But their actions say different. Despite deceptive signs, it's actions, not words, which mean the most.

Perhaps Americans will reconsider voting for the Left in November. They may want to reconsider union management votes as well. Gas may not cost less in the short run but there will be people interested in fixing the problem in office. Elected officials, union and governmental, who care enough to tell you the truth.

Thinking that's a good sign, both for unions and for government ...

Blue Collar Muse