The WAWG Blog

According to Adam Davidson of NPR , there are:

• 15 major ports in the U. S.;
• Roughly 100 terminals amongst these ports;
• SSA Marine, an American company, is the biggest terminal operator with 7 terminals;
• Maher Terminals, also an American company, is the next biggest with one terminal in Port Elizabeth, N.J.;
• The two American companies represent about 10 percent of the terminal operations business;
• About a dozen terminals are managed by city or state governments;
• That leaves about 80 that are operated primarily by foreign shipping lines; and
• These foreign companies are from all over the world – China, Denmark, Singapore, South Korea, Venezuela, and soon the UAE.

Wait a minute. Why all this fuss about the UAE, a capitalist, pro-United States federation? Isn’t Venezuela the one South American country that is blatantly anti-U.S.? Why isn’t there an uproar about this foreign company and their operation of terminals in Florida? According to Grupo Intershipping’s history, “As per the request of one of our represented lines in Venezuela, on February, 2001, we founded and formed our first international branch firm: INTERNATIONAL PORT SERVICES, Inc. (INTERPORT) a shipping agency acting in the south Florida ports of Miami and Port Everglades in the United States of America.”

As I stated in my previous article, this is more about political grandstanding than national security. In the NPR story referenced below, Adam Davidson concludes the article by confronting some of our Congressman that have been expressing their angst over the DP World business deal. He asked them for the names of their port security experts with whom they have consulted and who agree that this is a national security issue. Only one could provide names. Adam checked with those experts and neither felt that the UAE deal was a national security issue.

What’s really needed is for the Department of Homeland Security to boost the resources of the Coast Guard and U. S. Customs at our 15 major ports.

DP World rhetoric is everywhere. Here are some facts about managing terminals, not ports, inside and outside the United States, and about Dubai Ports (DP) World.

The ports themselves are owned by local taxpayers and run by local governments. Port authorities issue leases to multiple companies to operate the terminals that load and unload cargo containers from ships. Some of these companies are foreign-owned, others are U.S.-based.

On February 11, 2005, DP World’s purchase of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.’s worldwide operations, which includes terminals at six American ports, including Philadelphia, New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans and Miami, was approved by Bush Administration appointees.

The approval of the purchase came from the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) which includes 12 representatives: the Secretary of Treasury John Snow, as the chairman, Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, the Department of Homeland Security, the Secretaries of State, Defense, and Commerce, the Attorney General, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the U.S. Trade Representative, and the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. (What is the common factor among these members?)

The contract value is $6.8 billion, but only 10 percent of that effort is in the U.S. The rest of the contract is for port terminals in Europe. The entire contract will grow DP World from 19 terminal operations contracts to 50, including the 6 in the U.S.

DP World will be doing the same work with the same American employees as the old company. Imagine building a two dimensional pyramid. The base is made up of the American workers moving all that cargo. The next smaller layer is the worker’s American supervisors. The next layer is the supervisor’s American managers, and at the top is DP World management, which reports to the Dubai’s Ports, Customs and Freezones Authority (PCFC).

What part of the jointly owned New York/New Jersey Port is being leased by DP World? The jointly owned New York/New Jersey Port includes:

• 6 terminals which are each rented to private companies to run day-to-day operations
• day-to-day operations include getting cargo off ships and onto trains and trucks
• two terminals are operated by a Chinese companies
• two are operated by American companies
• one by a Danish company
• one that is jointly run by a Danish company and DP World

Half of the east coast terminals are foreign managed and 90 percent of the west coast terminals, not ports, are foreign operated.

Have you heard, in any of the news, about the Container Security Initiative (CSI)? Probably not. You probably also didn’t know that the United Arab Emirates (UAE), owner of DP World, is the only country from the middle east that has implemented CSI at Dubai.

In March of 2005, the U. S. Customs and Border Protection CBP summarized the 35th CSI agreement this way, “The United Arab Emirates became the first Middle Eastern country to join CSI when the declaration of principles was signed in Dubai on December 12, 2004. A CBP deployment team will work closely with the UAE government personnel to target high-risk cargo containers destined for the United States. Dubai Customs Administration officials are responsible for screening any container identified jointly with CBP officers as a potential terrorist risk.”

According to an NPR story, The Issues Behind the Port Security Uproar, “The United States has agreements in 42 major foreign ports that allow Customs officials to sweep containers with imaging and radiation detection technology. ‘Since Sept. 11, we do screening as much as possible outside the U.S.,’ said Stewart Baker, assistant secretary for policy with the DHS. ‘We don’t want to discover a weapon of mass destruction inside a U.S. port.'”

There was also a confidential agreement with DP World with CFIUS that requires DP World to make available certain company records. As part of the purchase, state-owned Dubai Ports World agreed to reveal records on demand about “foreign operational direction” of its business at U.S. ports. Those records broadly include details about the design, maintenance or operation of ports and equipment.

Michael Grey of the maritime journal, Lloyd’s List, provided the following facts in a story with NPR:

• DP World was started in 1999 to make money in the port management industry
• DP World could be the forth largest such terminal operations company
• About a year ago DP World bought part of another U. S. corporation, CSX World Terminals, Jacksonville, FL

Wait a minute, DP World already owns part of another U.S. company? And nobody complained? According to a February 23, 2005 article in the Jacksonville Business Journal, “Dubai Ports International has completed its acquisition of the international terminal business of CSX Corp. Dubai Ports paid $1.14 billion for CSX World Terminals.”

Here’s at least a contributing factor to this successful purchase. According to ABC News:

Secretary of the Treasury John Snow was sworn into office on Feb. 3, 2003, replacing Paul O’Neill, who had a contentious relationship with the White House and some members of Congress.

Prior to that, Snow was chairman and chief executive officer of CSX Corp., where he had worked for 20 years and led the company to refocus on its core railroad business.

That’s about all the facts I’ve found so far. So, what about the potential DP World national security issue?

There has been a lot of fuss about this, even from some Republicans, but I’m not convinced that there is a national security issue based on who manages those that operate the cranes and forklifts at some terminals of some of our ports. All the facts above seem to indicate to me the possibility that something else is going on.

First, anyone who discusses this situation and uses the phrase “control of our ports” should get a dope slap!!! Everyone is doing it and everyone is speaking incorrectly and inciting others when they use that phrase!!! Whether it is DP World, Chinese companies, Danish companies, or American companies, they are leasing or renting a terminal at a port and hiring locals to do the work. U.S. ports are owned and managed by U. S. citizens.

Second, what’s different about this situation as far as President Bush not knowing about it until after the uproar starts? That’s how he operates. Don’t confuse him with details, thick reports, or long PowerPoint presentations. He appointed others, whom he will unquestioningly support, to do the real work while he goes out and beats the drums for his current pet project. Also, his leadership by example explains why CFIUS may have operated improperly. Since the President can ignore wire tapping laws, why can’t Bush’s appointees in CFIUS ignore their rules of operation?

Third, is it really that strange that members of Congress are protesting – even members of Bush’s own party? Remember this is an election year and riding the low flapping coat tails of President Bush is not the way to get reelected. But what if party leaders, looking to the future, saw this as an opportunity to build a wall between those looking to get reelected and a President in decline? (I would like to see a chart showing how many of these rebelling Republicans are running for reelection this year?)

Fourth, it’s a requirement for the Democrats to protest. They hope to make gains in November, and, more importantly, they feel safe from mass ridicule by Republican issued “talking points”. This also reminds me of a shark feeding frenzy. But that is natural – this uproar is manmade and suspect from the start.

Fifth, if I were a terrorist and wanted to study port operations for possible attack, wouldn’t I follow the standard low budget, low profile approach? Why would I spend even 10 percent of $6.8 billion, when I could rent a room overlooking the terminal of interest? Why would I risk bringing on such protests and attention? And what if the port I’m interested in is not the one that DP World will share with some Danish company? What makes that terminal such a prime target?

On the other hand, maybe this is a great awakening to something our new Department of Homeland Security experts have missed in their various sad attempts to make this country secure from terrorists. Are we finally realizing that many of the infrastructures that have been taken for granted as purely commercial have now become truly national security vulnerabilities?

I can’t be totally sure, but I still think all the fuss is mostly political grandstanding bolstered by politicians too in love with their plush jobs in Congress.

Another point. According to the CIA – The World Factbook “The UAE is a drug transshipment point for traffickers given its proximity to Southwest Asian drug producing countries; the UAE’s position as a major financial center makes it vulnerable to money laundering.” Maybe, our politicians should be concerned about this?

Lastly, if you have information concerning possible terrorist use of shipping containers to smuggle weapons or other items, you may be entitled to a reward for the information provided. Please email the DHS with your information at containersecurity@dhs.gov.

(For more details on the above, refer to the various NPR reports below, or just google it.)

In this fifth survey for the WAWG index, the group average jumped by 68 percent from January, 2006.    The one reason for the large jump was a huge 1,017 percent increase for “election fraud”. The fraud jump continues the upward trend for this category.
 
“Protected corporate power” also continues it’s upward trend almost tripling last month’s increase at 18 percent for February.

Of the fourteen items tracked, 6 were down, 8 were up, and 0 were unchanged. The cumulative change for the index is up 56 percent.

It was late Friday afternoon and I arrived home from work to greet Mary. She had good news. Earlier that day she found an ad for a couple of Shih Tzu puppies. She called the number in the ad at about 2:00 PM and talked with Diane. Mary let her know we were interested in the female. Diane said that she would be meeting another family to sell one of the two puppies around 6:00 PM. If this first family chose the male, she would call back and we would meet to take ownership and greet a new family member. She said she was driving a dark green Ford Explorer.

Mary’s Shih Tzu search had been going on for months. She spent many hours each day searching the web and the many, many options for Shih Tzus. There were new puppies and foster homes for rescued dogs. It now looked like her efforts were about to pay a dividend.

At about 6:30 PM, our phone rang. It was Diane. The other familiy chose the male and she would meet us at the Jack in the Box off Highway 290 in Waller, Texas at about 8 PM.

We grabbed the kennel, a couple of old towels, and headed north. At about that same time, the coldest cold front for the winter was sweeping across east Texas. The winds were gusting up to about 40 mph.

As we arrived at the Jack in the Box, we searched the parking lot for the dark green SUV, but she wasn’t there yet. We did notice another woman sitting in her car looking like she might be waiting for Diane also. Mary got out to go get some coffee and the cold wind caught the door and pulled it from her grasp. She closed the door and went around to talk to the other lady and then got her coffee.

Mary came back with her coffee and some orange juice for me. She found out from the other woman that Diane had had a flat. It wasn’t but a few minutes later and Diane drove up. She had several dogs including our Shih Tzu to deliver. Mary was the first one there and brought the puppy back to our car and got inside out of the cold. Diane took care of the other two families and then came to sit with us while we completed the transfer of ownership. Diane provided proof of her short medical history, she was born on November 6, 2005, and insisted that we get to our vet ASAP to get her checked and stay on schedule for shots and de-worming.

On the drive back, the puppy spent the entire time in Mary’s lap – love at first sight. This was the 14th week in the puppy’s short life.

Saturday was a slow day. Mary called the vet and set an appointment for Monday at 10:00 AM. The puppy seemed depressed and unhappy, but she began to drink and make the usual deposits. We were prepared for this and tried to minimize the effects. Occasionally, we took her outside hoping she would make a deposit there instead. It was cold, so we didn’t stay too long.

Sunday was a much better day, but still cold. Our daughter, Dawn, and her Shih Tzu, Samantha, came to visit. The puppy was beside herself and really perked up from that point on. She started eating and holding up and wagging her tail all the time.

While Dawn and Samantha were there, we worked on picking a name for the puppy. We came up with lots of names that Mary did not accept. Finally, but without much originality, we settled on Pepper.

After Dawn left, Pepper and I spent time outside, it was mild and she seemed to be enjoying the romp around the yard – breathing in all that fresh air.

Monday came and I had to return to work. Before I left, I let Pepper out of her kennel. She was just so excited and happy. This was the start of her 15th week. I took her out for a short, but cold, attempt at getting her to relieve herself outside. But nothing happened and we quickly returned to the warm house.

Mary called during the day to keep me posted on Pepper’s progress and vet visit. The vet reviewed her medical record, examined her, and gave her the required shots including her second one for Parvo and Distemper. He spent 45 minutes with her and pronounced she was quite healthy.

When I got home Monday from work, Mary was at the store so I got Pepper from her kennel and we went outside for a while and waited for Mary’s return. That evening Pepper had a couple of BMs in the front yard and was praised for her good deeds.

Tuesday was not like Monday. Pepper was listless and her kennel bedding was wet. As the morning progressed she was vomiting and had diarrhea. Mary rushed her to the vet where she spent the day. She had a temperature of 104 when she arrived. The vet got her re-hydrated and stopped the loss of fluids, got her temperature down, took blood and an x-ray, but had no diagnosis. He let Mary bring her home that evening.

We spent the evening, night, and early morning watching her. She was having difficulty breathing and kept moving from one spot to another to try to get comfortable. At about 2:00 AM Mary woke me to say Pepper was having dry heaves and she was taking her to the emergency pet clinic. Her temperature was at 104.6. The vet diagnosed distemper and little hope.

Pepper is with God and we miss her immensely.

We’ve learned several factors contributed to this tragedy: The cold (distemper virus does not survive when it’s warm), time outside in a neighborhood populated by wild carnivores, a puppy between 3 and 6 months old, the effects of the last vaccination had weakened, the Monday vaccination was too late, and we were not aware of all of these facts until it was too late.

William Deutsch tried suppressing warnings from NASA experts about climate change which went against the Bush administration policy. Then he was exposed for lying on his resume and now he’s gone.

Which political hack from the Administration of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) might take a fall for cutting the funding from Oregon State University research that concluded federally sponsored logging after the 2002 Biscuit fire in southwest Oregon actually slowed the recovery of forests.

An article in The Oregonian stated, “Administrators at OSU and scientists elsewhere said they could not recall another instance of the federal government suspending funding for research after controversial results emerge.”

The article concluded with:

Kennedy, the editor of Science, said he could not see how Donato’s paper could be seen as trying to influence legislation. The research findings might be influential, he said, but to bar them “would cripple anyone from ever working on a science problem with a policy impact.”

Andy Stahl, executive director of Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, said the suspension of funding was a “shot across the bows” to researchers who produce findings the government does not like.

“Either way, the administration, regardless of the outcome of this incident, has made its message clear,” he said. “You knuckle under and give us the results we want, or we won’t fund you.”

Regardless of whether another Bush appointee loses their job at the BLM, how many more are out there suppressing research that goes against the Bush administration’s policy?

In October, I wrote about the Administration’s expertise at applying the Peter Principle, awarding incompetence, applying the principle to the Supreme Court, twice now, and stated that, “the application of this principle may have spread farther and deeper in to the government than anyone realizes.”

In November, I wrote about the replacement of the replacement for Michael Brown in FEMA and how this replacement, Donald Powell, got this appointment, according to Alexis Grant, Powell became a member of a group referred to as the Pioneers after ‘he raised at least $100,000 for the presidential campaign’ for President Bush.

There was also the nomination of Harriett Miers to the Supreme Court that was another attempt at applying the Peter Principle and the resignation of Ken Tomlinson from the Corporation of Public Broadcasting for various “wrongdoings.”

Well the evidence of incompetence continues to grow. At the end of January, I reported about the the attempt by another appointee to suppress a NASA expert from providing information to the public. In a comment to the article, I listed the name of that appointee as reported by the Houston Chronicle; William Deutsch.

Well guess what? Mr. Deutsch has now resigned. He lied on his resume about having a degree from Texas A&M.

Here are a couple of reviews of “No Place to Hide” written by Robert O’Harrow:

Amazon.com
George Orwell envisioned Big Brother as an outgrowth of a looming totalitarian state, but in this timely survey Robert O’Harrow Jr. portrays a surveillance society that’s less centralized and more a joint public/private venture. Indeed, the most frightening aspect of the Washington Post reporter’s thoroughly researched and naggingly disquieting chronicle lies in the matter-of-fact nature of information hunters and gatherers and the insatiable systems they’ve concocted. Here is a world where data is gathered by relatively unheralded organizations that smooth the way for commercial entities to find the good customers and avoid dicey ones. Government of course too has an interest in the data that’s been mined. Information is power, especially when trying to find the bad guys. The mutually compatible skills and needs shared by private and public snoopers were fusing prior to the attacks of 9/11, but the process has since gone into hyperdrive. O’Harrow weaves together vignettes to record the development of the “security-industrial complex,” taking pains to personalize his chronicle of a movement that’s remained (perhaps purposefully) faceless. Recognizing the appeal of state-of-the-art systems that can track down a murderer/rapist with heretofore unimaginable speed, the author recognizes, too, that the same devices can mistakenly destroy reputations and cast a pall over a free society. In a post-9/11 world where homeland security often trumps personal liberty, this work is an eye-opener for those who take their privacy for granted. –Steven Stolder

From Publishers Weekly
The amount of personal data collected on ordinary citizens has grown steadily over the decades, and after 9/11, corporations that had been amassing this information largely for marketing purposes saw an opportunity to strengthen their ties with the government. But what do we really know about these data collectors, and are they trustworthy? O’Harrow, a Pulitzer finalist who covers privacy and technology issues for the Washington Post, tracks the explosive growth of this surveillance industry, with keen attention to the problems that “inevitable mistakes” along the way have created in mainstream society, from victims of identity theft who have been placed in financial jeopardy to travelers detained at the airport because of the similarity of their names to those of criminal suspects. O’Harrow gives the government’s push for increased surveillance heavy play, but he effectively presents the story’s many sides, as when he juxtaposes the perspectives of a Justice Department attorney, a civil liberties activist and Senator Patrick Leahy in the first chapter. His evenhanded account underscores the caveats of surveillance, as well-intentioned people can deploy technologies for all the right reasons only to see their apparatuses misused later on. This is a thought-provoking, comprehensive account that strikes the right balance between dismissive and alarmist.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

To get an understanding of what this information sharing can mean, watch this visualization of the future under the post 9/11 “security-industrial complex”.

If the above example doesn’t concern you, listen to the webcast below as the author explains how information the government can’t get legally is provided by companies like Choice Point. In the news recently, Google refused U.S. demand for search data – maybe this 55 minute webcast will help you understand why.

On June 11, 2001, President Bush Discussed Global Climate Change. He began, “Good morning. I’ve just met with senior members of my administration who are working to develop an effective and science-based approach to addressing the important issues of global climate change.” He went on to say,

“The working group asked the highly-respected National Academy of Sciences to provide us the most up-to-date information about what is known and about what is not known on the science of climate change.

Yet, the Academy’s report tells us that we do not know how much effect natural fluctuations in climate may have had on warming. We do not know how much our climate could, or will change in the future. We do not know how fast change will occur, or even how some of our actions could impact it.”

Maybe we don’t know enough, because information is being suppressed?

In an article from MSNBC, “James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said that officials at the space agency’s headquarters had ordered the public affairs staff to review his lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard Web site and requests for interviews from journalists.”

The article included the following:

NEW YORK – NASA’s top climate scientist said the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture in December calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases, The New York Times said Saturday.

It said he fell out of favor with the White House in 2004 after a University of Iowa speech ahead of the presidential election in which he complained that government climate scientists were being muzzled, adding that he planned to vote for Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry.

Hansen said the recent efforts to quiet him began after a lecture he gave on Dec. 6 at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco in which he said that significant emission cuts could be achieved with existing technologies, particularly in the case of motor vehicles.

Hansen said that NASA headquarters officials repeatedly phoned public affairs officers, who warned Hansen of “dire consequences” if such statements continued. The officers confirmed the warning to the Times.

So, until we do know enough, let’s keep the lid on new climate change findings.

Like the attack on the federal judiciary, our basic federalist form of government is under threat from ideologues and their impact on the Supreme Court, the Congress, and our two party system.

Before getting into details of the attack, here are the basics on federalism.  “In politics, federalism is the political philosophy that underlines a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (like states or provinces)…”  Albert Dicey says there are two conditions required:

• The existence of a body of countries “so closely connected by locality, by history, by race, or the like, as to be capable to bearing, in the eyes of their inhabitants, an impress of common nationality.”
• “The desire for national unity and the determination to maintain the independence of each man’s separate State”.

In A Survey of America, The Economist reported,  “… the structure of American politics (though not its ideology) is getting more ‘European’.  Political parties are becoming more coherent in their beliefs, and the system of government is more centralised[sic].”   The article went on to say, “For a while, things seemed to be looking up for states’ rights.   …  But the impression of decentralisation[sic] was misleading. The court’s majorities were often narrow and could be reversed in the future.”  

The Economist reported that the Supreme Court has “not always given precedence to state law” and gave the following examples:

It rejected state claims to immunity under the Family and Medical Leave Act,

It struck down an attempt by California to limit welfare benefits for new residents,

It upheld Congress’ power to overrule state laws relative to medical use of marijuana.

In a more  recent Supreme Court decision concerning doctor-assisted suicide, the court ruled 6 to 3 in favor of Oregon and against Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.  What is of concern about this decision is the three Supreme Court members who dissented.   As stated in an editorial by Froma Harrop, they were Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and the new Chief Justice, John Roberts.   One can imagine that if this case had been delayed until after nominee Alito had been seated, the decision would have been 5 to 4.  Ms. Harrop concludes her article with, “The impulse to remake everyone else in one’s own image may be human nature, but Supreme Court justices are supposed to look for higher principle.”

Relative to Congressional laws that centralize power, The Economist referred to the following examples:

• No Child Left Behind – Education has been a state and local responsibility, until this law required states to start administering nationally mandated tests.
• Matrimony – Marriage has been a matter for each state as it suits the local standards, but recently President Bush and others have suggested a Federal Marriage Amendment.
• Life and Death – Living and dying have always been ruled on by state and local courts.  Then fundamentalists in the U.S. Congress thought they knew better and asked the federal courts to get involved in the Terri Shivo case. They refused (Those damn “activist judges.” 😉 ).
• Tort reform – Now certain (medical) class-action lawsuits must be heard in federal courts, not state courts.
• Real ID Act – Starting three years from now, if you live and/or work in the United States, you’ll need a federally approved ID card to travel on an airplane, open a bank account, collect Social Security payments, or take advantage of nearly any government service. Practically speaking, your state driver’s license will have to be reissued to meet federal standards.

On the other hand, when it came to the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, Congress went the other way and delegated more power to the states by handing over a fixed annual grant and allowing them to spend the money as they wished. Why?

The Economist points out that this moral, fundamentalist approach to centralizing, “… suggests something depressing: that when politicians really care about something, as Republicans do with moral issues, they want to control and centralise[sic] it. They let control of an issue go to the states only if they are not all that interested in it.  …  If parties are going to centralise[sic] those things they care about most, regardless of whether there is a consensus, it does not bode well for American federalism.”

Our two party system is “an even more egregious example of ideology fostering centralisation[sic] and rigidity,” according to The Economist.  As I discussed in Power and Absolute Power – What Concerns Me Most, the ideologies of both parties have become clearly divided with the fundamentalists taking control of the Republican party.  The Economist put it this way, “When George Wallace was governor of Alabama, he used to say that there wasn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the parties. You could not say that now.” This growing ideological coherence has enabled national leaders to increase their control over the members of Congress, marginalize the political center, and minimize Congress’s responsiveness to voters and local issues.

Examples of partisan control over Congress include; minimizing compromise during the conference stage of a bill by either mandating votes along party/ideological lines or omitting the stage outright, appointing committee chairmanships based on who’s in power and not seniority, and minimizing the power of the minority by threatening the abolition of the only tool of the minority, filibuster.

The center is marginalized as political discord aligns with the extremes of either party. The Economist put it this way, “Ideologically driven partisanship forces people whose opinions are not sharply divided to separate themselves into hostile blocks.”

Congress is less responsive to local voters and issues and more responsive to party activists who have gained power at the local level and have control over who is nominated during the primaries. One of the reasons this is possible is gerrymandering. Those controlling Congress assure their dominance by redrawing there district boundaries to suit the party activists and thus marginalize the average voter and their issues. The Economist: “Less often noticed, redistricting embodies the triumph of national priorities over local ones. It was Mr DeLay, for instance, who rammed a controversial 2002 redistricting plan through the Texas state legislature. Because of geographical mobility, redistricting is much more important in America than in any other democracy. Redrawing the map is the only way to reflect the demographic changes in a district. In practice, the new map almost always reflects the national calculations of partisan ideologues.”

In summary, membership changes in the Supreme Court, an uncompromising and partisan Congress, and the fundamentalist control of the Republican Party are abrogating states’ rights over moral issues that do not have the support of the majority of the voters.

In this fourth month for the WAWG index, there was an average increase of 7.7 percent from December, 2005.      

January saw a 106 percent increase in obsession with crime and punishment from December, but this brings it back to the first reading in October, 2005.

After two down months, cronyism and corruption was up 12 percent, the largest increase for the month. The largest decrease was 10 percent for rampant sexism.

Two trends might be developing. One is election fraud, which increased in each of the last three readings. However, the increase has been smaller each month. The other is corporate power, which has also increased in each of the last three months but each increase is larger than the last.

Of the fourteen items tracked, 6 were down, 6 were up, and 2 were unchanged.