By Gareth Morgan [28-08-2003]

Home Office officials have confirmed that the UK Passport Service intends to run a trial of biometric testing, in an as yet unnamed town with a population of around 10,000.

A spokeswoman for the Home Office told vnunet.com that the trial would help establish the efficacy of methods such as fingerprint reading, iris scanning and facial recognition in verifying identity.

The trial is intended to speed the introduction of new passports. But privacy campaigners have warned that it will be used to push through the government's controversial plans for a national identity card, and have urged people not to participate.

"Without cooperation, the trial cannot proceed. So my advice is: don't participate," said Ian Brown, director of the Foundation for Information Policy Research.

The government will need to introduce new legislation before it can introduce ID cards, but it could use the biometric passport trial to prove the technology.

The Home Office has been reluctant to release details of the trial. But a spokeswoman confirmed that it would not be based on passport renewals, meaning that the public would be asked to submit biometric data voluntarily.

When asked why the public would do so, the Home Office spokeswoman replied: "For the good of the future passport service."

But public support is unlikely to be forthcoming, according to Brown.

"The whole process, since home secretary David Blunkett announced the plans, has been frankly Orwellian," he said.

"First they try to play down the requirement to hold the card; then the government ignores the responses to its consultation exercise. People are against holding these cards."

The trials come on the back of fresh government initiatives to pave the way for greater acceptance of biometric testing.

In July, the government announced plans to use biometric screening on all immigration applicants from Sri Lanka. It now plans to extend this scheme.

"Biometrics can play a big part in tackling illegal immigration and abuse of our asylum system," said David Blunkett in a statement

Arnold Schwarzenegger Laughs Off Oui Interview on Talk Radio;
Next Day Has 'No Memory' of '77 Interview
Another porno interview from '81 reveals Arnold used to be pro-gun rights but is now pro-gun control.

AUGUST 30, 2003 --Arnold Schwarzenegger was asked on Wednesday by a conservative radio host to talk about his racy 1977 Oui magazine interview -- detailing drug use and group sex. The GOP gubernatorial candidate responded with a laugh, "I never lived my life to be a politician. I never lived my life to be the governor of California."

"Obviously, I've made statements that were ludicrous and crazy and outrageous and all those things, because that's the way I always was," he said.

A day later, he was asked about it at a press conference. "I have no idea what you're talking about," he told reporters. "I have no memory of any of the articles I did 20 or 30 years ago."

In an interview on Sacramento radio station KFBK last Wednesday, talk show host Mark Williams specifically asked Schwarzenegger about the Oui article, which had just been posted on the Internet.

"Obviously, I've made statements that were ludicrous and crazy and outrageous and all those things, because that's the way I always was," he said.

"I was always that way" he said, "because otherwise I wouldn't have done the things that I did in my career, including the bodybuilding and the show business and all those things."

But 24 hours later, the candidate -- in response to reporters' questions -- said repeatedly he did not remember the interview and refused to comment on it.

Campaign spokesman Rob Stutzman -- asked to explain the different responses -- said that Schwarzenegger "does not recall, specifically, a specific interview he gave 25 years ago."

"He came out there prepared to talk about what he was going to do in Fresno, prepared to talk about the (agricultural) economy," Stutzman said Friday. Asked if the candidate had seen the Oui postings, Stutzman said, "he has not seen it. I don't know if he will see it. Californians should rest assured their next governor doesn't sit around surfing Drudge."

"This could have been a one day story, and it was all in the hands of Arnold Schwarzenegger. And he dropped the ball," Bebitch Jeffe said. "It's the equivalent of, 'I can't hear you, Matt,' " the response Schwarzenegger gave to "Today" show host Matt Lauer's query if he would release his taxes.

But in coming weeks, Schwarzenegger may also have to answer questions about other interviews he's done in the past -- some of them dealing with policy issues rather than personal issues.

In a 1981 interview with Penthouse, Schwarzenegger -- who has come out in favor of gun control -- detailed how he was strongly against gun control, because it "forbids law-abiding citizens from owning guns but doesn't stop the criminals, who can always buy them on the black market."

"Also, there have never been valid statistics to prove that gun control has worked," Schwarzenegger told Penthouse. "There are gun-control laws in Austria and Germany, but more people have guns there than you can imagine. You can get them everywhere on the black market. Gun control isn't the answer. Stiffer punishments are the answer."

AUGUST 29, 2003 -- My name is Brooke Adams. I’m 25, independent, a business executive with courage to fix what’s wrong with California. Taking bold action, I’ll rollback car taxes, fix worker’s compensation, encourage business investment, reduce spending and set our state on the right course.

My administration will champion individual freedom

We will champion personal responsibility and smaller government. It’s time to let a new generation of leaders control our destiny. I will work hard to make California great again.

The Platform of Brooke Adams

Preamble

The People of the State of California are entitled and have the absolute right to elect a Governor who will champion the principles of Individual Freedom, Personal Responsibility, and Smaller Government, all of which were embodied by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution of the United States.

The time has come for Brooke Adams and a New Generation of Leaders to remove a failed generation of politicians, beginning with Gray Davis. The now discredited “Me First” older generation will be replaced by a younger generation which will lead the Golden State into a Golden Era of Greatness.

In every decision and every position taken by the Adams Administration, Governor Adams pledges to the People that she will abide by these three guiding principles, working diligently to restore California and its People to greatness, wealth, success, and happiness.

Individual Freedom

Little-by-little, year-by-year, the People of California have lost individual freedom through government interference with their basic personal rights, property rights and business rights. Over 150 years ago, this Great State was founded by rugged individuals who had the unalienable right to succeed and the equally unalienable right to fail.

There was no safety net to save these freedom-loving pioneers who built hundreds of towns and villages, many of which are now world class centers of commerce and culture. The Adams Administration, mindful that every great American success story was grounded in challenges, difficulties and failures, will give Californians back their basic civil right to prosper or fail.

The discredited notion of a benevolent state government whose purpose is to protect its citizens from harsh yet valuable lessons of life is repudiated. The “Me First” Generation will be replaced by a New Generation of Leaders under the Adams Administration, all of whom will work tirelessly to foster a new era of Individual Freedom and Greatness among Californians.

Personal Responsibility

The course of public debate will change under the Adams Administration from a focus on Personal Rights to one of Personal Responsibility. Just 40 years ago, President John F. Kennedy challenged this nation to ask not what their country could do for them, but what they could do for their country. President Kennedy was part of the Greatest Generation, a generation sadly followed by the “Me First” Generation, a generation of baby boomers who have failed in their responsibilities to both their elders and their children.

The “Me First” Generation has mocked President Kennedy’s challenge, demanding more and more from state government, bringing only pain and suffering to California. Returning to the wisdom of the Greatest Generation, the Adams Administration will restore a sense of Personal Responsibility in the People of California. During an inaugural speech that will be dedicated to the memory of President Kennedy, Governor Adams will call on the citizens of California to make Personal Responsibility their top priority.

'Victory Act' expands federal power to seize money, tap phones of Narcoterrorists
Ashcroft and Orrin Hatch say there is a new threat: narco-terrorism. This law will allow prosecutors to freeze assets (take all money) if you are accused of "narcoterrorism."

August 25, 2003 -- As Attorney General John Ashcroft begins a barnstorming tour of the country to bolster support for existing antiterrorism laws, Senate Republicans are discussing legislation that would expand the Justice Department's powers to investigate terrorists and drug criminals.

Recent drafts of the "Victory Act," which carry the names of Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and four other Senate Republicans, would provide extra penalties for drug dealers allegedly connected to terrorist groups and would dramatically expand the government's power to seize records and conduct wiretaps in connection with "narcoterrorism" investigations.

The proposal also targets alleged "interstate currency couriers" by making it a crime to carry more than $10,000 in a vehicle in connection with illegal activity. Prosecutors also would be able to freeze the assets of defendants arrested on money-laundering charges for 30 days, regardless of whether the assets are connected to a crime, according to the draft legislation.

Justice Department officials stress that they have not been involved in creating or revising the Victory Act proposal. Several of the measures are similar to proposals made during the early debate over the USA Patriot Act, the controversial antiterrorism package approved in October 2001 that Ashcroft is defending during his U.S. tour.

Hatch spokeswoman Margarita Tapia said the Senate Judiciary committee chairman "is continuing to look at all legislative options for combating the nexus between drug trafficking and terrorism," but declined to comment on the Victory Act.

The proposals have prompted an outcry from the American Civil Liberties Union, the criminal-defense bar and some Democrats, who argue that the Bush administration and Senate Republicans are attempting to use the terrorist threat to mask broad changes in drug-trafficking laws.

"The Victory Act represents a major expansion of federal surveillance, asset forfeiture and other powers under the guise of linking the war on drugs to the war on terrorism," said Tim Edgar, legislative counsel for the ACLU. "It does not address the intelligence problems that led to the Sept. 11 attacks, continuing a failed policy of simply granting more power to the government instead of ensuring the government uses its existing powers effectively."

Ashcroft and Hatch have said that terrorist groups and drug cartels are increasingly interrelated, particularly in South America and the Middle East, and both have advocated tougher laws to combat the problem.

The Victory Act proposal includes numerous expansions of prosecutorial power in traditional drug cases and in those deemed related to terrorism, according to experts who have studied the bill.

It would give the government more latitude to freeze assets of alleged drug traffickers or terrorists; would make it easier to charge drug defendants with aiding terrorists; and would loosen the standards used to convict defendants of laundering money through informal money exchange networks.

During an appearance earlier this month on "Fox News Sunday," Ashcroft argued in favor of one of the Victory Act's key provisions, which would allow prosecutors to seize records in terrorism cases through the use of administrative subpoenas. Such subpoenas, which are commonly used in fraud investigations, do not require the approval of a judge.

"We'll probably need to add some more tools in our tool kit against terror," Ashcroft said.

Russia Restricts Abortion -- New York Times
Russia's demographic crisis has led to demands that steps be taken to reverse the declining population trend. Though the country's birth rate rose last year — to 9.8 births per 1,000 people from 9.1 the year before — the population over all is projected to continue to decline. For every 10 births in Russia, there are still nearly 13 abortions(!).

AUGUST 23, 2003 --Hesitantly and with little public debate, Russia has increased its restrictions on abortion for the first time in nearly half a century.

Russia's abortion regulations remain permissive — there are still no limits on abortions in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy — but the new restrictions appear to reflect the first stirrings of a wider debate here over the morality of abortion, as well as the effect abortions are having on women's health and on the demographic future of Russia.

Ever since 1955, when the Soviet Union lifted a ban that had been imposed by Stalin in 1936, abortion here has been a common and widely accepted means of birth control, giving Russia one of the highest abortion rates in the world.

The collapse of the Soviet Union and with it the increased availability of contraceptives has resulted in a substantial decline in abortions in Russia — from a high of 4.6 million in 1988 to 1.7 million last year. But now the Ministry of Health, under pressure from conservative lawmakers, has decided to reduce the number further through government-imposed restrictions on what has effectively been free and virtually unlimited access to abortion.

Before the new restrictions, which took effect on Aug. 11, women could receive an abortion between the 12th and 22nd weeks of their pregnancies by citing one of 13 special circumstances called "social indicators," including divorce, poverty, unemployment or poor housing.

The government's decision has reduced the number to four: rape, imprisonment, the death or severe disability of the husband or a court ruling stripping a woman of her parental rights. Being a single mother or a refugee is no longer reason enough to abort a pregnancy after the 12th week.

The list of social indicators has been in place since the Soviet government adopted them in 1987. At that time, they served the purpose of significantly expanding access to abortion after the 12th week.

Yuri M. Bloshansky, Moscow's chief gynecologist for the past 40 years, said the government did so at that time in large part to address the risks posed by women seeking illegal abortions, often in unsafe conditions.

Top Alabama Judge Vows to Take Ten Commandments
Fight to Supreme Court
First amendment guarantees "constitutional right to acknowledge God"

AUGUST 21, 2003 -- Judge Roy Moore told the supporters he was disappointed with his colleagues on the Alabama Supreme Court who want it removed and will file a new petition to the United States Supreme Court to recognize God under the first amendment.

The chief justice had appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) for an emergency stay of the removal order, but the court rejected it Wednesday. Moore said Thursday he would file a formal appeal with the high court soon "to defend our constitutional right to acknowledge God."

"I cannot forsake my conscience," he said.

Richard Cohen, an attorney for the Southern Poverty Law Center — which sued along with the American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) and Americans United for Separation of Church and State — praised the eight justices.

"Their courageous actions reflect that Justice Moore is a disgrace to the bench and ought to resign or be removed from office," Cohen said.

The Brave New Globalist World
It took generations of hard working, sacrificing Americans to build our economic system, a system now being dismantled by small-minded, greedy globalists.

By Lawrence J. McNamee

JULY 30, 2003 -- As Americans witness the flight of their manufacturing and now white-collar service sector jobs to Asia and Latin America and other nations with low wages, some are asking, "What is the real intention of the U.S.-based multinational corporations?" Perhaps economic globalism represents an attempt to equalize incomes of the First World and Third World. Yet this policy is impoverishing American workers and providing highly exploitative, low-paying jobs elsewhere. This could be discounted as just misguided economic policy if the policy was not making the highest investment incomes in the world higher still.

When the United States shifted from a nation where most personal wealth came from some form of productive labor to one derived from the value of stock holdings, short-term thinking and shallow, self-serving policies took root. At that point the very nature of the game of capitalism changed for the United States and for the world. The speculative economy can be reported as doing well, while the productive economy and its workers' incomes are marginalized. Hence, we have our current "jobless recovery."

Today IBM contemplates firing thousands of American software engineers so that the company can employ thousands of Indian software engineers. The Indian professionals will work for a fraction of the salaries currently paid their U.S. counterparts. This is what commentator Kevin Phillips calls "the race to the bottom." In theory, minimized wages yield minimized costs which result in maximized profits. Unfortunately, this also increases unemployment and reduces the quality of life in the United States.

Such short-term economic thinking has the potential to turn the "race to the bottom" into a race to global ruin. Men are not angels, and appeals to the marketplace or to modernism are only a thin coating of gloss on the ugly surface of unchallenged greed. When coal miners went on strike in 1902, President Theodore Roosevelt asked mine workers and mine owners to come to the nation's capital and negotiate in good faith. Representatives of the mine workers arrived, while representatives of the mine owners refused, citing a sort of "divine right of capitalists" as their reason. Roosevelt threatened to nationalize the mines if the owners continued to refuse to negotiate. Divine right took a fast turn and the owners sent their men to Washington and the matter was resolved.

Even in this age of lightning-fast communication, there remains such a thing as the national interest. Until globalist corporate America understands it is the national interest, and not short-term profits and stock market prices, that represents the ultimate "bottom line," this erosion of the economic infrastructure of the United States will continue. More jobs will disappear here and the gains to our neighbors will be small and temporary. The clock is ticking off a countdown to the end of the political-economic system that took so much of America's strength and heart to build. At least two hundred and fifteen years of innovation and sacrifice is being downsized to nothing.

Lawrence McNamee is a History Instructor and writer in San Antonio, Texas. He is the proud son of a retired American industrial worker.

Citizine Home