Political Polarity

[RayB (France)]

Why do you care about you-know-who, and why is it necessary to consider the one against the other? Why is it necessary to go back THIRTY FIVE YEARS to say "well, it can't be THAT bad what Chenery did, because it's still better than..."???

Because this forum is infected with the same disease that our government has seemed to succomb to - 'To hell with what is best for America . . . if one party says black the other has become fiercely obligated to say white.' Stupid polarization. Britain has suffered from it for as long as I can remember and is what makes it a second-rate country. We appear to be going down the same path.

Makes me sad!

[Peter Creasey]

Because this forum is infected with the same disease that our government has seemed to succomb to - 'To hell with what is best for America . . . if one party says black the other has become fiercely obligated to say white.' Stupid polarization. Britain has suffered from it for as long as I can remember and is what makes it a second-rate country. We appear to be going down the same path.
Makes me sad!

Ray, Yes, it is very sad, indeed!

Wouldn't you ascribe this disease more to one party than to the other?

[RayB (France)]

Ray, Yes, it is very sad, indeed!

Wouldn't you ascribe this disease more to one party than to the other?

Yes, but both are guilty. It is just a matter of degree. Right or wrong, at least one is trying to accomplish something while the other merely criticizes without offering assistance or alternatives.

[ndebord]

Because this forum is infected with the same disease that our government has seemed to succomb to - 'To hell with what is best for America . . . if one party says black the other has become fiercely obligated to say white.' Stupid polarization. Britain has suffered from it for as long as I can remember and is what makes it a second-rate country. We appear to be going down the same path.

Makes me sad!

Let me tell you what bothers me about this country. That one wing or the other can so dominate the agenda that the facts of the matter(s) are obscured or ignored.

Lest you decide to label me a left-wing liberal, let me provide my bona fides. When I was 16, I founded the very first teenage Republican club in a (then) trade labor union town (Bay City, Michigan). This was 1963. As the conservative movement drifted toward the Yaffers (Young Americans for Freedom) I moved to the Democrats.

Now what really really bothers me about conservatives today is this lockstep support for neo-con policy. I was watching Bill Odom on CSPAN the other day and he said what I've believed since the invasion of Iraq. This single policy misstep may well be the greatest strategic failure in American foreign policy EVER.

Every nation has strong leaders and weak leaders. From what I've seen of this Bush, he ain't his old man. He listens to a narrow range of intellectual thought, which is not in the mainstream of conservative thought. Refuses to change his mind when the facts don't support his prior reasoning or opinion and has opened Pandora's Box in the MidEast. And that is just in foreign policy. In domestic policy, he has taken a large surplus, replaced it was an even larger deficit, and introduced structural failures in revenue collection that make us subservient to a range of foreign nations who hold our notes.

And those two issues are just for starters.

[Judy G. Russell]

I think the forum is a LITTLE bit better than that, and a lot better than politics in general, but I surely agree with the politics in general criticism. The polarization is so great that it seems impossible we will ever get back to where we need to be -- in the middle.

[RayB (France)]

I think the forum is a LITTLE bit better than that, and a lot better than politics in general, but I surely agree with the politics in general criticism. The polarization is so great that it seems impossible we will ever get back to where we need to be -- in the middle.

Yep, but a 'broadband' middle where both parties can add values from their point of view in the best interest of the American people.

[Judy G. Russell]

My suspicion has always been that the middle is broadband -- that there are 20% on either side that can't be budged no matter what, and 60% in the middle.

[RayB (France)]

My suspicion has always been that the middle is broadband -- that there are 20% on either side that can't be budged no matter what, and 60% in the middle.

Yes, that is good . . . and now if the media (and, ahem, some others) would stop homing in on that 20 %, we might get back to that.

[ndebord]

Yes, that is good . . . and now if the media (and, ahem, some others) would stop homing in on that 20 %, we might get back to that.

Yes, but what if some of that media is part of the 20%?

[Judy G. Russell]

All of the media is in one 20% group or the other!

[RayB (France)]

All of the media is in one 20% group or the other!

Well, most of the mainstream media anyway. I read all sides. There is usually some truth in both. The only thing I believe is what I hear a particular person say or a transcript of it. What really irritates the hell out me is listening to a press conference/speech on the tube to be immediately followed by a 'newsman/woman' telling me what they just said. Then to drive me completely up the wall there will be an 'expert' on hand to tell me what the speaker meant. When the speaker leaves, so do I.

Ah, well . . . . .

[Judy G. Russell]

What really irritates the hell out me is listening to a press conference/speech on the tube to be immediately followed by a 'newsman/woman' telling me what they just said. Then to drive me completely up the wall there will be an 'expert' on hand to tell me what the speaker meant. When the speaker leaves, so do I.ROFL! Yeah, the "he really meant..." stuff gets to me. But I often find the "but he didn't mention..." part amusing.

[ndebord]

Well, most of the mainstream media anyway. I read all sides. There is usually some truth in both. The only thing I believe is what I hear a particular person say or a transcript of it. What really irritates the hell out me is listening to a press conference/speech on the tube to be immediately followed by a 'newsman/woman' telling me what they just said. Then to drive me completely up the wall there will be an 'expert' on hand to tell me what the speaker meant. When the speaker leaves, so do I.
Ah, well . . . . .

Ray,

The hardest part is trying to get your hand on a full and unabridged transcript these days, as for the talking heads, a pox on all of tem.

[RayB (France)]

Ray,

The hardest part is trying to get your hand on a full and unabridged transcript these days, as for the talking heads, a pox on all of tem.

Nolo contendere.

[Lindsey]

Now what really really bothers me about conservatives today is this lockstep support for neo-con policy.
One of the fathers of neoconservativism has recently denounced the way it has evolved under the Bush administration, and even pronounced the movement dead. Francis Fukuyama, author of "The End of History and the Last Man," had a remarkable op-ed piece in the Feb 19 NY Times -- which is, unfortunately, behind "pay to read" wall on the NYT web site. But look for it in a library if you haven't seen it. Some quotes from it:


The problem with neoconservatism's agenda lies not in its ends, which are as American as apple pie, but rather in the overmilitarized means by which it has sought to accomplish them.
''The End of History'' . . . presented a kind of Marxist argument for the existence of a long-term process of social evolution, but one that terminates in liberal democracy rather than communism. In the formulation of the scholar Ken Jowitt, the neoconservative position articulated by people like Kristol and Kagan was, by contrast, Leninist; they believed that history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will. Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik version, and it has returned as farce when practiced by the United States. Neoconservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something I can no longer support.
[My bolding.]
[The] overoptimism about postwar transitions to democracy helps explain the Bush administration's incomprehensible failure to plan adequately for the insurgency that subsequently emerged in Iraq. The war's supporters seemed to think that democracy was a kind of default condition to which societies reverted once the heavy lifting of coercive regime change occurred, rather than a long-term process of institution-building and reform.
. . . benevolent hegemony presumed that the hegemon was not only well intentioned but competent as well. Much of the criticism of the Iraq intervention from Europeans and others was not based on a normative case that the United States was not getting authorization from the United Nations Security Council, but rather on the belief that it had not made an adequate case for invading Iraq in the first place and didn't know what it was doing in trying to democratize Iraq. In this, the critics were unfortunately quite prescient. [My bolding again.]
I'm glad he sees it now; I only wish someone had been able to convince the Bush neocons of all that three years ago.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

The polarization is so great that it seems impossible we will ever get back to where we need to be -- in the middle.
Or as Jim Hightower put it (though I'm not sure if he meant it the way I read it): There's Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos.

The middle is a very hard place to be these days, and an even harder place to influence politics, when "moderation" and "compromise" are scorned as vices, and when those who try to reach across the aisle are stabbed in the back by those they are reaching out to.

It's easy to be a hardliner and rant; that kind of discourse gets attention because it's loud and it's simple and it's easy to get across. Playing to people's passions wins. Playing to intellect and reason is a much more difficult thing to do, especially in an atmosphere where "debate" has been debased into either shouting matches or meaningless joint press conferences.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

All of the media is in one 20% group or the other!
Surely you don't really believe that?

--Lindsey

[RayB (France)]

Surely you don't really believe that?

--Lindsey

I surely do!

[Judy G. Russell]

Playing to intellect and reason is a much more difficult thing to do, especially in an atmosphere where "debate" has been debased into either shouting matches or meaningless joint press conferences.Even harder when "compromise" generally means "do it MY way."

[Lindsey]

I surely do!
Frankly, I'm not surprised that you do. But it would very much surprise me if Judy does.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

Even harder when "compromise" generally means "do it MY way."
Indeed!

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

Yeah, actually, I do think the vast majority of the media is totally out of touch.

[Wayne Scott]

It makes me sad, too. Two of my dearest friends that I love dearly are a lawyer in New Jersey and a physician in Honolulu that used to be our family doctor here. Both are Democrats. I'm not. We can coexist easily.
There was a time when Congressmen of both parties went to lunch with each other. I can't imagine any Republican who would want to have lunch with Nancy Pelosi or Barbara Boxer. I can't imagine any Democrat who would want to have lunch with Dr. Frist or Tom DeLay. That's just plain sad.

[Judy G. Russell]

It really appears that, on the national level, both parties have been hijacked by the fringes.

[Lindsey]

Yeah, actually, I do think the vast majority of the media is totally out of touch.
Well, "out of touch" is different from being at the extreme fringes of the political spectrum. Also, I think there's a definite difference between broadcast and print media. Lately, for example, the cable news programs seem to think that all the American public cares about are dead or missing young white women. The print guys sometimes miss the mark, too, but they're not so completely obsessed with sensational stories as their compadres with cameras and microphones.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

It really appears that, on the national level, both parties have been hijacked by the fringes.
That's partly the result of partisan gerrymandering. Primaries now count for more than the general election in most places, and it's the people at the extremes that have the advantage in a contested primary.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

Agreed, but it's not JUST gerrymandering. It's also because -- by the very nature of the beast -- the people on the fringes are more active and more likely to participate in the primary election process and, therefore, more likely to control the process. Who was it who said that all that's necessary for evil to win is for good men (and women) to do nothing?

[Judy G. Russell]

Depends on which print guys. There are a lot of tabloids in the US too...

[Lindsey]

Depends on which print guys. There are a lot of tabloids in the US too...
Oh, true -- I tend to tune those out.*

I was thinking chiefly of what is normally referred to as "the mainstream media" -- the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, the LA Times, as well as Time, Newsweek, The New Yorker, The Economist, US News and World Report, etc. They're a lot better at covering nuance than the broadcast media, and it's in the nuance that the middle ground is normally found.

--Lindsey


*I will have to say, though, I got a kick out of the cover of one -- actually I think it was People magazine -- with the headline "Britney Speaks Her Mind." I swear to God, my first thought was, "Wow -- the sound of silence."

[ndebord]

It makes me sad, too. Two of my dearest friends that I love dearly are a lawyer in New Jersey and a physician in Honolulu that used to be our family doctor here. Both are Democrats. I'm not. We can coexist easily.
There was a time when Congressmen of both parties went to lunch with each other. I can't imagine any Republican who would want to have lunch with Nancy Pelosi or Barbara Boxer. I can't imagine any Democrat who would want to have lunch with Dr. Frist or Tom DeLay. That's just plain sad.

Wayne,

Actually, I can imagine Tom DeLay and Nancy Pelosi sitting down to lunch and having a grand old time. Each are pols of the old school, albeit differing philosophies.

[ndebord]

Oh, true -- I tend to tune those out.*

I was thinking chiefly of what is normally referred to as "the mainstream media" -- the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, the LA Times, as well as Time, Newsweek, The New Yorker, The Economist, US News and World Report, etc. They're a lot better at covering nuance than the broadcast media, and it's in the nuance that the middle ground is normally found.

--Lindsey

Actually, I would add a few titles to that list of competent mainstream media:
The Miami Herald, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Cleveland Plain Dealer and the
Kansas City Star (for starters).

[Judy G. Russell]

I will have to say, though, I got a kick out of the cover of one -- actually I think it was People magazine -- with the headline "Britney Speaks Her Mind." I swear to God, my first thought was, "Wow -- the sound of silence."ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Judy G. Russell]

I might even replace a few in Lindsey's list with the ones from yours.

[Lindsey]

Each are pols of the old school, albeit differing philosophies.
The old school? So what does that make politicians like John Warner? The prehistoric school? And if Tom DeLay is "old school," then who is "new school"?

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

Actually, I would add a few titles to that list of competent mainstream media:
The Miami Herald, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Cleveland Plain Dealer and the
Kansas City Star (for starters).
Well, I didn't intend it as an comprehensive list! Just some examples.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

I might even replace a few in Lindsey's list with the ones from yours.
Oh? And what in my list do you not consider mainstream?

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

I think it's fair to consider both the NYT and the Washington Post to be far on the liberal side -- mainstream liberal, yes, but not mainstream generally.

[Lindsey]

I think it's fair to consider both the NYT and the Washington Post to be far on the liberal side -- mainstream liberal, yes, but not mainstream generally.
Far on the liberal side? Not hardly. Especially not the Post. Look at Bob Woodward -- he's their flagship reporter. You think he's some kind of extreme liberal? Please.

Are you forgetting how the NYT went after Bill Clinton while he was in office, and how they pushed the Bush Administration's WMD line?

No, both papers fall well within the establishment margins -- which means within that 60% middle band you were talking about.

--Lindsey

[rlohmann]

I think it was People magazine -- with the headline "Britney Speaks Her Mind." I swear to God, my first thought was, "Wow -- the sound of silence."There's hope for you yet :)

When I came back from the Old Country in October of 2004, I didn't know who Britney Spears was.

Now, unfortunately, I do.

If we had elected Barry Goldwater in 1964, none of this would have happened. :(

[Judy G. Russell]

I think the NYT went after Clinton because he wasn't in their "in" group... and fell for Bush's WMD line because 9/11 scared them.

[Lindsey]

When I came back from the Old Country in October of 2004, I didn't know who Britney Spears was.

Now, unfortunately, I do.
And even more unfortunately, she is apparently reproducing at an alarming rate...

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

I think the NYT went after Clinton because he wasn't in their "in" group
Which is pretty much in line with what I was saying about their being an Establishment paper.

... and fell for Bush's WMD line because 9/11 scared them.
9/11 scared us all, but not all of us became completely credulous as a result. My impression is not that they swallowed the WMD line because they were scared, but because they bought into the the whole "Republicans know what they are doing on national security" framework.

--Lindsey

[RayB (France)]

I think it's fair to consider both the NYT and the Washington Post to be far on the liberal side -- mainstream liberal, yes, but not mainstream generally.

Here is a late assessment from the NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/06/politics/06cong.html?_r=1&th=&oref=slogin&emc=th&pagewanted=print

[Judy G. Russell]

I see them more in line with the workings of a former federal judge whose prior job had been that of US Attorney. He favored the government in any trial except those where the government stumbled, even a little. Then his attitude was clearly anti-government (not pro-defense, mind you, just anti-government). It was as if he was saying: "I could try this case better than you are!"

[ktinkel]

I think the NYT went after Clinton because he wasn't in their "in" group... and fell for Bush's WMD line because 9/11 scared them.It is hard to label the NYT anything but mainstream — perhaps the standard-bearer for mainstream, in fact.

It calls itself “the newspaper of record,” a description it often belies in defense of government or big business interests. The Times sat on a story on government abuse of power for a year at the administration’s behest, only to publish it just as Risen (a NYT reporter) was about to publish State of War.

No one would call the Times a rabble-rousing paper, and it is rarely tacky. But it is not left-leaning on any but the broadest social issues that I have ever seen.

[earler]

The ny times has always favored democratic candidates and it has always been pro-israel, even when israel has done outrageous things. A more objective paper was the old ny herald tribune, now long gone alas.

-er

[ktinkel]

The ny times has always favored democratic candidates and it has always been pro-israel, even when israel has done outrageous things. A more objective paper was the old ny herald tribune, now long gone alas. Candidates like the current Republican mayor of NYC (which the Times has supported)? Or Republican Governor Rockefeller, back a ways?

The U.S. government supports Israel; you make my point.

[Lindsey]

I see them more in line with the workings of a former federal judge whose prior job had been that of US Attorney. He favored the government in any trial except those where the government stumbled, even a little. Then his attitude was clearly anti-government (not pro-defense, mind you, just anti-government). It was as if he was saying: "I could try this case better than you are!"
I'm sorry, I have no idea what you are getting at.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

It is hard to label the NYT anything but mainstream — perhaps the standard-bearer for mainstream, in fact.
Thank you! That is certainly the way it appears to me.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

Candidates like the current Republican mayor of NYC (which the Times has supported)? Or Republican Governor Rockefeller, back a ways?
And am I mistaken, or didn't they also support George Pataki for governor?

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

Rough translation: the Times is always against those of its own stripe that it thinks should have done better.

[earler]

Bloomberg was a democrat until he became a republican in order to have a real chance to be elected. Further, the other choices were quite awful. Same for the period when nelson rockefeller ran for governor. However, he was roundly criticized (and often rightly) for many of actions, the worst of which was the rockefeller drug law. That was a rare exception. Take dinkins as how the times usually behaves. Endorsed both times, when he first ran, then for his re-election. Now dinkins was an awful mayor, not the worst nyc has had, but a failure under whose aegis racism increased, as did crime, and the city became dirtier than ever. The times didn't endorse giuliani for a second term either, preferring mark green no less!

-er

[ktinkel]

And am I mistaken, or didn't they also support George Pataki for governor?Not sure I remember in the early elections, but they certainly have endorsed him in recent years.

[Lindsey]

Not sure I remember in the early elections, but they certainly have endorsed him in recent years.
I did a Google check: the last two elections (1998 and 2002) for sure; I didn't turn up anything that said for sure one way or the other for 1994. I'll have to try the Times archive when I have a chance, but since Mario Cuomo was the Democratic candidate in that race, I suspect the Times probably backed Cuomo.

In any case: the Times obviously doesn't reflexively support the Democratic candidate in every race, despite confidant assertions to the contrary.

--Lindsye

[Lindsey]

Rough translation: the Times is always against those of its own stripe that it thinks should have done better.
Oh, I see. Quite possibly. But if they are a "liberal" paper, wouldn't that be the reverse of liberal bias?

--Lindsey

[earler]

With few exceptions the times endorses the democrat rather than the republican. For example, it endorsed carter for a second term in spite of dismal record during his first 4 years. It even endorsed dukakis!

-er

[Judy G. Russell]

But if they are a "liberal" paper, wouldn't that be the reverse of liberal bias?I don't know if I'd say it was the reverse; I'd surely call it hubris, no matter what.

[earler]

Johnny wanted to screw a girl in his office ...
But she had a boyfriend...
One day Johnny got so frustrated that he went up to her and said,
"I'll give you a $1000 dollars if you let me screw you"
But the girl said "NO WAY!"

Johnny said, "I'll be fast, I'll throw the money on the floor, you
bend down, I'll be finished by the time you pick it up"

She thought for a moment and said that she would have to consult her
boyfriend ... So she called her boyfriend and told him the story.

Her boyfriend says "Ask him for $2000 dollars, pick up the money very
fast, he won't even be able to get his pants down!"
So she agrees and accepts the proposal.

Half an hour goes by and the boyfriend is waiting for his girlfriend to call.
Finally after 45 mins the boyfriend calls and asks "What happened?"
She said "The bastard used coins!!"

Management lesson # 1:

Always consider a business proposal in it's entirety before agreeing
to it and getting screwed.

[Lindsey]

With few exceptions the times endorses the democrat rather than the republican. For example, it endorsed carter for a second term in spite of dismal record during his first 4 years. It even endorsed dukakis!

In other words: The New York Times always endorses Democrats -- except when it doesn't.

Real profound statement, there.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

I don't know if I'd say it was the reverse; I'd surely call it hubris, no matter what.
Hubris? How so?

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

Hubris in the sense of assuming -- and believing -- that they can do it better than anybody else.

[Lindsey]

Hubris in the sense of assuming -- and believing -- that they can do it better than anybody else.
"They" being the NY Times, or liberal politicians?

--Lindsey

[earler]

Have you never heard that the exception proves the rule?

-er

[Judy G. Russell]

The Times.

[Lindsey]

Have you never heard that the exception proves the rule?
Not put forward as a serious argument, no.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

The Times.
OK, let me see if I understand this:

If the NY Times is critical of Republicans, they are guilty of liberal bias.

If the NY Times is critical of Democrats, they are guilty of hubris.

Are newspapers never supposed to be critical of anyone? And does this argument apply in reverse to, say, the Weekly Standard?

--Lindsey

[earler]

There's always a first time, even for you.

-er

[ndebord]

OK, let me see if I understand this:

If the NY Times is critical of Republicans, they are guilty of liberal bias.

If the NY Times is critical of Democrats, they are guilty of hubris.

Are newspapers never supposed to be critical of anyone? And does this argument apply in reverse to, say, the Weekly Standard?

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

Any newspaper that reveals this regime's inner workings or secrets is likely to be prosecuted under the Espionage Act, unless of course, it is the administration that is doing the leaking.

http://www.slate.com/id/2137792/

[Judy G. Russell]

It isn't the fact of the criticism; of course newspapers should be critical. It's the choice of who, what and when to be critical.

[Lindsey]

It's the choice of who, what and when to be critical.
I'm sorry -- I'm afraid I just don't get it. Seems like a double standard to me.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

You've never been a reporter working for a competing newspaper to the Times...

[Lindsey]

Any newspaper that reveals this regime's inner workings or secrets is likely to be prosecuted under the Espionage Act, unless of course, it is the administration that is doing the leaking.
It's getting really scary, no question about it. This morning, I heard a news item about a woman who was fired apparently because her boss objected to an Air America bumper sticker on her car. "For all I know, you could be al-Quaida," she says her boss told her.

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/03/09/news/sandiego/20_24_273_8_06.txt

(One other site carrying the story notes that "[n]otoriously right-wing San Diegans have been outraged ever since a local AM station began broadcasting Air America in late 2004.")

--Lindsey

[ktinkel]

It's getting really scary …and weirder and weirder.

Someone in Rhode Island who paid off a $6,500 Penney’s bill in one payment was reported to Homeland Security, which froze the payment (in other words, it wasn’t credited). Penney’s said they were required to report any payments of some unknown amount more than usual; DHS said the money would be held until the person was cleared. The guy called ACLU, local TV, and some newspapers, and he was cleared “eventually.” Here is the story (http://www.gnn.tv/threads/13486/Paying_off_your_credit_card_Homeland_Security_want s_to_know).

[RayB (France)]

and weirder and weirder.

Someone in Rhode Island who paid off a $6,500 Penney’s bill in one payment was reported to Homeland Security, which froze the payment (in other words, it wasn’t credited). Penney’s said they were required to report any payments of some unknown amount more than usual; DHS said the money would be held until the person was cleared. The guy called ACLU, local TV, and some newspapers, and he was cleared “eventually.” Here is the story (http://www.gnn.tv/threads/13486/Paying_off_your_credit_card_Homeland_Security_want s_to_know).

I would suggest the rule applies more to laundering drugs money than terrorism.

[rlohmann]

Maybe she already did, and produced the Dixie Chicks.

[Judy G. Russell]

Now now... Goodbye Earl is one of my favorites...

[sidney]

paid off a $6,500 Penney’s bill in one payment was reported to Homeland Security, which froze the payment

This appeared on slashdot too, and one comment made a lot of sense to me. I suspect that this is some combination of a Penney's manager saying whatever would shut up the complaining customer and a reporter's usual garbling of details.

The commenter pointed out that a common fraud technique, possibly with a stolen account, is to send in a bad check to ensure that the card has a high current limit, then use the card before the check bounces. In defense, a credit card company flags high payments made by check that fall outside of the normal pattern for the account and holds them until the check clears completely, on the order of ten days.

-- sidney

[Lindsey]

and weirder and weirder.

Someone in Rhode Island who paid off a $6,500 Penney’s bill in one payment was reported to Homeland Security, which froze the payment (in other words, it wasn’t credited). Penney’s said they were required to report any payments of some unknown amount more than usual; DHS said the money would be held until the person was cleared. The guy called ACLU, local TV, and some newspapers, and he was cleared “eventually.” Here is the story (http://www.gnn.tv/threads/13486/Paying_off_your_credit_card_Homeland_Security_want s_to_know).
Yes, I heard that story in a couple of places, but what I had heard was that the entire account was frozen, not just that one payment. In any case, a good example of how ordinary people can get sucked into a terrorist investigation for something that is entirely innocent.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

This appeared on slashdot too, and one comment made a lot of sense to me. I suspect that this is some combination of a Penney's manager saying whatever would shut up the complaining customer and a reporter's usual garbling of details.
Possibly. There has been some garbled reporting, and if what was happening here was the result of a Suspicious Activity Report filed under the requirements of the absurdly-named Bank Secrecy Act (one report called it the "Bank Privacy Act," but I think the name got garbled), that law also makes it a violation for the financial institution to notify the customer that such a report has been filed.

Also, I'm no BSA expert, but I don't know of anything in that law that would require freezing either the account or the transaction itself. And those reports don't go to Homeland Security; they go to the Treasury Department.

What's not clear is whether the payment was recorded and simply not immediately credited, or the payment itself was actually held. One report said that the check had never cleared the bank, which would indicate that the check itself was held, and that would make no sense whatsoever in the fraud reduction measure you describe. If they thought the check might not be good, I would expect them to go ahead and put the check through, but perhaps not credit the payment until the check had actually cleared (which these days should only take a couple of days, at most).

But the guy was also quoted as complaining that it was the lack of credit to his charge account that alerted him, so it's hard to tell. It's entirely plausible to me, though, that somebody may have gotten overzealous about what actually constitutes reportable suspicous activity and what was required to deal with it. The federal government had enlisted the financial industry as part of its spy network, but training in what that involves is left largely to the individual institution.

--Lindsey

[sidney]

Bank Secrecy Act (one report called it the "Bank Privacy Act," but I think the name got garbled), that law also makes it a violation for the financial institution to notify the customer that such a report has been filed.

Also, I'm no BSA expert, but I don't know of anything in that law that would require freezing either the account or the transaction itself. And those reports don't go to Homeland Security; they go to the Treasury Department.

I googled for "Bank Privacy Act" and only found many copies of this one story, in which the reporter talks about the person calling television stations, the ACLU, and "me" (the reporter). The only evidence is the reporter's paraphrased second hand version of what a JC Penney manager said. You have already pointed out that he got the name of the act wrong, that he talks about the guy Googling for information about the "Bank Privacy Act" when that produces nothing useful, and that if it was the Bank Secrecy Act it would not apply since JC Penney is not a bank and if did apply then the result would not have been a temporary hold on the account and they could not have told him about it.

Seth Finkelstein has two posts debunking the story, here (http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200603/msg00035.html) and here (http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200603/msg00041.html).

As he points out, credit card fraud is under the administrative purview of DHS (http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?theme=79&content=271), enforced by Secret Service. And credit card agencies are holding payments made by check until the check clears as an antifraud measure.

-- sidney

[Lindsey]

Gosh, when you get so used to the world seeming completely crazy, it's quite astonishing to suddenly find something that seems to make logical sense. :p

I leave the details of these kinds of regulations to our Compliance Department and to the others that have to deal with the requirements directly, but I think there is something called, at least informally, the Bank Privacy Act, but within the industry, it is generally known as "Gramm-Leach-Bliley (http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/privacyinitiatives/glbact.html)" (or GLB for short). It deals with requirements for safeguarding the privacy of customer information, which is probably why it wasn't actually called the Bank Privacy Act -- there seems to be an operational rule in Congress of late that you can't name legislation in a way that actually describes what it is intended for.

It's not a given that the JC Penney credit operation wouldn't be subject to the same rules that govern actual banks; GLB was written to cover any institution involved in providing the consumer services addressed by the legislation. I don't know whether BSA is the same way or not, but it conceivably could be.

I hope there will be some additional information coming out on this story to make it clearer what actually happened. I'd be tempted to put the blame on some newly hired person on the Customer Service hotline jumping to conclusions except that the story said that the questions had been pursued up through several levels.

I'm trying to remember where I heard the story myself in the last few days. I'm fairly sure it was a broadcast, but I don't remember whether it was television or radio. I think it may have come up on NPR's "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me," which is more humor than news, but it does at least intend to deal in real stories. But if I did hear it there, that wasn't the first place.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

OK, I'm still not sure where I first saw or heard this story (I had a flash of inspiration earlier this evening that it may have been on the NYTimes web site, but a search there didn't turn up anything), but I did find this article (http://business.bostonherald.com/businessNews/view.bg?articleid=129799) in the Boston Herald, by their general economics reporter Jay Fitzgerald, that seems a little better researched:

After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Banking Secrecy Act was amended to force financial firms to come up with more stringent internal anti-money-laundering programs. Firms are given latitude to design their own software programs and formulas to detect what they suspect are “suspicious activities” within financial accounts.

“They make decisions based on their own risk assessments,” said Anne Marie Kelly, a Treasury spokeswoman. If financial institutions find what they think is suspicious activity, then they report it to the feds.

Kelly, who said she could not verify Soehnge’s particular claims, said similar incidents with people have happened in the past.

A spokeswoman for J.C. Penney Co. said the retailer and GE Consumer Finance, which owns J.C. Penney’s credit-card business, is investigating Soehnge’s apparent mishap.
I wonder if we'll ever hear what the result of that investigation is?

--Lindsey

[Later] Suggested reading on this subject: http://www.aclu.org/privacy/consumer/14897leg19990420.html

[ndebord]

'"They make decisions based on their own risk assessments,” said Anne Marie Kelly, a Treasury spokeswoman. If financial institutions find what they think is suspicious activity, then they report it to the feds.'

Lindsey,

Ouch. What I didn't know about my government. Coerced into volunteering the info is more like it.

[ktinkel]

I'm trying to remember where I heard the story myself in the last few days. I'm fairly sure it was a broadcast, but I don't remember whether it was television or radio. I think it may have come up on NPR's "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me," which is more humor than news, but it does at least intend to deal in real stories. But if I did hear it there, that wasn't the first place.I dunno, either. But it was definitely on Saturday’s “Wait, Wait — Don’t Tell Me.” And I think I saw a reference to it in “The Week” as well.

I can remember a time when it was much easier to separate nonsense from reality.

[Wayne Scott]

Because this forum is infected with the same disease that our government has seemed to succomb to - 'To hell with what is best for America . . . if one party says black the other has become fiercely obligated to say white.' Stupid polarization. Britain has suffered from it for as long as I can remember and is what makes it a second-rate country. We appear to be going down the same path.

Makes me sad!
And I, too, am sad. I think on a purely personal basis we're fine. I think that 2 of the major wrong-minded people around here, Sarah and MsTrial, are among the greatest people I've ever met and I've enjoyed the time we've had together in person.
The behavior of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and their counterparts, Dr. Frist and Denny Hastirt is not helpful to this nation. Ms. Pelosi, of course, rants about corruption which is a joke since she learned all about corruption at her father's knee when he ran Maryland.
Phew!
Curm

[Lindsey]

Ouch. What I didn't know about my government. Coerced into volunteering the info is more like it.
More than coerced. That's one of the key things the regulators look for when they come in for an examination, to be sure you're following the BSA guidelines.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

I think on a purely personal basis we're fine. I think that 2 of the major wrong-minded people around here, Sarah and MsTrial, are among the greatest people I've ever met and I've enjoyed the time we've had together in person.At least I'm a MAJOR wrong-minded person. I'd hate to be a MINOR one.

[Lindsey]

I can remember a time when it was much easier to separate nonsense from reality.
Whatever it was that happened with this particular situation, there have been similar incidents in the past, according to the government official quoted in the Boston Herald, where paying off credit card balances got card holders reported for suspicious activity.

But heaven forbid they apply that same level of scrutiny to the people running our ports.

--Lindsey

[ktinkel]

Ms. Pelosi, of course, rants about corruption which is a joke since she learned all about corruption at her father's knee when he ran Maryland.Has she personally indulged in or condoned corruption? (I seriously do not know, but cannot remember hearing about it.)

[ndebord]

And I, too, am sad. I think on a purely personal basis we're fine. I think that 2 of the major wrong-minded people around here, Sarah and MsTrial, are among the greatest people I've ever met and I've enjoyed the time we've had together in person.
The behavior of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and their counterparts, Dr. Frist and Denny Hastirt is not helpful to this nation. Ms. Pelosi, of course, rants about corruption which is a joke since she learned all about corruption at her father's knee when he ran Maryland.
Phew!
Curm

Wayne,

So, all machine pols are anathema in your book?

[Lindsey]

Has she personally indulged in or condoned corruption? (I seriously do not know, but cannot remember hearing about it.)
According to the conservatives here, the only people allowed to denounce corrupt behavior of any kind are:

(1) Those who who have committed no sin whatsoever in the entire course of their lives (with accompanying certified statement of the Almighty to that effect), and whose families are likewise completely sin-free; and
(2) Republicans, whatever their sinful status

--Lindsey

[ktinkel]

According to the conservatives here, the only people allowed to denounce corrupt behavior of any kind are:

(1) Those who who have committed no sin whatsoever in the entire course of their lives (with accompanying certified statement of the Almighty to that effect), and whose families are likewise completely sin-free; and
(2) Republicans, whatever their sinful statusI see. Didn’t understand the rules.