Totally organic... sure

(Image used under: Creative Commons 3.0 [SRC])

What is the point of an agency that thinks it's ok to label non-organic foods as organic?

USDA's rule, in contrast, permitted products labeled "organic" to contain non-organic substances so long as producers obtained certification that organic versions of the relevant ingredients were not available. Why should it matter whether substances are on the list?

My thoughts exactly.

George W. Bush

(Image used under: Fair Use doctrine)

According to recent testimony, Bush's crony, Gonzales, tried to go over the head of acting Attorney General James Comey and coerce John Ashcroft who was deathly sick and in the hospital to re-authorize the spying program in 2004.

When the White House officials appeared minutes later, Mr. Gonzales began to explain to Mr. Ashcroft why they were there. Mr. Comey said Mr. Ashcroft rose weakly from his hospital bed, but in strong and unequivocal terms, refused to approve the eavesdropping program. “I was angry, ? Mr. Comey told the committee. “ I had just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man, who did not have the powers of the attorney general because they had been transferred to me. I thought he had conducted himself in a way that demonstrated a strength I had never seen before, but still I thought it was improper. ?

Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

(Image is in the Public Domain)

A former FDA chief speaks out against the agency saying that it's "broken". Well duh.

Do a little research online and you can find all kinds of stories of how the FDA doesn't do it's job.

(Image is in the Public Domain)

So the House has confirmed that FISA is the ONLY way that surveillance can be secretly done in the US. Um… duh?

Is there anyone that understands this whole mess? Bush breaks the law along with the Telecommunication companies. He gets away with it because no one seems willing to challenge him. He tries as hard as he can to get immunity for the Telco's too.

Congress has repeatedly rejected all attempts to circumvent FISA in new bills, but even if they HAD passed a new law, Bush is still guilty of violating the first one! I just don't get it.

Federal Trade Commission

(Image is in the Public Domain)

On April 23rd, the ID Theft Task Force that's chaired by Alberto Gonzales (the US Attorney General) and co chaired by Deborah Platt Majores (the chairwoman of the FTC) has released their final recommendations for reducing identity theft.

Here are a few of their better recommendations:

Where's the Freeze recommendation?

For residents of states in which state law authorizes a credit freeze, consider placing a credit freeze on their credit file.7 This option is most useful when the breach includes information that can be used to open a new account, such as SSNs. A credit freeze cuts off third party access to a consumer’s credit report, thereby effectively preventing the issuance of new credit in the consumer’s name.

Among the state-enacted remedies without a federal counterpart is one granting consumers the right to obtain a credit freeze. Credit freezes make a consumer’s credit report inaccessible when, for example, an identity thief attempts to open an account in the victim’s name. State laws differ in several respects, including whether all consumers can obtain a freeze or only identity theft victims; whether credit reporting agencies can charge the consumer for unfreezing a file (which would be necessary when applying for credit); and the time allowed to the credit reporting agencies to unfreeze a file. These provisions are relatively new, and there is no "track record" to show how effective they are, what costs they may impose on consumers and businesses, and what features are most beneficial to consumers. An assessment of how these measures have been implemented and how effective they have been would help policy makers in considering whether a federal credit freeze law would be appropriate. Accordingly, the Task Force recommends that the FTC, with support from the Task Force member agencies, assess the impact and effectiveness of credit freeze laws, and report on the results in the first quarter of 2008.

This is very weak and isn't even a recommendation of it's own, just a sub-component of "Assess Efficacy of Tools Available to Victims". So it went from the nice, solid (and correctly worded) "effectively preventing the issuance of new credit in the consumer’s name" to "there is no 'track record' to show how effective they are, what costs they may impose on consumers and businesses, and what features are most beneficial to consumers". Alberto Gonzales and Deborah Platt Majores should be ashamed of themselves for putting their names on this worthless report.

Update 9/27/2007

It looks like the credit reporting companies are starting to read the bones and pre-emptively offer credit freezes before they get legislated into having to provide it on worse terms and lower fees. Two out of three have jumped onto the bandwagon with only one holding out so far.

Federal Trade Commission - Forgot their job apparently

(Image used under: Creative Commons 2.0 [SRC])

On May 10th, 2006, President Bush signed an executive order to create an Identity Theft Task force in order to identify concrete steps to reducing the identity theft problem.

On Dec 26th, 2006, the task force put out a public call for comments to "improve the effectiveness and efficiency of federal government efforts to reduce identity theft".

Of course, I submitted details about implementing Credit Freezes and halting data abuse

There were off to a good start when the interim results of the task force included language about Credit Freezes:

For residents of states in which state law authorizes a credit freeze, consider placing a credit freeze on their credit file. This option is most useful when the breach includes information that can be used to open a new account, such as SSNs. A credit freeze cuts off third party access to a consumer’s credit report, thereby effectively preventing the issuance of new credit in the consumer’s name.

But problems started when the press release mysteriously omitted the information. They'd already failed to include it in their consumer education initiative though they're happy to recommend Fraud alerts or Credit monitoring for FREE! Well, whee! That's just great. Thanks for paying for my worthless monitoring service which will tell me in horrific real time that I'm being ripped off rather than actually do anything to stop it.

Failing to include credit freeze information was nothing short of incompetence.

Sadly, on release of the final recommendations some time later, freezes were only barely mentioned and even then, discouraged. This is hardly the first time I've seen government incompetence up close, but considering the importance of the issue, it was still discouraging. Bottom line, the FTC and in particular Ms. Bourne Farrell and Alberto Gonzales failed the President and the citizens they are supposed to serve.

George W. Bush

(Image used under: Fair Use doctrine)

Showing his usually disregard for Congress, the American people, and rules, Bush named an ambassador in a way that circumvented Congressional oversight.

The appointment, made while lawmakers were out of town on spring break, prompted angry rebukes from Democrats, who said Bush's action may even be illegal.

(Image is used under the Pixabay license)

In Short

A defiant President Bush warned Democrats Tuesday to accept his offer to have top aides testify about the firings of federal prosecutors only privately and not under oath or risk a constitutional showdown from which he would not back down

The Response

Democrats' response to his proposal was swift and firm: They said they would start authorizing subpoenas as soon as Wednesday for the White House aides.

George W. Bush

(Image used under: Fair Use doctrine)

In a move that's sure to shock every child under the age of 6, Bush's privacy board cleared him of any privacy invasion.

Civil liberties groups who've advocated that the board be separated from the executive branch and given real subpoena power are unlikely to be satisfied with the board's findings. Congressional Democrats have already expressed disdain for the new report, and they're moving to strengthen the board's oversight capabilities.