Good News for My Friend Alex

On Aug. 2, after the novel-focused spinoff of my Kennesaw writing group reviewed the current draft of Amanda Williamson's novel Legacy of the Werewolf, Matt Schafer and I walked Alex Hughes back to her car.  On the way there, we learned the good news that Alex had sold her novel Clean to the publisher Penguin, more specifically its Roc imprint.

Here's the page on Alex's site where she makes the announcement:

A Dream Realized: A Two-Book Deal

Based on this blog post, it seems the pivotal decision that led to the book deal was submitting Clean to the Amazon Breakthrough Novel Award contest.  Apparently a lot of agents and publishers are interested in stories that do well in the contest and given how the publisher contacted Alex rather than the other way around, I think the publisher found the novel.

Those of you who've got a completed book, it might be a good idea to send it to Amazon.  Of course, you should be absolutely, positively sure it's ready to go when you do that.  After all, Alex went through multiple drafts of Clean before it hit ABNA.  She brought it before the novel group fairly late in the cycle, since she mentioned having gone through several drafts at the meeting.  I recommend joining writing groups, either in-person groups like can be found through meetup.com or all-online groups like Critters.  They've been a big help to me and I credit one of my groups with helping me sell "Coil Gun."

About what's in her novel, I'm not going to go much beyond the blurb on the blog-post to avoid spoiling it nearly a year in advance.  It's not really my cup of tea--my tastes in science-fiction tend to be more technological and more violent--but it's a well-done story.  Alex is a better writer than I am, especially in the field of character development. 

(For the record, she's the one who called Battle for the Wastelands a "boy book" and suggested I send it to Baen.  However, she said if I elaborated on the characterization more, I could send it to a wider variety of markets.  I'll have to work on that, once I actually finish.  70,000 words done, probably 20,000 to 30,000 to go.)

Plus, by setting it in Atlanta, she's writing about a familiar environment and is less likely to make mistakes about street names and the like.

Former University of Idaho Running-Back Held Naked and Chained By Feds

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/us/19scotus.html?_r=2&ref=global-home

Now that I've gotten your attention with the title, this case is actually about terrorism laws going too far.

In my humble opinion, Abdullah al-Kidd--a U.S. citizen I might add--has very good grounds to sue for colossal amounts of damages in addition to challenging the legality of the use of the material-witness statute. The law is not intended to be used for preventative detention of terrorism suspects, no matter how wise such a policy may be.

(This is not to say I endorse such a law. My point is that even if such a law is a good idea, it would need to be legally passed by Congress and signed by the president. Rule of law is a good thing.)

Subjecting anyone to what sounds like Abu Ghraib treatment is bad enough; having American law enforcement do it to an American citizen is even worse. After all, the primary purpose of the state is to protect the lives, liberties, and properties of its citizens. 

For the record, some googling of al-Kidd's name shows he may have been involved in suspicious activities (associating with a foreign sheikh charged with fraud, frex), but how he was treated was grossly disproportionate.  If the concern was that he was traveling to Saudi Arabia to avoid U.S. law enforcement, detaining him and requiring him to surrender his passport as a condition of release could solve that problem without the lengthy detention, the unpleasant treatment while detained, etc.

It's good to hear the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agrees with me that this was a really bad thing and that the Supreme Court is willing to at least hear the case.

Attack of the Mexican Lake Pirates

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/new-details-emerge-in-deadly-shooting-on-us-mexico-border-lake/19658735

Heard about this on Neal Boortz's radio program yesterday while driving into Atlanta for an appointment.  This is not the first time this has happened--there have been several other incidents as well, although this is the first time someone has actually died.

It turns out that all the shenanigans take place on the Mexican side or close to the maritime border between the US and Mexico, so it is primarily the Mexican government's responsibility.  And to be fair, it's not like the Mexican government is stonewalling on the issue.

http://www.reporterherald.com/news_story.asp?ID=29730

That being said, the Mexican government's control over much of its territory is rather tenuous right now.  Like what's going on in Somalia, if a state cannot police its own territory, someone else should.

Were I the governor of Texas, I'd base some National Guard attack helicopters thereabouts and have them periodically patrol the area.  In the event of anything like this happening again, the perpetrators get shredded.  The purpose of the State is to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens and that's at risk here.  Chopper patrols might also be useful in deterring incursions by the Mexican military or armed cartel types as well, which have been known to happen.

Boortz went so far as to suggest American search teams with Apache helicopter escort cross over to the Mexican side to find Hartley's body and if anyone attempts to interfere, they'll get put on the bottom with holes in them, but given how the Mexican government is (allegedly) helping try to find the body, that might be rather premature.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2024162,00.html?xid=rss-mostpopular

The above article said that signs the cartel violence has crossed the border (two shot-up Mexicans in a truck) are more troubling than Hartley's death, and since that happened in the U.S., she has a point.

However, what happened on that lake is pretty darn bad.

Hmm...maybe it's time to say something politically inflammatory, like "Out of Iraq, Onto the Mexican Border?"  One might need to modify the Posse Comitatus Act though, since border-security is primarily a law-enforcement issue at present and military involvement in law enforcement is restricted.

News Article Round-Up: Iraq and Minimum Wage Laws

Here are some interesting news articles, with my comments:

"Sunni Awakening" Officers Kicked Off the Force in Iraq

Now this isn't a good idea.  These guys switched sides during the worst of the insurgency in Iraq to fight against the al-Qaeda foreign fighters alongside the Shi'ite-dominated Iraqi government, never mind the sectarian divide that existed between them and their newfound allies.  The "Awakening" program brought peace to the Anbar Province, previously an ugly running sore claiming many American and Iraqi lives.

That being said, if they're not qualified for the positions they've got, perhaps some training or education is in order.  That appears to have been done in at least some of the cases here.  Having unqualified police officers and officials (at least some of them have been given the option of being beat cops, so they're not all being tossed out onto the street) is a bad thing, but depriving people who are likely to be al-Qaeda targets of the protection the police force has provided is a poor reward for what these men have done.

Wage Laws Squeeze South Africa's Poor

This is an example of the law of unintended consequences and why a minimum wage, or at least one that is too high, is not a good idea.  Businesses that cannot pay the minimum wage will employ fewer people or close down entirely, producing a net increase in human suffering.  And in South Africa, being unemployed is a heck of a lot worse than being unemployed is over here in the USA.

The image of the workers in the factory protesting the police coming to close the factory for violating laws intended to benefit them is rather telling.

BP, Homeland Security, and Local Cops Detain Journalist

http://fieldnotes.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/07/04/4611161-photographer-detained-by-police-bp-employee-near-refinery

Okay, this stinks.  The reporter is taking pictures of a BP refinery from a public road and he's tailed by BP officials and ultimately pulled over by local cops.  Law enforcement, including a guy who claims to be from Homeland Security, reviews his film and takes down his personal information, including his Social Security number, and gives it to the BP guy.

What the hell?  I can understand why they might be concerned about some stranger taking pictures of an oil refinery, but he was on a public road.  Furthermore, why the need to show the photos to the BP guy?  And why did the BP guy collect his Social Security number?

The latter is especially skanky given how Social Security numbers can be abused.  What if they don't like the final report and decide to steal his identity in revenge?

And then there's the threat of being arrested if he doesn't let them look at his film, which I'm not sure is even legal.

I've already used http://www.congress.org/ to write the appropriate people and I think you all should.  I hope MSNBC sues somebody over this.

News Article Round-Up

I periodically send myself Internet links home to blog about, but they stack up in my Inbox because I find something else more immediately interesting before I can get to them.

So I'm going to put all of them together in this entry, with commentary.

http://www.slate.com/id/2255385/

This article compares the Drug War to Prohibition and does a good job proving why the Drug War, like Prohibition, is a bad idea.  The author also compares the end of Prohibition during the Depression--to get tax revenue from alcohol--and said the current economic climate provides an incentive to legalize and tax currently-illegal narcotics.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20006930-54.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20

An offshore wind farm in the Great Lakes.  This would be a really good idea.  It might cost a bit in the short run, but it would reduce coal/fossil fuel consumption in the long run and provide high-tech jobs.  And luckily, there aren't any Kennedies to muck up this project like they did with Cape Wind in Massachusetts.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/17/lawmaker-warns-drug-cartel-danger-public-parks-intensifying/

Okay, this is getting ridiculous.  We can't go into our bloody parks because hooligans have taken it over.  Although legalizing and taxing drugs will take business away from the cartels, getting that accomplished will take far more effort than changing the laws to allow the Border Patrol and other law enforcement to use vehicles in national parks.  The criminals are already damaging the environment in the parks and are going to keep on doing it, so it's not like avoiding using vehicles in this scenario is going to be a net benefit for the environment.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100617/wl_time/08599199697300

Some good news from Afghanistan.  The Iraq War was an unnecessary distraction from fighting al-Qaeda and other Islamists, but copying the successful "Sons of Iraq" model used to help quell the Sunni insurgency seems to be working in Afghanistan.

Of course, we need to be sure these militias are being integrated into the Afghan government as to ensure long-run stability after we leave.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20008016-54.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20

This deals with one of the problems with electric cars--where to recharge--rather nicely.  Some privacy concerns, but electric-usage data is something the power company already collects (and the government could subpoena if it wished), so no need to flip out.

The Federal Bill That Can Make You Disappear

My friend Brian was so kind as to inform me via Facebook of a new bill that would pose a grave threat to the civil liberties of American citizens.

Here's the link to the full bill:

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s3081/text

Of particular note is this section here:

SEC. 5. DETENTION WITHOUT TRIAL OF UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY BELLIGERENTS.



9An individual, or its coalition partners in which the individual has engaged, or which the individual has purposely and materially supported, consistent with the law of war and including a citizen of the United States, determined to be an unprivileged enemy belligerent under section 3(c)(2) in a manner which satisfies Article 5 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War may be detained without criminal charges and without trial for the duration of hostilities against the United States  any authorization for the use of military force provided by Congress pertaining to such hostilities.
 
This would basically authorize things like detention of Jose Padilla--an American citizen who was taken off a plane at an airport and held incommunicado as an "enemy combatant "with ever-changing justification for several years until the federal government, faced with a Supreme Court challenge it could no longer avoid, deigned to file charges in a civilian court.

The U.S. Constitution was devised in part to prevent abuses like this, with such things like the right to habeus corpus, a speedy trial, etc.  It does not say "with the exception of terrorism."

If an American citizen is determined to be a member of al Qaeda, there exists a procedure already--try them for treason, for making war against the U.S. or providing aid and comfort to its enemies.  That is the legal, constitutional way of dealing with such people, and has already been applied to Adam Gadahn.  And, if the penalty is justified (it more than likely is), hang them.

This is the United States, not some banana republic.  No U.S. President, nor member of Congress or any government official whatsoever, has no right to make anyone disappear.

Those interested in making their voices heard about this abomination should go to http://www.congress.org/ and use it to write the president, their senators, and their local representative to keep this thing from even coming close to becoming law.

$1 Trillion Spent on War on Drugs, To Little Overall Benefit

Found this online Friday.  This is likely to grind some people's gears big-time, but here goes...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100513/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/failed_drug_war

I used to be a strong supporter of the War on Drugs, primarily due to the rather scary effects of PCP and other, harder drugs.

Then, when I was a senior in high school, I reached the conclusion that punishing non-violent drug offenders was just as morally bankrupt as punishing non-violent gun offenders (something I already opposed).  If you light up a joint in your basement or if you keep an AK-47 in your basement and it doesn't affect anyone else, it is nobody's business but yours.

Furthermore research confirmed my position.  Particularly galling is the fact that the drug war has been used to enable police abuses--if an officer finds drugs on your property, even if someone else put them there (say, some pothead toking up on your property when you're not there), they can confiscate your property and due-process doesn't apply, since it's allegedly the property being punished and not the person.

Here are some articles about the abuses of asset-forfeiture laws, typically done as the result of the war on drugs:

http://reason.com/archives/2010/01/26/the-forfeiture-racket

http://www.ij.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3114&Itemid=165

http://www.fear.org/

Even worse is when the drug-war laws allow unethical government agencies to deliberately destroy people by framing them for involvement in the drug trade, something that's much easier than, say, framing them for illegally dumping toxic waste or for murder:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_n4_v25/ai_14171968/

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/03/camden_police_officer_in_polic.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Johnston_shooting

http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0510/733560.html

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-texas-profiling_wittmar10,0,6051682.story

(Lest anyone think otherwise, the above portion is not an attack on law-enforcement officers who are ethical and do not abuse their positions--the majority of the profession.  They are the thin blue line protecting decent folk from the hooliganry and it is in the interest of the police profession as a whole to end the WoD, both to prevent abuses of it from tarring their good name and to enable them to focus on things that are a greater danger to the community.)

One thing in the article in particular stuck out at me:

"To say that all the things that have been done in the war on drugs haven't made any difference is ridiculous," (former drug czar John P.) Walters said. "It destroys everything we've done. It's saying all the people involved in law enforcment, treatment and prevention have been wasting their time. It's saying all these people's work is misguided."

Is the government's Herculean effort to eradicate illegal drug use in this country so weak that mere criticism can "destroy everything we've done"?  Given the vast amounts of effort spent on it, the vast leviathans of governmental and law-enforcement power brought to bear on the problem, that's pretty pathetic if it's true.

(It's not.)

Furthermore, criticizing the drug war is not the same as criticizing drug treatment and prevention.  I don't think anyone sane who opposes the drug war also opposes telling kids not to start doing drugs or treating people who are addicted. 

Drug use is a destructive, nasty thing that ruins lives and in many cases kills people.  In an earlier Facebook note, I suggested making schoolkids watch the films Requiem for a Dream and Alpha Dog to open their eyes to the brutal reality of drug addiction and dealing.  Especially Requiem--that movie is scary.

My concern is that the cure is worse than the disease, especially given the abuses that it has enabled and the mind-bogglingly vast financial cost. 

And thirdly, Walters' argument comes off as really politically-correct.  "Don't say that, it's offensive!"  Other than his opening sentence, he makes no attempt to defend the drug war on factual grounds--instead, he resorts to claims that this is insulting to everyone who has tried to fight drug abuse.

Since I don't like to criticize without offering a solution, here is an idea:


The way the government deals with alcohol (destructive if overused) and cigarettes (destructive in general, and more addictive than some illegal drugs) might be better--regulate and tax to reduce the harm and generate revenue and use some of that revenue fund prevention and treatment efforts.

This could serve as a means of replacing the revenues law-enforcement agencies might lose if the drug-war-spawned asset-forfeiture ends. 

After all, legalizing and taxing marijuana alone could generate $40 billion to $100 billion per year.

http://www.businessweek.com/debateroom/archives/2009/03/legalize_mariju.html

Imagine all the money currently flowing to the drug gangs instead flowing into the local, state, and federal governments.  That's a veritable river of cash that can be used to close the deficit, pay down debt, keep other taxes low, and invest in worthwhile projects.