In a Smoke-Filled Gloom

Recently the Seattle Times reported that some public-housing agencies around here are looking at banning smoking in the units of some buildings. At first this got my Wrath up and running around, and the Downtown Emergency Services Center was about to demand ID from the visiting vein in my forehead. So Anitra “Who Needs No Last Name, As Her First Is Not Yet Used Up” fetched the customary three vats of cold water, and here we are now, calm and orderly, and able to discuss this issue in a polite and civilized manner.

I should begin by saying I don’t smoke. I haven’t for nine years. I don’t plan to resume smoking ever. I don’t have a direct personal interest in the question. If smoking were banned in all the rooms of my subsidized DESC-run apartment building tomorrow I wouldn’t give a wrinkled rat’s ass.

But there is another issue behind the immediate issue of whether smoking is banned in rooms or not. It is an issue that means a lot to me, so much that I could spit flaming wrinkled asses.

Here’s the thing. The article was all about “these public health people here sent out a survey of these residents there” and “these residents responded” and “this public housing agency here will do another survey of these other residents” and then “we’ll decide what to do about it” and WHAT DO YOU THINK THEY MEAN BY “WE,” I’ll tell you want they mean: THEY MEAN THEM.

It’s just another example of how the public housing agencies don’t defer to the rightful power of their tenants.

How about if we decide our government the way public housing decides these kinds of rules.

Let’s say in the summer of 2008 Congress commissions a survey. They select a “representative sampling” of Americans and ask them questions like these: Which statement is more true FOR YOU, 1) I like a president who listens to me, 2) I like a president who goes his own way, 3) I don’t care, either way is fine. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the most, tell how much do you agree the following statements. 1) It’s OK if a woman is president. 2) National security is really important to me. 3) Presidents should be tall.

Then let’s say a Congressional Committee made up of five or ten typical Congressional jerks, much like the jerks who sit on public housing agencies boards, gets together and wets it’s collective seven or eight neurons with the results of that survey. Then, let’s say they do a few more surveys, because they liked the first one so much, it tingled.

Finally they make a decision! Your next president is… whoever they say he or she is!

Meanwhile, let’s say you ask, where was the power of the people in all this? They then tell you that you, the people, WE’RE consulted. By surveys! They tell you they did everything they could to take your “issues” into account. They say they got all kinds of “public input” and “public feedback.” But in the end they decided.

That’s what public housing agencies do.

Would it hurt them to let the residents of each building work it out themselves? The enforcement could be the same. Management could stage the community meetings and set up the vote and enforce the result. But the difference is, the people whose lives are effected by the decision do the deciding, not patronizing jerks who live in houses in the suburbs and think they’re better than the people forced by circumstances to rent from their public housing.

Speaking of people forced into public housing, the Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness is underway and everyone’s congratulating themselves on the numbers from this year’s One Night Count. A piece of the plan is to lure homeless people into permanent housing and off the streets, to reduce the total cost of services.

It’s easier to lure people into self-determination, than into slavery.

Get Ready For Camp!

Why does the government really want our phone records? Let’s get conspiracy-theoretic all over this!

Here’s a clue. All the fury surrounding NSA’s data mining last week pushed another important story off the front pages. Kellogg Brown and Root, notorious subsidiary of Halliburton, was awarded a $385 million no-bid contingency contract to build a “network” of detention centers, here at home, in the future, for “some kind of mass migrations” or “the rapid development of new programs.” Each center would house up to 5000 detainees.

Allow me to restate that. KBR got handed $385 million in advance, without public debate, for the creation of a lots of new prison camps for people within the US, to all be built in a hurry, and we aren’t being told clearly why, or why KBR has to do it instead of the lowest bidder.

My main question, though, is how do you quickly create a “network” of prisons, each holding up to 5000, for a measly $385 million, assuming “network” means more than, like, 3 or 4?

Answer: You don’t create the prisons from scratch; you establish them where there are already sufficient facilities.

Wait, there’s a shortage of housing, right? Yes, in the civilian sector, but there is and long has been a glut of unused military housing in this country. What with the switch to an all-volunteer army and two overseas wars, there’s no shortage of barracks in the US. In fact the DoD has more bases than it needs.

OK, don’t believe that. Believe this: a big long unclassified document on the US Army’s official website that has been around for over a year, gathering almost no attention, details plans for something entitled the Civilian Inmate Labor Program. This CILP calls for the creation, FROM EXISTING UNUSED FACILITIES ON MILITARY BASES, of prison camps to exploit the labor of certain classes of federal prisoners. The plan specifically rules out paying the prisoners for the labor, so in human language, we’re talking SLAVE LABOR CAMPS. As they put it at Auschwitz, Arbeit macht frei – nicht!

How much do you think it might cost to set those camps up? I’d guess around $385 million or so.

According to the web document, some classes of federal prisoners would be “ineligible” for slavery within the Civilian Labor Program. For instance, sex offenders and drug dealers will not be so fortunate. Who remaining would be eligible?

How about people who wind up in federal custody because of disturbances arising from some kinds of mass migrations or the occasional rapidly developing program?

Gee, what with most of the National Guard off making Iraq free for oil exploitation, if we had even a risk of mass disturbances inside the US, we might have to declare martial law and round up and arrest all the potential troublemakers before the disturbances happen. What if there were a bird flu epidemic, making mass ineffectual quarantines look desirable? What if we tried to send the Mexicans home, and they wouldn’t go? What if a Democrat had a clear shot at the White House, for a change?

But how can we round up potential troublemakers if we don’t know who they are?

Well, thanks to the NSA, now we can know. We can start with our previously obtained list of known troublemakers, like the Raging Grannies, members of the ACLU, Real Change staff, non-Saudi-royal Muslims, Democratic Party precinct leaders, Simon Cowell, and such. Combine that with the NSA’s call data. Do a little easy network computation, and we can rate every resident of the country on a scale of zero to 10. Zero would mean you’re Bush, Cheney, or Rove or close family. Anything over 7.5, say, could mean the Bush administration wouldn’t miss you.

If you’re the average Real Change reader, you’ll probably be assigned an 8 or higher. Since you all won’t be able to vote from your slave labor camps you might as well hale Jeb as your next Überbush right now and get it over with.