DURING Wednesday night’s Democratic presidential debate in Philadelphia, Barack Obama once more tried to explain what he meant when he suggested earlier this month that small-town people of modest means “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them” out of frustration with their place in a changing American economy. Mr. Obama acknowledged that his wording offended some voters, but he also reiterated his impression that “wedge issues take prominence” when voters are frustrated by “difficult times.”

Last week in Terre Haute, Ind., Mr. Obama explained that the people he had in mind “don’t vote on economic issues, because they don’t expect anybody’s going to help them.” He added: “So people end up, you know, voting on issues like guns, and are they going to have the right to bear arms. They vote on issues like gay marriage. And they take refuge in their faith and their community and their families and things they can count on. But they don’t believe they can count on Washington.”

This is a remarkably detailed and vivid account of the political sociology of the American electorate. What is even more remarkable is that it is wrong on virtually every count.

Who’s Bitter Now?

Along with its various derivatives, “misspeak” has become one of the signature verbal workhorses of this interminable political season, right up there with “narrative,” “Day One,” and “hope.” It carries the suggestion that, while the politician’s perfectly functioning brain has dispatched the correct signals, the mouth has somehow received and transmitted them in altered form. “Misspeak” is a powerful word, a magical word. It is a word that is apparently thought capable, in its contemporary political usage, of isolating a palpable, possibly toxic untruth, sealing it up in an airtight bag, and disposing of it harmlessly.

Such a feat of modern hygiene is impressive in a word of such ancient origins. The Oxford English Dictionary finds it in Chaucer (“I me repente / If I mis spak”), but the hoary examples involve meanings that are either obsolete (to calumniate) or irrelevant to the present case (to mispronounce or speak incorrectly, a specialty of George W. “Misunderestimated” Bush). The last item in Oxford’s half-column entry, however, gets us where Senators Clinton and McCain want us to go:

3.b. refl. To fail to convey the meaning one intends by one’s words.

This use of “misspeak” is of American origin. Oxford’s first example (“I believe he misspoke himself”) is drawn from, aptly, the Congressional Record, 1894; its second (“The President misspoke himself”) is from Richard Nixon’s iconic press secretary, Ron Zeigler, in 1973, annus mirabilis of the Classical period of American misspeaking.

Mr. and Ms. Spoken

We evaluated the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) National Applications Office (NAO) privacy stewardship to determine whether the NAO is conducting activities to instill and promote a culture of privacy, and its planned operations are in compliance with privacy regulations. Privacy stewardship includes privacy integration in the program mission and strategic plans, established privacy requirements at the outset of program initiation, procedures and training for operational and staff accountability for privacy protections, and a privacy framework for internal control and external oversight.

Generally, NAO is making good progress in developing an effective privacy program for its operations. Specifically, NAO involved the DHS Privacy Office early in program planning and development of key organizational documents. Also, NAO acknowledges privacy requirements and states a commitment to privacy in its Charter. By doing so, NAO signaled its intent to incorporate accepted privacy principles in its policies and operating procedures. We identified several elements that serve as a framework for NAO’s privacy stewardship. These include ongoing privacy oversight by departmental privacy and civil liberties officers, public notice of system of records, training of NAO personnel, and approved risk assessments. However, a revised Privacy Impact Assessment and a Civil Liberties Impact Assessment reflecting changes in the Charter are still necessary prior to NAO becoming operational.

In our report, we made two recommendations to strengthen privacy stewardship at the NAO. The Under Secretary for Intelligence & Analysis concurred with our findings and recommendations. We consider these recommendations resolved, but open, pending our review of documentation provided by the NAO.

National Applications Office Privacy Stewardship

Information sharing is a principal component of the DNI’s strategy for improving the Intelligence Community’s ability to overcome the new challenging threat environment that we face as a Nation. This document outlines a forward-leaning information sharing strategy to enhance our capability to operate as a unified, integrated intelligence enterprise. The information sharing strategy is focused on developing a “responsibility to provide” culture in which we unlock intelligence data from a fragmented information technology infrastructure spanning multiple intelligence agencies and make it readily discoverable and accessible from the earliest point at which an analyst can add value. This new information sharing model will rely on attribute-based access and tagged data with security built-in to create a trusted environment for collaboration among intelligence professionals to share their expertise and knowledge. Moreover, we should reiterate our commitment to develop a risk management approach where we carefully contemplate anticipated benefits and potential costs, ensuring mission success and protection of privacy, civil liberties, and sources and methods. As we embark on this challenging endeavor, we look forward to working collaboratively with you to implement this strategy’s information sharing strategic goals and objectives in a manner that benefits the Intelligence Community as one enterprise.

IC Information Sharing Strategy

A PDF of "The Problems of Information Privacy Law," which appears as Chapter 4 of "The Digital Person: Technology and Privacy in the Information Age", by Daniel J. Solove.

The Problems of Information Privacy Law

In 2005, Congress addressed the issue of national standards for drivers’ licenses and personal identification cards by passing The REAL ID Act of 2005 (REAL ID). The act contains a number of provisions relating to improved security for drivers’ licenses and personal identification cards, as well as instructions for states that do not comply with its provisions. In general, while REAL ID does not directly impose federal standards with respect to states’ issuance of drivers’ licenses and personal identification cards, states nevertheless appear compelled to adopt such standards and modify any conflicting laws or regulations to continue to have such documents recognized by federal agencies for official purposes.

Both at the time that REAL ID was debated in Congress, and during the regulatory comment period, questions about the constitutionality of the statute have been raised. There have been four main constitutional arguments made against REAL ID. First, because REAL ID cannot be premised on Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce, it is a violation of states’ rights as protected by the Tenth Amendment. Second, the requirement that REAL IDs be used to board federally regulated aircraft impermissibly encroaches on citizens’ right to travel.

Third, specific requirements such as the digital photograph potentially violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Finally, REAL ID infringes upon a citizen’s right under the First Amendment to freely assemble, associate, and petition the government.

Since its adoption in 2005, REAL ID has been a highly contested issue among state legislatures and governors. According to some advocacy groups, state and federal elected officials — including numerous commentators to the proposed regulations — and other interested parties, REAL ID imposes an unconstitutional “unfunded mandate” on the states. Prior to the publication of the proposed rule in 2007, however, there was little activity at the state-lawmaking level, primarily because officials were uncertain as to precisely what the implementation requirements were going to necessitate, either in terms of cost or potential changes to state law. Since the publication of the proposed rule in 2007, there has been a dramatic increase in state responses to REAL ID and its requirements. The final regulations were promulgated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on January 29, 2008, and contain 280 pages of explanation as well as responses to over 21,000 comments. This report contains a summary description and analysis of several of the major elements of the REAL ID regulations.

Finally, this report will address REAL ID in relationship to other federal laws and identification programs. This report will be updated as events warrant.

The REAL ID Act of 2005: Legal, Regulatory, and Implementation Issues

Previously secret U.S. Air Force official histories of the Vietnam war published today by the National Security Archive disclose for the first time that Central Intelligence Agency contract employees had a direct role in combat air attacks when they flew Laotian government aircraft on strike missions and that the Air Force actively considered nuclear weapons options during the 1959 Laos crisis.

Fighting the War in Southeast Asia, 1961-1973

On April 3, David Tornquist, Assistant Inspector General for Rail and Maritime Program Audits and Economic Analysis, testified before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing & Urban Development regarding Amtrak’s future outlook and FY 2009 budgetary needs. Mr. Tornquist testified to the need for Amtrak to do more to minimize its costs and dependence on Federal subsidies and that its spending initiatives need to make a demonstrable contribution to its bottom line. The Assistant Inspector General drew heavily from ongoing OIG analysis of Amtrak’s financial performance and labor agreement costs, their efforts to achieve operating reform savings, the causes of on–time performance problems, and a review of Amtrak’s capital plan. The Assistant Inspector General testified that Amtrak would need $475 million in FY09 for cash operating losses, $675 million for capital spending, and $266 million for debt service to operate its nationwide system. The Assistant Inspector General stated that Amtrak does not require a FY 09 appropriation to cover retroactive wage costs included in its pending labor agreement.

Amtrak’s Future Outlook and Budgetary Needs

The farm bill is loaded with pork and environmentally disastrous provisions.

We'll reap what we sow

Two men, two speeches.

Two Speeches on Race