« April 2005 | Main | June 2005 »
We definitely have quite a bit to worry about from mandatory federal ID cards that have technology that can read them up to 30 feet away. With identity theft as rampant as it is NOW, shouldn't the Feds take a second, third and a fourth look at this idea and the technology behind it before implementation of such a risky scheme?
As usual, EPIC has the facts. Read on.
Federal ID cards need more thought | CNET News.com: "In response to the Perspectives column written by Phil Libin, 'Technology alarmism in spades': We are writing in response to Phil Libin's CNET News.com column on May 17, 2005, 'Technology alarmism in spades.' In it, Mr. Libin criticized the Electronic Privacy Information Center's April 2005 Spotlight on Surveillance report, 'Homeland Security ID Card Is Not So Secure,' which is an evaluation of the Department of Homeland Security's Access Card (DAC). Mr. Libin also posted a longer criticism of the report on his blog, 'Vastly Important Notes.' Mr. Libin's column and blog entry contain several errors, and EPIC takes this opportunity to refute his criticisms. Mr. Libin's most significant error is his assertion that the DAC's ISO 14443 technology is not Radio Frequency Identification (RFID). However, technology experts, the industry and CNET News.com itself, label ISO 14443 as RFID. RFID is a generic category that encompasses many types of chips: Some are passive (they are dormant until read at close range); some are active (they are always ready to be read at a greater distance); some offer plaintext or encrypted data in addition to authentication mechanisms (ISO 14443 A&B). What they have in common is that they use radio waves to request and transmit data, as opposed to contact cards, which require physical contact with a reader to receive and transmit information."
Oh yes, these are definitely the absolutely most important things we could possibly be pressuring Russia and China about. Not anything pesky like..oh, let's say Human Rights, or medical care, or helping the war on terror. Instead, the pressure is on to install at least as draconian a system of copyright on all countries as we enjoy here in the United States.
Why don't our illustrious Senators work on things that are more important here at home? Didn't they hear about our current crises where numerous people are dying due to lack of medical care, fighting in Iraq, drive by shootings, other random and assorted criminal acts, etc.? Have they forgotten that North Korea is hopping up and down yelling "Pay Attention To US! We have NUKES? How about doing something about our open borders and the money we have to pay every year to track down and kick out illegals? Surely they could find something far more important than telling other countries how they can make American corporations richer, eh?
Senators urge international copyright crackdown | CNET News.com: "U.S. senators urged the Bush administration on Wednesday to increase pressure on Russia and China to respect copyright law, warning that those nations have become havens for movie and software piracy. Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican who chairs the Senate copyright subcommittee, made one of the most ominous statements to date about what might happen if unfettered piracy continues. 'Before Russia enters the (World Trade Organization), many of us will have to be convinced that the Russian government is serious about cracking down on the theft of intellectual property,' Hatch said during a hearing. James Mendenhall, the acting general counsel for the U.S. Trade Representative, said his colleagues are hosting a delegation from China this week to talk in part about copyright law. 'We're going to be issuing a request through WTO rules seeking additional information from China on the status of enforcement in China,' Mendenhall said. (A WTO spokesman later said the talks were still ongoing.)"
Iraqi Christians to American evangelists: Piss off: "
Iraq: American evangelists have managed to really annoy one particular group of Iraqis - Christians. Patriarch Emmanuel Delly is the head of the Chaldean Catholic Church, Iraq's largest Christian denomination, affiliated with the Vatican. Delly, who ranks as an archbishop in the Roman Catholic Church and is tipped to become a cardinal, explained his problem with the evangelists that have plagued the country since the invasion in March last year:
Delly told Al-Jazeera News on May 19 that Iraq did not need Christian missionaries because its churches dated back long before Protestantism. He objected to the aspect of trying to convert Muslims and said,You can’t even talk about that here.
According to Delly, the evangelicals attract poor youths with displays of money and thentake them out in cars to have fun. Then, they take photos and send them here, to Germany, to the United States and say ‘look how many Muslims have become Christian.’
The (atheist) correspondent at uruknet.info goes on to discuss the role of well-known fundies like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell in bringing these pests to Iraq.
Reuters has more detail on the story, and notes that Christians in predominatly Muslim countries tend not to make pains of themselves.
Many Muslim countries consider Christian missionaries as part of a Western campaign against Islam and punish both the preacher and the apostate Muslim severely. Violent Iraqi groups killed at least five evangelical missionaries last year.
At least 20 Iraqis were killed in bombings of Christian churches last year as unknown attackers stepped up pressure on non-Muslims there. Christian minorities in Muslim countries usually keep a low profile and do not evangelise.
JUST WHAT EVERY IRAQI NEEDS: A BIBLE - uruknet.info, 23rd May 2005; Patriarch denounces U.S. evangelicals in Iraq - Reuters, 19th May 2005 (via The Sideshow and The Green Knight).
"(Via The Pagan Prattle Online.)
I'm quite sad at the way things have shaken out in Hollywood. One MIGHT have thought that the content cartel would learn to give a proverbial rat's ass about the people from whom it milks its billions of dollars per year. Instead, it seems as if they are becoming even MOR recalcitrant in the face of consumers who are finally waking up to the idea that they control the playing field. As their silly schemes to prevent us from using the content that we pay for in so many ways, fall before them, rather than embrace those who pay their salaries, some would rather just say damn the torpedoes.
If Mike had told me he was going to be here at this little panel, I might have showed up to cheer him on. But nooooo... so many old friends forget the Psycho Sensei. It seems he did ok without me however.
Hollywood to Compatibility: Drop Dead!: "
The Progress and Freedom Foundation was kind enough to invite me to participate in a panel discussion on Capitol Hill concerning the implications of our victory in the broadcast-flag challenge. I'd expected to get into a debate with some of the other panelists who represented the pro-broadcast-flag contingent, but the news coverage of the event focused on a pair of exchanges between me and two content-industry lobbyists in the audience -- Rick Lane of News Corporation (that is, Fox), and Alec French of NBC/Universal.
Rather than stressing the issue of whether consumers would be able to record TV programs under the broadcast-flag regime (to some extent they'd be able to, if they buy the right equipment), I concentrated instead on the nightmarish consumer-electronics compatibility problems that the scheme as approved by the FCC would cause.
Sarah Stirland of Technology Daily caught one of Rick's more remarkable comments in response to my presentation: 'Compatibility is not a goal.' I have to say, I think there are a few hundred million Americans who probably disagree with him.
The full text of Sarah's story is available only to Tech Daily subscribers, but for blog entries based on Rick's comment, see here, here, and here.
"
(Via Godwin's Law - feed.rdf.)
You GO girl! It's about time that someone showed Congress what we "little people" have to put up with. We fought and fought back in 1988 to keep employee SSNs off of their health insurance cards. Fought some more in 1989 or so to stop Virginia from requiring our SSNs on drivers licenses. One would have hoped that perhaps the fight would have become easier, but that is not the case.
Perhaps if the decision makers had to play on the same field as we do, things would change pretty quickly. You want health insurance reform? Make Congress and the President use OUR health insurance instead of their own bloated policies. You want tax reform? Let the IRS harass Members of Congress the same way they harass the rest of us. Aviation reform? Put Congress on the "no fly" list. Privacy reform? Do exactly what BJ is doing. More power to her.
A Matter Of Public Record: "Betty (but call her BJ) Ostergren, a feisty 56-year-old from just north of Richmond, is driven to make important people angry. She puts their Social Security numbers on her Web site, or links to where they can be found.
It's not that she wants CIA Director Porter J. Goss, former secretary of state Colin L. Powell, or Florida Gov. Jeb Bush to be victims of identity theft, as were millions of Americans in the past year. Ostergren is on a crusade to scare and shame public officials into doing something about how easy it is to get sensitive personal data."
(Via Washington Post.)
Ok folks, we have people running around crowing about the "win for general aviation" in that we're now being allowed to fly back into DCA. But take a look at these ridiculously lame rules that one must follow. How many of we "little people" will be able to fly one of those four flights per hour for 12 hours per day, with flight crews who have all been fingerprinted and background checked, AND fly to DCA ONLY from one of 12 other airports in the US, AND have an armed law enforcement officer on board? How does that law enforcement officer get from DCA back to, let's say Seattle? Who can afford to pay for all of that?
And let's just put ONE IOTA of thought into this. These extra specially trained TSA agents could easily be knocked over the head by some would be bad guy, who would then impersonate said agent, happily get onto the aircraft, and since they are required to be armed, pull out their happy fun service weapon and what do you think could happen, eh?
Five years later and the terrorists are still winning. Stupid security abounds and we're no safer today than we were 9/10/01.
Only a Few to Fly Private Planes to Reagan - WTOP Radio: "
By LESLIE MILLER
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - The loudest applause for Wednesday's announcement that Reagan National Airport will be open to private planes came from people most likely to use Washington's most convenient runways.
The airport, just a few miles from the Capitol and the White House, has been closed to private planes since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Ed Bolen, president of the National Business Aviation Association, characterized the typical private user of the airport as someone in business with "important interests on Capitol Hill, the Pentagon, the executive branch and downtown companies."
Added Rep. Harold Rogers, R-Ky.: "It's a very important aspect of American political life."
"We are ecstatic," said James Coyne, president of the National Air Transportation Association.
Only people who can afford to comply with the strict security rules are expected to fly aboard private planes into the airport.
EFF Obtains Draft PATRIOT Bill: "
Bill Gives Justice Department More Power to Demand Private Records
On Thursday, May 26, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence will consider in closed session a draft bill that would both renew and expand various USA PATRIOT Act powers. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has obtained a copy of the draft bill, along with the committee's summary of it, and has made them available to journalists and interested citizens on its website, http://www.eff.org/.
'Even though Congress is still debating whether to renew the broad surveillance authorities granted by the original USA PATRIOT Act, the Justice Department is already lobbying for even more unchecked authority to demand the private records of citizens who are not suspected of any crime,' said Kevin Bankston, EFF attorney and Equal Justice Works/Bruce J. Ennis Fellow. 'The Senate's intelligence committee should focus on adding checks and balances to protect against abuse of already-existing PATRIOT powers, or repealing them altogether, rather than working to expand them behind closed doors.'
Draft of new PATRIOT Act powers.
Senate Select Committee summary.
Contacts:
Kevin Bankston
Attorney, Equal Justice Works / Bruce J. Ennis Fellow
Electronic Frontier Foundation
bankston@eff.org
Lee Tien
Senior Staff Attorney
Electronic Frontier Foundation
tien@eff.org
(Via EFF: Press.)
The "band aid" ADIZ "no fly" area around the Washington DC area is suddenly becoming more trouble than it's worth for our friendly Homeland Security pals. As long as most Americans didn't truly understand that the ADIZ would not protect anyone from anything, it was a wonderful publicity stunt that the average or below average American believed would actually do something about terrorism. But now it isn't quite so firmly in the "good publicity" column. And this might be the perfect time to inject some sanity into the mix and get them to finally get rid of the unwieldy, expensive, annoying, and useless blue line painted around Washington and Baltimore.
The story of the "Flying Farmer" (I have another noun I would use that begins with an F, but let's leave it at that) was plastered all over the news as he caused tens of thousands to flee in the wake of 90 knots of screaming terror in the guise of a Cessna 150. The FAA took his license away from him yesterday. I personally wish that they make him reimburse us all for the millions of dollars it took to chase his ass down, evacuate 1/2 the city, and cause otherwise sane individuals to run in circles screaming, but they can't do that. In any case, the point is that if anything, the Flying Farmer underscored the utter uselessness of the ADIZ
The other hundreds of ADIZ incursions have not been so widely reported. Mostly because most of them are utterly worthless as media fodder. For example, a King Air getting ready to land at Gaithersburg (my home airport) changed his transponder code from the special code given to him to go into the ADIZ, to the normal "I'm flying in visual conditions" code that most pilots who have been flying since before 9/11 are so used to putting into the little machine. It was obvious that the pilot had no hostile intentions, he was merely doing what his checklist likely told him to do before landing, forgetting for a moment the "new regime" we have in the air. He was likely "violated" anyway. Yesterday's incursion was also obviously non hostile. From what I can put together, a Canadian pilot flying on a properly filed instrument flight plan in instrument conditions (in other words, he couldn't consistently see the ground) was hit by lightning. The lightning knocked out his radio, so he was unable to respond to radio calls. He was intercepted and landed at Gaithersburg.
So what does this mean? It means that dozens of law abiding pilots who have no hostile intent whatsoever, make a slight error in complex procedures and airspace, and find themselves the targets of intercept procedures. Meantime, a "real" terrorist would have been into the airspace, have done their "nasty" and the post crash fire would be well underway before the first Blackhawk or F-16 could be scrambled. And they could do most of it well within the rules that have been established for operations within the ADIZ.
How can I say this? Well, let's take a look. I fly out of Gaithersburg, Maryland. Let's use Washington National Airport as a landmark, since it's approximately the same distance from Gaithersburg Airport as the White House or the Capitol (and because I can get an accurate flight plan for it :-)). Gaithersburg Airpark is 19.9 nautical miles from DCA and takes 10 minutes to fly there, including time to climb to altitude, turn onto the course, time to descend, and land at DCA.
So there is our would be terrorist, happily doing his duty as a good pilot citizen, calling Flight Services and filing an ADIZ flight plan. Let's say our buddy is ... oh, let's say pattern practice around GAI. Our would-be terrorist would call Potomac Clearance before take off to receive the code to put into his transponder, and he would then not have to speak to Potomac Approach, and would happily be able to fly in circles for awhile.
The Evil Terrorist climbs to an altitude of 3000 feet, which would take approximately 2 minutes. That would give him 8 minutes to get to DCA. Then... he could likely shave 1 minute off of arrival time by dive bombing into his target as opposed to gently descending for a landing. That leaves us 7 minutes. File that 7 minutes away for a minute or two.
So here's our Evil Terrorist happily flying in a few circles around Gaithersburg with a pretty little green tag with his squawk code on everyone's happy little radar screen. He then turns south and heads for his target. The controllers see this, then question "hmmm, what is this person doing?" They then make some calls. "November 1234 Terrorist, what are your intentions?" The terrorist could possibly get some more milage out of making a few calls back, feigning confusion. This would eat up perhaps another 2 minutes, leaving 5 by the time the controllers became suspicious enough to call Homeland Security. They call Homeland Security, and likely eat another 1 minute trying to get to the appropriate person with the appropriate authority to do something. That leaves 4 minutes.
Four minutes for pilots to be located at their facilities (assuming they are standing by 24/7 which of course they might be. Nobody has told Psycho Sensei one way or another :-)) then grab their flight stuff, run out to their Blackhawk or F-16, quick preflight, spook up, and take off. Then they must locate the target, which is another few radio calls, visualize it, then attempt intercept procedures. Could all this be done in that 4 minutes? Could they then get authority and make the choice to target and shoot down the aircraft? Could they even be in the air and locate the offending aircraft in that time? Highly doubtful.
The Band Aid Approach
Almost immediately after 9/11, in speaking to people from the NYC area as well as around Washington, most of them said they would "feel much better" if airplanes were kept away from their areas. It would just give them a bit more "peace of mind." It is also likely that a significant number of people would have more "peace of mind" if people of Middle Eastern descent were not allowed near them, or near any vulnerable buildings. The constitution thus far prohibits the one extreme, but not the other.
The "feel good" approach to airspace restrictions extends to the Secret Service whenever the President moves anywhere. Special "pop up" no-fly zones appear with little or no warning, and pilots caught up in it, even if they did not exist when they took off, and popped up without warning during their flight, likely will lose their licenses at least for a time. It made everyone but the pilots "feel good."
That "good feeling" is now in serious jeopardy. The media is showing more and more accidental incursions of the airspace. The result could either prohibit general aviation in the DC area completely, or the powers that be could come to their senses and realize what a waste the whole ADIZ program has become, and scrap it. I very much fear the former, however.
What the ADIZ Has Done for Business
There are 23 airports located within the Washington/Baltimore ADIZ. Before 9/11/01, those airports were bustling communities, with many aircraft related businesses including mechanics, avionics shops, fixed based operators, many flight instructors, pilot shops, restaurants, and other businesses. If you went to the airport to fly, especially during the weekends, you could expect a relatively long wait while trying to get out, and would have to learn how to blend into a busy pattern, and land without "stepping on" anyone else. Business owners could expect significant business both from transient aircraft owners from other areas, as well as those based at their airport. Flight instructors would deliberately bring students to places like the "Montgomery Zoo" which is what we used to call the weekend follies, in order to teach them how to cope with high work loads and busy patterns.
For the past two Sundays, I drove up to Montgomery County Airpark to commit some aviation. I have to admit that I have been deterred from flying by the ADIZ procedures, and the fact that if you make a mistake you can be shot down. Consequently, I haven't don't much flying since 9/11/01, which is a shame since I truly do enjoy it. The first thing that I noticed was that my old airport had become a ghost town. Many of the businesses were gone. Just plain gone. Many of the tie downs were empty. Many of the hangars were empty. The restaurant closed early. Nobody was at the Unicom. The whole airport was a mere shadow of itself.
From what I've heard, the Frederick airport up the road and out of the ADIZ has become the "new zoo." It certainly wasn't anywhere near zoo like at Montgomery, where I spent hours doing pattern practice while only sharing the pattern for brief periods of time.
So Who Has Suffered Most?
While it would be easy to throw a "pity party" here about the poor pilots who are now royally inconvenienced by the ADIZ, that isn't the main point. To me, the point is that this band aid measure has done a lot more harm than good. It has harmed the pilots, it has harmed the business owners who earned their livings and paid their employees through general aviation dollars, it has harmed the air traffic controllers with the increased loads, the Flight Service Stations who now have to file flight plans for every flight into or out of the ADIZ, and it has harmed the individuals who believe that they are somehow protected because this zone exists. And it has definitely hurt the pilots who have blundered into the area and had suspensions or lost licenses.
Most of all, however, I think the biggest loser here has been the constitution. The idea that an entire industry can be decimated to make another segment of society "feel good" is a very frightening precedent. And where does it stop? Which segment of business or industry is next?
Time to Stop the Madness
If incursion after incursion have taught us anything, it is that there will always be incursions. These incursions will continue to cost us money, cost pilots their licenses, and cause the occasional crazed evacuations complete with "run for your life" from the screaming terror of a tiny aircraft. And it will continue to be of no practical use whatsoever. It's time to drop the pretense and concentrate on REAL terrorist prevention.
Ok...let's have a think. We hear this over and over, how various organizations who are supposed to keep our data safe and private, are compromised and our personal information is out there.
Now, these same organizations who are supposed to be keeping our data private, are corporations who can be sued. Most corporations do not want to be sued, so they usually do their best to keep our data as private as they can. They FAIL a lot, but I'm sure they still try.
However, our government has various mechanisms in place to prevent it from being sued. By and large, government agencies have to CONSENT to be sued prior to a lawsuit actually occurring. So, tell me again what incentive they really have to keep our data private?
If banks, Lexus/Nexus, credit card reporting companies, universities, and other large entities whose businesses RELY on keeping things safe and private, are still hacked, how can the government possibly think that they can prevent identity theft with their lovely new RealID crap?
The answer: They don't care. It doesn't fall within their agenda of having as much control over us as possible. They KNOW that these "RealIDs" will do nothing to stop terrorism (most terrorists have perfectly legal "papers," no criminal records, and don't exist on the terrorist watch list because they are stealth... AND they can just steal someone else's identity either through the RealID program itself or another method of identity theft) yet they are pushing for it anyway. Because they do not care about privacy or any other citizens rights in their zeal for control
It's totally chilling to me that the State Department's desire for RFID chips in passports called for crappy technology RFIDs that were easily readable by unauthorized people at a distance, while Chase bank's plan to put RFID on their visa cards uses Triple DES, very short range RFID and much more secure technology. Why? Likely because you can go shopping elsewhere for another credit card. Where can you get another passport?
Uh, Folks, Your Data Was Swiped: "Two banks notify more than 100,000 customers that their financial records may have been stolen, and nearly 700,000 patrons of four banks may be affected. But the banks are giving them free credit reports."
(Via Wired News.)
And why? None of the 9/11 terrorists had fake IDs. None of the Iraqui terrorists are using fake IDs. What's the point here except to gain more control over law abiding citizens?
Americans face stricter ID checks: "From driver's licenses, to passports, to plane tickets, the US is tightening ID requirements in the name of security."
So, imagine you've been on a medication for a number of years, and you change jobs. Your new insurance company decides that your medication is "experimental" and therefore they will not pay for it. Now imagine the medications costs between one and two THOUSAND dollars per month!
Blue Cross/Blue Shield's Anthem plan has decided that my husband's medication is "experimental" even though it is approved for Rheumatoid Arthritis. Since it isn't specifically approved for Psoriatic Arthritis, it is therefore "experimental" and they won't pay, DESPITE the fact that the only drug approved for Psoriatic Arthritis gave him fibromyalgia and his doctor says he can't use it any longer.
Psoriatic arthritis is a degenerative and nasty disease that eats the bones of victims. Without the medication, his condition will deteriorate and he will lose functionality. He goes to one of the best arthritis doctors in the country, but will Blue Cross listen? Of COURSE not. They don't want to have to pay, despite the fact that my husband's employer pays them significant amounts of money for their insurance.
If you are an employer who is making a decision on health insurance for your employees, or have a choice in your coverage, think VERY HARD before choosing Blue Cross/Blue Shield. If there's any possibility that you will get a catastrophic disease whose only workable treatment happens to be classified by BC/BS to be "experimental" then you can likely forget that treatment, regardless of what it does to your life.
We have appealed the decision, taken it to peer review, and the claim is still denied. Are we having fun yet?
Time for us to put our money where our mouths are. Time to boycott the entire Walgreens chain. Online, offline, whatever, just don't shop there. Any corporation that would place lives at risk by allowing pharmacists who are NOT medical doctors, to decide what medications are appropriate based solely on what they believe their invisible friend tells them, should not receive our money.
This is not a christians vs. others, or a choice vs. anti choice, or even a women's rights issue. This is instead a medical rights and a human rights issue. In a world where we already watch our doctors medical advice questioned and countermanded by insurance companies, now we go through a second gauntlet, while HOPING our pharmacist is professional enough to fill legally and medically valid prescriptions.
The result of these "ad hoc" decisions based on the misplaced morality of certain pharmacists is not limited to women's health. Nothing in these Walgreens guidelines says that if a pharmacist decides that she doesn't have to dispense Viagra if she considers impotency to be a punishment from God. How about AIDS drugs? Anabuse for alcoholics? Herpes medications? Where does it end?
It is time to show these companies and these pharmacists that they cannot substitute vague personal ides of what others may and may not do, for doing their jobs, i.e filling valid prescriptions written by state licensed medical doctors. It's time to end this HERE.
Walgreens Allows Pharmacists To Not Dispense Drugs They Object To: "A WISN 12 News investigation has discovered that a Milwaukee-area pharmacist has refused to fill prescriptions for women citing religious reasons. A Milwaukee mother of six walked into a north side"
The courts are getting wise to the power grabs by the content cartel. Hooray!
Court overturns broadcast flag | News.blog | CNET News.com: "The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled on Friday that the Federal Communications Commission did not have the authority to prohibit the manufacture of computer and video hardware without the so-called 'broadcast flag.' The FCC's regulations were intended to limit unauthorized Internet redistribution of TV broadcasts."
(Via CNet.)
Perhaps they are getting some sense? Maybe? Hopefully?
Fla. Won't Appeal Abortion for 13-Year-Old: "WEST PALM BEACH, Fla.-A judge ruled that a 13-year-old girl at the center of an abortion fight with the state may terminate her pregnancy, and Gov. Jeb Bush said Tuesday that the state will not appeal further."
(Via FindLaw: Top Legal Headlines.)
So I finally get someone to run to the post office for me after addressing a box to a service member. Person comes back carrying the box, and a form. Apparently, in order to ship to the Fleet Post Office (not any particular ship mind you... but the FLEET Post Office, located INSIDE THE UNITED STATES) one must fill out a customer declaration form.
Besides necessitating yet another trip to the post office with yet another wait in line, you may ask what the POINT is to filling out such a lovely form. If I was a bad guy who wanted to do bad things to the fleet post office, I would just fill in "Nothing Dangerous Here" while stuffing the box full of naughty things and ship it on over. Or, I would just go there and do naughty things. Either way, a stupid customs form that does nothing but invade the privacy of both shipper and service personnel does nothing except annoy and cost more money to process more useless bits of paper.
I have no idea why I even bother to get surprised at the ridiculousness of any branch of the US Government.
The military is an important aspect of American life, and unfortunately necessary in a world that has still not figured out how to "just get along." So long as we have individuals who risk their lives and limbs in the service of their country, we, as a nation, should be willing to make certain sacrifices for them in return. Examples of these include maintaining adequate funding for military families to have proper health care, ensuring jobs are held for those who have been called to duty, and generally supporting the people and the job they do for us.
Unfortunately, it seems that at least one branch of the US Government refuses to make life just that little bit easier for those who want to support individuals in the military. The United States Postal Service states on its website that they do not support their Internet "Click and Ship" service to military addresses.
While it might be easy to say that this is not really a big deal since you can just march on down to the post office, wait in line for however long it might take, fill out the paperwork and ship the package, that isn't really the point. The point is that our government take that little bit of an extra step (in this case, providing scanners to post offices) so that we can more easily ship to our fighting men and women around the world, not to mention assist our disabled veterans to send packages and messages to their comrades by themselves, without having to ask someone to go to the post office for them.
It may be just a "little thing" to some, but to a business owner who wishes to fulfill orders made by members of the military, it means leaving work to stand in line. To a new mother it means packing up the baby and then standing in line and hoping he doesn't start crying. To the disabled it means having to ask someone else to go to the post office for them. All of these things CAN be done, but shouldn't our government try to make things LESS difficult to keep up the morale of the troops?
And before you say "use UPS or Fedex" they are prohibited from delivering to military addresses. The monopoly belongs to the USPS. Good try though :-)