All the partisan rhetoric in Washington recently about Pres. Bush authorizing the NSA to eavesdrop on e-mails without court order masks a much more sinister and dangerous type of spying found in the country.

The NSA’s activities, while troubling in some respects, affected a small percentage of people and were targeted at messages to and from suspicious foreigners. Overt—indeed, blatant—spying by local governments is becoming an increasingly more common phenomenon. Sadly, few ordinary citizens seem to care.

The spying (“surveillance” in bureaucratese) is done by cameras and microphones placed in strategic public locations. Touted as effective and cost-efficient means to watch for troublemakers, the cameras silently observe and record all activity, legal and illegal. Therein lies the problem.

Chicago seems to be at the forefront of this activity. Mayor Richard M. Daley, son of the legendary Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley (think Democrat Convention of 1968), has inherited the heavy-handed tactics of his father, in at least one respect. Daley is a staunch and apologetic proponent of cameras in public places. Since 1994 Chicago has a had a network of some 2,000 cameras in various public locations, looking for allegedly suspicious behavior and individuals.

Microphones accompanying the cameras listen for gunfire, which the police department’s software can supposedly discern. But is it failsafe? What if you dropped a sheet of plywood near an intersection downtown? Would the smacking sound made by the wood hitting the concrete result in a SWAT team descending upon you?

Comrade Daley is so smitten with the cameras that he wants to extend them to a variety of public establishments, including bars and convenience stores. Naturally he touts the supposed benefits to public safety. Evidently turning Chicago into a police state is of no concern to him. Ald. Ray Suarez spouts the tired and typical line: “If you're not doing anything wrong, what do you have to worry about?”

The better question to ask is, “If our government doesn’t suspect us of committing a crime, why does it feel the need to spy on us?” Those in office like to use their powers, and technology makes it easier for politicians like Daley and Suarez to keep tabs on their citizens. That’s what’s scary about these security cameras. People are being watched and taped while engaged in perfectly legitimate behavior.

Sadly, Chicago is not the only city with a Big Brother mentality. Houston is considering a proposal by Police Chief Harold Hurtt to expand the city’s spy cameras to include lighted intersections as well as buildings and other public places. Mouthing the same line used by Chicago Ald. Suarez, Hurtt stated recently that “I know a lot of people are concerned about big brother, but...if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?” Ah, Chief. We know what we have to worry about. It’s an attitude like yours by a person in your position.

How much more of this will we take? When will the American people stand up and say, “Enough is enough!”? Probably never. Americans are becoming accustomed to being watched. They see security cameras in the convenience stores, department stores, banks, and countless other businesses.

The big difference with these, of course, is that the images are taken by a private party. Surveillance cameras in parks, at intersections, and other public places, are monitored by city officials. Those individuals have the power to arrest and detain, forcing the hapless person to assert his innocence.

Crime has been a part of our society—-indeed, society at large—-since man traveled out from the cave. It will be with us until the end of time. Determined criminals can beat any system in place. We are kidding ourselves if we think that more surveillance equates to a safer society. Quite the opposite. Eventually the protectors become the predators. Think that’s extreme? Think China, Cuba, and North Korea today, and the former Soviet Union and East Germany of yesteryear.

The sooner we citizens put a stop to this madness, the better.

Oakland, Calif. has had it with litter, particularly from fast food restaurants. Last week the city council decided to begin assessing fast food joints and convenience stores an annual fee to cover the costs of cleaning up the countless burger wrappers, paper cups, and assorted other food trash.

The litter problem is said to be particularly bad in areas near middle and high schools. Which says a lot, if anyone is paying attention. Obviously the school kids are making the mess; it is they who should be forced to clean up after themselves or pay the fine.

Instead of going after the perpetrators, however, the Oakland city council decided to lower the boom on the innocent restaurants, convenience stores, and other establishments whose garbage ends up in the gutter. The assessments, which will range from $230 to over $3,800, will be used to hire people to walk around and pick up trash.

Here’s a better idea: Assign cops to patrol the worst areas during lunch hours and right after school. They’re bound to catch a carload of scofflaws the first day. Hit a young kid with a $100 fine—the maximum allowed for first offenders under Oakland ordinance—and watch the problem evaporate within a week. Force a few kids to forgo that new pair of athletic shoes or the latest electronic gadget, and you can bet the message will sink in fast.

Oakland aldermen could have taken a hard, intelligent stand on this issue. Instead, they acted like typical California politicians, and imposed yet another penalty upon business owners. They obviously don’t see the fallacy in their ways. Like the doctor who prescribes only pain medication for a herniated disk, the city of Oakland will soon realize that is merely attacking the symptoms, not the problem.

It’s time to get tough on the arrogant and irresponsible litterbugs in their midst. And leave the businesspeople alone.

Sen. Hillary Clinton’s foot-in-mouth disease has struck again.

Last month it hit on Martin Luther King Day. Appearing before a black congregation she called the House of Representatives a “plantation.” On Wednesday, speaking to the United Auto Workers convention, she pumped up her chest and attacked the President on his turf, the war on terror. Clinton wondered aloud why Bush has been unable to capture or kill “the tallest man in Afghanistan.” The short answer—pun intended—is that Public Enemy No. 1 is probably hiding in a cave along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. He's there because of actions taken by Pres. George Bush.

We can't say the same about Bill Clinton, and Hillary knows it. She also knows that her husband had numerous chances to take custody of or destroy Osama bin Laden. But Hillary chooses not to dwell on those opportunities. To do so might impede her run for the White House.

How many times did Bill Clinton and his staff drop the ball? Let me count the ways. (For all the sordid details, including attacks in Africa and the Middle East that drew little or no response from Clinton, read Richard Miniter’s "Losing bin Laden," from which these accounts are drawn.)

1. August 1996. Sudan offers intelligence information on bin Laden, whose operations were based in Khartoum. (This following an offer in March to arrest bin Laden. That offer, made to a CIA operative, apparently never reached the White House.) The offer is rebuffed. The administration doesn’t want to open a dialogue with Sudan, considered a breeding ground for terrorism, during an election year.

2. Later, Sudan offers to extradite bin Laden to Saudi Arabia. Washington rejects the idea.

3. April 1997. Sudan makes another offer to share valuable intelligence data. Clinton is informed of this in May, but takes no action. One theory is that Clinton didn’t want to be seen as getting help from a major campaign donor. The donor, a wealthy businessman, had volunteered to meet with Sudanese officials privately.

4. October 1997. The State Department finally decides to send a team to Sudan to inspect the voluminous files, only to drop the plan several days later.

5. Early 1998. Washington refuses to act on intelligence offered by the Northern Alliance which detailed bin Laden’s movements in Afghanistan.

6. August 1998. Clinton authorizes a cruise missile strike against bin Laden’s compound in Afghanistan. Because the cruise missiles will fly through Pakistani airspace—and potentially unnerve India—Pakistani officials are tipped off to the strike. Someone in Pakistani intelligence tips off bin Laden. The missiles hit empty structures. Clinton could have chosen a different path for the missiles or stealth bombers.

7. 1999 and 2000. The administration refuses to adequately support the Northern Alliance’s attacks on bin Laden. Several close calls could have been successful.

8. 1999. Nuclear subs in the Indian Ocean are on standby to launch cruise missiles to kill bin Laden. Three times the subs are set to launch, and each time the order is rescinded. Not sure enough of the intelligence, says the CIA chief.

9. June 2000. The United Arab Emirates offers to capture bin Laden and turn him over to the United States. Washington is uninterested.

10. Late 2000. Even after the bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 sailors and injured 39, Clinton refused to take a shot at bin Laden. As the author notes, “[W]ith Clinton trying to broker a peace settlement in Israel, a presidential election imminent, and the two-term Clinton administration ending, serious plans to retaliate went nowhere.”

There you have it, Hillary. Had your husband done his job properly, we could have disposed of bin Laden years ago. And, in all probability, the events of Sept. 11, 2001, would not have occurred.

Think you can do better than Pres. Bush? You're welcome to strap on a helmet and flak jacket, grab an M-16, and go trekking in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan.

Absent that, Hillary, keep you mouth shut.

It was bound to happen. Apple Computer Inc., maker of the wildly successful and trend-setting iPod music player, has been sued for producing an allegedly defective product.

In court papers filed Tuesday in San Jose, a Louisiana man, John Patterson, claims the iPod can lead to hearing loss because it is capable of playing loudly and doesn’t include a label warning against such behavior. The suit further alleges that the “earbuds” earphones are inherently defective for not adequately filtering outside noise.

Patterson’s attorney, Steve Berman of Seattle, admits that he doesn’t know if his client has suffered any hearing loss. No matter. What’s important to a lawyer is that the iPod has the “potential” to cause permanent hearing loss. Berman is seeking class action status for his suit (naturally) and wants Apple to place warning labels on all its products (another tactic favored by lawyers).

Contacted today, a company official stated that the firm does not comment on pending litigation.

One hopes that the judge assigned to this case throws it right back in Berman’s face and scolds him for wasting the court’s time on such frivolous matters. But we know differently. This is America: unfounded and ridiculous lawsuits are accorded legitimacy by the thousands each year.

We can expect Apple to engage its attorneys for the next several months, quietly researching the facts and filing motions. Eventually Apple will settle, for that is far cheaper than fighting in court. The new, more expensive iPods will be adorned with warning labels telling all intelligent life on Earth the obvious. (And in the process marring a really cool design.)

Berman will head back to Seattle to buy himself a fancy new car or other luxury item. For that is what it’s all about: making money. And that’s what is so terribly wrong with our judicial system. Consumers are exempt from taking even the slightest amount of responsibility for their actions.

Our legal landscape is littered with the shreds of frivolous lawsuits. In 2001, two obese individuals, a teenager and an adult, sued the Big Three fast food chains for allegedly causing their obesity and assorted health problems. That suit was tossed, but not before countless dollars were spent by the firms on legal and public relations efforts.

Just as a new smoker realizes immediately the ill effects of his habit, an iPod user can tell if the volume is painfully high. Those who choose to can turn down the dial. Others will keep the volume up and ultimately face the consequences. That is and should be their choice.

Most troubling about the Apple case is the approach used. Instead of proving that the iPod is defective (which it is not), Berman merely alleges that it can harm. Any product can harm—and therefore be dubbed “defective”—if it’s misused. A Nerf ball can become a hazard if it is stuffed down someone’s throat. It’s not supposed to be used that way, but that doesn’t matter in today’s legal arena.

These types of cases scream for tort reform. Those who live off frivolous lawsuits must be punished for abusing the system. It’s time for judges to give the lawyers a taste of their own medicine by hitting them in their pocketbooks. Passing “loser pays” laws at the state and federal levels will stop many of these lawsuits and bring a measure of relief to our overburdened courts.