Last week, US District Judge Leonie Brinkema ruled that the Department of Injustice cannot call a handful of witnesses in the death-penalty trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, because the gummint flat-out ignored her orders that the witnesses not be coached, as well as two other “major instances of misbehavior” by the prosecution.
The officials were to provide a pillar of the Injustice Department’s argument as to why Moussaoui deserved to die: that had he told investigators when he was arrested on immigration violations three weeks before the 9-11 attacks about al Qaeda’s plans to fly planes into buildings, the Federal Aviation Administration would have put in place security measures that could have prevented the attacks.
These would, presumably, be the same security measures preznit declined to put in place after the August PDB, and also the same measures that the FBI failed to take after being told of Arab flight students who didn’t want to learn landings and take-offs, only in-flight procedures. As one novelist put it, “The first rule of aviation is to keep the number of take-offs equal to the number of landings.” It shouldn’t take a Mensa member to maybe smell a rat when a “pilot” didn’t want to learn to land.
The surprising thing is that Judge Brinkema did not completely rule out the death penalty for Moussaoui, as some commentators thought she would. Three major violations should have been enough to show a pattern of prosecutorial misconduct, but the judge seems to be willing to let the case continue, albeit without the “critical” FAA witnesses. She did say, however, that the government’s case was “too riddled with errors” to proceed without some sanction against the government.
It’s getting harder and harder to decide which part of preznit’s assministration is the most corrupt and/or incompetent, but the Department of Injustice ranks right up, due in large part to Asscroft and Abu Al Gonzales.
Monday, March 20, 2006
A "Yerpan" View of Preznit
Today’s edition of the International Herald Tribune has an op-ed piece by William Pfaff that is well worth the read. It’s called “If Bush ruled the world” and has these salient comments on preznit [emphasis added]:
All in all, the piece is a pretty damning indictment of preznit’s so-called “foreign policy”, especially coming from a newspaper that is widely regarded in “Yerp” as an authentic voice of America.
Full disclosure statement: I have a warm spot for the Trib, as my father worked there before the “domestic” edition folded in the newspaper strike in the 60’s. The IHT had been a joint effort of the NY Times and the Washington Post, before the Times bought out the whole thing.
- “Intellectual poverty is the most striking quality of the Bush administration’s new National Security Strategy statement…”
- “The statement's only visible purpose is to address a further threat to Iran, as its predecessor, in 2002, threatened Iraq. The only actual "strategy" that can be deduced from it is that the Bush administration wishes to rule the world. The document is nonsensical in content, insulting to other nations and unachievable in declared intention.”
- The document's foreign readers will have two reactions. The first will be that it can't be serious. The second will be that it has to be taken seriously since these people have spent three ruinous years in a futile effort to control Iraq; they must be assumed capable of doing the same thing again to Iran.
- “… the effort in Iraq has been worth it because now "tyrants know that they pursue weapons of mass destruction at their own peril." (One has also learned that those who pursue nonexistent weapons of mass destruction also do so at their peril.)”
All in all, the piece is a pretty damning indictment of preznit’s so-called “foreign policy”, especially coming from a newspaper that is widely regarded in “Yerp” as an authentic voice of America.
Full disclosure statement: I have a warm spot for the Trib, as my father worked there before the “domestic” edition folded in the newspaper strike in the 60’s. The IHT had been a joint effort of the NY Times and the Washington Post, before the Times bought out the whole thing.
The Further Adventures of Felafel-Boy
The blotchy-faced, morally-leprous, walking-talking anal wart himself, Bill O’Lielly, is at it again. You can always count on falafel-boy to be crude, tasteless, and generally an ass.
O’Lielly’s fans recall with fondness his offer to the terrorists for a free pass if they bomb San Francisco. And who could ever forget those sweet little nothings he whispered in his staffers’ ears?
According to an article in the upcoming New Yorker, the twit has continued his criminal ways:
His “thriller”, Those Who Trespass – described by the New Yorker as a “revenge fantasy” – steals a scene from John D. MacDonald’s “Travis McGee” novel A Tan and Sandy Silence.
God, what a retard.
O’Lielly’s fans recall with fondness his offer to the terrorists for a free pass if they bomb San Francisco. And who could ever forget those sweet little nothings he whispered in his staffers’ ears?
According to an article in the upcoming New Yorker, the twit has continued his criminal ways:
- He threatened a caller with “a little visit” from “Fox security”… and since when has Fox security had any jurisdiction anywhere? As a security professional, I can tell you security personnel have no more legal authority than you or I.
- He threatened NY Times columnist Frank Rich and editor Bill Keller, saying “we’ll just have to get into their lives”.
- He advocated the murder of LA Times editorial page editor Michael Kinsley, saying “…until they grab Michael Kinsley out of his little house and they cut his head off”.
His “thriller”, Those Who Trespass – described by the New Yorker as a “revenge fantasy” – steals a scene from John D. MacDonald’s “Travis McGee” novel A Tan and Sandy Silence.
God, what a retard.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
The NRA and "Forced Entry" Laws
I was cruising the Internets the other evening, doing some research, when I ran across this report on the website for The Brady Center for the Prevention of Handgun Violence. I figured with a title like Forced Entry: The National Rifle Association’s Campaign To Force Businesses To Accept Guns At Work, I could probably guess the gist of the report.
I was wrong.
The report is much more sobering than the title indicates.
The report details the (unfortunately successful) effort by the NRA – the organization that supports hunting squirrels with a 50-caliber machine gun and arming Vice Presidents – to push a bill through the Oklahoma state legislature that makes it a crime – a crime, with prison and fines and everything – for:
As the legal beagles say, let’s examine the “elements” of this law:
Additionally,
In other words, if you tell some yahoo he can’t bring his gun onto your private property, YOU go to jail, YOU get fined, YOU get sued, YOU have to pay HIS legal expenses.
Notice there is no requirement that the person have a Carry Concealed Weapons (CCW) permit. The only restriction is that he not be a convicted felon.
Notice, also, there is no restriction on the number or type(s) of guns the yahoo can bring onto your private property: assault weapons, sniper rifles, heavy machine guns… anything the mope wants to bring with him.
The only requirement is that the weapon(s) be locked in a motor vehicle.
The Brady Center refers to this travesty as a “Forced Entry” law.
The NRA “rationalizes” this by saying people would be better able to protect themselves if they had ready access to firearms. I fail to see how having a .45 locked outside in your car is going to protect you from some whacko roaming around inside with a 12-guage.
Obviously, the NRA isn’t content with “just” having guns in the parking areas. No, this is just the first step toward their eventual goal: extending the “forced entry” law(s) to allow guns inside all buildings.
Of course, a number of companies – including ConocoPhillips and Securitas Security Services (which provides armed security guards) – and other organizations filed suit to block the law. Some of the organizations are ASIS International (the American Society for Industrial Security) and the Society of Human Resource Management. In retaliation, the NRA has launched a boycott of these companies and organizations.
Aside from the obvious safety and security concerns, there are many other factors to be taken into consideration.
These “forced entry” laws put employers in the untenable position of having to provide a safe workplace, while being legally banned from prohibiting guns in the workplace.
It’s no secret that incidents of workplace violence are increasing. Logic would dictate that workplace homicides – the vast majority of which are committed with guns – could be reduced by widening the prohibition of guns in the workplace and by tightening the requirements for buying and carrying them.
But the nutcases at the NRA don’t agree. They want every drunk, mouth-breathin’, Bible-thumpin’, hooker-humpin’, sister-marryin’, rifle-rack-in-the-pickmup neocon wingnut to carry his piece wherever he goes.
I was wrong.
The report is much more sobering than the title indicates.
The report details the (unfortunately successful) effort by the NRA – the organization that supports hunting squirrels with a 50-caliber machine gun and arming Vice Presidents – to push a bill through the Oklahoma state legislature that makes it a crime – a crime, with prison and fines and everything – for:
[…] anyone—“person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity”—to bar any person, except a convicted felon, from bringing a gun onto any property in Oklahoma that is “set aside for any motor vehicle.” [Citations omitted]
As the legal beagles say, let’s examine the “elements” of this law:
- person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity: this pretty much covers anyone who might be in control of any real estate
- to bar any person, except a convicted felon: this would mean that disgruntled ex-employees, abusive spouses, angry customers or neighbors, whackos, weirdos, drunks, junkies, psychopaths, etc., as long as they have not been convicted of a felony
- from bringing a gun onto any property: this means your home, store, business, playground, church, bar, hospital, nuclear plant, courthouse, prison (!), day care center, etc.
- set aside for any motor vehicle: basically, anyplace with a driveway or parking lot… or anywhere an ATV, snowmobile, or off-road vehicle could get to.
Additionally,
In addition to making violators subject to criminal penalties, the NRA-backed forced-entry statute provides individuals with a right of action to sue persons,
property owners, tenants, employers or businesses to force them to accept guns into any place set aside for motor vehicles and collect court costs and attorneys fees if they prevail. [Citations omitted]
In other words, if you tell some yahoo he can’t bring his gun onto your private property, YOU go to jail, YOU get fined, YOU get sued, YOU have to pay HIS legal expenses.
Notice there is no requirement that the person have a Carry Concealed Weapons (CCW) permit. The only restriction is that he not be a convicted felon.
Notice, also, there is no restriction on the number or type(s) of guns the yahoo can bring onto your private property: assault weapons, sniper rifles, heavy machine guns… anything the mope wants to bring with him.
The only requirement is that the weapon(s) be locked in a motor vehicle.
The Brady Center refers to this travesty as a “Forced Entry” law.
The NRA “rationalizes” this by saying people would be better able to protect themselves if they had ready access to firearms. I fail to see how having a .45 locked outside in your car is going to protect you from some whacko roaming around inside with a 12-guage.
Obviously, the NRA isn’t content with “just” having guns in the parking areas. No, this is just the first step toward their eventual goal: extending the “forced entry” law(s) to allow guns inside all buildings.
Of course, a number of companies – including ConocoPhillips and Securitas Security Services (which provides armed security guards) – and other organizations filed suit to block the law. Some of the organizations are ASIS International (the American Society for Industrial Security) and the Society of Human Resource Management. In retaliation, the NRA has launched a boycott of these companies and organizations.
Aside from the obvious safety and security concerns, there are many other factors to be taken into consideration.
- The Oklahoma law may violate the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution: “No person shall […] be deprived of life, limb, or property, without due process of law[…]”. A reasonable argument could be made that the law deprives the property owner of his ownership rights, by requiring the owner to admit persons he would otherwise bar from his premises.
- The Fourteenth Amendment’s “due process” clauses may also be violated: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” In effect, the property owner is deprived of equal protection of the law.
- The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) obligates “each employer [to] furnish to each of his employees … a place of employment which [is] free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees.” Certainly getting shot would qualify as “serious physical harm”.
- Employers have a generally-recognized right to set basic work rules and regulations. The Oklahoma law appears to be in conflict with this right.
These “forced entry” laws put employers in the untenable position of having to provide a safe workplace, while being legally banned from prohibiting guns in the workplace.
It’s no secret that incidents of workplace violence are increasing. Logic would dictate that workplace homicides – the vast majority of which are committed with guns – could be reduced by widening the prohibition of guns in the workplace and by tightening the requirements for buying and carrying them.
But the nutcases at the NRA don’t agree. They want every drunk, mouth-breathin’, Bible-thumpin’, hooker-humpin’, sister-marryin’, rifle-rack-in-the-pickmup neocon wingnut to carry his piece wherever he goes.
Monday, March 13, 2006
Various News Notes From the Past Week
In no particular order, here are some odds and ends (and my commentary on them) from the Internets.
- Gas stations are using zip codes to help reduce credit card fraud. The theory is that the customer provides his or her zip code when making a purchase; if it matches the bank records, the customer is good to go. If the zip codes don't match, well, the sale isn't authorized.
- Cops are starting to recover more hotel key-cards... with customer's bank data encoded in the magnetic stripe. Thieves retrieve the cards after their discarded by hotels (since they're single-use). The bad guys then encode bank data (which they buy or acquire elsewhere) onto the cards. The key-cards are then used in fraudulent sales transactions at places like gas stations (where the clerks don't actually handle the cards).
- The idiots at DHS gave the town of Dillingham, Alaska (population 2459), $202,000 to buy 80 surveillance cameras. The police chief said the cameras could stop terrorism in southwest Alaska.
- US oil supplies jump to seven-year high, according to a Reuters headline.
Shout-out to the Red Cross
According to Site Meter, I've been getting a lot of hits today from various Red Cross units around the country.
Welcome, folks!
I'm proud and honored to have been a volunteer first aid/CPR instructor for various chapters going back to 1990.
Kick back, grab a coffee and enjoy your visit.
I tend to write a lot about the Red Cross, so feel free to drop by any time, day or night. Like you, I'm always open.
Welcome, folks!
I'm proud and honored to have been a volunteer first aid/CPR instructor for various chapters going back to 1990.
Kick back, grab a coffee and enjoy your visit.
I tend to write a lot about the Red Cross, so feel free to drop by any time, day or night. Like you, I'm always open.
Lions and Tigers and Bears... So To Speak.
Well, things have settled down a bit. Sorta. According to the National Weather Service, the area where I live (about an hour from Detroit) is looking at high wind advisories till midnight or so, and a tornado watch for the next couple of hours.
Fortunately, the only tornadoes I've ever dealt with "up close and personal" are the ones in "Wizard of Oz" and "Twister". But, like everyone else, I have seen the havoc they wreak, brought to us in living color by the TV news crews. I think that's an aspect of Mother Nature I would rather not experience.
Hurricanes -- which I did have to deal with as a cop on the East Coast -- are bad enough. And with hurricanes, you generally have sufficient notice to batten down the hatches. This was especially true in Connecticut -- we had at least 4-5 days notice, while the storm was forming down off Florida then moving up the coast.
I've seen pictures of the "Great Hurricane" of 1938.. pretty savage devastation, let me tell you. There was also one that hit Hartford in (I think) 1956 that was pretty damned vicious. I ran across a magazine special on that one. It had a picture of the house we bought in 1974... 20 years earlier, it had had some beautiful elms and maples in front, all of which were taken down by the storm. That was some impressive picture -- you could barely see our house behind all these toppled majestic trees. Hartford was clobbered, but the worst damage appeared (from the magazine, at least) to be in Rhode Island, especially Westerly (which is a city, not a general region).
This special also had a section on response to the disaster. Telephone crews from around the country (this was long before the Feds broke up the old AT&T into separate regional companies)were shown working to restore telephone service in the devastated areas. Power crews from around the country were also brought in, as were countless Red Cross nurses.
I know I talk about the Red Cross a lot, and if you're one of those who feel it is a worthless group, or if you think you'll never need them, feel free to skip the rest of this article. If, however, you accept the fact that old Mother Nature can get mightily pissed at times, or if you realize that some drunken idiot may T-bone your car sometime, you may want to finish reading this.
Remember that in many areas, the Red Cross provides the majority of blood bank services. If you get T-boned, chances are you'll need blood (or blood products). If you have friends or relatives in the Armed Forces, it's the Red Cross who can relay emergency mesages to and from your loved ones overseas. And if you get injured at work, and someone provides first aid, chances are that person learned how from the Red Cross.
And if you get hit by a tornado or hurricane, it'll be the Red Cross that shows up to provide food and shelter.
Of course, the red Cross is there in non-disaster situations too, like house fires. They have this tendency to show up and help get people squared away and back on their feet. Don't believe me? Check the newspapers for the next couple of weeks. I bet you'll see at least one story with a line like "the families displaced by the fire were provided emergency housing by the Red Cross". Or maybe you'll see "The Red Cross opened emergency shelters to assist families displaced by the tornado".
When the poo-poo hits the fan, the Red Cross will be there.
The Red Cross is completely volunteer-supported. They get no government funding (unlike Halliburton).
So if you get a chance, drop them a buck or two. Or give blood. Or -- best of all -- volunteer. There is always a need for people, not just after disasters like Katrina or 9-11. Call your local chapter or hop onto www.redcross.org.
It's always nice thinking that your donation has made someone's life a little happier. Or a little longer.
Fortunately, the only tornadoes I've ever dealt with "up close and personal" are the ones in "Wizard of Oz" and "Twister". But, like everyone else, I have seen the havoc they wreak, brought to us in living color by the TV news crews. I think that's an aspect of Mother Nature I would rather not experience.
Hurricanes -- which I did have to deal with as a cop on the East Coast -- are bad enough. And with hurricanes, you generally have sufficient notice to batten down the hatches. This was especially true in Connecticut -- we had at least 4-5 days notice, while the storm was forming down off Florida then moving up the coast.
I've seen pictures of the "Great Hurricane" of 1938.. pretty savage devastation, let me tell you. There was also one that hit Hartford in (I think) 1956 that was pretty damned vicious. I ran across a magazine special on that one. It had a picture of the house we bought in 1974... 20 years earlier, it had had some beautiful elms and maples in front, all of which were taken down by the storm. That was some impressive picture -- you could barely see our house behind all these toppled majestic trees. Hartford was clobbered, but the worst damage appeared (from the magazine, at least) to be in Rhode Island, especially Westerly (which is a city, not a general region).
This special also had a section on response to the disaster. Telephone crews from around the country (this was long before the Feds broke up the old AT&T into separate regional companies)were shown working to restore telephone service in the devastated areas. Power crews from around the country were also brought in, as were countless Red Cross nurses.
I know I talk about the Red Cross a lot, and if you're one of those who feel it is a worthless group, or if you think you'll never need them, feel free to skip the rest of this article. If, however, you accept the fact that old Mother Nature can get mightily pissed at times, or if you realize that some drunken idiot may T-bone your car sometime, you may want to finish reading this.
Remember that in many areas, the Red Cross provides the majority of blood bank services. If you get T-boned, chances are you'll need blood (or blood products). If you have friends or relatives in the Armed Forces, it's the Red Cross who can relay emergency mesages to and from your loved ones overseas. And if you get injured at work, and someone provides first aid, chances are that person learned how from the Red Cross.
And if you get hit by a tornado or hurricane, it'll be the Red Cross that shows up to provide food and shelter.
Of course, the red Cross is there in non-disaster situations too, like house fires. They have this tendency to show up and help get people squared away and back on their feet. Don't believe me? Check the newspapers for the next couple of weeks. I bet you'll see at least one story with a line like "the families displaced by the fire were provided emergency housing by the Red Cross". Or maybe you'll see "The Red Cross opened emergency shelters to assist families displaced by the tornado".
When the poo-poo hits the fan, the Red Cross will be there.
The Red Cross is completely volunteer-supported. They get no government funding (unlike Halliburton).
So if you get a chance, drop them a buck or two. Or give blood. Or -- best of all -- volunteer. There is always a need for people, not just after disasters like Katrina or 9-11. Call your local chapter or hop onto www.redcross.org.
It's always nice thinking that your donation has made someone's life a little happier. Or a little longer.
Sunday, March 12, 2006
Snoopy Only Has a DOG House...
But I have a whole house.
A new way out? The escapee thinks he has found a new way to break free until he realized he was about 15 feet off the ground and left his cape in his other collar. He then thought he would attempt to enlist the aid of his friend
Angus (618 and I refere to him as Romeo and our Emily as Juliet as they so enamoured with one another)
618 Rants arrived home with them greeting him over our back door, hollered in the house for me to get out here now.These guys scard the crap out of us, but I couldn't resist grabbing the camara, we talked them back in the house but the super beagle wandered back out. We waited out side to keep them from jumping, then their mom and dad came home and brought them down stairs . All is well that ends well, and the lovepups are off to play.
Crunchin' th' Numbers
Attaturk at Rising Hegemon wants to hit 10,000,000 visitors by March 18. They're at 1.2 million today.
Hell, I'll be thrilled when I break a thousand.
Just for the hell of it, I looked at the stats from SiteMeter for some of my "competition":
Blog . . . . . . . .Avg Hits/Day . . . . Total
Atrios . . . . . . . 125,000 . . . . . . . 94,590,499
Daily Kos . . . . 601,189 . . . . . . . 319,684,223
TBogg . . . . . . . 12,006 . . . . . . . . 6,369,222
Me . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 535
Sigh.
Hell, I'll be thrilled when I break a thousand.
Just for the hell of it, I looked at the stats from SiteMeter for some of my "competition":
Blog . . . . . . . .Avg Hits/Day . . . . Total
Atrios . . . . . . . 125,000 . . . . . . . 94,590,499
Daily Kos . . . . 601,189 . . . . . . . 319,684,223
TBogg . . . . . . . 12,006 . . . . . . . . 6,369,222
Me . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 535
Sigh.
Though I suppose they all started small too.
Missing Person Found
No, not any of the hostages in Iraq.
One of my favorite writers, Pissed-off Patricia, formerly of BlondeSense, now has her own place, Morning Martini.
I missed her writing when she left BlondeSense. Now that I know where she is, I'll be stopping by daily for a coffee (or three).
One of my favorite writers, Pissed-off Patricia, formerly of BlondeSense, now has her own place, Morning Martini.
I missed her writing when she left BlondeSense. Now that I know where she is, I'll be stopping by daily for a coffee (or three).
Mission Accomplished?
I wrote a post back on January 15, quoting security expert Bruce Schneier’s reactions to the NSA spy program. (Schneier is against it, on Constitutional grounds).
Now, as we all know, preznit has pretty much flat-out admitted the program is illegal. And guess what? He doesn’t care. His sycophantic butt-buddies don’t care, either. They’re willing to give up their – and our – freedoms so that preznit can continue to protect us from terrists… just like he protected us after the August 2001 PDB (“Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US”), just like he protected us from Katrina.
Jill at Brilliant at Breakfast excerpts an article from Editor and Publisher on new attempts to deal with this mess… by making it illegal to reveal preznit’s wrongdoing (as if the boy’s ever done right?):
Jill’s comment:
I don’t think that was Bush’s goal. I say this mostly because I don’t think Bush is capable of having goals. To me, this plot to turn the US into a Fundamentalist Redneck Fourth Reich (“FR2”) bears the unmistakable stench of those two evil pricks Cheney and Rove (assisted by the lesser pricks Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, and prickette Rice).
Face it: Bush is incapable of independent thought. He’s shown that, any time he and his handler-weasels can’t control 100% of whatever environment preznit is in. He’s nothing more than Charlie McCarthy to Rove’s Edgar Bergen [if anybody is feeling like sending me an early Christm—err, holiday present, PhotoShop Rove and Bush’s faces onto a picture of Bergen and McCarthy…].
Laurence W. Britt has an article posted at Secular Humanism entitled “Fascism Anyone?” which has been excerpted, quoted, and otherwise used by just about every thinking person. The article compares the regimes of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Suharto, and Pinochet and identifies 14 characteristics common to those fascist regimes. Project for the Old American Century takes it one step further , by applying the points Britt identified to preznit and his cohorts. The correlation is terrifying.
Perhaps just coincidentally, a few weeks ago, one of the major bloggers (Drum, Aravosis, Marshall, Kos, or Atrios) unearthed a proposed Constitutional amendment to repeal the 22nd Amendment , which limits any person to two terms as President (which was passed as a result of FDR being elected to a fourth term). The proposed amendment was dated February 17, 2005. The sponsor of the bill, Democratic House Whip Steny Hoyer, says:
No.
We simply have to elect someone better.
This cannot be a third-party candidate; with a few exceptions, they do not have the resources to battle the current two-party structure. This means NO NADER. Nader has pissed off too many people to have even the remotest chance at winning.
We must force the Democratic Party to nominate someone who can win. This means NO HILLARY, for the same reason Nader isn’t acceptable. NO KENNEDY, NO GORE, ditto.
We must nominate and elect someone who can provide a clear, logical, and concise alternative to the Republicans. Therefore, NO KERRY.
We must elect someone who is not a “Republican-lite”… NO LIEBERMAN.
I’m not sure who this leaves. Obama? I haven’t been too impressed with his performance since he hit DC. Murtha? Too old, and probably too smart to run. Bill Clinton? Give me a break… do we want to go through that again?
All I know is we have to find somebody.
UPDATE: Fixed the broken links (I hope), and corrected an unintentional Spoonerism (as opposed to an intentional one, I suppose) with Steny Hoyer's name.
Now, as we all know, preznit has pretty much flat-out admitted the program is illegal. And guess what? He doesn’t care. His sycophantic butt-buddies don’t care, either. They’re willing to give up their – and our – freedoms so that preznit can continue to protect us from terrists… just like he protected us after the August 2001 PDB (“Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US”), just like he protected us from Katrina.
Jill at Brilliant at Breakfast excerpts an article from Editor and Publisher on new attempts to deal with this mess… by making it illegal to reveal preznit’s wrongdoing (as if the boy’s ever done right?):
The draft would add to the criminal penalties for anyone who “intentionally discloses information identifying or describing” the Bush administration’s terrorist surveillance program or any other eavesdropping program conducted under a 1978 surveillance law.
Jill’s comment:
So this is how Republicans, even so-called “moderates” like Olympia Snowe and Chuck Hagel are going to deal with George W. Bush’s crimes – not just make them legal, but make anyone who dares to question the policy a criminal.
Remember how Bush used to say “They hate our freedom”? Well, we no longer have it. The terrorists have won after all. Nineteen guys with boxcutters have succeeded in turning America into a dictatorship, unaccountable to the people, unaccountable to anyone.
Mission accomplished.
I don’t think that was Bush’s goal. I say this mostly because I don’t think Bush is capable of having goals. To me, this plot to turn the US into a Fundamentalist Redneck Fourth Reich (“FR2”) bears the unmistakable stench of those two evil pricks Cheney and Rove (assisted by the lesser pricks Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, and prickette Rice).
Face it: Bush is incapable of independent thought. He’s shown that, any time he and his handler-weasels can’t control 100% of whatever environment preznit is in. He’s nothing more than Charlie McCarthy to Rove’s Edgar Bergen [if anybody is feeling like sending me an early Christm—err, holiday present, PhotoShop Rove and Bush’s faces onto a picture of Bergen and McCarthy…].
Laurence W. Britt has an article posted at Secular Humanism entitled “Fascism Anyone?” which has been excerpted, quoted, and otherwise used by just about every thinking person. The article compares the regimes of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Suharto, and Pinochet and identifies 14 characteristics common to those fascist regimes. Project for the Old American Century takes it one step further , by applying the points Britt identified to preznit and his cohorts. The correlation is terrifying.
Perhaps just coincidentally, a few weeks ago, one of the major bloggers (Drum, Aravosis, Marshall, Kos, or Atrios) unearthed a proposed Constitutional amendment to repeal the 22nd Amendment , which limits any person to two terms as President (which was passed as a result of FDR being elected to a fourth term). The proposed amendment was dated February 17, 2005. The sponsor of the bill, Democratic House Whip Steny Hoyer, says:
“The time has come to repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, and not because of partisan politics. While I am not a supporter of the current President, I feel there are good public policy reasons for a repeal of this amendment. Under the Constitution as altered by the 22nd Amendment, this must be President George W. Bush’s last term even if the American people should want him to continue in office. This is an undemocratic result. [Emphasis added]
This proposed amendment, coupled with the GOP’s known track record of tampering with any election it can get its grubby hands on (here, here, here) would be too much of a temptation for Cheney and Rove.
Hoyer says that, under his proposal, Bush would not be eligible to run for a third term. That’s not much comfort. I can see Cheney and Rove “advising” Bush to cancel the 2008 elections – in the interests of “national security”, of course – and keeping preznit in place till the amendment passes, at which point they’re golden.
So, welcome, America, to the Fundamentalist Redneck Fourth Reich.
What does this mean for you as a citizen?
It means that we can kiss our individual freedoms goodbye:
First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Religion: as long as you’re a fundamentalist Christian, you’re all set. Otherwise…
Speech: Cindy Sheehan
Press: DeWine’s bill (cited at the top of this article)
Assembly: preznit’s “free speech zones”
Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
PATRIOT Act, National Security Letters, NSA, ad nauseam.
Fifth Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment by a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Gitmo, Abu Graib, “Extraordinary Rendition”, etc.
Sixth Amendment: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informedof the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
Gitmo, Abu Graib, “Extraordinary Rendition”, etc.
Eighth Amendment: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Gitmo, Abu Graib, “Extraordinary Rendition”, etc.
Some other things going away:
Abortion: South Dakota has already passed a bill making virtually all abortions illegal; Mississippi and other states are considering similar laws.
Contraception: several writers have pointed out the “logic” of using the reversal of Roe v. Wade as the springboard for overturning the earlier – and much more pivotal – Griswold v. Connecticut.
Right to Vote: one of the Bubba Congresscritters has proposed “re-visiting” the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (sorry, I couldn’t find the link, but I’m pretty sure Kos, Atrios, Drum, or Marshall have it)
Is the situation hopeless, then?
No.
We simply have to elect someone better.
This cannot be a third-party candidate; with a few exceptions, they do not have the resources to battle the current two-party structure. This means NO NADER. Nader has pissed off too many people to have even the remotest chance at winning.
We must force the Democratic Party to nominate someone who can win. This means NO HILLARY, for the same reason Nader isn’t acceptable. NO KENNEDY, NO GORE, ditto.
We must nominate and elect someone who can provide a clear, logical, and concise alternative to the Republicans. Therefore, NO KERRY.
We must elect someone who is not a “Republican-lite”… NO LIEBERMAN.
I’m not sure who this leaves. Obama? I haven’t been too impressed with his performance since he hit DC. Murtha? Too old, and probably too smart to run. Bill Clinton? Give me a break… do we want to go through that again?
All I know is we have to find somebody.
UPDATE: Fixed the broken links (I hope), and corrected an unintentional Spoonerism (as opposed to an intentional one, I suppose) with Steny Hoyer's name.
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Should the Women Be Charged?
Via Digby and The Talent Show... At Center Network has a video* of anti-abortion protesters being asked their feelings on women who have illegal abortions.
The video brings up an interesting point, one I haven't seen discussed elsewhere: if abortions are illegal, what should the penalty be for the woman? All of the restrictions I've seen subject the physician to sanctions of one sort or another, but nobody mentions the woman.
As I've mentioned, I spent many years as a police officer, so here's my take. And read the whole thing before you start screaming, please... you'll see my logic at the end.
Scenario 1
A woman wishes to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, so she enlists the assistance of her local MD. Since most insurance plans don't cover abortion in the first place, and certainly would not cover an illegal procedure, the woman pays the doctor to perform the abortion. Following the logic of the right-to-life crowd, a human life is terminated in the process.
Scenario 2
A woman wishes to terminate an unwanted marriage, so she enlists the assistance of her local gangbanger. The woman pays the gangbanger to kill her husband, which results in the termination of a human life.
Since the current crop of laws really do not take into consideration the motive for seeking an abortion -- mother's health, incest, rape, convenience, whatever -- the motive here is unimportant. Using the same logic, it is unimportant to worry about the motive in the marital case, whether it be infidelity, insurance, abuse, or boredom. In both cases, the woman pays another person to end a life.
There should be no question in anybody's mind that in Scenario 2, both the hitman and the woman are guilty of murder and conspiracy to commit murder. They both receive hefty prison sentences (in some cases, death sentences). I don't think anybody would argue the logic of charging both participants in this case. The hitman obviously is guilty, in that he whacked the husband, while the woman is obviously guilty of arranging the hit (in other words, conspiring with and paying the hitman; it is a settled legal principle that all conspirators are equally guilty of any criminal acts conducted in the furtherance of the conspiracy).
How does this differ from Scenario 1? In both cases, two people conspire to end a human life. In both cases, a payment is made for services rendered. In both cases, a human life is terminated. (Remember, for the purposes of this discussion, we are ignoring the woman's motivation, because the law ignores it.)
For the life of me, I cannot see any difference.
Yet in the AT Center video, the anti-abortion protesters, for the most part, don't believe the woman should face any legal consequences (most say the woman will have to face God, or live with the consequences of her actions, which is, to me, legitimate). These are the same people, however, who are in favor of charging the physician with murder. Unless it could be proven that a doctor was performing unwanted -- as opposed to illegal -- abortions, both parties logically must be charged with murder and conspiracy. Doing otherwise would be akin to charging the hitman in Scenario 2, and giving the woman a free ride. Consenting to -- or actively seeking out and participating in -- an illegal activity is conspiracy. And a conspiracy that results in the termination of a human life exposes both conspirators to murder charges.
Since the law in South Dakota (and many of the other laws under consideration in other states) would effectively make all abortions illegal, any woman who seeks out or consents to an abortion must be equally guilty in the eyes of the law.
But the protesters in the video don't see it that way. Most say the woman should not face legal consequences. Several say it would depend on the circumstances, or the woman's motivation. Only one says that prison time -- even a life sentence -- might be appropriate, "based on the circumstances".
Balderdash.
The whole point behind the South Dakota law is that circumstances don't matter.
If you have or perform an abortion, you are violating the law.
IF YOU VIOLATE THE LAW, YOU MUST FACE THE CONSEQUENCES.
Since the women in the video do not feel the woman should be subject to legal sanctions, they are, in effect, saying that the woman is not committing a criminal act. If having an abortion is not a criminal act, why is performing an abortion a criminal act? Selling drugs is a criminal act, but so is buying drugs. Engaging in prostitution is a criminal act, but so is soliticing prostitution.
Bribe receiving by a public official is a criminal act, but so is bribing a public official. For the life of me, I cannot see any difference.
Since these protesters are at least implying the woman is not committing a criminal act by having an abortion, where is the justification for imposing criminal sanctions on the doctor for performing the abortion?
The answer, I think, is this: having an abortion is not illegal, performing an abortion is. Sounds hypocritical, right? Not necessarily. If providing an abortion is illegal, but having one is not, it gives the anti-abortion crowd a little loophole for when Buffy gets pregnant. See this post from the Rude Pundit as to why having a loophole is so important (Warning: VERY strong language). But it still allows the fundamentalists to force their beliefs down everyone elses' throats.
They want to have their cake and eat it too.
The only other option I can think of it that "women can't be trusted to control their own emotions/desires/passions/bodies", and that we men must take care of the "little ladies". Could this be it?
One thing I've noticed over the years (although it is not evident in the At Center video) is that the most vociferous anti-abortion activists are men. This has always irked me. It is not the men who endure the stresses of pregnancy (other than finding "their supply" cut off for a few months); it is not the men who are stuck with the vast majority of child-rearing duties (especially since most of the men seem to be Southern hillbillies who wouldn't condescend to doing "woman's work"). But it is the man who gets to make these decisions?
I think -- and this is just my opinion -- that these hysterical anti-abortion men are afraid of letting women make their own decisions. Why? Because if a woman can decide for herself whether or not to have an abortion, she may start deciding other things on her own... like whether she wants to stay with Bubba after he whacked her around last week. Or whether it's fair for her to be working two or three jobs while Bubba spends his time drinking, hunting, and bass-fishing with the boys.
What American society needs to realize is that having an abortion is like getting a tattoo: it is the decision of the person (in this case, the woman) affected, and of her doctor. It is not, and should not, be a decision made by anyone else, even a father. It is a decision that, once made, cannot be reversed. It is a decision that leaves its mark on a woman for the remainder of her life.
But it is not, and should not, be a crime.
I'm not sure where I stand on abortion. On the one hand, a girlfriend long ago had an abortion. Not because her life was at risk, or even her health, but because she was not ready for the commitment a child would require. She would have been unable to finish college, or pursue a meaningful career. Could that baby have been the next Sophocles or Schweitzer? I don't know. The baby could have grown up to cure cancer, or discern the secrets of the cosmos. We discussed it, and I made my feelings known, but ultimately, it was her decision, and hers alone. I believe she made the decision that was right for her, at that time (and yes, I agreed, and supported her throughout).
On the other hand, several years later, another girlfriend became pregnant, and her personal beliefs prohibited abortion. Again, we discussed all the various options; she decided to have the baby. Our son -- who is going on 12 -- is a bright, wonderful boy. He consistently aces math and science tests ... without studying. I could smack him, if I weren't so damned proud of him. His mother and I married, and although the marriage didn't last, we will have a life-long bond. This woman made the decision that was right for her, at that time (and again, I agreed and supported her, and continue to do so to this day).
Is abortion wrong? I don't know. I do know, however, that it is a very tough decision, probably the hardest decision a woman will ever have to make. It is a decision that should be made after discussion with the father (assuming the sex act was consensual). The father should be allowed his input, but the decision is the woman's alone. The father must support the woman regardless of the decision, both financially and -- more importantly -- morally and emotionally.
*The video requires RealPlayer, which has a free player available. If you haven't already installed it, I would recommend having it as the default player only for Real Network's proprietary formats; use Windows Media Player for everything else. And for God sake, don't choose the auto install -- it sets Real as the default player for everything and is a bitch to reset.
The video brings up an interesting point, one I haven't seen discussed elsewhere: if abortions are illegal, what should the penalty be for the woman? All of the restrictions I've seen subject the physician to sanctions of one sort or another, but nobody mentions the woman.
As I've mentioned, I spent many years as a police officer, so here's my take. And read the whole thing before you start screaming, please... you'll see my logic at the end.
Scenario 1
A woman wishes to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, so she enlists the assistance of her local MD. Since most insurance plans don't cover abortion in the first place, and certainly would not cover an illegal procedure, the woman pays the doctor to perform the abortion. Following the logic of the right-to-life crowd, a human life is terminated in the process.
Scenario 2
A woman wishes to terminate an unwanted marriage, so she enlists the assistance of her local gangbanger. The woman pays the gangbanger to kill her husband, which results in the termination of a human life.
Since the current crop of laws really do not take into consideration the motive for seeking an abortion -- mother's health, incest, rape, convenience, whatever -- the motive here is unimportant. Using the same logic, it is unimportant to worry about the motive in the marital case, whether it be infidelity, insurance, abuse, or boredom. In both cases, the woman pays another person to end a life.
There should be no question in anybody's mind that in Scenario 2, both the hitman and the woman are guilty of murder and conspiracy to commit murder. They both receive hefty prison sentences (in some cases, death sentences). I don't think anybody would argue the logic of charging both participants in this case. The hitman obviously is guilty, in that he whacked the husband, while the woman is obviously guilty of arranging the hit (in other words, conspiring with and paying the hitman; it is a settled legal principle that all conspirators are equally guilty of any criminal acts conducted in the furtherance of the conspiracy).
How does this differ from Scenario 1? In both cases, two people conspire to end a human life. In both cases, a payment is made for services rendered. In both cases, a human life is terminated. (Remember, for the purposes of this discussion, we are ignoring the woman's motivation, because the law ignores it.)
For the life of me, I cannot see any difference.
Yet in the AT Center video, the anti-abortion protesters, for the most part, don't believe the woman should face any legal consequences (most say the woman will have to face God, or live with the consequences of her actions, which is, to me, legitimate). These are the same people, however, who are in favor of charging the physician with murder. Unless it could be proven that a doctor was performing unwanted -- as opposed to illegal -- abortions, both parties logically must be charged with murder and conspiracy. Doing otherwise would be akin to charging the hitman in Scenario 2, and giving the woman a free ride. Consenting to -- or actively seeking out and participating in -- an illegal activity is conspiracy. And a conspiracy that results in the termination of a human life exposes both conspirators to murder charges.
Since the law in South Dakota (and many of the other laws under consideration in other states) would effectively make all abortions illegal, any woman who seeks out or consents to an abortion must be equally guilty in the eyes of the law.
But the protesters in the video don't see it that way. Most say the woman should not face legal consequences. Several say it would depend on the circumstances, or the woman's motivation. Only one says that prison time -- even a life sentence -- might be appropriate, "based on the circumstances".
Balderdash.
The whole point behind the South Dakota law is that circumstances don't matter.
If you have or perform an abortion, you are violating the law.
IF YOU VIOLATE THE LAW, YOU MUST FACE THE CONSEQUENCES.
Since the women in the video do not feel the woman should be subject to legal sanctions, they are, in effect, saying that the woman is not committing a criminal act. If having an abortion is not a criminal act, why is performing an abortion a criminal act? Selling drugs is a criminal act, but so is buying drugs. Engaging in prostitution is a criminal act, but so is soliticing prostitution.
Bribe receiving by a public official is a criminal act, but so is bribing a public official. For the life of me, I cannot see any difference.
Since these protesters are at least implying the woman is not committing a criminal act by having an abortion, where is the justification for imposing criminal sanctions on the doctor for performing the abortion?
The answer, I think, is this: having an abortion is not illegal, performing an abortion is. Sounds hypocritical, right? Not necessarily. If providing an abortion is illegal, but having one is not, it gives the anti-abortion crowd a little loophole for when Buffy gets pregnant. See this post from the Rude Pundit as to why having a loophole is so important (Warning: VERY strong language). But it still allows the fundamentalists to force their beliefs down everyone elses' throats.
They want to have their cake and eat it too.
The only other option I can think of it that "women can't be trusted to control their own emotions/desires/passions/bodies", and that we men must take care of the "little ladies". Could this be it?
One thing I've noticed over the years (although it is not evident in the At Center video) is that the most vociferous anti-abortion activists are men. This has always irked me. It is not the men who endure the stresses of pregnancy (other than finding "their supply" cut off for a few months); it is not the men who are stuck with the vast majority of child-rearing duties (especially since most of the men seem to be Southern hillbillies who wouldn't condescend to doing "woman's work"). But it is the man who gets to make these decisions?
I think -- and this is just my opinion -- that these hysterical anti-abortion men are afraid of letting women make their own decisions. Why? Because if a woman can decide for herself whether or not to have an abortion, she may start deciding other things on her own... like whether she wants to stay with Bubba after he whacked her around last week. Or whether it's fair for her to be working two or three jobs while Bubba spends his time drinking, hunting, and bass-fishing with the boys.
What American society needs to realize is that having an abortion is like getting a tattoo: it is the decision of the person (in this case, the woman) affected, and of her doctor. It is not, and should not, be a decision made by anyone else, even a father. It is a decision that, once made, cannot be reversed. It is a decision that leaves its mark on a woman for the remainder of her life.
But it is not, and should not, be a crime.
I'm not sure where I stand on abortion. On the one hand, a girlfriend long ago had an abortion. Not because her life was at risk, or even her health, but because she was not ready for the commitment a child would require. She would have been unable to finish college, or pursue a meaningful career. Could that baby have been the next Sophocles or Schweitzer? I don't know. The baby could have grown up to cure cancer, or discern the secrets of the cosmos. We discussed it, and I made my feelings known, but ultimately, it was her decision, and hers alone. I believe she made the decision that was right for her, at that time (and yes, I agreed, and supported her throughout).
On the other hand, several years later, another girlfriend became pregnant, and her personal beliefs prohibited abortion. Again, we discussed all the various options; she decided to have the baby. Our son -- who is going on 12 -- is a bright, wonderful boy. He consistently aces math and science tests ... without studying. I could smack him, if I weren't so damned proud of him. His mother and I married, and although the marriage didn't last, we will have a life-long bond. This woman made the decision that was right for her, at that time (and again, I agreed and supported her, and continue to do so to this day).
Is abortion wrong? I don't know. I do know, however, that it is a very tough decision, probably the hardest decision a woman will ever have to make. It is a decision that should be made after discussion with the father (assuming the sex act was consensual). The father should be allowed his input, but the decision is the woman's alone. The father must support the woman regardless of the decision, both financially and -- more importantly -- morally and emotionally.
*The video requires RealPlayer, which has a free player available. If you haven't already installed it, I would recommend having it as the default player only for Real Network's proprietary formats; use Windows Media Player for everything else. And for God sake, don't choose the auto install -- it sets Real as the default player for everything and is a bitch to reset.
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Beyond Belief... Even for Republicans
This is truly disgusting.
Liddy Dole, wife of former Presidential candidate Bob Dole, sent out a survey/fundraising document that looks enough like an official government document to be potentially confusing to the elderly or otherwise politically inexperienced. The form claims a response is "mandatory", implying sanctions if the form is not completed and returned. It also has three return options:
Liddy Dole, wife of former Presidential candidate Bob Dole, sent out a survey/fundraising document that looks enough like an official government document to be potentially confusing to the elderly or otherwise politically inexperienced. The form claims a response is "mandatory", implying sanctions if the form is not completed and returned. It also has three return options:
- Complete the survey and donate to the Republicans
- Not complete the survey, but contribute to the Republicans
- Not complete the survey, not donate to the Republicans, but enclose an $11.00 fee for "tabulating and redistributing" the survey.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
I Know What I Forgot!
Last Friday, the lovely-yet-talented Mrs 618 and I were watching our great nephew Hunter (okay, he's reasonably cool, but I don't know about great). We were watching Sesame Street, and lo and behold, the Lauratron 2006 was reading to the kids. It was some book about monsters who all said "Wubba, wubba, woo".
All I could think was, "Dubya, Dubya... who?"
All I could think was, "Dubya, Dubya... who?"
The Escapee
Well everyone, I thought I would show all of you the Christmas escapee.
This is our neighbor Toby. He has proven to be quite the little escape artist. Tonight he pulled off his greatest coup: he not only made it up the block to the grocery store, but he was found roaming the aisles sniffing out all the goodies. I think he should have been named Snoopy, not Toby. He is definitely the stereotypical beagle.
From the "My Bad" Department...
This was supposed to have gone up on February 27th... but I just found it in Blogger... as a draft. When I get as many hits as Kos, Atrios, TBogg, or the General , I'll get a "real" domain of my own. That's the only way the lovely-yet-talented Mrs 618 will let me spend the money.
I have been remiss about posting recently, but I have a couple of excuses (a little trick I picked up from the Bushies, making sure everything is always somebody else’s fault).
First, I’ve been working my butt off. Aha, I hear you say, how is that someone else’s fault? Easy. Dear Leader’s Glorious Economic Miracle® -- which means that wages have actually decreased for most people – coupled with the fact that the lovely yet talented Mrs. 618 has been unable to find meaningful employment (because out-sourcing to India is “good for the economy”), means that I have to work more hours to keep a roof over our heads and/or food on the table. So it’s Preznit’s fault.
Second, we sorta-kinda lost the DSL for a few days. Some silly disagreement about how binding billing dates are with the phone company (MSSBC/ATT/BellSouth/Verizon, this week). As to why the payment was delayed, see above. Again, Preznit’s fault.
Third, the Olympics. Neither the lovely yet talented Mrs. 618 nor I give a rat’s ass about curling, speed skating, or even [heretical gasp] slalom skiing. Therefore, we watched movies… Backdraft, The Three Musketeers (the Sheen/Sutherland/Pratt/O’Donnell rendition), Bodyguard, etc. Because these are all good movies – in their own way – I got distracted watching them and wasn’t able to post. I needed – really needed – the escape from what Dear Leader has done to the world. So, again, Preznit’s fault.
Oh, yeah, fourth. I’ve been teaching first aid classes for the Red Cross. Say what you will about the fumbles in their responses to 9-11, Katrina, and Rita – and they did drop the ball once or twice – I still think the Red Cross is one of the best organizations going. First aid/CPR classes, lifesaving classes for your kid’s swimming instructors, blood bank operations, disaster response (and remember, they were there in NOLA, but FEMA wouldn’t let them in), and services to the Armed Forces… you just can’t beat the Red Cross when it comes to helping out when the shit hits the fan. The Salvation Army does an excellent job too, of course, but they’re a little too religious for me.
Anyway, on to the good part: making fun of the mouth-breathin’, Bible-thumpin’, hooker-humpin’, sister-marryin’, rifle-rack-in-the-pickmup neocon wingnut crowd.
• The South Dakota legislature passed a bill effectively banning all abortions (the only exception is to safe the life of the mother). Dear Leader’s mindless little pseudo-Christian drones are thrilled because, after all, banning abortions will eliminate unwanted pregnancies by eliminating pre-marital or recreational sex. They seem to feel it will also eliminate rape, incest, and the rest of the pastimes enjoyed by the likes of Little Ricky “Man on Dog” Santorum, “Felafel” Bill O’Rielly (the terrorist sympathizer), and the rest. There’s no indication if the new law will eliminate Veeps shooting hunting companions.
• Preznit, after whuppin’ us all into a God-fearing, hysterical hatred of all things “Moozlim”, has decided to sell control of twenty-one American ports to… wait for it… the United ARAB Emirates. Yup, boys and girls, after spending the last five years telling us how evil the “towel-heads” are, he’s giving them our ports. Part of the sale, by the way, allows port operators – like the UAE – full access to DHS and Coast Guard security operational plans… which will make it real frickin easy for them to – maybe – help al Qaeda smuggle in terrorists or a dirty bomb. Face it, if you have the enemy’s plan book sitting right in front of you, it’s easy enough to find loopholes. Even Frist, Santorum, and Delay are pissed about Preznit’s latest “enrich our buddies and screw the rest” move.
• There are a bunch of states considering bans on adoptions by same-sex couples. I guess the mouth-breathers figure that having a mom and dad will give the kids a better chance in life. This is despite the fact that there are thousands of kids (in the US alone) waiting for adoption. Of course, having both a mom and dad has worked for the mouth-breathers… they’re the ones who keep molesting their own kids. Maybe they just want to keep the supply up. Not that mouth-breathers adopt, mind you, they just breed early and often (and they don’t bother going outside the immediate family, either).
On a more serious note, Tristero at Digby writes about safe and legal medical care issues involved with the SD abortion ban (emphasis added):
I have to agree. This is just one more attempt to maintain the stranglehold of the "haves" over the "have-nots".
I have been remiss about posting recently, but I have a couple of excuses (a little trick I picked up from the Bushies, making sure everything is always somebody else’s fault).
First, I’ve been working my butt off. Aha, I hear you say, how is that someone else’s fault? Easy. Dear Leader’s Glorious Economic Miracle® -- which means that wages have actually decreased for most people – coupled with the fact that the lovely yet talented Mrs. 618 has been unable to find meaningful employment (because out-sourcing to India is “good for the economy”), means that I have to work more hours to keep a roof over our heads and/or food on the table. So it’s Preznit’s fault.
Second, we sorta-kinda lost the DSL for a few days. Some silly disagreement about how binding billing dates are with the phone company (MSSBC/ATT/BellSouth/Verizon, this week). As to why the payment was delayed, see above. Again, Preznit’s fault.
Third, the Olympics. Neither the lovely yet talented Mrs. 618 nor I give a rat’s ass about curling, speed skating, or even [heretical gasp] slalom skiing. Therefore, we watched movies… Backdraft, The Three Musketeers (the Sheen/Sutherland/Pratt/O’Donnell rendition), Bodyguard, etc. Because these are all good movies – in their own way – I got distracted watching them and wasn’t able to post. I needed – really needed – the escape from what Dear Leader has done to the world. So, again, Preznit’s fault.
Oh, yeah, fourth. I’ve been teaching first aid classes for the Red Cross. Say what you will about the fumbles in their responses to 9-11, Katrina, and Rita – and they did drop the ball once or twice – I still think the Red Cross is one of the best organizations going. First aid/CPR classes, lifesaving classes for your kid’s swimming instructors, blood bank operations, disaster response (and remember, they were there in NOLA, but FEMA wouldn’t let them in), and services to the Armed Forces… you just can’t beat the Red Cross when it comes to helping out when the shit hits the fan. The Salvation Army does an excellent job too, of course, but they’re a little too religious for me.
Anyway, on to the good part: making fun of the mouth-breathin’, Bible-thumpin’, hooker-humpin’, sister-marryin’, rifle-rack-in-the-pickmup neocon wingnut crowd.
• The South Dakota legislature passed a bill effectively banning all abortions (the only exception is to safe the life of the mother). Dear Leader’s mindless little pseudo-Christian drones are thrilled because, after all, banning abortions will eliminate unwanted pregnancies by eliminating pre-marital or recreational sex. They seem to feel it will also eliminate rape, incest, and the rest of the pastimes enjoyed by the likes of Little Ricky “Man on Dog” Santorum, “Felafel” Bill O’Rielly (the terrorist sympathizer), and the rest. There’s no indication if the new law will eliminate Veeps shooting hunting companions.
• Preznit, after whuppin’ us all into a God-fearing, hysterical hatred of all things “Moozlim”, has decided to sell control of twenty-one American ports to… wait for it… the United ARAB Emirates. Yup, boys and girls, after spending the last five years telling us how evil the “towel-heads” are, he’s giving them our ports. Part of the sale, by the way, allows port operators – like the UAE – full access to DHS and Coast Guard security operational plans… which will make it real frickin easy for them to – maybe – help al Qaeda smuggle in terrorists or a dirty bomb. Face it, if you have the enemy’s plan book sitting right in front of you, it’s easy enough to find loopholes. Even Frist, Santorum, and Delay are pissed about Preznit’s latest “enrich our buddies and screw the rest” move.
• There are a bunch of states considering bans on adoptions by same-sex couples. I guess the mouth-breathers figure that having a mom and dad will give the kids a better chance in life. This is despite the fact that there are thousands of kids (in the US alone) waiting for adoption. Of course, having both a mom and dad has worked for the mouth-breathers… they’re the ones who keep molesting their own kids. Maybe they just want to keep the supply up. Not that mouth-breathers adopt, mind you, they just breed early and often (and they don’t bother going outside the immediate family, either).
On a more serious note, Tristero at Digby writes about safe and legal medical care issues involved with the SD abortion ban (emphasis added):
I haven't addressed the right to safe and legal medical care very much in the past. The reason is that it is self-evident that all citizens have a right to such care, even if they are poor. Therefore, what's there to argue over? The fury over the use of coat hangers has always puzzled me. Yes, honest people can come to radically different conclusions as to whether their pregnancy should or should not be terminated. But an American government clearly has no right to impose a conclusion. Therefore the politicization of the abortion issue has always struck me as a thinly disguised war against providing safe health care to the poor, especially women, rather than anything that engages a genuine moral issue which, in abortion's case, is a private one.
I have to agree. This is just one more attempt to maintain the stranglehold of the "haves" over the "have-nots".
MORE Goddamned Lunacy from Preznit...
Preznit doing his best to support outsourcing... since it's "good for the economy"......
God help us all.
- The U.S. Forest Service is studying how to contract out more than two-thirds of its total workforce by 2009, according to agency planning documents released recently by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, the national association of workers in natural resources agencies.
- In addition to Bush administration plans to sell off 300,000 acres of Forest Service land included in the fiscal 2007 budget proposal to Congress....
- ...the agency also is seeking to privatize environmental, law enforcement, firefighting, engineering, and research positions.
- In fiscal 2007, approximately half of the agency's law enforcement agents and rangers, 600 positions, the jobs of all of its geologists, 500 jobs, and 1,100 biologists who prepare environmental studies on the impacts of timber sales, oil and gas leasing, and other actions on national forest lands may be put out to bid.
God help us all.
Forward into the Past, Part Whatever
Now that abortion is virtually illegal in South Dakota (and ain't no way the current SCOTUS is gonna overturn the new law, not with Roberts and Alito), those mouth-breathin', Bible-thumpin', hooker-humpin', sister-marryin', rifle-rack-in-the-pickmup neocon wingnuts in Missouri -- the "Don't Show ME" state -- are pushing a (non-binding, thank God) bill that would designate Christianity as the official religion in Missouri. The Intelligent Design crowd (there's an oxymoron!) are still trying to cloak their creationist crap as science, not religion (and crying religious discrimination when they lose). Preznit, Dumsfeld, and the rest of the DC MO-rons are still claiming (a) no civil war, (b) impending victory, and (c) everything's hunky-dory in Iraq. Cheney's been inviting Democrats and moderate Republicans (another oxymoron) togo hunting with him.
Sheesh.
Forward into the past. Yup. Stay the course and bring 'em on.
Sheesh.
Forward into the past. Yup. Stay the course and bring 'em on.
Anntichrist Hits the Nail on the Head
Anntichrist S. Coulter has the following posted at BlondeSense. It is reprinted below with her permission. Annti emphasized, moreover, that her permission encompassed the following:
My commentary is at the end.
Anntichrist's post:
Nice fuckin' priorities, Southeastern.
I've been following this case of a student teacher at Southeastern Louisiana University: The woman in question was denied her education degree because she objected to the preaching & praying that was foisted upon her by the teacher in charge of her student-teaching assignment. Cynthia Thompson had the ACLU file a suit on her behalf against SLU and the Tangipahoa Parish School Board, as she was not allowed to graduate or complete her student-teaching requirements because she complained to the school board and SLU about being insulted and offended by her "mentor teacher's" in-class prayers, requiring students to bring bibles to school, etc.
Thompson objected to Pamela Sullivan, a fourth-grade teacher at D.C. Reeves Elementary in Ponchatoula (also the home of Hosanna Church, where they molested children and killed animals in bizarre cult rituals) constantly shoving christianity down the children's throats and down Thompson's throat. The University, after Thompson registered complaints about Sullivan's constant pressure and proselytizing, kicked Thompson out of the teaching program two weeks before graduation. When Thompson originally went to file the complaint, a staff member of the University grabbed her hand and prayed for "divine intervention."
The University is also threatening Thompson with complete expulsion if she won't hand over her 75-cent notebook journal that she kept during her student-teaching assignment. Not only is she expected to join-up and shut up with the cult activities on campus and off, but she is also being denied even the privacy of HER OWN FUCKING THOUGHTS.
See? It's not just me. Anybody who doesn't do the lock-step christian goosestep in Louisiana schools is not only screwed out of a job and/or career, they're also ostracized and prevented from ever teaching AGAIN, at least in that particular parish.
I just wish that Katrina had skipped St. Bernard & Orleans Parishes and headed straight up the Tickfaw River to Tangipahoa. Well, not entirely --- 'cause then we wouldn't have strawberry season, and I'd have to kill somebody if I didn't get my Ponchatoula/Tickfaw strawberries every year. But it would definitely be a good thing if most of those churches were wiped off of the planet by a force of nature. Maybe they'd finally take a hint from the universe, who knows...
And this is hardly an isolated incident with the Tangipahoa Parish School Board. The Louisiana ACLU has had to file FOUR lawsuits against these nutbags, including one where they have repeatedly flauted court orders to stop praying during public school board meetings, complete with bible-banging picketers outside the school board offices at every meeting. These people aren't just batshit crazy, they're PROUD OF IT. The arrogance of psychotic christians in this country is a little too much sugar for a fucking nickel. They really do think that they OWN this country, and that THEIR CULT not only enables them, but EMPOWERS THEM to OVERRIDE THE FUCKING U.S. CONSTITUTION AND EVERY AMENDMENT THEREOF.
Does it take a huge logical leap to understand how the more-arrogant-than-fuck Cheney minions are fucking-over our entire country with nary a FLINCH of guilt or even acknowledgement of their CRIMES?!?! It's the same smug, Jerry-Springer-guest, idiotic IGNORANCE of what the laws in this country REALLY ARE, that these bible-banging mouth-breathers think that they can use as "common law."
Guess what, folks? The United States Of America doesn't have an official religion. The FIRST FUCKING AMENDMENT TO OUR CONSTITUTION FORBIDS IT. So no, you're not allowed or enabled to use your middle-management municipal pencil-pusher job to proselytize to the unwashed masses. You cannot make christianity a JOB REQUIREMENT for any PUBLICLY-PAID POSITION.
GET A FUCKING CLUE, ALREADY, YOU ASSHOLES. Municipal and state jobs do NOT exist so that you can use your position to SHOVE JEEBUS DOWN THE THROATS OF THOSE WHOM YOU ARE PAID TO SERVE.
__________
I agree with Anntichrist that way too many of these lunatics are proud of their lunacy. It is, unfortunately, a lunacy that sees to be spreading: evangelizing at the Air Force Academy, Pat Robertson calling for the assasination of Hugo Chavez, the comments about killing Islamic leaders and coverting their people -- forcibly, presumably -- to Christianity, and all the other crap.
These people are blind to something any thinking person can see: they have perverted Christianity to their own deviant ends (something I wrote about earlier). In fact, the current crop of "Christian" extremists has much more in common with the Taliban and other fundamentalists "Islamofascists" than they do with real Americans. These are the people who are doing their damnedest to drag us -- (formerly) the greatest nation on Earth -- into their ideal society: a 13th century theocracy.
These people need to go away. Now.
UPDATE: I should have pointed out originally that BlondeSense has been on my bloroll ever since I figured out how to make the damn thing work.
Sure, Andrew, go ahead, but I only ask two other things: 1. NO TYPOS (and I want all of the cussing included, so no editing goes with no typos), and 2. Link back to BlondeSense, k?As far as typo's go, this was copied and pasted directly from BlondeSense, so any typos were in the original. Cussing is included, of course - I've never been shy with my own language, so why change hers? Especially since toning down the language would dilute or destroy the sense of her message. I did have to re-create the links (thank you, blogspot); I am pretty sure I got them all. Also, I did the best I could to re-create the colors used in her post.
My commentary is at the end.
Anntichrist's post:
Nice fuckin' priorities, Southeastern.
I've been following this case of a student teacher at Southeastern Louisiana University: The woman in question was denied her education degree because she objected to the preaching & praying that was foisted upon her by the teacher in charge of her student-teaching assignment. Cynthia Thompson had the ACLU file a suit on her behalf against SLU and the Tangipahoa Parish School Board, as she was not allowed to graduate or complete her student-teaching requirements because she complained to the school board and SLU about being insulted and offended by her "mentor teacher's" in-class prayers, requiring students to bring bibles to school, etc.
Thompson objected to Pamela Sullivan, a fourth-grade teacher at D.C. Reeves Elementary in Ponchatoula (also the home of Hosanna Church, where they molested children and killed animals in bizarre cult rituals) constantly shoving christianity down the children's throats and down Thompson's throat. The University, after Thompson registered complaints about Sullivan's constant pressure and proselytizing, kicked Thompson out of the teaching program two weeks before graduation. When Thompson originally went to file the complaint, a staff member of the University grabbed her hand and prayed for "divine intervention."
The University is also threatening Thompson with complete expulsion if she won't hand over her 75-cent notebook journal that she kept during her student-teaching assignment. Not only is she expected to join-up and shut up with the cult activities on campus and off, but she is also being denied even the privacy of HER OWN FUCKING THOUGHTS.
See? It's not just me. Anybody who doesn't do the lock-step christian goosestep in Louisiana schools is not only screwed out of a job and/or career, they're also ostracized and prevented from ever teaching AGAIN, at least in that particular parish.
I just wish that Katrina had skipped St. Bernard & Orleans Parishes and headed straight up the Tickfaw River to Tangipahoa. Well, not entirely --- 'cause then we wouldn't have strawberry season, and I'd have to kill somebody if I didn't get my Ponchatoula/Tickfaw strawberries every year. But it would definitely be a good thing if most of those churches were wiped off of the planet by a force of nature. Maybe they'd finally take a hint from the universe, who knows...
And this is hardly an isolated incident with the Tangipahoa Parish School Board. The Louisiana ACLU has had to file FOUR lawsuits against these nutbags, including one where they have repeatedly flauted court orders to stop praying during public school board meetings, complete with bible-banging picketers outside the school board offices at every meeting. These people aren't just batshit crazy, they're PROUD OF IT. The arrogance of psychotic christians in this country is a little too much sugar for a fucking nickel. They really do think that they OWN this country, and that THEIR CULT not only enables them, but EMPOWERS THEM to OVERRIDE THE FUCKING U.S. CONSTITUTION AND EVERY AMENDMENT THEREOF.
Does it take a huge logical leap to understand how the more-arrogant-than-fuck Cheney minions are fucking-over our entire country with nary a FLINCH of guilt or even acknowledgement of their CRIMES?!?! It's the same smug, Jerry-Springer-guest, idiotic IGNORANCE of what the laws in this country REALLY ARE, that these bible-banging mouth-breathers think that they can use as "common law."
Guess what, folks? The United States Of America doesn't have an official religion. The FIRST FUCKING AMENDMENT TO OUR CONSTITUTION FORBIDS IT. So no, you're not allowed or enabled to use your middle-management municipal pencil-pusher job to proselytize to the unwashed masses. You cannot make christianity a JOB REQUIREMENT for any PUBLICLY-PAID POSITION.
GET A FUCKING CLUE, ALREADY, YOU ASSHOLES. Municipal and state jobs do NOT exist so that you can use your position to SHOVE JEEBUS DOWN THE THROATS OF THOSE WHOM YOU ARE PAID TO SERVE.
__________
I agree with Anntichrist that way too many of these lunatics are proud of their lunacy. It is, unfortunately, a lunacy that sees to be spreading: evangelizing at the Air Force Academy, Pat Robertson calling for the assasination of Hugo Chavez, the comments about killing Islamic leaders and coverting their people -- forcibly, presumably -- to Christianity, and all the other crap.
These people are blind to something any thinking person can see: they have perverted Christianity to their own deviant ends (something I wrote about earlier). In fact, the current crop of "Christian" extremists has much more in common with the Taliban and other fundamentalists "Islamofascists" than they do with real Americans. These are the people who are doing their damnedest to drag us -- (formerly) the greatest nation on Earth -- into their ideal society: a 13th century theocracy.
These people need to go away. Now.
UPDATE: I should have pointed out originally that BlondeSense has been on my bloroll ever since I figured out how to make the damn thing work.
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Forward into the Past
Well, now Mississippi, well-known bastion of thoughtful, insightful people is considering a ban on virtually all abortions. Like the recent bill in South Dakota, the Mississippi bill would allow abortions only to save the mother's life. Governor Haley "Bubba" Barbour said, "Why in hey-ell should I care 'bout them Nigras and demmy-crats? They ain't God-fearin', Christians like us, so Cheney 'em. An' hell, if wunna mah daughters gets knocked up, we'll just fly her butt upta Mass for a trip to th' clinic."
In other words, the mouth-breathin', Bible-thumpin', hooker-humpin', sister-marryin', rifle-rack-in-the-pickmup neocon wingnuts are doing their very best to drag the entire damn country back to the 9th century.
Bet NARAL and Planned Parenthood are real glad they supported Chaffee and Lieberman... both of whom voted to confirm Alito.
In other words, the mouth-breathin', Bible-thumpin', hooker-humpin', sister-marryin', rifle-rack-in-the-pickmup neocon wingnuts are doing their very best to drag the entire damn country back to the 9th century.
Bet NARAL and Planned Parenthood are real glad they supported Chaffee and Lieberman... both of whom voted to confirm Alito.
Saturday, February 04, 2006
From the "Sauce for the Goose" Department:
I ran across a great article in the Rutland (VT) Herald for January 25. It appears the Democrats are finally learning to use the rethuglican's own dirty tricks against them.
The Rethuglicans, of course, are not taking it well.
Gee, a pro-war, racist young Rethug, supporting the prototypical "Imperial Presidency". Who'da thunk it?
Old quotes being bandied about the Internets to smear some poor innocent Rethuglican.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA
IOKIYAR, my ass. How do you fuckin losers like it?
Asshole Republicans.
The Rethuglicans, of course, are not taking it well.
GOP cries foul
Dems bring up Douglas quotes as 19-year-old
January 25, 2006
MONTPELIER — Vermont Republicans say they are outraged that a Democratic-leaning Web site has posted a Middlebury College newspaper article from 1970 in which a young James Douglas apparently questions the existence of segregation.
The author of the 35-year-old article in The Campus said Tuesday it was "nonsense" to assert that Douglas was a racist then or now. But Democrats continued to call on the governor to explain the article's statements, in which the then-president of the Vermont Young Republicans also expressed support for the Vietnam war and the bombing of Cambodia.
Gee, a pro-war, racist young Rethug, supporting the prototypical "Imperial Presidency". Who'da thunk it?
Republicans, from the governor to his spokesman to the chairman of the state GOP, said posting the article — and alerting the media to its existence — was an exercise in race-baiting and character assassination.Yup, exactly what Rove and his cronies do. Constantly. This is exactly what the Goopers have pulled countless times. Now that they're on the receiving end, though, it isn't so much fun, is it?
"Here's the bottom line: The Democratic leadership of Vermont are adopting a new policy of character assassination against their political opponents," said James Barnett, chairman of the Vermont Republican Party.
"We're talking about a truncated quote that is the polar opposite of anything the governor believes now or I suspect he believed then," Barnett said. "This was from a time when he was 19 years old, and it is being disseminated by a legislative leader of the Democratic Party."
The article, written by Ted Hobson and called "Nixon's Man on Campus," said in part: "In relation to Vermonters, Douglas' conservative outlook might pass unnoticed, but on a college campus Douglas is somewhat of a political loner, defending Nixon's Supreme Court nominees … his segregation policies ('I'm not sure there is segregation'), Vietnamization ('a very admirable plan') and even the Cambodian invasion ('I personally would have liked a little more')."Sure sounds like a rethuglican/budding neocon wingnut. No segregation? How frickin' stoopid can he be? (Don't answer that - as a Rethuglican, he can be dumb as dirt and still become Governor. Or preznit.)
Douglas, through his press secretary, said he did not recall Hobson interviewing him for the article, but unequivocally said he never held the belief that segregation didn't exist."He doesn't remember sitting down..." Of course not. He stood the whole time. You have to really parse what Rethugs say... they're the world's greatest prevaricators. And I love the bit about "personal destruction"... the Rethugs do it all the time. Little different when you guys are on the receiving end, ain't it?
"The governor doesn't recall this article, but he's been very clear that he did not believe that then and he doesn't believe that now. He doesn't remember sitting down for the article," said Jason Gibbs, Douglas' press secretary. "This is a disappointing display of the politics of personal destruction, and there's no place for this kind of trash in Vermont."
"At the very least the leadership of the Democratic Party would ask this guy to step down from his legislative leadership post, and frankly if he wants to spend all of his time doing dirty tricks and character assassination instead of the work of a legislator, he should step down," Barnett said.Hell, if all the Rethuglicans who pulled this kind of shit were forced forced to step down, there wouldn't bee a single "R" in office anywhere in the U.S.
The episode is reminiscent of the flap caused during the 2004 gubernatorial election in which Barnett and Republicans released old newspaper clippings showing Burlington Mayor Peter Clavelle marching in a parade celebrating the 10th anniversary of the communist overthrow of the Nicaraguan government. Clavelle was Douglas' Democratic opponent two years ago.Of course it's reminiscent... it's the standard Gooper battle plan: find a quote from thirty years ago, and use it in a smear campaign.
"The governor spoke out loudly and clearly in that case," he said. "Those same individuals should be held to their same standards."And so should the rethugs.
Old quotes being bandied about the Internets to smear some poor innocent Rethuglican.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA
IOKIYAR, my ass. How do you fuckin losers like it?
Asshole Republicans.
It's in Their Genes
(Certainly there's nothing in their jeans...)
From Roll Call:
I love it. Even when only Rethuglicans are voting, they STILL can't run a clean election.
God, what a bunch of assholes.
From Roll Call:
House Republicans are taking a mulligan on the first ballot for Majority Leader. The first count showed more votes cast than Republicans present at the Conference meeting.
I love it. Even when only Rethuglicans are voting, they STILL can't run a clean election.
God, what a bunch of assholes.
Blue-Collar Idiots and Dubya
It'll be interesting to see how many of the mouth-breathin', Bible-thumpin', hooker-humpin', sister-marryin', rifle-rack-in-the-pickmup neocon wingnuts still support preznit in a few years.
Oh, yeah, that's right... we're talking about Bush supporters.
Fucking moronic losers.
- Since out-sourcing is good for the economy, as one assministration spokesweasel said a few years ago, look for lots of manufacturing jobs to move to Mexico, China, and the third world.
- More and more call centers are moving to India, which will further reduce the pool of un- or semi-skilled jobs available (as a side note, I recently got a telemarketing call from a guy who claimed his name was Roger; he sounded like the village elder in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom).
- As they get older, and more prone to serious or even catastrophic medical problems, they'll have to naviguess preznit's Medicare drug plans (a.k.a. The Pfizer-Bayer-Merck Profit Protection Act of 2005).
- When they're bankrupted by putting medical bills on their Visa, they'll still have to repay those debts, thanks to the MBNA Protection Act of 2005 (laughingly referred to as "bankruptcy reform").
- Their unemployed -- and probably unemployable -- offspring won't be able to care for them, because they'll all be working four jobs, thanks to preznit's record-breaking deficits.
- When the daughters get knocked up while camping out for Charlie Daniels tickets, they'll be forced to have and keep the unwanted babies, because SCOTUS will have dumped Roe v. Wade. Same if Bobbi Jo gets raped, because the pharmacists will refuse to make the "Plan B" pill available because of their religious principles.
- Not that that'll matter, of course, cause they won't be able to pay preznit's $5.00 -a-gallon gas tab, thanks to Exxon-Mobil's record-breaking (and totally obscene) $30 billion profit grab.
- And when these morons finally wake up to reality and start bitching about their chosen LordGodKing George-n-Dick, the DHS/FBI/CIA/NSA will pack them off to Gitmo or someplace in Eastern "Yerp"
Oh, yeah, that's right... we're talking about Bush supporters.
Fucking moronic losers.
Pet Blogging Update
No pictures this week. Jenna the cat (as opposed to "Jenna and not-Jenna") has been hiding all week, as the lovely-yet-talented Mrs 618 has been hanging with the three-year-old from next door. Emily (the Labrador) isn't feeling too well, to the point where the missus rolled a tennis ball for her... and she ignored it. This from the dog who wants to play ball 24-7.
I figure either she ate someone-- err, something that didn't agree with her, or she's coming down with some bug.
Or she saw preznit on TV.
I figure either she ate someone-- err, something that didn't agree with her, or she's coming down with some bug.
Or she saw preznit on TV.
Oh, I Forgot...
... my daily diatribe against the mouth-breathin', Bible-thumpin', hooker-humpin', sister-marryin', rifle-rack-in-the-pickmup neocon wingnuts.
These odious, slack-jawed, drooling idiots are so enthralled with LordGodKing George-n-Dick that they can't see how the rethuglican party is shitting all over them.
And yet, these "Deliverence" rejects are still supporting preznit.
What a bunch of retarded loser morons.
These odious, slack-jawed, drooling idiots are so enthralled with LordGodKing George-n-Dick that they can't see how the rethuglican party is shitting all over them.
And yet, these "Deliverence" rejects are still supporting preznit.
What a bunch of retarded loser morons.
"I Say Iraq, You Say Iran..."
...Let's call the whole thing off....
I heard some idiot rattling sabres at Iran this evening [yes, Thursday. I warned you]. All the usual hot-button words were there: "nuclear weapons... ballistic missiles...yada-yada-yada". Only things missing were aluminum tubes and mobile labs.
Who the hell is preznit going to use to invade Iran? The Marines, the Army, the National Guard, and every-frickin-body else are bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only uniformed groups left are the Boy Scouts and the Salvation Army.
Or will preznit finally convince the 101st Fighting Keyboarders to get up off their fat, Cheeto-stained asses and actually enlist?
He could, I suppose, drop Michelle Maglalang-Malkin and Ann Coulter in the middle of Tehran and watch the Islamofascists commit mass suicide.
I heard some idiot rattling sabres at Iran this evening [yes, Thursday. I warned you]. All the usual hot-button words were there: "nuclear weapons... ballistic missiles...yada-yada-yada". Only things missing were aluminum tubes and mobile labs.
Who the hell is preznit going to use to invade Iran? The Marines, the Army, the National Guard, and every-frickin-body else are bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only uniformed groups left are the Boy Scouts and the Salvation Army.
Or will preznit finally convince the 101st Fighting Keyboarders to get up off their fat, Cheeto-stained asses and actually enlist?
He could, I suppose, drop Michelle Maglalang-Malkin and Ann Coulter in the middle of Tehran and watch the Islamofascists commit mass suicide.
Bush and SOTU
Yup, another Thursday post.
No, I didn't listen to King George's speech. I was busy dealing with a hyper-active, incoherent three-year-old. Who makes more sense than Dubya ever does.
From what I've read and heard, the main thing I missed was preznit's promise to reduce Middle eastern oil imports by 75%... a promise that the assministration spent all day today claiming should not be taken literally.
Good to know that even his sycophants are starting to call bullshit on some of his more egregious lies. Hell, if they saying he lied, why should we believe a single God-damned thing he says? Most of us don't, of course, but about 40% of the Murkin population still believes BlunderBoy.
No, I didn't listen to King George's speech. I was busy dealing with a hyper-active, incoherent three-year-old. Who makes more sense than Dubya ever does.
From what I've read and heard, the main thing I missed was preznit's promise to reduce Middle eastern oil imports by 75%... a promise that the assministration spent all day today claiming should not be taken literally.
Good to know that even his sycophants are starting to call bullshit on some of his more egregious lies. Hell, if they saying he lied, why should we believe a single God-damned thing he says? Most of us don't, of course, but about 40% of the Murkin population still believes BlunderBoy.
NARAL: Marginalizing Themselves
Yeah, another Thursday post that got posted Saturday. Deal with it.
NARAL, the abortion-rights group, oughta be feeling right proud of themselves these days. They supported Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chafee, a Republican, over a Democratic challenger, because Chafee claimed to be pro-choice.
Chafee, of course, voted to confirm Alito. And if you think Alito isn't looking to overturn Roe just as soon as he can, I've got some beautiful ocean-front property in Phoenix for sale.
It is asinine to believe any Republican who claims to be pro-choice these days. Even if the individual really does support a woman's right to control her own body, he or she will roll over in a heartbeat to vote the party line.
So anyway, NARAL supported a Senator who supported a Justice who wants to outlaw abortion.
They must be feeling so proud.
Idiots.
NARAL, the abortion-rights group, oughta be feeling right proud of themselves these days. They supported Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chafee, a Republican, over a Democratic challenger, because Chafee claimed to be pro-choice.
Chafee, of course, voted to confirm Alito. And if you think Alito isn't looking to overturn Roe just as soon as he can, I've got some beautiful ocean-front property in Phoenix for sale.
It is asinine to believe any Republican who claims to be pro-choice these days. Even if the individual really does support a woman's right to control her own body, he or she will roll over in a heartbeat to vote the party line.
So anyway, NARAL supported a Senator who supported a Justice who wants to outlaw abortion.
They must be feeling so proud.
Idiots.
Republican "Honor and Dignity"
Another belated Thursday post.
I see the Republicans elected Boehner as majority leader. In an effort to distance themselves from Abramoff, Delay, Noe, Governors Taft, Rowland, and Schwarznegger, and countless others, they chose "honor and dignity" over party loyalty by electing... a Delay protege.
Honor and dignity, my ass.
I see the Republicans elected Boehner as majority leader. In an effort to distance themselves from Abramoff, Delay, Noe, Governors Taft, Rowland, and Schwarznegger, and countless others, they chose "honor and dignity" over party loyalty by electing... a Delay protege.
Honor and dignity, my ass.
Alito to Fundies: "Drop Dead"
Disclaimer: This post and the next 7 or 8 were all written this past Thursday. I didn't have a chance to get them up till today. My bad. As Dumsfeld would say, "You deal with the blogger you have, not the blogger you might want."
I heard on the news today [Thursday, remember] that Justice Alito voted against letting the state of Missouri go ahead with an execution they wanted to carry out tonight. The vote was cast despite the fact that Alito had not participated in consideration of the case, and probably knew next to nothing about it. Alito was on the winning side of a 6-3 decision, so his vote didn't really count anyway: if he had voted to let the execution proceed, he would have been on the losing end of a 5-4 decision.
On the other hand, it was good to see that Alito's very first vote was a slap in the face to the fundie wingnuts. This doesn't mean he's going to be a fair jurist, mind you; after all, he still seems to support virtually unlimited power for the executive. It's also still a safe bet he'll either vote to overturn Roe v. Wade outright, or at least weaken it every chance he gets.
I loved how during his hearings, he claimed the extreme views he espoused were simply trying to get a job during the Reagan years. Now, of course, when he's interviewing for the most important job of his life, he says those views were bullshit and this is the real him. If he lied before, why should we believe him now? (See, e.g., Bush, George W.; Cheney, Dick; Iraq; WMD; al-Qaeda/Saddam, etc.)
I don't know about you, but I can still list all the organizations of which I've been a member. I find it hard to believe Alito couldn't recall having joined a racist, sexist campus group. Even the mouth-breathers remember the day they officially became Klansmen.
I heard on the news today [Thursday, remember] that Justice Alito voted against letting the state of Missouri go ahead with an execution they wanted to carry out tonight. The vote was cast despite the fact that Alito had not participated in consideration of the case, and probably knew next to nothing about it. Alito was on the winning side of a 6-3 decision, so his vote didn't really count anyway: if he had voted to let the execution proceed, he would have been on the losing end of a 5-4 decision.
On the other hand, it was good to see that Alito's very first vote was a slap in the face to the fundie wingnuts. This doesn't mean he's going to be a fair jurist, mind you; after all, he still seems to support virtually unlimited power for the executive. It's also still a safe bet he'll either vote to overturn Roe v. Wade outright, or at least weaken it every chance he gets.
I loved how during his hearings, he claimed the extreme views he espoused were simply trying to get a job during the Reagan years. Now, of course, when he's interviewing for the most important job of his life, he says those views were bullshit and this is the real him. If he lied before, why should we believe him now? (See, e.g., Bush, George W.; Cheney, Dick; Iraq; WMD; al-Qaeda/Saddam, etc.)
I don't know about you, but I can still list all the organizations of which I've been a member. I find it hard to believe Alito couldn't recall having joined a racist, sexist campus group. Even the mouth-breathers remember the day they officially became Klansmen.
Sunday, January 29, 2006
"You Shouldn't Worry if You've Got Nothing to Hide"
That's what the Busheviks keep saying to our concerns about Shrub's NSA spying.
That being the case...
Why won't the administration release the records of contacts between the White House and Jack Abramoff???
I mean, they don't have anything to hide.
Do they?
That being the case...
Why won't the administration release the records of contacts between the White House and Jack Abramoff???
I mean, they don't have anything to hide.
Do they?
Ouch!
Read this editorial in today's NY Times...
A couple of high points:
Might not be a bad idea to email/phone/fax your Senators on this. Even if they're not on the Judiciary Committee, make it known to your Senators that we, as decent Americans, have had enough of preznit and his monomaniacal ambitions. Maybe even tactfully remind them that if they don't hold preznit accountable, we'll hold them accountable.
Let your Senators know it's time to spank LordGodKing George-n-Dick. Hard.
A couple of high points:
Just trust us. Mr. Bush made himself the judge of the proper balance between national security and Americans' rights, between the law and presidential power. He wants Americans to accept, on faith, that he is doing it right. But even if the United States had a government based on the good character of elected officials rather than law, Mr. Bush would not have earned that kind of trust. The domestic spying program is part of a well-established pattern: when Mr. Bush doesn't like the rules, he just changes them, as he has done for the detention and treatment of prisoners and has threatened to do in other areas, like the confirmation of his judicial nominees. He has consistently shown a lack of regard for privacy, civil liberties and judicial due process in claiming his sweeping powers. The founders of our country created the system of checks and balances to avert just this sort of imperial arrogance.
Other presidents did it. Mr. Gonzales, who had the incredible bad taste to begin his defense of the spying operation by talking of those who plunged to their deaths from the flaming twin towers, claimed historic precedent for a president to authorize warrantless surveillance. He mentioned George Washington, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt. These precedents have no bearing on the current situation, and Mr. Gonzales's timeline conveniently ended with F.D.R., rather than including Richard Nixon, whose surveillance of antiwar groups and other political opponents inspired FISA in the first place. Like Mr. Nixon, Mr. Bush is waging an unpopular war, and his administration has abused its powers against antiwar groups and even those that are just anti-Republican.
The Senate Judiciary Committee is about to start hearings on the domestic spying. Congress has failed, tragically, on several occasions in the last five years to rein in Mr. Bush and restore the checks and balances that are the genius of American constitutional democracy. It is critical that it not betray the public once again on this score.
Might not be a bad idea to email/phone/fax your Senators on this. Even if they're not on the Judiciary Committee, make it known to your Senators that we, as decent Americans, have had enough of preznit and his monomaniacal ambitions. Maybe even tactfully remind them that if they don't hold preznit accountable, we'll hold them accountable.
Let your Senators know it's time to spank LordGodKing George-n-Dick. Hard.
Preznit Sing (sorta-kinda)
DriftGlass has a great parody of Dubya doing Sinatra...Warning: If you liked Sinatra's version, or if you dislike Dubya, please do not have anything in your mouth when you read the lyrics. Keyboards don't like having coffee, tea, Coke, water, or other liquids sprayed on them.
And, yeah, I grabbed the image from DriftGlass, too. It's a classic-in-the-making.
Saturday, January 28, 2006
A Semi-Pseudo-Sociological Look at Wingnuts*
First, a disclaimer: I am not a trained sociologist. In fact, I've taken exactly one sociology course, and that was 25 years ago. And the class was a disaster for me: the professor was an ex-college-football-star who hated cops, and I was a cop who hated jocks and most "-ologists".
It has occurred to me that your average mouth-breathin', Bible-thumpin', hooker-humpin', sister-marryin', rifle-rack-in-the-pickmup neocon wingnut has a lot more in common with the "Islamofascist" he claims to hate than he does with real Americans. To wit:
- Both groups have little or nothing to sustain them but their "faiths" (which is their code for hatred and fear of those who have different beliefs)
- Both say the afterlife is the reward for bearing this life's miseries
- Both viciously -- and occasionally, violently -- condemn those who do not subscribe to their beliefs
- Both have ignored or perverted the most basic tenets of the religions they profess to follow
- Both support the extermination of "non-believers"
- Both are bulwarks of ignorance (in the sense of conscious lack of education), denial of women's rights, and elimination of civil rights for those who differ
- Both prefer confrontation and warfare over civilized discourse
- Both claim that they -- and only they -- have a divine right to rule over their respective socities
- Both claim god-like status for their leaders
- Both view dissent as treason and/or heresy
- Both have puritanical views of sex and sexual relations (but both also tend to ignore these prohibitions when they want)
- Both claim sovereignty over the bodies and souls of women in their respective "cultures"
So, tho whoever coined the word "Talibangelical"... thank you. You hit the nail right on the head.
* (Image swiped from BadTux... hope he doesn't mind)
Another Reason to Fear TSA
The screeners working at our nation's airports are supposed to be honest. TSA (the Transportation Security Administration) is a branch of DHS, and has repeatedly trumpeted how good they are.
Then we see this (all emphasis added):
Now, bear with me on this. These guys (and gals) are the ones who are supposed to keep us safe. Instead of keeping us safe, they're stealing from us. And, as numerous reports have shown, they're abysmal at finding things: guns, knives, (simulated) bombs, all sorts of crap gets by these people.
One of the reasons TSA was touted as the "solution" to screening problems was that, previously, screening had been the responsibility of the individual airlines. Since the airlines were suffering from various financial woes, they had a tendency to go with the lowest bidder when it came to selecting security providers. Security, however, is one of those areas where "you get what you pay for" just isn't good enough. Many screeners, before 9-11, were, at best, minimally qualified, untrained, under-paid, virtually unsupervised, poorly screened themselves (lots of immigration violators, outstanding criminal warrants, etc). The government claimed that by taking responsibility for providing screener, a higher-caliber person would wind up working the airports, leading to increased security for the traveling public.
Initially, the starting pay for screeners was around $40,000, which admittedly beats the hell out of the $14,000 most security people were earning in those days. The trouble started when the government decided that TSA staff would be excluded from most labor laws (like collective bargaining and civil service regulations). Then the pay rates got slashed, as did the size of the workforce. Without Civil Service protection, however, the good people were canned, and only the politically-connected bootlickers stayed on.
If you haven't been through an airport in the last four years, you probably don't understand how "security" is handled these days. TSA has pretty much turned the entire airport concourse into a maximum-security prison. Once you get beyond the ticket counters, you are in their clutches. When my son (who was 10 at the time) came into Midway, I had to show ID at least five times before I got to the arrival gate. Dropping him off was even worse. I used to work at a "super-max" prison, and I had an easier time getting in and out.
TSA is a joke.
A very bad joke, one of many that the Bush cabal has played on us.
Then we see this (all emphasis added):
A Somerset schoolteacher has filed a federal lawsuit accusing a screener of stealing his diamond wedding ring last summer while he was passing through a security checkpoint at Logan International Airport.
John Wright said he put his ring, a 1.53-carat diamond set in gold, into a plastic bin with his Rolex watch and wallet. He said he then placed the bin on the conveyer belt as he and his wife, Janet, passed through the checkpoint to catch a flight to San Juan on July 14.
After walking through the metal detector, Wright said, he went to retrieve his belongings from the bin, but the ring, valued at $7,000, had vanished.
Wright, 51, who lives in Tiverton, R.I., and teaches health at Somerset Middle School, said he suspected that one of the TSA screeners took the ring because there were no passengers in front of him as he went through the checkpoint and his wife was directly behind him.
A TSA supervisor summoned to the scene said he couldn't search or question the employees, according to the Wrights, because there was no evidence that they had taken the ring.
Janet Wright said they were told that only one end of the conveyer belt was monitored by a security camera, and a review of the videotape from that camera only showed her husband picking up the plastic bin and yelling, ''My ring! My ring!"
''I was shocked when I found that out," said Janet Wright. That discovery only bolstered the couple's belief that the ring had been stolen by a TSA employee, she said, because the screeners would have known the theft could not be caught on camera.
Between February 2002 -- when TSA assumed responsibility for screening passengers and baggage -- and last October, 165 TSA screeners have been arrested for theft at airports throughout the country, according to Davis. None of those arrests occurred at Logan.
On five occasions, twice in 2005 and three times in 2004, passengers have accused TSA screeners at Logan of stealing property, Davis said. Passengers reported property stolen from checked baggage and at checkpoints, but in all cases the employees were cleared of any wrongdoing and allowed to remain on the job, she said.
She also said that none of the screeners accused of theft in the past had been on duty at the checkpoint on the day Wright's ring was lost.
Still, there have been a number of highly publicized cases around the country. In some instances, screeners have been accused of stealing cash from purses or wallets at checkpoints. But most cases involve checked baggage.
Four former TSA screeners pleaded guilty last year to stealing laptops, cameras, and other items from checked baggage at Detroit Metropolitan Airport. Complaints from passengers, including celebrities Chevy Chase, Joan Rivers, and Susan Lucci, that items were taken from their luggage triggered an investigation that led to the arrest in 2004 of four TSA screeners from LaGuardia Airport and John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York.
Now, bear with me on this. These guys (and gals) are the ones who are supposed to keep us safe. Instead of keeping us safe, they're stealing from us. And, as numerous reports have shown, they're abysmal at finding things: guns, knives, (simulated) bombs, all sorts of crap gets by these people.
One of the reasons TSA was touted as the "solution" to screening problems was that, previously, screening had been the responsibility of the individual airlines. Since the airlines were suffering from various financial woes, they had a tendency to go with the lowest bidder when it came to selecting security providers. Security, however, is one of those areas where "you get what you pay for" just isn't good enough. Many screeners, before 9-11, were, at best, minimally qualified, untrained, under-paid, virtually unsupervised, poorly screened themselves (lots of immigration violators, outstanding criminal warrants, etc). The government claimed that by taking responsibility for providing screener, a higher-caliber person would wind up working the airports, leading to increased security for the traveling public.
Initially, the starting pay for screeners was around $40,000, which admittedly beats the hell out of the $14,000 most security people were earning in those days. The trouble started when the government decided that TSA staff would be excluded from most labor laws (like collective bargaining and civil service regulations). Then the pay rates got slashed, as did the size of the workforce. Without Civil Service protection, however, the good people were canned, and only the politically-connected bootlickers stayed on.
If you haven't been through an airport in the last four years, you probably don't understand how "security" is handled these days. TSA has pretty much turned the entire airport concourse into a maximum-security prison. Once you get beyond the ticket counters, you are in their clutches. When my son (who was 10 at the time) came into Midway, I had to show ID at least five times before I got to the arrival gate. Dropping him off was even worse. I used to work at a "super-max" prison, and I had an easier time getting in and out.
TSA is a joke.
A very bad joke, one of many that the Bush cabal has played on us.
Thursday, January 19, 2006
bin Laden's Latest
Osama bin Laden has released a new audio tape, and the CIA -- if they can be trusted -- has confirmed that the tape is authentic. He claims another attack on the US Homeland is in the offing. One tempting target would be the Super Bowl, which is being played in Detroit (about 50 miles from me).
The missus and I were discussing this, and she pointed out the potential international implications (for those who 'learned' geography in public schools, Canada's right across the river from Detroit).
Unfortunately, the game would be an excellent target. Of course, if terrorists were to try something, the White House would say something along the lines of "No one thought anyone would attack the Super Bowl".
"Black Sunday", anyone?
Or Tom Clancy's Sum of All Fears?
Twig's spokesdrone, little Scottie, said "We don't negotiate with terorists, we remove them" (or words to that effect). If that is the case, why are we in Iraq and not Afghanistan?
These people are amazing.
The missus and I were discussing this, and she pointed out the potential international implications (for those who 'learned' geography in public schools, Canada's right across the river from Detroit).
Unfortunately, the game would be an excellent target. Of course, if terrorists were to try something, the White House would say something along the lines of "No one thought anyone would attack the Super Bowl".
"Black Sunday", anyone?
Or Tom Clancy's Sum of All Fears?
Twig's spokesdrone, little Scottie, said "We don't negotiate with terorists, we remove them" (or words to that effect). If that is the case, why are we in Iraq and not Afghanistan?
These people are amazing.
Sunday, January 15, 2006
"It's not the Spying, It's the Illegality"
That's how security expert Bruce Schneier ends one of three articles appearing in the current issue of "Crypto-Gram" on the topic of the Bush/NSA eavesdropping mess.
In the first article, "NSA and Bush's Illegal Eavesdropping", Schneier briefly discusses "Project Shamrock", an NSA program that effectively read every telegram coming into or leaving the United States during the 50's and 60'; the abuses of this program were directly responsible for the implementation of the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA.
Excerpts (emphasis added):
Bruce Schneier is a security expert, but he is not one of the "security at any cost" crowd. He is, in fact, a leading proponent of balancing the costs and benefits of security proposals, and investing the scarce security resources available where they will do the most good (which, from reading his newsletter over the last couple of years, seems to leave TSA and DHS out). His main concern is maintaining individual privacy to the greatest extent possible, while still meeting legitimate government and business needs. Note that key word, "legitimate." This is one of the many things that separates Bruce Schneier from George Bush (along with the fact that Schneier writes and thinks in full, cogent, coherent sentences).
The second article, "The Security Threat of Unchecked Presidential Power", has this to say (emphasis added):
Schneier's third article (the last line of which serves as the title for this post) discusses "Project Shamrock" in much greater detail, including the abuses of pwer leading to the adoption of FISA.
I find it surprising, in a way, that in none of these three articles, nor in most of the rest of the stories I've read on this mess, does "Tricky Dick" Nixon get mentioned. Remembering the days of the original "Enemies List" (not O'Reilly's), and the rest of the shenanigans perpetrated by CREEP, it's hard to believe Nixon wasn't also wiretapping those he feared and loathed.
I suppose, as former White House counsel John Dean points out in Worse Than Watergate, the main similarity in the two administrations was a mania for secrecy. That, of course, "is now inoperative"... Bush isn't trying to conceal this latest flagrant violation, he's flaunting it.
Geeting back to Bruce Schneier for a moment, if you have any interest in "security: computer and otherwise", as he puts it, you really should read his newsletter. He discusses everything from identity theft to universal ID cards to RFID passports to license-plate-recognition software to allowing plastic knives back onto airplanes... and he does it in terms that non-security types can understand.
In the first article, "NSA and Bush's Illegal Eavesdropping", Schneier briefly discusses "Project Shamrock", an NSA program that effectively read every telegram coming into or leaving the United States during the 50's and 60'; the abuses of this program were directly responsible for the implementation of the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA.
Excerpts (emphasis added):
Most likely, Bush wanted a whole new surveillance paradigm. [...]
[...] Terrorism is a serious risk to our nation, but an even greater threat is the centralization of American political power in the hands of any single branch of the government.
Over 200 years ago, the framers of the U.S. Constitution established an ingenious security device against tyrannical government: they divided government power among three different bodies. A carefully thought out system of checks and balances in the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch, ensured that no single branch became too powerful.
After watching tyrannies rise and fall throughout Europe, this seemed like a prudent way to form a government. Courts monitor the actions of police. Congress passes laws that even the president must follow. Since 9/11, the United States has seen an enormous power grab by the executive branch. It's time we brought back the security system that's protected us from government for over 200 years.
Bruce Schneier is a security expert, but he is not one of the "security at any cost" crowd. He is, in fact, a leading proponent of balancing the costs and benefits of security proposals, and investing the scarce security resources available where they will do the most good (which, from reading his newsletter over the last couple of years, seems to leave TSA and DHS out). His main concern is maintaining individual privacy to the greatest extent possible, while still meeting legitimate government and business needs. Note that key word, "legitimate." This is one of the many things that separates Bruce Schneier from George Bush (along with the fact that Schneier writes and thinks in full, cogent, coherent sentences).
The second article, "The Security Threat of Unchecked Presidential Power", has this to say (emphasis added):
This isn't about the spying, although that's a major issue in itself. This is about the Fourth Amendment protections against illegal search. This is about circumventing a teeny tiny check by the judicial branch, placed there by the legislative branch, placed there 27 years ago -- on the last occasion that the executive branch abused its power so broadly.
[...]
...it [the Yoo memo 'justifying' the power grab] basically says that the president has unlimited powers to fight terrorism. He can spy on anyone, arrest anyone, and kidnap anyone and ship him to another country ... merely on the suspicion that he might be a terrorist. And according to the memo, this power lasts until there is no more terrorism in the world.
[...]
More to the point, the congressional resolution of Sept. 14, 2001, specifically refused the White House's initial attempt to seek authority to preempt any future acts of terrorism, and narrowly gave Bush permission to go after those responsible for the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center.
[...]
This is indefinite dictatorial power. And I don't use that term lightly; the very definition of a dictatorship is a system that puts a ruler above the law. In the weeks after 9/11, while America and the world were grieving, Bush built a legal rationale for a dictatorship. Then he immediately started using it to avoid the law.
This is, fundamentally, why this issue crossed political lines in Congress. If the president can ignore laws regulating surveillance and wiretapping, why is Congress bothering to debate reauthorizing certain provisions of the Patriot Act? Any debate over laws is predicated on the belief that the executive branch will follow the law.
This is not a partisan issue between Democrats and Republicans; it's a president unilaterally overriding the Fourth Amendment, Congress and the Supreme Court. Unchecked presidential power has nothing to do with how much you either love or hate George W. Bush. You have to imagine this power in the hands of the person you most don't want to see as president, whether it be Dick Cheney or Hillary Rodham Clinton, Michael Moore or Ann Coulter.
Schneier's third article (the last line of which serves as the title for this post) discusses "Project Shamrock" in much greater detail, including the abuses of pwer leading to the adoption of FISA.
A lot of people are trying to say that it's a different world today, and that eavesdropping on a massive scale is not covered under the FISA statute, because it just wasn't possible or anticipated back then. That's a lie. Project Shamrock began in the 1950s, and ran for about twenty years. It too had a massive program to eavesdrop on all international telegram communications, including communications to and from American citizens. It too was to counter a terrorist threat inside the United States. It too was secret, and illegal. It is exactly, by name, the sort of program that the FISA process was supposed to get under control.
Twenty years ago, Senator Frank Church warned of the dangers of letting the NSA get involved in domestic intelligence gathering. He said that the "potential to violate the privacy of Americans is unmatched by any other intelligence agency." If the resources of the NSA were ever used domestically, "no American would have any privacy left.... There would be no place to hide.... We must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is an abyss from which there is no return."
Bush's eavesdropping program was explicitly anticipated in 1978, and made illegal by FISA. There might not have been fax machines, or e-mail, or the Internet, but the NSA did the exact same thing with telegrams.
We can decide as a society that we need to revisit FISA. We can debate the relative merits of police-state surveillance tactics and counterterrorism. We can discuss the prohibitions against spying on American citizens without a warrant, crossing over that abyss that Church warned us about twenty years ago. But the president can't simply decide that the law doesn't apply to him.
This issue is not about terrorism. It's not about intelligence gathering. It's about the executive branch of the United States ignoring a law, passed by the legislative branch and signed by President Jimmy Carter: a law that directs the judicial branch to monitor eavesdropping on Americans in national security investigations.
It's not the spying, it's the illegality.
I find it surprising, in a way, that in none of these three articles, nor in most of the rest of the stories I've read on this mess, does "Tricky Dick" Nixon get mentioned. Remembering the days of the original "Enemies List" (not O'Reilly's), and the rest of the shenanigans perpetrated by CREEP, it's hard to believe Nixon wasn't also wiretapping those he feared and loathed.
I suppose, as former White House counsel John Dean points out in Worse Than Watergate, the main similarity in the two administrations was a mania for secrecy. That, of course, "is now inoperative"... Bush isn't trying to conceal this latest flagrant violation, he's flaunting it.
Geeting back to Bruce Schneier for a moment, if you have any interest in "security: computer and otherwise", as he puts it, you really should read his newsletter. He discusses everything from identity theft to universal ID cards to RFID passports to license-plate-recognition software to allowing plastic knives back onto airplanes... and he does it in terms that non-security types can understand.
Saturday, January 14, 2006
Excellent Post at Kos (of course)
SusanG has a post up asking preznit to stop protecting her. Go read it. Now.
I'll be here when you get back.
Okay, I'll give you a sample:
I'll be here when you get back.
Okay, I'll give you a sample:
Well worth the read, I promise.Bush Says Gitmo Is 'Necessary'
WASHINGTON, Jan. 13, 2006 (CBS/AP) At a joint White House news conference, President Bush rejected a plea by German Chancellor Angela Merkel that the U.S. prison
camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, be shut down. He called the four-year-old camp "a necessary part of protecting the American people."Mr. Bush, I've decided the price is too high for my conscience. If Gitmo - and the torture and denial of due process accompanying it - is a necessary part of protecting me, I hereby officially release you from the obligation. I'm opting out of this protection racket you've set up. Think of me as just one less tile on the human shield you've created, using the safety and fear of American citizens to hide behind while you seize more power.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)