|
[<< Previous 20 entries]
09:51 am
![[User Picture] height=](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/3328540/398316) |
americans standing up for denmark and freedom
 christopher hitchens' impromptu danish solidarity event has gone off without a hitch(ens)。 the only size estimate i've seen so far is about 250 people。 it doesn't seem quite that big to me, but it's hard to tell with all the photographs deliberately cropped to not show the edges of the crowd。 why do they always do that? surely there are competent photographers/reporters out there somewhere! 250 people is still more than "takbir" managed and hitchens has apparently done his rave-up without a similarly sized counter-protest parked opposite。
the crowd seems to have been largely made up of extremely ernest pseuds - cf the obscure shakespeare quotes and references to obscure danish philosophers on the signs - admittedly the obscure danish cheese reference was quite funny once i looked it up。 you can see video of the crowd, complete with "we're all danish now" - even the chant is insipid! - chanting here。 that site also has video of one of the oh-so-ernest protesters fairly clearly stating his reasons for attending。 my favourite sign has to be the one made of lego:

the best (it's still not very good) photo report i've seen so far is here。
meanwhile, quite a few american cartoonists have been doing there bit。 my favourite of those is probably this one:
 but i like most of them。
Current Mood: tired Current Music: Kandi - Don't Think I'm Not
|
|
03:47 pm
![[User Picture] height=](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/3328540/398316) |
uae buyout of p&o, why do we care? the us government has given approval for a uae state owned company to buy p&o。 p&o owns some us ports, though the us government runs port security。 the uae is a unequivocal us ally in the fight against jihadi nuisances。 the uae is far and away the biggest financial centre in the muslim world, no doubt due to the relatively open and tolerant nature of its society。 it also happens to be a largely muslim and arab country。 that last is apparently sufficient reason for many - right from moonbat left through to fundie right - to take exception to the deal and the us government's acquiescence to the deal。 i've yet to see any sort of case for the panic。
frank j takes on the mantle of "president khalifa bin zayid al-nuhayyan of the united arab emirates" and explains why there is no need to get all het up about this deal:
Yes, I cheered for a moment at the deaths of so many infidels... until I remembered how much business we do in New York! My country has a huge per capita income, but it's honestly not the most solid in the world. Implications of us involved in terrorism could knock us over the edge, and, if you took a poll of our citizens, you'd see a near majority consider economic stability more important than mass murder. As much as I want you all to die, we have our own housing bubble to worry about over here. Do any of you understand that? Sometimes I think I'd have to use a pipe bomb to get through your thick skulls.
And honestly, how many of you knew your ports weren't owned by Americans before all this? I swear, if any of you raise your hands, I'll cut them off. None of you knew anything about the ports until the talking heads and harlots jumped on this issue, and suddenly all of you are like, "Oh no! The Arabs are going to run our ports and they want to kill us all!" Hell yes, we want to kill you all, but it's not like we could fit that in our business plan. Have any of you looked at our business plan? Of course not. Holy Allah, I so want to strangle you all!
All I want you stupid infidels to understand is that this deal is all business. All thing being equal, I would stab you all repeatedly and then behead you, but that is not a money making venture. this article effectively demolishes what little argument, other than "they're not white", the panic-mongers are providing。 there may yet be real problems with this deal, although i would expect such problems, even if they exist, to be dwarfed by things like the inevitable incompetence of the government 'run' security:
At least one of the ports where DP World is set to operate, Baltimore, has been dogged by security shortcomings for years. A Baltimore Sun investigation in June 2005 revealed that the port's fiber-optic alarm system on the perimeter fence malfunctioned and was usually switched off, and that port police were so understaffed that their patrol boats often dry-docked because there was no one to operate them. The newspaper also found that a pair of "video cameras" guarding the entrance to one important marine terminal were actually blocks of wood on poles.
Last summer, a tour of the port, the nation's eighth largest, revealed gaps in perimeter fences, unattended gates, surveillances systems that didn't work and insufficient police patrols on land and sea. one could almost suspect that the sudden focus on this non-issue is a deliberate attempt to distract from the real security problems that are not being dealt with。
Current Mood: tired Current Music: Marvin Gaye - I Heard It Through The Grapevine
|
|
01:04 pm
![[User Picture] height=](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/3328540/398316) |
"what is being asked of us is ethically unacceptable" some californian doctors are now refusing to help in ritual state murders:
The planned execution of convicted rapist and murderer Michael Morales has been halted after two court-appointed doctors refused to participate, the BBC reports.
The anaesthesiologists were scheduled to be present at the termination at the behest of a US federal judge who agreed with defence arguments that the cocktail of lethal chemicals used might cause extreme pain if the initial dose of barbiturates proved inadequate. Accordingly, the judge ordered two doctors to attend and intervene, "in the event that Morales woke up or appeared to be in pain".
However, the two doctors declared any such intervention "medically unethical", adding: "As a result, we have withdrawn from participation in this current process... What is being asked of us is ethically unacceptable." if i understand correctly, "court-appointed" lawyers, doctors or whatever are under 'legal' obligation to perform the task assigned, thus the above acts amount to civil disobedience。 long may it continue。 the only reasonable response to illegitimate government is contempt。
Current Mood: tired Current Music: The Bangles - Eternal Flame
|
|
11:37 am
![[User Picture] height=](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/3328540/398316) |
bush's state of the union speech i have already linked to the speech in reference to pork-busting。 it is not a particularly inspired speech, but there is much else of interest (as well the usual fluff)。 first the usual positive on dealing with the barbarians at the gates:
America rejects the false comfort of isolationism. We are the nation that saved liberty in Europe, and liberated death camps, and helped raise up democracies, and faced down an evil empire. Once again, we accept the call of history to deliver the oppressed and move this world toward peace. We remain on the offensive against terror networks. We have killed or captured many of their leaders -- and for the others, their day will come. more of the rachet on iran:
The same is true of Iran, a nation now held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people. The regime in that country sponsors terrorists in the Palestinian territories and in Lebanon -- and that must come to an end. (Applause.) The Iranian government is defying the world with its nuclear ambitions, and the nations of the world must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons. gratifying to see he's finally picked up the abelardism of describing people under dictatorship as "held hostage", a phrase that seems to being picked up elsewhere now。
he is getting closer to speaking honestly about the fossil fuel situation, though he has a long way yet to go:
So tonight, I announce the Advanced Energy Initiative -- a 22-percent increase in clean-energy research -- at the Department of Energy, to push for breakthroughs in two vital areas. To change how we power our homes and offices, we will invest more in zero-emission coal-fired plants, revolutionary solar and wind technologies, and clean, safe nuclear energy. (Applause.)
We must also change how we power our automobiles. We will increase our research in better batteries for hybrid and electric cars, and in pollution-free cars that run on hydrogen. We'll also fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn, but from wood chips and stalks, or switch grass. Our goal is to make this new kind of ethanol practical and competitive within six years. (Applause.)
Breakthroughs on this and other new technologies will help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025. (Applause.) By applying the talent and technology of America, this country can dramatically improve our environment, move beyond a petroleum-based economy, and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past. (Applause.) as abelard states:
if substitution is not in place by 2025 there will be so much pressure of m.e oil they won't be able to supply even 25% if they wished to... he's still misleading america.... bush's statement is still significantly more realistic than pretty much anything i have seen from any politician up to now。
the speech as has a few interesting bits on the economy and education。
Current Mood: tired Current Music: Stiff Little Fingers - Silver Lining
|
|
02:17 pm
![[User Picture] height=](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/3328540/398316) |
coburn: "remove the pork or i'll jam the cogs" coburn's anti-pork campaigning is apparently moving up a notch:
To rein in wasteful spending, Dr. Coburn intends to offer an amendment on every pork project stuffed into appropriations bills this year. There were at least 13,998 earmarked projects contained in last year’s appropriations bills. By way of comparison, the Senate had only 366 roll call votes last year. Needless to say we are beefing up our appropriations staff for this challenge and we have requested that we be given at least 72 hours to review appropriations bills before they are considered. sounds like a very useful start。 meanwhile, here is a long and interesting item on how the corruption spreads far and wide。 all that is needed is light, continuous steady bright light。
Current Mood: tired Current Music: [none]
|
|
05:27 pm
![[User Picture] height=](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/3328540/398316) |
'exposure' laws facing long overdue attack i have never understood the need for laws banning "indecency" or "exposure"。 i'm happy to see what i hope is the first in a long line of example of such laws being treated with due contempt:
The four women who successfully defended themselves against charges after they walked through downtown Moravia topless in August have sent notice that they intend to sue municipalities involved in their case. [...]
The district attorney's office - facing a 1992 state Court of Appeals ruling that said women can remove their tops in public places where men can as long as it's not for commercial purposes - sought to prove the women negatively affected commerce in Moravia by going topless. But it eventually determined it did not have enough evidence to sustain the charges. what business it is of anyone's whether the women in question make money or not, i am at a loss to see。
Current Mood: tired Current Music: Flowerpot Men - Let's Go To San Francisco
|
|
11:31 am
![[User Picture] height=](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/3328540/398316) |
today's military, the future of us politics? the times they are a-changing:
If you want to meet the future political leaders of the United States, go to Iraq. I am not referring to the generals, or even the colonels. I mean the junior officers and enlistees in their 20s and 30s. In the decades ahead, they will represent something uncommon in U.S. military history: war veterans with practical experience in democratic governance, learned under the most challenging of conditions. For several weeks, I observed these young officers working behind the scenes to organize the election in Mosul, Iraq's second-largest city. ... Throughout Iraq, young Army and Marine captains have become veritable mayors of micro-regions, meeting with local sheiks, setting up waste-removal programs to employ young men, dealing with complaints about cuts in electricity and so on. They have learned to arbitrate tribal politics, to speak articulately and to sit through endless speeches without losing patience.
I watched Lt. John Turner of Indianapolis get up on his knees from a carpet while sipping tea with a former neighborhood mukhtar and plead softly: "Sir, I am willing to die for a country that is not my own. So will you resume your position as mukhtar? Brave men must stand forward. Iraq's wealth is not oil but its civilization. Trust me by the projects I bring, not by my words." Turner, a D student in high school, got straightened out as an enlisted man in the Coast Guard before earning a degree from Purdue and becoming an Army officer. He is one of what Col. Michael Shields, commander of the 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team in Mosul, calls his "young soldier-statesmen." lead from belmont, who has some further comment。
Current Mood: tired Current Music: Roxette - Crash Boom Bang
|
|
01:08 pm
![[User Picture] height=](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/3328540/398316) |
why the fossil media leans left & the suburbs right an interesting speculative article attempting to explain the current state of the american political landscape in terms of demographics, with particular reference to population density:
Historically, there has been a higher perceived and practical need for government in big cities. Sewer systems, for example, are a matter of life and death in cities where diseases spread rapidly through densely packed populations. In the country, outhouses worked fine for most people until septic tanks with indoor plumbing came along, and neither needed government involvement or assistance to install and use -- except in so far as they might require permission from local regulators, who were therefore resented.
Clean and healthful running water in cities likewise entailed major public works programs as well as taxation in some form. Water in the country was usually a matter of drilling a well and was therefore untaxed. Garbage disposal in cities, required to prevent all sort of unpleasantness including vermin infestation and disease, has almost always involved government. In the country, you could burn or bury.
Crime rates, despite Hollywood's slander of the American West, have also traditionally been a more serious problem in big cities. When you can see people coming from far away and tend to know all those around you, those already accustomed to handling weapons and hunting have a different take on crime prevention than those who live among high-density strangers. and how the fossil media got that way:
The economics of the newspaper business is far more favorable to cities than to the countryside. The cost of news content production in cities, where populations are easily accessible, is much lower than it is in the countryside -- especially before the era of cheap and reliable telephones. Moreover, the cost of product distribution was dramatically less expensive in urban areas where paper boys often travel only yards, as opposed to miles in rural areas, to deliver a single, incremental newspaper.
As a result, big city newspapers thrived and the biggest city's newspaper, the New York Times, thrived most. That the journalists and editors who worked in the big city news business reflected the local political culture is not surprising. The sentiment that city folk are just a little bit smarter than country folk, or some equivalent chauvinism related to locational and team psychology, is not a conspiracy and probably couldn't have been prevented any more than you could get the majority of Green Bay Packers fans to root for New York, or vice versa. and much more。 in case you've forgotten what i mean by "that way" in reference to the fossil media:
“[...] for every journalist who contributed to George W. Bush’s campaign, another 93 contributed to Kerry’s campaign.” for recent pictorial examples of fossil media propagandising for both the declared (muslim fundies) and undeclared (socialists) enemies, see here。
Current Mood: tired Current Music: Suspect Device
|
| 12:54 pm
![[User Picture] height=](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/3328540/398316) |
america works: courts kick "intelligent design" the christianist fundies in america have being attempting to get creationism taught in biology classes as a serious useful alternative filing system to evolution, although at the moment the fundies and their 'law'-maker shills are calling their theory "intelligent design", rather than creationism, in a transparent attempt to disguise themselves。 a judge has told them to knock it off。 extracts from judge jones' ruling:
"We find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause."
"Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has not been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."
"The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."
for the dedicated, here's a pdf of the whole ruling。
dilbert writer scott adams has a diary with much amusing solipsist comment on the whole "intelligent design" fad:
What about consciousness? You’d expect God to be conscious as we understand it, right? But that wouldn’t make sense for an omnipotent being. Our own consciousness is mostly about imagining what can happen next and comparing it to what does so we can adjust accordingly. That’s useful for survival, but only for slow procreating creatures that are made of meat and surrounded by carnivores. God wouldn’t need that sort of imagination because omnipotence means your preferences are the same as reality. There’s no point in being almighty if you have to sit around imagining what you want and then waiting for it. So God would have no use for consciousness. more here, here and here。
for more serious analysis, see here:
It appears that the judge in the Dover case has ruled rather broadly and this bodes ill for ID in general. This in turn, in my view, bodes ill for creationists of all stripes. The problem for creationists in general is that ID represents one of the last stages of evolution of creationist “theory” before it goes extinct. ID is creationism with all the references to God removed and tarted up in sophisticated language of mathematics and biology to make it look more like science than any previous incarnation of creationism.
Current Mood: tired Current Music: Toploader - Dancing In The Moonlight
|
|
12:00 pm
![[User Picture] height=](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/3328540/398316) |
how far can one trust an ally, how long will an ally stand to be treated shabbily? winds of change has a long and interesting article on joint defence projects between america, britain and others。 ongoing delays and refusals on sharing technology, despite promises from both the clinton and bush administrations, have led to threats from britain to withdraw from development, construction and purchasing of the next generation fighter aircraft, the f-35 - a replacement for the f-14 tomcat (think "top gun"), the f-16 (one of the most sold american weapons) and the harrier jump jet, amongst others。
such a move would have consequences:
Since going alone is not a financial option, Britain would look elsewhere for defense development cooperation - to European industry, and to EU-led programs to create both a common European defense industry and a European force independent of NATO or the USA. A British military that is more and more interoperable with its European partners, and less and less common with the USA, and also not fostering ties at the weapons program level because cooperation is curtailed... is a Britain that will find itself, slowly but surely pulled away from its special defense relationship with the USA. This will, of course, have ripple effects on its foreign policy. Especially given that broken promises and a breakdown of cooperation would be what led to this whole situation in the first place. the technology transfer rules no doubt have some sense, but they are also a form of accepted protectionism: a way for america to screw its allies and get away with it:
At the same time, the plane's dependence on software makes protecting the security of that source code an absolute must. To have even parts of it fall into hostile hands could be a disaster of the first magnitude. On the American side, there is also the quasi-protectionist angle of not wishing to have others copy the software and develop spin-off products in future that are based on US work. Even attempting to scrutinize that would be a challenge, however, creating intrusiveness, approval, and friction problems of its own. The option of American code control as the sole "clearinghouse" for the program is thus an attractive one.
On the other hand, with $2 billion invested as a "Tier One" partner, Britain may justly feel that a full partner should not have to go hat in hand to the USA every time a change is required. [...]
Britain, as the USA's closest defense partner, would like to have the ITAR restrictions waived in many cases, essentially conferring automatic approval on British requests. In 2000, Bill Clinton promised both Britain and Australia (another genuine ally who cooperates on a number of defense projects with the USA) that he would work to make this happen. George W. Bush and his administration have also worked to make this happen. Both Bill and W. have failed, however, largely owing to resistance from a few powerful congressional Republicans - esp. House International Relations Committee Chair Henry Hyde [R-IL], and House Armed Services Chair Duncan Hunter [R-CA]. this is far from an unsolvable problem, but i suspect - and clearly that is the judgment of the british also - that the americans are quite happy to keep their protectionism if they can get away with it。
|
| 07:56 am
![[User Picture] height=](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/3328540/398316) |
how politics really works, the patriot act as an example i have never taken much interest in the patriot act, or in the hysteria that pervades most discussion of that law。 i have a great deal of faith in america's ability to reform itself if neccessary; i have little sympathy with most campaigners' fundamentalist attitudes toward civil rights; and more importantly, i tend to tune out the moonbats of this world: they may talk sense once in a green sun, but who has the time or energy to discover those supposed gems?
yesterday, my head told me that now is the time to do a bit of work, which i started by reading this fascinating floor speech by democratic senator feingold。 feingold was the coauthor (with republican senator mccain) of the recent campaign finance reform laws that have had a number of presumably unintended negative consequences。 these consequences are often overplayed by the fundamentalist wing of the republican party in order to damage mccain and feingold: both fairly moderate possible contenders for their respective party's nomination。 feingold gives the impression of being a well-meaning idealist specialising in anti-corruption and civil liberties law; like most well-meaning idealists, he has a tendency to not to take the real world into account when trying out his brilliant ideas。
feingold's speech has much detail on the congressional political process and on problems with the patriot act。 first on the political process:
Mr. President, because I was the only Senator to vote against the Patriot Act in 2001, I want to be very clear from the start. I am not opposed to reauthorization of the Patriot Act. I supported the bipartisan, compromise reauthorization bill that the Senate passed earlier this year without a single Senator objecting. I believe that bill should become law. The Senate reauthorization bill is not a perfect bill, but it is a good bill. If that were the bill we were considering today, I would be here on the floor speaking in support of it. In fact, we could have reauthorized the Patriot Act months ago if the House had taken up the bill that the Senate approved without any objections.
I also want to respond to those who argue that people who are demanding a better conference report want to let the Patriot Act expire. That is nonsense. Not a single member of this body is calling for any provision of the Patriot Act to expire. As Senator Sununu eloquently argued yesterday, just because we are coming up against the end of the year does not mean we should have to compromise the rights of law-abiding Americans. There are any number of ways that we can get this done and get it done right before the end of the year.
Let me also be clear about how we ended up voting on a badly flawed conference report just days before certain provisions of the Patriot Act expire. The only reason that we are debating this conference report in the middle of December, rather than the middle of September or October, is because the House refused to appoint its conferees for three and a half months. It passed its reauthorization bill on July 21, but didn’t appoint conferees until November 9. In the Senate, on the other hand, we passed a bill by unanimous consent on July 29 and appointed conferees the very same day. We were ready and willing to start the process of resolving our differences with the House right away, leaving plenty of time to get this done without the pressure of the end of the year deadline. next on the contended section 215:
Section 215 is at the center of this debate over the Patriot Act. It is also one of the provisions that I tried unsuccessfully to amend here on this floor in October 2001. So it makes sense to start my discussion of the specific problems I have with the conference report with the infamous “library” provision.
Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows the government to obtain secret court orders in domestic intelligence investigations to get all kinds of business records about people, including not just library records, but also medical records and various other types of business records. The Patriot Act allowed the government to obtain these records as long as they were "sought for" a terrorism investigation. That’s a very low standard. It didn’t require that the records concern someone who was suspected of being a terrorist or spy, or even suspected of being connected to a terrorist or spy. It didn’t require any demonstration of how the records would be useful in the investigation. Under Section 215, if the government simply said it wanted records for a terrorism investigation the secret FISA court was required to issue the order -- period. To make matters worse, recipients of these orders are also subject to an automatic gag order. They cannot tell anyone that they have been asked for records.
Now some in the Administration, and even in this body, took the position that people shouldn’t be able to criticize these provisions until they could come up with a specific example of “abuse.” The Attorney General makes that same argument today in an op-ed in the Washington Post when he dismisses concerns about the Patriot Act by saying that “[t]here have been no verified civil liberties abuses in the four years of the act's existence.” That has always struck me as a strange argument since 215 orders are issued by a secret court and people who receive them are prohibited by law from discussing them. In other words, the law is designed so that it’s almost impossible to know if abuses have occurred. [...]
The Senate bill also would give recipients of a 215 order an explicit, meaningful right to challenge business record orders and the accompanying gag orders in court. These provisions passed the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously after tough negotiations late into the night.
The conference report did away with this delicate compromise. i can't yet be bothered to read the patriot act and i doubt that most, if any, of the vocal commentators on either side have。 however, my understanding now is that the patriot act is in most parts mostly harmless, and in fact could be considered necessary。 only small parts of the act have sunset clauses set to expire soon and those are the parts currently under debate。 in fact, the extension of those parts was rejected yesterday:
The 52-47 roll call by which the Senate voted to reject reauthorization of several provisions of the USA Patriot Act. Sixty votes were needed to overcome a filibuster of the bill. [there is a role call list for the vote at the last link]
not all of the problematic parts of the patriot act have sunset clauses expiring on december 31st 2005。 not all of the parts with relevant sunset clauses are problematic: some apparently increase the protections from intrusion。 as volokh [a fundie wing republican lawyer, who is fairly interesting and reasonable on non-fundie-agenda-related matters of law and civil rights] comments:
For those of us who think of the Patriot Act as actual legislation rather than a symbol of the Bush Administration, this is rather puzzling stuff. The dirty little secret about the Patriot Act is that only about 3% of the Act is controversial, and only about a third of that 3% is going to expire on December 31st. Further, much of the reauthorization actually puts new limits on a number of the controversial non-sunsetting provisions, and some of the sunsetting provisions increased privacy protections. As a result, it's not immediately obvious to me whether we'll have greater civil liberties on January 1, 2006 if the Patriot Act is reauthorized or if it is allowed to expire. (To be fair, though, I'd have to run through the effect of every expiring section and all of the reauthorization language to check this - maybe I would feel differently if I did.) a large part of the problems arising in these debates is caused by the inability to vote selectively。 the senators are presented with a mammoth collection of laws, the parts of which are often not even vaguely related to each other, some good, some bad, some indifferent, and every other shade between。 assuming the bill gets to a vote - the majority don't - the politicians must vote yes or no for the collection。
in the case of the patriot act, the bureaucrats ever attempt to add items from their wishlists, items that are invariably not good for liberty。 despite the constant invokation of "terrorism" on the right, the patriot act is in reality more aimed at the idiotic "war on drugs"。 despite the constant invokation of civil liberties on the left, the patriot act is mostly neutral on civil liberties: all of feingold's complaints are in the end related to government attempts to avoid oversight, rather than directly to the at least plausibly necessary created/extended exceptions to various rights。 on the moonbat left, the patriot act preforms rather as a useful, because the complaints at least sound reasonable or plausible, bush-bashing tool。
this system of non-specific voting has great advantages for a dishonest or corrupt politician。 it gives the weasels a strong degree of deniability: "i voted for that bill because of this orphanage for the children. of course, i don't like this billion dollar grant to my friends at corruption inc. to barcode and track every baby. however, in the end we must think of the children." or "of course i support the troops and i greatly regret being forced, by this part that would close one library in my district, to vote against this bill to fund buying body armour."
the politician can always claim away responsibility, because their vote is for a diverse package, rather than for a specific。 you see the same problem with the pork-busting attempts: you can't vote against someone's pork, because you will probably be voting against your own pork, or against something "important", at the same time。 most of the pork bills are huge messy compromises, designed to make sure that nobody gets left out, all inserted into something that could be reasonably considered important。 thus all can and do claim that they weren't voting for the pork, but were actually voting for the important bits。 for example, the recent highways bill that has been the main focus of the porkbusters campaign has at its centre a core of work to modernise the american road infrastructure, something clearly important for the functioning of a modern industrial nation。 of course it also has the "bridge to nowhere", an unwanted "parking garage" and much more。 it is reckoned that there is at least $24 billion 'worth' of pork in that one transportation bill。 it is a show。
there is an obvious and easy solution:
A single-subject, descriptive-title (hereinafter, SSDT) requirement for all Congressional bills — more popularly labeled a truth-in-legislation amendment as suggested by law professor Brannon Denning and attorney Brooks Smith (see their “Uneasy Riders: The Case for a Truth-in-Legislation Amendment,” 1999 Utah Law Review 858) — would only help cure some of the legislative abuses inflicted upon the populace by both chambers of Congress. The Denning/Smith version would read: "Congress shall pass no bill, and no bill shall become law, which embraces more than one subject, that subject being clearly expressed in the title." there are a few more honest politicians, such as coburn, who are very slowly improving the situation, despite the 'help' of their friends。 if you are determined enough, it is possible to force the corrupt or craven into the light:
In a 279-109 vote, the GOP-controlled House approved a resolution saying the chamber is committed "to achieving victory in Iraq" and that setting an "artificial timetable" would be "fundamentally inconsistent with achieving victory." [...]
It says that "setting an artificial timetable for the withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Iraq, or immediately terminating their deployment in Iraq and redeploying them elsewhere in the region, is fundamentally inconsistent with achieving victory in Iraq." [...]
By putting the resolution to a vote, Republican leaders forced Democrats to make a choice: either break ranks with their party and support the GOP resolution, or oppose it and open themselves to criticism, ahead of a congressional election year in which Iraq will be a focus, that they had rejected the notion of victory in Iraq. of course, the politicians will both do all they can to avoid being forced to make clear acts; and when so forced, politicians will do all they can after the fact to muddy the clarity of, or distract from, that act: just watch the democrats now quibbling over the definition of "victory" and bemoaning this "political stunt" as if it being political or a stunt has any relevance to their now recorded votes。
there is too much of both pessimism and optimistic credulity in discussion of the actions of politicians。 they are not invulnerable, things do slowly improve。 neither are they to be trusted, no matter how nice today's soundbite may appear。 another example: mccain has managed to build a considerable degree of credibility as a social moderate, who is willing to act against corruption and is hardheaded enough to face problems out there in the non-american world。 now watch carefully as he attempts to spend that capital and get the votes of the fundamentalists in his party:
McCain has also been tacking rightward in less obvious—or at least less aggressively publicized—ways. He has thrown his support behind the teaching of “intelligent design” along with evolution in public schools. He has endorsed a constitutional amendment in Arizona to ban gay marriage and deny benefits to unmarried couples of any kind. He has met privately with Jerry Falwell, in an apparent attempt to gin up a rapprochement with the Christian right, which he famously and vividly attacked at the height of the 2000 campaign. a politician's life is votes。 nothing more or less。 in order to gain the republican nomination this sort of pandering to idiocy is necessary, as mccain found when he failed to do so last time。 to get the democratic nomination, one must pander to a different breed of idiocy, but the political pattern is the same。
so now mccain does his pandering, opening himself wide open to hypocrisy charges, but giving himself a very good chance of getting the nomination。 he has to calculate whether gain in support from a large section of the sheep will be enough to compensate for the damage to his reputation in the eyes of the serious。 this is the reality of a politician's life。 just as the reality for those watching is never ever being certain just which parts are real and which parts are for the votes。 all we observers can be certain of is that mr.politician did say x, they did vote y and they did act z。。 at least assuming you trust your sources sufficiently for your purposes at this instant。
there are also some votes in at least appearing honest and there are some votes in acting "courageously"。 the more courageous politicians will at times act despite the feckless sheep, as blair did in britain vis the necessary action in iraq。。 but always the politician must calculate whether they can get away with it - ie whether they sheep will keep voting for them。。 and many (eg churchill) pay a heavy price for that courage when they miscalculate。
for sanity: do not despair; do not trust; study, make judgments and slowly improve the world。 there are many ways to improve the world, most are at least in some sense outside politics。
alternatively you can keep passively watching the show, fooling yourself that you understand or care。
or you can simply bury your head and hope it all "works out" somehow, which it probably will because they are many many good people willing to act where you are not。
it is your choice。。 although i would suggest that options two and three are no real options for any who wish to honestly claim to be a citizen or a man。
|
|
11:07 am
![[User Picture] height=](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/3328540/398316) |
"broken, worn out and living hand to mouth" that is how the aforementioned congressman murtha, claimed military expert and nice/good guy, describes the us military。 here's how someone in slightly better touch with reality describes the situation:
The Inner Prop and I served in Operation Enduring Freedom V (Afghanistan, March 2004-March 2005). We stood at the end of the longest sustained supply line in the history of human conflict. We were in war-torn Central Asia. Af-frickin'-ghanistan. We had decent food, e-mail, phone (OK, sometimes they weren't always working, but almost all the time) excellent medical support, good pay, regular (if slow) mail. We had a PXs at most of the larger bases, and coffee places sprang up too. We had so damned much ammunition that we needed to build a bigger ammunition supply point at Bagram, AF. We had so many vehicles that we were constantly squabbling over where to put them all - and we had enough up-armored ones too. Our supply warehouses were stuffed with clothing, boots, body armor and the like. once more socialists descend into dishonesty when the facts inevitably don't meet their desired specifications。 murtha is a veteran - a marine for 37 years - from an earlier and much more problematic era for the american military。 he has built his reputation as one of the democratic party's main military experts in the congress。 he has also recently visited the soldiers in iraq。 there can therefore be no serious doubt that his current behaviour is straightforward dishonesty rather than simple ignorance。 once more: they are not "against the war", they are on the other side。
Current Mood: tired Current Music: Anastacia - I'm Outta Love
|
| 09:29 am
![[User Picture] height=](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/3328540/398316) |
steyn on the "defeatocrats"; moveon antics steyn's latest is as usual probably nothing new to anyone paying attention, but full of good one-liners:
Democrat colleague, Rep. Jack Murtha, whose carefully nuanced position on Iraq is: We're all doomed unless we pull out by next Tuesday! (I quote from memory.) [...]
It's just about acceptable in polite society to disagree with Murtha, but only if you do it after a big 20-minute tongue bath about what "a fine man" he is (as Rumsfeld said) or what "a good man" he is (as Cheney called him) or what "a fine man, a good man" he is (as Bush phrased it). [...]
There's an economic boom in the Shia south and a tourist boom in the Kurdish north, and, while the only thing going boom in the Sunni Triangle are the suicide bombers,
in further news from the moonbat wing of the us democratic party, their main grassroots - actually heavily funded by some very rich nuts such as soros - pressure group moveon.org has been once more making fools of themselves。
moveon - the organisation that stubbornly refuse to moveon and accept that their friend saddam lost and is in jail - made their first mistake when they decided to run an emotive and stupid political tv advert aimed at breaking us morale。
their second mistake was to use images of supposed us soliders, which were very obviously british: the us army do not wear shorts as part of their uniform; they apparently also have different camoflage patterns, but that is less obvious to non-experts。
their third mistake was to then photoshop the still shot from the advert that they were using on their website in an attempt to cover up their error [only the obvious one, i'm pretty sure they haven't corrected the camoflage]。
now a georgian congressman's staffer has taken the time to point out their basic innumeracy:
Amount of cash MoveOn.org spent to hire actors for the commercial: $20,000
Amount of cash MoveOn.org spent to purchase the b-roll film of UK soldiers which they called US soldiers: 5,000 pounds (see here).
Amount MoveOn.org allegedly spent in Georgia's first district on a media buy: $480,000 (see here).
And the results...
ZERO calls, emails, or letters resulting from the ad: PRICELESS
Current Mood: tired Current Music: Toby Keith - If I Was Jesus
|
|
09:56 pm
![[User Picture] height=](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/3328540/398316) |
thomas paine on the fossil media; book review the fossil media's lack of contact with reality or honesty is nothing new。 this was written in 1806:
The writer of this remembers a remark made to him by Mr. Jefferson concerning the English Newspapers which at that time, 1787, while Mr. Jefferson was Minister at Paris, were most vulgarly abusive. The remark applies with equal force to the Federal papers of America. The remark was, that "the licentiousness of the press produces the same effect as the restraint of the press was intended to do. The restraint, said he, was to prevent things being told, and the licentiousness of the press prevents things being believed when they are told." We have in this state an evidence of the truth of this remark. The number of federal papers in the city and state of New-York are more than five to one to the number of republican papers, yet the majority of the elections go always against the federal papers, which is demonstrative evidence that the licentiousness of those papers are destitute of credit. -- thomas paine, 1883011035, p.429。
i originally bought this collection of paine's writing from my interest in america politics and the spread of freedom。 however, i could just as easily recommend the book for those who simply want to read beautifully written prose。 he sometimes goes over the top on the rhetoric of his cases, but even then he invariably manages to do it prettily。
。。 as for the content, this is a man who sized up the great problem of his day and decided that the most effective way to improve the world was to start writing。 having decided, he then set about pretty much singlehandedly persuading america, first to declare independence [in "common sense"], and then to stick to their guns [in "the crisis" series of public letters], until britain was defeated and america was free to become the beacon of hope it is today。
his methods were truly modern: step by logical step he took the arguments of his opponents to pieces, leaving them with nowhere left to stand。 he regularly dissected the illogics in the statements of america's enemies。 he also carried out highly competent 'fisks' more than two centuries before fisk began making a fool of himself。
as with any 'ancient', it is possible for those who stand on his shoulders to pick holes and mock the ignorance of his age, as seen through his writings。 however, without these same writings, our freedom, wealth and knowledge would likely not afford us the latitude to mock。 paine is one of the giants on whose shoulders we all stand。
amongst his other achievements are inventing a new way of constructing iron bridges so as to span much larger rivers with much greater ease。 with surprising naivety, he was also centrally involved in the early french revolution, prior to the bloodbaths - he almost got himself killed opposing said bloodbaths。 he also in effect invented a 'rationalist' religion whose ideas are still influential today。 he campaigned against slavery and capital punishment。 he wrote of a citizen's wage in "agrarian justice":
The life of an [Red] Indian is a continual holiday, compared with the poor of Europe; and, on the other hand, it appears to be abject when compared to the rich. Civilization, therefore, or that which is so called, has operated, two ways, to make one part of society more affluent, and the other part more wretched, than would have been the lot of either in a natural state.
It is always possible to go from the natural to the civilized state, but it is never possible to go from the civilized to the natural state. The reason is, that man, in a natural state, subsisting by hunting, requires ten times the quantity of land to range over, to procure himself sustenance, than would support him in a civilized state, where the earth is cultivated. When therefore a country becomes populous by the additional aids of cultivation, arts, and science, there is a necessity of preserving things in that state; because, without it, there cannot be sustenance for more, perhaps, than a tenth part of its inhabitants. The thing therefore now to be done, is, to remedy the evils, and preserve the benefits, that have arisen to society, by passing from the natural to that which is called the civilized state. note that this is precisely the same mechanism which makes it not an option to ignore our fossil fuel problems。
not bad for a perpetually broke corset-maker cum customs inspector cum drifter from thetford in norfolk, england。
the book above has 830 pages of his writing and a fairly full chronology of his life。 it is a properly bound hardback with nice thin pages: the way a book should be。 i haven't finished reading it yet, but this one definitely goes on my recommendations list。 when i make the list, that is。
Current Mood: tired Current Music: nippy tv
|
|
03:34 pm
![[User Picture] height=](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/3328540/398316) |
america's new isolationism frank j's at it again:
Every so often in our nation's history we adopt a policy of strict isolationism due to our fear and ignorance.
It is once again time for such fear and ignorance.
It's time to admit the obvious: the rest of the world hates us. So, let's hate them back. Really, what's worth all this grief we get from dealing with them? Apparently they all enjoy fascism and murder and what not, so leave them to it. [...]
But what if terrorists attack again because their god Llama told them too? Then we start nuking places at random (cruise missiles are preferred as we can use those from the comfort of our own home). Our new policy will be that we no longer distinguish between foreigners, so, if we are attacked, it is the fault of all non-Americans. Other countries will soon learn that America is extremely violent when preturbed, and soon they'll be tripping over each other to make sure that no one ever bothers us.
frank j for president。 ^_^
Current Mood: tired Current Music: [none]
|
|
08:29 am
![[User Picture] height=](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/3328540/398316) |
porkbusters: coburn bringing the corrupt further into the light coburn has brought a series of fiscal conservative ammendments before the us senate, almost all of them have been rejected。 the following was not:
The Senate did accept three Coburn amendments. One amendment required that all earmarks be included in the bill’s conference report. This amendment helps lift the veil of secrecy that conceals the process of inserting special projects into appropriations bills. Similar amendments have been attached to the Agriculture, Military Construction and Department of Defense Appropriations bills.
one more step in making it harder for the bastards to hide their corruption。
further, we now having the voting record as further evidence of preference for personal corruption over good government。
there are two expected candidates for the republican presidential nomination amongst those that stood up to the corruption: mccain and allen。 only one democrat voted with the good guys: feingold, who has a record of working with mccain on finance issues。 this cooperation includes the campaign reform bill that bears their names [which is having some ongoing unfortunate consequences - for example it has potential to be used to as a legal weapon to *try to* significantly reduce the free speech rights of bloggers, attempts that i can't see ever succeeding]。 there appears to be a possibility that feingold will run for his party's presidential nomination。。
amongst the ammendments rejected 15-82 in the senate was one to block funding to the alaskan "bridge to nowhere":
The Coburn amendment would have blocked funding for a $223 million bridge to a town in Alaska with a population of 50 people. At $4.46 million per person, the cost of the bridge alone would be enough to buy every island resident their own personal Lear jet. The Coburn amendment also would have blocked funding for a $229 million bridge that would connect Anchorage, Alaska to hundreds of square miles of unpopulated wetlands.
obviously i would have prefered that coburn's ammendments were passed。 however, this is no defeat for the anti-corruption campaigners: the ammendment passed (see above) and the voting record that will be publisised mercilessly just further expose the pork-pushers for what they are: highly corrupt men, now on the run。 the principle that applies to bigots, applies just as well to the corrupt:
How it infuriates a bigot when he is forced to drag out his dark convictions. --logan pearson smith.
Pork is the poster child for government bloat, and it needs to highlighted, project by project, by project, and the politicians who push it should be made to defend each project again and again. everyday more people internalise these ideas。 we do not need to win everything overnight, we just need to keep on steadily improving small step by small step。 in the end, there is nothing these politicians can do about it if people are determined。 as coburn himself put it in a recent interview:
when the American people want things to change, they will change. is coburn running for the nomination also? the more serious candidates the better。。
already individual americans are responding to their senator's actions:
Just after I read your blog on the Coburn Amendments' failure, I received a phone call - AT MY OFFICE (a church) - from the Republican National Committee thanking me for my past support and asking for more money for some critical election in Florida.
I interrupted them and said "You won't get one thin dime from me, until you do something about the pork. I called my Republican Senator's (Coleman) office a couple weeks ago to talk about Pork - but barely received a response. Now they rejected the Coburn amendment. Where is the fiscally responsible Republican party I helped to elect? You won't get any more money from me until it changes."
politicians survive on their campaign funds, which are more and more provided for by small donations from very large numbers of people - yet another consequence of the mccain-feingold campaign finance reform, the growing power that the internet gives to individuals and the vastly expanding personal wealth。 where do you think this increasingly important funding will be directed and not directed?
politicians are not invunerable, they keep their jobs on sufferance。 individuals hold vastly greater power than most realise, especially where they focus and cooperate。 gradually that realisation is spreading; in step the power of those "in charge" reduces。 this is a positive feedback loop: the more people see how ineffectual the "in charge" power is, the more who are emboldened to further erode that flimsy power。
Current Mood: tired Current Music: Jimmy Ruffin - What Becomes Of The Brokenhearted
|
|
12:49 pm
![[User Picture] height=](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/3328540/398316) |
frank j on supreme court justices
Okay, I ain't thrilled by the Harriet Miers pick for the Supreme Court, but I have to disagree with a lot of the conservative critics out there. They talk about her not having distinguished qualifications, and that just means they are falling into the trap of making the job of a Supreme Court seem more complex than it is.
So what is the job of a Supreme Court Justice? It's to interpret the Constitution. And what is the Constitution?
A FOUR PAGE DOCUMENT!
Think about it: the job of a Supreme Court Justice - his only job for his entire life - is to understand four pages of text. Why do you even need a legal degree for this? I'm not even sure you need a high school diploma. The two times I took the SATs, I got a 770 out of 800 on the verbal. One of those times, I got every single reading comprehension question right. I think that more than qualifies me to be an excellent Supreme Court Justice. In fact, I might be too qualified. [...]
But, people have to act like it's so much more complicated than that. There's a big academic debate out there whether the Constitution gives an individual or collective right to bear arms, but the average citizen is completely unaware of that debate. Most know there is an individual right to bear arms because THAT'S WHAT THE DOCUMENT SAYS. Really, a level-headed twelve-year-old could do a better job than some of the academic pinheads now serving. And the President could appoint a twelve year-old (if you don't believe me, read the Constitution - it's only four pages!). yeah, right on, or something like that。 :=)
[i've decided to stop referring to frank j as "imao", because of all the rubbish writers he's allowed to pollute that site。]
Current Mood: tired Current Music: David Ball - Riding With Private Malone
|
|
10:58 am
![[User Picture] height=](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/3328540/398316) |
republican party leadership starting to back down on fiscal irresponsibility over the last few weeks, hundreds of constituents having been writing to their congressmen asking what those congressmen are going to do reduce excessive federal government spending。 despite the litany of unhelpful, unresponsive and downright negative responses that i've seen published on various blogs, the reality is that the porkbusters campaign is having a real and positive effect。
first we have a group of 100+ republican fiscal conservative sentators working together to pressure their highly corrupt leadership:
The more than 100 conservatives in the Republican Study Committee in the House have documented $500 billion that could be saved over the coming decade.
And Sen. John McCain and other Republican senators want $85 billion saved by delaying for two years the new Medicare prescription drug benefit.
note that despite mccain's very positive leadership on this issue, his 'savings' mentioned above are disingenuous: his proposal is more a matter of delaying the spending until the storm has (hopefully) blown over。
。。 then we have initial results:
House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert is an old wrestler, and last Thursday night he used a classic move of his sport by quickly reversing positions. On behalf of the Republican leadership, Hastert went before his colleagues to embrace essentially the same package of spending that two weeks earlier he had scourged conservative House members for proposing. The change was a matter of necessity rather than choice. [...]
It was about what Pence and his colleagues proposed two weeks earlier. What's more, Hastert is pushing the first mid-session amendment of the budget in 28 years.
The entire Republican leadership endorsed the Hastert plan, but the conference was far from unanimous.
this is not expected to be the end of the consessions that will be forced from the free-spending republican 'leadership':
On the floor of the House Friday, Pence issued a polite victory statement. "Some of us thought we should pay for the big cost of Hurricane Katrina by cutting big government," he said, adding that "we're beginning to do just that." However, speaking "on behalf of House conservatives," he said, "we are pleased but not content, we are encouraged but not satisfied" because the actual cutting will be harder than winning the debate. Pence sounded a little like Ronald Reagan's "trust but verify" reaction to Mikhail Gorbachev.
note that hastert is the replacement for tom delay, the man whose idiotic statement started this whole campaign:
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said yesterday that Republicans have done so well in cutting spending that he declared an "ongoing victory," and said there is simply no fat left to cut in the federal budget.
delay was kicked out for financial corruption in his home state of texas and has stated he that his constituency doesn't have any pork to cut, but even he is now at least trying to pretend to be a fiscal conservative。
the good guys are winning, all that is needed is that the pressure continues:
Pork is the poster child for government bloat, and it needs to highlighted, project by project, by project, and the politicians who push it should be made to defend each project again and again.
Current Mood: tired Current Music: [none]
|
|
12:50 pm
![[User Picture] height=](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/3328540/398316) |
the republician party vs. the people the republican party has apparently calculated that it can ignore with impunity the grassroots' calls for fiscal sanity:
Clearly the folks at the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) are paying no attention to blogger demands that the party structure help bring about fiscal restraint in Congress.
They are running a TV ad AGAINST an anti-pork, fiscally conservative Republican challenger to an incumbent who voted against the Bush tax cuts and had the second lowest score among Republican senators in the most recent National Taxpayers Union rating of Congress (PDF). The NRSC is in full attack mode against a candidate who has made pork a key issue.
i don't believe they are "paying no attention", they just want no part in reducing their trough。 it is not just the democrats that have put idiots in charge of the national party (howard dean in the democrat case)。
the republicans deserve to lose their congressional majorities over this。 i think they probably will lose badly at the 2006 elections, even without the currently unlikely appearance of a serious democratic party opposition。 conservatives parties traditionally have more trouble getting the party faithful to bother going to the polling booths even when the party puts forward joke candidates。
Current Mood: tired Current Music: ザンオールスターズ - 女神達への情歌 ~報道されないY型の彼方へ
|
|
09:18 am
![[User Picture] height=](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/3328540/398316) |
proposed new presidential powers to force specific votes on pork i can't see how this helps with the current president, but nor can i disagree with the principle:
Rep. Mark Udall has joined Republican budget hawks on legislation that would give the White House new authority to pare congressional spending bills. [...]
It would authorize the president to pull specific items out of massive appropriations bills and then force Congress to hold up-or-down votes on the proposed cuts. It would apply to fiscal year 2006 spending bills, plus the huge, multiyear transportation plan that critics have said is loaded with wasteful, pork barrel projects.
i'd be happier still if up-down votes were mandatory on each clause of each bill: it'd not only slow them down (always a good thing where government is concerned), but would also make supporting pork far harder to hide。
Current Mood: tired Current Music: Bonnie Tyler - Total Eclipse Of The Heart
|
|
[<< Previous 20 entries] |