I Feel Safer Already

As if I needed to continue to point out that “Safety” mantra that our government continues to feed us is an illusion, I have been pointed to several articles in the last few weeks that prove that we are in fact less safe than before this WAR on TERROR. Example #1 : This story from Albany, New York shows us that the highly competent TSA officers can find a water bottle in a piece of carry on luggage, yet they cannot locate a bomb. Interestingly, I read this story right after I returned from a vacation with my family in which we passed through security 4 times at 3 different airports. Interestingly, while passing through with the same luggage each time, we received different results every time from the heroes at the TSA. While they dutifully unpacked our bags for things like a miniature fork, swabbed my video camera for bomb making residue and made sure that my wife’s SQUARE purse was laying properly on its side, they missed the lighters, razor sharp cigar cutter and all the subversive material that I keep on my thumb drive (hopefully you folks can imagine my tongue firmly in my cheek on that last one). The point is this: there is no continuity of standards from one airport to another, and what this works out to is that these “security measures” end up treating everyone like a criminal while not preventing crime. Terrorists have been very good at changing their tactics when needed. Let’s not forget that the weapons used on 9/11 were legal at the time, no amount of extra screening would have stopped them from boarding with those box cutters and pocket knives. We cannot possibly try to imagine and prevent every scenario which they will try to exploit. What we can and should do is look at why they want to come here and kill us. That is a topic for another post, which I may or may not get to!
Example # 2 : As the Department of Homeland (in)Security continues to build massive databases of information from your mother’s maiden name to your favorite brand of breakfast cereal, we are constantly being warned to guard our personal information from identity theft. Why? Well there is the obvious reason; you wouldn’t want people to steal all your money. But what about
terrorists who steal identities to board planes under false names, funnel money to terrorist organizations around the world, purchase illegal weapons and so on? Well, what better place to get this information than from the source that has it all, the Dept. of Homeland Security and the
FBI. That’s right, these two agencies have a terrible track record of controlling the information that they are gleaning from your credit card purchases, surveys of records and databases, etc. Hence the cycle is complete, they gather the information illegally, tell you it’s for your own safety, then passively give it to the very people we are supposed to be scared of. TADA! Now we are less safe than we were before. Is this starting to make sense?

Fascism In 10 Easy Steps, a continuing series

First let me say, apologies to the thousands of readers out there who have been wondering where I have been. Wait, make that the 2 readers. Anyway, I have just been super busy at work and haven't had time to write.

Round three of “Fascist America In 10 Easy Steps” focuses our attention on the state of authority that we interact with on a local level. Without further delay, here is Step 3.

"Step 3. Develop a thug caste
When leaders who seek what I call a "fascist shift" want to close down an open society, they send paramilitary groups of scary young men out to terrorise citizens. The Blackshirts roamed the Italian countryside beating up communists; the Brownshirts staged violent rallies throughout Germany. This paramilitary force is especially important in a democracy: you need citizens to fear thug violence and so you need thugs who are free from prosecution.
The years following 9/11 have proved a bonanza for America's security contractors, with the Bush administration outsourcing areas of work that traditionally fell to the US military. In the process, contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars have been issued for security work by mercenaries at home and abroad. In Iraq, some of these contract operatives have been accused of involvement in torturing prisoners, harassing journalists and firing on Iraqi civilians. Under Order 17, issued to regulate contractors in Iraq by the one-time US administrator in Baghdad, Paul Bremer, these contractors are immune from prosecution
Yes, but that is in Iraq, you could argue; however, after Hurricane Katrina, the Department of Homeland Security hired and deployed hundreds of armed private security guards in New Orleans. The investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill interviewed one unnamed guard who reported having fired on unarmed civilians in the city. It was a natural disaster that underlay that episode - but the administration's endless war on terror means ongoing scope for what are in effect privately contracted armies to take on crisis and emergency management at home in US cities.
Thugs in America? Groups of angry young Republican men, dressed in identical shirts and trousers, menaced poll workers counting the votes in Florida in 2000. If you are reading history, you can imagine that there can be a need for "public order" on the next election day. Say there are protests, or a threat, on the day of an election; history would not rule out the presence of a private security firm at a polling station "to restore public order". "

The idea of an increased security presence in America, indeed in the Western world is becoming not only accepted as necessary, it is being welcomed as a way to preserve the safety that we are taught to seek from the youngest ages. Obviously, a reckless pattern of living will likely shorten your life span considerably. However the degree to which we cling to our illusion of safety creates an environment that encourages us to accept whatever is presented to us in the name of “Safety” and “Security”. After observing what has transpired in this country in the last 20 or so years, and more pointedly since 9/11, it is has become much easier to imagine a scenario in which an increased military/police presence would be welcomed to help control what is deemed by those who have the most to gain to be a “dangerous situation”. It has become commonplace to see SWAT teams not only being used for extremely dangerous situations such as hostage crisis’, but in routine drug raids and even for unconfirmed suspicious activities. In addition, police forces around the country have become more militarized in a response to threats real and imagined. The US military routinely surpluses its old gear to police departments around the country. We are not just talking bullet proof vests here. We are talking about military weapons and vehicles. Meanwhile, ordinary citizens passively accept these changes as necessary to protect us from external threats, acting as if the threat would never be among us in the form of our own government, carrying out their goal of pacifying the population through police force. We act as though the government and the police are ordained by the God who founded this country and would never take advantage of the citizens, or even opportune situations. That is a naïve view of history. Acceptance of a military presence among us is acceptance of slavery. The Founding Fathers knew this, and that is why they listed garrisoned soldiers living among them as one of their many grievances to King George. I want to be sure to state that it is not my intention to imply that all police are the arm of the corrupt Government. It is my intention to state that the institution of police authority has made a gradual yet significant shift from protecting the citizens from each other to protecting the Establishment from the "threat" of active citizenship and that they have gradually amassed the tools they would need to suppress the citizenship outright.

Fascism in 10 Easy Steps, a continuing series

Here is round 2 of Fascist America in 10 Easy Steps

“Step 2 - Create a gulag

Once you have got everyone scared, the next step is to create a prison system outside the rule of law (as Bush put it, he wanted the American detention centre at Guantánamo Bay to be situated in legal "outer space") - where torture takes place.

At first, the people who are sent there are seen by citizens as outsiders: troublemakers, spies, "enemies of the people" or "criminals". Initially, citizens tend to support the secret prison system; it makes them feel safer and they do not identify with the prisoners. But soon enough, civil society leaders - opposition members, labour activists, clergy and journalists - are arrested and sent there as well.

This process took place in fascist shifts or anti-democracy crackdowns ranging from Italy and Germany in the 1920s and 1930s to the Latin American coups of the 1970s and beyond. It is standard practice for closing down an open society or crushing a pro-democracy uprising.

With its jails in Iraq and Afghanistan, and, of course, Guantánamo in Cuba, where detainees are abused, and kept indefinitely without trial and without access to the due process of the law, America certainly has its gulag now. Bush and his allies in Congress recently announced they would issue no information about the secret CIA "black site" prisons throughout the world, which are used to incarcerate people who have been seized off the street.

Gulags in history tend to metastasise, becoming ever larger and more secretive, ever more deadly and formalised. We know from first-hand accounts, photographs, videos and government documents that people, innocent and guilty, have been tortured in the US-run prisons we are aware of and those we can't investigate adequately.

But Americans still assume this system and detainee abuses involve only scary brown people with whom they don't generally identify. It was brave of the conservative pundit William Safire to quote the anti-Nazi pastor Martin Niemöller, who had been seized as a political prisoner: "First they came for the Jews." Most Americans don't understand yet that the destruction of the rule of law at Guantánamo set a dangerous precedent for them, too.

By the way, the establishment of military tribunals that deny prisoners due process tends to come early on in a fascist shift. Mussolini and Stalin set up such tribunals. On April 24 1934, the Nazis, too, set up the People's Court, which also bypassed the judicial system: prisoners were held indefinitely, often in isolation, and tortured, without being charged with offences, and were subjected to show trials. Eventually, the Special Courts became a parallel system that put pressure on the regular courts to abandon the rule of law in favour of Nazi ideology when making decisions.”

Impossible you say? Well for starters, check out this story featured on Chicago Public Radio’s This American Life (I know it’s long, but it is an amazing read, or you can order a CD of the episode). These are the stories that the government tries to keep from you. I want to know under what circumstances are the American People ok with detaining these people without charge, without evidence, without access to family, without reasonable access to legal representation and ultimately without conviction, more pointedly, without EXPLANATION! ?! If you read the transcript linked above, you will note that many of the detainees at Gitmo were sold to the CIA for bounties. No proof was needed to confirm the detainees status as either Taliban or Al Qeada. This is eerily reminiscent of the methods used in the Spanish Inquisition. And the path that we are going down may not seem dangerous now, as long as we are only jailing brown skinned Muslims. But what happens when national paranoia reaches a level that neighbors are encouraged to spy on each other, and turn each other in for suspected terrorist activities. Oh wait, we are already there? Can you spot a Terrorist?

It's All Fun And Games 'til Someone Dies

The unspeakable tragedy at Virginia Tech warrants and introspective look at America and…..whoa whoa whoa. Hang on just a second. Did I say “unspeakable”? Well what I meant was shamelessly exploited tragedy. And rather than jump on the train that is headed to debate tougher gun laws, campus security, what could have been done and who is at fault, I’d rather talk about this editorial that ran in the Rocky Mountain News. Why is it that when things like this happen, the Nation grieves and laments the state of our nation, while we facilitate these kinds of tragedies every day in Iraq and no one seems to shed a public tear. Take your time to read the editorial. Even if the math is flawed, there is no doubt that the tragedy of Blacksburg does not compare to what is happening in Iraq daily. If you ever needed a solid example of how callous America can be to the suffering of others, this is it. This is not to detract from what happened in VA. No one can doubt the suffering and anguish of the people affected. But take that suffering, that pain, and put yourself in the shoes of
these people. I know this sounds very bleeding heart, but the reality is that this stuff is happening and all we hear about daily is simply body counts and what the “leaders” of this nation and this war are arguing about. You don’t hear about the stories that cut to the heart of what we are really doing over there. There were likely many stories similar to these before March 2003 from people suffering under the rule of Saddam Hussein, but we didn’t seem to care about it then either. But when 32 people are murdered on our soil by one lunatic with a gun, suddenly out come the black mourning clothes. People are people, wherever they live, whatever religion they belong to, whatever flag they salute, whatever color of their skin. Hopefully the good that may come of this tragedy is a little awareness of the world around us. Hopefully, but the cynic in me doesn't think so.

Fascism in 10 fun and easy steps

It has been too long since my last post, sorry to all you out there who wait with baited breath for my every word to appear on your screen.
I ran across this article on Plastic.com and discovered a concise yet poignant missive on what has been happening to our country since September 11, 2001. I am going to do a series of posts on this article, commenting on each step one at a time. There isn’t a lot to add to what I consider a well written argument. So without further ado, let’s get down to business.
“Step 1 - Invoke A Terrifying Internal And External Enemy
After we were hit on September 11 2001, we were in a state of national shock. Less than six weeks later, on October 26 2001, the USA Patriot Act was passed by a Congress that had little chance to debate it; many said that they scarcely had time to read it. We were told we were now on a "war footing"; we were in a "global war" against a "global caliphate" intending to "wipe out civilisation". There have been other times of crisis in which the US accepted limits on civil liberties, such as during the civil war, when Lincoln declared martial law, and the second world war, when thousands of Japanese-American citizens were interned. But this situation, as Bruce Fein of the American Freedom Agenda notes, is unprecedented: all our other wars had an endpoint, so the pendulum was able to swing back toward freedom; this war is defined as open-ended in time and without national boundaries in space - the globe itself is the battlefield. "This time," Fein says, "there will be no defined end."
Creating a terrifying threat - hydra-like, secretive, evil - is an old trick. It can, like Hitler's invocation of a communist threat to the nation's security, be based on actual events (one Wisconsin academic has faced calls for his dismissal because he noted, among other things, that the alleged communist arson, the Reichstag fire of February 1933, was swiftly followed in Nazi Germany by passage of the Enabling Act, which replaced constitutional law with an open-ended state of emergency). Or the terrifying threat can be based, like the National Socialist evocation of the "global conspiracy of world Jewry", on myth.
It is not that global Islamist terrorism is not a severe danger; of course it is. I am arguing rather that the language used to convey the nature of the threat is different in a country such as Spain - which has also suffered violent terrorist attacks - than it is in America. Spanish citizens know that they face a grave security threat; what we as American citizens believe is that we are potentially threatened with the end of civilisation as we know it. Of course, this makes us more willing to accept restrictions on our freedoms.”

The reference to the Enabling Act is an important one. The similarity to the USA Patriot Act is striking, especially considering the timing in regards to how quickly they were both passed after a catastrophic event. The Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act both essentially gave the Executive branch open ended War Powers. Like the War on Drugs, the War on Terror has no discernible end. Unlike the Cold War, we are not fighting one specific ideology. Terror is a tactic used by groups that lack the resources to fight a direct war. It is also known as guerrilla warfare. How can we have an end to a tactic? And because the War on Terror will never end, neither will the emergency powers that were given to the Executive branch. Step 1 is complete, stay tuned for commentary on Step 2 -"Create a Gulag".

The End Game of Surveillance, a response to a recent Comment

“The standard reply to any example of real world consequences for the innocent is that such instances are rare and they are a small price to pay for security. No one claimed the system was perfect, all we are saying is that checking bags at random for no reason (http://www.silive.com/newsflash/metro/index.ssf?/base/news-21/1175102054303320.xml&storylist=simetro)
is obviously safer than not checking them at all. Unless you are doing something wrong, the only consequence you are likely to suffer is having to leave 5 mins early. How can a rational person be against that?” Anonymous Comment

Anonymous makes an excellent point, one that is very difficult to refute if you place his argument in the paradigm within which America is now living. “Safety at the cost of a few is worth it if it preserves the many.” These are the sacrifices we need to make for safety. How true. However if the paradigm is shifted, the argument falls apart.
First of all, on a practical level, let’s take his comment back to the context of the article. Anonymous says this is a rare occurrence. In the example cited, the problem for the professor began with his name on the “No Fly” list. Let’s forget for a moment how his name even got on that list (which is plausibly explained in the original article) and let’s just focus on the supposed rarity with which this situation occurs for the common law abiding American. Before September 11, there were exactly 16 people on this list. Now, there are over 44,000 with a probable number of 30,000 false positives a year. I would hardly call this rare. And this is just for flying on an airplane.
Second, let’s deconstruct the “Safety vs. Convenience” argument with a simple yet very important shift in the way we think about the nature and role of government in our lives as American Citizens. When you are screened as a passenger on an airplane (or train) to the point that a background check is done on you before you even board the plane, you are being treated as though you are a criminal before you commit the crime. This is inherently contrary to the Constitution. It does not matter that you have not given any indication at all that you are a criminal, terrorist, liability, etc., you are still being treated like one.
But let’s go one step deeper to really define why the “safety” argument is inherently flawed. Let’s go backwards in time more than 60 years. We are in the middle of World War II. We are “fighting evil”. Now we move forward a few years to “victory” and we slowly move towards the Cold War. Paranoia sets in and lunatics like Joe MacCarthy are allowed to run amok. Thankfully for our Country, he was finally disgraced and refuted. But over the next 50 years or so, an attitude of “doing whatever it takes” to fight evil ideologies such as Communism has quietly settled into the American psyche. As long as we are fighting those damned commies, I don’t care about anything else. It was this attitude that was used to build a government that intrudes into people’s lives in the name of preserving liberty. Fast forward to September 11, another evil ideology attacks our nation and we are caught completely off guard (in the same way we were caught off guard by Pearl Harbor). Now the nation rallies behind our fearless President (and you can count me in that number in the first couple years after September 11) and his attitude of win at any cost. The USA Patriot Act is passed, allowing for unprecedented levels of Executive power, government spying and intrusions on constitutional rights such as the Fourth Amendment. These changes in the law were not only accepted, they were applauded as ways to protect the very freedoms that they took away. Here we are at the present day. The government is using their unprecedented power to spy on American citizens who they say are suspected of being tied to terrorists. The groundwork for the laws that allow this kind of action were laid over the last 60 years and accelerated in the last 5 years. While currently the government claims that they are only investigating terrorists, or suspected terrorists, the future looks much darker.
One of the dearest freedoms that Americans enjoy and have defended with their blood is the first amendment right to free speech which translates in our right to dissent. How do you effectively quell free speech - and consequently dissent – when you are the government? You make sure you know what everyone is saying all the time by surveilling email, radio, internet use, telephone calls, written word, public places, etc. And then you put in place laws that allows for secret indictments, secret imprisonment, secret trial and secret conviction. We are handing the government this power like scarred little children saying, “Help us, Keep us safe!” Many people cannot imagine an America where this would happen but look how far we have come. There are several documented cases of local and federal law enforcement spying on legal protests and keeping voluminous secret files on law abiding citizens who are exercising their fundamental rights. How long before legal dissent is squashed under the pressure to keep our nation “Safe”. Safe from what!?! What are we trying to preserve here? We are definitely not preserving freedom.

When the FBI loses your luggage

When I try to raise concern about the implications of the USA Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, breeches of free speech, and things of this nature the most common argument I hear from others is that “As long as I am not doing anything wrong, what do I have to worry about?” Since theoretical arguments about the nature of power and government do not seem to penetrate the narrow views of said people, I will focus this post on a real world example of the consequences of letting your liberties slip away. I ran across this post on a blog I read every once in awhile. Read carefully, this is not some REAL ID internet rumor meant to stir up hysteria. This is the real world that we have allowed to develop, and actually encourage and defend as “Safe”. While this is going on, we continue to support leaders who claim they are "Protecting the Homeland" (does anyone else think this phrase drips of 1930’s German facist rhetoric, or cold war era communist propaganda?) without giving any critical thought to what we are giving up in order to retain this elusive idea of safety. If I have to appeal to the utterly American ideal of “me first”, then I will. Let’s say your name matches that of a “known terrorist” and you can't fly to your friend’s wedding, your luggage is “lost” or you are otherwise inconvenienced. Well at least its all for a good cause right? At least I will be safe on that airplane, right? The truth, folks, is that we are not guaranteeing anything for ourselves except the slow bleed of our freedoms and liberties. As we continue to argue about whether or not freedom is making progress in Iraq and Afghanistan, our own freedoms are being plucked away from us. These freedoms were not easily won - if you learned anything in school - and they will be lost at an incalculable cost if people don’t stand up and defend the ideals laid down in the Constitution. “When liberty is taken away by force, it can be restored by force. When it is relinquished voluntarily by default it can never be recovered” – Dorothy Thompson

The Real Roots of Terror

I have been too busy to post in the last few days but I am back. I want to talk about a news article I ran across in TIME magazine about the US government’s involvement with “secret prisons” in Ethiopia. Apparently the US continues to deny any wrongdoing or consequential involvement with the practice of torturing suspected terrorists, even in the face of international evidence to the contrary. This administration continues to flout international and domestic law while hypocritically promoting “democracy” and rule of law in a nation that has proved it doesn’t want it. It’s no wonder we are internationally mistrusted and generally despised. These are the kind of actions and policies that promote a general hatred of this nation by “Islamofacists” (to use a term constantly touted by the White House and political Right) and gives them the propaganda that they use to recruit Jihadists. If it was your son or daughter, father or mother, brother or sister that was kidnapped, beaten and tortured by a foreign government, wouldn’t you be motivated to do what you could to resist this foreign government that is violating your loved ones? Wouldn’t you support someone who was telling you that they could make it stop? I would. One man’s insurgent is another man’s freedom fighter. And this is why the “War on Terror” will never be won, unless we stop promoting our own U.S. brand of Terrorism.

The Pentagon and the Memory Hole

Breaking news, the Pentagon condemns the use of chlorine in Iraq by insurgents! This constitutes chemical warfare in the eyes of the United States. Everyone needs to express their outrage and hate those stinking terrorists even more! Those soulless beasts will do anything to kill and maim! Quoted, “What you have to understand is that chlorine bombs have more of a psychological effect than they do as a killing effect," said the commander, Maj. Gen. W.E. Gaskin. What will be next?!? Killing babies?
What you as an American need to know is that the Pentagon is hoping you don’t do a little research of your own. Do you know what kind of weapon leaves a terrifying wake, just like chlorine gas? How about white phosphorus? Nothing spells “intimidation” like the sight of a body burned to the bone (warning : graphic picture). But America wouldn’t use such a cruel weapon, a weapon that can kill you by burning off all your skin while you are likely still alive! Oh no? Well the US military is using it in Iraq. Not only that, but it appears that the Pentagon has to lie about it because it is internationally unacceptable to use this weapon against targets where there is a possibility of civilian contact. This weapon is as close to hell as you can get anymore, since napalm was banned.
So while the Pentagon tries to drum up more fury and rage against those awful terrorists for their tactics, take a minute to review their modus operandi and ask yourself, “What is the difference between us and them?”

Holy Inflammatory Actions Batman!

I have not written about what is currently going on between Britain and Iran right now, but I have been trying to stay up on the facts. Well we have some new developments and the escalation continues. I ran across what I thought to be an excellent commentary on the context of this current crisis and how we have gotten to this point. Please read this article and ask yourself, "How have our policies on detainment, treatment and interrogation of prisoners in the "War on Terror" affected this current situation? And how can we possibly expect another nation to follow the rules when we have advertised that the rules don't apply to us anymore?" This new kind of war that we have created is only going to hurt us in the long run.

What does a Volvo have in common with the “War on Terror”?

Paul Campos is a columnist for the Rocky Mountain News. Previously I have written to the paper to dispute an article he wrote about the Supreme Court. Neither the letter nor the article are archived, so I can’t show what the arguments were. Anyway, all this to say, I have strongly disagreed with him in the past. He often gets tagged as a Liberal, however if you read his columns with any regularity, you would see he is anything but. He wrote a very insightful piece describing the nature of American attitudes towards risk in general and the “War on Terror”. I totally agree with the premise of his argument and wish more people understood the foundational elements of how and why the US Government has been able to so easily sell this sham of a war to the American Public.

Democrats are flexing political muscles, forcing the President’s hand

Steady forward progress is being made by the Democrats in Congress with their
war spending plan. Some Republicans in Congress are starting to see the political light and are easing up on the firmness of their commitment to “No Artificial Timelines”. Bush is forced to threaten a veto of the bill if it reaches his desk with pullout language, and the steady intensity of his rhetoric dictates that he pretty much has to follow through with the threat. Instead of doing what he promised back in late November, Bush is not compromising and working with the Democratic Congress. Incidentally neither is Pelosi and her gang. However it is the Democrats who have done the work to get the plan to Bush. The President will no doubt try to place the blame on the Democrats if a spending bill is not passed in time for the troops, and the Democrats will do likewise.
The sticking point for Republicans is that there is a timeline and pullout date. The rhetoric from the Right (note John McCain's reference to Zarqawi, who is DEAD!) is designed to shame and scare the country into believing that we must stay and continue the fight and that setting a timeline advertises to the Enemy what are plans are. The truth about the Democratic Bill is that while it does set a timeline and a pullout date, these are NON-BINDING!(this link is a must read) and the criteria for the decision is left up to the executive branch. Also, Republicans claim that this is micromanaging the war and tying the hands of the troops and generals who are on the ground. Actually what it does is gives the first clear strategy of the war and let’s the Iraqi government know that we won’t be around to police their Civil War forever.
The argument is framed so that Iraq is the central front in the War On Terror. While it is true that we are fighting some elements of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the struggle is not against America so much as it is a fight for control of this very unstable nation. Saddam ruled with an iron fist and suppressed this simmering ideological struggle between Sunni and Shiite. When Bush brashly and shortsightedly removed Saddam, he removed the lid and got sprayed in the face with the firestorm that ensued. If we really want to fight the War on Terror, we will go after the international terrorists in Southeast Asia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Egypt and North Africa. Personally, I am fully opposed to the false War on Terror that has been driven into our psyche by the fear mongering of this Administration, however for the sake of the political debate, I am taking a political position on where we are now.
For a point by point rebuttal of some of the Right’s main arguments against pulling out of Iraq, retired Lt. General William Odom wrote a concise article on why we should get the hell out and soon.

"Patriot Act" response

Since I haven't had time to write my own content in the last few days, I am just going to post one of the comments that I received on my post from last week, "Patriot Act Abused...." I feel it is a very good summation of the direction that our country is going. These changes may not happen in our lifetime, but we are responsible for the country that we leave to our children. I will keep the author anonymous unless they let me know that they want credit for this. Here it is.....
"In answer to the question posed at the end of your write up, it will never end. The goal was never to fight terrorism, or to increase security. The patriot act was simply a hodgepodge of power expanding tools that law enforcement had tried to ram through congress before and failed(sometimes more than once). http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/17326res20030403.html The only purpose of the patriot act is to expand government power. To show why snooping, gag orders, and opacity in the ruling power do not, and cannot increase security (or, as it is sometimes put in true double-speak ("preserve the American way of life") imagine an environment where the police can search your dwelling or person for any reason or no reason. As a matter of course, they tap your phone, they read your mail, and they watch you 24/7 both in person and with cameras. You are not allowed a weapon of any kind, but they constantly scan the horizon, automatic weapons ready for use at the first sign of trouble. Imagine a world where privacy is not an option. Where those in power choose what you read, what you watch on TV, even what you wear. It might not sound fun, but it would definitely be considered secure by those who support the patriot act. This world already exists: it's called prison. Would you feel safe in prison? "

Slow progress is still progress

It looks like Liberals are accepting the pragmatism that they will need to move ahead with pulling the troops out of Iraq. The Democrats, namely Nancy Pelosi, have managed to swing some more votes to their Emergency Funding Bill in the House. I am still not convinced that the House measure is going to do much in the way of actually bringing troops home. It leaves major decisions in the hands of the President as far as determining whether the Benchmarks are met. In a government designed to be slow moving, this process could be prolonged well past the 22 months that Bush has left in office, and long enough to leave the mess to the next president. Besides that, Bush has guaranteed a veto if the bill makes it through Congress. The White House and the Democratically controlled congress are both under intense pressure to get a spending bill through, and unfortunately, it is our troops that hang in the balance. For an excellent commentary on the politics of this fight, click here. Basically, we are quickly approaching a situation where one side or the other will have to back down. And in this intensely charged politically charged debate, there is no telling who has the most guts. The consequence for inaction is a lack of funding for the troops already on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, and neither side wants to be stuck with the political fault for this. This debate and the resulting consequences are sure to have an enormous impact on the ’08 election.

Patriot Act Abused. In other obvious news : Breathing is good for you

Turns out those whacky nuts who decried the dangers of the USA PATRIOT ACT were not totally misguided after all. Over the last couple of weeks or so the FBI has been stuttering and stammering in an attempt to explain their gross misconduct involving their use of National Security Letters. This is one of the issues that I am most passionate about when it comes to politics in general. The systematic destruction of our rights as Americans and as human beings makes me ill and outrages me to no end. No doubt I will be writing more about this subject on this little blog, but the point I want to make in this post is that FBI has proven that government cannot be trusted with the kinds of powers that the Patriot Act bestowed. Kudos to congress for at least acting upset about this, but I doubt this will lead to any real change, with or without Democratic control. To see the direct impact of the use of NSL’s, click here. And for some anecdotal evidence of more abuse of power that affected regular people like you and me, click here. Please give this topic some serious consideration as it affects you whether you know about it or not. Please read some of these articles and ask yourself, “If it doesn’t stop here, where will it stop?”

Democrat’s War Spending Plan Struggling, Big Surprise

It looks like despite the political tricks, the Democrat's plan for ending funding for the war is stumbling. This is despite intense lobbying by Pelosi and her gang. Democrats are again proving their inability to unite on anything important. While some Democrats say that this bill goes too far by strong-arming the funding for the war, others further left decry that this bill does not go far enough. This is indicative of the way the next 2 years are going to go if Democrats don’t stop bickering amongst themselves and move forward with a real plan. The mission and heart of the Left movement is a noble one. I support bringing the troops home soon and ending this sham of a war. However a real and workable plan is needed. In addition to that, a real and workable plan must be accepted by the entire Party, as well as center leaning Republicans. This just doesn’t seem plausible at this point. There is too much extremism within the Party. Listen up Liberals, we cannot simply pull the troops out tomorrow! There was no plan when the troops went in to Iraq and if we try to leave with the same strategy, there will be untold bloodshed and chaos, both for Iraqis as well as American troops. And there can be no pullout of the troops without unity within the Democratic Party. Failure to progress in this issue will result in certain defeat for the Democrats in 2008. How can they win if they fail to complete the one thing they promised to do?

Trying to get noticed

If you are politically inclined, check out my Technorati Profile. I did this in an attempt to get some traffic to my blog. If you like my blog, please tell others. This blog has a few purposes but I would really like the focus to be politics and political debate. So please spread the word. All views are welcome. TELL THE WORLD!

Adoption : Episode I : The Application Process

My wife Jen and I are planning on adopting a child from Ethiopia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopia) soon. We have some big decisions coming up, mostly financial. If anyone out there is reading this, some suggestions about how to generate extra money would be helpful. And I don’t mean selling candles door to door. We are considering sending out fundraising letters. There are a lot of grants and loan programs that sound really good but most require that you have a certain amount of the process completed before you apply. The main step that needs to be completes is the home study (http://home-study.adoption.com/adoption_home_study_process.php), which involves a hired social worker coming to your house to make sure you are not a child abuser. The upfront costs seem to be prohibitive at this point, though we are trusting that God will provide the money some how as we move forward with what we believe He has called us to. We have sent in the initial application and are waiting for the agency to review and approve it. The home study is the real application. I am sure that we will get through it with flying colors, as long as Isaiah doesn’t tell the social worker about all the crack we sell out of the garage (that was a joke, in case any real social workers are reading this). We would really appreciate your prayers (if you are the praying type) as we try to move forward in this process. I will try to keep this updated as we make progress.

Democrats pull a dirty trick

After running their 2006 congressional campaigns, in part, on a platform of cleaning up politics in Washington and getting rid of legislative bills engorged with special interest spending tacked on, the Democrats are one-upping the former Republican majority with a low down dirty trick (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/19/AR2007031901615.html?nav=rss_politics). While I definitely support pulling out the troops, and while the only way this will happen is for Congress to assert their power over the funding for the War, I strongly disagree with the tactic they are employing here. It gives ammunition to all the Right-wingers to unload on the Democrats for not only going back on their campaign promises, but also using cheap ploys to get the votes they need for their spending bill. This will only hurt them in the long run. Even if the bill passes in both Houses, which seems unlikely given the lack of unity within the Party (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/20/AR2007032000840.html), Bush will most assuredly veto it. Democrats continue to spin their wheels and create more doubt about their ability to run the country. Their seemingly short sighted plans are causing me much frustration.

Fight Night : Obama vs Clinton

The ’08 Presidential race is in the early stages of downright nasty-not-niceness. Obama and Clinton are starting to throw the right hooks and haymakers ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/19/AR2007031902165.html?nav=rss_politics ) and the blows are not landing on each other, but rather on the overall chances for a Democratic victory in November 2008. Everyone knows this about the Democratic Party, everyone but the Democrats it seems. Politics is a dirty business and Obama and Clinton are expected to take their shots at each other, but this meaningless bickering between the two camps this early in the game is bound to do more harm than good for both of the candidates and the Party. The strength of the Party is its ability to disagree and present several views that are not conforming to a strict party line. However this is the main weakness of the Party as well. It impedes its ability to gather widespread support from within the Democratic base under one candidate or central idea. Occasionally the Democrats can pull it together enough to do some real politikin’ (Clinton in ’92 : http://www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/1992/ii921024.html ) but this seems to be a rarity in recent years. Its amazing to me that in this political climate, the Democrats were only able to win a slim majority in the Senate. I wait with cautious optimism to see what unfolds in this early race. Obama ( www.barackobama.com/ ) is my favorite candidate right now and I hope he stays above foolish arguing at this point and garners more support as we approach the primaries (http://www.vote-smart.org/election_president_state_primary_dates.php ).

Welcome to This Lame Blog

I am not sure who does this kind of thing. Who writes blogs? Apparently I do now. I was inspired by a friend of mine, Bmer. Anyway, the topics that this "blog" will be wide ranging and inclusive of all genders, races, creeds blah blah blah. I guess the main points will be what's going on with politics, office life and family life. Not necessarily in that order. I desperately want to sound smart so please comment if you have anything intelligent to add. I will post more later today.