Finally, A Domestic Spying Investigation. Oh Wait...

They're not going to investigate the fact that the President deliberately broke the law, lied about it, and vowed to do it again. They're going to investigate who blew the whistle on the lawbreaking.

If the President has the right to ignore the law, and to detain people without trial for indefinite periods of time, and if the function of the Justice Department is to do his bidding and to go after those who foil his plans, then how is this not a dictatorship again?

Empire Burlesque hits the nail right on this head in this article. Go read it.

Fuck 2005

In one of those postcard dispensers outside the restroom in a bar I was in I saw a postcard that said "Fuck 2005" and I think that pretty much sums it up. At the end of 2005, here we are:

• Debating whether or not the President is bound by the laws of the nation.
• Fighting a war we started against a third world country that posed no threat to us and having our patriotism called into question by the government for criticizing the fact.
• Being spyed upon by the Executive Branch, without warrants or cause.
• Running a series of secret prisons around the world. Detaining American persons without charge for indefinite periods of time.
• Debating whether the American authorities should be permitted to torture people.
• Being called Anti-Christian for wishing people "Happy Holidays". How sick.
  

On the other hand, 2005 has been somewhat of an eye-opener for many Americans to what we shrill left wingers have been complaining about for some time. We on the left know that the current Republican crew is corrupt to the core. We know that they are interested in one thing and one thing only: Power. We know they are incompetent and have totalitarian leanings. Only this year has this information begun to filter out to the greater masses, due to sporadic attempts by the cable news media to sprout some cojones in response to greater numbers of people getting their info and analysis from the web. I hope this is a trend that continues. I hope that justice is done. I hope people will remember the current state of affairs when the mid-terms roll around next year (we have frustratingly short memories, you know).

Next year this time I see us in one of two places: either we're celebrating electoral victories by the good guys and preparing the appropriate inquiries and hearings to start correcting the wrongs; or else we're further down this same road, perhaps witnessing our fellow bloggers being spyed upon and or detained. I pray the masses will remember what this country stands for and see clearly what a dangerous place we're in.

The Conservative Experiment

Not too long ago I Googled myself silly trying to find a document I had read which seemed to me to be the seed that germinated into modern Conservatism. I came up blank, but luckily, I came across a mention of the memo in another blog a couple of days ago.

The document is called the "Powell Memo" and was written as a letter to the Director of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce from corporate lawyer Lewis F. Powell in August 1971, two months before Nixon nominated Powell to the Supreme Court. In it, Powell describes a looming threat against American Capitalism by sinister forces. In describing these sinister anti-American entities, Powell ropes in everyone from Fascists to "New Leftists", hardly drawing a line between goose-stepping armies and liberal-thinking college professors. It's spooky to read this memo and see the similarities to how Conservatives view the world today - us vs. them, black vs. white, evil vs. good, Free Enterprise vs. Totalitarian Communism. This kind of thinking is the reason why many people on the right cannot differentiate between social programs and socialism. One broad Conservative stroke covers them all. This is why the righties can equate liberalism with communism, even though, in theory, they have pretty much nothing in common (see the dictionary definitions linked above if you don't believe me).

Anyhow, the last few years have taught us a lot about what happens when this brand of Conservatism is put into practice. A couple of lessons:

• A government guided by Conservative principles is not necessarily a smaller government. As a matter of fact, over the last few decades, we've learned that "Conservative" governments blow money like a drunk at the OTB.
• A government guided by Conservative principles is not necessarily a more limited government. In order to get a majority of votes, Conservatives have had to pander to an electoral bloc that demands increasingly intrusive government - one that tells us what we should be reading, what we should be saying, and whether or not we're even entitled to any privacy in this country. They've gone so far as to imply that the President, at his own discretion, should not, in certain circumstances, be bound by the law of the land.

In other words, they tried it, and it failed. And where are we now? Well, the American public is now forced to debate whether or not torture is justified; whether or not it's okay to invade a sovereign nation that poses no threat to us; whether or not we are obliged to follow the international treaties we signed; and finally, whether or not the President has to obey the law. A sad time indeed.

It's time for liberals to stop allowing ourselves to be labelled with this archaic rhetoric. We liberals represent the views of the vast majority of Americans, many of whom don't know it because the Conservatives have a thirty-year head start reshaping the vernacular and framing the debate. We have to stop assuming that the good guy naturally wins. The bad guys are determined, committed, well-funded, and in it for the long haul.

A New Contract

The Rude Pundit has a great post here. If the apologists want to grant King George unlimited power, fine. Let them go on record saying so.

How to Create Terrorists

From Jimmy Carter's new book (via Rebellious Peasant):

A report from Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, formerly in charge of Abu Ghraib, described a visit to an eleven year old detainee in the cell block that housed high risk prisoners. The general recalled that the child was weeping, and "he told me he was almost twelve," and that "he really wanted to see his mother, could he please call his mother." Children like this eleven year old have been denied the right to see their parents, a lawyer, or anyone else, and were not told why they were detained. A Pentagon spokesman told Mr. Hersh that "age is not a determining factor in detention."

Unbelievable. Outrageous. My blood is boiling. Put yourself into that child's parents shoes and then tell me how this is helping America's "War on Terror".

The Rule of Law

This exchange regarding the illegal domestic spying by the President just about says it all:

REP. DANA ROHRABACHER (R-CA): But we want to put the full authority that we have and our technology to use immediately to try to thwart terrorists who are going to -- how about have a nuclear weapon in our cities?

BOB BARR, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: And the Constitution be damned, Dana?

ROHRABACHER: Well, I'll tell you something, if a nuclear weapon goes off in Washington, DC, or New York or Los Angeles, it'll burn the Constitution as it does. So I'm very happy we have a president that's going to wiretap people's communication with people overseas to make sure that they're not plotting to blow up one of our cities.

This is an elected lawmaker, a representative of the people, saying - not just implying - that it's okay for the President to ignore the law. How much more fundamental does it get? These people are now in outspoken support of despotism.

Tag!

I got tagged in an earlier post, and, according to the rules of the game, I'm supposed to tag seven people. Unfortunately, my internet-cognito alter ego has few internet friends, and I thought they all got tagged by Jesse. But, lo and behold, he forgot one, so here it is:

Aprildawn: I tag you seven times. What are your 49 favorite songs?

Donald E. Wildmon is Probably Gay

He just said this:

“All we wanted was for Ford to refrain from choosing sides in the cultural war"

And how did he want Ford to do this? By instituting a boycott against advertising in gay magazines. Now how the fuck is that "not choosing sides"?

So Wildmon pressured Ford into withdrawing all advertisements from gay magazines by threatening a boycott. Ford capitulated, which understandably angered a lot of people. Wisely, Ford reconsidered their decision and reinstated their common sense approach to advertising.

These psychos, with their rabid anti-gay hatred and their pretend "War on Christmas" are going to find that their actions are alienating a lot of people. These people make no bones about the fact that they've declared a "culture war" - a war whose enemies are fellow American citizens. Fortunately, in increasing numbers of instances, the forces of common sense are prevailing.

Rep. Dingell Kicks Ass

Every once in a while, I love Michigan.

I've Been Tagged

And I don't mean that in the fratboy vernacular-sense of the word. One of my blog homies did it, and it means I gotta tell you which tunes I'm digging.

A little background: I bought this swell little non-proprietary audio gadget a while back because it means I can download unlimited tunes from a legitimate-but-unnamed online music source. Since then I can literally plug the little dude in in the morning and download just about any album I want, old or new, any genre. And yes, that includes many of the lesser known artists and labels, for your too-cool-for-school indie-emo-slowcore-hardstep-garage-techno-slappy-farting-mumbo-jumbo-genre-make-it-up-and-sell-some-records bands, even though I hate them just a little less than I hate their fans - I was a badly-dressed geek way back before it was cool. But, back in April I changed jobs and now have a very swift 30-minute door-to-door commute which involves about 10 minutes of walking and 20 minutes on the train. Since then, I've found it a bit tedious to drag around the little player, so most of my music-listening time is limited to evenings and weekends, when the little Race Gannons and Race Gannonettes are screaming and crawling all over my head. Oh and the occasional road trip. SO, I'm not listening to so much music lately, but I'll take a shot at this anyways.

1. Nina Simone. I know it's not a tune, but a broad. But I couldn't decide between my two favorites: Ne Me Quitte Pas and Wild is the Wind. I usually put the anthology on the player while I'm cooking dinner and it usually results in me and Mrs. Gannon dirty dancing to the horror of the little Gannons.
2. Difuntos by Tego Calderon. I don't speak Spanish. And I don't know what Reggaeton means. But when I play Tego Calderon, I turn into the toughest white guy you ever met. And for all you internet people know, I might not even be white. And that's badass.
   
3. The Whateverth Nocturne in Whatever Flat Major by Frédéric Chopin. It's just a phase, but I'm listening to a lot of this dude. But it gets my damn goat that they couldn't come up with actual names for songs back then. I'm never gonna remember all the names of these things - they're all numbers and musical notes. If you're looking for a good one, check out the one that goes: "Da dum, di di di dum dum, da da da do do DUM, da di di dum dum, da DUM, da di di da da DUM DUM, da dum, da di fart." [Update: Okay I've found the name of one of my favorites. It's Called "B minor, Opus 69, Number 2." I really think Chopin was just being an asshole. Here's a link to a record that has the track - it's number 9 on the first disc.]
   
4. Time for Me to Fly by REO Speedwagon. I'll just shortcut any of your comments by saying Fuck You.
5. 10 Dollar by M.I.A. Her dad was a Tamil Tiger and she will shoot your ass. Oh and now they're using one of her songs in a Honda commercial or something.
   
6. Lovely Day by Bill Withers. I'm not ashamed to say I was turned onto this song by that new roller skating movie.
7. Sweeter by Julie Doiron and the Wooden Stars. My obligatory "indie" song. I know it fits in this category, because every time I listen to Julie Doiron, I want to slit my wrists, but in a happy way. That, and because the record is probably not on an independent label.
   

OK that's done. Next post will be back to my usual orneriness about politics, probably.

On Science

Okay so I just finished reading this book called "Big Bang" by Simon Singh. It's a history of the Big Bang theory starting from, well, the beginning of science. I read it in two weeks on the subway commute, which is good for me, a relatively slow reader, given that this dude is about 500 pages long. At the end, I was disappointed that it was over. What a great writer, this guy. I picked up the book because I had read one of his earlier ones ("Fermat's Enigma"), and I really liked his style.

So anyhow, parts of it brought to mind an earlier post dealing with the intersection of religion and science. The book spends some time discussing the relationship amongst and between religion, politics and science, and how they have influenced one another, for better or worse. Check this out:

"Vsevolod Frederiks and Matvei Bronstein, who were also supporters of the Big Bang model, received the harshest punishments of all. Frederiks was imprisoned in a series of camps and died after six years of hard labour, while Brostein was shot after being arrested on trumped-up charges of being a spy. By making examples of these and other scientists, the Soviets effectively gagged serious cosmological research and delivered a message that echoed on through the decades of Communism. The Russian astronomer V.E. Lov followed the party line by stating that the Big Bang model is a 'cancerous tumour that corrodes modern astronomical theory and is the main ideological enemy of materialist science'. And Boris Vorontsov-Vel'iaminov, on of Lov's colleagues, maintained solidarity by calling Gamow an 'Americanised apostate' because of his defection to the West, stating that he 'advances new theories only for the sake of sensation'."

Creepy, isn't it? That you can be shot just for believing something. And this wasn't the Dark Ages, this was just a few decades ago. Doesn't the "cancerous tumour" remark sound like something one of the right-wing talking heads would say about Darwin? Needless to say, throughout the history of science, these fields (religion and politics) have tried to unduly exert influence on the scientists of the day, merely because their theories and experiments revealed truths that disagreed with the common wisdom of the day, and thus threatened the power of those who stood to benefit from said wisdom.

But one of the biggest eye-openers for me was that, up until recently, the Big Bang theory was considered to be the pro-religion theory, since it implied a moment of "creation". The alternatives to the Big Bang theory were of a static, never-changing, eternal universe. In 1951, Pope Pius XII strongly endorsed the Big Bang theory because of the creation implications. Growing up around a Protestant-derivative religion, with a literal interpretation of the Bible, I was always under the impression that a belief in the Big Bang was a sort of heresy.

There are a lot of great quotes in this book. Take this one from Galileo's Dialogue:

"Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid gold, with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier than lead, and with their wings exceedingly small. He did not, and that ought to show something. It is only in order to shield your ignorance that you put the Lord at every turn."

So that's my book review. That and two bucks'll getcha on the subway.

Secret Laws

"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either." -- Benjamin Franklin

"Law stands mute in the midst of arms." -- Cicero

"The evil that is in the world almost always comes of ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence if they lack understanding." -- Albert Camus

I can see how Joe Public might perceive the left's protestations against the Patriot Act as shrill. After all, what effect do expanded library searches have on someone who rarely uses the library? But even for those Patriot Act-hater-haters, the concept of "Secret Law" has to be at least a little disturbing.

As a matter of fact, Joe Public would think I am some sort of whacked out conspiracy theorist, talking about "Secret Laws." Unfortunately, I am not. (A theorist, that is.)

Frist Thinks Americans Are Stupid

Today he says this:

"Supreme Court justice nominees deserve an up-or-down vote, and it would be absolutely wrong to deny him that."

Two words: Harriet Miers, asshole. Okay that's three words.

And you think Frist had nothing to do with the Mier's withdrawal? This from WaPo:

But a Senate source close to Frist said that the senator was much blunter and more negative, and that he suggested Miers withdraw because her chances of being confirmed were not good.

Yeah, good luck with that Presidential bid, jerk.

Fool Me Twice

"I believe that a precipitous withdrawal of American forces in Iraq could lead to disaster" -- Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, November, 2005

"A precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would be a victory for the terrorists" -- Vice President Dick Cheney, November, 2005

"For the future of peace, precipitate withdrawal would thus be a disaster of immense magnitude." -- President Richard Nixon, November, 1969

Read this article. The similarities are real, documented, and irrefutable.

And if you run into the President, tell him that it's "Fool me twice, shame on me". Oh and tell him I said he's a half-wit asshole.

John Bolton: Ambassador, Comedian

Bolton: "I think it is inappropriate and illegitimate for an international civil servant to second-guess the conduct that we're engaged in in the war on terror..."

That "international civil servant" happens to be Louise Arbour, the high commissioner for human rights at the United Nations. What is her job? Well, she has "the broad mandate to promote and protect all human rights: civil, political, economic, social and cultural." And what did she say? This:

"[the] absolute ban on torture, a cornerstone of the international human rights edifice, is under attack. The principle once believed to be unassailable -- the inherent right to physical integrity and dignity of person -- is becoming a casualty of the so-called 'war on terrorism'."

So John Bolton thinks that it is inappropriate for the person at the U.N. who is responsible for protecting human rights to actually comment about human rights.

I guess that makes sense coming from someone who believes it is inappropriate for a diplomat to employ diplomacy.

The War on Good Manners

"This clearly demonstrates that the Bush administration has suffered a loss of will and that they have capitulated to the worst elements in our culture," said William A. Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.

Yikes. What happened? What did Bushie do that was so terrible? Who are these nefarious "elements in our culture" that are powerful enough to force the President to capitulate?

Why, they said "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas". Horror of horrors.

And why did they say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas"? Well, because there were 1.4 million of the cards sent out, and very likely some of them went to people who were maybe Jewish. Or Muslim. Or Buddhist. Or, God forbid, Atheists. And saying Merry Christmas to a Jewish person is like saying Good Morning to someone when it's actually afternoon. Yeah, they get the drift of what you are saying, but it's just a little awkward.

(By the way, I have a lot of Jewish friends and coworkers. Do I say Merry Christmas to someone I know is Jewish? Obviously not. Is it because I'm afraid I will offend them? No. It's because I'm not a jackass.)

[Update: On his TV show, Bill O'Reilly pointedly wished a "Merry Christmas" to John Stewart, who is Jewish. Bill O'Reilly is a jackass.]

So some people are actually saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas", and it appears that the malevolent cause of this is because they want to be considerate. Damn them to hell. Onward Christian Soldiers.

Bill O'Reilly provides one of the most hilariously ironic points of this made up "War on Christmas". He actually said this on his show:

• Does "Merry Christmas" offend Non-Christians? O'Reilly: "I don't believe most people who aren't Christian are offended by the words 'Merry Christmas.' I think those people are nuts."
• Does "Happy Holidays" offend Christians? O'Reilly: "It absolutely does," he said. "And I know that for a fact."

Boy, Bill O'Reilly's Christians sure are easily offended. And apparently, according to O'Reilly, they are also 'nuts'. What a tool.

As an aside, think about this: How different are these people from fundamentalists like the Taliban if they really truly believe that saying "Happy Holidays" makes you a part of the "worst elements of our culture." I mean really.

Mental Giants

In a December 5th post, the Powertools wax philosophical (I'm not providing links to their garbage anymore):

The CIA set up a system of rendition, whereby terrorist suspects are turned over to certain foreign governments. The CIA also established a network of secret detention centers in several countries, including some in Europe.

Having taken these prudent anti-terrorist measures, the CIA blah blah blah fart puke gag.

Rule of law? Pshaw. That's for nerds.