GigaRot :: Politics :: Iraq :: Liberties Lost

Laura, The Sneetches, and Building a World of Fear

2004-10-11T01:11:00.000-07:00

Laura Ingraham, writes of the "dangerous" world knowing that horror movies attract those most gravely frightened. And she makes a point of distinguishing between those invited to the party, and those not, when she writes:

The American people know it. American liberals don't.

Ergo, American liberals are not American people. Possibly liberals are people imported from Transylvania; or American, but perhaps somehow not people, not equal..

You only could play if your bellies had stars,
And the Plain-Belly children had none upon thars.

Yes, if one acknowledges another as a human, with a differing point of view, one might be called upon to consider another view of the world. If one were to risk allowing a little light in, who knows where that might end.

Laura tells us we should be scared of the world. Indeed, after reading her article, I am a bit scared:

America is not the world's problem--America is the world's solution. [...] The United States is the only great nation in the world whose people are willing to make real sacrifices of blood and treasure for world peace. If we don't do it, no one will. President Bush knows this. The American people know it. American liberals don't.

America is the world's solution? "Calling Dr. Freud, calling Dr. Freud! Please report to Laura Ingraham's room immediately!"

Sacrifices? Sure, Bush's war has killed the American economy - so it's been a lousy last couple years here, but any American's career problems are probably not as severe as for the (once) professors at the University of Baghdad.

Real scarifices of blood? Well, accurate numbers are difficult to come by, but approximately the same number of innocent Iraqi children have been killed by America's guns and bombs as American soldiers have fallen. We willingly gave our volunteer soldiers, they lost their young children's lives without a choice in the matter.

Is the world a dangerous place? It is never a constant. Ther world is much more dangerous now than during the years under Clinton, and this is much thanks to the leadership of George Bush and his team of armchair generals, and the war they have put in people's hearts worldwide.

Can even Laura truly believe that the violence we (America) have started in Iraq has made the world more peaceful? If all the surviving friends and relatives of the innocent Iraquis we've killed held a grudge (like the Hatfields and the McCoys) we'd be in a heap of trouble, more than we could handle.

But mostly, they want to live their lives, away from violence; mostly they dream of an opportunity for peace and happiness. Still, our massive influence hits them - bullets, bombs and death - and we cannot think this makes any people gentler or kinder.

An "axis of evil"! Bush told Laura, you, and I.

If we build it, they will come.

Secure Coffee Cups: Standard Issue for the Bush Years?

2004-07-12T11:13:00.000-07:00

As shown on Design Boom, efrat gommeh's secure coffee cup. Finally we get some sage advice on security from those with experience.

I understand these will be handed out as "our gift to you" if you sign up for a new bank account, or attend a Bush fundraiser.

BUSH: Because we're serious about security. BUSH 2004.

Calling Elections Off: Democracy Postponed

2004-07-11T12:07:00.000-07:00

There is danger without, and there is an even greater danger within as the Government considers how to postpone elections.

The premise is that terrorists could attack the U.S. during an election, and that the Government should have the authority and a plan for rescheduling elections. Allowing the Government the power to postpone an election is an inherently dangerous proposition, however, and it shows little appreciation for the value of Democracy.

It is the responsibility of the people, the electorate, to vote, not because it is a nice day out, or convenient, or even safe. Voting is an act of bravery in much of the world, because it is an exercise of the people's power. In less established Democracies, one might be coerced or killed for voting. Voting freely, exercising Democracy, is one of the least safe things a person might do. We forget this, we forget what our wonderful U.S. Democracy offers us.

Dictators and Kings ensure a people's safety; democracies ensure a people's freedom.

Be brave and pick one. Show guts and vote.

No matter what.

[Google: election day violence]

For the record: The Living Room Candidate

2004-07-10T15:00:00.000-07:00

This is a terrific resource for the American people, providing a multimedia online archive of presidential candidates' TV commercials.

The character of each candidate's campaign is captured publicly for all time. Republican and Democratic candidates alike should keep this is mind: what you tell the voters, and how you make your pitch are going on a very visible record. Show some character.

As for this Bush 200 commercial, it is some what humorous that we were asked to fear Gore would spend a trillion dollar surplus. Perhaps we got the message, for we elected Bush instead, but got what we feared: that trillion dollar surplus is no more, and we will have to shoulder a trillion dollar deficit into the future.

Look at their kids and you know how different a people we are

2004-07-05T17:33:00.000-07:00

Some monster BMX skillz shown here in Palestine, and I believe that's a double peace sign flash. Pay homage to this young man.

BMX in the MiddleEast is for brave, young hearts.

Perhaps it is important to keep the MiddleEast at war to protect the U.S. dominate position in "extreme sports". Knowing the scythe of death as Palestians do, what could be more ballsy?

That's not to say if the tables weren't turned, some ballsy Israeli kid wouldn't do the same. Danger makes some cower in holes, in the shadows, or behind a gun, but it brings out such true bravery in the very best of mankind.

Salutations to a brother.

Bush Campaign's Church Outreach

2004-07-04T16:04:00.000-07:00

SAVED THIS ONE FOR SUNDAY:

Your president believes it is OK to bring his election campaign into your church.

In my opinion it is bad enough that you see politicians on TV trying to convince us how church going they are (and therefore suitable to receive your vote).

What Bush's campaign is doing may be technically legal, but it seems intended to replace one's conscience with peer pressure, and I think that mocks true faith of any kind.

HR 4077 - The Pirate Act

2004-07-04T04:42:00.000-07:00

Do you want to see the power of a self-concerned lobby in U.S. lawmaking? Get to know HR4077, The Pirate Act.

Some very intelligent people have been arguing in recent years over whether society would benefit from the re-examination of some intellectual property concepts, that we as a society need to think about shared knowledge and the public good; but what we've heard most loudly is the recording industries cries of foul over digital file sharing.

Copyright is a legal principle that should not be lessened or otherwise modified without great thought and public debate. Congress, however, is reacting to the music industry's lobbying by making copyright stronger; a general legal principle is being revised to appease an industry who is concerned over their profitability.

For every person that "gets" the Internet, there seems to be a retrogrouch who is scared of it (and the grouches have more money).

Read about HR4077 [here] or read [HR4077]. If you don't like it, tell them.

LA Times CONFIRMS: The Fall of Hussein's Statue Was Staged

2004-07-03T18:41:00.000-07:00

What you know is what you were led to believe.

The LA Times reports:

It was a Marine colonel - not joyous Iraqi civilians, as was widely assumed from the TV images - who decided to topple the statue, the Army report said.

American public opinion, worse yet - your beliefs - have been manipulated by the U.S. Government to serve their needs.

Hundreds of American lives, and thousand of Iraqi lives, have been lost as part of a show to get you behind your "War President". You've surrendered civil rights, to be missed later; you've spent billions in taxes you'll owe far into the future to fund a whimsical overthrow of a country on the other side of the world that wasn't bothering you.

There was no war that Bush did not create - and stage in dramatic fashion. This "War President" is a "self-made man", at your expense.

Here's True GigaRot: Defense bill will require export licenses for 650mHz Pentium III's

2004-07-01T10:39:00.000-07:00

CNN reports how Defense bill threatens IT exports.

You do not notice what isn't hurting you. U.S. Export rules for IT loosened greatly during the Clinton era - I say this because I was involved in IT exports, and lived with the rules. As one might observe, there was not a sudden resurgence in Communism due to the availability of PC's in the world at large. In fact, other parts of the world blossomed with opportunity and became more stable. Even the U.S. was more prosperous and stable.

IT technology is all manufactured overseas these days, and we are in a fight to lead in technology. Maybe the countries where the computers are made might elect to restrict shipments to the U.S.?

Who are these fools writing the Defense bill?

Saddam in Court, Acting "Presidential"

2004-07-01T09:08:00.000-07:00

As reported by CNN:

"Hughes said the defense will be pursuing a change of venue because 'any trial in Baghdad will not be fair.' Hughes said that under Iraqi law Saddam remains president of Iraq because he was overthrown in an illegal invasion. Therefore, he said, Saddam still has immunity from prosecution."

While it is hard for me to believe much of anyone would buy into Saddam's claims that "Bush is the criminal" or that Saddam did nothing wrong, it is fascinating, and a bit scary, to watch this in action. I suspect most crazy, violent despots see themselves in the right. If I am President for life, and my word is law, how can I do wrong?

Scary as well was Bush's speech in Turkey this week, talking about "freedom" spreading to the region. "Free" and "freedom" are great psychological trigger words, but have little concrete meaning. To talk about "freeing" a region of the world from one system of Government to be ruled by another is always self serving.

Someone in a far away country may say "I will free America from Democracy and Christianity, and give them the freedom of following God's true word, as spoken to me."

Specific freedoms are something else. Don't "free" me from the society I live in, instead give my society the right of freedom of the press and give me freedom from search and seizure without due process. Don't "free" me, instead give me rights and choice, and make it the law. Ecetera here:[The United States Bill of Rights]

While Saddam's acts eclipse any bad acts Bush has done, there can be a mild comparison in thought processes. Power corrupts thought processes, and GWB has had the power of wealth and privilege all his life, living in a world where the rules you and I live with were not a consideration.

In his mind he is President for Life.

Republican Congress Fails to Budget, Argues with Itself

2004-06-30T10:52:00.000-07:00

A good write-up here: Budget Impasse Reflects GOP Schism.

One might fear that this is how our elected representatives operate, on sound bytes and ideology, rather than dealing with reality as it is.

A budget is one of those ultimate truths which every household is familiar with: you can't spend more than you have unless you borrow. It looks like the debt of the Bush Presidency will come to about $400 billion this year. Some folks look at that trend and see serious repercussions in the future. Keeping the tax rates of the wealthy low, while spending on foreign wars, creates debt, especially when the social programs Democrats typically champion are already drained.

I remember many years when the prime rate was in the teens, and it is really hard on business and people. I do not look forward to seeing that again.

A Win? No, a Defeat, Sharper Minds Say.

2004-06-29T16:11:00.000-07:00

A man is born in a cave, finally comes out one night and rejoices. "I had no idea", he says, "that the world could be so bright!"

Elaine Cassel ignores the media and blogosphere hype on the recent detainee rulings and gets to the heart of it all in AlterNet: Rights and Liberties: A Defeat in Disguise?

When you think the recent rulings over, one can see Elaine is right: these folks are hosed, any paper victories aside. Or rather anyone of us is hosed, if our beloved Federal Government decides we're dangerous (whether or not they have _any_ proof). We have no effective recourse under the rulings given. The Government does not need to be right and an innocent individual has no opportunity to prove innocence.

Elaine puts the whole thing much more intelligently in the article mentioned, or any of her other articles.

June 2004 Supreme Court Ruling on Ashcroft v. the Child Online Protection Act (COPA)

2004-06-29T10:30:00.000-07:00

Read the ruling [a pdf file].

The Supreme Court has sent this back down for a lower court evaluation in terms of technology that might alleviate the constitutional concerns, but you and I could have saved them the trouble: there is no such technology, and there may never be.

Perhaps this shouldn't be talked about here: I think there is a great consensus on the desire to protect children from pornography, there is no gigarot in all this. The dilemma is that truly open communications are open, and very hard to protect our kids against, except by removing their access.

There have been times when, driving my kids to school with the radio on, I cringed, realizing what my kids were hearing.

And that was the news.

Ashcroft, Big Brother, the Internet, Bush

2004-06-28T23:20:00.000-07:00

Some very interesting contributions from kottke.org re: Ashcroft on Big Brother and the Internet . Ashcroft wrote:

"...we do not provide the government with phone jacks outside our homes for unlimited wiretaps. Why, then, should we grant government the Orwellian capability to listen at will and in real time to our communications across the Web?"

Bravo, bravo, John! Now what happened to that rational, pro-citizen thought process when you started working under Bush?

You know, Bush, the man who sat stupefied for 7 minutes after he was told of the 2nd plane crashing into the WTC on 9-11 (and then hid out, in cowardly fear); Bush whose campaign has resorted to associating images of Hitler with Democrats; Bush who let the Bin Ladens leave on special flights after 9-11, while the rest of us were stranded in airports; Bush who gave us an extension to the recession, but made sure tax rates were lower for the rich (so they still did OK); Bush who has been building a trillion dollar deficit to spend overthrowing regimes he does not like (and keeping his rich friends rich).

Or maybe Ashcroft was meaning to preface his comments with "Here's what those commie-pinko fag Democrats would say...", because no man has been at the center of the loss of more civil liberties in my lifetime.

Civil liberties: those are the few rights you and I have even if our ship does not come in, or if we disagree with what our government is doing, or if powerful friends turn their backs on us, or if powerful enemies turn their attention to us. Civil liberties are what allow a people to be strong, and it is no more than the people's strength that makes a strong nation.

If a King got his power from the land, a democratic nation gets it power from its people. What kind of a President would turn that power on its own people?

Bush, and at his side, Ashcroft.

The names themselves may become profane.

Hamdi versus Rumsfeld - Supreme Court Ruling

2004-06-28T10:19:00.000-07:00

The Supreme Court rules Hamdi, an American citizen, can be detained as an enemy combatant, but has the right to U.S. courts. This is a ruling full of references which give one perspective on this issue from a historical point of view. For example:

"The object of capture is to prevent the captured individual from serving the enemy. He is disarmed and from then on must be removed as completely as practicable from the front, treated humanely, and in time exchanged, repatriated,or otherwise released."

Governor Favors Earlier Pet Killing - Schwarzenegger

2004-06-25T13:20:00.000-07:00

If your pet gets lost, you'd better find him/her very quickly if California Governor Schwarzenegger succeeds with his
proposal to allow quicker killing of pets at Animal Shelter.

Movie-goers: Are you surprised? You've seen his movies; you know he's the Terminator.

We can save money by killing pets more quickly. Why let a pet have six days at an Animal Shelter for its owner to find it? I envision all these poor lost pets crying and yelping for help - but not for long.

Talk about blood for money. And how is the budget shortfall a pet's fault?

I guess the "I'm not a Nazi" angle is just too gruesome to mention, but really: doesn't this clarify his values vis-a-vis life? All these pens of lost animals (your cat, my dog) quickly and efficiently taken care of. Perhaps they could even refine their techniques - maybe counties could dogpool the animals to a central location for a final "shower scene".

The good news is that perhaps Disney would offer the Governor/actor a role if they make "Dalmations II". Who better to play Cruella DeVille?

Did he forget the angle about making money off the slaughtered animals furs to balance the budget?

A Different Jack Ryan

2004-06-24T12:59:00.000-07:00

Well, it looks like the real Jack Ryan would have made for a much spicier Tom Clancy novel, judging by the court papers revealing his apparent penchat for sex clubs.

Personally, I think everyone deserves a little privacy, and we need not be subject to bedroom review. However, I am not sure these facts fit with the Candidate's position about "traditional marriage". If there is hypocrisy, that's pretty good grounds for voting for someone else.

ABCNEWS.com : Group Asks FEC About 'Fahrenheit' Ads

2004-06-24T12:12:00.000-07:00

ABCNEWS.com : Group Asks FEC About 'Fahrenheit' Ads

China and US Republicans See Eye to ISP

2004-06-21T00:06:00.000-07:00

AP reports China Urges ISPs to Pledge 'Patriotism'. As much as I want to embrace all the people and cultures of the world, I reserve the right to be skeptical and critical of their Governments, and in China's case, I believe American philosophies of freedom are very contrary to China's priority on control of the people.

However, what China asks sounds frighteningly similar to what many conservative Americans would ask, especially in the wake of 9/11. I've got to wonder: if all Democrats were shipped off to French Giana tomorrow, would not a fully Republican U.S. pressure for similar levels of control?

Much of the way America is moving to control its people "in the war against terrorism", and the Machivellian methods the U.S. Government has been using against individuals in that "war", are disturbingly similar to what America has despised in other, un-democratic countries like China and Iraq.

There is a difference, as a huge number of Americans will tell you: we are in the right. They might even say "God is on our side" (as militant muslims are also known to say -- and believe).

President Bush would say he is doing God's work (and please Iraq, do not even think of creating a theocracy in your country, you are worshipping the wrong religion).

CIA Contractor Charged in Afghan Prisoner Beating

2004-06-17T14:11:00.000-07:00

Yahoo News reported a CIA Contractor Charged in Afghan Prisoner Beating

Yes, of course it is private citizens acting outside the guidelines of their authority that are to blame.

Oh, please. Anyone familiar with "consulting" engagements knows how hard consultants try to give their clients what they expect, their actions may be one of the truest manifestations of the client's (in this case the US Government's) desires.

Yes, it's a real bad reflection on the US Military and maybe more so, Commander in Chief Bush, but no fear. The rich and powerful seem to have great immunity in the Bush era.

Ordinary private citizens, however, will be held accountable for any suspicious activities or associations. White citizens, and Black, would do better than to talk to anyone who looks Middle Eastern (such as the many US Citizens of Middle Eastern heritage).

Iraq Jail Contractor Contradicts Generals

2004-06-15T08:47:00.000-07:00

Iraq Jail Contractor Contradicts Generals, but of course they are all lying, each lying in a fashion that least incriminates themselves personally. Thus the stories never completely mesh and the U.S. public is left an opportunity to believe the most positive story it can sell itself. No one wants to believe that they come from a family of cruelty, torture, and all other such bad things. Nope! It must have all been a mistake.

Meanwhile the rest of the world sees the pictures and realizes, following common sense, that they are seeing only the tip of the iceberg.

2004-06-11T17:08:00.000-07:00

All Federal Buildings to be Named After Reagan
Tom Burka writes of this, and much more in his blog Opinions You Should Have. Will make this a side link, it's great stuff. One doesn't have to stretch the truth very far these days to be really funny.

2004-06-11T08:49:00.000-07:00

The chart of Presidential approval ratings shown below in this blog [one of several charts on POLLKATZ ] is intriguing. The most marked feature on the graph is the sudden increase in GWB's (Bush II) popularity in the aftermath of 911. America threw it's support behind it's President, regardless of what they thought about him. The trend from there has been downhill.

Was it his popularity with the American citizens that led Bush II to think he could ignore international laws, torture other people, and make up pretenses to bomb and invade other countries?

2004-06-08T17:47:00.000-07:00

The The President making his mark on America.

2004-06-08T12:12:00.000-07:00

From Pollkatz

2004-06-08T10:53:00.000-07:00

:: Papa Reagan ::

Reagan, by all personal accounts, was a nice person: considerate, thoughtful, and he knew who he was and what he thought. And, it was on his watch, and possibly due to his actions/policies, that the Berlin Wall finally came down.

And if we, all men, have one common enemy, it is death. So sympathies and a certain respect are due Reagan, IMO.

On the other hand, Reagan's policies demeaned the lives of the majority of Americans. We wanted opportunity but he gave us a trickle and told us to agree it was what we deserved. He skewed the American economy toward Government goods (e.g. "Defense") where compliance with bureaucratic dictates precluded innovation and a higher standard of living. The Berlin Wall may have come down, but at a price to individual Americans for whom the defense economic focus had a grave opportunity cost. One was more likely to like Reagan if one was in High School during his Presidency than if one was trying to start a career.

After the Disco 70's we felt we needed a big Papa, and Reagan was a good father: sincere, whether right or wrong; strict, but kind; he removed "unnecessary" choices... Reagan was, and remains, quite popular.

:: Stepfather Bush ::

Perhaps after the dawn of The Internet we also felt like we were somehow too free, and needed another father figure. We elected by ballot, counting (wink), and court, Bush. Enough. It's not for the children to question Mom's choice when she remarries.

Still, let's be clear: Bush is no Reagan. If Reagan was the good father, than Bush is the evil stepfather. The evil stepfather who constantly throws his weight around and tells you, anyone, what to believe; the evil stepfather whose painful punishments are without proportion to one's deeds; the evil father who wants total control over you.

Our real fathers (and mothers) taught us it's right to be loyal and Republicans seem a loyal lot, so Bush remains supported.

One might question, though, if Republicans remain loyal to Bush at the expense of their common sense? What financially conservative Republican would have pre-approved sending us from a coming surplus into a looming trillion dollar deficit that is sure to stiffle business?

It's nice that I can finally fully approve the Democrats, now that they are the more financially conservative lot.

With Presidents like Bush we can all be a little nostaglic for Reagan, even if his Defense build-up and economic policies cost us personally and stalled progress toward the brighter future he characterized, like a line from a "B" movie, "the shining city on the hill."

2004-05-25T10:39:00.000-07:00

Bush made a simple, good ole boy appeal to America last night, and he would like you to enlist for another four years. Do you still trust him, his intentions, his judgment, his leadership? It may be easier for America to trust him than for others:

"Bush is a scorpion. He is a liar. He is sneaky, making all kinds of promises when he just wants to control Iraq," said Ayman Haidar, a policeman manning a Baghdad traffic checkpoint. Iraqis Demand More Freedom, Swift End to Occupation

I am reminded of the principle of business economics, that one should judge whether to go forward based on the ROI of further investment. In other words, it does not matter what investments you have made to date, consider only what return you will get from further investment. Sometimes you have to take a loss and it is not smart to throw good money away after a lost cause.

Here is where Bush's interests diverge from America's interests: Bush is politically invested in an all or nothing gamble. Any cost to save face is worth it to him. For America, however, it is harder to make the case that we should spend additional billions of dollars and American lives to develop more terrorist breeding resentment in the Middle East.

No matter how good your intentions, you can only station soldiers in a town so long without becoming the bad guy; that time has passed.

2004-04-28T14:08:00.000-07:00

Turrets against Minarets

According to the U.S. military's top spokesman, Army Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt:

"The minaret is no longer standing but the entire remainder of the mosque area remains intact," Kimmitt said, showing aerial photographs of the mosque before and after the attack. After Fallujah is pacified, he said, "you will see the coalition forces participating in the process of rebuilding that minaret."

I'd like to know how old that minaret was: are we not blowing up the very cradle of human civilization?

Why am I doubtful the average Muslim in Iraq wants US soldiers rebuilding their sacred temples?
While I trust the Iraqis have not grown suspicious of us, would it be hard to build some surveillance equipment into the walls of the minaret, if they let us "help"?

I think the US is ready to do this on its own soil, to its own people.

Beware gifts from occupying forces.

2004-04-28T09:58:00.000-07:00

Iran Court Rules on Damages from US Chemical Weapons

$600 million is what they ask. There may be a thousand foreign policy strategy reasons not to pay this, setting aside the tough talking cowboy who is currently in the White House, and the US will never pay this; but we should jump at this "settlement":

- It is chump change, and will not impact the $10 trillion US economy. The amount requested is 0.0000056% of our annual national income (GDP).

- The gas, or chemical weapons, which the US gave Iraq to fight Iran with, killed perhaps 5,000 Iranian civilians in addition to thousands of Iranian troops, and left perhaps another 5,000 disabled. Even if you only admitted to ruining 10,000 lives (rather than... 20,000? 50,000? 100,000?), that would be only $60K per life, a bargain.

It's a cold way to look at it, but better than looking away. A US citizen, in a US courtroom, would expect to sue for millions for a single life: if the tables were turned, the bill would be well into the billions of dollars. $600 million is cheap, and there are people in the town I live in that can write a check like that. (No, not I) And...

- We should do this because it is just the kind of thing the US never does: take responsibility for our actions around the world, show compassion for those beyond our borders and influence, build bridges with nations and their people, heal wounds.

Besides, if Bush decides Iran is evil, you can be certain he'll drop more than $600 million of bombs on Iran cities, including families and children, in the first day, without second thought or remorse. That's just not how I'd choose my Government to spend my tax money, when there are better alternatives to fix the problem.

2004-04-25T23:18:00.000-07:00

the Kalashnikov AK-MP3

Nothing to say really. It seems a proper reflection of many minds. Guns and camo are cool, war is "real", and we are into "reality", especially from the comfort of our living rooms, far away.

Hey, you dirty ______ ! Download this! Tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-ta-tat.

2004-04-25T23:13:00.000-07:00

Faint glimmer of hope to remember

"Forever" is never as long as a tyrannt believes. Natural forces work against tyranny, over time.

[You have to work out for yourself the relevence in your life, and who are tyrannts versus who are aligned with the wishes of the concerned people.]

2004-04-25T23:12:00.000-07:00

[off topic] This is wrong. A bad combination of science and fear that could be applied to anyone in the future. Human rights where art thou?