I'm holding my breath here...

I saw a piece on the Evening News tonight, it noted flooding in Washington D.C., particularly the IRS building, (said to have as much as twenty feet of water in the basement levels), and damage to an old tree on the White House lawn.

All other commentary aside, I am waiting for Pat Robertson to hold forth that this is a sign that God thinks GW Bush is a prick....




update 1:

to the guy who commented, thanks, but let's try to keep this objective. (yeah, I know, look who's talkin here...)

hanging it up

I do not know what to think right now, so I think I will do something else.

I read an article today, (yeah, again), regarding efforts to control kiddie porn on the internet.

First let me say that I am all for ridding ourselves of the scourge of people who would use a child in that way. I have no compassion for them, the truth is that I simply do not want to share a planet with them. Period.

Read the article here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/5123936.stm


Now that I have made that disclaimer, there were a couple of points that raised my curiousity a bit. In the text of the article, Attorney General Gonzales said "that he was investigating ways to ensure that ISPs retain records of a user's web activities to track down offenders. "

Now that bothers me.

I can see the day, not too far in the future, when one might be subject to legal scrutiny and proceedings for visiting a non-patriotic website, say, the Democratic Party.com. I do not care to have all my explorations be subject to the approval of someone else.

Another point that caught my somewhat jaundiced and paranoid eye is a concept being backed by the Technology Coalition, (including Microsoft, Yahoo, AOL/Time-Warner, Earthlink and others), the notion of maintaining a database of images that would be routinely scanned for in e-mails and downloads. It is hard to argue against searching for kiddie-porn, (like arguing against searching for weapons before boarding an airplane), but I will anyway. Why must personal correspondence, data files, and yes, digitized pictures be scanned for on the open internet. It flies in the face of the presumption of innocence, it can be compared to something like arbitrary searches on interstate highways, on the grounds that the highways are a potentially efficient means of transporting contraband.

And while I am at it, does the fact that various data files can be identified as to type of file, (e-mail, image, video, streaming audio, etc) as well as the content bother anyone? This technology exists, the capability is in place. This is not a potential threat, it is a clear and present danger to our liberties.

If this type of monitoring is legal, then what is to stop whoever from monitoring the text and content of letters and the data contained in spreadsheets, in the name of prevention of what-kind-of-crime?

A separate issue that dovetails nicely with this one is the failure of the House or Senate to enact an internet neutrality provision in upcoming legislation. That will permit ISP's and backbone providers to block or significantly slow any traffic that they do not get revenue from. it is that simple. The rationale for this is that it is soooooooo expensive for these giants to provide service that they really cannot afford to subsidize those companies that transmit content across the net to not pay a fee. The battle currently pits gianst like Microsoft, Yahoo, Google and AOL against the other giants, AT&T, Verizon and Sprint. That fact alone makes this a fight worth watching.

Another point to ponder is that all these companies are American. Yes, they are the giants of the industry, but why is there no participation or backing from other nations? Why do no other countries have such a policy, except China, North Korea and Iran? Might it be that the sitting government has a vested interest in this surveillance?

I used to believe that the end was near. It might have been at some point, but the end has already happened. We, as individuals, have no points of reference to help us think this through.

Law? The law is what the guys with the guns and the money say it is. The Constitution? Gone and forgotten. Before too long, even the maintenance of the veneer of democracy will cease to be productive, and then we will see what happens next.

Happy Independence Day!!



update 1:

to all who use the G00gle toolbar, you are already building the database of image files that will eventually police the internet. the application, known as Picasa, (sp?), searches your hard drive(s) and catalogs the images that it finds and passes that data on to the mothership. in the not too distant future, you may get an embarrassing knock on the door by the morality police because something on your drive matched the profile of something known to be naughty.

be careful, big brother and his sisters, mother, uncles and cousins are all watching you. right now. they know you are reading this.

what's it gonna take, part 4

speaking of Iraq, there is a lot of ranting and noise out there, (including my own), but we really need a national concensus about what our goal is, and what it will take to reach it. the pretext for this was was a sham, it is hard to find anyone who will confront that assertion head on, but we are in it, and cannot simply let it go without achieving something close to what we need in that region.

to begin, let me say that we had what we wanted there, a stable government, (whose sin was straying a bit too far from our yoke), that was capable of keeping the real enemy, the nation just to the east, in check, militarily and economically.

so, what do we, the people of the US expect to accomplish? for once, I am soliciting opinions.

post, or e-mail if you dare.....

is there no end to the crap from Washington?

It's Monday morning and a congressman looking for publicity has asked the Justice Department to prosecute the NY Times, its reporters, editors and publisher for leaking a story on the CIA monitoring money transfers.

OK @$$hole, you got your name in the paper, now shut up.

You can see it here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/25/AR2006062500675.html


Rep Peter King said for the record "We're at war, and for the Times to release information about secret operations and methods is treasonous." My my! The article notes that the CIA is examining an existing database, maintained by the international banking community, to assist in stopping the financial backing of terror groups. Is that a big surprise? Lemme see here, the database already exists, it is maintained by a business consortium, and the government is asking to see it. Why is the congressman so upset?

1) he needs the free publicity.

2) he may upset that the fact that damn near everything we do is known to someone, and recorded someplace, has been mentioned publicly, again. information like that sometimes tends to irk voters who still have bumper stickers that say "live free or die".

3) he is very closely tied to the concept of "war". who are we at war with? the terrorists? OK, who are they? in the absence of any definition, they is us, and everything we do, every move we make, call we place, check we write is subject to scrutiny.

The congressman also noted "This puts American lives at risk and they did it for no good reason. The Times thinks they are above the law. Nobody elected The New York Times to anything. No amendment is absolute, including the first amendment."

Really? This tactic is a part of a scheme that has been called, in the past, "the big lie". The bigger it is, the harder it is to see the picture for what it is and to refute it. From his remarks, one might believe that Mr. King believes that the public has already been sucked in, and that he and other members of the ruling class are free to define the "law" to fit whatever situation is at hand, and however they see fit.



Moving right along, I see that the Senate is scheduled to debate an amendment to the Constitution that prohibits desecration of the American flag. I gotta hand it to em', they sure have the routine memorized. The issue has a lot of staying power, it comes up, regularly, every federal election year.

Read about it here:

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB115128082452790355-glt9kLjQEEjYCLYHlHgB7vIPByI_20060725.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top

The amendment itself does not bother me so much as the fact that simply raising the issue, again, is a form of desecration in itself. the sole purpose of this debate is to tag some members of the congress as true blue patriots, and others as wishy washy liberals. While I am here ranting and raving, I feel the same way about Sen Kerry's troop redeployment bill. It is, on its face, a farce, whose intention is to make a few members of the congress squirm while giving others some mud to sling when they run out of substantitve ideas to talk about.

Is there no beginning to decency in government?


I'm though now. Have a nice day!


update 1:

the President has joined rep King in wailing over the disclosure of 'data-mining' (my term) that the government is doing in the field of banking records. This really is much ado about something, but nearly everyone misses the point that this process was in place well before 9/11 and will remain in place well after peace and order (ahem) have been established throughout the world. I believe that the relevant issue is that we have had a short glimpse of Big Brother; a fact that belies every facade that every administration has put up to convince us otherwise.

Does anyone remember O.J. Simpson? In his long and tortuously melodramatic trial, telephone records were introduced to establish that calls were placed from points A to points B at various times. The database existed then, and exists now, and is mined for all manner of information. Do you have a cell phone? Look at your detailed billing, it is simply an example of the data waiting to be harvested. The same data exists for your land lines as well, it is just not evident as the various providers have been restricted by the states from charging on a per-call basis.

This is not new, it is just being seen for the first time, and certain parties are a bit testy about that.

update 2:

some pretty smart individual posted this editorial:

http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060702/OPINION11/607020329/-1/NEWS01

I agree with most of this dissertation. Please take a moment and look it over.

under the radar?

all I heard this morning on the Sunday news shows was Iraq Iraq Iraq. that is all well and good, (it is a significant issue), but I also read in the paper that the Prez has asked again for a line-item veto, to eliminate wasteful spending.

OK, this has been a notion that has been around since the Ron Reagan years, and it surfaces from time to time, nothing new there. In the hands of this administration, this President, that authority could translate to many bad things, but absolutely would concentrate more power in the Executive branch, making it harder to unseat the party in power, (whoever they are), and rending the Congress as almost inconsequential.

(I am taking a breather here---did I say really mean to suggest that the Congress is not inconsequential?)

Keep this in mind, the proposal could slip through this time as a simple domestic bill that draws little attention against the background of terrorists, IRAQ!!!, and high visibility threats, like gays.

it's started...

John Edwards is on the campaign trail. Already. Wants to end poverty in the next 30 years, raise the minimum wage and create quite a few "stepping-stone" jobs in the next five years, (that would be, during the first term of an Edwards administration).

Nice ideas. Pure fluff.

I want to see a candidate, from any party, who both understands and makes others understand what has driven the economic shift in this country, the polarization and the migration of productivity to points elsewhere, and have one or two ideas to stop it. These might include modifications to the current tax code, (or the repeal of past modifications), and a vision of the federal 'presence' in the next generation.

So far, I have seen, or heard, zip.

the War on Terror

Firts, I will say that I do not know what that is, or how it is being fought, but it seems at times to be a game that can only be won by not playing.

I saw a news report today regarding arrests made in a domestic terror plot, where the principals had plans for attacks within the US, and were seeking support from Al Qaida in the mideast.

You can read about it here:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13497335/?GT1=8211

and here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/us/22cnd-indict.html


As I type this, I have to ask myself:

what does this all mean?
are these people for real or simply opportunists with an attitude?
what is in this for them?
how were they discovered and caught?
was the threat really credible, (as opposed to a bunch of guys resembling the SLA of the 70's?


Making a long and incoherent thought short and relatively concise, the war on terror is a non-war, and the way to win is to wage non-combat. That is a neat idea, (but I am not sure that I can define it), and I strongly suspect that it will have a lot to do with getting our own domestic house in order as much as any regime changes elsewhere.

update 1:

it appears that the members of "the Seas of David" were from the Miami area, and were, in some ways, disenfranchised from the local commercial environment, (they were out of work), and that thier Al-Qaida 'contact' was in fact, a plant by the feds. This does not diminish the issues at all, it's just that we are likely to see a lot of hype about the effectiveness of Homeland Security in the coming days and election cycle, when in fact, all we have accomplished is a roundup of a bunch of hooligans with no other options in terms of things to do.

update 2:

in an article published online by Boston.com, the Attorney General warned of more domestic terrorists cells, referring to them as "persons who, for whatever reason, came to view their home country as the enemy".

well, whaddaya think of that?

I believe that the sentiment is more widely held than might be noticed, but that the willingness to take action is the factor to be watched. up to this point, this willingness has been isolated, for the most part, to the immigrant and economically disadvantaged communities, but as disadvantage grows, (or, more correctly, as advantage is hoarded by the very few), the pheonomenon of willingness may be seen as growing.

see the article here:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/
articles/2006/06/24/us_warns_of_rise_in_domestic_
terror_cells/


I ought to be afraid, but I think I will make some popcorn and watch for a while....

by the way, what do you think of the second amendment now?

on the other hand...

A friend sent me a link to a news article from the Las Vegas Review Journal:

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Jun-17-Sat-2006/news/8014416.html#

The article regards the censorship of a valedictory speech at the Foothill High School commencement excersies. According to the article, the valedectorian of the graduating class first had her speech edited by the school administration, where references to her own faith and beliefs were excised, (these included two references to the Lord, nine biblical references, and one to Christ), and she was warned that her speech would be cut short if she deviated from the acceptable language.

Making a long story short, the speech was cut short when the microphone she was using was turned off to prevent the lady from deviating from the accepted script. The action was backed by the local school board and the ACLU. If this intrigues you in the least, read the article for yourself.

I guess that the ACLU is a bit down on its luck, what with the Patriot Act, and a belligerent administration continually thumbing its nose at them, so maybe they decided to pick a battle that they could win. It should be noted here that the ACLU did not appear to be a part of the process that led to the decision and subsequent action, they merely endorsed it afterwards.

From my own narrow-minded, ignorant perspective, the suppression of the rights of one for the sake of a principle or concept is anethema to the term 'liberties'. These are sometimes voluntarily surrendered by the individual, but never, ever taken by any governmental or community body. I am usually a supporter of the ACLU, not because they are always right, but because they are organized and can effect some change, (or block it, as the case may be), but this is simply ridiculous. To cite this as a defense of the separation of church and state is laughable at best. The notion that one persons ideas or beliefs, publicly expressed, are a threat flies in the face of what we as Americans believe in. Had this person quoted the Buddha, the Torah or the Koran, Charles Manson or Osama bin Laden, she may not have been censored, but to cite the Bible is, apparently, too much of a threat to our freedom.

These guys are way to beholden to thier core constituencies, (just like the "W"), and have to prove that they are still viable at every opportunity, even if it denies thier own charter.

We are quickly approaching a social, political and economic tipping point. Anyone who reads my rants knows who I blame, (and with damn good reason), but the truth is that there is enough blame to splatter us all, some more so than others. There are too many agenda's out there, like a car with seventeen drive trains working off one engine, and all moving at a unique pace, in a unique direction.

It's time to take some control of things, and that means, painfully, downsizing the government and making peace with some uncomfortable facts. Our government needs to be fair, and balanced, and a whole lot smaller.

Go ignore somebody today.

I see in the news that the American Episcopal Convention is creating a bit of an uproar by declining, (so far), to declare a moratorioum on consecrating any more gays as bishops and allowing the union of gay couples.

Wow. Did Iran turn into a red state and the rest of the world clean up its act? If one is not a member of the Episcopal Church (or the larger Anglican Communion), then who cares? Even if one is a member or associate of one of these bodies, what difference does it make? Speaking as an occasional attendee of a Protestant Church, (not mentioned here), who takes the occasional drink and/or cigar and defends vehemently his right to do so, I have to ask, what impact does this have on your day to day life? What my minister does that does not impact me is not high on my concerns list. It falls somewhere beneath dust storms on Mars......

This is an issue without any real merit or newsworthiness, its function is to keep the general population, (those that can read anyways), all agitated and worried about queers while what is left of the national wealth (sometimes referred to as "our heritage") is plundered.

If one does not like the policies of a church, school district, company or whatever, stop supporting it, pay it no attention to it and you will see just how powerful inaction can be...
Sometimes, taking a stand is not the right thing to do. Some (not all) of these things are inflated well beyond thier importance, just to pick a fight, which becomes an issue in itself.

why our world sux

I just read an interesting article. The link is here:

http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/6C07rmGkmpn1Oe/The-iPods-Incredible-Journey.xhtml

I know not how long that it will be good, so don't wait.

The article is specifically about the new iPod Nano, but the story is relevant to all of us. Even without GW Bush, a recaltrant Congress and numerous other near-crisis factors, we, you and I, are killing ourselves economically. We are slaves to our own greed and gluttony for all things flashy and cool. This demand, combined with an extremely large pool of impoverished labor overseas, produces the elite class here at home, the ones that the Congress, Courts and Administration work for. The rest of us are simply lumps of coal, fuel for an all-consuming engine seeking only to preserve us. But we have iPods.

The elite are giving away the innovations produced domestically, (c'mon, you don't think that the new robber-barons overseas are really respectful of patents, copyrights and the like do you?), and then wonder why we are falling behind.

What goes around, comes around.

same sh_t, different day

I see in the news today that Mr. Karl Rove, known to liberals and Democrats as the antichrist, and to neocons and Republicans as the saviour of civilization will not be prosecuted for his role in the 'outing' of a CIA agent a few years back.

Who here didn't see that coming?

Today, the party on the left is vowing to continue to investigate the situation, desperately hoping to keep the dark cloud that currently hangs over the current administration from breaking up prior to election day. The party runs the risk of looking like whiners and crybabies, (paging Mr. Kerry..........Mr. Kerry....), thus distancing themselves from the appearance of relevancy that fell across them during these tenuous times. Much will be learned about these leader wannabe's in the next few months. Pay attention.

The party on the right, having narrowly escaped a complete disaster, is now gloating and claiming complete absolution, when the bare facts say it just ain't so. (I don't know how or why Mr. Rove appears to be in the clear, but suspect that it is due to a technical reason rather than 'complete' innocense). That outcry from the rightists is threatening, as it may tend to render any objective look at the facts and consequences of the incident as just so much editorial pap by a voting public, (not that they count for anything anyway), that is just sick of the entire mess.

Not a bad strategy, in the absence of any other.

This is a good time to grade your sources of news and information. See how they report and analyze this affair. You might find a reporter, journalist or blogger you can trust.

so there.

you read it here first...

I don't know how long this link will be good, but I will post it anyway:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13192080/?GT1=8211

See my post of 09/04/2005 entitled Soylent BSE.

It seems that the world that we live in is illusory, and that we really have no phreakin idea of what goes on, in politics, in health care, in commerce, anywhere.

Our culture and society is not falling apart, that has already happened, the veneer is just peeling away. Change is coming, one way or another. I hate to sound like a survivalist, but if you do not see yourself as posessing the quality we generically call "self sufficiency", (and most of us don't), you are sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo screwed.

a few thoughts, attributed to a well known personality

I received these in an email, attributed to a newspaper column written by Garrison Keillor. I cannot verify the authenticity of that, having not seen the column (or the paper that published it), but they did come from somebody, and are fairly well written:


Note to Republicans: The Party's Over

Meanwhile, the Current Occupant goes on impersonating a president. Somewhere in the quiet leafy recesses of the Bush family, somebody is thinking, "Wrong son. Should've tried the smart one." This one's eyes don't quite focus. Five years in office and he doesn't have a grip on it yet. You stand him up next to Tony Blair at a press conference and the comparison is not kind to Our Guy. Historians are starting to place him at or near the bottom of the list. And one of the basic assumptions of American culture is falling apart: the competence of Republicans.

You might not have always liked Republicans, but you could count on them to manage the bank. They might be lousy tippers, act snooty, talk through their noses, wear spats and splash mud on you as they race their Pierce-Arrows through the village, but you knew they could do the math. To see them produce a ninny and then follow him loyally into the swamp for five years is disconcerting, like seeing the Rolling Stones take up lite jazz. So here we are at an uneasy point in our history, mired in a costly war and getting nowhere, a supine Congress granting absolute power to a president who seems to get smaller and dimmer, and the best the Republicans can offer is San Franciscophobia? This is beyond pitiful. This is violently stupid.

It is painful to look at your father and realize the old man should not be allowed to manage his own money anymore. This is the discovery the country has made about the party in power. They are inept. The checkbook needs to be taken away. They will rant, they will screech, they will wave their canes at you and call you all sorts of names, but you have to do what you have to do.


I tip my hat to the author, be it Mr. Keillor, or whoever, for a well wriiten, concise, editorial.



OK, that being said, I would like to point out to either of you reading this, that the other party is not your daddy's Democratic Party anymore either. The jackasses, like the pachyderms, are interested more in preserving the advantages of one or a couple of subgroups of society, and what they have to offer rhetorically speaking, is little more that Beverly Hills-ophobia.

Those clowns work for the same ringmaster that the other clowns work for, they merely sing a different tune...

they won, we won

I read with some interest that the US and EU have backed (quite gingerly I am sure) away from thier demand that Iran cease all activities related to the enrichment of uranium.

This all by itself should say something to the voters about how much weight GWB's bluster carries.

Have you noticed that the price of oil tends to react very quickly to the words of the Islamic republic's political and spiritual leaders? The words that they speak are mere bluster, they want what we have and are positioning themselves to get it. They are out-republican-ing the Republicans. That's just the way the world turns, thats all.

I am not that concerned about a nuclear Iran, (or more precisely, a nuclear armed Iran). if they choose to go down this path, then they will be on the same bus that we are, constrained by the same limitations that we are. And not that it needs saying, but any use of nuclear force by any nation in the world would invite such a broad range of retalliation on so many fronts, (strangely, these do not necessarily include military retalliation), that they would be out of the game for a long while.

It's time to do business with them, get their radical fundamentalist clerics in a room with our radical fundamentalist clerics and see if they can entertain each other while the rest of us go on.
We got what we wanted, a nation that is entering the world community and playing by the rules that we do.

happy now?

the Google, the bad & the Ugly

I for one am glad that Google is challenging the evil empire on the productivity software front.

There. Now that I have said that, let me say that I trust the lads from G00gle even less than I trust M1cr0s0ft. I cannot prove my suspicion, so it will remain just that, but I believe that when I signed up for a mail account from G00gle, my address book and favorites folder was read and is being used to target me and my friends and/or contacts with targeted mail.

Beware these people, they are more dangerous than the government.

I couldn't have said it better, (well, maybe....)

here is an interesting article sent to me by an old friend. the rhetoric here is a bit harsh, but he makes a good point. read it and weep, (or laugh, or just numbly nod your head....)

http://www.alternet.org/story/36887/