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.
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.
posted by eccentric recluse at 6:13 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home