Vile wrote:

adam wrote:

Iraq..A wisely chosen war, in terms of gaining a strategic vantage point.

and the moon is made of green cheese
Iraq was the wrong war for the wrong reasons

Not gonna argue with you. Your side lost. Deal with it.

my side lost? Well yes in the sense that Bush got his pointless war but that still doesn't mean there was originally any connection between al Qaeda and Iraq. Deal with the facts not Bush's propaganda especially when using that connection to make spurious points about the war dead and support the troops.

RE: Cindy Sheehan arrested for... wearing a shirt!

finethen wrote:

Hundreds of federal search-and-rescue workers and large numbers of boats, aircraft and bulldozers were offered to FEMA in the hours immediately after Hurricane Katrina hit, but the aid proposals were either ignored or not effectively used, newly released documents show.

Also: George Bush doesn't care about black people.

Close. George bush does not give a shit about Poor people. I don't think the race issue has as much to do with it

RE: What really happened at FEMA during Hurrican Katrina?

Bush, whose aides said they consider the issue a clear political winner, is resurrecting tactics from the last campaign to make the NSA spying program a referendum on which party will keep the United States safe from terrorists. He has dispatched top White House officials almost daily to defend the program and has sent a message to party activists that he considers fighting terrorism with tools such as NSA eavesdropping the defining issue of the November elections

Worth reading. Troublesome.

The story here is not whether or not it ought to be authorized but whether or not is was authorized. Almost no one understands this distinction. The Republican talking points are:
1. Its legal.
2. Its needed to defend America.
3. People raising questions about its legality are partisan hacks who don't care about the safety of the American people.

The problem is that its probably not legal. I haven't seen a legal analysis coming from outside the administration that jives with the position of the administration. But the common man is not going to understand subtle Constitutional questions. The Democrats have to fight this fight, because its a basic separation of power issue. They can't just leave it on the floor. However, they are going to loose the political dialog because you really have to think about this in order to understand it, and most people are incapable of doing that, and many who aren't are partisan enough to be unwilling to do it objectively. If the Republicans loose in court they are likely to be able to spin that its another example of judicial activism and the ACLU hates America, etc...

What it really comes down to is the honesty of the Republican Party at large. They are being told, via this message, to tow the line on this. They are trapped in a position where if they disagree on this issue they must risk the support of the party and their political chances in November in order to take a stand. This issue will not fly if enough Republicans take a stand on it, but its going to be a very, very difficult decision for them to make (which is why Rove is putting the above sort of pressure on them).

On the balance is the entire idea of the rule of law. If the President can simply violate the law at will, argue that the court system is biased, and pressure the legislature into towing the line for political reasons, there effectively is no law. Or, in particular, there is no law with regard to minority interests. As long as the President is capable of garnering popular support for something it can be pursued irrespective of the checks and balances in our system.

The Miers nomination demonstrated that the Conservative legal community is capable of fighting the President when it wants to. This is a time and place where it ought to. We'll see if it has the guts. If it doesn't, we'll have slipped quite far down the slope toward an unravelling of the rule of law...

Rift Between Parties Over NSA Wiretapping Grows

noteworthy wrote:
That's it! A public algorithm. What we need here is a global-scale collaborative filter. We could resume the draft, but for NSA instead of the Army. You could work from home, or even in your car, for an hour each day, listening in on phone calls. But mind you, as the President said, that "There is a difference between detecting so we can prevent, and monitoring." This is just the detection phase. If you hear something suspicious, you just press a number key, 1 through 9, to indicate how urgently dangerous it seems. The call is then forwarded to a professional for further handling, including FISA procedures as necessary.

A national "nosey neighbor jury" is a tremendously bad idea, but I underline it because its innovative and it would make a great science fiction short story. 80% of the phone calls flagged by it would likely be flagged because of various prejudices.

The meme that has been going around that "its not really an invasion of privacy if its just a computer listenning to the phone call" is absolutely falicious. Those computers serve human ends. Next they'll be arguing that there is no 4th amendment implication if they randomly send a drug sniffing robot into your house without a warrant. If thats the direction our legal jurisprudence heads we might as well roll up the Constitution and smoke it.

There are two reasons we don't do random searches:
1. Such things are inevitably abused for political purposes.
2. They contribute to a culture of fear and suspicion.

In the context of preventing significant terrorist incidents, if it is in fact useful to do this, then I think that where you've removed the court oversight from the data collection you need to add it to the data application. The people involved in this surveillance are firewalled from the people involved in pursuing leads and they have to present the information they collect to a FISA style court before they can share it. Such a check would ensure that the information is specifically related to national security issues and isn't about a political enemy or a minor crime.

RE: Wired News: Mass Spying Means Gross Errors

Finally, it has started. People have begun to speak of impeaching President George W. Bush--not in hushed whispers but openly, in newspapers, on the Internet, in ordinary conversations and even in Congress.

An article by Elizabeth Holtzman discussing in plain terms the possibility of impeaching the President for soundly failing to respect the laws of the United States.

The Impeachment of George W. Bush

“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

I’ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution “a goddamned piece of paper.”

Please tell me this is some nut-job exaggerating the accuracy of his sources. So far all references to this point back to the writer of this article. I will maintain my doubts as to it's validity, if just to maintain my own calm. I don't want to believe Bush said that in the Oval Office, regardless of how much I dislike him.

This should be examined further. Bush took an oath to uphold that "goddamned piece of paper." Even in a fit of anger, making a statement like that is going way too far.

Update: More about this fellow's sources here. I hope some more media outlets look into this. I have trouble buying into any story where the single point of failure is one reporter and media outlet I know little about.

Capitol Hill Blue: Bush on the Constitution: 'It's just a goddamned piece of paper'

A senior at UMass Dartmouth was visited by federal agents two months ago, after he requested a copy of Mao Tse-Tung's tome on Communism called "The Little Red Book."

The student, who was completing a research paper on Communism for Professor Pontbriand's class on fascism and totalitarianism, filled out a form for the request, leaving his name, address, phone number and Social Security number. He was later visited at his parents' home in New Bedford by two agents of the Department of Homeland Security, the professors said.

The professors said the student was told by the agents that the book is on a "watch list," and that his background, which included significant time abroad, triggered them to investigate the student further.

"I tell my students to go to the direct source, and so he asked for the official Peking version of the book," Professor Pontbriand said. "Apparently, the Department of Homeland Security is monitoring inter-library loans, because that's what triggered the visit, as I understand it."

This is over the top. Mao? They sent out federal agents because a college student was reading Mao? Are we really worried about a communist movement in America these days? What the hell is going on?

I'm at a loss for words.. I have to resort to pulling out John Locke's greatest hits: "The only fence against the world is a thorough knowledge of it."

UMass Dartmouth senior visited by federal agents for checking out Mao's 'Little Red Book'

There is a stupid notion going around that the news media would be better off if anyone and everyone got to make a contribution to it. Blogs and podcasts are examples of this and reader-generated electronic "newspapers" are beginning to spring up. People who should know better see this as democratizing the flow of news and information...

I have been concerned about this new, online "citizen journalism" becoming the source of more disinformation than truth, a concern that actually extends to most of the Internet.

Some people in the media are absolutely giddy about the opportunity to pile a complete and total indictment of the entire Internet on top of this incident. Oh my god! People can express their own views without control from the 4th estate! How will we ever know what is true anymore?!

Check out the headline on this article:

For all its wonders, the world-changing effects of the digital civilization contains a slimy, anarchic undercurrent of democracy run amok.

There is so much that is broken about the perspectives being offered around this incident:

The idea that Wikipedia and encyclopedias are the same kinds of things and their value should be judged by the same criteria.
The idea that Wikipedia must either be 100% reliable or completely useless for any purpose.
The idea that people are not capable of critical thinking and should not be responsible for doing it.
The idea that the alleged connection to the Kennedy Assasination would have been viewed as credible by anyone who isn't nuts.
The idea that internet anonymity is a bad thing.
The idea that "supporting freedom of speech" is compatible with "demanding accountability." (Haven't you people ever heard of the Federalist Papers?!)
The idea that the highly reliable totally awesome 4th estate should be the arbiter of the truth, when in their articles about this VERY incident they have repeatedly twisted this guy's voluntary resignation from his job (which he had to do because of the pressure THEY would put on his employer if he hadn't) so that it appears as if he was fired. "Man looses job over wikipedia prank..."

The biggest problem here is the idea that a national press campaign and the threat of lawsuits are a reasonable way of dealing with a problem on a publically editable wiki! This notion is so irrational that one suspects John Seigenthaler of taking advantage of the opportunity because he wanted to launch a broder attack on the Internet. You gunna sue me for suggesting that, John? Go ahead. Make my fucking day.

Internet Backlash

Over dinner a few weeks ago, the novelist Lawrence Naumoff told a troubling story. He asked students in his introduction to creative writing course at UNC-Chapel Hill if they had read Jack Kerouac. Nobody raised a hand. Then he asked if anyone had ever heard of Jack Kerouac. More blank expressions.

"I guess I've always known that many students are just taking my course to get a requirement out of the way," Naumoff said.

In our increasingly complex world, the amount of information required to master any particular discipline -- e.g. computers, life insurance, medicine -- has expanded geometrically. We are forced to become specialists, people who know more and more about less and less.

In this frightening new world, students do not turn to universities for mind expansion but vocational training.

When was the last time you met anyone who was ashamed because they didn't know something?

[ I've been talking about this for years, and thinking about it since a very early age. Growing up has given me the acuity to define my early unease and express the issue in words, but I have felt this way for as long as I can remember.

For whatever reason, I'm a naturally curious person. I make no claims of expertise in *any* subject, and get by in work by being sufficiently intelligent and attentive to do a competent, and often a good, job, despite not being anything like a specialist. It's been a contant source of tension in my life -- on the one hand admiring people who are at the very pinnacle of their field, and on the other hand being surprised and annoyed at the things people, particularly these very smart people, don't know a thing about. And, as the article says, the most troubling aspect for me is not that they don't know something, but that they express no interest in learning it. We've become such pragmatists that anything which doesn't further our qualifications in one or two narrow focus areas is unwanted, undesired... perhaps even a distraction.

I don't deny that my lack of focus, my broad interests, are probably detrimental to me in the long run. I think it's probably true that the specialization requirements will not abate. I onlt hope that I can continue to coast on intellect enough to make a decent living and enjoy my life. I can say for certain, any life in which I must turn away from the vastness of knowable things, discard fiction and biology, religion, politics, and all the rest so that I can focus all my energies on one thing is not a life worth living, for me. I think it's a pity, with so much available to us, that we can't grasp it, for fear of losing the race, not being successful. It's sad. -k]

Lack of curiosity is curious

Should the United Nations control the Internet? That’s the subject of a heated debate slated to take place at the World Summit on the Information Society in Tunis later this month. The European Union is pressing for a UN role in governing the Internet, which is currently in the hands of a US nonprofit. Lawrence Lessig breaks down the debate and offers his views.

The largest cause of this rift is European distrust of the United States. It’s not particularly related to the Internet. The Europeans are eager to stand up to the Americans, and that I think has been produced by the last five years of U.S. foreign policy. It’s not really a cyberlaw problem.

I am English and a strong supporter of European integration. However another reason for the problem is that a lot of the EU is very undemoractic and run entirely by bureaucrats and they love to have their fingers in every pie and consequently some of the things that come out of Brussels are full of shit.
I hate US foreign policy regarding Iraq but I have no problem with some US non-profit organisation running the internet. If it ain't broke don't fix it. Foreign policy is no excuse for anti-Americanism.
However although in part it may be anti-Americanism I think it is mostly the bureauocrats wanting a piece of the pie. Run a search on some of the things they have passed legislation on.

Larry Lessig, on Battling for Control of the Internet