“Consequently, the court finds defendants’ arguments that they cannot defend this case without the use of classified information to be disingenuous and without merit,” she wrote.

NYT article linked for brevity. Full decision here.

The decision basically follows the contours of the open letter to Congress from prominent legal scholars from February.

Some favorite quotes:

All of the above Congressional concessions to Executive need and to the exigencies of our present situation as a people, however, have been futile. The wiretapping program here in litigation has undisputedly been continued for at least five years, it has undisputedly been implemented without regard to FISA and of course the more stringent standards of Title III, and obviously in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The President of the United States is himself created by that same Constitution.

Basically she is saying that FISA balances Article II and Amendment 4, and the President's argument that Article II makes FISA unconstitutional, or, at least, ignorable, disregards Amendment 4, and thus is obviously incorrect.

I also like this:

As Justice Warren wrote in U.S. v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258 (1967):

Implicit in the term ‘national defense’ is the notion of defending
those values and ideas which set this Nation apart. . . . It would
indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would
sanction the subversion of . . . those liberties . . . which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile. Id. at 264.

Perhaps this point of view is now considered "liberal." Conservatives tend to define the republic in personal identity terms rather then in terms of the system it implements.

Federal Judge Orders End to Warrantless Wiretapping - New York Times

The new Malthusian security advocates use fearmongering tactics every bit as shamelessly as those overseeing the ‘war on terror’. Indeed, in the very process of depicting environmental and health issues as a major threat to human survival, they actually take the politics of fear far beyond the alarmist scenarios dreamt up by the architects of the ‘war on terror’. The Malthusian security agenda accepts the ideology of anti-terrorism in order to draw attention to its claim that there are even graver problems threatening the future and security of humanity.

In one very important sense, however, the Malthusian security agenda is even more retrograde than the traditionalist security agenda. The traditional variety was usually focused on a specific enemy; in many instances the enemy was clearly identified -- the Russians, the Cubans, or some specific group of subversives. Today’s security agenda, by contrast, is uncertain about how to distinguish friend from foe and what the problem really is. According to this view, there are no friends or foes. The new security agenda adopts a fiercely misanthropic outlook and blames human behaviour in general for threatening security. They believe that our behaviour -- leading to population growth, consumption of oil, environmental degradation -- is the real threat. For them, threats are transnational, global, interconnected; in other words, everything is a potential threat. Infectious diseases, environmental problems, economic discontent and terrorist violence are seen as being parts of a broader, generic security problem.

In years to come, this approach, which is now institutionalised through the US Department of Homeland Security, is likely to expand into more and more spheres of human experience. It is surely only a matter of time before the assumption implicit in the Malthusian security agenda -- that we do not simply need a ‘war on terror’ but a ‘war on everything’ -- will be made more explicit.

[ I'm not all that moved by this article.

Yes, organizations which have agendas (read as, every organization in existence) are going to attempt to capitalize on the idiom of the moment in order to get people thinking about their pet issues. No surprise there, it's been happening forever.

I bet in the late 1700's everyone in england tied every problem to all us pesky colonies.

I think the more likely result of all this isn't a DHS "War On Everything" but an eventual burn out of public attention. Eventually people will get tired of it and stop caring. Remember how charged the 1980's were? How about the 1990's? Not so much, right? Well, eventually people will reach their limit of tolerance for all this being scared and they'll basically stop.

That notwithstanding, however, a lot of these issues are pretty important. I don't disagree that it's often disingenous to link them to terrorism (even indirectly, as in "kills more people than..."), but that doesn't mean they don't pose threats. Ok, I'll concede the semantic argument that they're not "security" issues, per se, but ultimately I'm not sure it matters what you call it in the short term when it's still got to be dealt with in the long term. -k]

Meet the Malthusians

Back in the late 1600's, the Dutch invented the two-sheet mold. The average maximum stretch of an experienced vatman's arms was 44". Many molds at that time were around 17" front to back because the laid lines and watermarks had to run from left to right. Sounds big?...well to maximize the efficiency of paper making, a sheet this big was made, and then quartered, forming four 8.5" x 11" pieces.

This was well before paper machines dominated hand made paper labor. A couple centuries later when machines dominated the trade (although many hand made paper makers still existed), and the United States decided on a standard paper size, they stuck with the same size so as to keep the hand made paper makers in business.

Oddly enough, the United States used two different sizes - the 8" x 10.5" and the 8.5" x 11". Separate committees came up with separate standards, the 8" x 10.5" for the government and the 8.5" x 11" for the rest of us. Once these committees found out about each other a couple years later, they agreed to disagree until the early 1980's when Reagan finally proclaimed that the 8.5" x 11" was the official standard sized paper.

8.5 x 11 is wack. The ISO standard system is so much more logical.

see http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-paper.html

The U.S. Standard Paper Size | AF&PA

"Where parent behavior becomes a challenge for us is when they encourage dependence, and they become too involved because they are afraid their son or daughter will make a mistake," says Tom Miller, a University of South Florida dean of students.

I know far too many people that were raised in this kind of environment. I was not one of them, thank god. I was always encouraged to be very independent and while my parents kept me safe, I made a lot of decisions for myself, starting from a very early age. It drives me insane to hear the parents of friends *still* trying to control and shelter their kids, now well into adulthood.

"When I went to college in the '70s, contact with my parents was standing at a pay phone on Sunday afternoon," says James Boyle, College Parents of America president. "And there was no expectation beyond that."

I didn't even call that often. Once every 2-3 weeks. And I'm pretty close to my parents, just not constrained by that closeness.

Mommy, tell my professor he's not nice!

Within the constellation of allied hobbies and subcultures collectively known as geekdom, one finds many social groups bent under a crushing burden of dysfunction, social drama, and general interpersonal wack-ness. It is my opinion that many of these never-ending crises are sparked off by an assortment of pernicious social fallacies -- ideas about human interaction which spur their holders to do terrible and stupid things to themselves and to each other.

While this is filed under humor at the parent site, I find it deeply insightful (which lends something to the humor).

[Agreed. I see a good deal of truth here. -k]

Five Geek Social Fallacies

If we speak of the fear of emancipation from the fear-regime, we put the whole situation into a single phrase; fear regarding ourselves now taking the place of the ancient fear of the enemy.

...

We must make new energies and hardihoods continue the manliness to which the military mind so faithfully clings. Martial virtues must be the enduring cement; intrepidity, contempt of softness, surrender of private interest, obedience to command, must still remain the rock upon which states are built — unless, indeed, we which for dangerous reactions against commonwealths, fit only for contempt, and liable to invite attack whenever a centre of crystallization for military-minded enterprise gets formed anywhere in their neighborhood.

...

Let me illustrate my idea more concretely. There is nothing to make one indignant in the mere fact that life is hard, that men should toil and suffer pain. The planetary conditions once for all are such, and we can stand it. But that so many men, by mere accidents of birth and opportunity, should have a life of nothing else but toil and pain and hardness and inferiority imposed upon them, should have no vacation, while others natively no more deserving never get any taste of this campaigning life at all, — this is capable of arousing indignation in reflective minds. It may end by seeming shameful to all of us that some of us have nothing but campaigning, and others nothing but unmanly ease. If now — and this is my idea — there were, instead of military conscription, a conscription of the whole youthful population to form for a certain number of years a part of the army enlisted against Nature, the injustice would tend to be evened out, and numerous other goods to the commonwealth would remain blind as the luxurious classes now are blind, to man's relations to the globe he lives on, and to the permanently sour and hard foundations of his higher life. To coal and iron mines, to freight trains, to fishing fleets in December, to dishwashing, clotheswashing, and windowwashing, to road-building and tunnel-making, to foundries and stoke-holes, and to the frames of skyscrapers, would our gilded youths be drafted off, according to their choice, to get the childishness knocked out of them, and to come back into society with healthier sympathies and soberer ideas. They would have paid their blood-tax, done their own part in the immemorial human warfare against nature; they would tread the earth more proudly, the women would value them more highly, they would be better fathers and teachers of the following generation.

... It is but a question of time, of skilful propogandism, and of opinion-making men seizing historic opportunities.

The conceptions of order and discipline, the tradition of service and devotion, of physical fitness, unstinted exertion, and universal responsibility, which universal military duty is now teaching European nations, will remain a permanent acquisition when the last ammunition has been used in the fireworks that celebrate the final peace.

Interesting. I'll have to give this more thought. My initial feeling is that it's logical, but impossible.

William James: The Moral Equivalent of War

"Several characteristics correlate with belief in the biblical explanation for the origin of humans. Those with lower levels of education, those who attend church regularly, those who are 65 and older, and those who identify with the Republican Party are more likely to believe that God created humans 'as is,' than are those who do not share these characteristics."

And this would be why they keep cutting education funding. God forbid they should go to school and stop voting Republican...

[ I'm not saying there isn't a lot of anti-evolution foment right now, and I'd never argue that plenty of americans have a literalist interpretation of the bible, but I think the wording of this particular poll is bad.

In direct reply to the comments above, I think it's a mistake to frame this as a partisan issue. It undermines the credibility of the argument, because it seems to stem from a pre-determined policy stance as opposed to logical argument. It's hard enough to convince a fundamentalist literalist to see a differing point of view without complicating the discussion with politics. -k]

Gallup: More Than Half of Americans Reject Evolution, Back Bible

The Rev. Frank Pavone, the national director of Priests for Life, saw the movement's success as "a response to Jesus Christ, and it is confirmation that He, alone, is Lord." Pavone continued: "We don't have the Ark of the Covenant in 2006. We are the Ark of the Covenant."

How humble. I recall how Jesus was all self-aggrandizing. Don't you recall in Matthew : "I'm the fucking LORD, bitches! Worship this! You just *KNOW* the Kingdom of Heaven awaits all who bow down before me." Yeah, Christ was all about self glorification... Pavone's got it right.

Peroutka, too, saw victory at hand. "We're no longer the right-wing Christian nuts," the religious broadcaster observed.

What's that? Oh, no, you're still a right-wing "Christian" nut... the fact that you might actually get your way and demolish womens rights, not to mention add a great burden of babies no one can care for to an already struggling society doesn't change being crazy.

I submit the following to the record as well :

"It has been told by the prophets in the land that there is a president coming out of Texas, a Burning Bush," Nesbit prayed. "He will deal with abortion in the land. We ask you to give him an executive order and mantle him and give him a mandate with the fear of the Lord."

What!? What prophets fortold that? Were they on Fox News sometime around, oh, September a few years back? Because those weren't prophets... they were "pollsters". I know, 'p' words, huh. Confusing. Also, rev, *great* reference there. I don't think anyone's yet compared our president to the burning BUSH from the bible. You are one smart cookie. I mean, the bush claimed to be the voice of God, and Bush acts like he wants to be the voice of God, so, gee, I just don't know why no one thought of that sooner. Bush/bush. Genius. Now that I think about it though the burning part could be construed... nah, I'd rather not get disappeared by some spooks.

For the record, the above should also put to rest anyone who still thinks Bush isn't all about the religious right. They see him as an instrument of God, and he's all too happy to fill that role.

For anyone who still believes Alito wouldn't vote to overturn Roe, wake the fuck up.

And for anyone who actually thinks that these same crusaders will vote in favor of any kind of social programs to take care of all the babies that will result from an overturning of roe, get a clue. The right in this country has an "every man for himself" doctrine that isn't gonna change.

I can't believe the complacency of the democrats in office lately. Somebody, SOMEBODY, find a fucking voice. -k]

Anti-abortion marchers think its their last march

The Vatican newspaper has published an article saying "intelligent design" is not science and that teaching it alongside evolutionary theory in school classrooms only creates confusion.

Vatican paper article says 'intelligent design' not science

We are scholars of constitutional law and former government officials. We write in our individual capacities as citizens concerned by the Bush administration's National Security Agency domestic spying program, as reported in The New York Times, and in particular to respond to the Justice Department's December 22, 2005, letter to the majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees setting forth the administration's defense of the program.

Very complete and well reasoned.

On [Domestic] NSA Spying: A Letter To Congress