Our Creationist and Intelligent Design letter writers have convinced me that we can gain valuable insight into the Creator-Designer by studying the natural world. It makes sense that a well-designed system reveals much about the personality, intentions, and values of its creators.
Take human sexuality for example. The complementary configuration of male and female bodies combines mechanics with pleasure to ensure that humans will reproduce efficiently and enthusiastically. Good job, Creator-Designer!
What you might not know is that male bodies are also exquisitely configured for same-sex relations, being blessed with an intricate network of nerve cells in very unexpected places, and producing an intensity of pleasure that many say goes well beyond that experienced in male-female relations.
No less an authority on this is Dr. Paul Cameron, founder of the Family Research Institute, a leading conservative Christian organization. He states that if you want "the most satisfying orgasm you can get…then homosexuality seems too powerful to resist. It's almost like pure heroin. It's such a rush!" (Rolling Stone Magazine, March 18, 1999.)
Both these examples of Intelligent Design teach us that the Creator wants us to come together in celebration, joy, and pleasure. What a beautiful blessing! Thanks, Creator-Designer!
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Propaganda Techniques, Part 1
Okay, this is such a huge topic that I've shrunk back from getting started on it, until now. It's just absolutely too important not to blather out into cyberspace where no one can hear me scream.
Rule #1: Accuse your opponent of whatever are guilty of. For example, now John McCain is saying that "Barack Obama will say anything to get elected." Oh boy! (See Yahoo News). This has, of course, been true of McCain for the past year.
Rule #2: Telling a BIG LIE is more effective than telling a small one. Hitler proved this. Big lies so violate the rules of civility that people will almost always give the liar the benefit of the doubt and try to reconcile the lie with the things they know to be true. That gives the liar a huge advantage.
Rule #3: Repeat your lie many, many times, even after it's been disproven. Eventually, the lie will take on the value of accepted fact by at least a percentage of the population.
Rule #4: Get the jump on the listener's memory. As soon as possible after an event (such as a debate), misrepresent what your opponent has just said. For example, if Obama said repeatedly, "Under my tax plan, 95% of Americans will pay lower taxes," tell the interviewer, "It's outrageous that Obama wants to raise taxes on the vast majority of Americans!" There is research that shows you can actually make people clearly "remember" the opposite of what they actually heard or saw.
Whew, okay, that's all I've got the energy to write for now!
Rule #1: Accuse your opponent of whatever are guilty of. For example, now John McCain is saying that "Barack Obama will say anything to get elected." Oh boy! (See Yahoo News). This has, of course, been true of McCain for the past year.
Rule #2: Telling a BIG LIE is more effective than telling a small one. Hitler proved this. Big lies so violate the rules of civility that people will almost always give the liar the benefit of the doubt and try to reconcile the lie with the things they know to be true. That gives the liar a huge advantage.
Rule #3: Repeat your lie many, many times, even after it's been disproven. Eventually, the lie will take on the value of accepted fact by at least a percentage of the population.
Rule #4: Get the jump on the listener's memory. As soon as possible after an event (such as a debate), misrepresent what your opponent has just said. For example, if Obama said repeatedly, "Under my tax plan, 95% of Americans will pay lower taxes," tell the interviewer, "It's outrageous that Obama wants to raise taxes on the vast majority of Americans!" There is research that shows you can actually make people clearly "remember" the opposite of what they actually heard or saw.
Whew, okay, that's all I've got the energy to write for now!
Friday, October 17, 2008
Casandra Calling, from 1952
All my friends know that I'm a flirt. I flirt with everyone. I even flirt with Libertarians. Some of them call themselves "paleo-conservatives" to distinguish themselves from "neo-conservatives." As far as I can tell, they are usually for hard currency (that is, backed by gold), completely unfettered markets (yikes!), the smallest government possible--especially federal. On this last point, they are nearly always strict non-interventionists, and this is where I find myself in sympathy with them, as I believe many Liberals are.
I just came across a book called The People's Pottage by an old-fashioned conservative named Garet Garrett. It includes an article, dated 1952, called Rise of Empire. It is stunning in its vision and wonderfully written. It shows that what we have seen in the Bush/Cheney Administration is the logical working out of a process that has been underway for well over 50 years.
Garrett's description of how a Republic becomes an Empire is fascinating and truly reflects our nation's current status. Below is his summary of the characteristics of Empire:
I just came across a book called The People's Pottage by an old-fashioned conservative named Garet Garrett. It includes an article, dated 1952, called Rise of Empire. It is stunning in its vision and wonderfully written. It shows that what we have seen in the Bush/Cheney Administration is the logical working out of a process that has been underway for well over 50 years.
Garrett's description of how a Republic becomes an Empire is fascinating and truly reflects our nation's current status. Below is his summary of the characteristics of Empire:
As we have set them down so far, the things that signify Empire are these, namely:
(1) Rise of the executive principle of government to a position of dominant power,
(2) Accommodation of domestic policy to foreign policy,
(3) Ascendancy of the military mind,
(4) A system of satellite nations for a purpose called collective security, and,
(5) An emotional complex of vaunting and fear.
There is yet another sign that defines itself gradually. When it is clearly defined it may be already too late to do anything about it. That is to say, a time comes when Empire finds itself— A prisoner of history.
The history of a Republic is its own history. Its past does not contain its future, like a seed. A Republic may change its course, or reverse it, and that will be its own business. But the history of Empire is world history and belongs to many people.
A Republic is not obliged to act upon the world, either to change or instruct it. Empire, on the other hand, must put forth its power.
What is it that now obliges the American people to act upon the world? As you ask that question the fear theme plays itself down and the one that takes its place is magnifical. It is not only our security we are thinking of—our security in a frame of collective security. Beyond that lies a greater thought.
It is our turn. Our turn to do what? Our turn to assume the responsibilities or moral leadership in the world. Our turn to maintain a balance of power against the forces of evil everywhere…
You may purchase a copy of The People's Pottage from Amazon.com. You can also find PDF versions of it on the Web.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Just the Job for Sarah!
Well, at last night's debate, Sarah Palin surpassed the very low expectations set for her: She did not disintegrate into a steaming pile of shit. In fact, we saw that with sufficient preparation she can stand up in front of a crowd of people and coherently recite talking points about specific issues.
This proves to me that she is qualified to work in the White House -- but not as VP -- more likely as a presidential spokesperson, like Dana Perino.
But they say that her performance will "re-engerize" the Republican base which was slowly, one commentator at a time, starting to realize that she's been an embarrassment. Now they are back to the very odd equation that being able to see Russia from your backyard makes you capable of conducting foreign policy. (I'm excited that I can see the moon from my backyard, so I must be qualified to be an astrophysicist.)
I'm sorry: Being able to repeat rehearsed talking points does not mean you can carefully analyze multiple complex issues and problems, generate strategies to solve those problems, and carefully lead a massive government in implementing those solutions. Not even close.
Sarah needs to go back to Alaska and take back the governor's office which has been commandeered by McCain campaign operatives. It'll be better for the people of Alaska, the U.S., and the world.
This proves to me that she is qualified to work in the White House -- but not as VP -- more likely as a presidential spokesperson, like Dana Perino.
But they say that her performance will "re-engerize" the Republican base which was slowly, one commentator at a time, starting to realize that she's been an embarrassment. Now they are back to the very odd equation that being able to see Russia from your backyard makes you capable of conducting foreign policy. (I'm excited that I can see the moon from my backyard, so I must be qualified to be an astrophysicist.)
I'm sorry: Being able to repeat rehearsed talking points does not mean you can carefully analyze multiple complex issues and problems, generate strategies to solve those problems, and carefully lead a massive government in implementing those solutions. Not even close.
Sarah needs to go back to Alaska and take back the governor's office which has been commandeered by McCain campaign operatives. It'll be better for the people of Alaska, the U.S., and the world.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Since Henry Ford Apologized to Me
One of my fondest childhood memories comes from the occassional trips my family made to visit my grandmother in Iowa, starting back when I was about 8 years old. She owned a gramophone and lots of 78 RPM records from the early 1920s. I used to listen to them for hours -- it was fun and there was absolutely nothing else to do!
I recently discovered an Internet link to a song that I used to listen to (and still own) way back then. It's funny and odd and was once very topical (at the time). I didn't know the wealth of history behind it until recently. Here's some of it:
I recently discovered an Internet link to a song that I used to listen to (and still own) way back then. It's funny and odd and was once very topical (at the time). I didn't know the wealth of history behind it until recently. Here's some of it:
- Why would Henry Ford apologize to the Jewish tailor in this song? Ford was the consummate anti-Semite. For several years in the early 1920s he published a newspaper, The Dearborn Independent, (mentioned in the song). It was distributed to every Ford dealership in American and made available to customers. It was a nasty rag all about the "international Jewish conspiracy" that was trying to take over the world...you know, Jewish bankers and Jewish Communists...never mind the fact that THAT combination makes no sense. The newspaper articles were eventually compiled into a book titled The International Jew. It is still in print -- Google it!
- At one point, a group of prominent Jews pressed Henry Ford to apologize for the virulent hate-speech published in his newspaper. An apology was issued and then almost immediately denounced by his representatives as fraudulent This is the apology that the song refers to.
- The song says of Henry Ford, "He's got an aviator for his new machine / Instead of Charlie Lindbergh he's got Charles Levin." Sad to say, Charles Lindbergh was another prominent American anti-Semite. I recently learned from an NPR story that Charles Levin was the first passenger to cross the Atlantic; for this he enjoyed 15 minutes of fame in the middle of an otherwise rather sad life.
- The "Happiness Boys" sang this in what one archivist of Yiddish theater told me is known as "a thick sour cream accent." The song is pretty much equivelent to performing in black face.
I hope you enjoy this strange little bit of history:
For his full commentary, go to: Since Henry Ford Apologized to Me
Monday, September 15, 2008
Democrats: The Party of "Sex Chaos"
I have a lovely friend who will be attending my gay wedding this Saturday. She recently sent her family members in Iowa a link to the letter by Anne Kilkenny's giving insights into Sarah Pallin and her time as mayor of their small town. Here is what my friend got back from her sister.
-------------------------------------------------
From: xxxx
Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2008 7:49 AM
To: xxx
Subject: RE: Sarah Palin
Bob & I have read your email. Sounds like more of the same-sour grapes. The campaign trail is full of half-truths, out-right lies, fear and hope. Bloggers, like this message tend to only muddy the waters further. We have not seen any candidate like the Virgin Mary or Jesus Christ and we most likely never will. We all stumble, change direction, make the right decision, make the wrong decision. Man, woman, black, white or purple ... we have in common our humanity.
We intend to vote, as we always have, because it is our responsibility to do so. Our responsibility to choose the ticket that most closely resembles our beliefs. Jake has always been a Republican. When the Democratic Party left me, I became a Republican too.
One thing that Jake & I agree on is the Democratic Party has chosen to be the party of sex chaos. We refuse to participate in these Planned Parenthood advancement programs - to the point that we will become part of the obstacle in their path.
To that end, one can say that when they cast their vote, it may very well be a vote against one ticket verses a vote in favor of another ticket. A "lessor of two evils" if you will. Wouldn't you agree? Thankfully, for better or worse, in 6 weeks we can close the books on another election year. Hoping you and yours are well, and we are anxious to see you again soon.
Love xxx and xxx
-------------------------------------------------
Wow. Now there's a great phrase: "Sex Chaos." What a terrific name for a rock group! (It's almost as good as "Sex Magick" which was a form of esotericism from the late 1800s.) I think it should be one word: "Sexchaos." I'm comforted to know that my little gay wedding this weekend will add just bit more of it to the world. I hope that you will create a bit of it in your corner of the world real soon!
By the way, this same friend recently spoke to her mom about the election. Here's the report on that conversation:
"I called my 85-year old mother yesterday. She is so excited about Sarah Palin “because she’s raised a large family, and she’s just like us, and we need someone just like us in the White House.” I said, “Gee mom, I don’t want someone like me in the White House. I want someone who is whole lot smarter and a lot more educated because we’ve got some big problems to sort out, and someone like me isn’t smart enough to know how to do that.” Are people really drinking the koolaid?
-------------------------------------------------
From: xxxx
Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2008 7:49 AM
To: xxx
Subject: RE: Sarah Palin
Bob & I have read your email. Sounds like more of the same-sour grapes. The campaign trail is full of half-truths, out-right lies, fear and hope. Bloggers, like this message tend to only muddy the waters further. We have not seen any candidate like the Virgin Mary or Jesus Christ and we most likely never will. We all stumble, change direction, make the right decision, make the wrong decision. Man, woman, black, white or purple ... we have in common our humanity.
We intend to vote, as we always have, because it is our responsibility to do so. Our responsibility to choose the ticket that most closely resembles our beliefs. Jake has always been a Republican. When the Democratic Party left me, I became a Republican too.
One thing that Jake & I agree on is the Democratic Party has chosen to be the party of sex chaos. We refuse to participate in these Planned Parenthood advancement programs - to the point that we will become part of the obstacle in their path.
To that end, one can say that when they cast their vote, it may very well be a vote against one ticket verses a vote in favor of another ticket. A "lessor of two evils" if you will. Wouldn't you agree? Thankfully, for better or worse, in 6 weeks we can close the books on another election year. Hoping you and yours are well, and we are anxious to see you again soon.
Love xxx and xxx
-------------------------------------------------
Wow. Now there's a great phrase: "Sex Chaos." What a terrific name for a rock group! (It's almost as good as "Sex Magick" which was a form of esotericism from the late 1800s.) I think it should be one word: "Sexchaos." I'm comforted to know that my little gay wedding this weekend will add just bit more of it to the world. I hope that you will create a bit of it in your corner of the world real soon!
By the way, this same friend recently spoke to her mom about the election. Here's the report on that conversation:
"I called my 85-year old mother yesterday. She is so excited about Sarah Palin “because she’s raised a large family, and she’s just like us, and we need someone just like us in the White House.” I said, “Gee mom, I don’t want someone like me in the White House. I want someone who is whole lot smarter and a lot more educated because we’ve got some big problems to sort out, and someone like me isn’t smart enough to know how to do that.” Are people really drinking the koolaid?
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Bad News:
Our System of Government is Consensual
I have recently come to a very disturbing realization: Our system of government is consensual and unbalanced. This flaw has been discovered by some very clever people and, if uncheckd, will have terrible consequences for every American.
I came to this conclusion just a couple of weeks ago. I was pondering a tactic that Karl Rove and the Bush Administration have used so effectively to get away with just about everything. It's very simple and we all know about it from our years on the elementary school playground. It's called, "I double-dog dare you!" No matter how many times Congressional committees issue requests for Administration underlings to testify, they will refuse, invoking the Bush Administration's extravegant interpretation of executive privilege based on their novel doctrine of the Unitary Executive. (Simply put, all who serve in the Executive Branch are simply instruments of the President's power and, therefore, are protected by his freedom from Congress' oversight.)
Sometimes, when Executive underlings refuse to testify, Congressional committees issue subpoenas to compel testimony, but the underlings will again refuse. The subtext in all this is, "Make me!"
Then Congress must get the federal courts involved, triggering what is widely (and erroneously) consider a "Constitutional crisis." Few in office have the stomach for that, but if they did take the matter to federal court, the process would be torturous and slow thanks to this Administration's amazing ability to game the system.
What's left? Only the nuclear option of impeachment. And Nancy Pelosi has taken that option off the table. She understands all of this. She made her decision for purely political reasons, a fact that she tries to obscure by saying, "Well, if someone would demonstrate that the President has committed a crime, that would be a different story!" This is, of course, utter hogwash. She knows that impeachment does not require a crime; if it did, then Presidents could be as creative as they wished in wrecking havoc, always a step ahead of Congress' efforts to pass new laws to prohibit the latest Presidential abuse of power. Pelosi knows that "high crimes and misdemeanors" do not strictly refer to laws already on the books--it refers to a subversion of the government and of the Constitution. George Bush and Dick Cheney have done that in spades.
The simple fact of the matter is that if Congress fails to act against an over-reaching Executive, the Exec wins. Congress can expand its own power only by passing laws by a veto-proof majority and then, when the President refuses to enforce those laws (as by Bush's novel use of 'signing statements') Congress must go through a long and seldom trodden legal path to compel enforcement. Failing that, once again, Congress has only impeachment.
The sad conclusion is this: Our system of government is consensual. It is also unbalanced. If the Exec oversteps its traditional and accepted boundaries of power, and if Congress does not act to counter it, then the Exec automatically holds that new power. That is why Congress must maintain an adversarial role against any President.
I came to this conclusion just a couple of weeks ago. I was pondering a tactic that Karl Rove and the Bush Administration have used so effectively to get away with just about everything. It's very simple and we all know about it from our years on the elementary school playground. It's called, "I double-dog dare you!" No matter how many times Congressional committees issue requests for Administration underlings to testify, they will refuse, invoking the Bush Administration's extravegant interpretation of executive privilege based on their novel doctrine of the Unitary Executive. (Simply put, all who serve in the Executive Branch are simply instruments of the President's power and, therefore, are protected by his freedom from Congress' oversight.)
Sometimes, when Executive underlings refuse to testify, Congressional committees issue subpoenas to compel testimony, but the underlings will again refuse. The subtext in all this is, "Make me!"
Then Congress must get the federal courts involved, triggering what is widely (and erroneously) consider a "Constitutional crisis." Few in office have the stomach for that, but if they did take the matter to federal court, the process would be torturous and slow thanks to this Administration's amazing ability to game the system.
What's left? Only the nuclear option of impeachment. And Nancy Pelosi has taken that option off the table. She understands all of this. She made her decision for purely political reasons, a fact that she tries to obscure by saying, "Well, if someone would demonstrate that the President has committed a crime, that would be a different story!" This is, of course, utter hogwash. She knows that impeachment does not require a crime; if it did, then Presidents could be as creative as they wished in wrecking havoc, always a step ahead of Congress' efforts to pass new laws to prohibit the latest Presidential abuse of power. Pelosi knows that "high crimes and misdemeanors" do not strictly refer to laws already on the books--it refers to a subversion of the government and of the Constitution. George Bush and Dick Cheney have done that in spades.
The simple fact of the matter is that if Congress fails to act against an over-reaching Executive, the Exec wins. Congress can expand its own power only by passing laws by a veto-proof majority and then, when the President refuses to enforce those laws (as by Bush's novel use of 'signing statements') Congress must go through a long and seldom trodden legal path to compel enforcement. Failing that, once again, Congress has only impeachment.
The sad conclusion is this: Our system of government is consensual. It is also unbalanced. If the Exec oversteps its traditional and accepted boundaries of power, and if Congress does not act to counter it, then the Exec automatically holds that new power. That is why Congress must maintain an adversarial role against any President.
YOU Aren't Qualified to be President
We've all been told that any boy (and in the past generation or two, any girl) can grow up to become President of the United States. And it's true in a very narrow sense, the same sense in which it's true that any boy or girl can grow up to be a brain surgeon. But guess what? Those kids have to be smart enough, study hard enough, and be good enough to be entrusted with sharp objects in the vicinity of someones brain!
Being President is a very demanding job. It requires judgement, wisdom, knowledge and respect for the Constitution--after all, the Presidential oath is first and foremost to defend the Constitution against all enemies, domestic and foreign. We've been reminded of all this again and again by both parties. But now we suddenly discover that the only real requirement is being an ordinary person just like you and me!
Get real people! YOU ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT! People who don't know anything usually think they can do anything. They look at the president and say, "Hell, ah could do that! That ain't so tough." For the past eight years we've had a stunning example of how NOT true this is! But no, Sarah Palin is qualified to be the President-in-Waiting (aka Veep) because she's struggled with the refining challenges of raising five kids, having a child with a disability, dealing with an unwed daughter....OH, GIVE ME A BREAK! There're a hell of a lot of women who have struggled with more but that doesn't make them qualified to be President!
We are now being treated to the complete democratization of American politics: The masses finally feel so insulted, so humiliated, so powerless that they are foisting 'one of their own' into the White House. It will truly be a dictatorship of the prolitariate, with the wealthiest people in the nation pulling all the strings to once again enrich themselves through the Republican's new religion of borrow-and-spend.
Essayist and social commentator H.L Mencken once described democracy as “simply a battle of charlatans for the votes of idiots.” Writing in 1937 for the Baltimore Evening Sun, Mencken theorized that by now “the incurable idiots may conceivably constitute an absolute majority of the population.” He also said, "People usually get the government they deserve, and they deserve to get it good and hard." (I would add, "right up the ass" to the end of that quote.)
Being President is a very demanding job. It requires judgement, wisdom, knowledge and respect for the Constitution--after all, the Presidential oath is first and foremost to defend the Constitution against all enemies, domestic and foreign. We've been reminded of all this again and again by both parties. But now we suddenly discover that the only real requirement is being an ordinary person just like you and me!
Get real people! YOU ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT! People who don't know anything usually think they can do anything. They look at the president and say, "Hell, ah could do that! That ain't so tough." For the past eight years we've had a stunning example of how NOT true this is! But no, Sarah Palin is qualified to be the President-in-Waiting (aka Veep) because she's struggled with the refining challenges of raising five kids, having a child with a disability, dealing with an unwed daughter....OH, GIVE ME A BREAK! There're a hell of a lot of women who have struggled with more but that doesn't make them qualified to be President!
We are now being treated to the complete democratization of American politics: The masses finally feel so insulted, so humiliated, so powerless that they are foisting 'one of their own' into the White House. It will truly be a dictatorship of the prolitariate, with the wealthiest people in the nation pulling all the strings to once again enrich themselves through the Republican's new religion of borrow-and-spend.
Essayist and social commentator H.L Mencken once described democracy as “simply a battle of charlatans for the votes of idiots.” Writing in 1937 for the Baltimore Evening Sun, Mencken theorized that by now “the incurable idiots may conceivably constitute an absolute majority of the population.” He also said, "People usually get the government they deserve, and they deserve to get it good and hard." (I would add, "right up the ass" to the end of that quote.)
Monday, February 18, 2008
The Invasion of America
I've just read an opinion piece in the LATimes that brings home how deeply our Constitution has been comprimised from Nixon to Bush. The fact that the piece was written by Andrew P. Napolitano, senior judicial analyst at the Fox News Channel, makes it doubly alarming, for if someone associated with Fox News thinks we're in danger of a dictatorship, then we really are!
The original essay is at this link:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-napolitano18feb18,0,1665050.story
Please read it. It is very chilling. Here is a summary:
The 4th Amendment has been uniformly interpreted as prohibiting the government from conducting electronic surveillance of anyone without a search warrant issued by a judge based on probable cause of a crime. The courts have held that that requires a warrant by a judge, and only after government agents, under oath, have convinced the judge that there is probable cause of a crime. The 4th Amendment is one of only two instances in which the founders wrote a rule of criminal procedure into the Constitution itself, so that no Congress, president, or court could tamper with it.
In 1978, in response to Nixon's abuses, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, which looks like a reaffirmation of the 4th Amendment, providing that no electronic surveillance may occur by anyone in the government at any time under any circumstances for any reason other than in accordance with law, and no such surveillance may occur within the U.S. of an American other than in accordance with the 4th Amendment.
But FISA allows federal agents to appear in front of a secret court and to get a warrant based only on the target of surveillance being an agent of a foreign government, even a friendly government, and no illegal behavior need be shown. Later amendments removed the "agency" requirement, requiring only that the target be someone physically present in the U.S. who was not born here and is not an American citizen, and eliminated the 4th Amendment standard of probable cause. The amended FISA left one safeguard for the 4th Amendment: The target of spying could not be tried on the basis of FISA evidence, but only on evidence obtained pursuant to probable cause of a crime (that is, through a constitutional method).
That changed with the Patriot Act, passed after 9/11, and its later versions. These laws allow FISA evidence to be used to prosecute and instruct federal judges that the evidence is admissible under the Constitution -- ignorning the fact that Congress can't decide what is constitutional and can't tell federal judges what evidence is admissible--only judges can do that.
Then the Bush administration demanded, and Congress gave, the authority to conduct electronic surveillance of foreigners and Americans with no warrant, even though more than 99% of all FISA applications are approved. The so-called "Protect America Act of 2007" (which expired at the end of last week), gave the government carte blanche to spy on foreign persons outside the U.S., even if Americans in the United States with whom they may be communicating are illegally spied on in the process. Director of National Intelligence J. Michael McConnell told the House Judiciary Committee last year that hundreds of Americans' conversations and e-mails are spied on annually as a consequence of the warrantless surveillance of foreigners outside the United States.
We should all tremble at this frontal assault on our rights. The Constitution protects all persons. The government should be required, as it was until FISA, to obtain a 4th Amendment warrant to conduct surveillance of anyone, American or not, in the U.S. or not. If we lower constitutional protections for foreigners and their American associates, for whom will we lower them next?
The original essay is at this link:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-napolitano18feb18,0,1665050.story
Please read it. It is very chilling. Here is a summary:
The 4th Amendment has been uniformly interpreted as prohibiting the government from conducting electronic surveillance of anyone without a search warrant issued by a judge based on probable cause of a crime. The courts have held that that requires a warrant by a judge, and only after government agents, under oath, have convinced the judge that there is probable cause of a crime. The 4th Amendment is one of only two instances in which the founders wrote a rule of criminal procedure into the Constitution itself, so that no Congress, president, or court could tamper with it.
In 1978, in response to Nixon's abuses, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, which looks like a reaffirmation of the 4th Amendment, providing that no electronic surveillance may occur by anyone in the government at any time under any circumstances for any reason other than in accordance with law, and no such surveillance may occur within the U.S. of an American other than in accordance with the 4th Amendment.
But FISA allows federal agents to appear in front of a secret court and to get a warrant based only on the target of surveillance being an agent of a foreign government, even a friendly government, and no illegal behavior need be shown. Later amendments removed the "agency" requirement, requiring only that the target be someone physically present in the U.S. who was not born here and is not an American citizen, and eliminated the 4th Amendment standard of probable cause. The amended FISA left one safeguard for the 4th Amendment: The target of spying could not be tried on the basis of FISA evidence, but only on evidence obtained pursuant to probable cause of a crime (that is, through a constitutional method).
That changed with the Patriot Act, passed after 9/11, and its later versions. These laws allow FISA evidence to be used to prosecute and instruct federal judges that the evidence is admissible under the Constitution -- ignorning the fact that Congress can't decide what is constitutional and can't tell federal judges what evidence is admissible--only judges can do that.
Then the Bush administration demanded, and Congress gave, the authority to conduct electronic surveillance of foreigners and Americans with no warrant, even though more than 99% of all FISA applications are approved. The so-called "Protect America Act of 2007" (which expired at the end of last week), gave the government carte blanche to spy on foreign persons outside the U.S., even if Americans in the United States with whom they may be communicating are illegally spied on in the process. Director of National Intelligence J. Michael McConnell told the House Judiciary Committee last year that hundreds of Americans' conversations and e-mails are spied on annually as a consequence of the warrantless surveillance of foreigners outside the United States.
We should all tremble at this frontal assault on our rights. The Constitution protects all persons. The government should be required, as it was until FISA, to obtain a 4th Amendment warrant to conduct surveillance of anyone, American or not, in the U.S. or not. If we lower constitutional protections for foreigners and their American associates, for whom will we lower them next?
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Welcome to the 1890s
I've been seeing a lot of articles lately about seemingly intractable social and economic trends. These include:
- Most Baby Boomers are not financially prepared for retirement and will likely have to keep working long past the "traditional" retirement age.
- The exodus from the work force of those Baby Boomers who can afford to retire will mean there are fewer productive workers paying into the Social Security system to help support retirees.
- People are living longer and longer.
- Ever year it becomes more difficult for young people to obtain a loan they can afford in order to buy a home
- The number of households consisting of one person is at an all-time high
- People are delaying marriage or living together to a later age
- Child care is difficult to arrange for working parents
- Mental health professionals cite isolation and loneliness as chronic, widespread social problems
I think that all of these negative trends could add up to a positive outcome if we returned to the household structure of the 1890s. You had multiple generations living under the same roof. Elderly people remained in the work force until they were unable to work. There was no standard retirement at age 65, that being an innovation of the Social Security system in the early 1930s, when the average life expectancy was about 68. When their children married, the couple often moved in with one of the sets of parents. By pooling their resources everyone could have a place to live. Grandparents who were at home provided child care.
It's probably not a solution for everybody, bit it might just become a trend! There are also possibilities that this sort of multi-generational lifestyle could work for those who are not necessarily related by blood or marriage--in fact, it might be more successful in some cases then living with kin.
Friday, February 1, 2008
"Life without People"...and Me (of course)
We watched a two-hour documentary on the History channel last night. I'd recorded it a few weeks back. It's called, "Life Without People" and it speculates how the world would change if people suddenly disappear. It relies on ecologists and engineers for most of its predictions, and it simulates the situation at various points after people disappear: 1 day, 5 days, 10 days, 1 month, and then 1, 10, 20, 50, 100, 500, and 10,000 years.
The bottom line: It would not take long for nature to overwhelm our suburbs and then our cities. Within 100 years, wildlife populations, both terrestrial and aquatic, would have rebounded to amazing levels, many of them actually finding new (though relatively short-lived) niches in vacate high-rise urban ruins. I felt comforted by this vision of the earth's recovery.
Of course, the disappearance of humans will not be complete and sudden. We might be wiped out by an "asteroid winter" caused by a single massive impact that throws dust into the upper atmosphere, but more likely our destruction would be over a longer period of time as from global warming. In that case, there might be a lot of die off of animal species, but at after a while (maybe a long while) some species would rebound or others would eventually evolve to replace them.
Also, it's sad that there'd be no one to know, but I suppose that applies to the 99.99% of the earth's history BEFORE people were around to reflect on the wonders of it all. And, of course, there're probably billions and billions of worlds we don't know anything about where there's nobody observing, and never will be, so it's probably best not to get bummed out that we're never going to see them either.
Oddly, for me, all of this begins to lap up against my absolute terror at non existence. Yes, I admit it: I'm having the classic middle-aged (as in "midlife" AND "Medieval") longing to believe in a immortal soul. But I just can't convince myself of it. So, rather than just accept that when I'm dead I won't know it (which is good), I just kinda totally freak out.
Anyway, it's nice to know that the earth and it's many species don't give a rip and they'll be leaping, frolicking, eating, carnivore, shitting, mating, reproducing, and all the other stuff WE like to do long after we're gone. God bless them!
***
I sent an email containing the comments above to my daughter just before posting it here. This is her very wise reponse:
That show ("Life without People") sounds very interesting. It's funny that I got this email from you musing on the Big Questions because I spent the afternoon listening to the first 11 chapters of the Bhagavad Gita on my IPod and am feeling wonderfully calm and peaceful about the whole thing.
There's a lot of window dressing in Hinduism but the basic idea that everything is One and that it's all a big soup caldron of existence and nonexistence and change, resonates with experiences I've had both in meditation and daily life. I don't really believe in an immortal soul but I do believe that I'm part of something much larger than my physical body.
I don't worry anymore whether there's Atman or Anatman, I just believe that I'm having the strange, wonderful, painful, unusual experience of being human at this moment in time and that at any moment I might be hit by a bus and become something else.
The bottom line: It would not take long for nature to overwhelm our suburbs and then our cities. Within 100 years, wildlife populations, both terrestrial and aquatic, would have rebounded to amazing levels, many of them actually finding new (though relatively short-lived) niches in vacate high-rise urban ruins. I felt comforted by this vision of the earth's recovery.
Of course, the disappearance of humans will not be complete and sudden. We might be wiped out by an "asteroid winter" caused by a single massive impact that throws dust into the upper atmosphere, but more likely our destruction would be over a longer period of time as from global warming. In that case, there might be a lot of die off of animal species, but at after a while (maybe a long while) some species would rebound or others would eventually evolve to replace them.
Also, it's sad that there'd be no one to know, but I suppose that applies to the 99.99% of the earth's history BEFORE people were around to reflect on the wonders of it all. And, of course, there're probably billions and billions of worlds we don't know anything about where there's nobody observing, and never will be, so it's probably best not to get bummed out that we're never going to see them either.
Oddly, for me, all of this begins to lap up against my absolute terror at non existence. Yes, I admit it: I'm having the classic middle-aged (as in "midlife" AND "Medieval") longing to believe in a immortal soul. But I just can't convince myself of it. So, rather than just accept that when I'm dead I won't know it (which is good), I just kinda totally freak out.
Anyway, it's nice to know that the earth and it's many species don't give a rip and they'll be leaping, frolicking, eating, carnivore, shitting, mating, reproducing, and all the other stuff WE like to do long after we're gone. God bless them!
***
I sent an email containing the comments above to my daughter just before posting it here. This is her very wise reponse:
That show ("Life without People") sounds very interesting. It's funny that I got this email from you musing on the Big Questions because I spent the afternoon listening to the first 11 chapters of the Bhagavad Gita on my IPod and am feeling wonderfully calm and peaceful about the whole thing.
There's a lot of window dressing in Hinduism but the basic idea that everything is One and that it's all a big soup caldron of existence and nonexistence and change, resonates with experiences I've had both in meditation and daily life. I don't really believe in an immortal soul but I do believe that I'm part of something much larger than my physical body.
I don't worry anymore whether there's Atman or Anatman, I just believe that I'm having the strange, wonderful, painful, unusual experience of being human at this moment in time and that at any moment I might be hit by a bus and become something else.
Friday, January 4, 2008
You Can Say That Again...
"Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak."
From some guy's online gay personal ad
"It is a fundamental tenet of the Republican Party that government ought not intrude in the private lives of individuals where no state purpose is served, and there is nothing more private or intimate then who you live with and who you love."
Gov. Lee Dreyfus, Republican Govenor of Wisconsin,
signing the 1982 law outlawing discrimination
on the basis of sexual orientation in housing,
employment, and public accommodations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
