OK, now I am worried.

Stumbled across this littel gem. Can't miss section, "could Bush, for instance, order the killing of a Qaeda suspect known to be on U.S. soil? Bradbury replied that he believed Bush could indeed do this, at least in certain circumstances."

Note, this is for a suspect. No trial, no court, no jury, not a single remnant of USC protections. No record of the obvious follow-up, "what if the suspect is a US citizen?"

One blogger mentioned that care should be used when granting more power to the EB. Do we care yet?

See, now we should be worried

Rep. Bob Walker, R-Pennsylvania says, "The American people should be deeply concerned that a decision to conduct a raid on Congress was made consciously and evidently at high levels inside the Justice Department and the FBI."

James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin titled his hearing into the matter, "Reckless Justice: Did the Saturday Night Raid of Congress Trample the Constitution?"

A couple of points. One, my post below was somewhat sarchastic. Now I'm not so sure I was that off. Two, I've posted lots of times about the slippery slope of Executive power. The same congress that rubberstamps everything having to do with increasing Executive power and decreasing the Fightin' Fourth is surprised when the EB makes an agressive interpretation when it comes to them. Wow, didn't see that coming. Stensenbrenner has a mixed history. While he was soft on the PATRIOT Act, he did have some hard questions for Gonzalez on the NSA issue, I couldn't find much on Walker (this is a problem with working a blogging at the same time).

In the end, how can Congress be surprised that the EB doesn't respect them when W has 750 "signing statements" to his credit, including ones that put him above the anti-Torture law, oversight for the PATRIOT Act, and other congressional oversight provisions. Maybe, just maybe, if Congress took its adversarial role with the EB seriously, the EB would respect it more. Personally, I think Congress should stop acting like a 16 year old girl smitten with the senior QB.

Oh, now I get it.

With all the NSA hulabaloo, that now, admittedly, has largely faded, the lingering question of why Congress wasn't that concerned may be that they thought they were immune. Key passage they all cite is: Congress "shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either house, they shall not be questioned in any other place."

Makes sense, and I get why its there. However, one has to wonder how concerned lawmakers are with my freedom when they have their own special protections. Granted, Jefferson overestimated its reach.

Couple that with lawmaker's blind eye toward agressive warrant searches, Balko's all over that topic here, for the rest of us schlubs, and once again the issue of having people above the law, either in the Executive or Legislative branches enforce and monitor laws for the rest of us arises.

Again, I think W gets immigration (at least pre-compromise).

While I disagree with walls and guardsmen at the border, to me "protecting our borders" happens at the ports. It is the ports where most figure that something nasty will come in (here's some fun reading on how serious we are-no way anyone's getting throug THAT), I like the speeding ticket analogy.

Yeah, what he said.

I'm just not as good at this as other writers. I blame my High School.

This came from Fox, so Stalin's contractually obligated to agree with every word.

Let's see, who starts the daily critique's again...

Ultimately Stalin, you're concerned with a sex scandal, I'm worried about abuse of power.

What's So Tough to Understand Here?

Before I lay me down, my apology to the president for misinterpreting his "tough talk" on the war in Iraq:

“Saying "Bring it on." Kind of tough talk, you know, that sent the wrong signal to people . . . You know, "Wanted dead or alive," that kind of talk. I think in certain parts of the world it was misinterpreted."

Misinterpreted. Like if you didn't listen closely to what he said above, you could misinterpret it to mean Iraq before the war had something to do with Al-Qaida. But we all know that'd be a hell of a misinterpretation.

I tore my ACLU

The ACLU in concidering a plan to block boardmembers from saying negative things 'bout the number one group protecting the number one, and I don't mean the right to go pee-pee.

"Directors should remember that there is always a material prospect that public airing of the disagreement will affect the A.C.L.U. adversely in terms of public support and fund-raising," the proposals state.

Just to put it out there, I love this group and am a member. After reading this, I seriously concidered cancelling my membership, and still might. But since they haven't enacted this little gem, I'm going to stick with them. But this is a deal breaker and here's why.

The ACLU takes the stance that the people have a right to do and say certain things during a time of crisis where lives are at risk, and they don't want to risk "public support and fund raising?"

I'm hoping this is a leak bysomeone looking to derail the idea, and I hope they succeed.

Please Critique Page 1 of My Hydrablog Graphic Novel

Pressin' for Jesus

"This looks like a job for Muscles for Justice!" I found this reading The Agitator's blog. Pat Robertson, in an effort to boost sales of his snake oil, claims he can leg press 2000 pounds. For perspective, the FSU football team record is 1335 pounds. And Madaline Albright claims she can leg press 400 pounds 10 times. Maybe they should leg wrestle.

I have to be honest, I have no idea what I can leg press. I hope its more than 10 reps of 400 like Mrs. A, but I have to concede that without Robertson's magic potion, I don't think I can get close to 2000 pounds. In Red Dawn, "hate" kept Charlie Sheen warm, maybe it gives Robertson super strength. Malone, you're filled with lots of hate, how much can you leg press?

Petco

The House passed a bill today that requires disaster evacuation plans to account for pets. I think this is an interesting issue. On the one hand, and ultimately, I think it's bad law. The government has a responcibility to the people, not the people and thier pets. I also have a hard time imagining the Superdome full of people and pets. What about people with allergies? Or, what about dogs fighting, getting loose, biting people, deficating, marking their territory, chasing cats, barking, howling, cats caterwaling, what about litterboxes, cat fights, and a whole lot of other issues that now have to be accounted for...or more likely not accouted for until after the next disaster and everyone realizes what a logistical nightmare this idea really is. Again, this is politicians passing laws without context, planning, or any concept of how it will actually work. Just something to say, "Hey I care about you." This is going to be law because who can vote against little boys and their dogs. I can even imagine the attack ad on whoever votes against it. Negative imaging, showing a drowning dog and crying litte girl. Music: BWOOONG. Voice-over, "Senator Blogger voted against saving pets from the ravages of disaster." That's just political death.

On the other hand, and to a much lesser extent, should the government acknowledge that people won't move to shelters if they can't take their pets and try to formulate a plan around that reality? I say "no." But it is an interesting question. I also say, again, let each state establish what they want to do in these cases. I get that "The dog was taken away from this little boy, and to watch his face was a singularly revealing and tragic experience," said Rep. Tom Lantos, a California Democrat, but, while sad, couldn't he privately donate funds to some kind of "Pet Rescue" program? Oh, that's right, why should he spend his time and money, when he can feel just as good about himself by spending mine.

As far as the GOP's Shays, "When asked to choose between abandoning their pets or their personal safety, many pet owners chose to risk their lives." OK, that's the individuals choice. I get that. I love my two dogs, and two fish, I would be absolutely heart-broken if I had to leave them in an evacuation. But that's on me to deal with.

I really, really, believe that during the next mass evacuation and emergency housing issue, this pets thing is going to make matters much, much worse. I wonder how Shays and Lantos will feel then?

That's me, the Unknown Blogger, making friends.

I seem to recall something about "limited."

I know my commentary on this abuse of power is getting old, but it seems like the scope of these seized powers is getting larger everyday. Keep in mind Congress didn't even know about the NSA program until the press ran a story. If you stop investigative reporting, and that includes from the MSM, and MSMRight, we all lose. Notice that Gonzalez "denied that authorities would randomly check journalists' records on domestic-to-domestic phone calls in an effort to find journalists' confidential sources." He doesn't say "could."

Imagine if during Clinton's term, the Executive branch, which retains sole authority to say what is national security and what isn't and doesn't have to prove their decision, arrested Limbaugh for any of the leaks he reported during any of his many scandals or actions. Or, would Hannity feel as able to attack the left if he knew his calls were being monitored during a Democratic presidency?

Agian, has the Cato link says, W won't be president forever. We could be building a portfolio of powers that Hillary could have at her disposal.

Here I go again...

WSJ article, you can read it through this link, about the governemnt and private data mining. While this again touches on an an earlier discussion here (with my last reply), I think it reiterates some key points, and leads to some new questions. Key points are:

"New powers granted to the government under the Patriot Act mean that Washington can secretly access people's records from businesses without having to provide any notification or seek a judge's permission. Companies are in fact prohibited by the law from disclosing that they had received such requests."

And, "The records are supposed to be about people in terrorism and espionage investigations, but the FBI is not required to show how they are connected to any terrorism case."

A couple of questions. One, the only check and balance seems to be the conscience of those in power. I'm really strained to find an instance in history where that worked out well. We're set up as a system of doubt of power, and controls on those who wield it. This is going away.

Two, because the Feds now have a vested interest in what companies record about our lives, they are no longer reliable protectors of our privacy. Issues like what can be gathered, shared, stored, and for how long are can no longer be trusted to the State. Rather than being a protector of the people, the Feds now need as much info on us, and kept for as long as possible. In other words, what should be an adversarial relationship between business and state, is now a cooperative one. Guess who loses in this new relationship? Look, I get why the feds have decided to outsource data collection, its much more efficient and cheaper to have companies do it that develop their own. But the question isn't is it smart for the feds, its is it smart for the citizens to allow it? and more importantly, is it legal?

Finally, I want to be clear, gathering info for a criminal investigation is a crucial step in protecting us all. My point is that I just don't understand why we the people no longer want a judge to voluntarily sign off on what can be done. Why are we so desperate to concentrate more power in the Executive branch? Why are we so willing to give up on the fighting fourth? Why eliminate what's worked though 200+ years, several wars, and a prolonged nuclear standoff?

Having a gay old time?

I see this as a possible Pyrrich victory. Personally, I like the ruling. However, it will give ammo to the FMA (see Malone, no adjectives, as much as I wanted to go with "hateful," "stupid," "un-American" or "dummy-headed," I didn't). Because OK now has to recognize adoptions by same-sex couples from other states and countries, it directly hits the big concern for FMA, namely that one state will have to recognize a "gay" marriage from another state. If I was a FMAer use the OK ruling as an arguement to support the need for the FMA.

Donde esta Casa de Pepe?

Clearly one can dismiss out of hand the charge that requiring English of all citizens is a racist pursuit. That is the type of laughable hyperbole that makes politics nothing more than professional wrestling for people in horrible physical shape. But, even if it is clearly not sinister...is it unreasonable?

If you can't speak English you are unemployable in the more lucrative corners of our economy. Clearly, you can't be a manager of English speakers if you can't communicate with them. Clearly, you can't be a first-responder if you are unable to communicate with the people who will need your help and direction. Clearly, if you are allowed to avoid learning English, you will be left at the bottom of the economic ladder. Encouraging people to learn English is an act of kindness that only serves to improve their lot in this country.

Also, attempting to provide services for people who do not speak English increases the cost of government for all of us. Many urban areas now employ translators. When one considers all the different languages spoken in New York or Boston, these costs can become significant. There are also printing costs and advertising costs that are incurred trying to accommodate this growing segment of society.

I'm amazed that such a sensible effort as encouraging people to learn the language of the country they live in is being opposed by 1/3 of the Senate. There is some truth to the view that in a democracy common sense prevails. But I'm very uncomfortable with how thin the margin of victory is.

When they're better than me I admit it

Catomakes a point I've tried to make in the past, only, not suprisingly, much better. Focus on:

"What I do know is that if Hillary is the next president, she’ll be able to lay claim to a number of vast, extraconstitutional powers championed by right-wingers like, uh, John Podhoretz. Among those powers is the ”inherent executive authority” to wiretap at will and, perhaps, to seize American citizens on American soil and hold them without charges for the duration of the war on terror — in other words, forever."

And:

"Over the last four and a half years, many of the same wailers and gnashers have cheer-led the concentration of unreviewable power in the executive branch, as if George W. Bush would be the last president ever to wield that power."

What everyone seems to forget is that America is a nation of law, not whim. When you give authority to a position, that position retains that authority regardless of whatever whim you may feel about who next holds that position. When the next guy or gal is on the seat, I'm curious if all those who trusted W with this authority, and warned against questioning the President in a time of war will feel the same way? Then I wonder if the horse will have already left the barn.

Mr. Roper's Revenge

Proving the old adage, "He who laughs last, laughs best," Mr. Roper finally has the ability to evict those crazy kids. Black Jack, Missouri plans to evict these types of low-life vagrants from their homes. Not because these families are "dangerous," or because they don't pay rent/mortgages, or for any other reason...well, besides this, apparantly the town has an ordinace that "prohibits more than three people from living together unless they are related by "blood, marriage or adoption." It's some kind of anti-hospitality law I guess, or a "do not help others" law. The net effect is that this family in the town is denied an occupancy permit, and many others will be evicted. So if you and your wife, or you and your son are thinking about letting a buddy crash at your house for awhile, you could be facing eviction in America's most unfriendly town. I'm sure this is somehow good for society, and evicting these families is a wise use of public funds, but as far as I can tell, this is another example of abuse of power in the name of some sort of value system that has nothing to do with "family" or "values." Rather than just leaving honest people alone, the tenor of the country at the present seems to be more coersive and punishment based, especially if people don't conform to some random vision of an "ideal" society.

Hey, I'm not alone

Looks like I'll have more guests at my annual "Libertarian's who vote for Democrats" party than I thought. With a full 41% of all Libertarians identifying as Dems. Looks like I'll be held-over for another gig.

It does make sense. Once you give up the pretense that either party will cut spending, all you're left with as a differentiator is what both parties want to do with their power, and your money. The NeoGOP wants you to do exactly what they want and they're watching, leaving you free to do what they want. The other party is grossly incompetant, but at least I can work their incompetance to my advantage and be left alone.

Ahhh, 'tis a fine time to be an American voter.

W agrees with UBlogger, dissing love lorn supporter Malone in process

Awhile back, there was a debate on this blog about the NSA wiretapping scandal (my post, I can call it what I want). It has now moved from the metaphorical to the actual. Now that the phone companies have given your complete phone records over the the Feds, sans warrant, judicial oversight, or even a second thought, to monitor your every call, and patterns, can we all agree that W feels as I said, which is to make sure you spy on the bad guys, you have to spy on the entire population? Can we also agree that there is nothing "limited" about his intentions? Tack on this little tid-bit (here's the original story), and you can almost watch the Fightin' Fourth get slaughtered. It's like the Bushies are rail-car hunters gunning down Fourth Amendment Buffalo's across the praries of the midwest in some "strategy" to rid the area of hostiles.

I'll be back, I have to change the tinfoil on my head.

The problem with poll politics

When you try to please everyone, you wind up pleasing no one. Take immigration. Bush is trying to appease his radical base, and fair, brilliant minds like myself. He's doing neither. Between, Malkin, "his plan is stupid" to my "his plan is stupid," one thing is becoming clear, W is a uniter afterall.

Watch his poll numbers on this (he who lives by the poll, dies by the poll). While he did have pretty words last night, by the time each side of the issue bashes him for his mollycoddling to the other side, most Americans will just remember one thing, "his plan is stupid." At least until he caves further and just focuses on enforcement.

The neoGOP

The next time someone says they're voting for the Republican because they beleive in smaller government and less spending, you can point to this handy chart and let them know they need a better reason.

Like I said, Watch this very closely

Bush wants to militarize the border with Mexico by sending 5000 non-border troops to the southern border. First, I want to express my dismay with W on this. I originally hoped that he would lead his party to a rational conclusion on immigration because he seemed to really care for and understand the immigration issue. What I should have realized is that it's very difficult for a man with no principles to stand on them. My bad.

So now we're going to send 5000 troops to the border. They won't make arrests, detain, etc and will only be used to help with surveillance. They also will only be there while the border control gets beefed up. My prediction, more troops over time, with an increased role for those troops. But beyond that is the question, "why?" As I've stated before, this is a created issue. Why all this hype and urgency? Yes, people are coming over illegally. No question, but is a wall, or thousands of US troops the answer. Millions of people speed every day, should we post military personnel along the nation's highways? Unemployments hovers around 5%, clearly if you want a job you can find one. Where is the harm that requires these kind of ideas? Are we really at the point where an implied, hyped, or imagined issue merits troop movements? This is blatent poll politics from Bush. Are GOP politicians really willing to send the National Guard in to help ratings, or score political points on an issue they created?

Well, at least one is. In a quote that takes the already pathetic Frist to the head of the class of low-life politicians, he says, "lawmakers who doubt that the National Guard, whose members have served for years in Iraq and went to the Gulf Coast after last summer’s hurricanes, could take on border patrol duty are “whining” and “moaning.”" He sure seems to be taking the awsome responsiblity of troop movements and the impact on them and their families very seriously. When I look at the political parties in this country and their leaders, Frist, Pelosi, Hastert, Reid and Bush, its no surpirse that only three in 10 Americans think either party, or their leaders is worth a damn.

Something that's been bugging me

Sandra Day O'Connor. And no, its not because I won't get to see that frilly, sassy doily thing. It's not because of any of her decisions, well, except for her last one...to retire. Just to be clear, I'm not irked because she chose to retire, it's her life, I'm not irked that it gave a chance for Alito to get a seat as I have no idea how he'll vote, its because of this. She's made quite a name for herself lately attacking Delay and others for their attacks on the judiciary. Even going so far as to coyly throw around words like dictatorship (quick aside, I like the way The Guradian both had and kept track of their correction on the term "brain dead"). What bugs me is that if she really felt this way, why did she step down from the one position in the whole world that would give her the best chance to fight? To stop the what she's trying to stop. How does that work? Keep in mind, the things she's warning against were all happening during her time on the highest court in the land. To be honest, I'm having a hard time thinking about her points on merit. I just keep thinking, if this were a big deal, surely you would have stayed in for the fight. If knowing what you know, and believing like you do, you still wanted to do something else with you days, well, then so do I. Granted, I tend to agree with her, but she's not the one I want holding the flag on this issue.

Financial Scientists

For anyone still paying attention...the Wall Street Journal article has been critiqued on a scientific blog.

Basic gist...an implication is not an observation. However, that fact is regularly ignored in scientific reporting. Why? I'll let you decide that one for yourselves. My views have been well documented.

Seriously, Politics is Not Serious

Hillary gives us tough talk about how kids need to work harder. Hillary trumpets plan to make it easier for college grads to repay their college allowing them to move more cash from the "responsibility" column and into the "beer money" column. Chelsea calls to whine about her comments and Hillary caves. And, I kid you not, some people will actually vote for this person if she runs for president.

Why Politics Is Not Serious

Forgive the inflammatory rhetoric but it is true that there is a PENALTY for seniors who CHOOSE to sign up late for the new Medicare drug handout. This PENALTY is so onerous that it inspired Charlie Rangle to say, "I really think its a cruel thing to penalize people for what has been admittedly a very complex procedure in order to get drugs. To put a penalty for the rest of their lives on our oldest citizens, I think, is just an improper and wrong thng to do." The PENALTY is...I hope your sitting down...$2.31 per month. This is not a serious issue and Charles Rangle is not a serious person.

The article allows the idea that this is a very confusing program. But for some reason it fails to question whether it is needed at all. Somehow, prior to the passage of this boondogle, seniors managed to balance drug costs and other costs. I never witnessed dog food isles clogged with grey hairs at my super market. Or any supermarket. Because seniors were never choosing between food and medicine and gobbling down Alpo to compensate for shortfalls. That was an urban myth, but one uncritically reported by the media. Just as the necessity for this "solution" is being uncritically reported. I've been enlightened by the great minds of Hydrablog time and time again that there is no media bias. And it still amuses me.

Underground, There's Only One Rule: Them or Us

Hydrablog: I'm back baby

Leftenant Limey, you got a lot to learn about C.H.U.D.

Coal Plane

Bush's Energy Information Administration says we're sitting on at least a 200-year supply of coal, and the Air Force, along with businesses large and small . . . well, they dig that.

The Bush adminstration: waging the last war; creating the next energy crisis!

The Universal Whipping Boy

More on Stalin's favorite whipping boys, the media. Just to recap, Stalin feels there's a "bias" in the media against the right, but when he talks about it, it often sounds suspiciously like "conspiracy." But my man steadfastly denies that he really thinks its a conspiracy. To him its not a conspiracy, only "conspiracy like." I dunno, you figure it out. My point is that that "the media" is a business, and puts out what sells copy, or generates viewers. I also maintain, and here's where SM always, and I mean always, gives me a "spit take," that both the left and the right feel that the media supports the other side. The way I figure it in the end is that "the media" is an easy scape-goat for both. It can't report all the stories that everyone thinks is important, and when you think something is important, and its not getting press, well then clearly "the media" is against you. The proof is that they're ignoring crisis x, just to help the left/right. "The media pandered to the Bush administration in the lead up to the war, didn't ask any hard questions, and now they don't cover all the lies to hide their own cowardice," or "The media only reports the bad news coming out of Iraq." Pick your flavor.

An example of "right" bias in the media is this latest dust-up with Rumsfeld and the CIA heckler. The CIA guy asked Rummy why he lied about knowing where weapons of mass distruction are, Rummy says he never said that. Only, he did. Now, you have the Secretary of Defense caught in a bald face, and public, lie about an increasingly unpopular war. You would think that this would be getting some attention from the "MSM," but its just not. Daily Show, of all things, covered it, but everyone else either ignored it, or just covered the act of heckling.

I guarantee that Malone can come up with lots-o-examples of other issues that helped the left. And that's my point.

Things I remember

I remember when Eddie Murphy was a cutting edge comedian.

I remember when superheros didn't die.

I remember when I could stay up past midnight and not be useless for three days.

I remember when Stalin was a triple jump champion.

I remember when M3K was the fastest person on this blog in the 400 meter race.

I remember when courts decided what was legal.

"Issue" Politics

Harris Interactive has a new poll out. Not much new, W is at 29%, congress is at 28%. But looking through the other data, in particular, the data the question, "What do you think are the two most important issues for the government to address?" and this interesting info comes up.

Immigration goes from 2% in 2003 to 16% (the second highest) today. Gas is similar, but there's a catalyst for it. Immigration is a created issue. No one cared until the GOP told them to care. Unemployment's at 5% and the economy is humming.

A cynic would say that the GOP created it, as they did the "Gay Marriage will destroy America" issue (which, while we still don't have an amendment marginalizing Americans, the country still hasn't collapsed-fingers crossed), as an election year issue. Only it looks like this one has backfired. While its easy to rally the base around hating gays, immigrants are harder. They work (like gays), they attend church (like gays), but unlike gays, we all come from immigrants. That and there's nothing inherently creepy about them. I think immigration is a terrible issue for the GOP, its really dividig it, only creating more of an opportunity for the Dems. Bad issue creation.

For all the press that the Dems are getting on their chances in 2008, they rank a whopping 3% higher (20 v. 23%) at the congressional level. I wouldn't plan that "We're Relevant Again" post taking the House party just yet if I were them.

Also interesting in the poll, Social Security is actually down from 25% in 1999, to 4% today. This is after Bush made SS reform the focus of his second term. Nothing's changed and people aren't as worried about it. Oops.

Despite MSMRight carping on about the "War on Christmas" and "War on Catholisism" "Decline of Religion" is at 2%.

Apparantly M3K is all alone in his quest for World Peace at 1%, but it still makes a heckuva answer in all those beauty pagents he enters.

Really interesting to see what American's care and don't care about in that whole section.

If Love for UBlo is a Disability, Then Add One More

20 % of the population is disabled. Um...no it's not. The term "disabled" has simply been stretched to an ubsurd degree so as to count as many heads as possible and justify ever more funding to fight this "growing epidemic". Nothing could be easier to document then all the unworthy cases currently being funded by programs designed to help those who can't help themselves. But, for some odd reason that few on this blog can discern, the media never brings those cases to our intention. Instead, they report statistics of questionable merit to us and consider the case closed. I deserve better!

Throwing up a soft-ball for Malone and all the other "science haters."

Good article on Global Warming in Mother Earth Journal. Wait, I mean Wall St. Journal. Says its free, let me know if its true, or if they lie like all the other corporate widow muggers.

It lays out the case for man-made global warming, but unlike other articles I've read it gets into "why" the data points to man-made, rather than just repeating man-made again and again. Like, for example, I just did.

I thought it was very convincing, and uses real nerdy words like, "Walker Circulation," Pacific decadal oscillation" and "natural variability."

Malone, this is my gift to you.

Looks like Malone's write in campaign worked

Ok Malone, now you can really enjoy the View.

"How it works," a play by the Unknow Blogger

So I guess this is how it works in our democracy.

The Nation: White House, we think you've committed a crime.

White House: (Not bothering to look up from "Family Circus" cartoon) Mmm-hmm...

TN: Seriously, we're investigating

WH: Oooh, "Marmaduke" looks funny today.

TN: Anyway, we need to collect information, or evidence, to see if you've committed a crime.

WH: No can do...classified.

TN: Well...ok then. I guess we're done here.

WH: (Moving on to "Dennis the Mennace") Ha! Got Margaret again.

Hey froggies, the waters getting warmer

First Bush appoints the guy who started the warrentless wire taps to be the new head of the CIA, then it comes out that that very same NSA is collecting and storing data on every call made in the US, but this is OK becasue Bush says, "Our efforts are focused on links to al Qaeda and their known affiliates," and, "The privacy of ordinary Americans is fiercely protected in all our activities." Except that Hayden, while very certain he knows the Fourth Amendment, well...doesn't. In this telling exchange, he shows very clearly that he's not aware of the laws he's sworn to uphold. It may also explain why he thinks he's not doing anything wrong, but alas, he is. I'm still trying to figure out how keeping records of millions on Americans phone calls is a "focused" effort on Al Qaeda.

Seriously, its like these guys read Orwell not as warning, but as a field manual.

Rock-y, Rock-y, Rock-y

I'm back baby

So I'm back from my vacation to London. I visit the most newsworthy site on the net, you're reading it, and find that in the two weeks that I was gone...nothing happened. I fully expected Stalin to make his mark on the blog since I was gone and unable to fully reject his points like I do his little girly shots on the court. But no, like the NeoGOP, he is unable to generate his own points and can only bash the creativity of others. As far as M3K, well, I'm scared of M3K so...well...hey buddy, good to see you again. Well Stalin, get your feet ready to tromp on the sandcastles of my creativity.

Before I get into current events, let me give a quick shout out to London. Great city, probably my favorite world-wide, you know, as far as foreign cities go. We all know that our most sludgefilled cesspool of a town (I'm looking at you Buffalo) is better than the best that any other nation can offer up.

A few things they do right.

One, dollar coin (they call them "pounds" how cute is that?). Always a big fan of this, saves a ton of money. We just need to stop producing dollar bills, and stop making dollar coins that look like quarters. Make them bigger, thicker, look like doughnuts, even square, I don't care, but just please stop making dollar coins look like quarters. (As a side note I also favor getting rid of pennies. If something has so little value that people won't bend down to pick them up off the ground (meaning they're worth less than "free," we should get rid of them. England misses here, they have one cent and two cent coins. Just waisted all that money they saved with dollar coins.)

They speak english. I sure wish all the other foreign countries would follow suit. Much easier to get around.

They use metric, sort of. I'm also a big fan of the metric system, just makes more sense. But they also use miles. Very bizzare. You'll be driving down the road reading everything in k's, and a sign will pop up out of nowhere saying to please drive 15 mph, or that a new exit is in 5 miles. They also use a weight system called "stones." I have no idea what the hell that is.

The underground rules. It got me thinking. The big belief in the US is that mass transit doesn't work. But what I don't hear is how that failure is measured. Its not use, because you could just make it free to increase usership. So it must be cost. Some sort of subsidy hurdle must be used to determine success and failure. But compared to what? Cars? Here's where it gets interesting. I'm curious about the all in cost of cars v. subways. Oil is subsidized, as are the cars themselves, and most importantly the roads are massively subsidized (I'm just focusing on direct costs and ignoring things like health issues due to particulate emmissions, injuries, fatalities, crime, etc). If we're just looking at all-in costs, then cars in Alaska, for example, are a massive failure. Should we abandon them? I think that the car subsidy is so entrenched that it gets ignored. So much so that when people talk of FDR's role in creating big government, they never, ever talk of Ike creating the federal highway system. Talk about a massive increase in govt spending. Even if you still buy the hype that we need an internal network to move troops around the nation in event of an attack, surely we can all agree that we don't need more that two lanes to serve that purpose. If Atlanta needs 12 lanes, that feels like an Atlanta problem, not a Palm Harbor, FL problem, so why are those people paying for it? My gut says that on a per person, per mile base, subways are much cheaper than cars. Its just that the costs associated with cars are so spread out, that they become invisible. Now before Stalin freaks out on me, my point isn't to build more subways, rather that in a free market with no subsidies, my bet is that trains are cheaper, and are/would be more "successful" than currently assumed.

Finally, all prices include tax. If something says 25.45, you pay 25.45. I'm not smart enough to figure taxes so I need this.

That's enough for now. The pound is already killing the dollar, I don't want them to get too heady.

The 1st in a Series of 1 Reports on Pain at the Pump

"Now, I'm just going to work and coming home — not doing anything else," said Kathleen Roberts, who makes a daily, 100-mile round trip from York, Pa., to her teaching job in Baltimore.

***

Hearing talk about short vacations upsets Susan Morang, a psychiatric counselor from Washington, Maine. She helps clients deliver antiques for sale during the summer tourism season.

"Each summer, you have to make the majority of your money to live on the whole rest of the year," said Morang, who has cut her driving to the minimum.

Morang's GMC truck guzzles gas, but she said she needs it to help clients haul their belongings. "A lady paid me $40 yesterday," she said. "I used it to fill my gas tank halfway."