O Canada

Happy Canada Day

Recent American Constitution Society Speeches

Yesterday:

Al Gore: Democracy is in danger. I agree. In fact, I do not think the case can be stated strongly enough: the precedent set by Bush v. Gore in the first place has placed us on such a dangerous, dangerous road. I'm pleased to see recognition of that, (see my next link).

That the most serious threat to democracy is usually the accumulation of too much power in the hands of an executive, whether he be a king or a president. Our ingrained American distrust of concentrated power has very little to do with the character or persona of the individual who wields that power. It is the power itself that must be constrained, checked, dispersed and carefully balanced, in order to ensure the survival of freedom. In addition, our founders taught us that public fear is the most dangerous enemy of democracy because under the right circumstances it can trigger the temptation of those who govern themselves to surrender that power to someone who promises strength and offers safety, security and freedom from fear.

Last Saturday:

AUDIENCE GASPS AS JUDGE LIKENS ELECTION OF BUSH TO RISE OF IL DUCE. 2nd Circuit’s Calabresi Also Compares Bush’s Rise to That of Hitler.

“In a way that occurred before but is rare in the United States…somebody came to power as a result of the illegitimate acts of a legitimate institution that had the right to put somebody in power.That is what the Supreme Court did in Bush versus Gore. It put somebody in power,” said Guido Calabresi, a judge on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, which sits in Manhattan.

“The reason I emphasize that is because that is exactly what happened when Mussolini was put in by the king of Italy,” Judge Calabresi continued, as the allusion drew audible gasps from some in the luncheon crowd Saturday at the annual convention of the American Constitution Society.

“The king of Italy had the right to put Mussolini in, though he had not won an election, and make him prime minister. That is what happened when Hindenburg put Hitler in. I am not suggesting for a moment that Bush is Hitler. I want to be clear on that, but it is a situation which is extremely unusual,” the judge said.

Judge Calabresi, a former dean of Yale Law School, said Mr. Bush has asserted the full prerogatives of his office, despite his lack of a compelling electoral mandate from the public.

“When somebody has come in that way, they sometimes have tried not to exercise much power. In this case, like Mussolini, he has exercised extraordinary power. He has exercised power, claimed power for himself; that has not occurred since Franklin Roosevelt who, after all, was elected big and who did some of the same things with respect to assertions of power in times of crisis that this president is doing,” he said.

The 71-year-old judge declared that members of the public should, without regard to their political views, expel Mr. Bush from office in order to cleanse the democratic system.

Deceive, Inveigle, Obfuscate

Po-tay-to, po-tah-to, let's call the whole thing off.


Noonday in the Shade by Paul Krugman. When is a terrorist not a terrorist? When he's a white supremacist, that's when.

U.S. Approved Use of Dogs Against Prisoners

Prozac, stat!

Never mind that anti-depressants may encourage suicide in preteens/teens, Bush wants us all on drugs.

Antidepressant Medications for Children -- "...antidepressant medications themselves may induce suicidal behavior and be ineffective in treating depression in youths"

FDA Issues Public Health Advisory on Cautions for Use of Antidepressants in Adults and Children --

...it is not yet clear whether antidepressants contribute to the emergence of suicidal thinking and behavior. The agency is advising clinicians, patients, families and caregivers of adults and children that they should closely monitor all patients being placed on therapy with these drugs for worsening depression and suicidal thinking, which can occur during the early period of treatment. The agency is also advising that these patients be observed for certain behaviors that are known to be associated with these drugs, such as anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility, impulsivity, akathisia (severe restlessness), hypomania, and mania, and that physicians be particularly vigilant in patients who may have bipolar disorder.

FDA is asking manufacturers to change the labels of ten drugs to include stronger cautions and warnings about the need to monitor patients for the worsening of depression and the emergence of suicidal ideation, regardless of the cause of such worsening.

Bush plans to screen whole US population for mental illness

What is the ulterior motive, here? Getting all of us to commit suicide? Antidepressants as a weapon of mass destruction?

No, it's probably simpler than that (remember, money: follow it), as the British Medical Journal article cited above tells us -- "Drug companies have contributed three times more to the campaign of George Bush,...than to that of his rival John Kerry." He has to do something for them, now, and fishing for customers could work just fine.

Now, just as an aside...where would the money for this 'drugging America' program come from? That doesn't come from the pharmeceutical companies -- they're donating to political campaigns, you see -- so...other social programs, perhaps?

Class War in America

The Fight of Our Lives -- Bill Moyers sings it loud. June, 2004.

I don't have to tell you that a profound transformation is occurring in America: the balance between wealth and the commonwealth is being upended. By design. Deliberately. We have been subjected to what the Commonwealth Foundation calls "a fanatical drive to dismantle the political institutions, the legal and statutory canons, and the intellectual and cultural frameworks that have shaped public responsibility for social harms arising from the excesses of private power." From land, water and other natural resources, to media and the broadcast and digital spectrums, to scientific discovery and medical breakthroughs, and to politics itself, a broad range of the American commons is undergoing a powerful shift toward private and corporate control. And with little public debate. Indeed, what passes for 'political debate' in this country has become a cynical charade behind which the real business goes on -- the not-so-scrupulous business of getting and keeping power in order to divide up the spoils.

We could have seen this coming if we had followed the money. The veteran Washington reporter, Elizabeth Drew, says "the greatest change in Washington over the past 25 years -- in its culture, in the way it does business and the ever-burgeoning amount of business transactions that go on here -- has been in the preoccupation with money." Jeffrey Birnbaum, who covered Washington for nearly twenty years for the Wall Street Journal, put it more strongly: "[campaign cash] has flooded over the gunwales of the ship of state and threatens to sink the entire vessel. Political donations determine the course and speed of many government actions that deeply affect our daily lives." Politics is suffocating from the stranglehold of money. During his brief campaign in 2000, before he was ambushed by the dirty tricks of the religious right in South Carolina and big money from George W. Bush's wealthy elites, John McCain said elections today are nothing less than an "influence peddling scheme in which both parties compete to stay in office by selling the country to the highest bidder."

Follow the money. Always.

Is the Press getting their Feces Cohesive?

Press Briefing by Scott McClellan June 17, 2004.

Q:...you were saying this morning that the findings of the 9/11 Commission, which definitively say that there was no collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, are completely consistent with your position that there was such a collaborative relationship. And I'm just wondering if you could explain how those two disparate thoughts are completely consistent.

MR. McCLELLAN: Sure. If you go back and look at what the September 11th Commission said, they talked about how there had been high-level contacts between the regime in Iraq and al Qaeda. And they specifically pointed out to contacts between Iraqi intelligence officials and bin Laden in Sudan; and they talked about other contacts. And if you go back and look at what Secretary Powell outlined before the United Nations, this was back in February of 2003, he talked about how we know -- this is quote, "We know members of both organizations met repeatedly and have met at least eight times at very senior levels since the early 1990s. In 1996, a foreign security service tells us that bin Laden met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Khartoum and later met the director of the Iraqi intelligence service." So he talked about some of contacts in his presentation to the United Nations.

Q: Right, but the 9/11 --

MR. McCLELLAN: And that is perfectly consistent with what the September 11th Commission talked about in their report yesterday.

Q: But here's where the two positions diverge, and that is that the 9/11 Commission says, yes, there were these contacts, but they did not result in any kind of collaborative relationship. It means the same thing as you and I contact each all the time, but I don't think anybody here at the White House would account you of having --

MR. McCLELLAN: John, we made it clear a long time ago --

Q: -- a collaborative relationship with me.

Or just read the excerpts over at Tom Tomorrow.


I have two things to say:

1. *snicker*
2. About Fripping Time, mainstream press. What, were you waiting for an engraved invitation?

Convention? What Geneva Convention?

Pentagon Admits Violating Geneva Convention

"In a rare admission of violating the Geneva Conventions on prisoners of war..."

Oh, so it's not 'consistent with the principles' of the Geneva Convention anymore?

Glad we got that cleared up, because I thought the President had announced his dedication to the principles behind the convention, even though some of the prisoners in our custody are not legally POWs.

Statement by the Press Secretary on the Geneva Convention May, 2003.

What this announcement signifies is the President's dedication to the importance of the Geneva Convention and to the principles that the Geneva Convention holds. In terms of the treatment of the prisoners, even though the President has determined that they will not be treated legally as prisoners of war, they will be afforded every courtesy and every value that this nation applies to treating people well while they're in our custody. So it will not change their material life on a day-to-day basis; they will continue to be treated well because that's what the United States does.

Now, that was specifically regarding prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, although, one year later,

And when it comes to Iraq, we are bound by the Geneva Convention. It is our policy to adhere to all of our laws and our treaty obligations...

...the President set out some guidelines when it comes to the enemy combatants and the detainees that you may be referring to at Guantanamo Bay, for instance. Al Qaeda obviously was not a signatory to the Geneva Conventions. But the President set out some broad and clear guidelines stating that these detainees should be treated humanely and consistent with the Geneva Conventions...

...the President's guidelines were very clear; they should be treated humanely and consistent with the Geneva Conventions.

Press Briefing by Scott McClellan (May 12, 2004)

Interesting References:

White House Press Briefings
Former U.S. Officials Say Bush Must Go
9/11 Commission

Sigh

Our* (biological) father has cancer. He's had it for a few years now. Colon, now liver. Of all the things that have made me feel bad for him, bad about this whole situation, it is the email I got Friday (or, that was waiting for me since Friday) wherein he mentioned he's down to 2 hours a week of work and on disability.

He can't work. That's the thing that hurts. Without work, what is there to do?

No. Really. This is a serious question.

If you don't have something to *do* with your life, with your hands, with your mind, with your heart and soul -- what do you do?

The eternal question, I guess, faced not only by the ill but by the downtrodden with no chance for advancement in their lives. Those who are stuck being stuck.

*That's the twin 'we'.

What an interesting thing, timing

Unit Says It Gave Earlier Warning Of Abuse In Iraq

Starting in mid-November, one member of the unit began asking detainees, "How have you been treated since you have been in U.S. custody?" It was intended as a tactic meant to make the detainee feel like the interrogator cared, military intelligence personnel said. But the question soon began eliciting vivid and disturbing answers.

When did Miller visit with his 'suggestions' about 'gitmo-izing' Abu Ghraib? September, 2003, wasn't it?

Doesn't that sound like a reasonable amount of time for

a. 'suggestions' to have been implemented broadly
b. someone suffering under these 'suggestions' to be deemed as no longer useful and sent to the Detainee Assessment for a final interview/interrogation?


N.B.: The question hadn't been part of routine assessments previously, so this could be a coincidence.

Because the Principle Does Matter, That's Why

I stumbled over an interesting conversation thread this morning (courtesy of M) wherein either a grad student or low-caste faculty member described being in a lot of male-only meetings recently and finding it disturbing, particularly another (much higher-caste faculty [-- think tenure, kids]) member's consistent use of the male pronoun to denote a generic faculty member or person.

One of the responses to this was one that women hear all the time when we notice these little inadvertant sexisms: why does this bother you?

Because the principle does matter, that's why. Because the affects of sexism are present in that ratio of men to women in those meetings, and because sexism is institutionalized not just in that room, but in the very language used there.

And, most human beings think in words. Autistics sometimes notwithstanding.

And, since most human beings think in words, words matter. "He or she" matters.

I am beginning the study of law, and I've already been warned that the insistence on 'he' as the pronoun for default person is prevalent in what I will be reading for the next three years. I'm going through some 'recommended reading' right now. And you know what? It grates. It grates on the nerves, because "he" is not gender-neutral. It has always grated on the nerves, because it is exclusionary.

I want to hear "he or she", or "he" 50% of the time* and "she" 50% of the time*, because I want to feel fully included. And as long as my language excludes me, I won't.

Simply put, wouldn't it bother you if all faculty in the room where female and all admin assistants were male and the allegedly gender neutral pronoun was "she"? (Which, biologically, one could argue it should be...)

For no other reason than that no matter how hard you tried, you as a 'he' would still be excluded from normalcy by the very language you speak?

For more on this particular subject, read Gender Roles: A Thought Experiment, over at The 3rd WWWave.

[*] 50% -- don't be an idiot and claim I insist on counting pronoun use to introduce equitable division. If I were going to do that, I'd insist on "she", exclusively, for the next two millenia.

Pot, meet kettle

Rich Choices in November

The Bush-Cheney campaign this week stepped up its assault on Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) for being a rich guy. No, make that for being a really, really rich guy.

It is unclear whether the campaign of George Walker Bush (son of U.S. President George Herbert Walker Bush and grandson of Connecticut Senator Prescott Sheldon Bush) and Dick Cheney (worth between $24 million - $107 million; former Chairman and CEO of Halliburton who received a $20 million retirement package to run for vice president) has endorsed this line of attack.

*Laughs hysterically*.

Oh, well, if it protects us from *Terror*

Then it must be OK. (A "LESS CRAMPED" VIEW OF TORTURE)

The International Convention Against Torture (ratified by the US in 1994) says

No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

I don't see how you could get more black and white with that statement. It (said convention against torture) also says

An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Not to mention a couple followup remarks:

Each State Party [and that does include the US -- sid] shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.

And, hey, current US law? Also with the very black and white motif.

Sec. 2340A of the US Code. - Torture

(a) Offense. -

Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

(b) Jurisdiction. -

There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if -

(1)

the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or

(2)

the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.

(c) Conspiracy. -

A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

And let's not forget the Geneva Conventions (I, II, III, IV).

Unfortunately, my government Just. Doesn't. Care.

In order to respect the president's inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign ... (the prohibition against torture) must be construed as inapplicable to interrogations undertaken pursuant to his commander-in chief authority.

Well, yippee.

One Vote, Two Vote, Red Vote, Blue Vote

Known Problems with Electronic Voting Systems

ACM (Association for Computing Machinery), one of the international professional societies, has a group, called "RISKS", that monitors and keeps track of "Risks to the Public in Computers and Related Systems".

In the March 2004 issue of ACM's Software Engineering Notes, there is a summary of issues relating to the risks and problems with Electronic Voting. The RISKS group is able to study the problems and make recommendations, but has no power to modify the voting systems.

Here are some of the known issues. The links point to the original article in the RISKS digests. These articles contain further references to the original sources of the reports. All of this information is verifiable!

How's that joke go?

'I'm out of checks, so I have to stop shopping'?

Well, the US Army is out of bullets. Can we stop fighting?

US Army 'runs short of bullets'

US soldiers are firing so many bullets in Iraq and elsewhere that the army's main supplier cannot keep up with the huge demand...

But a Third World Country With Money

And We'll Spend It Watching You

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The Department of Homeland Security is on the verge of awarding a 15-billion-dollar contract for creating an elaborate system of databases that would track visitors to the United States long before they arrive.

Visit scenic and historic US!

More about US-Visit.

I love the question, "How can I be assured that my privacy will be protected?"

Simple answer: you can't.