Baby Steps Toward Justice

Today U.S. District Judge John Bates ruled that Congress can subpoena members of the Bush administration. Unfortunately this is not the end of the legal philosophy of executive privilege since Bates also ruled that these aids can still invoke executive privilege in response to certain questions.

It is interesting to me that this article by Reuters chose to say that it is the Democrats that claim politics interfered with hiring and firing decisions at the Justice Department when an internal investigation by the Justice Department itself came to the same conclusion this week.

The bias in Reuters reporting is interesting because of the way it parallels the line taken by the Republican party in response to the decision by the House Judiciary committee to hold Karl Rove in contempt of Congress.

These are all small steps but they are steps on the path that lead to justice and accountability. We may yet falter on the way but it is proof that our system is not broken and still works. Let this be a lesson to all those who vainly spoke of moving to Canada.

That being said, its all well and good to gloat about Bush and the neo-cons who are using him as a vehicle getting their cummupance, but this story has a portion to it that should upset everyone. The problem is that it is buried past the critical first paragraph of most articles. According to the Justice Department's internal report, Monica Goodling the person under Attorny General Alberto Gonzales in charge of hiring, passed over a highly qualified and experienced counter-terrorism attorny because his wife was active in the Democratic Party. Instead she hired a Bush croney who had no experience working with counter-terrorism in any way. So she put political concerns above national security. Its useless to extend this behavior to other Republicans like some are tempted to do. History has shown us that career politicans are corrupt regardless of what party they belong to. The important thing is to be sure that this individual who put all of our lives at risk for her petty concerns takes responsibility for what she has done and faces justice.

The Walk of Shame

In the past I have posted articles detailing problems at the TSA to illustrate the problems with too much "security" and power in the hands of government, or as examples of why the innocent do have something to fear from the depths our privacy has been invaded by the Bush administration. However I have never specifically intended to attack the TSA as an institution. I always assumed the problems were a bottom-up problem resulting from the quality of person they hire and the low wage they pay. Based on this article, it seems that I was mistaken and perhaps it is time to attack the TSA.

The Friday Bacon

Three Panel Soul has a cute comic about bacon ice cream.

The Old Media

OK so the previous post was a bit of an act of contrition toward the old media that gets so much of a beating in the blogosphere because for some reason I have been feeling a bit guilty about the hard time they are given. Except the beating the old media gets is usually justified. If there was more first person reporting of actual news and less fluff and opinion then there wouldn't be any reason to bitch.

This post is a specific bitch about the way the old media has been treating Obama's world tour this week. Not only has there been more coverage of Obama's speeches and doings than McCain's, news outlets have dedicated their fluff space to speculation about what he will do next and commentary on whether his speech in Germany was historic or epic. The LA Times tries at some apologetics for the unfairness here. The unfairness is one thing but the outright bias is another. This kind of tour has happened several times before. An international policy tour by a presidential candidate that was not a sitting president has happened a few times in the past and McCain himself has done so. But this is OBAMA! So even when a program recognizes that fact, they still go out of their way to book a guest that insists this is a one of a kind event.

Obama needs to be on his guard with the media. Howard Dean was a media darling for his campaign till he started criticising them. Then the two faced serpent turned around and destroyed his political career.

In the mean time the freedom haters in the old media are trying to make an issue out of concealed carry in national parks. Concealed carry will be the battleground of the future in gun control since an outright ban is out of the question now.

Criminal Convenience

Fortunately for bloggers like myself there are real reporters out there doing the hard work like research to produce helpfull things like this. If you have ever been outraged by a Bush asministration supporter and found yourself too flustered to back up your claims that various members of the administration might have possibly violated the law, Slate has decided to help all of us with an interactive chart of who did what.

Everyone is Shitting Themselves Over E3

The Electronics Entertainment Expo ceased to be relevant when it became a venue for gaming companies PR departments to masturbate in front of the media rather than a showcase of the latest in electronics for the consumer base. This parallels the fall of the movie and music industries except the video game industry is still going strong. Movie and music companies have been seeing falling revenues and blame piracy and a shift toward video games. Except in a previous posting we have discussed studies that have shown some piracy actually helps music sales. These companies refuse to acknowledge that the mediocre and pedestrian fare they produce might be the reason they can't attract customers. Also, I personally believe that an artist has the right to own and benefit from his creation. However the corporate model of entertainment production where producers dictate creative content and the label owns the final product create an environment that stifles creativity. It doesn't help that independent music and movie producers are being bought up by large media companies because they are profitable and then shut down to trim costs once they are inside the fold of the media giant. The big studios fail to see that it was the niche markets and inherent freedom to create that was the strength of the independent shops. Instead they blame the Internet and pirates and make overzealous moves to defend the copyright (that they swindled away from the artist in the first place) and they wonder why they are perceived as attacking their customer base.

Its like the don't respect the awesome and terrible power of the Internet.

The Friday Bacon

A Tale of 2 Film Buffs

I love movies and watch them often. I have a friend, we'll call her Pear, who also loves movies. We sometimes watch the movies we get with each other, sometimes not. Neither of us has an extensive DVD or, god forbid, VHS collection. We watch so many, that it would be ridiculous to purchase every movie we want to see. Rent? Oh no, no. Pear, as far as I know, has not rented a movie in what may be years. I will occasionally rent one, but it is usually if options are limited. No, Pear and I watch all of our movies for free, essentially.

The fact that my font name is Bloated Nemesis and this is a blog, you could probably make an assumption that I download movies from the log cabin. Well, you would be partially correct, son. That used to be the way to watch movies in the Bauman Manor living room. Downloading has a couple of significant draw backs. The most relevant to this post is the concept that the downloader now has a copy of it. They can spread this copy around as if it is their own. The downloader can become a distributor. Though, I really have no problem with that, I hear there are some rich, fat, selfish dudes in Hollywood who seem pissed about that possibility.

No, the preferred way to view flicks in the Bauman Manor is streaming. It is easy. It is quick. It isn't always reliable. However, it is beautiful. After I watched Bad Lieutenent last week, I could not distribute it to others. I can point someone towards to the site I watched it with, but that is about it. Essentially, it is being broadcast using the log cabin. Now granted, if we applied FCC laws to the peeps who are broadcasting it, they would be shut down.

Pretend it is 1945, and we all love radio. I'm scrolling through the stations and I stumble upon a station I have never heard before. It turns out some rogue electronics nerds with resources set up a tower and started broadcasting with no FCC authorization. Well, those rogue nerds would get in trouble when they were caught. However, those of us who listened to the station would not have legal problems.

So, one of our two film buffs uses log cabin streaming. Well, what does our friend Pear do? She goes to the library. You know, the public library, or that big ass building downtown that has all of the books and homeless people. Ring a bell? Pear watches a lot of movies, all for free. (Well, I suppose technically tax dollars factor in it, but we are working on the individual consumer level right now.) That is completely legal. Shit, you are considered a "good citizen" if you use libraries. Well, it is a slight surprise to some people that libraries often have movies. Lots of them. Good ones, too. Often, many of the same ones you can get from the log cabin. When Pear gets movies from the library, she does not get to keep them. There is a limited time period in which that movie is "hers."

So, in recap. Pear and I both watch a lot of movies. We watch them for free. We have a huge selection to choose from. We have a limited time period in which the movie is "ours." Shit, libraries and streaming both have an unreliability to them. (Even if Pear knows the library has a movie, they may not have it available at that time. When I stream, I often run into server problems or bad copies.) Seems like borrowing media from a library and streaming off of the log cabin are pretty comparable to me.

So, I was just wondering, if the log cabin is the future of information dissemination, and libraries are the past, why is there not a similar legal option on the log cabin to libraries?

Oh yeah, I remember. The log cabin is a new frontier, much like America was up until 100 years ago. The corporations are trying to make the log cabin completely profit driven, and they want to squash anything that is more utopian than them.

We Want To Comply With The Constitution And The Supreme Court, But Just Barely

The freedom haters in the Washington D.C. municipal government have written up a new law in response to the Supreme Court's decision in Heller. This law is crafted to comply with the narrowest interpretation of the Supreme Court's ruling and everyone involved agrees that this law probably does not comply, and there will be years of further litigation. Short of overt corruption and embezzlement, intentionally crafting unconstitutional laws is the most obvious violation of public trust a local government can engage in. These officials are dedicating the taxes of the people of D.C. for years to come in defense of their own belligerence. Their plan is to keep writing unconstitutional legislation that barely complies with the narrowest reading of each loss they suffer, presumably until they stop loosing or those fighting for freedom and our God given rights give up from fatigue.

The law they have written partially complies with the ruling in Heller depending on how much of it you read. The decision says an individual has the right to own a handgun for self defense, so the D.C. freedom haters have decided to allow some kinds of hand guns but not semi-automatics. That is in direct defiance of the part of Heller that says a weapon must be "unusual and dangerous" to be banned. Like most legal phrases that may seem vague but even a cursory glance at past Supreme Court rulings on firearms one will see this language occur and be defined.

The second part of the ruling that the D.C. legislation deliberately flaunts is that the requirement of trigger locks is also unconstitutional because it eliminates the possibility of self defense. You and I understand this as a pragmatic concern. If someone has broken into your home and is threatening you with lethal force you don't have time to find your keys and unlock your gun. D.C. has instead chosen to interpret this as meaning that the Supreme Court objected to the fact that the old D.C. gun ban would have punished someone for unlocking the gun to defend themselves when in immanent danger. So their response is to continue to require gun locks but write an exception where one will not be punished only if there is an immediate lethal threat to the person and only within their home. D.C. Attorney General Peter Nichols said, "We do not want people running around with loaded guns outside." Which shows that in D.C. they are still confusing law abiding citizens with murderous criminals. Its as if everyone is blind to the fact that a thirty year gun ban has done nothing to stop gun violence and that last summer reached a new record in murders for the District.

The extent to which D.C. will register lawfully owned guns is obscene as well. My favorite part of the hubris of these freedom haters is that they have generously decided not to prosecute anyone who was previously in violation of the unconstitutional law, but only if they come forth and register their guns as soon as possible.

The Way They Think Inside The Beltway

Its an interisting commentary on the democrats and how far they have fallen from being a legitimate alternative to the Republicans, that the repeal of the presidential offshore oil drilling ban is seen as a challenge to the Democrats. The President said, “This means that the only thing standing between the American people and these vast oil resources is action from the U.S. Congress.” For many people the immidiate response to that statement is, "good." To the Republicrats in congress who look up to vermin like Joseph Liberman, this statement from the President is a challenge. If they react like they have for the last seven years they will be falling all over themselves to capitulate to the weakest of political pressures. It seems like congress still hasnt gotten the message the voters sent them in 2006, that we are sick of this shit and want some fucking balance and representation in our useless federal government.

Maybe Carlin Was Right

So now there is no one left to vote for. At the beginning of this long election season I could see no difference between Obama McCain and Clinton. They are all the same centrist robot pushed forth by the two big parties. It feels like 1999 again when there was no apparent difference between Bush and Gore. Over time though, like with all politicians, the candidates have revealed which freedoms they hate and what they want to spend our money on.

Yesterday the Green Party announced their presidential candidate will be Cynthia McKinney. Yes, that Cynthia McKinney. Its confusing to me that the Green party would field a candidate that is obviously not capable of being president. This woman has no self control and is fixated on trivial issues. At best, she would be an embarrassment to the country if she were on a world stage, at worst she would spark an international incident with her lack of tact and decorum.

The only reason I mention the Greens here is because I am now at a loss for whom I shall cast my vote. Obama voted for the FISA bill. That's just about the only concrete thing I know about the guy. That and he was a crusader to ban guns until he decided to run for president. McCain is little better. From being the maverick Senator that stood up for what he believed in even if it was against his own party, he has cozyed up to right wing religious fanatics, stood up for the party that betrayed him in 2000, and gone against his own campaign finance laws and ideals. He was an idealistic war hero that stood above the corruption of politics and filth of Washington before he lost the primary to Bush. Now he is just another pandering politician trying to tell you what you want to hear. This election makes me feel like its last call and I am being hit on by a drunk sociopath.

The Libertarians have put forth Bob Barr of all people. Holy fucking mother of everliving fat! Bob fucking Barr! This man was regarded as the most right-wing conservative politician in congress. He was anti-drug, anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, he tried to outlaw all non-Abrahamic religions in the military, and he voted for the PATRIOT act. Now he has criticized his vote for the patriot act, advocated the repeal of the income tax, and paid lip service to legalization of pot, which is apparently sufficient for the party heads of the Libertarian party. This is why I call myself philosophically libertarian rather than identify with the Libertarian party. They are more concerned with taxes and free trade than with actual liberty. So now there is no one left to vote for but freedom hating hypocrites.

Its like a bad movie and they are running out of extras. Seriously, Bob Barr and Cynthia McKinney? This is the best we can do? There are hundreds of people in politics at the national level. Senators, Representatives, Judges, Party heads. Most of us know businessmen and fucking actors that would be better choices. I feel like I am in a poorly written political farce that has run low on budget and can't afford more actors with lines.

Burning Down The House

A man was tazered after he drove around a police roadblock to get to his house that was on fire. The cops say he was resisting, uncomunicative, and reached for a weapon, and drove on the sidewalk endangering people. Except witnesses disagree. Witnesses say he identified himself as the resident, and that the police continued to tazer him after he was handcuffed and pinned to the ground. Also the video on this article shows where he went off the road and that it had no sidewalk.

So I ask you our standard questions: Did use of a tazer save anyones life here? Did the tazer act as a substitute for lethal force where lethal force was called for in the course of the job of a peace officer?

Sure the guy behaved foolishly when he drove around a police roadblock, but he was never a threat to anyone. In a stressful situation where you are panicing from your house being on fire, wouldnt you prefer a bit more discression in your police?

The Friday Bacon: a Fringe Element Original

Lately, there has been a great bit of controversy swirling around the origin of the Friday Bacon, and whether or not there are any pretenders. Rest assured, the other blogger in question began with his bacon thread with a post titled, "The Bacon Post," written in November of 2007, while th'Dave began with "Friday Bacon" column in September of 2007. This should authoritatively settle any disputes.

The Friday Bacon

This is me frying burgers and bacon together. it makes both of them taste much better than just combining the two after the cooking process.

Aparently the whole bacon thing wasn't original, even the concept of the Friday Bacon was thought up by some other blogger. I wish I had thought of it first so I could get all uppity.

Sen. Feingold Breaks it Down

Sen. Feingold, in the video below reminds us why it is that people participate in the democratic process. It's a long lecture, but it's the most authoritative denunciation on the the government's program possible given today's classification restrictions. We can only hope that the ACLU's lawsuit, timed with Bush's signature, forces the judicial branch to step in and hold those responsible for abrogating the rights of American citizens to be held accountable in the way the law proscribes. After all, how strong is the rule of law when the government itself is known to disregard provisions and limitations on its behavior? Why should anyone be allowed to be immune from allegations of rape, for instance? Maybe I'm deranged. But someone really deranged would wonder why anyone votes at all. By the way, that's not a scream you're hearing, it's the utter silence of a society looking on in horror as an elected body completely contravenes their desires.

Obama (D-IL), Yea

That is the sound of Obama voting to set your freedom, privacy, and security back to the days before Nixon. Again a major piece of legislation is pushed through with no real discussion and no in depth understanding of what the law does. Instead the Bush administration and the power hungry, do-nothing senators push their message of fear that has inexplicably continued to work for them for seven years. It helps that there isn't any press coverage.

Remember these are the same people who had sufficient intelligence to prevent 9/11 but failed to. Yet they continue to say they need to listen in on to all of our calls. They continue to say that we need to give protection to the phone companies that may have broken the law in their rush to give all of our information, calls, Internet traffic, and emails to the government. They also continue to say that if you aren't doing anything wrong you don't have anything to worry about. Ahh the old standby of the people who want a police state and the conformists who support them. In case you weren't paying attention in elementary school that is the kind of shit we don't stand for in America. The fourth amendment was the founding fathers declaration that Americans should not have to be subject to such a weak red herring. I have also explained in previous posts why law abiding persons have every reason to have lawful secrets and to fear a government with too much power or information. For example, what if the Democrats decide to create a political smear machine and hunt out every gay conservative through the massive amount of information this will create? Then the law abiding, republicans will see what they have to fear from the fruits of their own fear mongering and lust for power.

What I really came here to do is rail against Obama for voting for fear and against freedom. I was really excited by Obama after his first speech regarding the racist conspiracies circulating in his church. That speech showed real leadership and had the potential of elevating the national dialogue regarding race. I was particularly excited because after months of hearing nothing but the words "hope" and "change" I finally knew something of substance about Obama. I was beginning to understand the rock star level of excitement that surrounded him. The last week has completely eliminated any enthusiasm I once had. Despite the "embarrassing pejorative" Jessie Jackson leveled at Obama, it is true that he has been giving up his convictions to appear more mainstream. Obama has been a crusader against gun rights, and even though I disagree with him, I was disappointed to hear his quiet measured reaction to the decision by the supreme court that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to own a handgun. Then later it was announced that Obama was in favor of the death penalty. I don't particularly have an opinion on the issue but I do know that if you want to get elected in this country, especially at the national level, you better be in favor of the death penalty. Combined with his taking the side of the freedom haters in congress this all spells out that Obama is another political robot just to act as a face. He is the dickless face of a party with no balls. Hows that for a pejorative?

Compassionate Conservatism Gets Compassionate All Over the Environment

So apparently the big news today is that Cheney is an asshole and has been "secretly" trying to suppress testimony regarding global warming. The LA Times has decided to be clever and link this to when Cheney crafted U.S. energy policy in secret, working directly with energy industry lobbyists. They may be reacting to the fact that that story got no mileage seven years ago. It appears that the only reason anyone is paying attention to this latest move by the friendly and lovable members of the Bush administration who only want the best for the American people, is because someone in the Democratic party finally grew some stones and is standing up to this shit.

People on the right fringe give Al Gore tons of crap about "An Inconvenient Truth" but he never even brings up this shit. Its understandable why a respectable person would refrain from pointing the finger at the people who are trying to suppress the truth in order to gain a financial benefit. Usually when one decrys the influence of the big bad oil companies they immediately get labeled as a kook or a conspiracy nut. In some cases this kind of arm waving behavior may be paranoia but when the manipulation of public sentiment is actually happening why can't it be pointed out in a legitimate discussion? Why is the standard response to pointing out information manipulation the logical fallacy resort to ridicule? And why is that the end of the public discussion of the manipulation?

The Friday Bacon

This is the $11 bacon cheeseburger I ate on Friday.

Hand Wringing by Freedom Haters

After the Supreme Court ruled last Thursday that the Second Mendment protects an individual right to own a handgun for self defense there was much hand wringing from self righteous freedom haters across the globe. Editorial pages were filled with bias that dragged the national dialog down. The sense of loss was palpable among those who wished to ban guns. Even from news outlets that one would not particularly expect to have such a bias. Clearly they were upset that they have forever lost the possibility of not only banning guns, not only banning handguns, but also requiring trigger locks, and possibly also having to submit to concealed carry programs. All the editorials combined over the four days would be enough to give the impression that banning of handguns was a mainstream position without regard for whether or not it is true. One of the many reasons the MSM continues its fall from relevancy. Normally all this arguing that fear should trump freedom gets me really upset but now that the point is moot, I allowed myself to feel smug.

The worst hand wringing came from FBI director Robert Mueller who took the opportunity to go off topic and claim that universities are hotbeds for terrorist sympathisers. While he still maintained focus on what he was griping about, Mueller also managed to act as a fear monger when he wondered aloud whether guns would be allowed on university campuses. This after Scalia expressly stated in the majority opinion that gun bans on school and government property remained in effect and are reasonable restrictions on a citizens right to self defense.