"Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties. Truth was never put to the worse in a free and open encounter..."
~ Milton
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
~Benjamin Franklin

Reading:
A Fistful of Euros
Andrew Tobias
Angry Liberal
Archy
Bad Attitudes
Common Dreams
Fablog
Hullabaloo
Informed Comment
Madelaine Kane
Mahablog
Obsidian Wings
Off the Kuff
Orcinus
Sarah Kendzior
War and Piece
Washington Monthly

Books
The Emerging Democratic Majority (Judis & Teixeira)
Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them (Franken)
Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot (Franken)
The True Believer (Hoffer)
Still Being Bushwhacked

All Book Reviews
Race, Gender, and Sexuality
It's always "us" vs "them"
Women's March on (fill in your location)
Children learn what their parents teach them.
You Got My Support. But.
Even Endangered Penguins Do It

All Race, Gender, and Sexuality
Campaigns and Voting
Where do we go from here?
It's always "us" vs "them"
Some interpretations
On and on I go
Just appalled

All Campaigns and Voting
Lecture Circuit
It Was 40 Years Ago Today
July 2, 1964
Pledge
May 14-15, 1970
The Erotica of Bare Knees

All Lecture Circuit
Media
The Liberal Media, At It Again
Fairly UNbalanced
P.S.
What's this?
OHMIGOD

All Media
Big Brother
Shoulda' Guessed
Where did my country go?
You know what you never thought you'd read?
Not in his name
Sleight of Hand

All Big Brother
World O'Blog
It's Vocabulary Time!
They wrote it
Mighty-fine blogging
Other People Said....
Phillipines

All World O'Blog
Aimless Ranting
It's always "us" vs "them"
So, I'm thinking with half my brain
Do You Know Peter?
Long, Little Privacy Rant
My Takeaway

All Aimless Ranting
Archives
February 05, 2017 - February 11, 2017
January 22, 2017 - January 28, 2017
January 15, 2017 - January 21, 2017
November 13, 2016 - November 19, 2016
October 09, 2016 - October 15, 2016

All Weekly Archives


Electioneering
Open Secrets
Political Wire Exit Polls
Politics1
Polling Report

Information
American Research Group
Center for Democracy and Technology
Center for Public Integrity
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Congressional Report Cards
Death Row Roll Call
DebtChannel.org
Democracy Now
Economic Policy Institute
FairVote Colorado
Foreign Policy In Focus
Global Exchange
Human Rights Watch
Independent Judiciary
Inequality
Institute on Money in State Politics
Institute for Public Accuracy
JobWatch
Lying in ponds
Media Reform
Media Transparency
Move On
One World
Open Democracy
Pew Research Center
Project Censored
Public Citizen Health Research Group
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
Take Back The Media
The Urban Institute
WHO Outbreak News

Connections
XML & RDF
Peevish for PDA



Blog Directory


Search








Credits
Powered by Movable Type

Site Design by Sekimori





All content © 2002-2005 Anne Zook

May 12, 2006
Tiny, baby steps

That's what erosion usually is. It's the avalanches and the mudslides that make the headlines. but you can nibble an entire continent to death, one bitty bit at a time. And mostly, almost no one will even notice it's happening.

Oh, here and there a guy will notice that he doesn't have quite the room to move around in that he used to. A woman will find herself constrained in ways she never expected A child will find themselves living in a smaller world than they might like. But just a few of them.

On a completely unrelated note, the House of Representatives has voted that it's okay for the federal government to deploy non-National Guard troops, i.e., regular soldiers, on USofA soil.

Just, you know, sometimes. In certain cases. To chase after certain kinds of people.

But it's nothing worry about. Nothing at all. The law allows them to vote to do that if they want to.* They're Conservatives, what do they care about tradition, precedent, or history? There's a legal loophole and it's around playing with soldiers. They can't pass that one up.

Anyhow. It's just the South. Just the border. I'm sure no one would even consider suggesting that this little duty might be expanded to go hunting down terrorists 'illegal immigrants' elsewhere in the country.

So you don't have to care if you don't live in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, or California.

Or maybe Florida. Possibly expanding to Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. (Darn those boat-people.)

And, what with all the truck traffic on the highways, maybe Nevada and Colorado had better expect a little attention. Lotta brown faces in them thar places.

Pondering. Of course, you never know about those Canadians. They let a lot of strange people into their country, don't they?

I wonder if Washington, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Vermont, and Maine have been walking their borders?

Okay. Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Nevada, Colorado, Washington, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Vermont, and Maine.

But only those 24 states. Because it's just a little exeption to tradition. Just where there's, you know, danger that someone might show up looking for work and cause trouble.

_______________________

* Posse Comitatus isn't really the prohibition most people think:

From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress;

Emphasis mine. And, according to the site I read, nuke-chasing was already made an exemption.

And we all know that buck-an-hour migrant laborers are the biggest threat to face this country, after nukes, right?

Posted by AnneZook at 03:57 PM | Comments (1)
May 11, 2006
Um...huh?

Call me clueless, but I don't remember reading about this before.

Not only a story about how British "double agents" in the IRA committed crimes, but rumors that the U.K. and the USofA were the actual perpetrators of some of the "suicide attacks" in Iraq, to make the "terrorists" look more dangerous?

These accusations by Iraqi officials echo insistent but unsubstantiated claims, going back at least to the spring of 2004, to the effect that many of the terror bombings carried out against civilian targets in Iraq have actually been perpetrated by U.S. and British forces rather than by Iraqi insurgents.

The unsettling thing is that we're learning that rumors may be "unsubstantiated" but if they are "persistent", that's usually a sign that there's something going on. Maybe not precisely what the rumors suggest, but something.

Spokesmen for the American and British occupation of Iraq, together with newspapers like the Daily Telegraph, have of course rejected with indignation any suggestion that their forces could have been involved in false-flag terrorist operations in Iraq.

Well, yes. One would hope so.

It may be remembered that during the 1980s spokesmen for the government of Ronald Reagan likewise heaped ridicule on Nicaraguan accusations that the U.S. was illegally supplying weapons to the ‘Contras’—until, that is, a CIA-operated C-123 cargo aircraft full of weaponry was shot down over Nicaragua, and Eugene Hasenfus, a cargo handler who survived the crash, testified that his supervisors (one of whom was Luis Posada Carriles, the CIA agent responsible for the 1976 bombing of a Cuban civilian airliner) were working for then-Vice-President George H. W. Bush.

Well, color us embarrassed.

But seriously. There are a lot of citations in there. There are a lot of different stories discussed. I haven't had time to absorb it all and I certainly haven't had time to follow all the links (although I did read this story, which is related), but I'm going to be thinking about it.

Posted by AnneZook at 08:07 AM | Comments (0)
May 08, 2006
Desperate or Determined?

Everyone from the military to the State Department to…well, to the USDA is being told the use pro-war talking points in all their speeches.

Before we get into today's lecture on how abstinence-only will keep your daughters pure and your sons on the, so to speak, 'straight and narrow' path, let me assure you that population control the war in Iraq is going swimmingly.

And, speaking of brown people important Bush Administration initiatives, let's get rid of the excess brown people all our problems by eliminating bi-lingual ballots. Because we need fewer of "the wrong" people voting. (If, you know, "we" are a bunch of pig-headed, narrow-minded, racists.)

What do you call an Administration who decides to force through a vote on the nomination of a poorly qualified candidate for the Federal Bench? One whose history of ruling in cases where he has a financial interest provides, at the very least, suspicion of misconduct?

What about naming a new CIA head that their own party objects to? (And who seems to be implicated in an illegal spying scandal?)

Are they crazy? Planning a military coup? So far out there in fantasyland that they've lost all connection to reality?

And is the much-discussed "Republican base" so afraid of a little liberal thought that they'll allow themselves to be stampeded by the threat of a Democrat Congressional majority?

The ambitious second-term agenda he helped develop has faltered even with a Republican Congress. His once-grand plans for creating a broadened and permanent Republican majority have given way to a goal of clinging to control of the House and Senate.

I think that's spelled h-u-b-r-i-s, isn't it?

Senate Republicans sent out a fund-raising letter this week seeking to use that possibility to fire up the base, warning that a Democratic majority would put fighting terrorism "on the back burner" and that "our worst fears" could be realized.

For what it's worth? My own worst fears include the idea that my party might gain control of the White House and Congress and then prove to be hopelessly inept, incompetent, and corrupt. So I'm assuming that a fair number of sane Republicans have already seen their worst fears realized.

(For a moment, I almost forgot myself and started caring again. But I don't. I do, however, care about my lunch, and it's getting cold.)

Posted by AnneZook at 12:55 PM | Comments (3)
What About The War?

Iraq. Where, unsurprisingly, things still suck.

Reportedly, Basra is on the verge of "erupting." (But there's no civil war goin' on. Nope.)

Those missing police commandos, their bodies have been found.

An oil pipeline was bombed.

Sixteen people were killed by the latest reported car bomb.

And, as I've said before, studies suggest that many of those "religious jihadists" actually have very secular aims and goals.

If I'm looking for a reason to care, if I'm trying to figure out if all of this blogging is leading to anything better, then on this issue, the answer has to be, no.

Posted by AnneZook at 07:30 AM | Comments (0)