Personal Musings category archive

I was brought up in the Southern Baptist Church.

I am still very much a Baptist, though I happen to attend a Methodist church now.

Baptist beliefs are, I fear, much misunderstood, primarily due to the antics of those who call themselves “Baptists.” Heck, any group of nutcakes who wants to start up some kind of wierd little sect seems to want to call themselves “The So-and-So Baptist Church of the Such-and-Such.”

There are six basic tenets of being a Baptist. Four of them are pretty much standard Christian stuff: the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, and so on.

Two of them are unique:

• Baptism of the Believer: One cannot be baptised unless he or she is able to profess faith. In other words, infant baptism is out (sorry, Methodists).
• Priesthood of the Believer: Though this is fundamental to Protestantism, Baptists take if much farther than anyone else. In the Baptist persuasion, the believer is in charge; the congregation is next, and so on. (I’m a very strong proponent of “priesthood of the believer,” but that’s another story.)

Furthermore, Baptists do not believe in creeds. No true Baptist Church ever repeats a creed.

For, you see, if you are repeating a creed, you are repeating beliefs imposed on you by someone else, thereby violating the principal of “priesthood of the believer.”

The little Baptist Church that I was raised in is a member of the Accomack Baptist Association, which, in turn, is a member of the Baptist General Association of Virginia (BGAV), which, in turn, is a member of the Southern Baptist Convention. (The land on which it stands was donated by one of my ancestors shortly after the unpleasantness of 1781.)

The missionary who founded the church (I believe his name was Elijah Lewis, but I am far from my sources), spent large amounts of time in jail for the crime of . . .

. . . being a Baptist.

A further fundamental principal of Baptists in America is separation of church and state. This dates back to Roger Williams’s founding of Rhode Island, which he founded because he was hounded out of the Massachusetts Bay Colony because of his religion.

Now, of course, the Southern Baptist Convention has fallen into the hands of the pharisees.

The little church in which I grew up has trouble finding pastors because it has (gasp!) women deacons (in the Baptist Church, the Board of Deacons is sort of like the Parish Council, the Board of Trustees, and the Administrative Council all rolled into one–they are the governing body of the church)

So, where am I headed with this?

To here. Give it a a read.

And think seriously about why the Founders decreed that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.

I’ve mentioned Swampwater before. (By the way, the link is to Wikepedia–it might be interesting to investigate the edits to the article.)

Apparently they played Sergeant Rock one time too many:

The Iraqi government said today it has revoked the license of Blackwater USA, a private security company that guards U.S. Embassy personnel in Iraq, following a shootout in downtown Baghdad on Sunday that left at least nine people dead.

Iraqi Interior Ministry spokesman Abdul-Karim Khalaf called the episode the “last and the biggest mistake” committed by Blackwater, whose black sports utility vehicles and agile “Little Bird” helicopters escort diplomatic convoys throughout Baghdad.

He said the decision of the Iraqi government meant that Blackwater “cannot work in Iraq any longer, it will be illegal for them to work here.”

“Security contracts do not allow them to shoot people randomly,” Brig. Gen. Khalaf said. “They are here to protect personnel, not shoot people without reason.”

We shall see whether or not the Iraqi (it is to laugh) government’s declaration has any weight. (Given that the Iraqi government doesn’t even run the blinking Green Zone, let alone Iraqi, well, you figure out the odds.)

It is not good to turn over our security, or the security of our personnel, to persons who are accountable, not to the United States of America, but to some private entity who considers itself accountable to no one.

Addendum, Moments Later:

Brendan has more.

So does Upyernoz.

Addendum, Later That Same Week:

Brendan has even more and Will Bunch weighs in.

Yes, when I was young, that’s what they were called.

DPs.

Displaced Persons.

Now it’s more fashionable to call them refugees.

The Current Federal Administration has created a bumper crop of them in Iraq, but has failed to accept responsibility for its actions.

(And this surprise us how?)

Trudy Rubin discusses the harvest and the craven, despicable failure of the Current Federal Administration to see to the safety of those Iraqis who have aided it (emphasis added):

When President Bush spoke to the nation about Iraq last week he predicted that if American troops left soon, “Iraq could face a humanitarian nightmare.”

He’s right. Things could get worse. But Iraqis already face a humanitarian nightmare as millions of refugees flee their homes to escape ethnic cleansing. More than 2 million are displaced within Iraq, and 2.2 million have poured into neighboring countries, according to U.N. agencies. That’s around a sixth of Iraq’s entire population, many living in desperate conditions, with tens of thousands still escaping monthly.

This is a refugee crisis of a magnitude that can destabilize the entire region. So why didn’t it rate a mention in the president’s speech?

“I’m very puzzled by why it’s gotten such short shrift,” says Kenneth Bacon, president of Refugees International, one of the few international aid agencies addressing the problem.

But we know the reason. As Bacon points out, administration policy is to stabilize Iraq so refugees can go home. Meantime – with stability still a mirage – refugee flows are on the rise as the desperate run for their lives.

This refugee crisis creates a security threat to the region – and a moral challenge to the United States. Among the current and potential refugees are thousands of Iraqis who have been threatened with death because they worked with U.S. officials. Many have risked their lives to help Americans, yet the United States has been pitifully slow in helping those under direct threat. In July, the U.S. ambassador to Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, urged the administration to grant immigrant visas to all embassy staff members in need, after nine U.S. embassy employees had been killed, including a married couple who were kidnapped and executed.

And, of course, as long as the Current Federal Administration continues to play its tune that “Everything is coming out roses!” over there, innocents will continue to die.

For a lie.

But there seem to have been. They date from Lee Iaccoca’s leadership of Chrysler; his acquaintance with Carroll Shelby dated from his days at Ford.

This is a Dodge Rampage.

I use my digital camera frequently on the job. I commonly take 200 to 300 pictures a day when I’m on the jobsite as I work to document procedures and processes at the cooling tower place.

When I started this gig, I switched to rechargeable batteries because I was going through two sets of alkaline batteries every three days.

Normally, I get my rechargeables at Radio Slum, because it’s convenient, because I’ve always gotten value for my dollar there, and because I worked there for a while and have fond memories of that experience.

Frankly, Radio Slum rechargeables wear like iron.

Recently, though, I broke down and bought some store-branded AAs at a major hardware chain, because I wanted some extras and because the store was on my way (I won’t mention their name, but if you have four of them and a wildcard, you have an unbeatable poker hand). On the side of the batteries was written, “15-minute recharge.”

What should have been written was, “15-minute discharge.”

They lasted for three charges. Now they have to be “dispose(d) of properly.”

Back to the Shack.

Ted Sorensen summarizes the accomplishments of the Current Federal Administrator (I shamelessly stole this from Steve over at All Spin Zone.):

We remain essentially a nation under siege. The threat of another terrorist attack upon our homeland has not been reduced by all the new layers of porous bureaucracy that proved their ineptitude in New Orleans; nor by all the needless, mindless curbs on our personal liberties and privacy; nor by expensive new weaponry that is utterly useless in stopping a fanatic willing to blow himself up for his cause. Indeed, our vulnerability to another attack has only been worsened in the years since the attacks of September 11th—worsened by our government convincing more than 1 billion Muslims that we are prejudiced against their faith, dismissive of international law, and indifferent to the deaths of their innocent children; worsened by our failure to understand their culture or to provide a safe haven for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees displaced by a war we started; worsened by our failure to continue our indispensable role in the Middle East peace process.

We have adopted some of the most indefensible tactics of our enemies, including torture and indefinite detention.

We have degraded our military.

We have treated our most serious adversaries, such as Iran and North Korea, in the most juvenile manner—by giving them the silent treatment. In so doing, we have weakened, not strengthened, our bargaining position and our leadership.

At home, as health care costs have grown and coverage disappeared, we have done nothing but coddle the insurance, pharmaceutical, and health care industries that feed the problem.

As global warming worsens, we have done nothing but deny the obvious and give regulatory favors to polluters.

As growing economic inequality tarnishes our democracy, we have done nothing but carve out more tax breaks for the rich.

During these last several years, our nation has been bitterly divided and deceived by illicit actions in high places, by violations of federal, constitutional, and international law. I do not favor further widening the nation’s wounds, now or next year, through continuous investigations, indictments, and impeachments. I am confident that history will hold these malefactors accountable for their deeds, and the country will move on.

The American Medical Association today backed off calling excessive video-game playing a formal psychiatric addiction, saying instead that more research is needed.

A report prepared for the AMA’s annual policy meeting had sought to strongly encourage that video-game addiction be included in a widely used diagnostic manual of psychiatric illnesses.

AMA delegates instead adopted a watered-down measure declaring that while overuse of video games and online games can be a problem for children and adults, calling it a formal addiction would be premature.

In a word, crap.

Not every bad behavior is an addiction.

Sometimes, it’s just bad behavior.

Calling bad behavior “addictions” accomplishes one thing. It gives the persons indulging in those behaviors an excuse to say, “It’s not my fault.”

Give me a break.

So Mr. Libby has been sentenced to 2 1/2 years soft labor (emphasis added):

Defense attorneys countered that Libby deserved probation. Theodore V. Wells Jr., the lead defense attorney, implored Walton to “take into account his entire life and his service to the country.” Wells argued that “it is entirely appropriate for a sentencing judge to take into consideration the good works and the good deeds that a person has done. . . . To take into consideration such personal public service, community service, is not in any way to give someone a break because of his or her status.”

Let us look critically at the Republican concept of good works and good deeds:

Lie to the court and to the authorities; violate the principles of truth, justice, and the American way; be complicit in efforts that ended the career of a competent public servant; and, very likely, cover up your boss’s roll in the whole thing.

Yeah, that’s good works and good deeds.

Bush style.

Addendum, Later that Same Evening:

Attytood.

Addendum, 6/6/2007

Susie.

Steven Chapman (who, thankfully, is not from these parts) in today’s local rag:

There are lots of theories on how to succeed in business. But here’s one that never occurred to me: Poison your customers.

This strategy sounds counterintuitive, since the dead don’t do much buying, but some people think it accounts for periodic outbreaks of food-borne illness. They say you can’t trust the private sector to keep pathogens out of our food, making it incumbent on the federal government to protect us.

The recent episode of lethal pet food is Exhibit A in this case. Adulterated wheat flour made its way from China to factories in the United States and Canada that produce food for dogs and cats. The contamination killed or sickened thousands of animals, and led to the recall of more than 100 brands of pet food.

Many liberals, however, insist that the only remedy is more regulation. “If we expect to have our spinach uncontaminated, our pet food safe, Congress has to give the FDA more resources,” says Donald Kennedy, former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration.

But this case also shows that, when a product goes wrong, everyone in the supply chain has a big stake in making it right. Chinese exporters stand to lose a vast amount of sales if they don’t raise their safety standards. Pet-food-makers face rejection from retailers unless they can show their products pose no danger. Stores that sell tainted goods will send their patrons to the competition.

So, following this logic, the thing to do is to wait until after some folks are dead before ensuring that the food and drug supplies are safe.

Frankly, Mr. Chapman’s misty-eyed bleeding-heart view of business ethics pretty much ignores history–but that’s a pretty common thing these days among those who call themselves “conservative.”

A century ago, American meat packers poisoned American soldiers in the “rotten meat” scandal.

More recently, Enron staffers joked about forest fires while manipulating electricity for California to drive up prices.

Just today, this headline: “Ex-China drug regulator to be executed” for accepting bribes to approve adulterated products.

And those are just a few examples that come to mind without any research.

Mr. Chapman may be somewhat right. No doubt, as these fine, upstanding business persons went about their way, they did not actually intend to harm anyone. They just wanted to cut costs and increase their profit margins.

And to hell with the rest of us.

I grew up on one.

Family farm, that is.

It’s no longer a family farm. We rent it to a large scale farmer who rents many farms–the economics of farming are such that no one could make it on 53 arable acres any more–unless they are 53 acres of chicken coops.

Despite the wild representations of the anti-inheritance tax crowd, family farms are pretty much a thing of the past.

At the same time, I’m certainly no fan of the extreme “animal rights” types who would have us survive on a diet of tofu. (Check out my recipes category–see what I mean.)

But this is one darn good piece of video. And it does contain some truth that those who think that steak somehow just appears out of nowhere wrapped in cellophane in the Safeway meat aisle really need to know.

Even with the editorializing, which lumps good producers with bad, it’s a great piece of satire.

With a tip to Andrew Sullivan.

Rumsfeld:

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld warned yesterday that “moral and intellectual confusion” over the Iraq war and the broader anti-terrorism effort could sap American willpower and divide the country, and he urged renewed resolve to confront extremists waging “a new type of fascism.”

Drawing parallels to efforts by some nations to appease Adolf Hitler before World War II, Rumsfeld said it would be “folly” for the United States to ignore the rising dangers posed by a new enemy that he called “serious, lethal and relentless.”

In a pointed attack on the news media and critics of President Bush’s war and national security policies, Rumsfeld declared: “Any kind of moral and intellectual confusion about who and what is right or wrong can severely weaken the ability of free societies to persevere.”

Moral confusion.

Yeah.

Torture is good. Civil liberties are bad. Up is down. Down is up.

Moral confusion.

Actually, I would guess, having moral confusion sort of implies that one has morals. Let’s forgo that line of reasoning.

There is no confusion.

But Islamo-fascism is not the issue.

By referring to something as “Islamo-fascism,” the current Federal Administration implies that there is some single movement, some single ideology that some manifests itself in Iraq, in Afganistan, in Pakistan, in Lebanon.

Clearly, there is no such single movement. (If there were, why would the Iraqis be so eagerly engaged in killing each other, for heaven’s sake?)

Now, gentle reader, do not twist this into my saying that the United States or, perhaps, Western Civilization, is not threatened. There have been too many attacks for anyone to argue that.

Rather, twist it into this.

The way to defend American and Western values is not to make up phony wars nor to destroy the very values that centuries of struggle and tremendous amounts of blood and treasure have purchased for us. It is to live our values and defend them against their real enemies.

With their policies (and they were, indeed, polices, not acts of rogue corporals and privates) of torture, their intrusion into the personal lives of law-abiding citizens, their determined refusal to obey laws, their continual violation of their own oaths to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America, the current Federal Administration has made itself as much an enemy of American and Western values as any outsider.

Kieth Olbermann said it well. (Yeah, I know this quotation is all over the blogosphere. It deserves to be. Follow the link to see the clip.)

The man who sees absolutes, where all other men see nuances and shades of meaning, is either a prophet, or a quack.

Donald H. Rumsfeld is not a prophet. We end the countdown where we began, our #1 story, with a special comment on Mr. Rumsfeld’s remarkable speech to the American Legion yesterday. It demands the deep analysis – and the sober contemplation – of every
American. For it did not merely serve to impugn the morality or intelligence – indeed, the loyalty – of the majority of Americans who oppose the transient occupants of the highest offices in the land.

Worse, still, it credits those same transient occupants – our employees – with a total omniscience; a total omniscience which neither common sense, nor this administration’s track record at home or abroad, suggests they deserve.

Dissent and disagreement with government is the life’s blood of human freedom; And not merely because it is the first roadblock against the kind of tyranny the men Mr. Rumsfeld likes to think of as “his” troops still fight, this very evening, in Iraq.

It is also essential. Because just every once in awhile… it is right – and the power to which it speaks, is wrong. In a small irony, however, Mr. Rumsfeld’s speechwriter was adroit in invoking the memory of the appeasement of the Nazis.

For, in their time, there was another government faced with true peril – with a growing evil – powerful and remorseless. That government, like Mr. Rumsfeld’s, had a monopoly on all the facts. It, too, had the secret information. It alone had the true picture of the threat. It too dismissed and insulted its critics in terms like Mr. Rumsfeld’s – questioning their intellect and their morality.

That government was England’s, in the 1930’s.

It knew Hitler posed no true threat to Europe, let alone to England.

It knew Germany was not re-arming, in violation of all treaties and accords.

It knew that the hard evidence it had received, which contradicted it’s own policies, it’s own conclusions – it’s own omniscience – needed to be dismissed.

The English government of Neville Chamberlain already knew the truth.

Most relevant of all – it “knew” that its staunchest critics needed to be marginalized and isolated. In fact, it portrayed the foremost of them as a blood-thirsty war-monger who was, if not truly senile – at best morally or intellectually confused.

That critic’s name… was Winston Churchill.

Sadly, we have no Winston Churchills evident among us this evening. We have only Donald Rumsfelds, demonizing disagreement, the way Neville Chamberlain demonized Winston Churchill.

History – and 163 million pounds of Luftwaffe bombs over England – had taught us that all Mr. Chamberlain had was his certainty – and his own confusion. A confusion that suggested that the office can not only make the man, but that the office can also make the facts.

Thus did Mr. Rumsfeld make an apt historical analogy excepting the fact that he has the battery plugged in backwards. His government, absolute and exclusive in its knowledge, is not the modern version of the one which stood up to the Nazis. It is the modern version of the government… of Neville Chamberlain.

But back to today’s Omniscient Ones.

That about which Mr. Rumsfeld is confused is simply this: This is a Democracy. Still. Sometimes just barely. And as such, all voices count – not just his. Had he or his president perhaps proven any of their prior claims of omniscience – about Osama Bin Laden’s plans five years ago – about Saddam Hussein’s weapons four years ago – about Hurricane Katrina’s impact one year ago – we all might be able to swallow hard, and accept their omniscience as a bearable, even useful recipe, of fact, plus ego.

But, to date, this government has proved little besides its own arrogance, and its own hubris. Mr. Rumsfeld is also personally confused, morally or intellectually, about his own standing in this matter. From Iraq to Katrina, to flu vaccine shortages, to the entire “Fog of Fear” which continues to envelope this nation – he, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and their cronies, have – inadvertently or intentionally – profited and benefited, both personally, and politically.

And yet he can stand up in public, and question the morality and the intellect of those of us who dare ask just for the receipt for the Emporer’s New Clothes.

In what country was Mr. Rumsfeld raised?

As a child, of whose heroism did he read?

On what side of the battle for freedom did he dream one day to fight?

With what country has he confused… the United States of America?

The confusion we – as its citizens – must now address, is stark and forbidding. But variations of it have faced our forefathers, when men like Nixon and McCarthy and Curtis LeMay have darkened our skies and obscured our flag. Note – with hope in your heart – that those earlier Americans always found their way to the light and we can too.

The confusion is about whether this Secretary of Defense, and this Administration, are in fact now accomplishing what they claim the terrorists seek: The destruction of our freedoms, the very ones for which the same veterans Mr. Rumsfeld addressed yesterday in Salt Lake City, so valiantly fought.

And about Mr. Rumsfeld’s other main assertion, that this country faces a “new type of fascism.”

As he was correct to remind us how a government that knew everything could get everything wrong, so too was he right when he said that – though probably not in the way he thought he meant it. This country faces a new type of fascism – indeed.

Although I presumptuously use his sign-off each night, in feeble tribute… I have utterly no claim to the words of the exemplary journalist Edward R. Murrow.

But never in the trial of a thousand years of writing could come close to matching how he phrased a warning to an earlier generation of us, at a time when other politicians thought they (and they alone) knew everything, and branded those who disagreed, “confused” or “immoral.”

Thus forgive me for reading Murrow in full:

“We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty,” he said, in 1954. “We must remember always that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear – one, of another. We will not be
driven by fear into an age of un-reason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men; not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were – for the moment – unpopular.”

And so, good night, and good luck.

Has anyone else worried that, if the current Administration lost an election, it might choose to declare the election void under the powers of the “unitary executive“?

Far-fetched?

That such a thought is even thinkable shows how much damage the current Federal Administration has done to the United States of American and its people.

Addendum:

William Arkin fingers the enemy.

Capitol Hill Blue weighs in.

Phillybits and Suburban Guerrilla on the current Federal Administration’s truthiness.

Juan Cole.

RawStory on crying wolf.

And Webster’s has its say.

Given that I spend a good part of my life in Philadelphia International Airport (so much so that I can just about tell you which restaurants are in which terminal), this news story did not bring me joy.

Philadelphia International Airport regularly has the worst on-time performance of any large U.S. airport.

Now, I don’t badmouth PHL the way a lot of my fellow locals do. I’ve been in a lot of airports, and Philly is by no means the worst, when viewed simply between the entrance and the jetways (I nominate Detroit and Dallas for that competition).

Yeah, it’s hard to drive through, but any airport is hard to drive through if you haven’t been there before. (And the signs are certainly far superior to San Jose, where last I boarded a plane.)

You’ve got the normal citizens, who get there occasionally, tentatively looking for their terminals while surrounded by the hoards of limosine, van, and shuttle drivers, who know exactly where they are going and cut-off and abuse the normal citizens mercilessly–that’s the same from Philly to Washington National to Fargo.

Once you get inside, it’s not a bad place to kill an extra hour or two if your plane is late. Indeed, breakfast at Lamberti’s would be a bargain in or out of an airport.

Last night, I booked my next trip. I hope Philly has a good day on my departure day.

I mentioned earlier that my division has been spun off.

Since the sale, we have still been in the old place. I’ve been going to work along the same route I’ve followed for almost eight years, sitting at the same desk, logging into the same domain, doing the same job, answering the same phone. All that has changed is the company name I cite when answering the phone.

We are moving this weekend. Come Monday, I will be doing the same job, but in a different location. No doubt, that’s when the change will really sink in.

Today was weird. I work in Support. Support does not close. Everyone else was at the new building unpacking stuff, but support was still answering the phone at the old place.

At the end, there was just Dave and me manning the phones. We had one computer between us to do computer stuff, four empty cubicles, and lots of dust bunnies that somehow turned up during packing. It was like working in a ghost town, and we were the ghosts.

Monday, we will be answering the phones with the same words. In my case (we get to pick our own greetings), it’s “[Company Name], Frank Bell, how may I help you?” But now it will be in a new place. Assuming we get everything working over the weekend.

It’s been a good run at my previous employer–it was a nice place to work, full of some of the most laid-back, friendliest persons one might hope to find in a workplace.

I will still be surrounded by laid-back, friendly persons, but there will be a lot fewer of them–from being a small part of a company of 10,000 or so persons, we have become a small company of 24 persons.

. . . about The Emerging Republican Majority:

In its recent practice, the radical side of U.S. religion has embraced cultural antimodernism, war hawkishness, Armageddon prophecy, and in the case of conservative fundamentalists, a demand for governments by literal biblical interpretation. In the 1800s, religious historians generally minimized the sectarian thrust of religious excess, but recent years have brought more candor. The evangelical, fundamentalist, sectarian, and radical threads of American religion are being proclaimed openly and analyzed widely, even though bluntness is frequently muted by a pseudo-tolerance, the polite reluctance to criticize another’s religion. However given the wider thrust of religion’s claims on public life, this hesitance falls somewhere between unfortunate and dangerous. Charles Kimball, a North Carolina Baptist and professor of religion, speaks very much to the point: “Although many of us have been taught it is not polite to discuss religion and politics in public, we must quickly unlearn that lesson. Our collective failure to challenge presuppositions, think anew, and openly debate central religious concerns affecting society is a recipe for disaster.”

They should have bought their library system here:

Thousands of books are piling up at New Castle County’s libraries after what officials are calling a “catastrophic” computer system failure that has left librarians unable to log in returned books — and patrons unable to borrow books returned since the crash.

In my other life, I teach training classes and, when I’m not working on training stuff, do tech support for high-end Windows-based security software.

I have been wearing my support hat the last few weeks.

Holey Moley did we get shelled today!

Three people waiting take a call.

Now there are four people waiting, take a call.

Three people waiting.

Oh good! It’s down to two, take a call.

Four people waiting, take a call.

(Why the heck did he do that! That was really dumb! And I’ve read that manual, it says no such thing That was a less than desirable action to take in a Windows environment!)

Take a call: “We had to wait a long time. Could you stay on the line with us?”

“I know you had to wait a long time, it’s been a really busy day. But there are two people behind you. Could you please try what I suggested and call back if it doesn’t work?”

“Okay.”

“Thank you for your understanding.”

Oh, no, It’s XXXX again! I’m going to write my Congressman and demand that computers should require a driver’s license!

“We got it working. Thanks. But when we take the device out to the other end of the 1100 foot cat 5 cable, it doesn’t talk!”

“Ethernet standard for cat 5 is 100 meters.” (Not 330 meters, sheesh! Put more politely, not our problem. Oh, yeah, I told them that three hours ago. Somehow, the ethernet standards haven’t changed in the last three hours.) “Try Dalco or Black Box; if anyone has a signal booster, they will.”

“We’re having XYZ!” (Yeah, you had XYZ when you were in my class last year. You hacked into the database and fixed it on your own. Where have you been?) “Download this utility from out FTP site and go here and do this.”

(Who the hell invented the 800-number anyway?)

It’s back up to four. Take a call.

“You’re the man! It’s working!”

“Nice job, guy! Here’s some information your salesman might like to bring them into the 21st century.” (Link, link, link, link.)

“We will definitely sell them your stuff! I’ll see to that!” (Win some, lose some–we do make good stuff.)

In the meantime, I’m trying to hack into the support database to find out how many calls we took today. The departing manager called this morning with the password, but it didn’t work. More hacking next week.

Take a call.

“No, it can’t do that.” It never could do that, and it never will do that.

Take a call. Take a call. Take a call.

5:10 I was off 10 minutes ago.

Take a call.

And life goes on.

Google is an outfit that doesn’t much respect its users’ privacy for its own purposes. If you use G-Mail, you can get ads based on the contents of your email; Google cookies will outlive your computer (follow the link below to see why).

But Google is standing up to the Miss Grundies in the current Federal Administration to ensure that only Google can mess with what you do on Google (and you do pretty much assume that risk by using Google, don’t you?):

The US Department of Justice has taken Google to court, demanding it hand over all searches made in a one week period. It’s a fishing expedition, unconnected with any ongoing criminal prosecution. The DOJ wants the information to back up its attempt to revive an anti-pornography law derailed by the Supreme Court two years ago.

The subpoena was issued last year, and Google refused the request – but we only learn of the case (this–sic) week, via a San Jose Mercury News report. The DoJ has now ordered a Federal Judge to force Google to comply.

(aside) If someone needs a search engine to find pr0n on the internet, he or she (yes, she) really doesn’t belong on the internet anyway.

Mr. Gore has called for a special counsel to investigate Mr. Bush’s spying:

“A special counsel should be immediately appointed by the attorney general to remedy the obvious conflict of interest that prevents him from investigating what many believe are serious violations of law by the president,” Gore said in a speech to The American Constitution Society and The Liberty Coalition.

Yeah. Fat Chance.

Even given the “Fat Chance” factor, the Republican National Committee fell back on what they do best:

Character assassination:

To: National Desk

Contact: Republican National Committee Press Office, 202-863-8614

WASHINGTON, Jan. 16 /U.S. Newswire/ — Following is the RNC response to today’s speech by Al Gore:

“Al Gore’s incessant need to insert himself in the headline of the day is almost as glaring as his lack of understanding of the threats facing America. While the President works to protect Americans from terrorists, Democrats deliver no solutions of their own, only diatribes laden with inaccuracies and anger.” –Tracey Schmitt, RNC Press Secretary

Mr. Gore has hardly demonstrated an incessant neet to insert himself in the headline of the day

And he is an ex-Senator and the person who out-polled Mr. Bush in the popular vote in 2000. When someone invites him to give a speech, there is nothing wrong with his giving a speech. Sheesh.

Gore Joins MoveOn.Org In Attacking Administration On Wiretapping:

Former Vice President Al Gore: “(T)he President Of The United States Has Been Breaking The Law Repeatedly And Insistently. A President Who Breaks The Law Is A Threat To The Very Structure Of Our Government.” (Fmr. Vice President Al Gore, Address To American Constitution Society And The Liberty Coalition, Washington D.C., 1/16/06)

— Gore: “(T)he American Values We Hold Most Dear Have Been Placed At Serious Risk By The Unprecedented Claims Of The Administration To A Truly Breathtaking Expansion Of Executive Power.” (Fmr. Vice President Al Gore, Address To American Constitution Society And The Liberty Coalition, Washington D.C., 1/16/06)

And this has just what to do with Mr. Bush’s arrogating imperial power to himself and his minions?

Once Upon A Time, Gore Talked Tough About Cracking Down On Terrorists:

In 1999, Vice President Gore Declared: “Hear Me Well – We Will Fight The Reckless Violence Of Terrorism And We Will Never Yield To Terrorism, Ever.” (Joe Carroll, “Clinton Exhorts Parties to Surmount Last Hurdle,” The Irish Times, 3/18/99)

At A 1996 Counter-Terrorism Event Gore Said: “The Bottom Line Is That President Clinton And I And The Members Of This Commission Have Pledged To The Families Of The Victims Of Terrorism That We’re Going To Take The Strongest Measures Possible To Reduce The Risk Of Another Tragedy In The Future.” (Al Gore, White House Briefing, 9/5/96)

And data-mining the communications of Americans without warrants has what to do with fighting terrorism which originates off-shore?

Clinton/Gore Administration Used Warrantless Searches:

Clinton Administration Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick: “(T)he Department Of Justice Believes, And The Case Law Supports, That The President Has Inherent Authority To Conduct Warrantless Physical Searches For Foreign Intelligence Purposes And That The President May, As Has Been Done, Delegate This Authority To The Attorney General.” (Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, Permanent Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. House Of Representatives, Testimony, 7/14/94)

In 1994, President Clinton Expanded The Use Of Warrantless Searches To Entirely Domestic Situations With No Foreign Intelligence Value Whatsoever. In A Radio Address Promoting A Crime- Fighting Bill, Mr. Clinton Discussed A New Policy To Conduct Warrantless Searches In Highly Violent Public Housing Projects.” (Charles Hurt, “‘Warrantless’ Searches Not Unprecedented,” The Washington Times, 12/22/05)

“One Of The Most Famous Examples Of Warrantless Searches In Recent Years Was The Investigation Of CIA Official Aldrich H. Ames, Who Ultimately Pleaded Guilty To Spying For The Former Soviet Union. That Case Was Largely Built Upon Secret Searches Of Ames’ Home And Office In 1993, Conducted Without Federal Warrants.” (Charles Hurt, “‘Warrantless’ Searches Not Unprecedented,” The Washington Times, 12/22/05)

President Bill Clinton: “(T)he Attorney General Is Authorized To Approve Physical Searches, Without A Court Order, To Acquire Foreign Intelligence Information For Periods Of Up To One Year …” (President Bill Clinton, Executive Order 12949, “Foreign Intelligence Physical Searches,” 2/9/95)

Lie. But what else can one expect from these folks?

Meanwhile, Polling Shows Americans Support President Bush’s Decision On Wire Tapping:

“(A Rasmussen Reports Survey Found) Sixty-Four Percent (64 percent) Of Americans Believe The National Security Agency (NSA) Should Be Allowed To Intercept Telephone Conversations Between Terrorism Suspects In Other Countries And People Living In The United States … Just 23 percent Disagree.” (Rasmussen Reports’ Web site, http://www.rasmussenreports.com, Accessed 1/6/06)

— Eighty-One Percent (81 percent) Of Republicans Believe The NSA Should Be Allowed To Listen In On Conversations Between Terror Suspects And People Living In The United States. That View Is Shared By 51 percent Of Democrats …” (Rasmussen Reports’ Web site, http://www.rasmussenreports.com, Accessed 1/6/06)

Spin:

Thirty-three percent (33%) of Americans believe that President Bush broke the law by authorizing the National Security Agency (NSA) program that burst onto the news last month. That’s very similar to the number who believe the President should be impeached and removed from office.

This result is also consistent with earlier data showing that just 26% believe that President Bush is the first to authorize a program allowing the NSA to intercept phone calls between suspected terrorists and U.S. citizens.

The FISA Court Does Not Provide Flexibility Needed To Fight The War On Terrorism:

President Bush: “(T)he (9/11) Commission Criticized Our Nation’s Inability To Uncover Links Between Terrorists Here At Home And Terrorists Abroad. Two Of The Terrorist Hijackers Who Flew A Jet Into The Pentagon, Nawaf Al Hamzi And Khalid Al Mihdhar, Communicated While They Were In The United States To Other Members Of Al Qaeda Who Were Overseas.” (President Bush, Radio Address, Washington, D.C., 12/17/05)

— 9/11 Commission Report: “On January 15, (2000) Hazmi And Mihdhar Arrived In Los Angeles. … After The Pair Cleared Immigration And Customs At Los Angeles International Airport, We Do Not Know Where They Went. … We Do Not Pick Up Their Trail Until February 1, 2000 …” (“Final Report Of The National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon The United States,” The 9/11 Commission Report, 7/22/04)

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales: “The Operators Out At NSA Tell Me That We Don’t Have The Speed And The Agility That We Need, In All Circumstances, To Deal With This New Kind Of Enemy. You Have To Remember That FISA Was Passed By The Congress In 1978. There Have Been Tremendous Advances In Technology … Since Then.” (Attorney General Gonzales, Press Conference, 12/19/05)

The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol: “Remember Moussaoui? Remember August 2001? The FBI Wanted To Go To The FISA Court To Get Surveillance Capabilities Based On What They Found On His Computer, And The Justice Department Decided No. Now, The Patriot Act Did Not Change That Standard Of FISA …” (Fox News’ “Fox News Sunday,” 12/18/05)

— Kristol: “I Wish Bill Clinton Had Done This. I Wish We Had Tapped The Phones Of The People Of Mohammed Atta Here Into The United States If We Discovered Phone Calls From Afghanistan To Him. That Was Why 9/11 Happened. That’s What Connecting The Dots Is.” (Fox News’ “Fox News Sunday,” 12/18/05)

— 9/11 Commission Report: “The Agents In Minnesota Were Concerned That The U.S. Attorney’s Office In Minneapolis Would Find Insufficient Probable Cause Of A Crime To Obtain A Criminal Warrant To Search Moussaoui’s Laptop Computer. Agents At FBI Headquarters Believed There Was Insufficient Probable Cause. Minneapolis Therefore Sought A Special Warrant Under The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act To Conduct The Search … FBI Headquarters Did Not Believe This Was Good Enough, And Its National Security Law Unit Declined To Submit A FISA Application.” (“Final Report Of The National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon The United States,” The 9/11 Commission Report, 7/22/04)

Note that all that is quoted above are opinions. Not once are the provisions of the FISA law cited. Under those provisions, eavesdropping can be initiated without a warrant and the government has 72 hours in which to seek a warrant–and those applications for warrants are almost never turned down.

Bush Administration’s Wiretapping Authorization Has Been Successful:

“Officials Have Privately Credited The Eavesdropping With The Apprehension Of Lyman Faris, A Truck Driver Who Pleaded Guilty In 2003 To Planning To Blow Up The Brooklyn Bridge.” (Peter Baker, “President Says He Ordered NSA Domestic Spying,” The Washington Post, 12/18/05)

Is that the truth, or is this the truth?

With Bush, you can never tell, now, can you?

—-

Paid for by the Republican National Committee. http://www.gop.com.

—

http://www.usnewswire.com/

Lie, spin, lie, spin, lie, lie, spin. The Bush Frug.

. . . just like the old job.

I’ve been sold, along with the rest of my division and our product line.

Temporarily, we are still in the same building, in the same office, surrounded by our former co-workers. Sometime in the next two or three months, we will be moving to our own building somewhere within about 10 miles of where we are now.

I’ve moved over to the new email (Monday, my old employer will set of automatic forwarding of emails from the old address to the new address), I’ve finally gotten used to answering the phone with the new company name, and I’ve been porting some of our documents over to the new logo; I’ll probably also work on the support portion of our website to remove [old company name] and put in [new company name], but it’s still the strangest new job I’ve ever had.

I’m doing the same work, with the same people, at the same desk, using the same phone, computers, fax, and other equipment that I’ve used for the past seven and a half years.

The first paycheck arrived today, and it was signed by someone else. But it came.

One of the stupider claims coming from the current Federal Administration and its surrogates is that the investigation of the outing of Valerie Plame and the resulting indictment of Mr. I. Lewis Libby is somehow “criminalizing politics.” (Link courtesy of Emily Messner in the Washington Post.)

All the investigation is doing is criminalizing criminal behavior. And criminal behavior to further political ends is still criminal behavior.

The Bill of Rights nowhere says that those seeking or holding office may do anything they wish in the interests of accomplishing their political ends.

Daily Sally points out that the public seems to be disengaged from the story, and

And the American people have historically been loth to think ill of their elected officials.

I remember when push came to shove in an earlier time. I was much younger then, home with my family, watching television, watching the news report that Mr. Nixon had dismissed Archibald Cox. My father disappeared from the living room (this was before the time that there was a television in every room) for about 20 minutes.

Now, my father had voted for Mr. Nixon in 1968 and 1972, not because he was a rabid Nixon fan, but because Mr. Nixon seemed to him to be a better choice than Hubert Humphrey and George McGovern. (I voted for Shirley Chisholm in my first election.)

I realized what later what my father was doing. He was calling Western Union and sending telegrams to our elected representatives incongruously assembled: “Impeach Nixon.”

He had reached his breaking point with Mr. Nixon’s lies.

And, compared to the current Federal Administration, Mr. Nixon’s administration was upright and honest.

What they tried to do was steal an election they already had in the bag. And use the IRS and FBI to pursue their political enemies (without benefit of a Patriot Act to give their actions a gloss of legality), and then (and this is what did them in) cover up their actions when their minions got caught.

They did not sell out the treasure of this country to the rich, nor send our young to die for a lie (though one might argue that, in dragging out the Viet Namese War, they perpetuated a war for a lie, a war they inherited from their predecessor), nor did they cloak their treachery in the robes of religious belief.

Ahhh, the good old days. Give me honest political corruption over hypocritical moral corruption any day of the week.

(Discussion Question) When are you going to reach your breaking point with the greed, hypocrisy, and abuse of power of the current Federal Administration?