Tuesday, May 16, 2006

Coffee Table

From Buzzflash:

The Democratic leadership in Congress appears to confirm the emerging nickname of "jellocrats" in that they are still afraid to seriously take on a President who has a 29% rating in the polls. Two out of three Americans disapprove of Bush's performance. What are the jellocrats waiting for? And the jellocrats are still paralyzed by the words "war on terrorism." Bush has lost the war on terrorism in so many ways it will merit a separate editorial we are developing on our recent visit to Ground Zero in New York City. Unless, the jellocrats defang the reptilian whip of fear produced by the use of "war on terrorism" and "9/11," then they will continue to enable Bush's incompetence and brazen illegal actions The jellocrats are condoning UnConstitutional activities (law breaking) by not denouncing nominations like Hayden that are dangerous for America.

I'm going to be spending some time with my kids and family for a while I'll be back soon cuz I need to go to work! Please use this space to keep each other up on the important stuff. Don't quit now, we're about to run'em down!

Monday, May 15, 2006

Good Guy, Or Bad Guy

Game says:

IN A BOLD AND CONTROVERSIAL DECISION, the president authorized a program for the surveillance of communications within the United States, seeking to prevent acts of domestic sabotage and espionage. In so doing, he ignored a statute that possibly forbade such activity, even though high-profile federal judges had affirmed the statute's validity. The president sought statutory amendments allowing this surveillance but, when no such legislation was forthcoming, he continued the program nonetheless. And when Congress demanded that he disclose details of the surveillance program, the attorney general said, in no uncertain terms, that it would get nothing of the sort.

This bit of Presidential cowboyness was brought to you by none other than Democratic Icon FDR.Shall we bash him?Did his party bash him?The Supreme Court had ruled against his tactic but what did FDR say? "I am convinced that the Supreme Court never intended any dictum in the particular case which it decided to apply to grave matters involving the defense of the nation." And he did it anyway.Here we have a President at war doing his very best to defend his Country.An Icon of the Democratic party doing EXACLTY the same thing the Democratic party is so exercised about President Bush for.But this latest program is far less the what FDR did, in the first program all we know is they are listening to international conversations involving known terrorists.In the latest records of calls, with no names attached looking for patterns.I wonder if the mad at Bush types will also trash the history provided here by a liberal Icon.Man, the Democratic party really doesn't stand for anything anymore. Say and do whatever it takes to get elected...

Actually Game only said the last part.

Ron said,

Game, your source please? A rose by any other name is still a rose and so is shit disguised as pertectin us. I wouldn't care if it was a repub, dem or liberal or conservative or fdr or gwb. Unfortunately I wasn't around to fight that fight. Don't blame me or most of the people living today. You are right. Dems suck, problem is Repubs suck worse.

Well, since I gotta do all the work around here.:-) I looked it up all point toward a story in the Spectator.
For conservatives who aren't aware, Richard Mellon Scaife owns the Spectator. If you don't know who he is look it up. He is the rights version of George Soros. Using his big dollars to push his version of reality. Quoting the Spectator to a liberal is like quoting moveon.org to a conservative. Just so you know how much respect you are engendering for your argument.

Now, I have a feeling that Game didn't read the entire argument to get any kind of context. First of all we were dealing with the communications act of 1934. Not the same thing as the law or laws as they are today. Secondly we have proof of people in high places abusing this power a number of times within recent history so we have reason to be suspicious. Especially after all the lies and half truths we have been told.
Here's another part of the article:

You are, therefore, authorized and directed in such cases as you may approve, after investigation of the need in each case, to authorize the necessary investigating agents that they are at liberty to secure information by listening devices direct to the conversation or other communications of persons suspected of subversive activities against the Government of the United States, including suspected spies. You are requested furthermore to limit these investigations so conducted to a minimum and to limit them insofar as possible to aliens.

This procedure is far more stringent and far less intrusive(although still seems wrong) than anything like data mining and such that we are talking about today. Again, many laws and Constitutional decisions have been passed since 1939 concerning communications and privacy. Much has also changed with the technology.

Here is the real heart of the argument. Game honestly belives the President is a good guy and wants whats best for the country and would not use information obtained legally or illegally for anything but fightin terra.
Ron thinks the Presnit is highly suspect, has a Rovain use for the information, and wouldn't hesitate to use it for that or much worse.

Spectator...If you dare!

Roves' World

Presidential adviser Karl Rove blamed the war in Iraq on Monday for dragging down President Bush's job approval ratings in public opinion polls. "People like this president," Rove said. "They're just sour right now on the war."

Oh really, on what planet? Here is todays poll on the right leaning Rassmussen poll

Bush Job Approval
Strongly Approve
Somewhat Approve
Somewhat Disapprove
Strongly Disapprove

It looks to me like the strongly disapprove outnumber those who approve at all. Sounds to me like they just plan don't like him Karl.

What Is Most Effective?

Another reason I find the right totally without respect these days is their wacky one way theme. If you ask about the war on terra you will find it is George Bushs' way or no way. Many fail to see that there might possibly even BE another way to do it. If one disagrees then they are "soft on terra" or hate America or pre 9/11 or blahblah. Frankly I quit taking their guilt trip some time ago. It's gotten to the point that they are actually now in the way of moving America forward. The longer they conceal and obviscate rather than debate the less respect I have for them as contributors of anything worthwhile to the national dialogue.
That said, let's say the NSA stuff is totally legal and Constitutional. Just for hypothetical purposes mind you.
As most of you know I have asked this question on this and many other Bush moves........Is it the best way to use our resources, people and abilities? No one even dares question it. It's the Bush way, it's the One Way.

From Wired News

The promise of data mining is compelling, and convinces many. But it's wrong. We're not going to find terrorist plots through systems like this, and we're going to waste valuable resources chasing down false alarms. To understand why, we have to look at the economics of the system.
Security is always a trade-off, and for a system to be worthwhile, the advantages have to be greater than the disadvantages. A national security data-mining program is going to find some percentage of real attacks and some percentage of false alarms. If the benefits of finding and stopping those attacks outweigh the cost -- in money, liberties, etc. -- then the system is a good one. If not, you'd be better off spending that capital elsewhere.

He as I decided the capitol would be better spent elsewhere.

Finding terrorism plots is not a problem that lends itself to data mining. It's a needle-in-a-haystack problem, and throwing more hay on the pile doesn't make that problem any easier. We'd be far better off putting people in charge of investigating potential plots and letting them direct the computers, instead of putting the computers in charge and letting them decide who should be investigated.

If you are curious as to why he says this go look at the full story for the....full story.

Sunday, May 14, 2006

Seniors Call Out The President

The older you are the more you've seen the ups and downs of this country and the more Presidents you have directly lived through. Of course their are many opinions on the performance of our current President, even among seniors. However when a bunch of oldies from North Carolina, of all places , decide that this is too much for even them to abide by then you have a reason for evaluation.

CHAPEL HILL - President Bush should be impeached, Town Council members unanimously decided Monday night.
The vote was the local body's latest foray into national politics. A local Republican dismissed it as a "move of desperation."
Council members supported a petition from the grass-roots Elders for Peace group, which laid out three charges to justify impeachment:

* Bush "lied to Congress and the American people to launch an illegal war of aggression";
* Bush violated human rights by torturing prisoners at home and abroad and detaining suspects with no due process;
* Bush "unleashed a massive unconstitutional wiretap and spying operation against the people of the United States."

"I think this compels us -- you and all thinking people in the United States -- to move for impeachment," said Nancy Elkins, an Elders for Peace member. "If we don't, what are future citizens of our country going to think we were doing when we were allowing all of this?"

Wow, citizens groups moves are moves of desperation.? Is that guy really on our side.
What will people overseas think when we are trying to spread democracy overseas while at the same time destroying our own?
Certainly, if we are able to defeat the enemies of the Constitution, many will look back at this period as the one where fear turned people into sheeple. Hopefully a lesson that will teach us to avoid it in the future.