A place for Liam to post essays, comments, diatribes and rants on life in general.

Those fond of Liam's humor essays, they have been moved here.

Saturday, November 25, 2006

Keeping us Safe?

Well, here we go again.

According to the British newspaper "The Independent", there's a new report (link) indicating that in hind sight, the August arrest of the alleged plotters to smuggle liquids on to airplanes has resulted in the escape from capture of one of two teams that was supposed to carry out the plot.

According to the article, as was reported at the time, American Administration officials learning of the plot put pressure on Pakistani officials to arrest a possible suspect well before the British investigation was complete, forcing the British to scramble to pick up the suspects they'd already identified, thus publicizing the investigation and obviously thus notifying the "second team" to lie low.

So while it might be said that there was limited success based on the fact that the plot has not yet materialized, and the new forms of higher security may have kept the second team from enacting THIS plan, perhaps if British officials had been allowed to run their own investigation, this second team might not still be out there, free to plot new mischief.

Like a child awaiting his birthday cake, throwing a tantrum and INSISTING that mother pull it from the oven before it's fully baked, we opted for immediate gratification over allowing someone more intimately involved in the baking process to decide when the time was right.

Dear lord I hope the Democrats can do better once they take office. Bush will still have the White House, but perhaps with the threat of oversight and investigation looming, he'll be a little less apt to stick his hand in the cookie jar before dinner.

Liam.

Monday, November 20, 2006

Spying and Freedom

And finally for this morning, there's this article. It becomes ever more clear to me that this Administration's view of America and mine will never match. Please note as you read the article, that as yet no one in the Administration has given any indication of why the 72-hour retroactive warrant process of the FISA court is in any way too restrictive of their ability to track and monitor terrorists.

Understand as you read the linked article, that while they continue to try to distract us with rhetoric about how anyone who doesn't support their program is trying to harm America, or isn't giving them the tools they need to protect America, what they're actually trying to distract us from is the fact that they do not want to be subjected to reasonable and proper oversight.

Our country was set up the way it is because our Founding Fathers believed in certain core principles, but they also understood human weaknesses. They knew that power corrupts, and they knew that very few people, if any, could be trusted to behave properly given a lot of power and no transparency or oversight. Our system was set up with checks and balances especially to prevent the United States from falling into monarchy, dictatorship or other form of repressive government. When the leaders are subject to the same laws the people are, and subject to open scrutiny to make sure that they are following those same laws, we as a nation have recourse to know that the system will correct any tendencies away from freedom and democracy.

Cheney, Gonzales and the rest are not being honest when they tell you that without these un-checked powers, they can't protect America. That's just an easier sell than “Trust us. We know what we're doing. You don't need to worry your pretty little heads about it.”

Liam.

The Real Story - Glenn Beck

The second thing I wanted to mention today doesn't really require much commentary. It's just a comment by Glenn Beck, interviewing Keith Ellison, the first Muslim to be elected to the U.S. Congress.

During an interview of Mr. Ellison, Beck said “OK. No offense, and I know Muslims. I like Muslims. I've been to mosques. I really don't believe that Islam is a religion of evil. I -- you know, I think it's being hijacked, quite frankly.

“With that being said, you are a Democrat. You are saying, 'Let's cut and run.' And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.'

And I know you're not. I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way.“


And this guy thinks he's helping anything? Glenn Beck-The Real Story: he's a racist.

Liam.

Homosexual Agenda

I'd been rather hoping my blogging would wind down some, now that the elections have gone the way they've gone.

I'd hoped to be able to lie low, at least for a time, at least as long as the Democrats in Congress were keeping the President in check, and the Republicans in the Executive Branch were keeping the Congress in check. Everyone prevented from the extremes of their corruption, no one able to misbehave.

But there are some things which I've read about in the past week that I need to vent about, so here we go. I'll post them in several articles, as I get around to writing them.

First off, there's ... Michael Savage, who declared on his radio show “The radical homosexual agenda will not stop until religion is outlawed in this country. Make no mistake about it.” Oddly, this doesn't comport with what I've seen of the majority of the homosexual agenda in this country. Most gay people that I know just want to be able to live their lives, like any other American. They don't want to stop you from being Christian or Straight or whatever you happen to be... except for homophobic. They'd prefer (as would we all) to be left alone, to be granted the same rights everyone else has in this country.

And, I would point out, Mr. Savage's comment applies just as much in reverse. “The radical Christian agenda will not stop until homosexuality is outlawed in this country.” It rings a lot more true than Mr. Savage's version. I'm not saying that ALL Christians, or even most, are trying to accomplish this, but there can be no question that the most radical of the Religious Right would like to make homosexuality illegal. I've heard them say it. I've honestly never heard anyone from the gay community seriously espouse the destruction of Christianity.

In other words, in my view you lose credibility when you use as part of your justification for outlawing another group the paranoid unproven assumption that that group wants to outlaw you.

Liam.

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

Disgusting Biased Media

Yep, I'm actually going to complain about some biased left-wing media. Normally, I find that the vast majority of the media is horrible but pretty much equally horrible to both sides, and for every example you can give of left-wing bias, I can show you an equal one of right-wing bias.

But there was an example on CNN last night and today that just made me sick. (There was also one from the right on Fox yesterday, but I've come to expect that from that particular source, so I shan't bother to complain about it).

I did most of my poll watching on the MSNBC and Fox News websites. I like to watch more than one, because it can be interesting to see who decides to call which races when.

But anyway, at one point I decided to flip over to CNN.com to see what they were saying, and here was the Senate count on their web site:

Republican: 49
Democratic: 49
Independent: 0

Now, everyone else was correctly reporting:

Republican: 49
Democratic: 47
Independent: 2

I looked at CNN again, wondering at what point Bernie Sanders of VT became a Democrat, and when exactly Joe Lieberman had re-joined the Democratic party. But of course, they hadn't, and after some searching, I found a small footnote (almost too small to read) that said "Independents counted as Democrats".

Now, for most voters, who I believe had the sole objective not of voting FOR Democrats, but of voting to BREAK the Republican stranglehold on power in Washington, the reporting may have been essentially what they CARED about. But it was not honest.

And it was especially blatent because they had that "Independent: 0" line.

So CNN gets my personal award for worst case of bias in election results reporting for the 2006 elections.

Liam.

Election Night Musings

As more and more states' election results are called, you would think this would be a time for me to be happy. After all, the change I felt we so desperately needed has reportedly happened. The Democrats have taken control of the House of Representatives and of what looks to be about 2/3s of the Governorships, with and outside possibility of two tied minorities in the Senate, that tie broken by Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT), which still breaks the Republican death grip on control.

And in truth, a part of my faith has been restored in the system (pending official codification of the results as called by exit polling, something which in 2004 showed a magical ability to swap against all statistical probability). I was honestly beginning to wonder whether we had a Democracy left, or whether the results (at least in electronic voting machine states) were a foregone conclusion. If these results stand, at least it proves that my most terrible nightmares have not come to pass: No one has yet become brazen enough to steal elections in the face of overwhelming evidence that they should lose.

But my goals have not been met, a Democratic win in even some part of the Congress is not and was never the goal, there continues to be work that vitally needs to be done. A short, and by no means complete, list:

1) Serious investigation into Electronic Voting Machines.

Although I'm tentatively ready to admit that it DIDN'T happen (or didn't happen wholesale), these machines are still (by all reports) seriously subject to undetectable voter fraud. I understand the benefits of electronic voting, but there needs to be some form of paper trail.

Perhaps a two-step voting process, whereby the voter casts his or her ballot on the EVT, which then (like an ATM) prints out an official receipt. The voter then compares the receipt to his or her intended vote, ensures that it is correct, and puts the receipt into an old style locked ballot box. In a perfect world, this ballot box would be an optical scan device which again counts the paper ballots (immediate independent vote confirmation) and retains the paper ballots so if someone wants to do a hand count to verify the official tallies, they can do that as well.

In any endeavor as large scale as the U.S. national elections, we'll never find a way to be 100% free of election fraud. Nonetheless, we owe it to ourselves to make it difficult to accomplish. It may still be possible to get dead people registered to vote and stuff ballot boxes, but at least that requires more work than 45 seconds alone with any one of the voting machines for a state.

2) The return of Checks and Balances.

My biggest concern about the Congress since 9/11 is the complete and total lack of any kind of check on Presidential power. I've made no secret of the fact that I consider President Bush's consolidation of executive power and obsessive secrecy to be damaging to the country and possibly unconstitutional, and the biggest reason why I felt we needed a change in control of the Congress is that someone there needs to stand up and say “Hey, wait a second. That's not your prerogative, Mr. President. That's ours here in Congress, and we will not have it taken away.”

In past years, the Congress and the Executive Branch have played a game of tug-of-war even when the same party controlled both. Unified control may have allowed for greater access to one side's agenda or the other, but there was still a strong feeling of “Us” vs “Him” in the Congress, something we need more of in order to preserve the strengths and the greatness of the United States.

Now, whether these checks and balances end up resulting in any kind of censures for the President or impeachment proceedings or whatever, that's really up to the White House, and whether they accept the change in control and begin behaving in the manner prescribed in the Constitution for the Executive Branch, or whether they continue to try to consolidate power, push the bogus “Unitary Executive” theory, and continue to thwart Congressional attempts at Presidential oversight. I have no need to see a second impeachment trial in as many Presidents, I just want to see the fundamental balance of powers restored.

3) The return of bipartisan cooperation.

This may seem at odds with #2, but it is not. To my way of thinking, one of the most detrimental changes to the Congress under Republican control since 1994 has been the fundamental altering of how the Congress does business. According to historians, there was a day when the old traditions were followed, and when the minority party in Congress still had some say and some power. Recognize that majority vs minority generally isn't a matter of huge percentages, and so the power shouldn't be an all-or-nothing proposition either.

The Congress in recent years has moved to consolidate power from the decentralized committees into the hands of the few in leadership positions, and from a somewhat even distribution to a “minority party might as well not even show up” level of first vs second class citizenship. If the percentages now being reported stand, the Democrats will control 55% of the House of Representatives. That shouldn't mean 100% of the power, it should mean 55% of the power.

Decentralize the Congress to the way it used to be, codify some of the old rules in law so that loopholes like the “nuclear option” for ending filibusters on a simple majority are no longer an option, leave the minority party with a level of power befitting the seats that they DO control.

4) The return of Congress actually working.

By all reports, this Congress has been a do-nothing Congress. They have not really accomplished much beyond rubber stamping the President's wishes. They have (if the articles I've read have been correct) set new records for minimum number of days in session, and have apparently institutionalized extremely limited working days. Senator and Congressman used to be jobs, not extremely well paid vacations with the occasional task or two. They work for us. The operative term should be work.

...

I'm sure there's more, and I'll probably blog about it as I think of it. But the important thing here is that Congress (particularly the House of Representatives) was intended to be the voice of the people in Washington, protecting our rights and our interests against those of special interests and power hungry Presidents.

I only pray against any real hope that the Democratic Party will see this win not as a referendum on their own support, but a wake-up call to Congress that we will only tolerate so much corruption, and in return for what corruption we will accept we expect to have our interests well and truly represented.

Good Night.

Liam.

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

Debate Points

As we enter this election day, hopeful that power will right itself again. I was thinking about debatable points. In the last 4 years we went from debating wheter flag burning was wrong but a right, or whether it was wrong (this brings up all sorts of thoughts on fealty, but I'll leave that for later) to debating our basic Constitutional Rights.

We are debating topics that we as a country agreed on over 200 years ago (bill of rights stuff) rather than the old standbys.

Scary.
Janet

Sunday, November 05, 2006

Great Point

An unknown commenter on a random blog I was reading earlier had a great point. I wish I could credit him/her, but it didn't occur to me at the time to repost it, and now I'm not sure who or where it was.

It relates to homosexuality and whether it is a choice or not. Ted Haggard, the recently disgraced Evangelical leader should be absolute proof for anyone that being gay is something you are, not something you choose to be. Can you imagine any circumstances under which he would CHOOSE to be gay, given the extreme vehemence with which he preached against homosexuality? Don't you think that if there was any way for him to choose to be anything else, he would have?

I am convinced (and most studies I've read back this up) that being gay is something you are born, like blue-eyed or dark skinned or alergic to chocolate. The straight people who don't understand this, or who feel that gay sexual urges are dirty and should not be acted upon, ask yourself how many straight people could, if given the wish to even try, remain virginal their entire lives. Ask yourself why so many religious leaders of religions that require vows of chastity are caught having sex.

If you're not gay, be glad of that because of the intollerance faced by those who are born gay. But do not add to that intollerance.

Liam.

A couple of links...

Two links which make a lot of sense to me.

The first from American Conservative magazine.

The second, an editorial published by the Army Times, the Navy Times, the Air Force Times and the Marine Corps Times.

It's not just people on the left who disagree strongly with the Bush Administration.

Liam.

 

Career Education