Politics

Politically, I’m very liberal — about as far left as one can go without sliding into Libertarianism.

More scary gov’t agencies

by

Information Awareness Office logoHere’s a good one — let’s make the logo of the Information Awareness Office the beloved all-seeing eye of the Illuminati overseeing the entire globe.

Then, just to make things creepier, we’ll toss out two pieces of information. First off, the IAO Mission Statement:

The DARPA Information Awareness Office (IAO) will imagine, develop, apply, integrate, demonstrate and transition information technologies, components and prototype, closed-loop, information systems that will counter asymmetric threats by achieving total information awareness useful for preemption; national security warning; and national security decision making.

Secondly, information about John Poindexter, the man in charge of the IAO:

A retired Navy Admiral, John Poindexter lost his job as National Security Adviser under Ronald Reagan, and was convicted of conspiracy, lying to Congress, defrauding the government, and destroying evidence in the Iran Contra scandal.

Eeek.

(via Boing Boing)

(On a random side note, why does IOCOM come up first on a Google search for ‘illuminati’? I’m guessing they got Googlebombed.)

Even more on TIPS

by

A good article from the Washington Post asking questions about TIPS:

Public vigilance is a good thing, and so is encouraging citizens to alert authorities to terrorist activity. It makes sense to educate people who work at potential targets or at places where lethal cargo may be smuggled. But having the government recruit informants among letter carriers and utility workers — people who enter the homes of Americans for reasons unrelated to law enforcement — is an entirely different matter. Americans should not be subjecting themselves to law enforcement scrutiny merely by having cable lines installed, mail delivered or meters read. Police cannot routinely enter people’s houses without either permission or a warrant. They should not be using utility workers to conduct surveillance they could not lawfully conduct themselves.

(via MeFi)

This doesn’t inspire confidence

by

Is it just me, or does the fact that this image comes directly from a US government website looking at patents and trademarks related to ‘Homeland Security’ not make me feel comfortable?

The more I read about this, the more paranoid I get — and now we’ve got a gov’t webpage coming up with logos featuring eyes peeking through keyholes against a Stars-and-Stripes background?!? Eeeek.

(via Boing Boing)

More on TIPS

by

One of my favorite political cartoonists, Tom Tomorrow, has some wonderfully incisive commentary on TIPS.

Facism is a term thrown about too freely, and I don’t believe we’re at a point that its use is justified — but an oppressive and intrusive government, however you want to label it, does not ride into town wearing the uniforms and waving the flags of recognizable evil. It creeps in slowly, waving the flag of your own country, and speaking the language of patriotism and duty, and at each step along the way, its actions seem plausible and defensible — until one morning you wake up and realize the gulf between the way things were and the way things are has grown so wide that there is no going back. Sinclair Lewis tried to point this out more than a half century ago, and given the current climate, It Can’t Happen Here is well worth re-reading (or reading for the first time, if you’ve never come across it before).

Another book for my reading list….

(via Wil)

Wanna join the secret police?

by

Whee — just in case we weren’t paranoid enough, now our oh-so-friendly government is going to start encouraging us to report on each other. According to this report from an Austrailian news site (no big surprise that it wasn’t a US-based news site that broke the article), “…the Terrorism Information and Prevention System, or TIPS, means the US will have a higher percentage of citizen informants than the former East Germany through the infamous Stasi secret police.” Now there’s a happy thought.

(via Daypop)

Creepy, and very interesting

by

A series of quotes from something I just watched:

History has shown us that strength may be useless in the face of terrorism…

These aren’t people we’re dealing with here. They’re animals. Fanatics, who kill without remorse or conscience…who think nothing of murdering innocent people.

I guess the event that really opened my eyes took place only a few days after my arrival. A terrorist bomb destroyed a shuttlebus…sixty school children. There were no survivors. [They] claimed it was a mistake. That their intended target was a police transport. As if that made everything all right. That day I vowed to put an end to terrorism…. And I will.

Don’t you know? A dead martyr’s worth ten posturing leaders.

That shuttlebus I told you about…the bomb was set by a teenager. And in a world where children blow up children…everyone’s a threat.

“…the difference between a general and terrorist is only the difference between winners and losers. You win, you’re called a general. You lose….”
“You are killing innocent people! Can’t you see the immorality of what you’re doing? Or have you killed so often, you’ve become blind to it?”
“How much innocent blood has been spilled for the cause of freedom in [your] history…? How many good and noble societies have bombed civilians in war? Wiped out whole cities. And now that you enjoy the comfort that has come from their battles, their killing, you frown on my immorality? …I am willing to die for my freedom. And, in the finest tradition of your own [history], I’m willing to kill for it too.”

“…it appears that terrorism is an effective way to promote political change.”
“I have never subscribed to the theory that political power flows from the barrel of a gun….”
“In most instances, you would be correct. But there are numerous examples where it was successful…. Then, would it be accurate to say that terrorism is acceptable when the options for peaceful settlement have been foreclosed?”
“…we cannot condone violence.”
“Even in response to violence?”
“These are questions that [we have] been struggling with since creation.”

“They’re mad.”
“I don’t know any more. The difference between a madman and a committed man willing to die for a cause…it’s begun to blur….”

…there’s a hint of moral cowardice in your dealings…. You do business with a government that’s crushing us. And then you say you aren’t involved. But of course you are. You just don’t want to get dirty.

“You didn’t have to kill him.”
“As a prisoner he would have been a focus for violence as his followers tried to free him. Now, he’s a martyr, but the death toll may be lower — at least in the short term. An imperfect solution for an imperfect world.”

Read more

Good ruling, bad timing

by

Okay — so the Pledge of Allegiance has been ruled unconstitutional, and everyone in the country seems to be up in arms over it.

My take on the whole thing? Good ruling, bad timing. I happen to think that the ruling is quite correct — for a country that is supposed to have a Constitutionally-mandated seperation of church and state, the two words “under God” in the Pledge have always stood out to me as being a bit inappropriate. Of course, when you realize that those two words were added in 1954 as a counter to similar pledges being recited by the “godless commies” during the Cold War, it becomes even more obvious that it was a deliberate blurring of that speration between church and state.

However, I don’t think that the ruling is going to stand. In today’s political climate, with both patriotism and religious fervor running high due to the (ahem) “War on Terrorism”, I just don’t think that even the Supreme Court (should the case make it that high) will have the will to uphold this ruling. A shame, too — no matter my personal religious beliefs, I fully support the decision that was made here.

Simplest solution? Why not just take the words “under God” out of the Pledge?

Political compass

by

Here’s an interesting online test — a Political Compass that adds a vertical Authoritarian/Libertarian line to the traditional horizontal Left/Right line and uses a series of questions to map out your political position. I ended up with a score of -6.12/-5.90, which puts me in the same rough area as Ghandi, from the looks of it. Here’s the analysis, though they recommend that you take the test before reading it.

(via Rebecca Blood)

Exactly

by

To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.

— Theodore Roosevelt

More constitutional fun

by

Following up on a previous post, more troubling news about the blatantly unconstitutional detention of Jose Padilla:

The Justice Department, making its case in a closed meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the United States can hold Padilla until President Bush decides the war against terrorism is over…

In the committee briefing Thursday, government officials said that previous court cases, including a 1942 Supreme Court case, show that U.S. citizens can qualify as ‘enemy combatants’ — the legal term the Justice Department argues allows a person to be held without trial….

The Justice Department told the committee that the executive branch alone has the power to decide when a person qualifies as a combatant, an administration official said.

Now, I certainly don’t want to have a terrorist set off a “dirty bomb” — or any other type of bomb — anywhere. However, if there’s truly enough evidence to arrest Padilla, than he should be arrested and given a trial. Instead, however, an American citizen is being detained indefinitely in a blatantly unconstitutional move.

In the words of Tom Tomorrow:

There you have it, kids. By executive fiat, the Constitutional protections of American citizens are now officially contingent upon the whims of the President. So much for a nation of ‘laws, not men.’ I don’t care what your politics are. If you don’t find this deeply disturbing…well, I really don’t know what to say.