The Late Gerald Ford's Home: Golf Course Central

Reading that Ford was actually quite a talented athlete (he could probably wrestle Don Rumsfeld to the ground) and not the stumbler Chevy Chase physically manifested as metaphor for the "accidental President" (and, for a few well-broadcast trips and stumbles), I became curious about his golfing habit. I looked up where he lived: Rancho Mirage, CA . It seems there are some golf clubs there. Isolated as it is, in the desert, I tried to make a list of all the golf clubs/country clubs which appear within about 15 miles:

1. Escena Golf Club
   
2. Desert Princess Country Club
   
3. Cimarron Golf Reseort
   
4. Mesquite golf and country Club
   
5. Canyon Country Club
   
6. Indian Canyons Golf Resort
   
7. Tahquitz Creek Golf Resort
   
8. Mission Hills-Gary Player Course
   
9. Mission Hills Country Club
   
10. Mission Hills-Pete Dye Golf Course
    
11. Cathedral Canyon Golf and Tennis Club
    
12. Tamarisk Country Club
    
13. Morningside Country Club
    
14. Springs Country Club
    
15. Thunderbird Country Club
    
16. Tri-Palm Estates Country Club
    
17. Ivey Ranch Country Club
    
18. Classic Club
    
19. Marriott Shadow Ride Resort
    
20. Rancho Mirage Country Club
    
21. Sunrise Country Club
    
22. Rancho Las Palmas Country Club
    
23. Palm Dessert Greens Country Club
    
24. Desert Willow Golf Resort
    
25. Emerald Desert Golf and RV Resort
    
26. Monterey country Club
    
27. Portola Country Club
    
28. Lakes Country Club
    
29. Oasis Country Club
    
30. Palm Desert Resort Country Club
    
31. Mountain Vista Golf club
    
32. Shadow Mountain Golf Club
    
33. Marrakesh Country Club
    
34. Desert Horizons Country Club
    
35. Vintage Club
    
36. Eldorado Country Club
    
37. Golf Resort at Indian Wells
    
38. Indian Wells Country Club
    
39. Bermuda Dunes Country Club
    
40. Heritage Palms Golf Club
    
41. Indian Springs Golf and Country Club
    
42. Bighorn Golf Club
    
43. Ironwood Country Club
    
44. Reserve Golf Club
    
45. La Quinta Country Club
    
46. Rancho La Quinta Country Club
    
47. La Quinta Resort and Club
    
48. Tradition Golf Club
    
49. Hideaway Golf Club
    
50. Indio Municipal Golf Course
    
51. Golf Club at Terra Lago
    
52. Palms Golf Club
    
53. Trilogy Golf Club at La Quinta
    

That seems to be it. Now, just so's you know I'm not some barefoot yokel, I'm aware that "country club" doesn't necessarily imply a separate golf course. Even so, there's a bazillion golf courses there! Okay, sure, we probably shouldn't count the Ivey Ranch Country Club and the Classic Club, since those are east of I10, and god knows what kind of people are playing golf out there. I don't even want to know who came up with the brilliant "Plantation Club" -- I mean, why not go the whole nine yards and call it "Third Reich's Plantation Club", just to put everyone on notice?

Even so, takes your breath away.

Oh, it's in the middle of a desert. Did I mention that?

Who gives a flying fig about the middle class?

You may recall back when I blogged about "The Winner Take All Society", reviewed in the NYTimes "Class Matters" series in 2005, I pointed out that history seems to be telling us it is time to be rich, and not middle class. My reason: the cold war is over, so, thanks workers for all your hard work in defeating socialism, and now the very wealthy can go back to accumulating wealth, at your expense.

Well, it comes up again in the NYTimes
year in ideas as The New Inequality. It seems that even the average college graduate (Bachelor's degree) are barely seeing their earnings increase against inflation. So, college-boy? You've got a 50/50 chance of being on the losing economic divide. And, this year, two economists showed that the very 0.1 percent increased their pre-tax income to 6.8% of the total income, up from 4.7 percent 10 years ago, and from 2 percent in the 60s and 70s.

The reason, I repeat, is that there is no longer any idealogical constraint against becoming an old-fashioned robber-baron. Between 1920 and 1990, the Soviets would have scored political points with those governments we competed for, if our very wealthy were as wealthy as they are now. And, the average Bachelor's degree holder (average!) would have looked at the very wealthy, and said -- why am I working my ass off so that this joker can have a 9th zero after his income? And that joker can now think to himself, as he demands that 10th zero from the board that will give it to him, "if the workers don't like it, they can go to Cuba!"

This will not change until people look at their losing wages, and realize that they have no recourse but to band together -- either politically or socially -- to shame or produce enough fear in those who vote themselves the 10th zero, that they decide it's time for that increase in salary.

Really, what else changes the distribution in wealth?

Oh, no, I don't believe that a person can do $100,000,000,000 worth of work in a lifetime. I do believe they are benefiting from our legal structure, infrastructure, government, and workforce. Time to reprogressivize the income tax; and keep that inheritance tax in place.

Why George Bush Will Leave the Presidency

Here's the fundamental conflict:

1. The Iraq Study Group report makes clear that the Republican Establishment (personified as James Baker) will not permit George Bush to keep the Iraq war going through the 2008 elections. Either Iraq must be irrelevant by then, or someone who will make Iraq irrelevant by then must come forward to do it for George.
   
2. George Bush will not permit himself to become a President who lost a war. However, that is exactly what he must do, and before November 2007, if he is to make Iraq irrelevant by November 2008.
   

There you have it. The GOPer's solution? Bush leaves, and Cheney -- in "Nixon/China" redux, takes the office with the specific purpose of pulling out. Timeline? To effect a pull-out by end of 2007, Bush must telegraph his intentions to do so by April-May 2007. If he does not do so, look for the new "oversight" of Congress to take a strong bi-partisan tone. The Democrats will not mount impeachment alone -- they do not want the blame for an American government in disarray, after only just gaining back the Congress. So, the GOP will have to take a strong leadership role. Complicating this is the Presidential aspirations of congressional leaders: you can't impeach a president, and then run for President. So, the leaders (McCain, Clinton, et al) cannot take a public role.

Hagel Considers Run for Presidency

It is a great sign for the political status of the country, that someone as even-keeled, considered, skeptical and optimistic as Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska) is considering a run for the Presidency.

See? You don't have to be an histrionic megalomaniac to run for President. The job is open to rational, practical-minded people, too.

It Is Always Darkest..

..when the ship hits the bottom of the ocean. Re: Derek's post "America's Darkest Day" below, those of us who live days thinking about the implications of principles extended to their logical end -- physicists among them -- cannot view the agreement of Congress and the enshrinement in laws the end of Habeas Corpus as anything but an enormous step toward the end of democracy and toward the re-establishment of tyrranical government.

The unassailable rights of an individual are the basis of social contract in a democracy; we each support a government, giving it enormous powers, but knowing that there are lines it cannot cross. We can speak out against it, and it can shout back, but it cannot lift us from our rock and toss us in a dungeon for doing so.. Because it is not illegal to do so, and if we were to demand a hearing with a judge to determine if there is legal basis for our imprisonment, the judge would conclude "No", and we're back home in an hour, because of habeas corpus. Habeas corpus is why we can demand of a police officer to know why we are being arrested. Habeas corpus gave us the phrase, "Justice delayed is justice denied," and we cannot be held indefinitely.

Friends, that is now over in the United States. The United States government can now send people to prison, without justifying it to anyone, for no reason or for any reason whatsoever. They can hold people indefinitely without charge. You would one day, disappear, never to be heard from again.

The moderate enablers in the Republican party try to pat-down those spiky wet hairs: "This is only for terrorists", they say. "This is for enemy combatants." Friends, we have no rights if they are not held by everyone; and what the Republican Party has done is said "No one has these rights anymore", and now we are bickering over what category of person will be treated this way.

So pray that the President does not decide to widen those categories. Because he has the power to do so. Any time. Against any person.

The rule of law! We have no rulers but the rule of law! But when our government removes those laws which bar their actions, which increases their powers to intimidate, supress and nullify those who oppose it, those powers will be used.

America's Darkest Day

I would argue that yesterday was the darkest day in modern American history. Forget political assassinations and days of mass murder, bad fortune in war or finance or politics: The day that our own elected representatives decide that we, their constituents and citizens of this democracy, are no longer entitled to the rights of habeas corpus (first enshrined in our legal heritage via the Magna Carta of 1215), nor necessarily entitled to legal representation, nor to the assurance that our own government will not torture us if it so wishes, is quite simply the worst manifestation of partisan demagoguery we have seen since the last World War.

We can only hope that it does not get worse from here.

Clinton the Demigod

It was only this week that I realized that, since leaving office and having a near-death experience, Clinton had ascended from the ranks of the ex-Presidents to become a demigod.

Key pieces of evidence:

• The Clinton Global Initiative raised $7 billion last week to combat poverty, disease in developing nations, and climate change;
• Clinton showed up on the Daily Show, and held is own against Jon Stewart;
• Clinton showed up on Fox News Sunday, and completely eviscerated Chris Wallace and the whole right-wing terror-propaganda apparatchik machine.

The last, you simply have to see (thanks to TPM for the pointer). Go there - now. Watch. And quake in awe.

9/11 and the Need for Closure

So the President has revealed the 14 suspects who were detained in secret CIA gulags abroad and moved them to Guantanamo. In announcing their transfer to Guantanamo, he pointed to the 9/11 relatives by his side and suggested the need for closure now, 5 years after the attacks.

Here is what closure is not: Detaining the chief suspects in secret locations while fighting court battle after court battle to avoid his responsibility to live up to the Geneva Conventions and our nation's laws. Failing to lay out the evidence against these men in any public forum, so that our enemies abroad can continue to claim that they are innocent. Failing to convict these terrorists in any court. Continuing to push for un-Constitutional legislation to set up special kangaroo courts for these suspects and these suspects alone.

Here is what closure would be: Trying these suspects and convicting them, using evidence presented openly to the whole world, and then locking them up in prison after a free and fair trial.

Personally, I think the Democrats should push for closure. 5 years is long enough.

Median Income Down in 46 of 50 States

In this diary posted on DKos we see that median income has dropped in 46 of 50 states 1999-2005.

This drop in median income is a direct result of Bush administration tax policies, which increase incentive of the very rich to hold the very real increases in worker productivity as corporate (and thus, their) profits.

Are you getting this?

Out of Iraq, Safer at Home

I've got the Democrats' campaign slogan. The Dems need a national platform, just like the GOP in 1994, because otherwise they will fight 100 separate races and fail to capitalize on the complete chaos that the 4-year Republican monopoly on power has created - for the party, for the Federal budget, for our armed forces, and for our standing in the world.

Out of Iraq:

• Pledge to begin a drawdown of forces in the first half of 2007
• Because 62% of the American public agrees with this policy
• Because the ongoing failure of our occupation is not making America safer, but quite the opposite
• Because anyone who wants to "stay the course" in Iraq will vote Republican anyway
• Because Bush & Co. are spending all their time talking about the importance of closing our eyes and trusting them
• Which plays right into Democrat hands if they are just willing to state this intention and put a stamp on it

Safer at Home:

• Pledge to pass legislation implementing each and every one of the recommendations of the 9/11 commission
• Because something like half of these have not even been started on, 5 years after the attacks
• Because Katrina demonstrated that the Bush Administration has learned nothing about how to safeguard American lives in emergency situations, even when they have 5 days' warning
• Because one thing we know is that at some point in the next two years, Americans will be in crisis and will need their government's help, and we want that help to be there for them

The End of the Valerie Plame Affair

Richard Armitage admits to doing it all. Bit of a shocker.

Read Holbrooke

in the WaPost today.

And that way, a few months from now, you cannot say that you never saw World War III coming.

Should the United States Execute George Bush as a War Criminal?

Apparently,
Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez has been going around congress and quietly asking members to consider making legal some of the violations of the Geneva Conventions article 3 that George Bush has already admitted to violating.

He's doing that because the War Crimes Act of 1996 says that US Nationals who violate the Geneva Conventions Article 3 are in violation, and subject to imprisonment and execution under that act (ouch).

So, the Supreme Court has already held that the Geneva Conventions Article 3 applies to the War on Terrorism, and Bush has publicly acknowledge violating it. In fact:

At a July 13 hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Air Force's top military lawyer, Maj. Gen. Jack L. Rives, affirmed that "some of the techniques that have been authorized and used in the past have violated Common Article 3" of the Geneva Conventions. The top military lawyers for the Army, Navy and Marine Corps, who were seated next to Rives, said they agreed.

The bill was originally passed by voice vote in the House (effectively unanimous), and unanimously by the Senate.

What exactly should be done with that?

Rogue Waves make the Science Times

NYT Story.

Totally awesome... Average number present on the world's oceans: 10. Cause: Unknown, but they prefer areas of strong current. Average height: 100 feet. Theoretical maximum: 200 feet. One possible explanation for the ship-swallowing capabilities of the Bermuda Triangle. If I ever decide to go on a cruise ship, I think I will stick with the Mediterranean...

A Call For Pardons

Allow me to be the first to suggest that one of the first official acts of our next President, whatever his or her party affiliation, should be to pardon our current President, George W. Bush, along with his Vice President and cabinet secretaries, for any conspiracy to violate and/or direct violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Geneva Conventions and U.N. Convention on Torture (as codified in US law), and the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act. (I believe this list summarizes the bulk of the crimes known to have been committed by ranking members of the current Administration.) My reasoning goes as follows:

• As President Ford appreciated, prosecution of high-ranking members of the former government sets a poor precedent for the peaceful transition of power in our democracy;
• Stating the plan to pardon these individuals now makes it clear that even though they are not being impeached or subject to active criminal investigation, they are not off the hook;
• Acceptance of the pardon (or even silence regarding it) would serve satisfactorily as an acknowledgment of guilt, and partial act of repentance (see, e.g., Nixon);
• Refusal of the pardon, by contrast, would imply a willingness to be investigated and stand trial for these crimes;
• Acceptance of the pardon would make it clear to international courts that these crimes are not going to be tried in the U.S. (not likely in any case), and would thus allow any individuals to pursue their own remedy through these courts.

An Independence Day Meditation

On the anniversary of our nation's declaration of independence from the arbitrary rule of a man - unconstrained by Constitution, checks, or balances - two quotes:

You really don't have any civil liberties if you're dead.
  — Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS), February 3, 2006

Give me liberty or give me death.
  — Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775

I suggest that this election year presents our nation once again (for the 460th time, more or less) with a choice between these two contrary approaches to the problem of governance in the face of a mortal enemy.

An Administration of War Criminals

Well, it looks like killing the newspapers won't be enough - the Administration needs to get rid of at least one more Supreme Court Justice, as well, to cement its deathgrip on superconstitutional power.

The Hamdan decision today (NYT coverage) is notable for several reasons, but I will focus here on one in particular. A majority of the Supremes ruled that the Geneva Conventions (in particular, its "Common Article 3" provisions for the treatment of prisoners), is binding on the government generally, even in the "war on terrorism" and the ongoing conflict with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

This represents a direct overruling of the twisted arguments of our Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, our Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and their bosses the President and Vice President, that US law allows for torture of foreign noncombatants and even the occasional US citizen. Over at SCOTUSblog, Marty Lederman argues that CIA and military personnel who have relied on those arguments to justify their acts of torture since 9/11 may have legal recourse, but any who torture even a single prisoner going forward will be guilty of war crimes (and subject to the death penalty if convicted).

From a somewhat broader perspective, since these policies were promulgated from the top of the Administration, without much (if any) regard for whether they were consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, and are now shown to be in violation of them, I would argue, the Supreme Court has judged this to be an Administration of war criminals.

The Duds of 'The Devil Wears Prada' - New York Times

Clothes of the movie are reviewed at the NYTimes. My point, which I've made before: fashion is the new architecture. Everybody's going to have to bone up, and have *something* to say about it.

Get reading!

First thing we do, let's kill all the newspapers

The NYT recently exposed yet another "anti-terrorist" program of this Administration, the systematic data-mining of bank and financial institution records: NYT story.

Just to remind you of the litany, here are the programs we know of now thanks to the combined efforts of whistle-blowers & journalists:

• Blanket NSA wiretaps of calls with one terminus (or sometimes both, oops!) in the United States (NYT, which delayed publication at the Administration's request until after the Nov 2004 elections);
• Datamining of all domestic calling records (USA Today; one or two phone companies refused to comply);
• Datamining of international financial transactions for individuals suspected of terrorist ties (NYT, above).

The Administration and GOP allies are calling for a criminal investigation of the NYT and its reporters in this latest case: NYT story. This goes beyond the leak investigations spurred by the earlier stories - which threatened only the unknown officials, who may violate the law in the course of leaking classified information.

I would argue that there is nothing more threatening to our system of government than having the Executive and Legislative Branches banding together to kill the newspapers and their right to report on the doings of that government, both covert and overt. The current round of press attacks, led by Cheney and Bush personally, represents the absolute Nixonian apotheosis of this Administration.

Why Eighteen-Year-Olds should Not Be Trusted to Name Military Operations

ABC News: Coalition Troops Prepare Afghan Offensive. The name of the offensive? Operation Mountain Thrust. No kidding. Really.

I think it's being led by General T. Bagmyballs.

Why focusing on Al-Qaeda is Stupid

Toronto police arrested 17 people on charges of attempted terrorism today - Chicago Tribune story. The suspects are said to have been "inspired by Al Qaeda".

This case illustrates why it is stupid to focus on Al Qaeda itself - to almost any extent whatsoever - in attempts to protect US citizens from terror attacks:

• The attacks on 9/11 involved 17 attackers and roughly $500k. It was not a large effort, neither in terms of personnel nor in terms of finances.
• Now that Al Qaeda has shown the way, it is easy (in fact, predictable) for copycat groups to mimic Al Qaeda techniques.
• The supply of suicidal misfits, willing to sacrifice their own lives (either immediately, or via life imprisonment after the fact) is nearly limitless.
• Once a group has attained a reasonable size, the financial requirements for an attack are, likewise, not significant.
• While Islamic fundamentalism provides one motivation for indiscriminate attacks, it is by no means the only viable such motive. Consider, for example, the second-worst terror attack in American history, the Oklahoma City bombing.

The appropriate fraction of terror prevention efforts that should be devoted to any single group can therefore be roughly estimated by dividing the group membership by the total number of social misfits in the country/world, which - even in the case of Al Qaeda - is negligible.

Patrick: Only 481 Faster!

Robin is in California, and her Flickr page (above) pointed out that our very own Patrick Wojdowski ran on March 19th in the Los Angeles Marathon.

According to the official results, Patrick came in number 482 overall, and 452 in the men's division, with a time of 3:23:09, running an average 7:44 mile the whole way.

Jeeeeeeeeeeeezussssssss.. Congratulations Patrick!

Tom Cruise Screws Up Daughter's Naming

He thought "Suri" meant "Princess" in Hebrew and "red rose" in Farsi.
Wrong.

Typical right wing?

From Newsweek this week: "Right now, I wouldn't vote Democratic if Jesus Christ was running." Judy Deats, a Texas Republican, who is standing by Rep. Tom DeLay in his re-election bid despite the fact that his association with lobbyist Jack Abramoff has made him vulnerable to political opposition for the first time in more than 20 years.

Is it true that if God himself was opposing the Republican party, that constituents would stand by their candidate? I guess we don't really need to worry, because if God was trying to stop Evil, He wouldn't leave it up to an election. There'd be something wicked cool like a flood or a plague...

Justice Roberts: Tanned, Rested and Ready to Legislate from the Bench.

So much for conservative restraint. Chief Justice Roberts was ready to repeal the 4th Ammendment this week, and in doing so, was ready to write a new law by judicial declaration.

In yesterday's decision Roberts wrote the dissent (vote was 5-3). In the case, a wife gave permission to police to search her home (she was angry at her husband, said he was a cocaine user, and they would find evidence of this); her husband, also present, explicitly denied permission to search. The police searched, found evidence of cocaine use, and arrested the husband.

Roberts:: "In a concluding paragraph of his dissent, he said: 'The majority reminds us, in high tones, that a man's home is his castle, but even under the majority's rule, it is not his castle if he happens to be absent, asleep in the keep or otherwise engaged when the constable arrives at the gate. Then it is his co-owner's castle.'"

Here, Roberts is complaining that the majority was silent on a question of law which was not before the court: what should happen if the second co-owner was not present?

Roberts faulted the majority for declining to address a hypothetical question of law -- not the question before the court, and a question that's likely to come up in the future, sure, but a hypothetical question nonetheless. What do the police do if the co-owner is not present?

That is, per definition, legislating from the bench.

This is going to get interesting.

Bush Administration Getting Ready to Enforce Discrimination

The Bush administration just altered their regulation for security clearances. The policy used to say that sexual orientation was not a basis to disqualify an individual for a security clearance. The new policy says that sexual orientation cannot be the sole basis to disqualify an individual for a security clearance.

So, if you're ugly too......

Link

3rd Anniversary Euphemisms

Since Erica and I share our wedding anniversary with the start of the Iraq War (almost), it looks like we are going to have a big drumbeat of pre-anniversary war news coverage every year until the troops come home, thus I expect, each year for the rest of our natural lives.

Jon Stewart was noting our joint anniversary this week on the Daily Show, and asking what the traditional gift for a 3rd anniversary is. I have consulted Wikipedia and the answer, apparently, is "leather." My oh my.

Erica and I will mutually decline, I think, but one has to marvel at the appropriateness of this gift if one imagines (as Jon did) it coming from the US occupiers to their oh-so-civilly occupied Iraqis. Just think of all the uses! Helmets and body armor, for one. Gloves. Jackets. Whips, straps, and restraints. Thong underwear! Not a one of them out of place.

All of which also brings to mind - yes - Fox News. I was watching the closed captions on one of their programs while at the gym today (no other bicycle free), and noticed one of their anchors discussing, as a key bullet point on the current situation in Iraq, "sectarian violence." And I was thinking about the key Administration Message of the Day: Iraq is not descending into civil war. Of course, they had been forced against all evidence into making this denial because their ex-poster-boy for Iraqi democracy, Ayad Allawi, stated clearly to the BBC that this was exactly the right characterization. So you've got to have sympathy for the Administration on this one, given the awkwardness of their position from the get-go.

But then you parse the meaning of that Fox News phrase, "sectarian violence," and you realize that even these gents are no longer with the program. Truly a leather anniversary, all around.

It's Here!

Ah, Spring!

I've gone Centigrade

I didn't think it could ever happen to me. Are the degrees bigger or smaller, I'd have to think to myself, and then it's subtract 32, divide by 2, and that's about right.

But, no, now, after 2 years, I have an instictive feeling for what the temperature is outside in Centigrade.

"My gosh! It must be 12 degrees out today!" I said -- (a) joyfully; (b) ruefully; (c) completely ignorantly. Correct answer: (a). It's been a cold winter, and the termperatures finally broke 10 this past weekend, with a high of 12 (that's mid-60s -- which takes us well out of the freezing range we're usually in).

How I deal with Karl Rove

Since I lost my omnipotence, I've had to develop coping mechanisms for thinking about Karl Rove.

I've decided to resort to food jokes. For example, When he says that : "he thinks Clinton could have difficulty in the general election, in part, because there is a 'brittleness about her,'" I would say, why is he obsessed with peanut brittle? Should he really be thinking about sugary snacks? That doesn't seem right.

SOFT! Soft on Terrorism I Tell you!

It seems we've been force feeding detainees in Guantanamo. How many? 41 hunger strikers on Dec 15, which has winnowed down to three now. Sure, this had been reported, but it had also been denied; and now Gitmo commnder General Bantz Craddock (actual name) has confirmed we've been force feeding them, strapped down to to chairs.

His major complaint? Medical staff had been indulging these terrorists, to the point of "permitting them to choose the color of their feeding tubes."

The Sport of Breaking Wills

It can be fun to read a scathing book review. A favorite is a Dorothy Parker one-liner: "This is not a book to be tossed lightly aside, but to be thrown with great force."

The following review is crispy with the kind of scorched slander that only academic condescension can produce. About the author Daniel Dennett, who acknowledges that in writing on the tussle between science and religion, he opens himself up to being poked in the nose and yet he is steeled to take on this burden, the reviewer proclaims: "Giordano Bruno, with tenure at Tufts!"

Enjoy.

Compound phrases are useful

for conveying there is more to be known than is apparent.

There is no law

but the President's word.

Torture is a technique

which can be used on anyone.

325,000 Names on Terrorism Watch List

WaPost.
The National Counterterrorism Center lists 325,000 names in a database of terrorism suspects and people who allegedly aid them.

Only a small small fraction are Americans and US residents, they say. What's a small fraction? I think 5% is small. So, 15,000 Americans?

So, how long until we herd these folks into "happy camps"?

Cheney shoots (does not kill) Lawyer

I don't know if this falls under the banner of "another bad day for W", but his Veep has shot a 78-year old lawyer while quail-hunting on the ranch of a major campaign contributor: NYT story.

Among the questions provoked by this story: Is Mr. Whittington's "stable" status in the ICU of a major metropolitan hospital consistent with the donor's characterization of him, post-accident, as "fine... sitting up in bed, yakking and cracking jokes"? Why did the Veep's office delay 24 hours before notifying the media? And: If it's open season on lawyers, why hasn't Dick let the rest of us in on the fun?

Patrick as a South Park character

Make your own.

Bad Day for Bush

Yesterday, Bush detailed that a Southest Asian country had arrested an Al Qaeda operative in 2002, who told them about a plan for Southeast Asian men to use a plane to take down the "Iconic Library Tower" of Los Angeles, using "shoe bombs" to get through the cockpit door (recall, Richard Reid was caught Dec 2001).

It remains unclear how much of this information was gained by holding him underwater until he passed out; stipping him naked and threatening him with dogs to attack his genitals; oh, and where this mastermind involved in what would have been the second major attack on the US in a year is now -- still in Indonesia? Why don't we have this person in US Custody? Why is he not on trial here?

One news cycle later, Libby is saying Cheney told him to leak secret information, in violation of the National Security Act. ( NOTE TO SENATE: No hearings on this! Oliver North's testimony and the immunity you gave him ruined the prosecution for the Iran-Contra episode. No Immunity for Libby!)

• White House Knew the Levee Failed Monday.
  
  
• Ex-CIA Official Faults Use of Data on Iraq The 28-year career official was the US point man for Near East and South Asia intelligence. He says the Administration "cherry picked" intelligence, and never even asked for a pre-war strategic assessment, which would have shown the insurgency we see now.

Too Scared to Think Yet?

Bush Gives New Details of 2002 Qaeda Plot to Attack Los Angeles. According to Bush, who never lies, the plot was to unfold a month after Sept 11 using a "shoe bomb" to gain access toan airplane cockpit, to take down the U.S. Bank Tower ("Library Tower") in Los Angeles. It had purpotedly been targeted, because it is the tallest building west of the Mississippi, a fact which no one west of the Mississippi knows.

Libby's Defense: "Cheney Told Me To Leak Classified Information"

NATIONAL JOURNAL: Cheney 'Authorized' Libby to Leak Classified Information : "Beyond what was stated in the court paper, say people with firsthand knowledge of the matter, Libby also indicated what he will offer as a broad defense during his upcoming criminal trial: that Vice President Cheney and other senior Bush administration officials had earlier encouraged and authorized him to share classified information with journalists to build public support for going to war. Later, after the war began in 2003, Cheney authorized Libby to release additional classified information, including details of the NIE, to defend the administration's use of prewar intelligence in making the case for war."

Libby on record that he was ordered by Cheney to leak

All I can say is 'wow'.

He was ordered to do it. Can anyone tell me at what point do they drag Cheney away in handcuffs?

Believe It

Microsoft will begin selling a security one stop shop for Windows. Unbelieveable.

Would you stand for it if your car came with an ignition that could be started by easy to fabricate keys? If your bank said "We'll take your money, and put it in a certain place, but if you want some real protection that'll cost extra."?

If this becomes a real money-maker for Microsoft, what incentive do they have to make Windows secure? From the level of CPUs that are turned into zombies, there are certain days where the entirety of the internet slows down to a crawl because there are so many machines that run Windows, and ends up affecting everyone. Much of the spam generated in the world comes from PCs running windows that have been hijacked. Why is it that Microsoft isn't required to build this safety in?

Vonage Plans Sale of Stock

Article.

Thank god. For years, Vonage has been under attack by traditional landline providers, cable companies, ISPs, using the FCC and legislation to restrict what they can do. And how to do you stop that? Broaden the base of people who are invested in the companies success.

Fashion is the New Architecture

Architecture is one of those things that all wine-drinking academics have to pass through. You gotta know Corbusier from van der Rohe, care about the shoddy treatment of Libeskind over Ground Zero; you can moo that Gehry has his best work behind him. Kind of like baseball.

But, if you care about keeping up appearances, I think Fashion is the new thing. Where else is the dialogue between the creator and the consumer so rich and detailed? The language of clothes, and what they are supposed to say about the wearer and the culture is almost as well developed as, well, language. Which is why I'm interested in the fact that the NYTimes review in fashion says that there's a word to describe what's goin' on. Rebellion.

Brokeback to the Future

I haven't posted in a while, so I thought I'dshare this.

The Google Subpoena

Question for a lawyer: How does it happen that the Justice Department can subpoena web search records from Google, Yahoo, AOL, and MSN, when the request is not pursuant to a criminal investigation, and the companies are not themselves a party to the suit?

Note that the legal case in question is an ACLU challenge to the constitutionality of a federal law (the "Child Online Protection Act", a law to regulate pornography on the Internet). Could Attorney General Gonzalez subpoena my own personal web cache in order to defend his favorite anti-pornography legislation, too? (Just asking.)

Bob Curling

35 Poutines later, that is me thowing the stone in my very first curling outing.

Bush a two-time lawbreaker

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (NYT story).

We all know that Bush has been in flagrant violation of FISA - which requires a warrant from the FISA court for every domestic wiretap by the NSA. The President has cheerfully admitted that he has been existing in a world of his own, a world where that restriction has magically evaporated, for three years now. No one believes the excuses he, the Veep, Condi, and Alberto Gonzalez have since put forward to "legalize" this behavior. Moreover, the fact that the President & Co. kept even their own Justice Department in the dark about what they were up to makes it pretty clear they knew it was illegal, themselves.

However, as Bob pointed out in this post below, the President has also been in violation of the NSA Act, which established the NSA and tasked the Congress with oversight of its operations. Telling the party-hack committee chair that you have kept the NSA busy violating the rights of thousands of citizens, on a daily basis, for the last 3 years - without informing anyone else of this activity - is apparently not really consistent with that oversight function. Or so the CRS has ruled.

Two more reasons to impeach the President.

Gore Calls for Government of Laws

Washington Post has the transcript (thanks to Josh Marshall for pointing this out).

In the meantime, Bush has responded, stating that he, for one, is just fine with a government of men. (Joke! You tell me whether you laughed or cried.)

Actually, Erica watched "All the President's Men" last night... her take-away? "Oh my gosh, all of that fuss over a few dirty tricks. What we have going on right now is much worse."

Did You Hear Cheney Went To The Hospital with Shortness of Breath?

Apparently, somebody told him his daughter was a lesbian.

Republican House Intelligence Committee Chair Pushes Back

Republican NYTimes. Yesterday, Jane Harmon, in a letter to Bush, accused him of a second major legal violation: The National Security Act of 1947, which says that the administration must completely and currently brief the House and Senate committees on Intelligence.

The importance of Harmon's statement is that it is: (1) it is far easier to prove violation than that of FISA.

The Chair of the Senate committee on intelligence has been totally silent on this issue, not saying a single word on what was or was not told to him or members of his committee.

However, today the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee implies that Bush was in compliance. Actually, that's not what he says, he says that the Briefings that Bush did provide to the Committee leadership were in compliance. Well, sure, but my walking down the street is in compliance with the National Security Act, too. The question is whether Bush's briefings were sufficient to satisfy the National Security act. Based on Democrats' public statments, the answer would seem to be no.

The Scandal Has a Name!

WaTimes: Russ Tice, an NSA employee, wants to testify to the Congress about Bush's illegal wiretapping. No doubt, this is an extremely brave choice.

As importantly, Mr. Tice's letters to the Intelligence Committee reveal what the Bush administration called these illegal wiretappings: The Special Access Program.

So, the scandal now has a name: it is the SAP-Scandal.

Keeping Score

From my wish-list, number 1 of 7 has just happened: Abramoff has turned states evidence (Jan 3, goal was Jan 15).

So, that's 1 of 7.

Number 2: "DeLay convicted by Feb 1" doesn't look like it's going to happen; it appears he won't get a trial date in January.

Pearls before Swine people!

I'm just pointing out to y'all that today, I did a diary post over at DKos. Right now it's the most commented article all day, with 142 comments (after 5 hrs); and for most of the afternoon, it was the second most highly recommended article, behind one by Cindy Sheehan.

Impeachment Watch: Day 17

NYTimes
quotes Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) saying Bush acted within the constitution, and that the focus now should be on hunting down the whistleblower.

Of interest: McConnell thinks hearings should be in the Intelligence committee (it's Chair, Sen. Roberts, has been defensive about how his committee has given "oversight" to the program) wherey can be secret, rather than on Spector's Judiciary committee, where they would not. Judiciary is the proper venue, because at issue is the Executive's compliance with FISA, requiring its reporting to the Judicial branch.

For: 3 (Feingold, Feinstein, Spector)
Against: 2 (McCain, McConnell)
Uncertain: 95

Bush to Assert the Ice-9 of Presidential Powers

George Bush is preparing a broad public push to assert that his illegal wiretapping -- in violation of the FISA act -- is permitted due to his war-powers. Specifically, in a time of war, a President can do what he needs to defend the country.

This claimed power is the Ice-9 of all claimed powers. With it, he can violate any of the Bill of rights, any Congressional law -- there is no limitation to what he could do.

The Senate, in its oversight obligation, has a job to do: (1) continue to point out that the wiretapping continues to be illegal under the FISA act; (2) require that the President immediately end to all activities which violate the FISA act; (3) pass legislation which requires that all previous domestic wiretaps which have not been approved by the FISA court be presented to the FISA court for approval; and (4) because innocent Americans should not be victimized by the US Government, all wiretaps not approved by the FISA court be provided in transcript to the American citizens affected.


Otherwise, if Congress does not check Bush's power, he and members of his administration will abuse it.

De

The End of the Wiretapping Scandal

Just where is this all leading? one might ask. Prima facie, the President violated an important law, the 1978 FISA act, which says he can't spy on Americans on American soil. The act was passed to counter Nixon's abuses, to keep the President from using easily assumed powers as a tool of political oppression.

Bush has indeed re-assumed the "spying on Americans" power. But that power itself is not an evil, though it is onerous. The evil of it comes when that power is abused to be a tool for political oppression -- such as sending off-bankroll folks to break into the psychiatrist's office of one of your chief critics, in an attempt to get some career-ending dirt on them.

So did Bush use his capriciously assumed wiretapping power as a tool for political oppression -- for example, spying on journalists, politicians, innocent Americans in an attempt to collect information which is irrelevant to Bush's War on Terror, but might prove useful in other contexts?

Nobody knows. He certainly had the capability to do this, which, actually, he's not supposed to; it's the role of the FISA court, had he bothered to make his requests properly, to ensure that Bush's spying ability is not used as a tool of oppression, but Bush did not keep them informed of when and how he was using this power.

Neither did Bush inform congress -- unless they're not telling us something -- of the specific instances (we're told, over 500 such wiretaps, ordered by NSA shift supervisors and unreviewed by their superiors, running at any given time for the past 3 years).

To bring Bush back in compliance, Congress should pass a law requiring that each and every single FISA violation now be brought for the court's review; and every instance which is not approved retroactively, the corresponding transcripts should be given to the affected party.

The most important part of this process is to make the other two branches of government fully aware of Bush's spying activities, so that it can be determined if he did abuse his power. And he might have abused it. This is the administration that the Vice President's office used secret information leaked to the press to silence a critic, taking that information from CIA insiders, to the Vice President's office, and then to their political arm in the person of Karl Rove, who then coordinated that leaking with the Vice President's office (Scooter Libby) and the NSA (Stephen Hadley). So, it's kind of far from given that abuses have not taken place.

If abuses did take place, we then have an oppressive KGB-insider for a President. I should think that would be sufficient to bother Republican lawmakers to remove him from office.

But, on the other hand, if all Bush did with this power is listen to direct phone calls between Osama Bin Laden and his his totally hot niece who was born in California , then it is our unfortunate situation that Democrats are intellectually consistent enough and Republicans self-interested enough to not see this as a threat to the Republic, and to simply to let the matter drop. Sure, it would be nice that law and order rule the day.

Stop the Yammering!

Seriously people, could the left please stop engaging in the argument "Is Bush's warrantless wiretapping illegal?" Of course it is illegal.

The questions now are:

1. Is Bush abusing this power to substantially violate the rights that FISA is meant to protect? Such as freedom of the press, and freedom of political activity? So, who did Bush spy on? Journalists? Members of Congress? Senators? any Judges? Prominent members or donors to the Democratic part?
   
   
2. Was any of this information used to violate the rights meant to be protected by FISA? Did they politically go after journalists they got information on? Did they go after Members of congress they got information on? Was any information passed around to anyone outside the NSA, like to the FBI? Or to the political folks, like Karl Rove?
   

Also, Democratic Senators should immediately introduce a bill to stop these violations of FISA, and to correct the violations that have occurred. Specifically, the Congress should direct the President that he does not have the power to violate FISA under the statute he claims; that all previous wiretaps must now be presented to the FISA court for approval, and that the subjects of wiretaps that the FISA court declines to be approved be alerted to the existence of the wiretaps and given full transcripts of what was taken down.