Wednesday, December 21, 2005
|
ARHHHHGGG!!!!!!!
or I should really stop reading this stuff
Check out these quotes from VP Cheney:
"Watergate and a lot of the things around Watergate and Vietnam, both during the 1970s, served, I think, to erode the authority I think the president needs to be effective, especially in the national security area."
Or
"the president of the United States needs to have his constitutional powers unimpaired."
What powers are those? The right to make war at personal whim? That ain't in the Constitution. Only Congress has that right, see Article 1 section 8. The right to spy unencumbered on anyone? So far as I can tell, and I am not a constitutional scholar, Article II governs the "constitutional powers" of the president.
Article II is very brief. I don't see where is provides anything except the following four things:
1) Defines who can be president and how long they can serve
2) Fill his cabinet and federal vacancies
3) Faithfully execute the laws which includes commissioning congress and offices as well as receiving ambassadors
4) The president has the right to be impeached
Now, is that what the VP is saying? If so I don't get what all the bruh-ha-ha is about. But sadly, I don't think that is what Cheney wants. He seems to want to return the US to the bad old days of a Nixonian Imperial Presidency. To quote John Dean, the goal seems to be to "make Congress merely another administrative arm of the presidency."
In the end, there is more too this than meets the eye. Per usual, the Administration appears to hold little regard for the truth when dealing with the public.
NOTE: if you are interested, here is some further reading:
John Dean: HOW THE WAR ON TERRORISM IS SHRINKING CONGRESSIONAL POWERS: PART ONE
John Dean: Part Two Of A Series On Shrinking Congressional Powers
Watergate info: American Political Values from an Australian perspective
or I should really stop reading this stuff
Check out these quotes from VP Cheney:
"Watergate and a lot of the things around Watergate and Vietnam, both during the 1970s, served, I think, to erode the authority I think the president needs to be effective, especially in the national security area."
Or
"the president of the United States needs to have his constitutional powers unimpaired."
What powers are those? The right to make war at personal whim? That ain't in the Constitution. Only Congress has that right, see Article 1 section 8. The right to spy unencumbered on anyone? So far as I can tell, and I am not a constitutional scholar, Article II governs the "constitutional powers" of the president.
Article II is very brief. I don't see where is provides anything except the following four things:
1) Defines who can be president and how long they can serve
2) Fill his cabinet and federal vacancies
3) Faithfully execute the laws which includes commissioning congress and offices as well as receiving ambassadors
4) The president has the right to be impeached
Now, is that what the VP is saying? If so I don't get what all the bruh-ha-ha is about. But sadly, I don't think that is what Cheney wants. He seems to want to return the US to the bad old days of a Nixonian Imperial Presidency. To quote John Dean, the goal seems to be to "make Congress merely another administrative arm of the presidency."
In the end, there is more too this than meets the eye. Per usual, the Administration appears to hold little regard for the truth when dealing with the public.
NOTE: if you are interested, here is some further reading:
John Dean: HOW THE WAR ON TERRORISM IS SHRINKING CONGRESSIONAL POWERS: PART ONE
John Dean: Part Two Of A Series On Shrinking Congressional Powers
Watergate info: American Political Values from an Australian perspective
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
|
MEA CULPA
or I've become too shrill
I am quite late to FactCheck.org's analysis of the what the President knew about pre-war Iraqi intelligence. I am not going to steal FactCheck's analysis, please read it yourself. It is a great piece of non-partisan information - quite refreshing.
As any reasonable person might suspect, the President was not knowingly lying about pre-war intelligence. Nor was he lying when he claimed Congress saw the same intelligence he did. And he was not lying when he said no one pressured intelligence analysts to issue politically biased reports. If your a partisan Conservative, you stop right there and claim the Left & the Mainstream Media are craven liars for persecuting the President.
Fortunately, FactCheck.org's article considers more. Specifically, FactCheck splits the issue in two.
Issue #1: Did the President lie (as discussed above)? No
Issue #2: Did the Administration use the intelligence estimate to mislead the public? Yes!
How is that any better? Just because there are partisans on the Left, doesn't mean the Administration is innocent! Misusing the output to deceive leads to the same outcome as manipulating the input! Said another way, mis-using the intelligence estimate in the press releases is just as much a lie as politically pressuring analysts to issue slanted reports.
Don't loose the forest for the trees! The Administration has been careful about how it operates. Just because there is no smoking gun, does not mean there is no crime.
or I've become too shrill
I am quite late to FactCheck.org's analysis of the what the President knew about pre-war Iraqi intelligence. I am not going to steal FactCheck's analysis, please read it yourself. It is a great piece of non-partisan information - quite refreshing.
As any reasonable person might suspect, the President was not knowingly lying about pre-war intelligence. Nor was he lying when he claimed Congress saw the same intelligence he did. And he was not lying when he said no one pressured intelligence analysts to issue politically biased reports. If your a partisan Conservative, you stop right there and claim the Left & the Mainstream Media are craven liars for persecuting the President.
Fortunately, FactCheck.org's article considers more. Specifically, FactCheck splits the issue in two.
Issue #1: Did the President lie (as discussed above)? No
Issue #2: Did the Administration use the intelligence estimate to mislead the public? Yes!
How is that any better? Just because there are partisans on the Left, doesn't mean the Administration is innocent! Misusing the output to deceive leads to the same outcome as manipulating the input! Said another way, mis-using the intelligence estimate in the press releases is just as much a lie as politically pressuring analysts to issue slanted reports.
Don't loose the forest for the trees! The Administration has been careful about how it operates. Just because there is no smoking gun, does not mean there is no crime.
Monday, December 19, 2005
|
IMPEACH BUSH?!?
or "HELL YEAH!" says I
Brad Delong has a great post on the NSA's unfettered spying. Check it out. Even the comments contain some lively discourse.
Now, on a second tho related topic. I have not blogged about this, and most likely will not. Why? Disillusionment. I am not surprised by Bush's authorization or defense of this blatantly illegal program. My outrage has lost it's emmotional impact. I can still see the injustice, duplicity, hypocrisy, and evil as clearly as ever. However, my anger is not stired.
I think my blood pressure is lower because of it.
or "HELL YEAH!" says I
Brad Delong has a great post on the NSA's unfettered spying. Check it out. Even the comments contain some lively discourse.
Now, on a second tho related topic. I have not blogged about this, and most likely will not. Why? Disillusionment. I am not surprised by Bush's authorization or defense of this blatantly illegal program. My outrage has lost it's emmotional impact. I can still see the injustice, duplicity, hypocrisy, and evil as clearly as ever. However, my anger is not stired.
I think my blood pressure is lower because of it.
Sunday, December 18, 2005
|
SUCCESS DOESN'T EQUAL HAPPINESS
or don't put the cart before the horse
A new comparative research study has determined that happiness contributes to success. In other words, we are not happy because we achieve, or succeed. Rather happiness, as a general psychological state, engenders coping strategies that make us more likely to achieve our goals.
Think about that for little bit. I get the impression that the conventional wisdom is "success leads to happiness". This research proves this wrong.
I must admit, I get a kick out debunking popularly heald mis-beliefs. I even enjoy it when I am only the messenger, I'm less likely to get shot that way.
or don't put the cart before the horse
A new comparative research study has determined that happiness contributes to success. In other words, we are not happy because we achieve, or succeed. Rather happiness, as a general psychological state, engenders coping strategies that make us more likely to achieve our goals.
Think about that for little bit. I get the impression that the conventional wisdom is "success leads to happiness". This research proves this wrong.
I must admit, I get a kick out debunking popularly heald mis-beliefs. I even enjoy it when I am only the messenger, I'm less likely to get shot that way.
Friday, December 16, 2005
|
COWBOY LAW AND ORDER
or misplace rantings...not by me!
Albert M. Jabara has contributed a blister polemic against the west at Jihad Unspun, titled The Industrial Revolution of Wars. He is angry. He is really, really angry. Oh, and he is rather kooky. Take this quote, for example:
"Without second-guessing, it is a known fact: previous U.S. wars have produced a segment of its society, being the byproduct of soldiers and generals who survived previous wars. These soldiers and generals have fathered robotic daughters and sons who live in a human body without a human soul. They kill for games and for egos. A battleground for them is a large TV screen, lethal weapons and laughs. No one should be puzzled and surprised anymore; American society is different from all other societies in the world. The more wars United States is prepared to wage outside its borders, the closer it will bring itself to a civil war."
I find this a very interesting, if disjointed read. I am not recommending anyone actually read this whole article, it is long, rambling, and often looses coherence. However, if you are interested in an enraged Muslim's point of view, give it a shot. But view it an exercise in understanding a mind's tenuous grip on reality rather than an informed, educational article.
Oh, and I feel I should mention that this man is virulently anti-western. I find that sad and ironic, he lives in Canada.
or misplace rantings...not by me!
Albert M. Jabara has contributed a blister polemic against the west at Jihad Unspun, titled The Industrial Revolution of Wars. He is angry. He is really, really angry. Oh, and he is rather kooky. Take this quote, for example:
"Without second-guessing, it is a known fact: previous U.S. wars have produced a segment of its society, being the byproduct of soldiers and generals who survived previous wars. These soldiers and generals have fathered robotic daughters and sons who live in a human body without a human soul. They kill for games and for egos. A battleground for them is a large TV screen, lethal weapons and laughs. No one should be puzzled and surprised anymore; American society is different from all other societies in the world. The more wars United States is prepared to wage outside its borders, the closer it will bring itself to a civil war."
I find this a very interesting, if disjointed read. I am not recommending anyone actually read this whole article, it is long, rambling, and often looses coherence. However, if you are interested in an enraged Muslim's point of view, give it a shot. But view it an exercise in understanding a mind's tenuous grip on reality rather than an informed, educational article.
Oh, and I feel I should mention that this man is virulently anti-western. I find that sad and ironic, he lives in Canada.
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
|
DISTOPIC VISIONS
or visions of future warfare
In reading the December 12th edition of the weekly TRN Research News Roundup, I came across an news brief on research done at by a team from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Vanderbilt University. The team found that Buckyballs bind to DNA in an aqueous environment.
What does that mean? It's really not gibberish. Rather, Buckyballs are one of the first discoveries in the investigation into nanoparticles. Many have speculated that buckyballs could be used to be future drug delivery systems. That is the bright side of this issue.
As with any tool, such capability could be used destructively. The research that prompted this post gets at how. Since buckyballs can combine with DNA in aqueous, or liquid, environment, how long before this is weaponized? I wonder if the any current convention on the use of biological weapons would prohibit the use of nanoscale weapons?
Imagine a lethal soup, or a nano-pellet. I'm quite sure DARPA has. This gets to why I am concerned about the growing penchance for secrecy by the US government. If something like this can be weaponized, it will be. And it is highly likely such a program will be highly classified.
So how will the public find out about it? Will it be from some accident where many (or all) residents of a small city are dead from mysterious disease? I hope not, but then, who knows.
or visions of future warfare
In reading the December 12th edition of the weekly TRN Research News Roundup, I came across an news brief on research done at by a team from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Vanderbilt University. The team found that Buckyballs bind to DNA in an aqueous environment.
What does that mean? It's really not gibberish. Rather, Buckyballs are one of the first discoveries in the investigation into nanoparticles. Many have speculated that buckyballs could be used to be future drug delivery systems. That is the bright side of this issue.
As with any tool, such capability could be used destructively. The research that prompted this post gets at how. Since buckyballs can combine with DNA in aqueous, or liquid, environment, how long before this is weaponized? I wonder if the any current convention on the use of biological weapons would prohibit the use of nanoscale weapons?
Imagine a lethal soup, or a nano-pellet. I'm quite sure DARPA has. This gets to why I am concerned about the growing penchance for secrecy by the US government. If something like this can be weaponized, it will be. And it is highly likely such a program will be highly classified.
So how will the public find out about it? Will it be from some accident where many (or all) residents of a small city are dead from mysterious disease? I hope not, but then, who knows.
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
|
MANY HEADED HYDRA
or neo-fleesing of the public purse
It seems most criticism regarding the military's outsourcing program is leveled at Dick Cheney and his incestuous relationship with Haliburton. Of course KBR's massive logistic support contracts are a natural lightening rod for critics. When contracts are awarded on a no-bid, secret basis, and there are claims of inflating prices, KBR's deal smells bad. I am not going to rehash these issues here. Instead, I'd like to call your attention to a different area of concern. This is yet another area where the US military is outsourcing it back office functions; the procurement department.
The Knight Ridder Newspapers have a very interesting article on this outsourcing via the Prime Vendor program. As always, such outsourcing is rationalized by the money saved. The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) is quoted as claiming the Prime Vendor program will save $250M over five years. I look at the DLA website to try to find additional details on this program, but this link is the best I could find. So, we'll have to suffice ourselves with the Knight Ridder article, which found:
"The average prime vendor price - when adjusted for inflation - was higher for 102 of the 122 items. Even with this small sample of purchases, Knight Ridder found the government spent $1.2 million more than it needed to by using the prime vendor system."
The government finds ever new ways to waste money. It's a sad state of affairs.
or neo-fleesing of the public purse
It seems most criticism regarding the military's outsourcing program is leveled at Dick Cheney and his incestuous relationship with Haliburton. Of course KBR's massive logistic support contracts are a natural lightening rod for critics. When contracts are awarded on a no-bid, secret basis, and there are claims of inflating prices, KBR's deal smells bad. I am not going to rehash these issues here. Instead, I'd like to call your attention to a different area of concern. This is yet another area where the US military is outsourcing it back office functions; the procurement department.
The Knight Ridder Newspapers have a very interesting article on this outsourcing via the Prime Vendor program. As always, such outsourcing is rationalized by the money saved. The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) is quoted as claiming the Prime Vendor program will save $250M over five years. I look at the DLA website to try to find additional details on this program, but this link is the best I could find. So, we'll have to suffice ourselves with the Knight Ridder article, which found:
"The average prime vendor price - when adjusted for inflation - was higher for 102 of the 122 items. Even with this small sample of purchases, Knight Ridder found the government spent $1.2 million more than it needed to by using the prime vendor system."
The government finds ever new ways to waste money. It's a sad state of affairs.
Monday, December 12, 2005
|
OVERTLY ENCOURAGING
yet more reasons why Iraq is not hopeless
I am almost starting to sound like a right-wing zealot. It's kinda scaring me. Only a little thou. I've long believed that, in most of life's disputes, the truth tends towards the middle of the controversy. What I'm finding about Iraq, is that the mainstream media is now beginning to pick up on much of what the independent, pro-military bloggers have been saying for awhile. Which is to say, Iraq is not hopeless. Here's an example:
Iraqi insurgents urge Sunnis to vote, warn Zarqawi
I really hope that such reporting makes a difference in American opinion. Success in Iraq is achievable, but we must be careful how we define it. Yes, the administration lied to get us into war. It was a mistake to invade. But now that we are there, a brighter future is possible. Such reporting shows that optimism is not delussional. I hope that, as a country, we can find the resolve to stay as long as it takes.
yet more reasons why Iraq is not hopeless
I am almost starting to sound like a right-wing zealot. It's kinda scaring me. Only a little thou. I've long believed that, in most of life's disputes, the truth tends towards the middle of the controversy. What I'm finding about Iraq, is that the mainstream media is now beginning to pick up on much of what the independent, pro-military bloggers have been saying for awhile. Which is to say, Iraq is not hopeless. Here's an example:
Iraqi insurgents urge Sunnis to vote, warn Zarqawi
I really hope that such reporting makes a difference in American opinion. Success in Iraq is achievable, but we must be careful how we define it. Yes, the administration lied to get us into war. It was a mistake to invade. But now that we are there, a brighter future is possible. Such reporting shows that optimism is not delussional. I hope that, as a country, we can find the resolve to stay as long as it takes.
Friday, December 09, 2005
|
MICHAEL YON
fantasitc dispatches from Iraq
Here is a great post about how the media works in Iraq. Mr. Yon provides a very interesting hypothesis for why the mainstream western media gets daily events in Iraq wrong. This is very much worth a read.
Actually, his entire site is worth reading. This is one of the most unique perspectives I've found regarding Iraq. By his own admission, Mr. Yon is a former Army man who has become a freelance journalist. Based on friends who remained in the military, he went to Iraq to cover the war after coming to the belief that the western media was missing the boat. He is (mostly) non-partisian and provides excellent dispatchs. He is worth reading regulary.
fantasitc dispatches from Iraq
Here is a great post about how the media works in Iraq. Mr. Yon provides a very interesting hypothesis for why the mainstream western media gets daily events in Iraq wrong. This is very much worth a read.
Actually, his entire site is worth reading. This is one of the most unique perspectives I've found regarding Iraq. By his own admission, Mr. Yon is a former Army man who has become a freelance journalist. Based on friends who remained in the military, he went to Iraq to cover the war after coming to the belief that the western media was missing the boat. He is (mostly) non-partisian and provides excellent dispatchs. He is worth reading regulary.
Thursday, December 08, 2005
|
YIKES!
or 1984 redux
A trust building hormone has been discovered by scientist at the National Institute of Mental Health. That scares me.
While I'm all for pushing the boundaries of what we know about the human brain, certain discoveries underscore why I believe in the need for separation of powers. To paraphrase another 20th century distopic classic, Brave New World, I got images of Soma while reading this article. I can only hope the human mind is sufficiently complex that a peson could not be controlled via maniuplation of the "trust" hormone. Much research suggests this - I only hope the suggestion is not an illusion.
or 1984 redux
A trust building hormone has been discovered by scientist at the National Institute of Mental Health. That scares me.
While I'm all for pushing the boundaries of what we know about the human brain, certain discoveries underscore why I believe in the need for separation of powers. To paraphrase another 20th century distopic classic, Brave New World, I got images of Soma while reading this article. I can only hope the human mind is sufficiently complex that a peson could not be controlled via maniuplation of the "trust" hormone. Much research suggests this - I only hope the suggestion is not an illusion.
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
|
SCORE ONE FOR THE GOOD GUYS
or a chink in the Patriot Act's armor
A Tampa, Florida, jury partially acquitted Sami al-Arian and his co-defendants. Mr. al-Arian was a university professor charged, with the help of the Patriot Act, for supporting terrorism. I am not taking an opinion on Mr. al-Arian's believes or activities with respect to Muslim charities. I am encountered many articles that suggest some Muslim charities are used as fronts for funding terrorists. This is exactly what the government accused Mr. al-Arian of doing. I don't know enough to comment. However, this can be seen as a defeat for the government which may lead to a reexamining of the Patriot Act. Given that I am terrified of unchecked power, I see any chance to correct the Act's problems as a good thing.
On another note, with this verdict the jury sent a mixed messaged. They acquitted Mr. al-Arian of 8 of 17 charges against him. They could not reach an agreement on the other 9. The Tampa Tribune quoted Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor as saying,
"I think the government's in this for a penny or a pound. This is an enormous embarrassment to the government. The government is so enormously invested in convicting al-Arian, it's hard to believe they will walk away. There are too many resumes at the Justice Department at risk." (emphasis mine).
Does it scary anyone else that the decision to further procesecute may be based on wounded professional pride?
or a chink in the Patriot Act's armor
A Tampa, Florida, jury partially acquitted Sami al-Arian and his co-defendants. Mr. al-Arian was a university professor charged, with the help of the Patriot Act, for supporting terrorism. I am not taking an opinion on Mr. al-Arian's believes or activities with respect to Muslim charities. I am encountered many articles that suggest some Muslim charities are used as fronts for funding terrorists. This is exactly what the government accused Mr. al-Arian of doing. I don't know enough to comment. However, this can be seen as a defeat for the government which may lead to a reexamining of the Patriot Act. Given that I am terrified of unchecked power, I see any chance to correct the Act's problems as a good thing.
On another note, with this verdict the jury sent a mixed messaged. They acquitted Mr. al-Arian of 8 of 17 charges against him. They could not reach an agreement on the other 9. The Tampa Tribune quoted Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor as saying,
"I think the government's in this for a penny or a pound. This is an enormous embarrassment to the government. The government is so enormously invested in convicting al-Arian, it's hard to believe they will walk away. There are too many resumes at the Justice Department at risk." (emphasis mine).
Does it scary anyone else that the decision to further procesecute may be based on wounded professional pride?
