politics

An Inconvenient Truth

This entry was posted in constitution movies politics on by

We went to see Al Gore’s global warming movie yesterday, An Inconvenient Truth. The movie was great and really laid out all evidence of global heating. Although I have seen and heard much of this evidence before, seeing it in one place really brings it home. One thing that concerned me going in was that the whole tone was going to be depressing and leave me feeling hopeless. On the contrary the final part of the presentation was a retelling of some of the amazing achievements of humanity to demonstrate what we can do. The point was that we have the capability to change our ways and maybe reverse this process. We just need the will to do it. The whole tone was one of hope rather than despair. Everyone should see this film. It is not perfect but it is very good. As I have said before, the earth will carry on. Species will go extinct and homo sapiens are one of them. Species have always gone extinct in the past and new ones have evolved to take their place. This has happened many times through the history of the planet. The big question is can be maintain the earth’s climate and ecosystems so that we can extend our time here? I believe we can but we need to work at it and change our behavior now.

One of the trailers we saw before the film was for a new documentary called The U.S. VS John Lennon. I hadn’t heard of this one before but it looks very interesting. It tells the story of the Nixon administration’s battle to have John Lennon deported because of his anti-war activities. It’s such a shame that we don’t we have a John Lennon among us today. Instead we are stuck with the likes of Bill O’Rielly and Anne Coulter. On the other hand, we do have this amazing communications medium of the internet. We have the capacity for millions of us to make our voices heard through blogs, podcasts, music, films and many other mediums. The thing we need to remember is that even in a democracy being in power is a corrupting influence. It has happened to people on all sides of the political spectrum, although corruption seems to bring out a particularly nasty streak in politicians on the right. This film appears to document the lengths that an administration went to silence one outspoken musician. It is a very important story to see in this time of NSA spying on Americans, people being locked up without charges or access to a lawyer, people being picked up from streets of foreign countries and transported to secret prisons for torture and other atrocities. Don’t forget that just because, or maybe especially if they keep bringing up God in their speeches it doesn’t mean that a politician should be trusted to protect your freedoms.

The one thing that makes the United States special is our constitution. Defend the constitution, without that you have no real freedom, and without that security really means nothing.

Colbert strikes again!

This entry was posted in politics on by

Stephen Colbert has a regular segment on his show where he interviews each member of congress and then marks their district off on his big map. Most recently he did republican Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia. Westmoreland demonstrated that his is just another ignorant christian fascist southern republican. When asked about whether there were any other appropriate places to display the ten commandments besides courthouses and government he was unable to articulate even one (such as say … A church!). Colbert asked him to name the ten commandments and he was able to come up with only three. The question I have why hasn’t Colbert suffered the Ali G effect yet? British comedian Sacha Baron Cohen had a show that was on TV in Britain first and then on HBO called the Da Ali G Show. He played various characters including Ali G that interviewed various famous people including politicians. After a couple of years of the show, people became aware of the nature of the show, stopped agreeing to be interviewed. Especially after the recent White House correspondents dinner I can’t imagine there is anyone in Washington who doesn’t know who Stephen Colbert is and what he does. The only explanation I can think of is that the politicians are so arrogant that they think they can outsmart the guy. As Colbert has repeatedly demonstrated, these guys egos are clearly much larger than their intellects. Rock On Stephen!!

The Ann Arbor News is wearing out it’s welcome 4

This entry was posted in politics technology on by

For several years I’ve been becoming increasingly disgusted with the editorial stance of the Ann Arbor News. I’ve continued to subscribe because I wanted the local news and wanted to support the only local newspaper. But I am seriously tempted to give them the boot now. Among the issues I have with the news are:

-They endorsed shrub for president twice!
-They persist in carrying the editorial cartoons of Mike Shelton of the Orange County Register. Shelton is to cartooning as Ann Coulter is to writing
-Most of the stories they carry are straight off the AP Wire or reprinted from the New York Times or Washington Post, which in recent years have proved themselves increasingly un-trustworthy.
-Other than breaking news the re-purposed stories they carry are often at least days and often weeks old. Frequently I have already seen these stories on-line when they were first published.

The AA News has been contributing less and less of value to my life in the last couple of years. The most recent flub is the reprinting of a Washington Post editorial on net neutrality from a couple of days ago.

First of all if you are not familiar with the concept net neutrality means that internet service providers cannot discriminate about what sort of content you get over your net connection. If you want to do your searches on google that is your business. If you choose to search on yahoo or ask.com, they also should not have any say on that. The ISP provides a pipe with a given amount of bandwidth to you for a certain monthly fee. What you do with it is your decision. Companies like Yahoo, Google, Microsoft, YouTube and others also pay their own providers for bandwidth and connectivity. It is part of their cost of doing business. The architecture of the internet is one of connecting to the network and sending out and receiving packets. Everyone pays for their own connection. You don’t pay for your connection and someone at the other end of your connection. They pay for their own. Similarly you don’t charge someone else for sending data that has been requested by a customer has already paid you. In recent months the phone companies like AT&T and Verizon have been making noise about having content companies pay them to be able to send the data that their paying subscribers have requested. Their subscribers have already paid. The ISPs should now just step aside and send the packets.

The Post editorial came out strongly against net neutrality. They also made several outright lies and distortions. For example:

The advocates of neutrality suggest, absurdly, that a non-neutral Internet would resemble cable TV: a medium through which only corporate content is delivered. This analogy misses the fact that the market for Internet connections, unlike that for cable television, is competitive: More than 60 percent of Zip codes in the United States are served by four or more broadband providers that compete to give consumers what they want

This statement is based on a bogus FCC study, that counted all the providers serving a zip code region. The reality is that in most regions not all the providers in a given zip code serve every potential customer in that zip code. Most households usually have access to at best two broadband providers. In many cases they realistically only have one. I have had broadband access through comcast for about 5 years now. Only recently has SBC DSL become available to me and it is still not available at their highest speed tier to match what comcast offers. As a result I have had no real competitive options for broadband. From other people I know personally I know that this is not at all uncommon. Real broadband competition is more a theory than a fact for a very large proportion of Americans. I understand the economic reasons for this. Building out a network is not a cheap endeavor for a company. This is the same reason that utilities like phone and electrical service have been considered natural monopolies for over a century and have been regulated to prevent abuse by the owners of those monopolies. Real broadband competition is more a theory than a fact for a great many Americans and will remain so for the foreseeable future. As a result some basic consumer protections need to be in place to ensure that large (and growing through consolidation ) telecom companies cannot double dip on customers and content providers.

They should not be allowed do decide what kind of packets of data flow into or out their customers homes. They should be providing connections only. They can charge whatever prices they consider appropriate for the market for a given speed. The content of the packets is none of their business. The Post editorial board should be ashamed of themselves for writing this editorial in the first place and the AA News should be even more ashamed for reprinting this editorial.

A Reminder

This entry was posted in politics on by

I’ve always liked the comic strip Non Sequitur drawn by Wiley. Today he has a great strip non sequitur reminder reminding us why we should never forget the dangers of extremism, be it political, religious or any combination of the two. I’ve always kind of had the feeling that when Jewish people talk about never forgetting the holocaust the focus always seemed to be about what to European Jews under fascism in 30’s and 40’s. I personally we shouldn’t forget for the reason shown in this comic. I think the focus should be on the danger of extremism. The kind of hateful speech we hear against liberals, gays, Muslims, atheists and many others from the likes of Anne Coulter, James Dobson, and Pat Robertson is little different than what heard from European fascists in the past. Remember, the six million Jews but also remember the four million others (including gypsies, homosexuals, “mental defectives” and many more) who died in the death camps, the twenty million Russians, and the countless millions more around the world. Let’s not let it happen again.

More from America’s misguided war on drugs

This entry was posted in politics on by

In spite of more important issues like same-sex marriage and flag burning, the politicians of this country still have an unhealthy obsession with their war on drugs. People are being locked in prison and fired from jobs for smoking or possessing some marijuana. Meanwhile people are losing their health insurance and retirement savings while corporate executives drive their companies into the ground and then take multi-million golden parachutes as all the workers lose everything.

A few months ago Bausch and Lomb announced a recall of their ReNu contact lens cleaning fluid, because it was causing a dangerous fungus to grow on users eyes that could cause blindness. Now the congress is pushing the spraying of Fusarium keratitis on the crops “of a major drug producing country” namely Colombia. Oddly enough the Colombian government is not too happy about the idea of spraying a fungus that can cause permanent blindness on a large portion of the country. Neither are most parts of the government that have actually had to deal with drug enforcement.

The Colombian government has come out against it. And those entities of the U.S. government that have studied the use of Fusarium for more than 30 years don’t recommend it either: The Office of National Drug Control Policy, also known as the Drug Czar’s office, CIA, DEA, the State Department and the USDA have all concluded that the fungus is unsafe for humans and the environment.

The only ones who actually seem to like the idea are the fascist republicans in congress like Dan Burton (R-Ind). These guys have no problem poisoning Colombian farmers or sending troops off to die in the middle east. But everyone who actually knows anything about the reality of the situation is against it. It’s no wonder that the longer republicans stay in power the more people around the world hate the United States.

With leaders like this…

This entry was posted in politics on by

… It’s no wonder that situation in Iraq is such a cluster-fuck!. Today three prisoners committed suicide at the illegal prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. These guys after being imprisoned and “interrogated” there for almost 4 years with no hope of ever being tried or released, these guys had enough. So the commander of the prison had this to say:

Navy Rear Adm. Harry Harris, commander of Guantanamo, told a news conference the suicides were an act of warfare.

“They are smart. They are creative, they are committed. They have no regard for life, neither ours nor their own. I believe this was not an act of desperation, but an act of asymmetrical warfare waged against us,” Harris said.

I have a question. How does tying your clothes and bedsheets together and hanging yourself in your cell qualify as an act of warfare against your captors? Maybe officers like Adm. Harris should keep their mouths shut and let the professional idiots like Bush and Rumsfeld do the talking. How can a soldier hear these words from their commander and still have any respect for them and be able to take orders from them?

pledge of allegience

This entry was posted in constitution politics on by

We went to the 5th grade awards ceremony at Max’s school the other day and they did the pledge of allegiance. This revived a thought I had previously and got me thinking again. A flag is just a banner, a piece of fabric ( or metal, paper whatever) that represents some place, country, team whatever. It has no meaning in and of itself. The US flag is just a banner with 13 stripes representing the original 13 states and a field of stars representing each of the current states. It is a graphical representation and nothing more. If you burn one or where it on your lapel or fly it from a pole it makes no real difference. Nothing changes except for getting a bunch of poseur patriots riled up. A flag doesn’t stop oppression, it doesn’t protect freedom, it doesn’t keep you safe. So why on earth would anyone pledge allegiance to a banner? If someone burns a flag does it affect you? And I’m not even going to get into the whole “Under God” issue. Just keep in mind that the supreme court punted on this whole issue. They did not even rule on whether that line is legal. They overturned the lower court on the grounds that the guy who filed the suit did not have standing to bring the suit.

On the other hand, we have a constitution. The US Constitution is the fundamental law of the United States. It defines the structure of the federal government it’s powers, responsibilities and limits. All other laws passed by the government must conform to the limits set forth in the constitution. If a law does something that is prohibited by the constitution it can and should be struck down by the supreme court. The constitution protects the people of the United States from oppression by the government. It ensures that people in this country cannot be arbitrarily searched or detained at the whim of the government. It protects us from being required to practice any specific religion. The constitution provides a means for dealing with president’s who ignore the laws of the land and who act against the best interests of the nation.

The constitution is what made the United States special in the first place. Without that document, there would be foundation for the nation that has achieved so much and garnered so much respect around the worlds over the last two centuries. We all need to respect and defend the fundamental principles that made America great. No one should be pledging allegiance to a banner. Children should be taught the bill of rights and pledge allegiance to the constitution.

pledge allegiance to the constitution not the flag

Open source voting 1

This entry was posted in politics technology on by

Voting, what could be simpler? You get some choices and you pick one. Then you add up all the votes for each choice. A voting system doesn’t have to do much. Present a list of choices, and tally the number of votes cast for each choice. In the past this was done by printing the names of the candidates on a paper ballot, then people would mark their choice and put the ballot in a box. People would them read each ballot and tally the results. Pretty simple Huh? So step into the twenty-first century where everything must use computer technology. The requirements have not changed. Present a list of choices, select one from the list, tally the results. A computer program to do that is really very simple. So what could one possibly add to such a program that meets those requirements that could require protecting trade secrets? Frankly , I don’t believe anything that requires secrecy should be added to such a system. Secrecy like that is inherently dangerous to a democratic system. There is nothing innovative required to be added to a voting system to meet the requirements. Since a reliable voting system is a necessary to the proper functioning of a democracy all such systems should be open and accessible for complete review and auditing. Manufacturers of electronic voting systems such as Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia have absolutely no justifiable excuse for keeping there code secret. These systems are bought and paid for by taxpayer dollars. They are used for a public purpose. Anyone and I mean anyone should be able to look at and evaluate the code. If a company is not willing to provide all source code they should not be allowed to provide systems. No arguments. These are the rules, follow them or walk away. Manufacturers of voting systems should be nothing more than systems integrators. Get a pile of computer components, assemble them and install the same software.

The software that comprises a voting system should be completely open source and owned by the public. No private company should be controlling anything so critical as voting system software. Especially a company like Diebold that was until recently run by a corrupt republican political hack like Walden O’Dell. There is only one thing about voting that should be kept secret and that is who any individual voted for. Other than that everything should be completely open and transparent. If it had been in 2004, we might have already consigned George Bush to the history books. To read more on the subject of electronic voting go to Black Box Voting.

The constitution continues to recede

This entry was posted in constitution impeachment politics on by (updated 6733 days ago)

The first amendment to the United States constitution reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Nowhere in there does it say anything about “unless the people work for the government”. Well today another big chunk was chipped away from the bill of rights by the conservative majority on Supreme Court including new shrub appointees Alito and Roberts. In a case involving a Los Angeles prosecutor attempting to expose a lie by a witness the court ruled that

The Supreme Court on Tuesday restricted the free-speech rights of the nation’s 21 million public employees, ruling that the 1st Amendment does not protect them from being punished for complaining to their managers about possible wrongdoing.

Although government employees have the same rights as other citizens to speak out on controversies of the day, they do not have the right to speak freely inside their offices on matters related to “their official duties,” the high court said in a 5-4 decision.

Why the hell should government employees not be allowed to speak freely on matters relating to their official duties. This implies that soldiers for example would not be allowed to speak out about orders that were illegal. This is something that has clearly been deemed a soldiers responsibility by multiple war crimes courts since World War 2. If someone sees the law being broken as part of their official duties they plainly have a responsibility to the people of the United States to speak out and do something about it. The court is absolutely wrong on this decision.

The Bush administration and the Republican party have total contempt for the Constitution and the Bill of rights. The Presidential oath of office states

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

and the congressional oath of office is

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God

Please read both of those oaths carefully. Nowhere in either one does it say anything about defending American people, property, or corporations. The one and only thing the President and Congress are charged with defending and protecting is the Constitution of the United States. Also

The Constitution specifies in Article VI, clause 3:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

However, the man residing in the White House today and his cronies in the administration and the congressional leadership have consistently done nothing but undermine the constitution. They have passed and renewed the Patriot Act, they have waged an illegal war in Iraq, they have incarcerated people without legal representation, or charges for indefinite periods, and the president has repeatedly issued signing statements that he will ignore laws passed by congress. This president, and vice-president need to be impeached and all the republicans in congress need to be thrown out on their asses.

The Bill of Rights: As Revised By George W. Bush

Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the “Bill of Rights.”

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

Memorial Day

This entry was posted in constitution politics on by (updated 6733 days ago)

Monday is Memorial Day in the United States. It is a day when people are supposed to take time to honor those who have fought and died to defend America. What did they fight for? Do defend American freedom and the United States Constitution. The Constitution includes 27 amendments, the first 10 of which are known as the Bill of Rights. These include the rights to freedom of speech, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, equal protection under the law, a speedy trial, and others. What better way to honor those who gave their lives to protect these rights, than to continue fighting to protect these rights today. We all need to defend those rights against anyone who tries to take them away. Today the biggest threat to our freedoms does not come from outside our borders. It comes from within. In Franklin Roosevelt’s first inaugural address he said:

let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.

Fear is the weapon of choice of our own government today. They continue to bring up vague threats of terrorism as an excuse to subvert the rights enshrined in the US Constitution. By making people afraid, they make them willing to give up freedom in the name of security. But what use is security without freedom? The protection of freedom must come first and foremost weather the threat comes from some islamic fascists in the middle east, christian fascists in Alabama and Texas or robber barons on Wall Street. We all have limited life spans and will inevitably die eventually. We need to live in the here and now and having freedom is a big part of that. Don’t dwell on avoiding death, because sooner or later it will catch up with you either via natural causes or other wise. Have the best life we can today and protect our rights.

Honor America’s war dead by defending what they died for. Communicate with others about the need to protect our rights. Contact your congressional representatives and tell them that protecting freedom must come first and foremost. Tell them to impeach any president that actively works to subvert the constitution. And go out and work against politicians that support the subversion of the constitution.