Disturbing state lawmaking news

I'll comment more later, but here's some disturbing state lawmaking news.

Arizona Lawmaker Tries To Ban Naked Lady Mudflaps

No Bull: Lawmaker Wants Testicles Tossed

UPDATE: OK, both of these should be filed in the "all-other-more-important-problems-solved" department.

Rep. Ed Ableser in Arizona is the worst kind of politician - a busy-body who wants all of America to be as clean and sanitized as the Hallmark channel.  One of his supporters, Rep. Theresa Ulmer, obviously needs to take her son to a doctor, as he's either mentally retarded or partially deaf if she continually needs to explain the difference between idealized art and reality.  Has her son never seen a Barbie doll?  Why doesn't that idealized depiction of female anatomy confuse him.  And if it does confuse him, shall we try to pass a law banning them too, or just force stores to put them behind the counter next to the lighter fluid and cold medicine?

As for the bull balls story, Maryland State Delegate LeRoy Myers is a coward, hiding behind the standard statist shield of "we're protecting hte children".  How does Delegate Myers propose to keep children from seeing real animal testicles, say, on an un-neutered dog walking down the street?  There's an age at which kids don't need a full and complete explanation - a simple "they're decoration" should work on most any kid under 10.  I'll leave the explanation for kids over 10 as an exercise to the parent.

For both of these stories, take one lesson - life cannot be sanitized to protect anyone, especially your children.  You can either lock your kids in a Skinner box to keep them safe, or prepare them for life in the real world.  The loss of innocence is tragic, true, but necessary, and you as the parent have to be in control.  In other words: grow up, so your kids can too.

del.icio.us tags: government, laws

The Darkness Falls

We've all heard about the overreaction of the city of Boston to a guerilla marketing campaign for a cartoon show.  Today, we learn that the head of Cartoon Network is resigning over it.  And today, I'm going to comment on it.

Boston should slip into the sea.  Cleanse the idiocy with cold salt water and lobsters.  I'm sorry to say I lived there for a time, went to school there for a time, and enjoyed it - I'll certainly never go back now.

What happened to our collective common sense, people?  Ever since 9/11, were' so afraid of our own shadows that anyone walking down the street with a boxcutter in his back pocket, or two turbaned and robed men talking to one another quietly in the subway, or a Lite Brite on a street corner, is now considered a terrorist threat that demands some sort of response.  I guess we're lucky that the response was just a bunch of paranoid morons calling the authorities, and not some whack-job rounding up a vigilante posse.  Funny, I don't feel lucky - I feel dirty.

Turner Broadcasting, owner of Cartoon Network, apologized and has paid US$2 million to Boston to compensate them for the emergency response they took.  I'm sorry, but if I overreact to a situation and incur personal costs, why should anyone else but me be responsible for my actions?  Oh, that's right, I forgot - this is the New America, where personal responsibility is neither taught nor practiced.  Those few of us with this rare commodity are sitting back, shaking our heads, and wondering where the hell our country got off to.

Our elected leaders have paid lip service for five years that we should not lose the American Way of Life (tm) because of terrorism.  All this time, however, the American Way of Life has been slowly slipping away, slowly boiling to death like a frog in a pot of cool water over a Bunsen burner, as we submit to random searches and pat down on subways, invasive searches of our bags and limits on our speech as we try to board airplanes, and compilation of our personal data into lists that tell us where and how we can't travel.  We've lost our common sense to fear-based irrationality wrapped in the blanket of "security concerns".  We've lost our rational thought and replaced with jingoism.  We've lost our sense of humour and replaced it with self-importance as a cog in the great machine.

In my opinion, the head of Cartoon Network should still be in his role, and the head of Turner Broadcasting shouldn't be writing checks.  They should both be looking at the knee-jerkers and bureaucrats in Boston and asking them, "Why is your stupidity our problem?  Why should we pay for your actions?  Stupidity should be painful - more correctly, your stupidity should be painful to you."  And the people of Boston should be looking hard and asking hard questions at these mental midgets come next election day.

New York, The Nanny State (East)

New York State Senator Carl Kruger is planning to propose legislation that would make it illegal to cross the street in New York City and Buffalo while using an electronic device, like a cell phone, Blackberry, iPod, or Zune.  Apparently, Sen. Kruger is very concerned that two recent fatal accidents involving people in his district who were using said devices are an epidemic and needs some sort of government response.  No word on whether his district (District 27 in Brooklyn) has been gerrymandered to include Buffalo.

For a sensible alternative, check out the Nanny State from the Cato Institute.  And while your at it, take a look at some of the legislation Sen. Kruger is working on...  An informed citizen is a politician's worst nightmare.

And if you live in Sen. Kruger's district, use your feet, go to a poll next election day, and send him a message that he's not your freaking mother, you're a responsible adult, you resent being treated like a pre-schooler, and he can stay out out of your personal life as you vote him out of the public life, thankyouverymuch.

Just for kicks, ride the bike you work on to the voting booth, and make sure you carry a boxcutter and a copy of the Constitution with you (highlight the Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments).

Ad hominem comments follow: Doesn't the phrase "plans to propose legislation" make your butt pucker?

New York and Masschussetts are now, officially, the East Coast cells of the Soviet State of California.  Remember folks, when the pain of the Nanny State spanking your ass gets too much, the porcupines are moving to New Hampshire.

UPDATE: ECanadaNow is reporting that three Brooklyn-ites were killed crossing the street with iPods, not one in Brooklyn and one in Buffalo as reported by WNBC.  Not sure who to believe or listen to, but now I'm wondering if Kruger will start handing out $100 fines for running with scissors or swimming within 30 minutes of eating as well...

UPDATE #2: Reuters has the story now, along with some more "nanny state" quotes from Comrade Senator Kruger:

Government has an obligation to protect its citizenry

Maybe in New York, it does, but in America as a whole, the Preamble to the Constitution defines what government should do - protecting its citizenry isn't one of those things.

It's becoming a nationwide problem.

This electronic gadgetry is ... becoming ... endemic...

Endemic?  Nationwide problem?  Where are the scores of reports of others suffering as three Brooklynites have?  I haven't seen them - tell me, if this is such an endemic problem, Senator, are there more people dying from other problems in Brooklyn, or is this numero uno on the list?

Then there's the problem I have with the sympathetic Reuters reporter, who is uncreditted in this story - this paragraph is editorializing, not reporting (emphasis mine).

Tech-consuming New Yorkers trudge to work on sidewalks and subways like an army of drones, appearing to talk to themselves on wireless devices or swaying to seemingly silent tunes.

If he was the only reporter to bias his reporting, it wouldn't be an issue, but he and the Senator are just two examples of an endemic nationwide problem.

New Toyota Commercials - WTF?

I wasn't sure where else to put this idea, but I've been really pissed at the new Toyota commercials.  Despite the fact that I'll most likely never buy a Toyota for my own use (my daughter has one I bought her when she graduated high school), these commercials ensure that I'll never buy one for anyone.

The commercials start innocuous enough - a few pics of scenery and people enjoying themselves, with a song-over with the lyrics, "This is the place I want to live... And the

way I want to drive..."  I can only presume they're tailored for different parts of the country - I live in Seattle, so it's tailored for the Pacific Northwest.

Anyway, after the song lyric, a voice-over comes on, in a gentle masculine voice, "There's something special about this part of the country," followed by different phrases, such as, "we care about the environment," and, "we care about family values."

WTF?

My first response to these was simple: Unlike those yahoo's in Montana.

Really, think about it - as if people in other parts of the country don't care about the environment, or have family values, or can respond to jingoistic marketing catch-phrases.  Give me a break.

Technorati tags: driving, marketing

Responsibility

Do you know the primary way you can tell if someone is a responsible adult?  Watch them drive.  If they drive responsibly (in other words, with purpose, on purpose, and predictably), most likely they act responsibly as well.  Case in point - one small episode from one day of my morning commute this week.

Normally, I ride a motorcycle - a 1996 Harley Davidson Dyna Wide Glide to me exact.  However, since the wind storm and freak snow storms Washington had since December, I've been driving my 2003 Mercury Sable to work.  This necessitates a change in my route, and my introduction to non-HOV travel on our fine state highways.

I found myself behind a large SUV on the I-90 floating bridge.  The time was about 8:30am, and we were heading east into the sun.  the sun wasn't too high, but it wasn't that low either - I personally had no problems seeing (at least seeing the SUV, but that's another rant).

The driver in the SUV, however, was having no end of trouble, from what I could see - first the left hand came up to shield their eyes, then the right (apparently, they got tired easily).  At one point, I thought the driver had their eyes closed and head down to avoid the bright light - from the movements the SUV was making, it appeared that way.  The SUV finally moved out of the left hand lane into the center lane, and I passed on the right.

When I did, I looked over to see who was driving - it turned out to be a very small woman.  Her head topped out at only halfway up the window, just about over the steering wheel.  Even with the visor down the she sat so low in the vehicle, the sun had no choice but to hit her in the eyes.

And here's where the responsibility comes in - don't buy a vehicle that's too big for you.  If you pull the visor down and sun still hits you in the eyes, either buy some sunglasses or drive a freakin' Miata.  I'm tired of the desire for a big expensive status symbol outweighing the need to act responsibly.  Sure, you can buy it, but if you can't drive it, you're no longer an important person - now you're one overcorrection away from being the "earlier accident that has traffic snarled."

Yes, I hate SUV's.  And No, there oughtn't be a law against them.

Technorati tags: driving, responsibility

Zune Marketing via Orwell

OK, this isn't politics per se, but I have to get it off my chest.  The Microsoft Zune marketing campaign is disturbing me greatly.

There are two ads I've seen for the Zune that make me think the marketing folks at Microsoft have taken George Orwell's 1984 and turned into a reference manual.

The first ad has text which reads, "Welcome to the Social".  The second ad reads, "Anti-antisocial".  Both are anti-anti-bullshit.

I remember when I was a teenager - Sony had introduced the Walkman a few years earlier, and I had a competitor's version.  I used to walk around wearing headphones and listening to mix-tapes I made or maybe a purchased album.  At no time did I think I was being social - as a matter of fact, I knew, and was told often, that wearing headphones was antisocial.  Well, duh, of course it's antisocial - when I'm on the bus, or a plane, or waiting around in public, it's easier to put on my music, open my book, and tune out everyone else.  Being social means interacting with other folks around you - I was doing the opposite.

The Walkman for the new millennium is the iPod, and one of its competitors is the Zune.  The technology has changed, but the result is the same - you plug in earphones and listen to your music and tune out the people around you.  It's no more social than the Walkman, or the Discman, or any other technology that diverts one or more of your senses away from the folks around you.  It's never been "social".  It's never been "anti-antisocial".  And that's the disturbing part...

Microsoft appears to be trying to twist the meaning of putting on a set of headphones and listening to your own personal soundtrack as "social" instead of antisocial.  Much like Orwell's doublespeak, Microsoft marketing is trying to pull a fast one on us.

Don't believe the hype - buy the player you want for the features it has, not for the hype.  Listening to music on an MP3 player, or a Walkman, or Discman, or whatever, is not, has never been, and will never be "social".  It will always be antisocial.  And it matters not one whit what a marketer redefines words to mean.

Technorati tags: marketing

Student Recites 8,784 Digits of Pi - Yahoo! News

It's not politics directly, but it strikes a chord with me and effectiveness of public education. Read the article, then come back...

Student Recites 8,784 Digits of Pi - Yahoo! News

Some thoughts I had...

But his mathematical feat won the praise of others, including the math and computer science teacher who got Gaurav interested in it.

What mathematical feat? Memorizing 8K+ numbers in a row is math now? Guess this must be the NEW New Math, a step up from the finger counting my daughter had to learn in grade school. When I was in high school (the kid's 15, he better be at least a freshman), the mathematical feats I did were proving geometric theorems, deriving the quadratic formula, applying calculus to physics, and learning to triple-integrate to get the space under a curve.

My math teacher (three years in a row - Trig, Algebra II, and Calc) didn't expect us to memorize crap - we got to bring into each test one 8.5"x11" sheet of paper with anything written on it we wanted. Her idea was that memorization was for magentic storage media - knowing where to find the information we needed was more important than memorizing the information.

The Teacher must be REAL impressed with cell phones – look at all the numbers they can remember and recite back…

Gooding holds the competition every year, and said she expected students to learn about 40 digits.

What the hell? Is this kid in a school for Luddites? Even rocket launches don’t need that much precision, and I'm certain the launch engineers don't enter pi into their HP calculators manually - they rely on the calculator's or computer's software to retreive a value accurate enough for their uses.

I see this as a complete waste of taxpayer dollars to have a teacher encouraging a student to do what a computer can do faster, cheaper, and easier. As a hobby, let the kid memorize whatever he wants, impersonate any austistic savant as much as possible - but to encourage this in a classroom, to expect kids to memorize 40 digits of pi, is insane bordering on criminal.

BTW, here's what I remember of pi: 3.14159725. And that's been good enough for any calculation, computation, or graphic display I've ever done. Actually, I don't think I've ever needed the actual value of pi before - I just use Math.PI in whatever graphics/math libraries the language I'm coding in provides me. And when I'm doing math long-hand, I just write pi.

New Florida Town Plans Abortion, Porn, Birth Control Bans

Man, this is a tough one.

On one hand, if a group of like-minded people get together to form a community based on their own beliefs, to the exclusion of others, there's a First Amendment that says they can. So long as they're not going to be displacing other property owners to make their Vatican Vacation Getaway, I don't see a problem with someone buying a few million acres, calling it Ave Maria, and parceling out to others under contract.

On the other hand, this is a going to be a town, where non-residents may be passing through freely, who require services not provided by the town. It may very well be unconstitutional in Florida, maybe not in other states.

Not sure how I feel about this one - I'm not Catholic, will never live there, will never probably go there, but who am I to say that a group of Catholics can't form their own little community and live the way they want to? Nuns and monks do it all the time.

Of course, there's another angle Monaghan hasn't though of - if there are a lot of influential Catholics all living in a small area, it's much MUCH easier to take them all out at once with a well placed briefcase nuke.

ChannelCincinnati.com - Family - New Florida Town Plans Abortion, Porn, Birth Control Bans

Inflating a resume illegal? It might be under new bill

Exactly how flipping deep is the Washington State legislature gonna bury their fingers in the private sector's ass? How does this even REMOTELY fall under the auspices of small focussed government? If you're an employer (like the federal government, cited in the piece) and you can't spare the time to independently check on a given credential, maybe you deserve what you get.

Inflating a resume illegal? It might be under new bill

Report cites ‘fraud and abuse’ at FEMA - Lisa Myers & the NBC Investigative Unit - MSNBC.com

This, of course, surprises no one. At least no one with a naivete level above that of a third grader...

Report cites ‘fraud and abuse’ at FEMA - Lisa Myers & the NBC Investigative Unit - MSNBC.com

East Texas Weekly Community Newspaper

Someone needs to explain something to Armstrong Williams.

There are numerous ways to defend America against terrorist attack. The way the President has chosen - and which Armstrong defends - have the unfortunate side-effect of destroying the America it's trying to defend. It's like killing an infection by application of cyanide - sure, we stop the infection, but at the cost of the patient.

His last sentence is particularly telling - since he's not a terrorist, or affiliated with a terrorist organization, Williams obviously isn't worrying. Can we extrapolate here a little? I will make the assumptive leap, for the purposes of my argument, that Williams is also not a drug runner - I'm sure he wouldn't mind being stopped in his car for an impromptu warrantless search. Since he's also not a murderer, he won't mind a similar warrantless search of his home for evidence of that crime. Since he's also not a pedophile, a search of his home computer would be welcome as well to allay the government's fears. Of course, we'd do this at times when it wasn't an inconvenience - say, search his car while he's in the office, his home while he's at work, and his computer at 2am when he's asleep. The one exception would be when he's trying to board a plane, at which point all concerns about convenience would be suspended.

Armstrong Williams needs a swift kick in his rhetorical pants - the America he and I both love is being killed by the cure he is supporting. America annot tolerate this without doing something. It will either fight back, or (as I fear and see), roll over and die. And then Armstrong Williams can feel safe knowing the government is watching over him and his family, because all they do and say will be screened for potential mindcrimes...

East Texas Weekly Community Newspaper

Eminent Domain: The Political Favor

Think the recent Kelo v. New London thing was a tragic anomaly, but couldn't affect you? Think again - government has all the time in the world to wait you out. Too bad taking them to court won't work...

KTLA The WB Where Los Angeles Lives Land Seized for Animal Shelter May Be Sold to Developer-Donor

Listening to the Radio

Usually, I ride my motorcycle to work, but since we've had rain for the past 24 days straight in Seattle, my wife thinks I should be driving the car instead. So, I've been driving the past few days, listening to the radio on the way in. I listen to KZOK-FM in Seattle, and the morning guys are Bob, Spike, and Joe from the Bob Rivers Show. They're reasonably funny, have good on-air chemistry, and I like them...

Until, that is, they start talking politics - I've turned them off more times than I can count when they start talking politics.

This morning, for instance, they were talking about the rebuilding of New Orleans. Apparently, a recommendation is being made that would allow local neighborhoods to decide how they would like to rebuild - what kidn of buildings, what kind of houses, etc. A good idea on the surface, but remember, this rebuilding is being paid for with tax dollars, not private money. The show's resident babe and socialist, Kaci (who, from her bio, has a PoliSci degree), said she liked it, because it got the free market out of the equation (???).

A caller with a definitely libertarian bent (although he called himself non-partisan) said it was a bad idea - New Orleans was a horrid place to build even before the hurricane, because it's below sea level. He was advocating letting salvage companies have the place, and if they took the risk and could make a profit, that's the way it was supposed to work. He also said what I feel - that his tax dollars shouldn't be going to New Orleans to rebuild restaurants he'll never frequent. Kaci commented, "Way to help your fellow man." In other words, a bleeding heart socialist.

There are a few things Kaci is completely missing. First, we have helped our fellow man - perhaps she forgets who was first into New Orleans to help. Hint: it wasn't the federal government. Give up? Private charities and companies were there to help when FEMA couldn't find it's ass with both hands.

Second, taxation is a poor way to "help your fellow man". It's theft, and if you believe the ends justify the means, then extra taxes to help rebuild New Orleans could be considered a charitable contribution, which means I can deduct them from my taxes next year, right? Come on - if I had the money the feds took from me every pay period, I might have some extra to donate to a rebuilding project in New Orleans - as it is, the feds take my money before I ever see it and use it fund imperialism in the Middle East, propagandize our kids, and subsidize failing businesses and stupid people who build houses in places that are doomed on a regular basis (flood insurance?). Given that my money already is going there, I don't see a need to donate to charities to do the same thing.

Third, why is this a federal problem? It's the city of New Orleans, wholly and completely located in (and under) the state of Louisiana. Where was the New Orleans money for the past 30 years when people in this area had their homes flooded due to heavy rain? Or was the fact that a person who builds a home at a place called Washaway Beach is obviously much better off than the working poor of New Orleans, and therefore doesn't need any help when Mother Nature knocks his home into the sea?

Kaci is a bleeding heart socialist - she's not talking about economics or politics in any objective or realistic way. She just wants to help the poor folk stuck in New Orleans because they can't find a way out. Everyone there should be getting the same education most of us did, in public schools - everyone there should be getting paid at a decent minimum wage - everyone there should be getting enough welfare to keep a roof over their head and three squares a day - so why is it that some people have more while others have less? According to Kaci, I guess, it's not because she and I are smarter, or have more initiative and drive to learn and succeed, or were fortunate enough to not be born into poverty (I was born into working poverty) .

I'm not sure why she thinks this, but I think I know her solution - simply redistribute the wealth. Tax people so that we can spread the money over the populace in an equitable manner. She and I and every other person making more than the median income should work hard so we can give all that excess to the poor in New Orleans (and New York, and Compton, and south Chicago, and east St. Louis, and presumably Seattle as well).

I invite her to go first.

Repealing the Magna Carta

A good article, and a good rebuttal to my previous comment - the Administration spying on U.S. citizens isn't the only issue, just the latest, and one I hope will be the straw that breaks the camel's back and pushes towards more liberty. I'm afraid, however, it's a juggernaut that can't be stopped short of revolution...

Repealing the Magna Carta

Comment from mistaken post

A while ago, I mistakenly posted my blog article on Bush's defense of domestic spying to my other blog. I pulled it once I found out about it being posted incorrectly, but still got a comment. Since I'm not going to mix messages in a blog, here's the comment, in it's entirety (not sure who sent it to me):

I don't know where your personal blog is, but you can take this comment and
shoot it over there (or just post the info and your response). If you are going
to post about such a complex legal issue as electronic eavesdropping on foreign
agents where domestic contact with said agents is possible, you might want to
(instead of using a child's view of the issue as a hammer to beat your political
opponents with) take a reasoned look at it prior to knee-jerking a response.
Since, I'm sure, you would not believe anyone's opinion on the subject who
doesn't hate Chimpy Bushitler McHaliburton, I'd suggest reading this editorial
by a former member of Clinton's Atty General's office, John Schmidt: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512210142dec21,0,3553632.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed

Of all the stupid, inept or quasi-legal things you can beat up BushCo for,
this isn't one of them. We need to be able to spy on foreign agents without
having to worry about whether or not Americans (who are calling or are being
called by these agents) get spied on as well. Quite frankly, its those people
who are the ones we need to be keeping track of in the first place.

Some rebuttal to the comment is necessary.

First, I'm not a Bush hater because I'm a good liberal - I'm a Bush hater because I'm a freedom loving libertarian (also known as a classic liberal, but since the word "liberal" has been co-opted and redefined, like "gay" and "patriot", I'll stick with libertarian).

Second, while the President may have had authority to do so, that does not make it right. The City of New London has the authority to take your property and turn it over to someone else by the same argument - that does not make it right.

Third, we're talking about actions taken well along the wrong path to neutralizing the threat of terrorists. By stating that there is precedent and authority and correctness in this action, we're justifying the actions that led to it. Draconian security at our airports and train stations, secret courts and NSA letters, and covert spying on Americans at libraries and on the phone are justified by that fact that we are at war, when in fact that the war itself could have been avoided had we simply kept our imperial noses out of other country's respective businesses. By meddling in the affairs of Middle Eastern countries, we've earned the enmity of those people, and have been reaping the rewards of that meddling since 1946. Had we left well enough alone, or engaged in free and open trade rather than obtrusive foreign policies and military aid, I feel Al Qaeda would be a non-entity as far as the U.S. was concerned.

The op-ed piece mentioned above also cites a clause in the knee-jerk Congressional order giving the President power to use all necessary force to prevent another attack. The War on Terror, however, like the Wars on Drugs and Poverty, are not, as mentioned before, conventional wars, and to my mind, were not considered in the Constitution when the President was given Commander in Chief powers at wartime. Open-ended ill-defined wars against intangible enemies only serves to preserve broad and unchecked Executive power over the lives and well-being of Americans, and cut the life expectancy of citizens of perceived enemy states. While quoting an act passed by a Congress desirous of appearing to be "on top of the situation" isn't the best way to gets one's point across, it is, however, merely a supporting argument, not the main one.

The op-ed further goes on to say that, while use of this power, if done properly, has immense benefit for little cost, there is still something to fear if this power is not limited as the Bush Administration assures us it is. Given that the administration won't honor agreements in writing (Constitution? What Constitution? Fourth Amendment? Fifth Amendment?), how am I to be assured that a purely verbal assurance will be honored?

In summation, justifying the use or abuse of power, whether legal or not, in order to assure the perceived safety of the citzenry, is immoral. Temporary safety should NEVER be traded for essential liberty - in fact, unrestrained liberty is the best defense against outside threats, and the most feared weapon against internal threats such as those coming from our government.

Fuck Christmas

This is brilliant - if you don't like essays generously sprinkled with the F-word, skip it, but if you're an adult, go ahead and read it.

Two things - first, let me say that I don't watch any news programs, let alone Fox News. I have nothing in particular against Fox News, just all newscasts.

Second, as for profanity, there's a paraphrase of Lewis Carroll I like - are you the master of your language, or your language the master of you? I believe I am the master of my language(s), and so I use whatever words I feel like.

Bush (tries to) Defend Domestic Spying

An AP Report in a WV newspaper site...

The CATO Institute said it best - I'm paraphrasing here. If the President can, by some extraordinary stretch of interpretation and imagination, defend any action he takes in the War on Terror as Commander in Chief, then 1) the Patriot Act is unnecessary, and 2) the doctrine of separation of powers is a joke.

Bush can claim he's not a dictator - I'm sure Castro and Stalin denied it to their people as well. When he took the Oath of Office (both of them), he pledged to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. This most recent news, IMHO, is just the most recent example that he does no such thing. If the Constitution was so important to him (ignoring the rumours reported last week), he'd petition Congress for a true Act of War, then act within that declaration to win it. There has been no formal Congressional Act of War against Iraq; the War on Terror, like the War on Drugs or the War on Poverty, are not wars in any traditional sense, but merely declarations of resolve to remove the planet of scourges both real and imagined; therefore any powers Bush has exercised under the guise of "Commander in Chief" are patently illegal. His actions are traitorous and more than deserving a vote of impeachment.

The lone non-voting senator

The results are in at http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00358.

Seems the lone non-voting senator wasn't Cantwell as I had previously thought - somehow, she cast an absentee vote of Nay from Iraq (perhaps I need to learn a bit more about how the Senate votes). The senator who didn't vote was Chris Dodd (D-CT). Why not? Nothing I can find - no statement on his website about it, just a Not Voting on the record. I used to live in Connecticut, Dodd was there when I was in the early 80's, although I think he was in the House at the time.

I'm still not happy she wasn't in D.C. when the vote was cast, but am a bit chastened by the fact that she did vote Nay. I still don't think it was her job to oversee foreign elections, though.

Maria Cantwell: Gross Negligence?

That's Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA).

Let me preface this by saying that I didn't vote for her, don't like her, and don't support her. That said, she is one of my representatives in the Senate, so I accept she won the election and deal with her when necessary.

Yesterday, however, my patience broke. You see, there's a bill going before the Senate to reauthorize the Patriot Act, with a bunch of extra crap thrown in for good measure. George "Its just a god damn piece of paper" Bush wants this bill - and why not? It gives him dictatorial powers by keeping us in a constant state of war, therefore making his role as commander and chief supreme to just about everything else.

The reauthorization bill passed the House, narrowly I hear, and is on it's way to the Senate. Some key senators are trying to fight with a filibuster, while others are fighting back pushing for a cloture vote, which would kill the filibuster and push the bill through the Senate.

Being a concerned citizen and unable to cast my own vote on this issue, I sent e-mails to both Patty Murray (my other Senator) and Maria Cantwell, urging them to vote against cloture and not to pass this bill. You can read about that on the ACLU web site.

Then, watching the news last night, I caught a story on the Iraqi elections going on. Who do I see in the background, acting as an observer but Senator Maria Cantwell. She's not in Washington to cast a vote - she's in Iraq making sure the votes cast there are fair.

In other words, instead of being in Washington protecting the rights of American citizens, she's in a foreign country making sure their rights are being protected.

The job description for a U.S. Senator is listed in the Constitution, and nowhere does it say, "Uphold and protect the rights of citizens of foreign lands on other sovereign nations".

I don't know how the Senate votes, but if she cannot cast a vote from Iraq, then she has abandoned her post. Should the new Patriot Act make it through the Senate while she's away and she doesn't cast a vote, I think she should be allowed to be away from Washington D.C. as much as possible after the next election by voting for someone who will be around when the shit hits the fan.

LATE UPDATE:

Just checked MSNBC (at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10485860/) - the Senate did their duty, by god, and rejected cloture, killing the bill until they could work some more civili liberty protections into it. Of course, the best protection they could add would be absolutely nothing - let the damn things sunset in a few weeks, and let's go back to the way things were before. Won't happen, but a boy can dream, can't he...

As an interesting aside, the vote was 52-47 - that adds up to 99. There are 100 Senators, 2 from each state. Whose was the vote that didn't get cast? The vote lists aren't up on the www.senate.gov website yet - once I see who didn't cast a vote, I'll post it here.

Patty Murray did vote against the bill - marks for her. She also has a statement about it on her website at http://murray.senate.gov/news.cfm?id=249858. Cantwell's last blurb on her site? Some socialist crap about oil exec's not being honest with Congress about fuel oil prices - apparently, she didn't like the answers she got before, so she asked, and asked again. The press release was about her asking again. Maybe while she's in Iraq, she can bring back some oil for the poor folk - isn't that why our troops are there, to get the oil?

Capitol Hill Blue: Bush on the Constitution: 'It's just a goddamned piece of paper'

Not sure how accurate this is, but I've been seeing this story, or reports of it, all over my news feeds.

If it's true, Bush needs to be impeached, then tried for treason.

If it's not, then it's a sad attempt to discredit him.

Let's figure out which it is, then take the proper action.