Uncategorized

Alas, a Blog: filibuster everybody:

Speaking of filibusters, why should the Democrats allow Bush to put anyone at all on the Supreme Court?

When (as is likely) O’Connor and Rehnquist retire, I don’t think the Democrats should allow any nominee to replace them through. Filibuster everyone Bush nominates to the Supreme Court. The Court can simply make decisions with seven judges instead of nine until a new President (left or right) is elected. It would be just, and send a clear message to the Supreme Court that they cannot abuse their power to control future nominations to the Supreme Court.

Archie wants to make some panicky noises:

Are we just weeks away from a martial law, cancelled elections, and an overtly fascist dictatorship? Probably not. But we are on a very ugly trajectory and need have some sort of national dialog on what our country will be in this century. Already the international order has been irreparably changed in a cloud of spin and misdirection. We may be becoming an empire with all of the burdens and costs that that entails. Our representatives let themselves be stampeded into passing the first Patriot act in some cases without even reading it. Despite the damage that it did to the Bill of Rights, it was not enough for the administration. They hold numerous prisoners without observing any legal niceties-even citizens-and they want an expanded Patriot act to give them even more arbitrary power. We’ve seen that their ideal judge has some very scary ideas on the nature of sovereignty and rights.

Pontificator on the bigger dangers of the war:

All this endless chatter about the war effort and whether we gave the troops enough food rations or whether the ?logistical tail? has enough air support or whether Donald Rumsfeld misapprehended the strength of Saddam Fedayeen is really beside the point. You see we?re not really being threatened in Iraq. Nothing that particularly dangerous or troubling to the United States? interests is happening within Iraq proper at the moment.

The real danger is in Morocco, where 150,000 protestors want to suicide bomb American targets. The real danger is in Egypt, where thousands of Egyptian University students are burning American flags. The real danger is in Iran, where newly-energized protestors are chanting ?death to America,? over and over and over again. The real danger is in Pakistan, where the Islamic radicals are knocking on Musharref?s door.

We were hated before this war, of course. Al Qaeda proved that. But as terrible as Al Qaeda is, it is the fringe of Islamist extremism. We could have limited its danger, or even, in the long run, eliminated it through targeted actions against the extremists, while simultaneously making grand gestures of tolerance towards, and discussing peaceful engagement with the more than one billion Muslims who inhabit this Earth. Those actions would have stopped the killers, while persuading the masses in Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan that the path of the killers is unjustified.

Polygon, the Dancing bear reports
on the new “super-DMCA” law which went into effect two days ago:

Firewalls now illegal here? A new Michigan law, enacted during last year’s lame duck session, takes
effect today. Among the features of our new “super-DMCA” ? similar bills, sponsored by the MPAA, are
pending in many other states ? are sweeping new restrictions on telecommunications.

Public Act 672 of 2002, besides amending various other criminal code provisions, purports to “update”
prohibitions on theft of cable and telephone service. But the law as written would ban many widely used
computer security measures.

The language is extremely broad: starting today, it’s a felony to “assemble, develop, manufacture,
possess, deliver, offer to deliver, or advertise” any device which are intended to, among other things,
conceal the origin or destination of a communication, even without any intent to defraud anyone. That
covers firewalls, encryption, steganography, remailers, NAT, tunnels, Kerberos, SSH, IPSec, pretty much
the gamut of secure communications.

Terminus on Blood for Oil:

Blood for Oil. Ok, I’ve never been one of these “No Blood for Oil” types. I think that phrase oversimplifies the motives of the Bush Administration so far as to be unhelpful. I think that the oil motive is one component of a very complex set of motives. I think oil is a necessary, but not a sufficient reason, within the nebulous and by no means unified mind of the Bush Administration.

Unfortunately, the White House is making it damn hard to continue minimizing the importance of oil. When U.S. companies with strong political ties to this Administration (first and foremost, Halliburton) start picking up highly lucrative no-bid government contracts for Iraqi oil, it shakes your faith. In other words, this may not be an oil war, but the Bush Administration is bending over backwards to make it look like one.