Electronic Darwinism - The Week in Review

For the third time, I have a collection of random links, some funny, some serious to post here and at Daily Kos.

Yes, just to practice - I don't expect too many readers at weird o'clock Sunday morning.

Okay then. Let's kick off this week's review with David Neiwert's Swiftboating of American Journalism, from which I obtained this quote:

Chicago Tribune Editor Charles M. Madigan says: “If you are a journalist, you should probably just assume that you come across as a liar.”

Like me, he points out this story in Salon. Want to know how to turn two men who shot a fleeing, unarmed suspect and lied about it into martyred heroes of the Right? That story will tell you.

Noted anti-videogame crackpot attorney Jack Thompson, at the hearing for his disbarment, has subpoenaed none other than the Chimp in his defense. Oh, and Jeb! too, for good measure. That can't help but to go well.

The Rude Pundit reports on yet another humiliation the Chimp has inflicted upon our international standing. God, can we just amend the Constitution to put "Not an idiot" in the qualifications for President already?

Glenn Greenwald tells us of the new tough guy over at National Review - Mark Hemingway. And before you ask, of course he's too tough and manly to, you know, pick up an M-16 and drive a truck in Iraq.

Okay, so maybe Giuliani is the proper heir to the Bush administration. After all, his first response is to lie.

I don't have any Linux news handy - but I do have the weather.

Good news - the ACLU wins and takes down the part of the Patriot Act authorizing national security letters. Thanks, Firedoglake and thanks ACLU.

One has to wonder about te minds that can produce Realtime ASCII Goggles. No, really. Just seeing those three terms together gives me a headache.

Oh, and Prim Perfect, the Second Life magazine that Ms. Korobase writes for, has been mentioned in the New York Times and the Daily Telegraph. It would be darkly humorous in a story-of-Moody's-life way should her writing grow more popular and famous than mine.
Yes, I always have a hard time ending these. Until next time -

I still live, I still think: I still have to live, for I still have to think.
Friedrich Nietzsche

Week in Review

Yeah, Second Life is eating all my time. How the hell does the General do it?


Anyway, for our Must Reads we've got Orcinus documenting Lou Dobbs' losing battle with reality (with a quick aside regarding the fundies' mistrust and loathing of, God help us, science fiction), and the inestimable Glenn Greenwald busting Mike McConnell's lying op-ed on FISA.

Here's a link to the NYPD surveillance targets before the Republican 2004 convention. Enjoy, and props to Bob Harris.

Oh, and speaking of warrantless surveillance - here's a preview from the UK courtesy of Slashdot.


Also, I'd like to welcome Cap'n Dyke to the blogroll - we share certain proclivities. For brightly-lit desktops, you perverts. She's added me to her crew, so I guess I need to brush up on my pirate lingo. Belike. Says I.

Wi' a curse.

Go over there and give her an Electronic Darwinism ahoy. And mind your manners, she runs a tight ship, scupper me wi' a belayin' pin, else!

Hey, this pirate bit is fun! Keelhaul the quartermaster! Jettison the mizzenmast! Splice the mainbrace!

They Just Don't Get the Whole "Rule of Law" Thing

Here, let's let Glenn Greenwald lead it off:

The Wall St. Journal online has today published a lengthy and truly astonishing article by Harvard Government Professor Harvey Mansfield, which expressly argues that the power of the President is greater than "the rule of law."

The power of the President, Mansfield says, is greater than the rule of law. And he says it like it's a good thing.

When Benjamin Franklin, when asked what kind of government the fledgling United States had famously replied, "A republic, if you can keep it", this was what he was talking about.

Oh, and in case you're writing this off as the bloviating of a pundit, let me assure you that it is, in fact the policy of this Administration:

Administration Pulls Back on Surveillance Agreement

By JAMES RISEN
Published: May 2, 2007

WASHINGTON, May 1 — Senior Bush administration officials told Congress on Tuesday that they could not pledge that the administration would continue to seek warrants from a secret court for a domestic wiretapping program, as it agreed to do in January.

Rather, they argued that the president had the constitutional authority to decide for himself whether to conduct surveillance without warrants.

The Chimp has the authority to decide for himself whether or not he needs to follow the law?

Did I miss the coronation?

What Happened to Stopping the War?

As Glenn Greenwald pointed out before he moved, wasn't the whole reason we elected Democrats because they'd do something about the nightmare quagmire that is the occupation of Iraq?

Here's part of what he has to say about it:

It is, I think, very hard to deny that there are some valid points lurking here. Most Bush critics accept these two premises: (1) Congress has the power to compel a withdrawal of troops from Iraq and (2) a withdrawal -- whether immediate or one that is completed within, say, six to nine months -- is vitally important. It is important in its own right and, perhaps even more so, because it is our presence in Iraq which enables all sorts of future disasters, including a looming confrontation with Iran.

Yet the Democratic-controlled Congress is clearly not going to attempt to exercise its power to compel the end of this war -- at least not any time soon. And, with some exceptions, there seems to be very few objections over that failure, very little clamoring that they do more. Why is that? What accounts for the seeming willingness -- even among more vocal war opponents and bloggers -- to give Democrats a pass on actually ending the war (as opposed to enacting symbolic, inconsequential resolutions)?

He brings this up because of a post on Politburo Diktat 2.0, wherein Commissar writes:

Those who disagree with the war in Iraq should be opposing it every day, almost to the exclusion of other topics. When the Netroots get wound up, they can hammer something endlessly (e.g. about 10 posts in 3 days from MYDD on the Edwards/Marcotte affair.) Why not pile on the pressure on Congressional leaders to stop funding the war? What would a patriot do? Why did I vote Dem in 2006? Your side has the power, guys. How about a Vicious Rant and Important Action Alert?

Generally, I do anti-torture, impeachment, and loss of civil liberties. That said, you have a point, Commissar.

UPDATE: Commissar, Glenn - looks like Congresswoman Lynne Woolsley (D-Petaluma) has your answer.

Here's her reminder on Daily Kos.

Are You Sure AG Gonzales Used to be a Lawyer?

Glenn Greenwald on AG Gonzales:

But ultimately, there are only two options -- (1) the administration is now complying fully and exclusively with FISA when eavesdropping, in which case all of its prior claims that it could not do so and still fight against The Terrorists are false, or (2) the administration has changed its eavesdropping program some, but it is still not fully complying with FISA, in which case nothing of significance has changed (at least on the lawbreaking issues) because the administration is still violating the law.

The FISA court and the administration cannot reach an agreement for proceeding that deviates from the FISA law itself. So it is only one or the other of the two options, neither of which reflect well on the administration.

I know I'm no lawyer, but I thought that releasing legal opinions weakening the case of the guy whose ass you're trying to cover was, you know, bad.

The Kind Of Horseshit I Have to Deal With

Thursday, I posted an excerpt from Glenn Greenwald's Nov. 30th column about how the warrantless wiretapping program is still illegal no matter how the Chimp uses the extrajudicial, unconstitutional powers he's seized for himself.

This is the kind of response I get:

Andy D said...

The program continues to be misrepresented. The program isn't wiretapping, and it has safe guards built in so that only terrorist are targeted. The information obtained from the program can't be used for civil criminal investigations. It has netted results, and we have captured high profile targets using this program.

Horseshit, Andy.

I find it illuminating that, in a column about how Bushites try to focus on the use rather than the legality of warrantless wiretapping, when the money quote I used was

It is truly astounding to watch people incapable of understanding the point that the reason it is wrong and dangerous for the President to eavesdrop on Americans without warrants is because doing so is against the law. Shouldn't that be a simple enough proposition that every functioning adult ought to be capable of understanding it?

Andy responds by once again "misunderstanding" the point. What part of "because it's a felony" do you not get, Andy?

Here's another quote, from the same column. I'd icily suggest that you read it this time, but that leads me to the realization that I screwed up the link to it in the last post. I'd better fix that.

One more time: the principal problem with the President's warrantless eavesdropping is not that he is abusing the secret eavesdropping powers he seized (that is something we do not yet know, because the Congress has not yet investigated that question). Instead, the "problem" is that the President is engaging in the very conduct which the American people, through their Congress almost 30 years ago, made it a felony to engage in, punishable by up to five years in prison -- that is, eavesdropping on Americans without judicial oversight.

Thus, even if Lanny Davis and the other Republicans on the panel think the President is using his illegal powers carefully, his conduct is no less illegal. Why is it necessary even to point that out? This has been the obvious and paramount point from the beginning, as I wrote in my book (at pages 25, 60) (emphasis in original):

The heart of the matter is that the president broke the law, deliberately and repeatedly, no matter what his rationale was for doing so. We do not have a system of government in which the president has the right to violate laws, even if he believes doing so will produce good results. . . .

The NSA eavesdropping scandal, as its core, is not an eavesdropping scandal. It is a lawbreaking scandal....

Are we clear, now? I even added some emphasis, so you wouldn't miss the point. Address that, if you will.

Once again, Glenn brings it home

Today's column here. I can't add to it, but here's a taste:

It is truly astounding to watch people incapable of understanding the point that the reason it is wrong and dangerous for the President to eavesdrop on Americans without warrants is because doing so is against the law. Shouldn't that be a simple enough proposition that every functioning adult ought to be capable of understanding it?

You'd think so. Some of these Bushites claim to be studious, serious people with law degrees and everything, but my five-year-old daughter gets the point that, time and again, seems to escape them.

Unless, of course, their stupidity is a rhetorical device to cover their dishonesty.

Up to you. We report, you deride.