Fun with American Bureaucracy!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/cia_leak_trial

Are you kidding me?

I have neither the time nor the patience to write a lot about this, but the things that piss me off most are the fact that:

1) Bush even said, "...a jury of citizens weighed all the evidence and listened to all the testimony and found Mr. Libby guilty of perjury and obstructing justice. They argue, correctly, that our entire system of justice relies on people telling the truth. And if a person does not tell the truth, particularly if he serves in government and holds the public trust, he must be held accountable" and then went ahead and did away with his punishment. What the hell is the point of a jury trial, a judge's sentence and the appeals system then? I thought we had a court system set up to handle these sorts of issues. Apparently not.

2) The judge who handed down the sentence is a Bush appointee and made it very clear that the sentence was handed down with the 'overwhelming' evidence against Libby clearly in mind. I just don't get it.

Bush is trying to argue that even though Libby has been freed from having to serve any time in prison, his punishment is still strong because "he will remain on probation. The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant and private citizen will be long-lasting." Sorry, George, but a $250,000 fine doesn't mean jack to a career politician.

Maybe I'm just flying off the handle, but this seems like a big pile of grade-A bullshit.

Some Internet Comedy for You.

And, no, it's not from YouTube:

http://www.stophatecrimesnow.com/?host_id=WND

...and you thought election campaign commercials were cheesy.

I found this page through random clicking and surfing from a 2004 picture that purportedly showed Noah's Ark sticking out of the snow on Mt. Ararat. Interesting stuff, to say the least.

Where I eventually ended up, though, was WorldNetDaily.com. The site contains stories such as one that declares Google (the internet search engine site) evil, that the new hate crimes bill in Congress targets Christians and features Chuck Norris (no joke) as a columnist.

Please don't think I'm only singling this site out because it is religious in nature. Much like the events on BG's campus that I pointed out last week, I'm singling this out because of its particular message and means of delivery.

Take, for example, Chuck's latest column. Chuck begins admirably enough, praising the heroes of the Virginia Tech shooting this past week, as we all should. Unfortunately, from there, things go a bit sour. The Texas Ranger then makes the argument that the "secular agenda" is (at least partly) responsible for the shootings, as if a mentally unbalanced kid like Cho needed any help in coming to the decision to take the actions he did. What bothers me most, though, is the way Chuck dismisses "the Buddhist, Muslim and Jew" presenters at the VT convocation and insists that a "return to the God of our founders, Jesus Christ" will take America "back ... to a time when such shocking crimes didn't even exist."

Reading this, I can't help but wonder precisely what time Chuck is talking about. Is he talking about the 1920s? Or maybe he's talking about Biblical times, when the only people who were killed were those pesky groups that God condemned, like the witches (Exodus 22:18) and the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites (Deuteronomy, Chapters 7 and 20).

It seems to me that the last thing we need is to make a concerted effort to go back to a time when people were commanded to wipe entire races off the face of the earth and leave alive nothing that breathes (Deuteronomy 20:16).  Is Chuck serious?  I guess just about as serious as the article that argues whether or not he's tougher than Bruce Lee.

Again, it's not that I've got a problem with the Christian message, I just wish there was less ignorant, hypocritical junk like this out there.

Anyway, this wasn't meant to be offensive, just my take on a site that's too full of itself to see how ridiculous its own stories are. Carry on.

Intolerance is the New Black.

Well, the College Republicans are at it again.

Yes, the College Republicans, the same group that intended to bring Ann Coulter to our campus, but chose noted educational speaker Ted Nugent instead - and shelled out $12,000 of Student Budget Committee money for him (about 5x as much as the Organization for Women's Issues recieved total.) - has found a new way to make a mockery of themselves.

I just found out that they were involved with the "Genocide Awareness Campaign" (warning - CBR's website contains numerous disturbing photos) that I ranted and raved about earlier this week. Now, as if I should really be surprised by anything they do anymore, I am shocked to learn that, as part of "Conservative Week", they've sponsored another ridiculous and counter-productive event. This is one for the ages, folks.

The group has declared today "Illegal Immigrants, Get out of our Country Day".
Insert disgusted look here.

I was wondering what the hell the deal was when I saw a kid setting up a small circle of chicken wire in the free speech area (Union Oval), and I didn't find out until just now. Ready for this?

What I saw was apparently part of their "Catch an Illegal Immigrant" event. I don't know exactly what it is they're doing, and I'm not sure I want to know. All I know for sure is that they have proven once again why they do not deserve the funding they receive from the SBC. In an article in Monday's BG News, this year's SBC allotments were announced. The College Republicans received a recommendation of $5,250 (still 2x what OWI received last year), and they are not happy.
CR president Dan Lipian apparently sees this allotment as "insulting" and "an absolute disgrace."

No, Dan. What's insulting and disgraceful is that with last year's recommendation of $14,550, the best you could do was bring Ted Nugent to campus to rant about welfare and gun control and sponsor offensive and counter-productive displays such as those we've been graced with this week. What's insulting is that organizations which fight for the rights and recognition of underrepresented groups on campus were able to accomplish far more than yours and do it in a more responsible way with only a fraction of the financial means. OWI received $2,448. Vision - the campus LGBTQ group - only received $3,805 last year to fight for the rights of people who are regularly looked down upon or ignored. You received a gift and wasted it on trash. Shame on you.

These sorts of ridiculous displays do nothing to promote positive discussion or community on our campus and only serve to make people (potential students included) feel unwanted and unwelcome on our campus.

Ethical Reform? Try Again.

Once again, an anti-abortion group (the Center for Bio-ethical Reform -warning: disturbing photos and videos) has deemed it necessary to grace our fine campus with pictures of disfigured fetuses. This time, there's a different twist. They're calling it the "Genocide Awareness Campaign." And this time, they're not driving around in a truck with the pictures on the sides, they're not flying by with a banner hanging from a plane, they've set up shop in the "Designated Free Speech" area in the Union oval. I find this offensive and insulting.

As someone who is against abortion in nearly all cases, even I find it to be in poor taste to pull such a stunt. There is no reason why people walking to class across campus should have to be faced with such images against their will. There are better, more effective ways to prove a point.

Not only are they showing pictures of the results of abortions, they are comparing it to numerous historic 'ethnic cleansing' genocide campaigns. As pedestrians approach the display they first encounter signs that read "Warning: Genocide Photos Ahead." Several of the banners bear symbols of the Nazi movement in Germany. One reads "Different motives, different methods, same results." This banner has a photo of a mass grave from an 'ethnic cleansing' catastrophe in former Yugoslavia next to a picture of the remains of an aborted fetus. I think their own caption really says it all, though, "Different motives, different methods."

Dictionary.com defines genocide as "the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group."
A woman choosing to abort a fetus - for whatever reason - can hardly be equated to the targeted, systematic and willful destruction of an entire group of people. To do so is to insult the intelligence of the average passer-by and to de-emphasize the incredibly tragic and catastrophic nature of such genocide campaigns as the Holocaust, the conflict in Kosovo and the ongoing conflicts in Africa.

Furthermore, the campaign is apparently using the term 'hate crime' to describe the act of abortion. Again, this is a blatant attempt to use a loaded word to sensationalize their demonstration and elicit an emotional response in lieu of an intelligent, informed one. To compare abortion to hate crimes is to do a disservice to those people and families effected by such tragedies as the Matthew Shepard case.

Finally, I find it offensive that the group would engage in such actions for another reason. Imagine if you were someone who had been forced to deal with the decision to abort a pregnancy because the birth would have risked the life of the mother, or if the pregnancy was the result of a rape or similar traumatic abusive experience. Now imagine walking by those images and being reminded not only of the guilt you might feel from the decision, but also the pain of the original experience. Does this seem fair? Does this seem ethical?

I think not.

I think the Center for Bio-ethical Reform needs to seriously re-evaluate its priorities and methods and think very hard about exactly what their display is doing. The goal should be to educate, not to shock and disturb. Coming from someone who falls mostly on the anti-abortion side of the issue, even I find it offensive, and I think if they continue to communicate their message by such means, they risk alienating the very people they are seeking to educate.

Warrantless Domestic Wiretapping

“Warrantless Domestic Wiretapping” -- Just the name screams, "Are you kidding me?" Unbelievably, however, there actually are people who think George Bush has done no wrong with his illegal, court-dodging wiretaps. Color me amazed that there are actually people out there oblivious and blind enough to think this is anything but a terrible breach of FEDERAL LAW and civil liberties.

Honestly, I don't have a problem with domestic wiretaps. I wouldn't have a problem with Bush using them (as long as he had sufficient evidence to prove that they were needed). I wouldn't even have a problem with Bush using them before getting a warrant from the court set up to give such a warrant... as long as he followed the law and applied for a warrant within 72 hours. "[E]mergency provisions in the current law governing such surveillance -- FISA -- ... allow the administration to apply to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for a search warrant up to 72 hours after the government begins monitoring suspects' phone conversations"*. Instead, the taps have gone on since just after 9/11 with no warrant and no attempt to get one.

Seriously, folks, it's not as if this system regularly denies the president's will. I've found different numbers on the court, but as far as I can tell, the denials to approvals ratio is somewhere near 3:8000. The court, from its inception up until 2003, never denied a request**. Not sure of how many requests there had been up to this point, but that seems like a sure bet to me. Admittedly, the Bush administration has run into a little slow-down from this usual pace, with 6 denials and 179 modifications to its 5,645 requests (most of these changes/denials coming in '03 and '04**), but this should not be surprising. One site that I found (published in 1997, 19 years after the inception of the court [1978***]) stated that the TOTAL number of requests to that point was just over 9,600****. That means that in his 6 years as the president of our country, George Bush has made more than half as many surveillance requests as in the first 19 years of the court. Seems to me like if there was ever a time to start actually reading these requests, this is it. In addition, please, don't tell me that they're just doing it because it's Bush, because he was in office for 3 years before they denied any requests.

Therefore, what we can see here is that Bush's NUMEROUS requests weren't going as smoothly through the stamping line as before, and he simply decided to change the rules. Except he didn't change them, he ignored them like a 6 year old on a playground. In addition, for those sites and news outlets using this as an excuse, the incidence of denials is not an excuse, because this program has been going on since before he had any requests denied (post 9/11 to 2003).

Another thing that bothers me about this issue is that I've heard numerous people and news outlets saying that because a significant number of people think domestic wiretaps are ok, the warrantless wiretaps are therefore OK. Are you serious? Since when are "wiretaps" and "warrantless wiretaps" the same thing? Hell, I'M for wiretaps -- but only if there is significant evidence for it and a warrant is issued by the court that was set up to issue it.

I guess my problem is that this administration seems to have a knack for dodging the rules. I see this going on, I see measures passing through Congress (and similar sentiments from G.W.) that permit states to ignore same-sex marriages granted in other states. Both are clear violations of long standing laws. One is a violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and the other of the CONSTITUTION! ("Full faith and credit" clause - It's the reason heterosexual marriages are universally recognized). Since when was this OK?

Where the hell did everyone's balls go? People were all for impeaching Clinton for having sex in the White House and lying about it, but when President Bush and his party/allies ignore the Constitution and federal law... they're OK with it.

Grow a pair, people (figuratively, or literally... you decide). Take off the red, white and blue headband (proudly purchased 9/12/01!), turn off the Toby Keith CD, pull the darts out of the Dixie Chicks poster and look at what the hell is going on before it's too late.

* = http://mediamatters.org/items/200512240002
** = http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/207543.htm
*** = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act
**** = http://www.refuseandresist.org/big_brother/081097caq.html