| HISTORY | ARCHIVES |
2006 and 2007 Ramblings |
posted November 21, 2007 During the War America made its bases in the South Sea Islands to fight the Japanese. The Native Islanders thought those enormous silver birds that came down from the sky and disgorged miracles and wonders of goods from their bellies a gift of God. The Americans built hangers, runways and control towers. They talked on radio headsets and signaled with flags. The Natives, of course, grew used to the stuff the Americans brought and dependent on it. Once the War was over the Americans went away, the runways fell into disrepair and the goods were no more. Over the years there grew up Cargo Cults among the Natives that went through the motions of the base airmen. They cleared trees and built runways. They built bamboo hut control towers on stilts and manufactured headsets from coconut shells, all in hopes that the big silver birds would come back. These days most of the thinking folks I know realize there's something fundamental going on with the oil supply. But in the next breath they're sure that the next great thing is coming along. It's only a matter of time and genius. Somebody will come up with something any day now. And whoever figures it out is going to become fabulously weathly. People asked me, "have you Googled A123? Have you heard about the hydrogen producing bacteria?" They want to get in on the stock on the ground floor as the economy booms, driven by the hot new energy source. Oh how great it will be. Wouldn't it be great if hydrogen came out of nowhere? How about nuclear fusion with no radiation and no waste? Maybe we can put a bunch of solar panels up in space that beam juice right to our Beamers. We'll fly down eye fifteen in a race to Vegas. Or, Oh Boy, we can mine Jupiter for its hydrocarbons. Let's press the coconuts to our ears and talk the silver birds down from the sky. |
|
|
posted October 20, 2007 Can a unitary executive, who achieved office through a unique action of the Supreme Court, and who was reelected amidst widespread voting irregularities, maintain office by presidential directive? Furthermore, can crucial portions of that directive be kept secret from the other branches of government? National Security Presidential Directive 51 specifies that under any "Catastrophic Emergency" government of the nation will be "coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches." Furthermore: (23) Annex A and the classified Continuity Annexes, attached hereto, are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this directive.when Oregon Rep. Peter DeFazio, a member of the homeland security committee and cleared to read classified material, asked to see the annexes his request was denied by the White House because of "national security concerns." The following exchange occurred during a question and answer session at a White House press conference October 17, 2007. Reporter: Mr. President, following up on Vladimir Putin for a moment, he said recently that next year, when he has to step down according to the constitution, as the president, he may become prime minister; in effect keeping power and dashing any hopes for a genuine democratic transition there ...Ain't it grand to live in a country where the president has such a great sense of humor. Nothing to see here folks so move along now. Another note on the price of oil adjusted for inflation. Reuters claims that the inflation-adjusted high point was $101.70/barrel on April 1980. MSNBC tells us the 1980 high would be worth "worth $96 to $101 or more today". If you take the West Texas Intermediate high of $39.50 in April 1980 and plug it into the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator you get $99.94. The Federal Reserve Bank calculator gives $98.89. So my previous calculation was a bit off and I don't have much more faith in these. |
||
|
posted September 15, 2007 Obviously I don't get around to updating this blog very often. But I doubt if it really matters, buried down here as it is in a cloaked subdomain. That's a good thing though, I think. At least I don't get nasty emails or get in trouble at work for something I posted on the internet. For anyone who might be watching however, possibly the NSA or some other covert agency, I'll update my New Year's predictions nine months later.
|
||
|
posted January 1, 2007 We roll into 2007 on a morbid note. The greatest loss was James Brown, legendary soul singer. Next went Gerald Ford, whose most noteworthy act was to pardon his predecessor, Richard Nixon. Then Saddam Hussein's neck was stretched. He approached death with some dignity, as I judged by the grainy cell phone video posted on the net. Finally, the 3000th U.S. soldier perished in Iraq. Two more were killed on January 1, 2007. "So it goes," as Kurt Vonnegut said. It's time to make predictions for the upcoming year. The sun will rise, shit will stink, and more soldiers will die in the Global War on People who live where the geology has good prospects for petroleum. Oil won't become less valuable, fighter jets won't run on soybeans, and our congressional representatives won't act much smarter. The incoming democratic majority in congress will escalate the occupation of Iraq with hand wringing and whining instead of with chest thumping and war whoops like the republicans did. They have basically the same energy policy consisting of big cars, fast airplanes, and U.S. troops in the Middle East. Expect more "don't wanters" in suburban real estate. There will likely be some spectacular flame outs in the financial sector. For many the illusion of prosperity will turn out to be just that. About a third of us here in the U.S. expect another terrorist attack in 2007 and about a fourth expect the second coming of Christ. The Pope will continue to be catholic while fewer and fewer bears will shit in the woods. Big chunks of old ice will break, the weather report will be the most honest segment of the local news, and we'll all come a little closer to our own deaths. Happy Gregorian New Year. |
||
|
posted November 3, 2006 Something slipped by in the darkness of whirling scandals and nasty electioneering. It was the Posse Comitatus riding away with the four horsemen of the apocalypse. The day the Posse died was October 17, 2006, felled by Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2). As the new law says: SEC. 1076. USE OF THE ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES.
There's not much difference left
between law enforcement and "national security."
|
||
|
posted October 27, 2006 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. It sounds almost quaint, those Americans, secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, living out their ideals of liberty. Meanwhile, back in the District, their congressional representatives say, With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States, any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed they don't have to tell you. Is that unreasonable? They cut you out of the loop. They issue themselves a warrant to search and seize your property but don't bother to tell you. Detective Timothy D. Hines, probably a reasonable man, was one digit off as he kicked in the door of a 67-year old Spokane man and his wife, and told his deputies to "go inside and find some porn." A female deputy giggled. Guns were drawn. But the good deputy had the wrong phone number and made a mistake with military force. Being secure in your person means being "stopped and frisked" if it reveals the presence of an object that the officer has probable cause to believe is contraband. Being secure in your effects means having your vehicle searched if the officer undertaking the search has probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband. If you give consent, you're asking for it. Unless consent is given by deception to, perhaps, an undercover officer. Then evidence obtained through the deception is admissible in court. You can be stripped naked and body cavity searched at the border. Border-crossers are not secure in their persons. You may not legitimately demand privacy for activities conducted out of doors in fields, except in the area immediately surrounding the home. You have no privacy in the workplace or public schools and no warrant, probable cause, or even individualized suspicion is required for mandatory drug testing of certain classes. But
if you've got nothing to hide, why are you worried? Just because Big
Brother's Global Eye wants to see into your deepest personal life,
you'll do your part to make us all safer. We are safer, right? |
||
|
posted October 21, 2006 Hard times bring out the larceny in every soul. If your town seems run down, with not enough residents sending in enough tax dollars to pay for glitz and glamour, why not condemn your neighbors' houses and build a resort hotel? What a great idea! At least that's what the city of New London, Connecticut thought. So they formed a private corporation and condemned the older neighborhood of Fort Trumbell. Now what would you do if the sheriff knocked on your door and said, "get out, you're on the property of the new resort hotel." Susette Kelo fought back and on June 23, 2005 the Supreme Court ruled that local governments should be afforded wide latitude in seizing private property. As I'm looking over the
Official Voter Information Guide for the November 7, 2006 election I
read the arguments for and against Proposition 90, which would amend
the State Constitution to limit government authority to take private
property. Even though everyone is against Eminent Domain it seems,
according to this proposition the government could still take your
house for roads, schools, parks, or any other government-owned
facility. Looks to me like you are still out on the street at the whim
of an engineer's ruler. It also authorizes payola to property owners
who suffer losses from changes in zoning, limitations on building
height, or road closures. So you can still be ousted if this
proposition passes, and you might also help pay a land developer for
any new zoning intended to keep a little open space in the community.
The taxpayer liability opened up by this proposition involves all kinds
of property, including intangible things such as intellectual property,
affected by any kind of new government restriction imaginable. The city
engineers will still draw the new road through your house and mine, not
through the McMansions up on the hill. Would we be double-shielded if
both the local San Bernardino County restriction on Eminent Domain and
Proposition 90 pass? Will fear of potential liability cause
reconsideration of any new government restriction? We may find out if
one or the other or both of these measures pass. And we may not. If
they do pass we might not be evicted under Eminent Domain to build a
new casino, just evicted to build a road to the new casino. |
||
|
posted October 13, 2006 Literally, in Latin, you have the body. A writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is basically the right of a person held in custody to have the legality of that imprisonment examined in court. "The writ of habeas corpus is the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action" (Supreme Court, Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 290-91, 1969). It's been around since at least the reign of King Edward I in 1305 and may go back to Henry II in 1166. But on September 29, 2006, just over a month before a contentious mid-term election, the U.S. Congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 suspending habeas corpus for any alien declared to be an enemy combatant. Specifically, Sec. 7 (e)(1) "No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.",So who is an enemy combatant and who says? Sec. 948a (1)(i), an enemy combatant is "a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant"as decided by the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense. A clause in the U.S. Constitution allows suspension of habeas corpus "when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." (Article One, section nine). So which is it? Is there a rebellion or are we being invaded by unlawful enemy combatants? I remember back when we were told to be careful going to Mexico because they could lock you up there and throw away the key. But that could never happen in the U.S. because we are free---a nation of laws and constitutional rights. Some people have told me that whatever makes us safer is all right with them. So what makes them think this makes us safer? If you get mugged in a dark street walking to your car your mugger will have full constitutionally guaranteed rights. But if there is any possibility you might get blown up by a terrorist bomb you'd better surrender yours. It seems this bill came about to cover for past transgressions. The Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that congress could not strip detainees of habeas corpus, as previously passed in the Detainee Treatment Act of December 30, 2005. So here we are, six years after a strange ruling by the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore, looking not very much like the land of the free. There seems to be some question about how much of this act applies to U.S. citizens. I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to interpret law, but it is certainly interesting to read the text of this act, signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 17, 2006. For example: "Any person subject to this chapter who intentionally engages in an attack upon a civilian object that is not a military objective shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct."sounds like you could be brought before a military tribunal for attacking a fire hydrant. Frequent use of the phrase "any person" in Sec. 950 could certainly give Any Person who likes the sound of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution a sick feeling in the pit of their stomach. |
||
|
| ||