Wanker of the Day

Byron Calame.

Read The Full Article:
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_06_04_atrios_archive.html#114943017330500854

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Anchor Babies

Is racist hypocrite Michelle Malkin really an anchor baby?

Hilarious.

I saw this awhile back and let it pass, but what the hell.

Read The Full Article:
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_06_04_atrios_archive.html#114942998671924777

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Remedial NSA eavesdropping course

by Glenn Greenwald



I would really like to respond to the hysterical celebrations among Bush followers over the fact that a group of Muslim extremists were apprehended in Canada in the midst of planning terrorist attacks, but it's literally impossible to understand the point they think they're making. From what I can tell, their "reasoning" goes something like this: law enforcement was able to find out about this plot by engaging in surveillance of telephone calls and internet communications, and this proves that the President is right to engage in illegal (rather than legal) eavesdropping on Americans.



Is a more irrational and incoherent argument even possible? As Barbara points out in the post below (but shouldn't have to), nobody opposes surveillance of telephone calls or Internet communications. Nobody. Proving that such surveillance can be effective in stopping terrorist attacks is merely to state the obvious, not to prove any point in controversy. The issue isn't whether the Government should eavesdrop, but whether it should eavesdrop in compliance with the law (i.e., with warrants) or in violation of the law (without warrants). Aren't we all able to ingest that extremely simple point by now?



The laws we have in place make it easy to engage in surveillance of all types against terrorist suspects like this. Few things would be easier than eavesdropping on these conversations and communications by complying with the law -- i.e., by going to a FISA court and obtaining a warrant. And nobody opposes that. The "argument" being made assumes that the Government can't engage in surveillance on terrorist communications unless it breaks the law. What person with a working brain is incapable of understanding how self-evidently false that premise is?



One last thing: demanding that the Bush administration obtain warrants before eavesdropping on Americans isn't about "protecting civil liberties." It's about sharing the desire of the Founders that we not live under the rule of a King who has the power to break the law. Eavesdropping without warrants isn't wrong because it "violates civil liberties." It's wrong because since 1978, it's illegal to do so; it's a criminal offense. And the reason Americans required warrants isn't to "protect civil liberties." It's because administrations of both political parties abused the eavesdropping power for four decades when they could eavesdrop in secret, and so Americans decided -- by enacting what we call "a law" -- that we only trust the Government to eavesdrop on us with judicial oversight.



As empty as it is, what these Bush followers are really arguing is that the existence of terrorists proves that the Government should have the right to break the law in order to stop them. Who could even respond to that sort of dribble? It's exactly the same as this argument:

Hey, guess what? I just saw on my TV that they caught the guy who has been murdering people by searching his house and finding evidence connecting him to the crime! Where are all of those people who keep droning on about how the police shouldn't be able to enter our homes without warrants because of our "civil liberties"? Why are they so quiet, hmmmmm? Doesn't this prove once and for all that all of that warrant stuff doesn't matter when lives are at stake. I guess searches of homes is an effective crime-fighting tool after all!



Only Friends of Criminals would try to stop the police from searching people's houses without warrants. There are criminals out there who want to kill us!!!!!! Who could care about all that "warrant" and "civil liberty" crap, when lives are at stake? Those pro-warrant people sure are quiet today!!!!

It's genuinely amazing that someone could make that kind of an "argument" without being horribly embarrassed, let alone make it with some sort of euphoria, apparently believing they are making some sort of really potent, difficult-to-answer point.



Didn't we all learn this point early on in school: there are criminals in the world, and allowing the police to break down our doors without warrants would help criminals be caught. Despite that fact, we don't allow the police to break down our doors without warrants, because the police can catch criminals by searching homes only when they have warrants, a process enshrined in the Constitution in order to avoid the inevitable abuse that comes from allowing the Government to search our homes without any oversight. Thus, people (such as the Founders) who favor the warrant requirement before the police can search our homes aren't pro-criminal. They know that criminals can be caught while preventing government abuse and lawlessness. Why is it so hard -- for some people -- to apply that same, quite basic reasoning to eavesdropping and all other forms of surveillance?



UPDATE: FDL is hosting a book club discussion this afternoon, at 5:00 EST, of How Would a Patriot Act? I will be there to participate and encourage anyone who has read to book to do so, too. Also, the first event on my book tour is this Tuesday, June 6, at the University of Florida at 4:00 p.m. EST. It's a public event and will be held at the Civil Media Center. Information is here. The San Francisco events will be from June 7-June 9 and I will post the specifics a little later today.

Read The Full Article:
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/06/remedial-nsa-eavesdropping-course.html

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Sunday Talk Shows Open Thread

It's "Marriage Protection Sunday."



Unlike Bush and the Republican Senate who are obsessed with gay sex, it looks like the talk shows are going to be discussing issues that matter to the American people, not gay sex. Condi's probably not going on the shows to talk about her sex life -- but, hey, since her boss is making "marriage protection" such a huge issue, it is completely legit to ask Ms. Rice what she does to "protect marriage." But the media is only obsessed with the private lives of Bill and Hillary Clinton, so that'll never happen.



Otherwise, Iran, Iraq and global warming are the real issues of the day:

FOX NEWS SUNDAY...: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Sens. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.).



THIS WEEK (ABC...: Former vice president Al Gore , former labor secretary Robert B. Reich and author John Updike .



FACE THE NATION (CBS...: Rice and Time assistant managing editor Michael Duffy .



MEET THE PRESS (NBC.: Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr . (D-Del.) and Hans Blix , former chief weapons inspector for the United Nations.



LATE EDITION (CNN), 11 a.m.: Sens. George Allen (R-Va.) and Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Don Shepperd , retired Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste , retired Army Brig. Gens. James A. Marks and David L. Grange and Rice .

Note to FOX NEWS and CNN: Lindsay Graham and George Allen both support the anti-gay amendment. Ask them how they're protecting marriage. Seriously, ask them. We dare you. After all, Lindsay Graham isn't even married, so confirm that he's celibate. Otherwise he's a hypocrite. Someone really needs to ask George Allen why he's so obsessed with gays.

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/Americablog?m=9287

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Of Death & Taxes

Thought provoking post by Barbara O'Brien filling in for Glenn Greenwald:

Unclaimed Territory--Westerners often cling to an infantile religion focused on a Big Daddy God and the face of Jesus mysteriously appearing on pancakes and cheese sandwiches. And since that's what much of religion in America looks like, it's easy to assume that's what religion is. That, and the fact that the world seems infested with warring religious whackjobs, makes religion easy to hate. I understand that. But the problem isn't with religion. The problem is that, somehow, we've allowed religion to be defined by the stupid and the warped, resulting in stupid and warped religion at war with all things rational and humane. But religion doesn't have to be that way.

I would add that most of the religious people I know, even those who would eagerly identify themselves as members of the Religious Right, don't seem as fanatical or as political as their leaders. Here in my neck of the woods, the local Hospice is manned almost exclusively by conservative evangelical Christians. They perform some of the most brutal, charitable work I can imagine. They take care of terminally ill people right up until death, emptying bed pans, giving them sponge baths, holding their hand, and allowing them to die with at least some dignity in the presence of people who care. These patients are almost invariably destitute and alone--the rich seldom lack for mourners. The volunteers do it for anyone who needs them, any race, even those we hear about being scapegoated by the religious right, such as gay/AIDS patients. And as I live in Florida, I assume the Hospice volunteers are busy.

After death, these same people then take care of funeral arrangements, leases, and final Medicare/Medicaid and social security paperwork. Sometimes they even donate from their own pocket so that the deceased can have a coffin and a grave marker. One of them owns a local funeral parlor and he and his family routinely provide services for the Hospice indigent on their own dime. They don't ask for any recognition, they don't brag about it, in fact, they're very quiet about this aspect of their faith. You have to almost pry it out of them.

True, it's always a dicey proposition to be peering in from the outside of any movement and making broad generalizations about it based on a tiny sample. I don't know what goes on in their services or extracurricular Bible studies. Maybe their behavior and language is more extreme behind closed doors.

On the other side of the coin, I was in a guy's office a few weeks ago that looked like a fucking shrine to George Bush. He had Dubya pictures on the wall, he had Laura and the twins smiling behind frames on his desk. This fellow is a partner in a tax firm and he's all about the money. He cleared something like 400K last year--so he claims anyway--and tens of thousands of dollars of it was because of changes in the tax code under Georgie-boy. He also identifies himself as a Christian, goes to the ritziest church in town, drives a giant luxury SUV decked out with church memorabilia. In his own words he 'hate queers.' He also hosts Bible study in his lavish home every week; to a group of local businessmen carefully chosen for networking reasons.

My understanding is that the Hospice fellow and taxman vote the same way. But I'd trade a hundred guys with Bush shrines and religious networking ambitions, for a single Hospice volunteer, any day.

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.dailykos.com/dailykos/index?m=4047

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Open Thread

Yeah, yeah, another stupid open thread.

Read The Full Article:
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_06_04_atrios_archive.html#114941478795978076

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Mrs. Malkin's sacrifice

Michelle Malkin
Anti-Immigrant Activist

Dear Mrs. Malkin,

I know you've already given a lot for this country. Your courageous defense of everything from toddlercide to concentration camps has inspired us all. However, there is one more thing you must do for your country, and unfortunately, it calls for you to make a tremendous sacrifice.

One of the greatest dangers we face as a nation--a danger you've noted on your own blog--is the growing numbers of anchor babies:

During my book tour across the country for Invasion, this issue came up time and again. In the Southwest, everyone has a story of heavily pregnant women crossing the Mexican border to deliver their "anchor babies." At East Coast hospitals, tales of South Korean "obstetric tourists" abound. (An estimated 5,000 South Korean anchor babies are born in the US every year). And, of course, there's a terrorism angle...The time is ripe to reassess drive-by citizenship and what it means to be an American.

Indeed, it is a tremendous problem. Just in the last week, a poster at your own immigration blog called it a "recipe for social disaster," and Rep Dave Reichert (R-Mescaline), reported that border area parking lots are becoming little more than large open air maternity wards, awash with discarded placentas and the wrappers of those nasty tamarind flavored candies from Mexico.

So how does all of this lead me to ask you to make a sacrifice? Well, it's come to my attention that you too may be an anchor baby. Just a little over thirty-six years ago, it appears that a foreign sperm cell hooked up with a foreign egg somewhere near Manila and a Blastocyst-Filipina named proto-Michelle was formed. Within a few weeks, little proto-Michelle moved from the Philippines to New York City where she finally acquired "drive-by citizenship" on Oct. 20, 1970.

Now that this is out in the open, you must renounce your citizenship. Given your previous statements about anchor babies, it's the only honorable thing you can do.

You can rest assured that your sacrifice will help your beloved anti-immigrant movement immensely, and that you'll continue to have our eternal gratitude long after we demand your deportation.

Heterosexually yours in a way of which my wife, Ofjoshua, would approve,

Gen. JC Christian, patriot

A helmet tip to commenter LG Fucktard.

Read The Full Article:
http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2006_06_04_patriotboy_archive.html#114940576142069
314

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Sunday Talk: Pre-Busby Victory Party!

Al Rodgers emailed me and said that he was swamped with primary election stuff. He'll start doing the Sunday Talk post again after Yearly Kos. Anyways, I'm filling in for him tonight! Now on with the show!

Get well soon, Ms. Dozier! Condolences to the families of all journalists killed in Iraq.

The Sunday Lineup (Source: Hotline, wire services)

* Meet the Press: Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) and Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission Chair Dr. Hans Blix. Holy crap! After three straight weeks without a Dem guest, we've got one week without a GOPer! Also on MTP: CNBC and WSJ's John Harwood, and PBS's Gwen Ifill.
* Face the Nation: Sec/State Condoleezza Rice and Time's Mike Duffy.
* This Week: VP Gore. Ex-Labor Sec. Robert Reich and Time's Jay Carney join the roundtable. Author John Updike is the Voices segment.
* Fox News Sunday: Rice, and Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Jack Reed (D-RI).
* Late Edition: Rice and Sens. George Allen (R-VA) and Carl Levin (D-MI).

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.dailykos.com/dailykos/index?m=4046

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Sunday Talk

Al Rodgers emailed me and said that he was swamped with primary election stuff. He'll start doing the Sunday Talk post again after Yearly Kos. Anyways, I'm filling in for him tonight! Now on with the show!

>
Get well soon, Ms. Dozier! Condolences to the families of all journalists killed in Iraq.

The Sunday Lineup (Source: Hotline, wire services)

* Meet the Press: Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) and Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission Chair Dr. Hans Blix. Holy crap! After three straight weeks without a Dem guest, we've got one week without a GOPer! Also on MTP: CNBC and WSJ's John Harwood, and PBS's Gwen Ifill.
* Face the Nation: Sec/State Condoleezza Rice and Time's Mike Duffy.
* This Week: VP Gore. Ex-Labor Sec. Robert Reich and Time's Jay Carney join the roundtable. Author John Updike is the Voices segment.
* Fox News Sunday: Rice, and Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Jack Reed (D-RI).
* Late Edition: Rice and Sens. George Allen (R-VA) and Carl Levin (D-MI).

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.dailykos.com/dailykos/index?m=4046

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Sunday Talking Heads Open Thread

Sunday Talking Heads Open Thread

Here's the lineup via Atrios:

• Meet the Press hosts Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) and Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission Chair Dr. Hans Blix.
  
• Face the Nation hosts Sec/State Condoleezza Rice and Time's Mike Duffy.
  
• This Week hosts VP Gore. Ex-Labor Sec. Robert Reich and Time's Jay Carney join the roundtable. Author John Updike is the Voices segment.
  
• Fox News Sunday hosts Rice, and Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Jack Reed (D-RI).
  
• Late Edition hosts Rice and Sens. George Allen (R-VA) and Carl Levin (D-MI).

Read The Full Article:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/06/03.html#a8568

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!