FEED Validator

for Atom and RSS and KML

Congratulations!

This is a valid Atom 1.0 feed.

Recommendations

This feed is valid, but interoperability with the widest range of feed readers could be improved by implementing the following recommendations.

line 1, column 0: Use of unknown namespace: http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008 [help]
```
<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?><?xml-stylesheet href="http://www.blog ...
```
line 1, column 0: Unable to validate namespace: http://schemas.google.com/g/2005. See the Google Data specification at https://developers.google.com/gdata/docs/1.0/elements [help]
```
<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?><?xml-stylesheet href="http://www.blog ...
```

line 1, column 895: Self reference doesn't match document location [help]

... /feeds/8780844/posts/default?alt=atom'/><link rel='alternate' type='text ...
                                             ^

line 1, column 29933: content contains bad characters (9 occurrences) [help]

... t-family: lucida grande;&quot;&gt;&quot;A free world cannot allow Iran t ...
                                             ^

line 1, column 37860: content should not contain onmouseover attribute [help]

...  a flip-flopping liar.  Impeach him now.</content><link rel='replies' ty ...
                                             ^

line 1, column 37860: content should not contain onmouseout attribute [help]

...  a flip-flopping liar.  Impeach him now.</content><link rel='replies' ty ...
                                             ^

line 1, column 64849: style attribute contains potentially dangerous content: list-style-image (2 occurrences) [help]

... br /&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/span&gt;</content><link rel='replies' ty ...
                                             ^

line 1, column 64849: content should not contain iframe tag [help]

... br /&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/span&gt;</content><link rel='replies' ty ...
                                             ^

Source: http://civan93-politicalrants.blogspot.com/atom.xml

<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?><?xml-stylesheet href="http://www.blogger.com/styles/atom.css" type="text/css"?><feed xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom' xmlns:openSearch='http://a9.com/-/spec/opensearchrss/1.0/' xmlns:blogger='http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008' xmlns:georss='http://www.georss.org/georss' xmlns:gd="http://schemas.google.com/g/2005" xmlns:thr='http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0'><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780844</id><updated>2024-03-07T23:28:03.109-07:00</updated><title type='text'>Take Back America</title><subtitle type='html'>xml/rss: http://feeds.feedburner.com/PoliticalRants </subtitle><link rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#feed' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://civan93-politicalrants.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8780844/posts/default?alt=atom'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://civan93-politicalrants.blogspot.com/'/><link rel='hub' href='http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/'/><link rel='next' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8780844/posts/default?alt=atom&start-index=26&max-results=25'/><author><name>Unknown</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><generator version='7.00' uri='http://www.blogger.com'>Blogger</generator><openSearch:totalResults>130</openSearch:totalResults><openSearch:startIndex>1</openSearch:startIndex><openSearch:itemsPerPage>25</openSearch:itemsPerPage><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780844.post-115944573818154526</id><published>2006-09-28T06:12:00.000-06:00</published><updated>2006-09-28T06:15:38.193-06:00</updated><title type='text'>Its been a million years</title><content type='html'>Well, I'm a bit behind on my blogging, but I'm beginning to predict the future. For giggles, I recommend playing the "future" market -- by trading predictions on the "future" exchange ... at http://www.cenimar.com/. For instance .... here are some of the "future' predictions you can trade: Options President Bush - attack on Iran 7 Nov Options Democratic Majority in the US House of Representatives 7 Nov Options Democratic Seats in the US Senate 7 Nov</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://civan93-politicalrants.blogspot.com/feeds/115944573818154526/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8780844&postID=115944573818154526' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8780844/posts/default/115944573818154526'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8780844/posts/default/115944573818154526'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://civan93-politicalrants.blogspot.com/2006/09/its-been-million-years.html' title='Its been a million years'/><author><name>Unknown</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780844.post-114234595415005438</id><published>2006-03-14T07:18:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2006-04-29T13:40:14.256-06:00</updated><title type='text'>I hate any senator who does not support Russ Feingold</title><content type='html'>First, I'd like to welcome the senator to the "Eugene McCarthy, speaking the blatant, plain truth, and being called radical by the Washington entrenchment" club. Senator Feingold, you have my support. But I know, that isn't enough, you need the support of your peers. The peers who are just too weak to stand up to lies and corruption. <blockquote>Asked at a news conference whether he would vote for the censure resolution, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., declined to endorse it and said he hadn't read it. Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said he had not read it either and wasn't inclined simply to scold the president. "I'd prefer to see us solve the problem," Lieberman told reporters. Across the Capitol, reaction was similar. Feingold's censure resolution drew empathy but no outright support from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. Pelosi "understands Senator Feingold's frustration that the facts about the NSA domestic surveillance program have not been disclosed appropriately to Congress," her office said in a statement. "Both the House and the Senate must fully investigate the program and assign responsibility for any laws that may have been broken." </blockquote> Bollocks. They can't investigate because the republicans on the committee to decide whether or not to investigate voted against it. Anyone who does not support this action simply hates the checks and balances built into the constitution. Its much easier to sit back and be complaisant. I'll do whatever the emperor wants. This reminds me quite a bit of when we carried 50,000 signatures to Barbara Boxer's office asking her to censure the president for lying about pre-war intelligence. The senator responded it was a delicate subject in an election year. That's a great response to a public call for action. "Senator what are you going to do about 50,000 of your constituents who are upset that the President lied to start a war?" "Uh, I think I'll help him get re-elected -- Democrats can't be trusted to make decisions about intelligence" Yes, delicate, as in, HE LIED, LETS HIDE FROM HIS WRATH! What if CALIFORNIA HAS WMD TOO?? I hope, genuinely hope, that these democrats who are falling down all over themselves to lay down and get out of the way find out that the voters do not like the DINO (democrat in name only) politicians, and want to see serious action. Tom Daschle learned that. I think Boxer and Feinstein may learn that in the next cycles. I certainly hope neo-con-con-democrat Lieberman learns as well. Feingold's resolution accuses Bush of violating the Constitution and the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. </content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://civan93-politicalrants.blogspot.com/feeds/114234595415005438/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8780844&postID=114234595415005438' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8780844/posts/default/114234595415005438'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8780844/posts/default/114234595415005438'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://civan93-politicalrants.blogspot.com/2006/03/i-hate-any-senator-who-does-not.html' title='I hate any senator who does not support Russ Feingold'/><author><name>Unknown</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780844.post-113885417051876532</id><published>2006-02-01T21:20:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2006-02-01T21:22:50.520-07:00</updated><title type='text'>The coolest thing I've seen today</title><content type='html'>I found this over at <a href="http://etherealgirl.blogspot.com/">http://etherealgirl.blogspot.com/ </a> (which I mention as she has a link to my page! Thanks EtherealGirl!) <a href="http://www.cafepress.com/2571" target="_blank" title="buy this sticker: proceeds help to buy body armour for our troops!"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v102/etherealfire/wmblog/Bumper_Sticker1.jpg" alt="buy this sticker: proceeds help to buy body armour for our troops!" border="0" /></a> Uh, I'll take two. Support our troops. In a big-ass welcome-home party. Without guns. Or Improvised Explosive Devices.</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://civan93-politicalrants.blogspot.com/feeds/113885417051876532/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8780844&postID=113885417051876532' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8780844/posts/default/113885417051876532'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8780844/posts/default/113885417051876532'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://civan93-politicalrants.blogspot.com/2006/02/coolest-thing-ive-seen-today.html' title='The coolest thing I've seen today'/><author><name>Unknown</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780844.post-113885371402308377</id><published>2006-02-01T21:13:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2006-02-01T21:15:14.026-07:00</updated><title type='text'>The US Constitution, Revisited</title><content type='html'>I'm feeling the need to repost this posting because not enough people saw it and it seems to be relevant, again. One blogger has had enough. Bill Clinton lied about his sex life while under oath, an offense, while punishible, did not abdicate his duities as president specifically outlined by the constitution. While there is much discussion regarding whether or not Bush's policies violate our civil rights, violate the liberties ascribed to american life, or the entirety of the 4th amendment (and the 9th, but who's counting), there is little discussion of President Bush's failure to uphold his constitutionally mandated responsibilities <blockquote>US CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE III, Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States. </blockquote> Regardless whether you are a liberal or a "strict constuctionist" there can be little interpretation of that last line. The president is mandated to see the laws of the United States faithfully executed. There is no exclusion for <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/17/AR2005121700456.html">laws you find inconvienant</a> in times of national crisis. In fact, our forefathers had quite a bit of experience with the necessity for such laws, yet the president upheld his duity. When you find a law that is inconvienant, one you are supposed to execute, what recourse do you have? Funny you should ask, Article III mentions just such a situation: <blockquote>Section. 1. The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. </blockquote> Those guys thought of everything. So, if you are president, you are sworn to uphold the laws of the United States, and in the event you don't like the law, you can take it to the Supreme Court. Wait, there is something else in there as well ... <blockquote>The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority </blockquote> Wait, what is that about treaties? You mean that the president cannot rule independantly that a treaty (such as the Geneva Conventions) no longer applies to the United States? <blockquote>Article VI, Paragraph 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.</blockquote> So treaties are treated by the constitution as federal laws. And we already know the president is required to execute federal laws. So the president is required to uphold treaties as well as federal laws. If the president doesn't aggree with the treaty, much the same as a law, he needs to either take his case to the Senate where they can make decisions regarding treaties, or take it to the Supreme Court. But what about times of national crisis and national security issues, and protecting the US Citizens. Nothing in the constitution gives the president any authority to make special exceptions to his constitutionally designated responsibilities. Nothing gives him the right to selectively violate United States law. But what if you don't like the Supreme Court and the laws of Congress? Well, it seems that you aren't really a team player, but more of a monarch, which the constitution was designed to prevent. It even put in a clause for just such a person: <blockquote>Article II, Section 4 The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. </blockquote> There you have it. When the President, regardles of why he chooses to violate the laws of the United States, or fails to uphold our enforce treaties (i.e. Geneva) can loose his job just like anyone else who fails to perform their duties. But, the problem is, who is willing to bring a case against him. Why was the congress so motivated to impeach Clinton over a blowjob, but unwilling to do so to Bush who has clearly abdicated his constitutionally mandated duties to uphold the laws of the United States? Oh, right, partisan politics. Or is it that they are scared of him. He has become too powerful for his opponents, whether they be congress or judicial, they are frightened. Interestingly enough, while it is clear the constitution would allow, nay, require the impeachment of this administration, there is one glitch. The constitution also mentions something else: <blockquote>Article I, Section 2: The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment. </blockquote> Partisanship would overrule should the House ever get over their fear and be able to live up to their constitutionally mandated authority to impeach the president and vice-president. Viva la republicanos. It is never too late to begin the impeachment and removal from office of the president and vice president. </content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://civan93-politicalrants.blogspot.com/feeds/113885371402308377/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8780844&postID=113885371402308377' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8780844/posts/default/113885371402308377'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8780844/posts/default/113885371402308377'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://civan93-politicalrants.blogspot.com/2006/02/us-constitution-revisited.html' title='The US Constitution, Revisited'/><author><name>Unknown</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780844.post-113885357244811655</id><published>2006-02-01T21:05:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2006-02-01T21:12:52.466-07:00</updated><title type='text'>Fascism, defined</title><content type='html'>In a recent rant against the National Review, J. Brad mentions the following (in re: Francisco Franco) <blockquote>As to fascism: the German philospher Ernst Nolte's classic Fascism in Its Epoch set out six key characteristics of fascism: <ul><li>Strong belief that--through social darwinism--morality is ultimately tied to blood and race, understood as descent and genetic relationship. <li>Strong rejection of the classical "liberal" belief that individuals have rights that any legitimate state is bound to respect <li>In its place, an assertion that individuals have duties to the state, seen as the decision-making organ of the collectivity. <li>A rejection of parliamentary democracy and other bottom-up institutions to assess the general will. <li>The assertion that the general will is formed by the decrees of the leader. <li>A strong fear of twentieth-century Communism, and an eagerness to adapt and use its weapons--suspension of parliaments, mass propaganda, rallies, street violence, and so forth--to fight it.</ul></blockquote> Ok I'll shoot. 1) Yes (Cronyism, think Michael Brown, Michael Powell) 2) Yes (NSA, Gtmo, torture, enemy combatants, rendition) 3) Yes (evidence is harder to conjur up, but faith-based initiatives?) 4) Yes (Distain and rallying against congress, CBO, GAO, etc) 5) YES (What the leader wants, end abortions, faith-based, increase immigration (yes, I'm actually *for* that one, but it should piss off the religious right) 6) Uhoh. Does it *have* to be communism that they are afraid of, and not terrorism? Because we used to equate anarchists, terrorists, and communists as fellow travellers.</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://civan93-politicalrants.blogspot.com/feeds/113885357244811655/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8780844&postID=113885357244811655' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8780844/posts/default/113885357244811655'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8780844/posts/default/113885357244811655'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://civan93-politicalrants.blogspot.com/2006/02/fascism-defined.html' title='Fascism, defined'/><author><name>Unknown</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780844.post-113863783527115824</id><published>2006-01-30T09:08:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2006-01-30T09:17:15.366-07:00</updated><title type='text'>Will he never learn? No, you say, I think you are right</title><content type='html'><blockquote style="font-family: lucida grande;"> The rumor going around in Judiciary Committee circles late last week was that Senator Kerry’s decision to filibuster was staff-driven. Speculation focused in one staff member in particular: <a href="http://www.law.duke.edu/features/beclerk.html">Mirah Horowitz</a>, one of Kerry’s chief legal advisors. Horowitz is a liberal lawyer and blonde braniac who previously clerked for Justice Stephen Breyer, before joining a decidedly less successful enterprise — the Kerry presidential campaign.</blockquote> Um. Um. Ok, let's do this. What was one of the great smears of the last campaign? What do we all remember about John Kerry? FLIP FLOP. He was for the war and then he's against it. blah blah. Where did that impression come from? Well according to the behind-the-scenes Newsweek article (sorry, no link, I'm lazy today) from the week after Nov 2, 2004, the problem was created because Kerry listened to the advice of his staffers and campaign people, many of whom had conflicting opinions. And now this. 1) John Kerry is an idiot. Yes, I'm bitter that after I worked months on his campaign (really, against my will, I wanted Dean) he didn't even wait for the last poll to close in Ohio (voting irregularity) before conceding defeat. But that's not the point here. The point is he's an idiot. 2) Yes, political suicide is good, and we needed someone to say "Filibuster" but it would have been better had it come from someone with credibility. Kerry has zero. 3) There is no way, unfortunately, to block Alito at this point. The best thing to do is hope he and Scalia take to eating a high-fat, high-carbohydrate, high-salt diet and the next president (i.e. NOT John Kerry) will appoint Michael Moore and Al Franken to the court to replace them. I beleive both have significantly higher chance of attaining judicial independence then the Cheneyites.</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://civan93-politicalrants.blogspot.com/feeds/113863783527115824/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8780844&postID=113863783527115824' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8780844/posts/default/113863783527115824'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8780844/posts/default/113863783527115824'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://civan93-politicalrants.blogspot.com/2006/01/will-he-never-learn-no-you-say-i-think.html' title='Will he never learn? No, you say, I think you are right'/><author><name>Unknown</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780844.post-113862897824983604</id><published>2006-01-30T06:40:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2006-02-01T22:56:29.126-07:00</updated><title type='text'>Exxon Sees Record Profits for US Firm</title><content type='html'><blockquote>IRVING, Texas (AP) -- Exxon Mobil Corp. on Monday posted a record profit for a U.S. company of $10.71 billion in the fourth quarter, as the world's biggest publicly-traded oil company benefited from high oil and gas prices and demand for refined products.</blockquote> Hmm. So wait, why are gas prices high again if its just driving profits? Let's do some math ... 10.71 billion ... nicely divides into the 107 million households in the US ... I guess that's only $10 per household per quarter per oil firm. REVISION. SOMEONE Pointed out that I can't add very well. That is $100 per household per quarter per firm. This negates the rest of my blog article where I pander to the interests of the oil companies. <blockquote>Negated blog follows Assume all 4 major oil companies are roughly equally profitable. So that's $40 per household per quarter. Assuming we burn about 125 billion gallons per year, thats 1168 gallons per household per year, 292 per quarter. That creates .14 per gallon of "profit tax," or a pure profit margin of 6.1% profit. Ok, so when I started writing this article, I was angry at the unnecessary price gouging. Now, I kinda figure they really *are not* making extra-normal profits. We are just consuming extra-normal supplies of gasoline. I mean, I'd like to see their profit decrease to 4%, but that's not realistic given current circumstances. They *do* need to reinvest in future technologies.</blockquote> Try again. $400 per household per quarter, or $1600 per year is paid per household to pure profit of the oil companies. Now, carrying on. Holy profiteering batman! That is $1.37 of PURE PROFIT per gallon. Wait, that can't be right. It just can't be, thats a 60% profit margin. Can someone tell me if I made a mistake here that I'm just not getting? Because this is really bad. My units are consistent, always using households. It seems right, but. Um. I'll be back. I'm going into the oil business.</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://civan93-politicalrants.blogspot.com/feeds/113862897824983604/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8780844&postID=113862897824983604' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8780844/posts/default/113862897824983604'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8780844/posts/default/113862897824983604'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://civan93-politicalrants.blogspot.com/2006/01/exxon-sees-record-profits-for-us-firm.html' title='Exxon Sees Record Profits for US Firm'/><author><name>Unknown</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780844.post-113849213977688585</id><published>2006-01-28T16:12:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2006-01-28T16:54:59.206-07:00</updated><title type='text'>"Attack on Iran Still and Option"</title><content type='html'>"A free world cannot allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon; not just the US, but those of us who value freedom\x94 Bush told CBS television in an interview. See, the US speaks for the free world, because the cat has their tongue. And perhaps more importantly, the Free World only wants states of which the US approves to have nuclear weapons. Say for instance, Pakistan or Israel. The Free World really wants Pakistan and Israel to have nuclear weapons. What's that you say? What about North Korea? Oh, well they HAVE a nuclear weapon, so its too late for them. Wait, point #2, lets reconcile this with last week's <a style="font-family: lucida grande;" href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0126/dailyUpdate.html">Pentagon report</a> (or for those for whom theChristiann Science Monitor is too "Liberal" how about <a style="font-family: lucida grande;" href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,182687,00.html">Fox News</a>) How can the military be, at the same time, stretched too thin by the overthrow of two smallcountriess (<a style="font-family: lucida grande;" href="http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html">Iraq 26 million people</a> and <a style="font-family: lucida grande;" href="http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/af.html">Afghanistan</a>, 29 million people) ... both of which were crippled by sanctions and outdated cold-war era US weapons (yes, we sold them both the weapons they used against us, although, in fairness Iraq had MiGs -- which they donated to Iran before the invasion) ... and be ready to invade a (possibly) nuclear state with over <a style="font-family: lucida grande;" href="http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html">68 million people</a> with a modern military and infrastructure? Honestly, I see our asses being handed to us. But, it would fulfill the <a style="font-family: lucida grande;" href="http://www.bibleprobe.com/rapture.htm">Christian Armageddon</a> prophecy in which nuclear holocaust ensues after the combined armies of Russia and China are defeated by the sole army of Israel after the United States and Israel launch nuclear attack on (insert convienant Islamic nation Iraq, sometimes Syria, currently Iran). In this attack, all the Jews who refuse to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior will perish along with the sinners and infidel Muslims. You know, there are those who are <a style="font-family: lucida grande;" href="http://www.cedarsoflebanon.ca/">working to replant the Cedars of Lebanon </a>to regrow the necessary wood to rebuild the Temple of God in Jerusalem to begin Armageddon. What's this about a self-fufilling prophecy? Anyhow, yeah, this is weird. Impeach him now. Before its too late.</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://civan93-politicalrants.blogspot.com/feeds/113849213977688585/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8780844&postID=113849213977688585' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8780844/posts/default/113849213977688585'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8780844/posts/default/113849213977688585'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://civan93-politicalrants.blogspot.com/2006/01/attack-on-iran-still-and-option.html' title='"Attack on Iran Still and Option"'/><author><name>Unknown</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780844.post-113834079666395995</id><published>2006-01-26T22:43:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2006-01-26T23:35:17.123-07:00</updated><title type='text'>Comics for a not very funny world</title><content type='html'><img src="http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/060126/parker.gif" height="400" width="400" /> <img src="http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/060125/wright.gif" height=400 width=400> <img src="http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/060124/dangle.gif" height=400 width=400> I'd like to give a shout out to Daryl Cagle and the folks at Slate for making me laugh.</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://civan93-politicalrants.blogspot.com/feeds/113834079666395995/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8780844&postID=113834079666395995' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8780844/posts/default/113834079666395995'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8780844/posts/default/113834079666395995'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://civan93-politicalrants.blogspot.com/2006/01/comics-for-not-very-funny-world.html' title='Comics for a not very funny world'/><author><name>Unknown</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780844.post-113830595220971426</id><published>2006-01-26T12:59:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2006-01-26T13:05:52.220-07:00</updated><title type='text'>Best Quote of the Day</title><content type='html'><a onmouseover="this.className='liArtNewChange'" onmouseout="this.className='liArtNewStart'" class="liArtNewStart" href="http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/674865.html"><blockquote> Bush urges Abbas to remain in office despite Hamas victory</blockquote></a><blockquote></blockquote> I don't even know where to begin with this one. How about, "This is a preview of November, 2008" Hey, man, sucks that you lost, but you should really hold on to the presidency, cuz we like you. (Just not enough to help you get votes by providing things like food and economic development capital) No, wait, its this one. "We support a democracy in the Middle East. As long as they do what America wants. If they don't, we support a dictatorship" Bush is a flip-flopping liar. Impeach him now.</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://civan93-politicalrants.blogspot.com/feeds/113830595220971426/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8780844&postID=113830595220971426' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8780844/posts/default/113830595220971426'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8780844/posts/default/113830595220971426'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://civan93-politicalrants.blogspot.com/2006/01/best-quote-of-day.html' title='Best Quote of the Day'/><author><name>Unknown</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780844.post-113828467781014031</id><published>2006-01-26T06:51:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2006-01-26T07:12:19.536-07:00</updated><title type='text'>The Cold War Model of Washington Politics</title><content type='html'>Remember the cold war? How nice and easy it was? Very simple, a Us v. Them mentality of Good v. Evil, Right v. Wrong? Of course, it turned out to be much more complicated than it was represented, and most of the information that supported it turned out to be false ... but ... wait, was that the point? Having a dualistic society is quite nice. You have the moral authority, the unabridged authority to do whatever is necessary to accomplish your goals. Yes, I've been making the "War on Terror" comparison to the Cold War for a long time ... fighting a shadowy ideological enemy that may or may not actually pose a future threat to one's self. But how does this relate to the dualistic nature of the two party system? The Democrats are just spinless whiners. (Yes, there are exceptions, Obama, Salazar, hmm, I'm sure there is another). The Republicans are thugs (Again, exceptions, McCain, Snow, Collins). But for the most part they power themselves by attacking their opponents. Few would support Republican policies, for the policy themselves, but rather they support them as the means to weaken their Democratic enemy. The same is MORE true for the Democratic "policies" because the only reason the Democratic party exists is because it gives people a voice AGAINST the Republicans. No one (and I'm not on a limb here) would actually support the "mainstream" policies of the Democratic party. What are they? Do they have a "Platform?" So the Cold War rages on in Washington. And just like in the real cold war, its not going to stop until someone declares victory. I don't think the Dems are in any situation to do so. So, the Republicans declare victory, and then the second superpower breaks down ... and then power is shared across a wide swath of society. Ok thats what I want, but its not likely to happen. The Republicans have a vested interest in seeing the Democrats struggle along. They will support the spineless, platformless entrenched Democrat interests (Think Barbara Boxer or Dianne Feinstein or Teddy Kennedy) just enough to keep them in power ... to supply their own power source. I've seen a couple of rants on this topic today. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/dc-strategists-panic-_b_14427.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/dc-strategists-panic-_b_14427.html</a> <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/trey-ellis/our-only-choices-are-surr_b_14470.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/trey-ellis/our-only-choices-are-surr_b_14470.html</a> Dear god, look at that. "They" have pushed me from the ivy and glass halls of the Cato Institute pulbications to reading Arianna's paper. Come one guys, someone, anyone grow some balls. </content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://civan93-politicalrants.blogspot.com/feeds/113828467781014031/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8780844&postID=113828467781014031' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8780844/posts/default/113828467781014031'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8780844/posts/default/113828467781014031'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://civan93-politicalrants.blogspot.com/2006/01/cold-war-model-of-washington-politics.html' title='The Cold War Model of Washington Politics'/><author><name>Unknown</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780844.post-113819872651657461</id><published>2006-01-25T07:00:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2006-01-25T07:18:46.596-07:00</updated><title type='text'>Developing conventional ballistic missiles, Arkin misses the point</title><content type='html'>First, huge kudos to Arkin for pointing this out in his tin-foil-hat column "Early Warning." I used to think this was the mouthpiece for the paranoid conspiracy theorists. Now that so many of our leaders are clearly involved in conspiracy, (if you question this, please read some other blog), I believe these are conspiracy realists. That being said... Arkin discusses the conversion of Trident missiles to conventional warheads from their current nuclear status. He discusses the motivations for this, and finds them largely to be financial, pushed by the defense contractors and STRATCOM. I strongly disagree. <blockquote style="font-family: times new roman;">Tony Capaccio of Bloomberg News has another scoop that probably portends the most important strategic military development of our generation. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has given the Navy go ahead to develop a conventionally armed Trident missile. Two dozen existing nuclear-armed submarine-launched missiles will be converted to carry conventional warheads. The missiles will then be assigned "global strike" missions to allow quicker preemptive attacks. For the first time since intercontinental ballistic missiles were "captured" in arms control treaties 40 years ago as unique and potentially destabilizing weapons, the United States will muddy the waters by modifying an existing nuclear weapon for use in day-to-day warfare. The conversion of Trident missiles abandons the strict segregation of nuclear from conventional weapons. Were the United States ever to use its new conventional Tridents, the firing would also flirt with accidental nuclear war. Ballistic missiles aimed at targets in North Korea, for example, might falsely signal to China or Russia that the United States was attacking them. The arms control and strategic stability issues associated with this decision are momentous. But here is the tragic reality of opening this door: The United States just doesn't need the capability. The fiscal year 2007-2011 Department of Defense budget plan calls for building 96 conventional warheads for 24 Navy Trident II missiles, according to a Dec. 20 memo signed by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, Bloomberg reported. Each missile would carry up to four warheads. U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM), which is the sponsor of the global strike program, says that the conventionally armed missiles will add to the ability "for delivering prompt, precise strike globally.'' "Increased precision may allow targets currently held at risk with nuclear weapons to be targeted with conventional weapons, providing options other than nuclear weapons for prompt global strike," STRATCOM says. In English, STRATCOM is not only looking to improve its ability to attack deeply buried enemy command centers, but also to decrease its reliance on nuclear weapons. On the surface, the impulse to find conventional alternatives to nuclear missions is laudable. Of course, we are hostage to accepting STRATCOM's calculations as to the need for nuclear weapons in the first place. These are purely physics calculations: We need so much tonnage and overpressure to penetrate this or that underground facility. Since we are required to provide a 90 percent probability of kill against these types of facilities, STRATCOM targeters and weaponeers argue, we need to develop other capabilities to reach those levels of guarantee. This same argument has been used to justify new nuclear-armed bunker buster weapons, but STRATCOM is not just pursuing one approach; conventionally armed Trident IIs is another approach to achieving the same goal. Of course it isn't STRATCOM's task, nor the Navy's, to wrestle with the arms control and political implications of developing a conventionally armed ballistic missile. And the lack of foresight or restraint on such technological determinism has also stood in the way of investigating other less provocative methods. For years, STRATCOM and the Air Force have been developing concepts to "functionally" defeat hard-to-get-to targets. Say there is a deeply underground facility that is deemed impervious to conventional attack: The concept of functional defeat investigates other methods, cyber warfare, special operations, a combination of conventional attack on access points and electrical power production that would disable or isolate the facility even if the bunker itself survived. This is the cutting edge of the military's new "effects based" operations. For a set of difficult targets in countries like Iran and North Korea, functional defeat specialists are today looking at the overall construction and support network to figure out innovative attack methods, ones that not only would obviate the need for nuclear weapons, but would also break with the old-fashioned view that a military mission isn't completed until things are destroyed in a conventional sense. So isn't it ironic that Donald Rumsfeld, the prophet of military transformation and the booster of an effects based approach is releasing a half a billion dollars to develop a provocative weapon that falls back on the old paradigm? The reason is that Donald Rumsfeld is a weakling. For all his huffing and puffing, he can't say no to either the military or the defense contractors. And Congress can't motivate itself to see that there are dozens of half a billion dollar programs like conventional Trident that add boutique weapons that constitute only the slightest increment of additional capabilities but with enormous potential implications.</blockquote>Ok, lets discuss the real issue. The real issue was hit in paragraph 3. Using missiles that were designed to carry nuclear payloads ... but carrying conventional payloads, means we are blurring the distinction between nuclear and conventional warfare. Yes, I remember back in 2001 when Bush, &amp; Co. said they were planning on developing a smaller nuclear device that could be used in pre-emptive attacks. Yes, I understand the distinction between depleted uranium and a radiological weapon. But as this distinction becomes more and more blurred, what is to say we don't include one very small "micro" nuclear weapon in a barrage including thousands of conventionally armed weapons, including hundreds of Tridents. One little nuke, targeted at something, say a reactor, may not get anyone's attention. No evidence would suggest it was anything other than the "core" melting down ... and just a very effective hit. This is possibly the most frightening issue ever. The whole basis of mutually ensured self destruction precludes the idea that nuclear weapons could be used unilaterally, which is what has created the uneasy nuclear peace since 1945. One participant using a nuclear device, at any level would send a signal that it's OK TO USE NUKES WHEN YOUR MILITARY IS OVERTAXED. Don't miss the real point here. Our military is weak. We can't occupy country of 20 million. What do you think will happen when we invade Iran, a country of 6x that population, with a real military, and weaponry? Well, that's why we want to use nukes. Because we are afraid our military will fail, and we will have our asses handed to us on a plate, so we have to resort to nukes. Because we are weak. Because instead of spending the money we need on armor for Humvees, extra infantry, more sophisticated field devices, we are spending our budget on conventional warheads for Tritan to blur the line. Weak. If we are itching for a fight, then, we need to fight like men. What would Eisenhower do? Even with his idea for an all nuclear arsenal, it was still for deterrence, not for attacking a non-nuclear state, which is why he never deployed such weapons in Korea. What would Teddy Roosevelt do? Please, this is not a partisan Liberal v. Conservative issue. What would Reagan do? Not follow this course, that is for certain. 1) Give our troops more armor, disability pay, health benefits (after they lose a limb) 2) Quit picking fights we can't win 3) Impeach George Bush. The military industrial complex reigns supreme. .</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://civan93-politicalrants.blogspot.com/feeds/113819872651657461/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8780844&postID=113819872651657461' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8780844/posts/default/113819872651657461'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8780844/posts/default/113819872651657461'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://civan93-politicalrants.blogspot.com/2006/01/developing-conventional-ballistic.html' title='Developing conventional ballistic missiles, Arkin misses the point'/><author><name>Unknown</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780844.post-113731547697442834</id><published>2006-01-15T01:55:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2006-01-15T01:57:56.986-07:00</updated><title type='text'>Class war?</title><content type='html'>I'm beginning to believe in the class war being waged by the Bush administration. However, its interesting to me that the Republicans are not representing the rich, but rather the poor. Specifically the uneducated poor. So the class war is setup to be the uneducated poor against the educated and wealthy. What does this sound like? Any students of history out there?</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://civan93-politicalrants.blogspot.com/feeds/113731547697442834/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8780844&postID=113731547697442834' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8780844/posts/default/113731547697442834'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8780844/posts/default/113731547697442834'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://civan93-politicalrants.blogspot.com/2006/01/class-war.html' title='Class war?'/><author><name>Unknown</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780844.post-113728203340396164</id><published>2006-01-14T10:32:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2006-01-30T07:54:50.750-07:00</updated><title type='text'>Sign me up for the tin-foil hats</title><content type='html'>OH for the days when we could repel the forces of evil with just the use of a simple tin foil hat. Now they have so many ways they can get inside out heads. If you don't want to be scared, don't read this article published in last week's LA Times. <blockquote><h1>You're being watched ...</h1> <div class="storysubhead"><li style="list-style-type: square; list-style-image: none; list-style-position: inside;">Efforts to collect data on Americans go far beyond the NSA's domestic spying program.</li></div> By Laura K. Donohue CONGRESS WILL soon hold hearings on the National Security Agency's domestic spying program, secretly authorized by President Bush in 2002. But that program is just the tip of the iceberg. Since 9/11, the expansion of efforts to gather and analyze information on U.S. citizens is nothing short of staggering. The government collects vast troves of data, including consumer credit histories and medical and travel records. Databases track Americans' networks of friends, family and associates, not just to identify who is a terrorist but to try to predict who might become one. <table style="clear: left; margin-right: 5px; margin-top: 5px; background-color: rgb(233, 240, 242);" align="left" width="10%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="navmainsection" align="center">ADVERTISEMENT</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">  <iframe src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/adi/N339.latribune.html/B1788195;sz=300x250;ord=btlogod,bbNslyudwNnnb?" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" hspace="0" vspace="0" bordercolor="#000000" frameborder="0" height="252" scrolling="no" width="302"> &lt;SCRIPT language='JavaScript1.1' SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/N339.latribune.html/B1788195;abr=!ie;sz=300x250;ord=btlogod,bbNslyudwNnnb?"&gt; &lt;/SCRIPT&gt; &lt;NOSCRIPT&gt; &lt;A HREF="http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N339.latribune.html/B1788195;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=300x250;ord=btlogod,bbNslyudwNnnb?"&gt; &lt;IMG SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/N339.latribune.html/B1788195;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=300x250;ord=btlogod,bbNslyudwNnnb?" BORDER=0 WIDTH=300 HEIGHT=250 ALT=""&gt;&lt;/A&gt; &lt;/NOSCRIPT&gt; </iframe> <img src="http://brt.trb.com/event.ng/Type=count&ClientType=1&amp;AdID=196801&FlightID=478358&amp;TargetID=1309&Segments=254,685,851,926,1093,1268,1309,1350,1899,1952,2168,2776,3036,3099,3178,3370,3581,4133,4709,5041,5644,5777,7457,7846,50611,50827,51336,51385,51933,52229,52641,53126,53166,53593,53719,54162,54239,54320,54372,54476,54563,54741,54832,54960,55010,55012,55090,55173,55174,55382,55488,55490&amp;Targets=10772,57516,2423,57003,1309,58175,57001,55345,2337,2811,54076,55759,57888,57849,56533,57019,56362,55807,56783,57686,56660,56757,56853,57252,57483,57567,57568,57671,57787,57789,58250,58253&Values=30,46,50,61,73,84,86,90,101,110,150,287,289,301,328,391,533,583,591,593,834,903,998,1016,1051,1065,1089,1091,1093,1112,1122,1136,1191,1212,1263,1282,1309,1436,1604,1653,1654,1664,1681,1745,1748,1754,1758,1786,1787,1788,1840,1863,1870,1871,1872,1882,1887,1888,1890,1892,1917,1919,1957,1978,1985,1987,2011,2017,2035,2036,2044,2091,2106,2284,2297,2353,2380,2384,2548,2625,2626,2719,2720,2765,2782,2804,2805,2823,2838,2848,2861,2863,2915,2938,2948,2971,2975,3023,3024,3047,3051,3055,3058,3061,3062,3065,3070,3088,3103,3113,3215&amp;RawValues=USERAGENTID%2CMozilla/5.0%2520%28Macintosh%253B%2520U%253B%2520PPC%2520Mac%2520OS%2520X%2520Mach-O%253B%2520en-US%253B%2520rv:1.8%29%2520Gecko/20051111%2520Firefox/1.5&random=btlogod,bbNslyudwNnnb" border="0" height="1" width="1" /> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> Remember Total Information Awareness, retired Adm. John Poindexter's effort to harness all government and commercial databases to preempt national security threats? The idea was that disparate, seemingly mundane behaviors can reveal criminal intent when viewed together. More disturbing, it assumed that deviance from social norms can be an early indicator of terrorism. Congress killed that program in 2003, but according to the Associated Press, many related projects continued. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency runs a data-mining program called Evidence Extraction and Link Discovery, which connects pieces of information from vast amounts of data sources. The Defense Intelligence Agency trawls intelligence records and the Internet to identify Americans connected to foreign terrorists. The CIA reportedly runs Quantum Leap, which gathers personal information on individuals from private and public sources. In 2002, Congress authorized $500 million for the Homeland Security Department to develop "data mining and other advanced analytical tools." In 2004, the General Accounting Office surveyed 128 federal departments and agencies to determine the extent of data mining. It found 199 operations, 14 of which related to counterterrorism. What type of information could these mine? Your tax, education, vehicle, criminal and welfare records for starters. But also other digital data, such as your travel, medical and insurance records — and DNA tests. Section 505 of the Patriot Act (innocuously titled "Miscellaneous National Security Authorities") extends the type of information the government can obtain without a warrant to include credit card records, bank account numbers and information on Internet use. Your checking account may tell which charities or political causes you support. Your credit card statements show where you shop, and your supermarket frequent-buyer-card records may indicate whether you keep kosher or follow an Islamic halal diet. Internet searches record your interests, down to what, exactly, you read. Faith forums or chat rooms offer a window into your thoughts and beliefs. E-mail and telephone conversations contain intimate details of your life. A University of Illinois study found that in the 12 months following 9/11, federal agents made at least 545 visits to libraries to obtain information about patrons. This isn't just data surveillance. It's psychological surveillance. Many Americans might approve of data mining to find terrorists. But not all of the inquiries necessarily relate to terrorism. The Patriot Act allows law enforcement officers to get "sneak and peek" warrants to search a home for any suspected crime — and to wait months or even years to tell the owner they were there. Last July, the Justice Department told the House Judiciary Committee that only 12% of the 153 "sneak and peek" warrants it received were related to terrorism investigations. The FBI has used Patriot Act powers to break into a judge's chambers and to procure records from medical clinics. Documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union recently revealed that the FBI used other new powers to eavesdrop on environmental, political and religious organizations. When Congress looks into domestic spying in the "war on terror," it should ask a series of questions: First, what information, exactly, is being collected? Are other programs besides the president's NSA initiative ignoring traditional warrant requirements? Are federal agencies dodging weak privacy laws by outsourcing the job to private contractors? Second, who has access to the data once it is collected, and what legal restrictions are set on how it can be used or shared? Third, who authorized data mining, and is its use restricted to identifying terrorists? Fourth, what is the collective effect of these programs on citizens' rights? Privacy certainly suffers, but as individuals begin to feel inhibited in what they say and do, free speech and freedom of assembly also erode. Fifth, how do these data collection and mining operations deal with error? As anyone who's tried to dispute an erroneous credit report can attest, once computer networks exchange data, it may be difficult to verify its accuracy or where it entered the system. Citizens who do not know they are under surveillance cannot challenge inaccurate information that may become part of their secret digital dossier. What will Congress do to ensure that the innocent remain so? </blockquote></content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://civan93-politicalrants.blogspot.com/feeds/113728203340396164/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8780844&postID=113728203340396164' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8780844/posts/default/113728203340396164'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8780844/posts/default/113728203340396164'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://civan93-politicalrants.blogspot.com/2006/01/sign-me-up-for-tin-foil-hats.html' title='Sign me up for the tin-foil hats'/><author><name>Unknown</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780844.post-113696163831364121</id><published>2006-01-10T23:38:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2006-01-10T23:40:38.326-07:00</updated><title type='text'>Jim Hightower on "Ownership Society"</title><content type='html'>Now, normally, I think Jim Hightower is an ass. But this was so entertaining, I feel I just have to post it. <blockquote>GEORGE W WANTS CORPORATE GOVERNANCE 1/3/2006 George W is fond of philosophizing about his vision of an "ownership society," organized not on a governmental model, but on the corporate structure. I wonder: Is George even aware that the "owners" of corporate America have no real power over the autocratic elites who run corporations? The owners of corporations are the shareholders – those people who have bought the company's stock. But ownership in the corporate model buys you no democratic control. Take the board of directors, which is the official governing body of the corporation you "own." As a shareholder, you get to vote for the board members – but the ballot gives you no choices! Only the candidates hand-picked by the CEO are listed. Your only option is vote for or against the corporate-dictated candidate. But – get this – even if you and 99.9 percent of the other shareholders get together and vote against the CEOs choice, the corporate candidate still wins, assuming the candidate is smart enough to vote for himself (and, by the way, they're nearly always men). Under the self-rigged corporate rules, it just takes only a single vote to elect the chosen candidate. As if this soviet-style electoral system does not give corporate executives enough control over owners, CEOs are now taking extraordinary steps to assure that they get no interference from pesky shareholders. It seems that more and more of these shareholders/owners have been showing up at the annual board meeting to raise issues and even raise a ruckus about how the place is being run. So, to fend off even this minimal democratic intrusion, corporations have begun hiring surveillance firms to snoop on their own owners, targeting shareholders who might "cause trouble." Of course, the corporate interpretation of "trouble" is to have anyone dissent from what the top executives are doing. This is Jim Hightower saying... On second thought, this sounds exactly like the kind of government Bush has in mind for us.</blockquote> </content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://civan93-politicalrants.blogspot.com/feeds/113696163831364121/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8780844&postID=113696163831364121' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8780844/posts/default/113696163831364121'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8780844/posts/default/113696163831364121'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://civan93-politicalrants.blogspot.com/2006/01/jim-hightower-on-ownership-society.html' title='Jim Hightower on "Ownership Society"'/><author><name>Unknown</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780844.post-113679394680344330</id><published>2006-01-09T01:04:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2006-01-09T01:07:48.316-07:00</updated><title type='text'>Couldn't have said it better</title><content type='html'><img src="http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/060105/schorr.gif" width=320 height=240></content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://civan93-politicalrants.blogspot.com/feeds/113679394680344330/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8780844&postID=113679394680344330' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8780844/posts/default/113679394680344330'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8780844/posts/default/113679394680344330'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://civan93-politicalrants.blogspot.com/2006/01/couldnt-have-said-it-better.html' title='Couldn't have said it better'/><author><name>Unknown</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780844.post-113677985078567674</id><published>2006-01-08T21:07:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2006-01-08T21:11:24.286-07:00</updated><title type='text'>Josh Marshall is on a roll</title><content type='html'>Apparently, this is a good day for TPM. <blockquote>Good stuff! Holding Republicans to account violates their rights. You have to love this. Three and a half years ago members of the New Hampshire state Republican party, the Republican National Committee and others entered into a criminal conspiracy to disrupt Democratic get-out-the-vote activities on election day. That's not just me using that language. Two of conspirators pled guilty. Another, a then-employee of the Republican National Committee, was just convicted on two counts stemming from the scheme. For almost two years now, the state Democratic party has been pursuing a suit against the state party seeking redress and, mainly, to find out what really happened since at the beginning the Justice Department wasn't seriously pursuing the case. Now, in recently filed court papers, the Republican State CommitteeÂ\x92s attorney, Ovide Lamontagne, is claiming that the Dems' suit is "in attempt to use the court system to interfere with the (GOP\x92s) constitutionally protected election activities." There's a certain amount of sense to this, I suppose, since the Republican party, in its current incarnation, does seem to rely heavily on law-breaking as an electoral tool. Still, I've never heard it alleged that such criminality is constitutionally protected. </blockquote> I don't know how to make the links come from his blog to my blog using blogger. But I suggest everyone go to TPM and follow the links if you are in need of verification. We bloggers, unlike the pundits believeve in verification of facts.</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://civan93-politicalrants.blogspot.com/feeds/113677985078567674/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8780844&postID=113677985078567674' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8780844/posts/default/113677985078567674'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8780844/posts/default/113677985078567674'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://civan93-politicalrants.blogspot.com/2006/01/josh-marshall-is-on-roll.html' title='Josh Marshall is on a roll'/><author><name>Unknown</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780844.post-113677937719557446</id><published>2006-01-08T20:50:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2006-01-08T21:07:35.190-07:00</updated><title type='text'>Block the nomination of Samuel Alito</title><content type='html'>I have faith the Democrats (this is rare) and the moderate Republicans will do the right thing and block this man. I supported Roberts (although those eyes). Block I say. Senators Collins, Dole, Domenici, Frist (?!), Jeffords, McCain, Santourm, Snowe, and Spector please do what's right for your country, not the party line. Oh, and while you are at it, ever consider forming a new centrist party along with the 5 or 6 Democrats who aren't super flaky? (Bingaman, Bird, Clinton, Corzine, Feingold, Leahy, Levin, Obama, Reid, Rockefeller, Salazar, Schumer -- Hmm, there are more than I remember -- now I understand why I find myself preferring the Dems) Remember: The real story here is Abramoff. Don't let this Alito thing get in the way as Time magazine <a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1147153-2,00.html">suggests may happen </a>if the spin folk get busy</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://civan93-politicalrants.blogspot.com/feeds/113677937719557446/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8780844&postID=113677937719557446' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8780844/posts/default/113677937719557446'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8780844/posts/default/113677937719557446'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://civan93-politicalrants.blogspot.com/2006/01/block-nomination-of-samuel-alito.html' title='Block the nomination of Samuel Alito'/><author><name>Unknown</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780844.post-113677849008926368</id><published>2006-01-08T20:40:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2006-01-08T20:48:10.196-07:00</updated><title type='text'>A thought, RFC</title><content type='html'>For the uninitiated, RFC is request for comments. Frequently something scholars or engineers put forth when they have an idea they think is going in a good direction, but fear they are being one-sided or blinded to any opposing viewpoint. An apt request. I am starting to doubt the future of the pundit. Perhaps that rabble-rouser Michael Moore had a point. Perhaps the pundits are angry because they are losing power. See, that last post, the one about Ollie North is typical. I, the blogger, get this email, get angry, research it, and send it back out, with corrections, to the person who sent it originally, with a request that he send the corrections to all of his friends, the ones he passed it to initially. But the pundits do not do this. They take something like this and heat it up and pass it around. I even doubt the person who sent it to me will retract its damaging statements. And because of things like that, we, no, nearly everyone, is learning to distrust people who provide uncorrobrated evidence. Perhaps the greatest strength of a blog is the ability to include hyperlinks to our sources, ones that ... Demonstrate a) that we have done some research and are not just noisy and b) our claims are supported by evidence, which makes them harder to attack with anything other than "the liberal media" or "your liberal bias" I'm beginning to suspect "liberal" is a codeword for "true" and "liberal bias" is a verb, meaning "to research and report fact" Just an idea ....</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://civan93-politicalrants.blogspot.com/feeds/113677849008926368/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8780844&postID=113677849008926368' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8780844/posts/default/113677849008926368'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8780844/posts/default/113677849008926368'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://civan93-politicalrants.blogspot.com/2006/01/thought-rfc.html' title='A thought, RFC'/><author><name>Unknown</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780844.post-113677286154900266</id><published>2006-01-08T19:13:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2006-02-01T22:48:51.893-07:00</updated><title type='text'>Ollie North, Osama Bin Laden, Al Gore, Mohammed Atta</title><content type='html'>Its that time again folks. It's time to play "reality" with the conservatives. Commentary follows story. <div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote>I know that this isn't "new" news and has been out there before; nevertheless, it goes unremarked by the media. Nice to have both of these pieces of information together. Pass it along to anyone who may have never heard or forgotten about it. It was 1987. At a lecture the other day they were playing an old news video of Lt.Col. Oliver North testifying at the Iran-Contra hearings (ed: where we traded weapons to Iran for hostages) during the Reagan Administration. There was Ollie in front of God and country getting the third degree, but what he said was stunning! He was being drilled by a senator; "Did you not recently spend close to $60,000 for a home security system?" Ollie replied, "Yes, I did, Sir." The senator continued, trying to get a laugh out of the audience, "Isn't that just a little excessive?" "No, sir," continued Ollie. "No? And why not?" the senator asked. "Because the lives of my family and I were threatened, sir." "Threatened? By whom?" the senator questioned. "By a terrorist, sir" Ollie answered. "Terrorist? What terrorist could possibly scare you that much?" "His name is Osama bin Laden, sir" Ollie replied. At this point the senator tried to repeat the name, but couldn't pronounce it, which most people back then probably couldn't. A couple of people laughed at the attempt. Then the senator continued. Why are you so afraid of this man?" the senator asked. "Because, sir, he is the most evil person alive that I know of," Ollie answered. "And what do you recommend we do about him?" asked the senator. "Well, sir, if it was up to me, I would recommend that an assassin team be formed to eliminate him and his men from the face of the earth." The senator disagreed with this approach, and that was all that was shown of the clip. By the way, that senator was Al Gore! Also: Terrorist pilot Mohammad Atta blew up a bus in Israel in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him. As part of the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993, Israel had to agree to release so-called "political prisoners." However, the Israelis would not release any with blood on their hands, The American President at the time, Bill Clinton, and his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, "insisted" that all prisoners be released. Thus Mohammad Atta was freed and eventually thanked the US by flying an airplane into Tower One of the World Trade Center. This was reported by many of the American TV networks at the time that the terrorists were first identified. It was censored in the US from all later reports. </blockquote></div> Now, let's pretend that there aren't any factual errors in this story, and it is exactly true as printed. Ollie North said Osama was the most evil man alive. If this is true, do you think, possibly, we should not have been selling him (and his Mujahadeen brethren) US weapons to fight the Soviet incursion into Afghanistan? But wait, there is more! Hold on, didn't we also, in the same period when we (the United States, also under President Reagan) sold Osama weapons (Including those lovely stinger missles they have so frequently used against US personnel in Afghanistan) ... didn't we also send Donald Rumsfeld to meet with Saddam Hussein and arrange weapon sales, INCLUDING the chemical weapons he used on the Kurds in Iraqi Kurdistan ... the very crime for which we are now holding him on trial? This could be an interesting tangent, and one which seems rife with inconsistancies, and inaccuracies. However, unfortunately, as <a href="http://www.snopes.com/rumors/north.asp">Snopes points out, this whole story is indeed false.</a> Ollie North actually wrote a memo regarding this. Let's look at what Ollie himself has to say, shall we? <blockquote>FROM THE DESK OF LTCOL OLIVER L. NORTH (USMC) RET. NOVEMBER 28, 2001 OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS, I HAVE RECEIVED SEVERAL THOUSAND E-MAILS FROM EVERY STATE IN THE U.S. AND 13 FOREIGN COUNTRIES IN WHICH THE ORIGINATOR PURPORTS TO HAVE RECENTLY VIEWED A VIDEOTAPE OF MY SWORN TESTIMONY BEFORE A CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE IN 1987. A COPY OF ONE OF THOSE E-MAILS IS ATTACHED BELOW. AS YOU WILL NOTE, THE ORIGINATOR ATTRIBUTES TO ME CERTAIN STATEMENTS REGARDING USAMA BIN LADEN AND OTHER MATTERS THAT ARE SIMPLY INACCURATE. THOUGH I WOULD LIKE TO CLAIM THE GIFT OF PROPHESY, I DON'T HAVE IT. I DON'T KNOW WHO SAW WHAT VIDEO "AT UNC." (OR ANYWHERE ELSE) BUT, FOR THE RECORD, HERE'S WHAT I DO KNOW: 1. IT WAS THE COMMITTEE COUNSEL, JOHN NIELDS, NOT A SENATOR WHO WAS DOING THE QUESTIONING. 2. THE SECURITY SYSTEM, INSTALLED AT MY HOME, JUST BEFORE I MADE A VERY SECRET TRIP TO TEHRAN, COST, ACCORDING TO THE COMMITTEE, $16K, NOT $60K. 3. THE TERRORIST WHO THREATENED TO KILL ME IN 1986, JUST BEFORE THAT SECRET TRIP TO TEHRAN, WAS NOT USAMA BIN LADEN, IT WAS ABU NIDAL (WHO WORKS FOR THE LIBYANS — NOT THE TALIBAN AND NOT IN AFGHANISTAN). 4. I NEVER SAID I WAS AFRAID OF ANYBODY. I DID SAY THAT I WOULD BE GLAD TO MEET ABU NIDAL ON EQUAL TERMS ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD BUT THAT I WAS UNWILLING TO HAVE HIM OR HIS OPERATIVES MEET MY WIFE AND CHILDREN ON HIS TERMS. 5. I DID SAY THAT THE TERRORISTS INTERCEPTED BY THE FBI ON THE WAY TO MY HOUSE IN FEB. 87 TO KILL MY WIFE, CHILDREN AND ME WERE LIBYANS, DISPATCHED FROM THE PEOPLE'S COMMITTEE FOR LIBYAN STUDENTS IN MCLEAN, VIRGINIA. 6. AND I DID SAY THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAD MOVED MY FAMILY OUT OF OUR HOME TO A MILITARY BASE (CAMP LEJEUNE, NC) UNTIL THEY COULD DISPATCH MORE THAN 30 AGENTS TO PROTECT MY FAMILY FROM THOSE TERRORISTS (BECAUSE A LIBERAL FEDERAL JUDGE HAD ALLOWED THE LYBIAN ASSASSINS TO POST BOND AND THEY FLED). 7. AND, FYI: THOSE FEDERAL AGENTS REMAINED AT OUR HOME UNTIL I RETIRED FROM THE MARINES AND WAS NO LONGER A "GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL." BY THEN, THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT HAD SPENT MORE THAN $2M PROTECTING THE NORTH FAMILY. THE TERRORISTS SENT TO KILL US WERE NEVER RE-APPREHENDED. SEMPER FIDELIS, OLIVER L. NORTH</blockquote> Let's move on to the Atta story. *YAWN* Actually, let's not, <a href="http://www.snopes.com/rumors/atta.htm">its patently false, and not very much fun.</a> Put very simply, Two men, one named Mahmoud Atta, 14 years the elder, and one named Mohammed Atta. Maumoud blew up a bus in Israel and was extradited under Reagan. Mohammed is the infamous terrorist who piloted the plane into the WTC. Rumors also mention this story originally implicated Reagan in the release of Atta, however it eventually morphed into ... the arch-rival of neo-conservativism Bill Clinton. Interesting how that happened, eh? Kudos to someone who knew the name of a secretary of state of the Clinton administration tho. That type of fact makes one scratch their heads and say "Well if they knew Clinton's Secretary of State, it must be true." Obviously the people who wrote this aren't able to distinguish between two different men with the same name. If they have similar names, they must be the same a-rab, right? Because white people never have the same name. For instance the <a href="http://archives.californiaaviation.org/airport/msg25876.html">"terrorist" John Adams</a> is obviously the same <a href="http://histclo.hispeed.com/pres/ind18/adams.html"> John Adams</a> who made midnight appointments to the federal courts and rode out of Washington at midnight before TJ's inauguration. Of course, one of the fellows on the list I was on when I received this hooey is the one and only Jeff Smith. You all know Jeff, right? One last note. When I pointed out the folly of this argument to the sender of this message and asked politely for a retraction, he refused. When I threaded to send a retraction myself (as republicans don't frequently understand BCC unless they are lobbyists) he became adjusted and didn't understand what my problem was. My problem? Its simple. The last line in the email read "If you believe Americans need to know this information and are tired of the Liberal Media censorship, then send this message to everyone you know" Once again, the "conservatives" are using the term "liberal" to mean synonymous with "truth" which is a use with which I have to admit, I'm not entirely comfortable.</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://civan93-politicalrants.blogspot.com/feeds/113677286154900266/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8780844&postID=113677286154900266' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8780844/posts/default/113677286154900266'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8780844/posts/default/113677286154900266'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://civan93-politicalrants.blogspot.com/2006/01/ollie-north-osama-bin-laden-al-gore.html' title='Ollie North, Osama Bin Laden, Al Gore, Mohammed Atta'/><author><name>Unknown</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780844.post-113511905366615822</id><published>2005-12-20T14:07:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2005-12-20T15:51:02.736-07:00</updated><title type='text'>Daily Fallacy</title><content type='html'>Because I have had way too much fun with these, I'm going to limit myself to identifying one fallacy in the story and running with it today. <blockquote>HOUSTON — Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, facing trial on charges of money laundering in a campaign finance scheme, officially filed Tuesday to run for a 12th term in his suburban Houston district. The filing was not unexpected. Republican DeLay, who has denied any wrongdoing and has accused Democrat Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle of conducting a political witch hunt, already has been campaigning against his likely general election opponent, former Democratic U.S. Rep. Nick Lampson. He still must deal with at least two GOP challengers in the March primary. DeLay filed by petition with the Republican Party of Texas, delivering almost 1,000 signatures collected by volunteers. Filing by petition, instead of paying a filing fee, requires 500 signatures from registered voters in his district. When DeLay disclosed his plans Tuesday at an appearance before a business group in the Johnson Space Center area of his district, he received a standing ovation from the overflow crowd of some 150 people. Asked about Lampson's challenge, he replied: "It's not a challenge." In his address DeLay touted the accomplishments of the most recent congressional session. He didn't mention his legal difficulties until a question-and-answer session afterward, in which he said there was a Democratic strategy to take him down. "The record of this year is pretty amazing and we've been able to do it despite getting down into the gutter the Democrats have chosen to get into," DeLay said. "They have no agenda. All they have is the politics of personal destruction, and we understand what it is. We stay focused on our job to represent the views and values of our constituents and doing good things for the nation." Lawyer Michael Fjetland, defeated three times by DeLay, filed last week to enter the GOP primary. Pat Baig, a former teacher and political rookie, has said she'll join them and already has been campaigning. DeLay, the former House Majority leader who was indicted earlier this year, usually campaigns quietly without much concern for his re-election in a solidly Republican district. But with his legal troubles prominent, and with national Democrats backing Lampson, DeLay's ordinarily routine re-election has taken on a much higher profile, even drawing Vice President Dick Cheney to headline a recent fund-raiser in Houston. DeLay's announcement Tuesday came after State District Judge Pat Priest last weekend said he couldn't set additional hearings in the criminal case until after an appeals court ruling, dampening DeLay's hopes of regaining his House leadership post. DeLay, who has denied wrongdoing, wants to separate a remaining charge and proceed to trial on one count while others are being appealed so he can regain his majority leader job before his GOP colleagues call for new leadership elections. DeLay was forced to step aside as majority leader in September after he was indicted on state charges of conspiracy to violate Texas election laws. A second grand jury indicted him on charges of conspiracy to launder money and money laundering charges. Earle alleges DeLay and two co-conspirators funneled $190,000 in corporate contributions through the Texas political committee and an arm of the National Republican Committee to seven GOP state legislative candidates. Earle contends DeLay and his two associates tried to circumvent Texas' law barring spending corporate money on campaigns except for administrative expenses. Besides the criminal charges, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a week ago to review the Texas congressional redistricting plan DeLay engineered.</blockquote> Ok, which one to choose. How about this one? <blockquote>"The record of this year is pretty amazing and we've been able to do it despite getting down into the gutter the Democrats have chosen to get into," DeLay said. "They have no agenda. All they have is the politics of personal destruction, and we understand what it is. We stay focused on our job to represent the views and values of our constituents and doing good things for the nation."</blockquote> Creating this syllogism requires a lot of background information. So, instead lets pick points. <ol><li> The Democrats have no agenda </li> <li> The Democrats have an angenda of politics of personal destruction </li> <li> Law enforcement is political </li> <li> Only the Democrats are guilty of law enforcement </li> <li> Tom DeLay is innocent (?)</li> <li> Poltical </ol></content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://civan93-politicalrants.blogspot.com/feeds/113511905366615822/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8780844&postID=113511905366615822' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8780844/posts/default/113511905366615822'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8780844/posts/default/113511905366615822'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://civan93-politicalrants.blogspot.com/2005/12/daily-fallacy.html' title='Daily Fallacy'/><author><name>Unknown</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780844.post-113509889171456840</id><published>2005-12-20T10:11:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2005-12-20T10:14:51.716-07:00</updated><title type='text'>Other People Getting on the Snoopgate Truck</title><content type='html'><a style="font-family: lucida grande;" href="http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/">Brad DeLong</a> has a post today regarding why the NYT failed to report the Snoopgate story. He links to Jonathan Alter. Btw, everyone should read <a href="http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/">Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal</a>. </content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://civan93-politicalrants.blogspot.com/feeds/113509889171456840/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8780844&postID=113509889171456840' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8780844/posts/default/113509889171456840'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8780844/posts/default/113509889171456840'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://civan93-politicalrants.blogspot.com/2005/12/other-people-getting-on-snoopgate.html' title='Other People Getting on the Snoopgate Truck'/><author><name>Unknown</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780844.post-113504256721887854</id><published>2005-12-19T17:53:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2005-12-20T14:04:34.380-07:00</updated><title type='text'>First logical fallacy news story</title><content type='html'>Why start with a hard one? I went straight to FOXNews.com and picked the first story about Bush. <blockquote> WASHINGTON \x97 President Bush on Monday defended the use of a domestic eavesdropping program and called for Democrats to stop their "delaying tactics" and reauthorize the controversial Patriot Act. In a year-end news conference at the White House, Bush called the leak of the National Security Agency's eavesdropping program, first reported in The New York Times last Friday, a "shameful act" disclosed in a time of war. The report said Bush had authorized the NSA to conduct surveillance of e-mails and phone calls of some individuals in the United States without court warrants. "The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy," Bush told reporters. "This program has targeted those with known links to Al Qaeda." The program will continue, Bush said, adding that he has reauthorized it more than 30 times. "And I will continue to do so for so long as our nation faces the continued threat of an enemy that wants to kill our American citizens." </blockquote> Holy crap this is rich. Ok, lets start easy. <blockquote>Democrats to stop their "delaying tactics" and reauthorize the controversial Patriot Act.</blockquote> The syllogism is: <blockquote>The patriot act has not been reauthorized Democrats do not approve of the patriot act Therefore democrats are using delaying tactics to prevent its passage</blockquote><ol><li> Red Herring: There are enough republicans to pass the law, so the conclusion does not lead logically from the premises. </li><li> Appeal to tradition: Democrats are more likely to vote against the president than Republicans </li><li> Shifting the burden of proof: Prove its not just a tactic to delay and not a fundamental objection</li></ol> <blockquote>In a year-end news conference at the White House, Bush called the leak of the National Security Agency's eavesdropping program, first reported in The New York Times last Friday, a "shameful act" disclosed in a time of war. </blockquote> Lets look at this one: <blockquote>The (illegal) eavesdropping program is honorable Someone leaked information about it Therefore the leak is shameful</blockquote><ol> <li> False premise: The (illegal) eavesdropping program is honorable. </li><li> Invalid Proof: Leaking information on an honorable program is shameful </li><li> Appeal to emotion: "In a time of war" Completely irrelevant to domestic spying</li></ol> <blockquote>"The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy," Bush told reporters. "This program has targeted those with known links to Al Qaeda." </blockquote> Holy crap. This is so fun. <blockquote> We are only targeting people with links to Al Queda We are not targeting other people We know who is in Al Qaeda</blockquote> Wow, that is rich. Well, why don't we arrest them if we know who they are? Afraid of stepping on their civil liberties? HA! But wait, here's more <blockquote>The free discussion of ideas helps the enemy The US Constitution demands free discussion of ideas Therefore, the US Constitution helps the enemy -or- (my personal favorite) The free discussion of ideas helps the enemy Radical militant terrorist Muslims are the enemy Radical militant terrorist Muslims support free discussion of ideas</blockquote> <ol><li> Appeal to Probability: We probably aren't violating people who aren't terrorists, so you are not violated </li><li> False Premise: We are only targeting people with links to Al Qaeda. Right. So we aren't targeting innocent Americans. And we know who these Al Qaeda people are AND we aren't doing anything! </li><li> Negative proof: Proove we aren't targeting only people that are members of Al Qaeda! </li><li> Guilt by association: If we are targeting you, you have links to Al Qaeda </li><li> Post Hoc: If you ever join Al Qaeda, because we were spying on you for so long, we were spying on you because you were in Al Qaeda. </li><li> Special Pleading: Trust us, these indescretions are important because they are a matter of national security </li><li> Poisoning the Well: We are only watching terrorists, so only terrorists will complain that their civil liberties are violated. What were you saying about civil liberties? </li><li> Proof by assertion: We only target the enemy. We do not spy on good Americans</li></ol><blockquote> The program will continue, Bush said, adding that he has reauthorized it more than 30 times. "And I will continue to do so for so long as our nation faces the continued threat of an enemy that wants to kill our American citizens." </blockquote> I'm kinda tired of hitting these. Should I reverse course and hit only the accurate premises? <blockquote>There is an enemy that wants to kill citizens We protect citizens Therefore we must spy on citizens -or- I authorized the program to protect citizens from enemies who want to kill citizens Citizens have not died since I authorized it The program protects citizens -or- ?? I secretly authorized the program 30 times The program must be good? </blockquote><ol><li> Special pleading: The program is OK because I authorized it 30 times </li><li> Red Herring: Its the program, not the lack of terrorists, that keeps people safe </li><li> Negative proof: Proove the program hasn't saved lives! </li><li> Appeal to emotion: Enemies want to kill American Citizens! </li><li> Appeal to authority: Bush knows what best will protect citizens, therefore since he says its good, its good. </li><li> Appeal to tradition: I authorized this program 30 times </li><li> Post hoc: Enemies have not killed citizens since I authorized this program, so the program protects citizens </li></ol> Wow, this is fun, and easy. Let's play. Are there any Republican apologists out there who would like to debate these points?</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://civan93-politicalrants.blogspot.com/feeds/113504256721887854/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8780844&postID=113504256721887854' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8780844/posts/default/113504256721887854'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8780844/posts/default/113504256721887854'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://civan93-politicalrants.blogspot.com/2005/12/first-logical-fallacy-news-story.html' title='First logical fallacy news story'/><author><name>Unknown</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780844.post-113503996917822465</id><published>2005-12-19T17:04:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2005-12-19T17:52:49.260-07:00</updated><title type='text'>Syllogisms and Fallacies</title><content type='html'>I'm going to start having fun. I'm going to start analyzing the "brick and morter" news agencies false claims by idenfitying their logical fallacies. This is going to be great. While I get started, here is a (partial) list of the logical fallacies that an argument may contain. List of fallacies: <ul> <li> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem">Ad hominem (personal attack)</a> ("John Kerry is a liberal, you can't trust him") </li><li> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority">Appeal to (false) authority</a> (Judith Miller knows Saddam has WMD) </li><li> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion">Appeal to emotion </a> ("9-11!! 9-11!!") </li><li> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_probability">Appeal to probability </a> (DHS probably won't tap your phone if you are innocent, so you are free from search and seizure") </li><li> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition">Appeal to tradition</a> ("We've never let gays in the military, lets keep them out") </li><li> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance">Argument from ignorance </a>("I'm not an expert, but it seems to me..") </li><li> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question"> Begging the question </a> (Circular) (If Saddam has WMD he is a threat to America therefore America needs to invade Iraq to protect itself) </li><li> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressed_correlative">Suppressed correlative</a> </li><li> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation">Equivocation </a> (Two meanings for one word) (The constitution was based on liberal philosophy, so if you are conservative you don't believe in it) </li><li> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy">False analogy</a> (The supposed relationship between premises does not exist) </li><li> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise"> False premise</a> (One premise is incorrect) </li><li> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization"> Faulty generalization </a> (All liberals believe in raising taxes) </li><li> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt_by_association"> Guilt by association</a> (Hitler was a vegetarian, so vegetarians are anti-semitic) </li><li> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incomplete_comparison"> Incomplete comparison</a> (The better alternative is military action) </li><li> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inconsistent_comparison"> Inconsistent comparison </a> (This liter of gas costs less than that gallon, so this one is cheaper) </li><li> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invalid_proof"> Invalid proof </a>(Paradox) </li><li> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgemental_language"> Judgemental language</a> ("If you weren't an idiot, you would see that ...") </li><li> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juxtaposition"> Juxtaposition</a> (Irrelevent similarties -- First Hitler took away everyone's guns, so gun control leads to genocide...) </li><li> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaningless_statement"> Meaningless statement </a> (Distinction without difference i.e. pornography v. erotica) </li><li> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof"> Negative proof</a> (Saddam can't proove he destroyed WMD so he must not have destroyed them) </li><li> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29"> Non sequitur </a> (Saddam hates America, Osama hates America, therefore Saddam and Osama are friends) </li><li> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well"> Poisoning the well</a> (Ridiculing before statement. If you don't support the president, you are unamerican. Do you support the president?) </li><li> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion"> Proof by assertion</a> (In Lenin's words, "A lie told often enough becomes the truth" -- Saddam has WMD, Saddam was behind 9-11, We are winning the war on terror") </li><li> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc"> Post hoc (also called post hoc ergo propter hoc)</a> (Event A occurred before B, so A caused B. I wore my new suit, I won the lottery, my suit won me the lottery) </li><li> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring_%28fallacy%29"> Red herring (also called irrelevant conclusion)</a> (Saddam killed thousands of Kurds, and wanted nukes therefore he is a threat to America) </li><li> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_%28logical_fallacy%29 ">Shifting the burden of proof</a> (See negative proof) </li><li> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope"> Slippery slope</a> ("If we let one gay couple marry, everyone will become gay and get married") </li><li> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading"> Special pleading</a> (Its ok to violate habias corpus, because its a matter of national security) </li><li> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man"> Straw man</a> (Liberals want more civil liberties. They don't care that these liberties could cause millions of americans to die from a terrorist attack) </li></ul></content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://civan93-politicalrants.blogspot.com/feeds/113503996917822465/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8780844&postID=113503996917822465' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8780844/posts/default/113503996917822465'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8780844/posts/default/113503996917822465'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://civan93-politicalrants.blogspot.com/2005/12/syllogisms-and-fallacies.html' title='Syllogisms and Fallacies'/><author><name>Unknown</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780844.post-113503443275880788</id><published>2005-12-19T16:13:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2005-12-19T16:22:40.603-07:00</updated><title type='text'>Economics papers</title><content type='html'>I have posted a series of papers I have written on different economic issues on my website. I have posted them to attract comments on the methodologies, etc, from the academic community. I am looking to publish these papers eventually, so I retain full rights to these papers, and any reproduction in part or whole is expressly forbidden. That being said, take a look and see if you have any comments for me. Note: I am looking for academic comments. Comments from pundits will be discarded. I know this is a pundit forum, but the writings keep it academic. <ul style="font-family: lucida grande;"><li><a href="http://homepage.mac.com/civan93/RFC/PublicLands.pdf">Alternatives to privatization for Public Land Management </a></li><li><a href="http://homepage.mac.com/civan93/RFC/TheEnergyOutlaws.pdf">The Energy Outlaws: Why the world tolerates resource rich depots </a></li><li><a href="http://homepage.mac.com/civan93/RFC/WhoVotesRed.pdf">Who Votes Red: An analysis of factors contributing to voting trends </a></li><li><a href="http://homepage.mac.com/civan93/RFC/InfrastructreAndEconGrowth.pdf">Infrastructure and Economic Growth: Neoclassical growth model with consideration for infrastructure </a></li></ul></content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://civan93-politicalrants.blogspot.com/feeds/113503443275880788/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8780844&postID=113503443275880788' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8780844/posts/default/113503443275880788'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8780844/posts/default/113503443275880788'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://civan93-politicalrants.blogspot.com/2005/12/economics-papers.html' title='Economics papers'/><author><name>Unknown</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry></feed>

If you would like to create a banner that links to this page (i.e. this validation result), do the following:

Download the "valid Atom 1.0" banner.
Upload the image to your own server. (This step is important. Please do not link directly to the image on this server.)
Add this HTML to your page (change the image src attribute if necessary):

<a href="http://www.feedvalidator.org/check.cgi?url=http%3A//civan93-politicalrants.blogspot.com/atom.xml"><img src="valid-atom.png" alt="[Valid Atom 1.0]" title="Validate my Atom 1.0 feed" /></a>

If you would like to create a text link instead, here is the URL you can use:

http://www.feedvalidator.org/check.cgi?url=http%3A//civan93-politicalrants.blogspot.com/atom.xml

Home · About · News · Docs · Terms