slapdummy

Just another day in paradise

Okay, WTF people?  First, USA Today, the nation's #1 newspaper for the ADD crowd, comes out with a fairly stunning report detailing the compilation of a domestic phone call database. Oh sure, it's just "there if we need it", but nobody is going to mine, collate, index or sort the information. Who the hell is buying that crap beyond some Republican sycophant? Second, Bush doesn't confirm the database, but does volunteer that the government isn't listening to domestic phone calls without a warrant.  This whole affair seems to be so far beyond reason that its level of absurdity is hard to fathom.  People toss around jokes like "1984", which seems patently like a knee-jerk reaction, however the laughter is getting to be a bit uncomfortable.

Now, I'm not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed, but to put it plainly, I don't trust the government in general, and this one in particular, to ensure my rights as a citizen.  Yes, giving up my privacy and civil rights can produce more opportunities to prevent terrorism. Hell, I'm pretty certain of it. However, I don't care if it makes me safer. Why? Because my civil rights and my privacy are more important to me than an increased security or the perception thereof.

There is the famous urban legend of a frog thrown into boiling water will jump out immediately. However, if a frog is placed in tepid water and the temperature is slowly turned up, the frog will remain and die. Whether or not it's true it is still an interesting metaphor in this ever increasing trade-off of privacy vs. security.

Hail to the chief baby

Get your position here

Seattle City Council hates strippers

Having solved all other real issues in the city, the Seattle City Council today approved a tough set of new rules regarding strip clubs.  The new regulations include brighter lighting, three-foot rail between the stage and audience and a constant four-foot gap between dancers and patrons (effectively eliminating lap dances).  We are acting more like a conservative coalition then a supposedly liberal city.

It's difficult to understand how a city council that has significant and serious issues facing it, including mass transit, investigating the replacement of the 520 floating bridge and fixing the Alaskan Way Viaduct has time for such a non-issue.  Most of these other issues are serious matters of public safety that require devoted attention in order to reach a solution.  Can anybody explain how creating these rules (and the time and effort to enforce them) will in any significant way assist the public good?  By what measurement will it be greater than addressing the threat of major roadways collapsing? For those who are not in this city, I'm not exaggerating. We have serious problems facing Seattle and screwing sex workers out of a viable livelihood is not one of them.

Here Comes the Pain

As I'm getting ready to sleep, the presidential race is up in the air but the count indicates Bush is the likely winner. I can't emphasize enough how disappointed I will be if that is the case. Waking up tomorrow to find another four years of destructive arrogance, life-threatening hubris, alienation of allies and lack of credibility is going to be fairly hard to swallow.

Recipe for Rubitry

Take one dollap of alleged silliness - "Bush says no casualties?"

Add one philosophical retard - "AT THIS RATE WE'LL MATCH OUR WWII LOSSES IN JUST 450 YEARS"

Stir in one voice of reason - "I Can't Take This Shit Anymore"

and...voila, one tasty helping of smackdown surprise.

Debate Time

I just got done watching the debate and it might just be me, but it was a bit underwhelming. Neither Bush nor Kerry were spot on speakers. Although I noticed Bush relied less on answers and more on repeatedly reiterating key phrases throughout the debate with no real substance. Also, I thought that they weren't going to show reaction shots while the other candidate was speaking, but they did, at least it was shown on MSNBC.

However, when Bush made the statement that he knew how hard the war in Iraq was since he saw the casualty reports and watched the violence on TV. I'm thinking that sounded a little more glib and disconnected than I would have expected from a Commander-in-Chief.

For what it's worth I think Kerry made some damn good points against Bush for Iraq (such as quoting from Bush senior's book about don't get in a land war in Asia...uh, I mean Iraq), N. Korea, Homeland Security and at least presenting some ideas (although they were one step away from a sound bite). I do like the idea of at least admitting that change and complexity in the world may result in new directions. Recognition of complexity, especially on the stage of world politics, is not a bad thing.

Well, now the spin doctors will start to earn their pay....

Political Choices

I've been consistently on the Democratic side of politics since high school. Even the career assessment test I took as a teenager indicated that my abilities were best suited as a social worker, which is supposed to be the next best thing as a "bleeding heart liberal". I must admit that as a teenager I knew crap about how the world worked, but that didn't stop me from having an opinion about it. I, along with some classmates, started a group called "Liberals For the Prevention of Fascism" which consisted entirely of leaving liberal slogans in classrooms and the library. It was juvenile, but at the time it was fun to see equally clueless "conservative" classmates become enraged as they read the handouts.

Well, I never did become a social worker although I did work with one for a couple of years and she had a level of compassion that was admirable, although I'm sure some would say it was blinding. I've worked for non-profit groups, spent time assisting public defenders, juvenile offenders, a prison legal group and providing financial or volunteer assistance to the ACLU, NARAL and the United Way, all because I believe in their goals. So I guess I'm squarely in the liberal camp and yet....

I remember an old saying "If you aren't liberal at 18, you have no heart. If you aren't conservative by 35 you have no head" (or something similar to that). Bumper sticker philosophy arguments aside, I think that what is "obvious" at 18 is more blurry at 35. College and graduate school taught me more about what I don't know than what I do. In other words, I don't tend to be as defensive as before when I'm ignorant on an issue. Hell, in a world of information overload, I'm amazed if I can successfully track half of what I want.

But what is disturbing to me are zealots, both conservative and liberal. I think everyone knows at least one. It's the person who seems to aggressively, blindly and consistently taking a party line with seemingly no critical thought process of their own. People who parrot the views of radio talk shows/web commentators/pundits of either political flavor as though they had some odd stranglehold on the truth. I think that James Poniewozik has a good point in his latest column from Time magazine "The Age of iPod Politics", that the consumer culture of choice is not a good template of politics. It seems an obvious observation, but as any zealot will tell you who has the truth and who is the enemy in the land of media it is because we can cater to everyone in the digital age without having any ugly personal interactions.

Zealots aside, I still feel a level of identification with the more traditional aspects of liberal ideals (whatever that means), but I feel it's even more important to be open to the possibilities of new ideas. This seems especially true as people are dying on a daily basis. New ideas are something both of our presidential political candidates sorely need. A friend recently said that we were ripe for a third-party movement in this country. I don't know, he may be right, but while I watch the pre-fab, artificially constructed, sound bite oriented, artfully staged presidential debates tomorrow night, I'm still going to hope that something new will be presented.

Or I'm just going to get completely drunk during the debate and throw things in disgust at my television.

Tenet departure damn convenient

To be honest, I'm a fan of intelligence agencies and their efforts, but after watching, then reading, the resignation speech of CIA Director George Tenet, I was unimpressed and a bit annoyed. He rambled on quite a bit, but what caught my attention was this tidbit:

This is the most difficult decision I've ever had to make. And while Washington and the media will put many different faces on the decision, it was a personal decision and had only one basis in fact: The well-being of my wonderful family, nothing more and nothing less. (CNN)

Who the hell is he kidding? Tenet bailed out just before the Senate Intelligence Committee was getting ready to release a scathing report on his and the agency's actions. I understand that with the CIA failures are often noted but successes are usually hidden. But the list of failures is pretty significant, ranging from the serious:

-Secretary of State Colin Powell says the CIA was "deliberately misleading" in its reports on the presence of mobile biological weapons labs in Iraq before the U.S.-led invasion.

-The CIA approved the erroneous 16-word statement Bush made in his 2003 State of the Union Address, which claimed that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium from Africa to build up its weapons program (Seattle P-I).

to the absolutely surreal:

-Using an outdated map, the CIA directed NATO to bomb the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade in 1999. The intended target, the Yugoslav Federal Directorate of Supply and Procurement, sat several hundred yards away (Seattle P-I).

In short, he left office before having to face a full evaluation of his tenure during one of the most intense periods in recent history. Don't look now but I think my naiveté is showing. Where is the leadership, integrity and accountability expected from a person in that position? Why not stay in office, face the scrutiny of the review and either help address the problems or assist in an administrative transition if staying becomes untenable? What does his leaving right now do for the agency? It leaves the agency in leadership limbo when we really need it to be focused and directed to the threats at hand.

In the end, history will be the real judge of whether he did a good or lousy job based on the information he had available to him. However his quick departure, in an obvious effort to avoid being the subject of critical review, is a disappointing and fairly pathetic piece of showmanship.