Islamic Children Gassed in Dayton, Ohio

On Friday, American terrorists in Dayton, Ohio sprayed chemical weapons into the child care room of a local mosque, interrupting practitioners praying in recognition of the Islamic holy month.

A firsthand account of the attack may be found here. The woman alluded to in the link immigrated here from Syria, where she and her children had fled after leaving Iraq. They came to America full of hope for a life free from hatred and persecution. Oh, what a welcoming people we are.

Happy Ramadan.

If Only She'd Had My Vote to Lose

The City of Wasilla, home of Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin, has responded to "a flurry" of requests and begun today to release public files to the media. Anyone with access to the internet can access the documents through the City of Wasilla's website here.

One item of interest to me is the city's response to requests regarding Palin's book-banning attempts. According to The New York Times, Palin attempted to have Wasilla's librarian fired for "disloyalty" (apparently a big Palin peeve) after she resisted the then-mayor's suggestions that book-banning ought to be considered. The firing attempt was blocked by public outcry.

According to the city's records, no books were actually banned as a result. Good. Nonetheless, this raises some serious questions about Sarah Palin's commitment to democratic (small d) ideals.

For now, there's plenty to dig through. Kuddos to Wasilla for releasing these documents to the public. Assuming they weren't thoroughly scrubbed.

Don't Mess with (the Illustrious Educators of) Texas

Any plans I may have had to visit Harold, Texas (What? I'm sure they have a gigantic ball of yarn or something.) are officially canceled pursuant to their decision to allow teachers to carry concealed weapons to work.

What better combination than disgruntled youth, overworked employees, and things that kill people?

You know what would make my job as a teacher easier? Fair compensation for my socially crucial work. A supportive administration. A school district that doesn't hide behind the Governator while firing 900+ teachers.

But I guess pissing us off and then arming us works too.

Also, All Cats Will Be Required to Wear Sweaters

There have been recent rumblings about the potential reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, legislation that would require television and radio stations broadcasting through federal airwaves to provide a balance of liberal and conservative political content. Putting aside whether or not that is a good idea (per Rasmussen, 47% of Americans think it is and 39% don't), what I find beyond hilarious is that the same policy is being evaluated for the internet.

THE INTERNET.

When Rasmussen posed the following question: "Should the government require web sites and bloggers that offer political commentary to present opposing viewpoints?" 31% of Americans responded yes.

When when when are these octogenarians going to realize that they cannot legislate internet content? I can snap my fingers and have the entire second season of Heroes on my hard drive in an hour without a single cent changing hands, but the government is somehow going to come up with a super-sekrit-hacker-proof-intarwebs-controller that is going to effectively monitor my blog content?

Right. May I interest you in a country song?

(Here's hoping no one tells Congress about Britain... I think they have the intarwebs there, too! Shhh!)

But out of respect for those of you who think that censoring internet content is not only possible but nifty, here is the opposing viewpoint.

A Moment of Silence Is in Order

Bow your heads for the Fourth Amendment. Lord knows the Senate won't.

Senate Passes FISA Bill, Gives Telecoms Immunity

The Inconveniences Attending Too Much Liberty

In 1783 William Pitt (the Prime Minister whose actions began the slow dismantling of the hideous British East India Company) stood on the floor of the House of Commons and argued the following:

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves."

Strong words from the man who would soon become the Prime Minister of Britain — a nation which had only recently lost one of its most profitable tentacles in a revolution spurred by accusations that Britain was indeed in the habit of making "the argument of tyrants" to attain its goals.

Today we celebrate that very event, blowing things to bits in the sky to honor our determination to be a nation of free men (yes, then, men) rather than the worker bees of a corrupt king. Reason and the public good were to be our guiding principles — not necessity. Human freedom was to be held sacrosanct, and its infringement was to be guarded against by the vigilance of a robust populace.

And so to me Independence Day is very much worth honoring, less with hot dogs and streamers than with reflection upon the radical language that led to the formation of our nation.

On July 4, 1776 Thomas Jefferson and 56 other men laid a series of charges at the feet of declared tyrant King George III, making the case that he was no longer fit to govern them. Two of the charges were these:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

King George, of course, disagreed.

History repeats itself, and we have had other King Georges, and other attempts to impinge upon self-evident human freedoms, and other rationales for why necessity trumps the right of humans to be free (or at least the right to argue one's case for freedom before a jury of one's peers).

Bush: Dangerous Gitmo Detainees Could Walk US Streets After Supreme Court Ruling

William Pitt: "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves."

We've forgotten our roots. We have. Look:



One of our closest data twins is Iran. Iran. We, the descendants of men who would rather die standing than live on their knees, are now the ideological brothers of those whom we accuse of Islamo-fascism when it comes to humanity's most basic of civil liberties — the right not to be tortured.

Pass the celebratory hot dogs!

When someone tells us that giving prisoners the right to a trial means that they'll inevitably strangle us in our beds, we believe them. In a pique of textbook fear-mongering, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino disingenuously frets, "The judge might say to the United States, 'You don't have enough evidence to hold this person.' And then what do we do? ... Is he allowed to leave?" (The implication clearly being "Because if he does, he'll garrote your sons and deflower your daughters.") And we sagely nod along.

Am I missing something here? If a judge might reasonably say "You don't have enough evidence to hold this person," then why are we holding this person? If we know that someone is a terrorist, why not try him or her as such, attain a conviction, and carry on? How can we possibly deny the right of prisoners to a fair trial in one breath and celebrate the Declaration of Independence in the next?

You know, this Declaration of Independence:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

Like it our not, we live in a nation whose greatest linguistic architect was prone to saying things like this: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

Hear, hear.

I'm not against fire works and hot dogs. (Well, actually, I am against hot dogs, but that's a separate issue.) I just think we ought to know why we're eating them. (The hot dogs, not the fire works.)

Happy Independence Day, readers. I wish you happy meditations upon self-evident truths.

While I Wasn't Blogging: More News You Might Have Missed

This just* in: Scanners that see through clothing installed in US airports.

Really, beyond the headline, do you need anything else?

Okay, in case you do, have a quote: "While it allows the security screeners — looking at the images in a separate room — to clearly see the passenger's sexual organs as well as other details of their bodies, the passenger's face is blurred, TSA said in a statement on its website."

I'm sure none of those videos will ever pop up on YouTube.

*By "just" I of course mean 19 days ago, but you know.

Lieberman Meets the Intertubes

The inevitable day has finally come — someone told Joe Lieberman (world-renowned DINO) about the Internet, and more specifically, YouTube. Lieberman, apparently, skipped right past the porn and pandas and moved directly into searching for some combination of "people" and "who" and "hate" and "Jews." But I mean, who hasn't done that search, right?**

Lieberman sent a letter to YouTube demanding the removal of a plethora of content he deemed offensive (clearly a better use of my tax dollars than, say, figuring out a way to get out of Iraq). YouTube's response , excerpted below, is pretty awesome:

Senator Lieberman's staff identified numerous videos that they believed violated YouTube's Community Guidelines. In response to his concerns, we examined and ended up removing a number of videos from the site, primarily because they depicted gratuitous violence, advocated violence, or used hate speech. Most of the videos, which did not contain violent or hate speech content, were not removed because they do not violate our Community Guidelines.

Senator Lieberman stated his belief, in a letter sent today, that all videos mentioning or featuring these groups should be removed from YouTube -- even legal nonviolent or non-hate speech videos. While we respect and understand his views, YouTube encourages free speech and defends everyone's right to express unpopular points of view. We believe that YouTube is a richer and more relevant platform for users precisely because it hosts a diverse range of views, and rather than stifle debate we allow our users to view all acceptable content and make up their own minds. Of course, users are always free to express their disagreement with a particular video on the site, by leaving comments or their own response video. That debate is healthy.

Intertubes 1, Lieberman -8 bajillion. (In all fairness, the guy was already in a pretty deep hole.)

**Disclaimer: I haven't.

The [Insert Your Name Here] Show

I just rewatched The Truman Show and was struck by how the world satirically predicted in that film 10 years ago has increasingly come to manifest. I'm not just talking about the growing domination of popular culture by "reality" TV shows such as American Idol, Project Runway and even the pure embarrassment that is Celebrity Rehab. Rather, I'm talking about the reality TV show starring you — the one in which you're caught on camera roughly 500 time a day. That's not a random number. It's the number of times the average American citizen is videotaped by cameras in ATM's, gas stations, stoplights and other subtle public surveillance stations, according to a recent study (I'd link, but Drudge took it down, the bastard).

An article on Military.com (and wouldn't you love to own that domain name) explores the extent to which high-tech surveillance is penetrating our daily interactions without our knowledge (let alone our acquiesence). It's well worth a read. For those of you who doubt the slipperiness of the slope, here's an interesting excerpt:

"This may sound like a privacy wonk's paranoia. But examples abound. Take E-ZPass. Drivers signed up for the system to speed up toll collection. But 11 states now supply E-ZPass records -- when and where a toll was paid, and by whom -- in response to court orders in criminal cases. Seven of those states provide information in civil cases such as divorce, proving, for instance, that a husband who claimed he was at a meeting in Pennsylvania was actually heading to his lover's house in New Jersey. (New York divorce lawyer Jacalyn Barnett has called E-ZPass the "easy way to show you took the offramp to adultery.")"

Of course, an active and informed citizenry could rise up and speak out against these incursions into our privacy. But considering the fact that off-handed remark I made calling something "Orwellian" at the gym the other day was met with "Oh, yeah, I remember that book" by the guy scanning cards behind the counter, I'm not holding my breath.

As Ben Franklin (or possibly Richard Jackson) wrote two centuries ago, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Fascist Much?

Per my friend Lance, I just read the following article: Driver Tased for Asking Officer Why He Was Stopped.

In short, a guy is pulled over for an alleged traffic violation, refuses to sign the ticket because the officer can't explain what law he's broken, and is then tased with 50,000 volts of electricity. The article contains a link to a 9-minute video of the entire incident, which was actually videotaped by the cops. My favorite part is when the man's pregnant wife jumps screaming from the car only to have the officer menacingly wave his handcuffs at her and chase her back in. Other highlights include the man asking for his rights to be read to him only to have the officer arrest him without doing so (which, um, illegal) and the officer joking about the man having taken "a ride with Mr. Taser." (Question: Should people who name their weapons "Mr. Name of Weapon" be allowed to have them in the first place? Talk amongst yourselves.)

According the linked article, 300 people in the United States in the past year alone have died from being tased. Nonetheless, thanks to the ceaseless "pesky rule-breakers deserve whatever they get" rhetoric pumped out by our pathetic excuse for a Fourth Estate, tasing is considered an acceptable way for a police officer to control an uncooperative suspect. This is deeply problematic because the role of the police officer is simply to apprehend potential criminals. The officer's role is not to decide whether or not alleged criminals are guilty, and certainly not to mete out punishment if they are. That's why we have the judicial branch - to adjudicate.

Okay, yes, arguing with cops is pointless and inadvisable - but NOT ILLEGAL. And even if it were, it's not a crime meriting a physical beating. Those facts appear to be lost on a significant portion of the law enforcement population; or even more frightening, many of them seem not to care.

Isn't there some sort of sociopath screening process these people go through before they're all badged up? I know there are a lot of decent people who go into law enforcement because they sincerely want to do good in the world. The police officer who works at my school is a great (and sane) guy who keeps the place safe. My cousin worked undercover in vice for years keeping drugs away from kids. And rednecks. There were mullets involved. Anyway. My beef is not with them, or with officers like them. I take issue with those would-be goosesteppers who become cops because Professional Hall Monitor isn't actually a career. I suspect there are a great deal more of them than we would care to admit.

What sort of society allows its police to harass and attack members of the citizenry simply for demanding that their rights be respected? As a student of history, let me say that there is a right answer to this question, and it is not the sort of society described in the brochure.