Jeber’s

Oh mighty ‘bama, where is thy transparency?

Politically and socially I’m moderate to liberal in my general outlook on life. I’m not so liberal as to have joined the Church of Saint Obama, though McCain was a poor alternative, I thought. Too much was being expected of Obama, and he didn’t do much to bring expectations back down to earth. He was aware of his cult status, his deification.

One of the promises made early and often by the president was transparency in government. That was perhaps the most dramatic and audacious guarantee he made us early on. After the last eight years many of us welcomed the idea of a more visible process. If we’re being asked to pay the bills, we ought to be able to know where the money’s going.

And Obama told us we would see his government working. He was going to make Washington a transparent town.

It appears he may have just broken that promise. How else are we to interpret the following but to conclude it’s business as usual, sadly.

How could this happen?

Image via Wikipedia

We were asked to give him a pass on two aspects of his life. To support Obama was to willingly ignore the fact that he was a lawyer and a politician. He may have sounded refreshing, but the substance of Obama is deeply influenced by his love for the law on the federal level. He is a politician and a lawyer, just like Bush was a politician and a lawyer and like Nixon was a politician and a lawyer. Just like Lincoln was a politician and a lawyer.

I can only conclude that the following is an indication of that reality.

There are number of outstanding Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for key documents, by groups like EFF, Public Knowledge, and KEI. In one of our FOIA requests, we asked for 7 specific documents, referenced by the exact title and date of the documents. These documents are the proposals for the text of the agreement.

The texts are available to the Japanese government. They are available to the 27 member states of the European Union. They are available to the governments of Canada, Mexico, New Zealand, Australia. They are available to Morocco, and many other countries. They are available to “cleared” advisers (mostly well connected lobbyists) for the pharmaceutical, software, entertainment and publishing industries. But they are a secret from you, the public.

Today we received this letter from the White House, Office of the United States Trade Representative. Our FOIA request was denied on the grounds that the documents are “information that is properly classified in the interest of national security pursuant to Executive Order 12958.”

Here is a link to a PDF of the denial of the FOIA request.  (Source: huffingtonpost.com)

Obama, day .5

It’s been a reality for half a day now, Obama is president. He wasn’t elevated to sainthood. He is not the chosen one of god to lead us into the promised land nor is he the anti-christ. He’s a guy. A smart (being learned is not a crime or sin), articulate, deliberate, former lawyer and educator, guy. We’ve also seen that he’s a professional politician. He knows how the game’s played. He’s no Jimmy Stewart, no Mr. Smith. But that’s not necessarily a bad thing. We expect a CEO to know how a company runs and what has to be done to accomplish the company’s goals.

At this point I’ll say he was a success if he just manages to keep things from getting any worse over the next 4 years. He cannot treat any problem before us as “business as usual”.

The economy isn’t just bad, we’ve seen how the system can be played and we will be far more hesitant to trust others with our money in the future. The weaknesses and potential for abuse of capitalism have been made clear. We are going to have to rebuild the economy while at the same time redesigning capitalism.

Not much different in foreign relations. We face an enemy both physical and economic. If we carelessly attempt to destroy terrorists at all costs, we risk not only destroying our economy but could destroy the country we’re trying to save. We need to not do the terrorist’s job for them.

Obama’s on a tightrope, and when you’re first learning to walk one, simply not falling off is a big accomplishment at the start.

Holdren to be named Science Adviser

Finally, after eight years of disdain for the scientific community, we could be getting not just a scientific adviser but a scientific adviser who actually understands the issues facing our country.

Harvard physicist John P. Holdren, a leading authority on global warming and a past president of the nation’s largest organization of scientists, will be President-elect Barack Obama’s science adviser.

Holdren, who was an adviser to the Obama campaign, is a professor of environmental policy and director of the Program on Science, Technology, and Public Policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and also is director of the Woods Hole Research Center in Falmouth, and a past-president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Holdren’s work has focused on climate change, energy technology and policy, and nuclear proliferation.

“I think if he is appointed he will send a signal to the scientific community, which has been disenchanted in the current administration, that science is very important and will be listened to,” said Sheila Jasanoff, a Kennedy School colleague of Holdren’s who has written extensively about the role of scientific advice in a democracy.

In August, Holdren published an opinion piece in the Globe chastising skeptics of global warming. “The extent of unfounded skepticism about the disruption of global climate by human-produced greenhouse gases is not just regrettable, it is dangerous,” he wrote. “It has delayed — and continues to delay — the development of the political consensus that will be needed if society is to embrace remedies commensurate with the challenge.”

That political consensus will be at the heart of the mission of Obama’s science advisor. The president-elect has clearly stated his intentions to take the issue head-on, saying he would vigorously move ahead with efforts to promote alternative energy sources such as wind and solar and reduce carbon emissions that cause global warming.

AAAS Chief Executive Officer Alan I. Leshner called the apparent appointment “enlightened” in a statement. “John Holdren’s expertise spans so many issues of great concern at this point in history — climate change, energy and energy technology, nuclear proliferation,” he said. “He is widely respected in the United States and around the world as a science leader.” (Source-boston.com)

Holdren has an extensive biography.

John P. Holdren is the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy and Director of the Program on Science, Technology, and Public Policy in the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. He is also Professor of Environmental Science and Public Policy in Harvard’s Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences and Director of the Woods Hole Research Center.

Trained in engineering and plasma physics at MIT and Stanford, Dr. Holdren co-founded in 1973 and co-led for 23 years the interdisciplinary graduate program in energy and resources at the University of California, Berkeley. His work has focused on causes and consequences of global environmental change, options and choices in energy technology and policy, ways to reduce the dangers from nuclear weapons and materials, and the interaction of content and process in science and technology policy.

He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the Council on Foreign Relations, and Past President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. From 1993 through 2004 he served as Chair of the NAS Committee on International Security and Arms Control, leading it over the course of multi-year studies on management of excess weapon plutonium, the future of US nuclear weapons policy, technical issues related to the ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, and monitoring and verification of nuclear warheads and materials. He was a member of President Clinton’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) from 1994 to 2001 and, in this capacity, chaired PCAST studies on nuclear materials protection, federal energy R&D strategy for the challenges of the 21st century, and international cooperation on energy-technology innovation. In December 1995 he delivered the Nobel Peace Prize acceptance lecture on behalf of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, which he served as Chair of the Executive Committee from 1987 to 1997. From 2002 until the present he has been Co-Chair of the foundation-funded, bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy. (Source-Contribution to farber.net newsletter)

Aldous Huxley on Mind Control and Depopulation

A prescient and thought-provoking interview with Mike Wallace, as relevant now as it was then.

Are we preparing for martial law?

As we watch corporate America stagger financially, and the polarized politicians try to respond, there is something else going on that we all need to be aware of.

For the second time since Hurricane Katrina hit in August 2005, an active Army unit –1st Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division — has been set up to quell civil unrest and do crowd control within our borders. And this time it’s a permanent mission.

The last time I checked, the use of the military in domestic activities was prohibited by law, with the exception of the National Guard units under the authority of the states.

So what’s going on? A recent report in The Army Times — “Army Unit to Deploy in October for Domestic Operations” discussed a new military unit that is now stationed in the United States of America.

The report stated that the 1st Brigade Combat Team would be deployed within the country and would work with civil authorities to “put down civil unrest.” On the surface this may seem benign, but this mission marks the first time an active military unit has assigned to NorthCom, the joint command established in 2002 to control federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate with civil authorities.

The commander of this unit, Col. Roger Cloutier, also said that his troops will be trained to use nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them.

This is another first; the first time a nonlethal package has been fielded the Army, according to Cloutier. Why does that make me uneasy? The package includes equipment to raise a hasty road block, spike strips for slowing, stopping or controlling traffic; shields and batons; and beanbag bullets.

The Army’s new “dwell-time” mission will be part of a force that includes elements from other military branches and dedicated National Guard Weapons of Mass Destruction-Civil Support teams.

It doesn’t stop there. There will be Air Force engineer and medical units, the Marine Corps Chemical, Biological Initial Reaction Force, a Navy weather team and members of the Defense Logistics Agency and the Defense Threat Reduction Agency.

According to an Army Times interview, Col. Louis Vogler, one of the chiefs of NorthCom future operations, said, “Right now, the response force requirement will be an enduring mission.”

Very little has been said to the general public about this whole affair. I’d wager most Americans aren’t aware of this new strike force within our country. Are we closer to internal collapse than any of us realize? Why does the federal government feel the need for such a unit within our borders?

As It Stands, the idea that active duty soldiers will be used to control unruly civilian crowds is both terrifying and unconstitutional. (Dave Stancliff is a columnist for The Times-Standard)

Perhaps so few Americans know about this because the government has made no effort to advise or consult with its citizens. There’s been no official explanation for this action, nor has anyone in the White House told us what their plans are.

I’ve had enough of this administration’s attitude that the Constitution is just a piece of paper and that they’re free to do whatever they wish regardless of the limitations the Constitution places on their actions. The Bush administration is the most secretive one we’ve seen since Nixon’s. I’m equally disappointed that neither Obama nor McCain, both of whom must be aware of this action, haven’t bothered to step up and explain it to the American public. That indicates they are both either complicit or clueless. Neither possibility fills me with confidence in their potential presidency.

We need to demand full disclosure from our elected officials. Anything less is not acceptable, nor should it be. We elected this government, we pay their salaries. If they cannot perform the duties of office according to the Constitution they need to be replaced with those who will.

Tim Russert 1950-2008

I find it especially sad that he died just two days before Father’s Day.  From all appearances he deeply loved his son, and enjoyed being a son to his father.  They both survived him and will have a tough time I’m sure of reconciling themselves to the fact of his death.  But they’re Catholic, so there’ll be plenty of support available.

He was an excellent interviewer.  He knew how to listen and was intelligent, articulate, informed and reasonably unbiased in his questioning.  Still, he was an “everyman” in his exuberant love of baseball and his mid-western values.

No doubt he’ll join the pantheon of great journalists, each of whom in their own way attempted to inform the public with no regard for being entertaining.

The Whack-A-Mole Method of Ending Hate In Our Time

Originally submitted to David Farber’s Interesting People mailing list:

Clearly whatever it is that Dutch politician Geert Wilders wants to talk
about in his film is going to be the end of the internet. The news that
Network Solutions decided to pre-empt his use of a domain name registered
through them for the purpose of promoting his film need not be re-hashed
here.

However, before bemoaning yet another registrar freely deciding, as is its
right, with whom it chooses to do business, it’s important to look at the
big picture. No, it is not “censorship” for Network Solutions to decide how
it wants its services to be used. There are a number of internet registrars
all over the world, and as recently demonstrated with Enom having been
notified by the US State Department that, yes, the OFAC SDN list means
something, one might do well to select one’s registrar based in part on an
understanding of the legal climate where that registrar is located.

But, perhaps we might understand Network Solutions policy more clearly by
looking at domain names registered through NSI which freely promote killing
Muslims rather than merely making films about them. Take for example the
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam, affectionately the Tamil Tigers – a nearly
universally recognized terrorist group perhaps best known for the
assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, but which has engaged in far more numerous
outright massacres in predominately Muslim areas of Sri Lanka.

The Tamil Tigers maintain at least two, if not more, domain names through
Network Solutions – eelam.com and eelamweb.com. Here, one can learn the
answers to all of your frequently asked questions about ethnic cleansing
such as at: http://www.eelamweb.com/faq/ which states “Muslims have been
asked to leave the Tamil Eelam territory until the independence of Tamil
Eelam.” This polite request is normally made at gunpoint during operations
of the Tamil Tigers.

So, the takeaway from these two actions of Network Solutions: (1)
prohibiting an NSI domain name to be used to promote an anti-Muslim film,
and (2) permitting two NSI domain names to be used to promote the mass
eviction and murder of Muslims in Sri Lanka; indicates that one needs to
apply a balanced perspective of how NSI would like its domain name services
to be used, before making rash judgments of alleged “bias”. If the
continued operation of eelam.com and eelamweb.com is any indication, NSI’s
view would appear to be that Mr. Wilders just isn’t going far enough.

Next up, the Islamic Army of Iraq, and their Louisiana brigade, courtesy of
iaisite.info, registered through Directnic.

John Berryhill, Ph.d., Esq.

While humorous, Mr. Berryhill’s comment does raise a serious question. What is the role of a host in monitoring and controlling the content of sites that register through them? If AT&T gets its way, webhosts may soon be legally and financially liable for the content carrid on their networks. Can we trust private companies to decide what is available on the internet?

Huckabee: Amend Constitution to be in ‘God’s standards’

The Raw Story reports; I just shake my head in profound bemusement,

The United States Constitution never uses the word “God” or makes mention of any religion, drawing its sole authority from “We the People.” However, Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee thinks it’s time to put an end to that.

“I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution,” Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. “But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that’s what we need to do — to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view.”

Huckabee has every right to believe whatever he wants to believe, just like any citizen of the United States of America.  But that’s not enough, nor is it a satisfactory condition, for candidate Huckabee.  He envisions an America where everyone is forced by law and Constitutional amendment to believe as he believes.  Not just in an invisible super-being who lives in the clouds and demands praise and devotion from his subjects, but the Baptist interpretation of this god.

Could anything be less American, more unconstitutional, than an avowed theist openly advocating turning America into a theocracy?  Could there be any suggestion put forth by a presidential candidate that could do more to further discredit the U.S. in the eyes of other nations, alienate our allies, increase tensions throughout the world, turn every combat situation America engages in into a religious war, than to suggest we amend, no, corrupt the Constitution to create an American version of Iran or Saudi Arabia?  If a Muslim suggested we amend the Constitution to conform to Muslim teaching, he couldn’t get elected dog catcher in Los Angeles.

This ought to immediately disqualify Huckabee from any further consideration as a presidential candidate.

Mike Huckabee and Christian Duty

Bruce Walker at American Thinker presents Christian Republican concerns with the agenda of Mike Huckabee.

As a Christian Republican myself, I will express support for protecting God’s Creation, fighting sickness, and ending hunger.  All are profoundly Christian ideals.  But Mike Huckabee, as a Christian, is not really talking about protecting Creation, fighting sickness or ending hunger.  Mike is talking about using the coercive power of government to force other people to pay taxes and to comply with onerous and arbitrary laws to do what Mike thinks, as a Christian, he should be doing.

That is the salient fact:  as a Christian, Huckabee can be a witness to Christian behavior; he can exhort others to themselves become a witness to Christian behavior; but he cannot demand the enslavement of others to do those things which, as a Christian, he feels that he should do.  The term “enslavement,” of course, is relative.  Americans are comparatively free.  But everything that Huckabee feels government should do requires a loss of freedom for every American.  Moreover, Huckabee is not just asking for the greater enslavement of Christian Americans, but he is asking for the greater enslavement of all Americans.  This is most un-Christian.  Does my verdict sound extreme?  Substitute “Rome” for “America” and substitute “publican” for “tax dollars.”   

Mike Huckabee is quite right to enjoin all Christians and Jews to help the poor, comfort the sick, preserve the beauty of our Blessed Creation, to give jobs to the unemployed and all the other moral commands of the Judeo-Christian religious and moral tradition.  Mike Huckabee is quite wrong in perceiving this duty as a function of an impersonal, ineffective and unaccountable government.  What Mike says we should do, we should all do individually, as our conscience commands us to do.  We cannot replace our hands and our wallets with the hands of slaves or the federal treasury.

Huckabee adjusts his position

From PageOne:

According to presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, homosexual behavior is a choice.
“We may have certain tendencies, but [we choose] how we behave and how we carry out our behavior,” Huckabee said in an interview Sunday with Tim Russert of MSNBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Huckabee is known for his controversial remarks regarding homosexuality; as Russert reminded him, Huckabee once said he felt it was a “aberrant, unnatural and sinful lifestyle.”

Although Huckabee asked Russert to understand that “when a Christian speaks of sin, a Christian says all of us are sinners,” he asserted that “the perfection of God is seen in a marriage in which one man, one woman live together as a couple committed to each other as life partners.”

Huckabee said that he believes he has been asked more about the topic of faith than any other presidential candidate, and that he’s “OK” with that.

“I’ve never tried to rewrite science textbooks. I’ve never tried to come out with some way of imposing a doctrinaire Christian perspective in a way that is really against the Constitution,” Huckabee told Russert.

When Russert then asked why he would ban all abortions, Huckabee responded, “that’s not just because I’m a Christian, that’s because I’m an American. Our founding fathers said that we’re all created equal.”

He believes that a ban on abortion would not be an example of imposing his faith on Americans, but that his pro-life stance is “a human belief. It goes to the heart of who we are as a civilization.”

“If you take the life and suction out the pieces of an unborn child for no reason than its inconvenience to the mother, I don’t think you’ve lived up to your Hippocratic Oath of doing no harm,” Huckabee said.

Therefore, he said he would support “sanctioning” doctors who perform abortions.

While Huckabee says he believes the government should not prefer one faith over another and that he would have no problem appointing atheists to his cabinet, he asserts in an ad that “Faith doesn’t just influence [him], it defines [him].”

“At this time of year, sometimes it’s nice to pull aside from all of that and just remember that what really matters is the celebration and the birth of Christ,” says Huckabee. (Emphasis mine)

So now Huckabee seems to be saying that his objections to homosexuality are based on the gay lifestyle, not the gay person’s orientation. Careful, Mike, you’ll anger your conservative religious base by insinuating you don’t endorse the wholesale persecution of gays.

Next, he claims that a perfect (in god’s eyes anyway) marriage is one in which the couple is committed to each other as life partners. Why does he think that’s only possible between couples of the opposite sex? Commitment to your partner is something practiced by all couples who truly love one another, regardless of their orientation.

His attempt to convince us that he doesn’t want to impose Christian doctrine on every citizen of the U.S. is simply disingenuous.

“Who we are as a civilization” is that we’re a country that values individual liberty. We are a country without a state religion. We’re a civilization that respects the right of a woman to choose what’s best for her own body.

Most Christians are smart enough to know that December 25th is not considered the birthday of Jesus except by the most literal fundamentalists. It will never be “a time of year” to allow someone so dedicated to establishing a theocratic United States and so ignorant of state’s rights to occupy the White House.

Sullivan apologizes for supporting Bush

The fact that I admired a president who bungled a war, added $32 trillion to the next generation’s debt and made America a torturing nation is a matter of record – and some shame. (Source)

Too few conservative former-Bush supporters have the decency to apologize publicly for their previous stand. I have to admire Andrew Sullivan for being honest about his change of heart.

Evangelicals finally find their candidate: Huckabee

The rocketlike rise of a once-obscure former Arkansas governor and Southern Baptist minister to the front ranks of the Republican presidential campaign owes much to the likes of Don Swisher.Chatting between Sunday services about the campaign in the foyer of First Assembly of God Church, Swisher said he plans to vote for Huckabee Thursday night at the Iowa precinct caucuses, the first official nomination contest of the 2008 presidential campaign.

“I like Huckabee,” the semiretired West Des Moines resident said yesterday. “He’s pro-life, a Baptist minister, so he’s Bible-based.”

Evangelical Christians are a formidable force in the Iowa caucuses: They are believed to make up more than 40 percent of the Republican electorate.

Religious issues have dominated the campaign to an uncommon degree even in a state where televangelist Pat Robertson placed first in the GOP caucuses in 1988.

The debate hasn’t centered just on issues such as abortion and gay rights that are important to religious conservatives. Much of the discussion has involved the personal religious faiths of the two leading Republicans – Huckabee and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Mormon.

“I’m really surprised how much religion has been an issue in the campaign,” said Bruce Nesmith, a professor of political science at Coe College in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, who studies religion in politics.

Throughout most of 2007, evangelicals were deeply split, with pockets of support for Romney, former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and even former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, despite his support for abortion rights and a turbulent personal life that includes three marriages.

But many evangelicals stayed on the sidelines in the hope that a candidate they found acceptable would emerge.

For many of them, that person – Huckabee – was there all along. It just took people a long time to notice.

“They were deeply split until about a month or so ago. There is no one particular candidate who seemed like the obvious candidate to them,” said Dennis Goldford, a political science professor at Drake University in Des Moines.

“They liked what Romney said about social issues but didn’t trust how sincere he was. They wanted to like Thompson, but Thompson entered with such a splat. What happened, of course, was Huckabee slowly but surely made an impact.”

Huckabee won supporters thanks to his amiable campaign style, a succession of well-received debate performances and unflinching views on abortion and gay rights – in contrast to other Republican contenders whose social-conservative credentials are suspect to evangelicals.

For Huckabee, being a former minister who often wears his religious values on his sleeve closes the sale with some evangelical voters.

“I’m a born-again Christian,” said Eleanor Bauer, a retired graphic artist in Ankeny, Iowa. “And if I see something in life that I have a question about, I ask God about it. I feel like we are being led by God.

“Where someone else tries to go by their own wisdom instead of God’s, we just get in trouble. Huckabee would turn to God.”

But others, such as retired pastor Phil Carroll, a McCain supporter, thinks that when it comes to religion, Huckabee lays it on too thick.

“He’s a good man, but pastors get called to the ministry by God,” Carroll said. “Did God call him to be president? I don’t think so.

“John McCain, being a Christian, does not play the God card. He thinks that’s unethical, and I agree with him.”

Huckabee, interviewed on NBC’s “Meet the Press” yesterday, said he had no religious tests as governor of Arkansas when it came to public policy issues and would not as president.

“I never proposed a bill to remove the Capitol dome and replace it with a steeple,” he said. “We didn’t do tent revivals on the grounds of the Capitol.”

But critics question whether religion influenced Huckabee as governor to push for the early parole of a convicted rapist who went on to rape and kill two other women. They suggest Huckabee was swayed by a friend who was also a pastor who befriended the prisoner, Wayne DuMond, along with the rapist’s contention that he had been “born again.” Huckabee says he did not pressure the parole board to act.  (Source)

Americans seem determined to blindly set course for a theocracy without the slightest qualm.  They don’t seem to consider the fact that should we become a “Christian nation”, all our future wars will be similar to those fought in the Middle ages.  Once again it will be god against the heathens.

They also don’t seem to realize that religion is not tolerant of dissent.  At some point our rights will be suppressed to the “glory of god”.  And which god is destined to become our national savior?  The Baptist concept of god, the Lutheran, The Catholic, the Mormon?  If they all worshiped the same god, there wouldn’t be so many denominations across the nation.  If you’re a theist but worship the wrong god (i.e. not the national god) you’ll be no better off than those who don’t believe at all.

I’d like to think that this religious sturm und drang  is simply the dying cry of an outdated philosophy, religion’s disparate, dying breath.  Those who support Huckabee or Romney out of sympathetic religious views had best consider what will become of the United States should religion become a primary criteria for the next president.

Who Owns You?

George Carlin is a hero of mine. Not because he’s smarter than everyone else, not because he’s more successful than everyone else. Carlin, like Lenny Bruce before him, has the courage and insight to say the things we don’t want to hear, to tie together the threads of thought we’re often too distracted by daily life to put together ourselves. Carlin says what ought to be said, what needs to be said, whether we want to hear it or not. He presents the alternative view to the news broadcasts, the television commercials, the pronouncements from the government. His is the clear vision of the common man. And nowhere does he cut to the quick deeper than in the following video from one of his concerts. Be warned, Carlin’s routine contains many words you won’t want your children to hear, and quite a few obscenities as well. Carlin’s objective has always been to make people think for themselves. I hope this video causes you to think.