The Patriot Act

A quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin has been making the rounds recently: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." According to one source (and I don't attest to its reliability) it appeared as early as 1755, appearing as a motto of Franklin's "Historical Review" in 1759. Then there is this quote, which dovetails nicely: "Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature." That's not a concept that is original to Franklin, it's quite common among colonial era thought leaders and forms the basis for the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

That's not a concept buried in the document, but the first concept discussed, right at the top. So the idea of individual liberty wasn't an afterthought, but the basis on which everything else in American thought and government is based.

So why is it that we can pass something as anti-American as the unfortunately named "Patriot Act"? This is from the very top of the Web site devoted to the Patriot Act (lifeandliberty.gov): "The Department of Justice’s first priority is to prevent future terrorist attacks. Since its passage following the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Patriot Act has played a key part - and often the leading role - in a number of successful operations to protect innocent Americans from the deadly plans of terrorists dedicated to destroying America and our way of life."

Why is the Department of Justice's FIRST priority to prevent future terrorist attacks? Shouldn't it be to protect the rights of its citizens? Isn't that what this country is about? Now, understanding that, who is really "destroying America and our way of life"? And if the terrorists spawned the Patriot Act, haven't they done enough damage already?

I'm all for security, but I'm not willing to give up my freedom--or the freedom of others--to have it.

More on Franken

One thing that's been overlooked in this Fox v. Franken mess is that Franken is represented by Floyd Abrams. Abrams is not just any attorney, he's one of the country's premier first amendment lawyers. He worked with The New York Times on the Pentagon Papers and has argued numerous cases in front of the Supreme Court. The fact that he even took this case on is impressive, and speaks to the importance it could have played if carried out.

The fact is, how can Fox News lay claim to such a simple term as "Fair and Balanced"? It's a term that describes what most journalistic organizations aspire to be. What's more, it tried to use its copyright to silence a critic, something that is certainly on that proverbial "slippery slope."

So while we all laugh at the language Fox News used as well as its parting shot at Franken, saying that he can go back to the "obscurity he's used to," let's overlook what an embarrassment this really is to a "news" organization.

War in Iraq

For those of you keeping count, 142 soldiers have died in Iraq from various causes since Bush 43 declared an end to the combat. In all, 280 have died since the war started on March 19th. That means more soldiers have died there since the war ended than did when we were officially at war.

Franken and the Fox

Moving on to lighter topics, Fox News found its case against humorist Al Franken thrown out of court this week. I love that phrase "thrown out of court." I picture a bunch of Fox News lawyers being picked up and tossed out by a muscular, elderly guy in black robes.

Apparently, insulting Franken as "shrill and unstable" wasn't enough to convince a judge that he should lose his right to free speech.

Still, you have to hand it to Fox. They certainly know how to do hype right. After all that practice with "Joe Millionaire" and Nascar on Fox, these guys have it right, and Franken couldn't be happier. His book is doing well in pre-sales and he's had the chance to write for just about every publication going. He's has a nice long piece in Time, a Q&A on Salon.com and has become a fixture on CNN.

Mars

So Mars is closer to Earth than it's been in neraly 60,000 years. I don't know why we need to know this. Find me a person (not an astronomer) who knows how far Mars is from the Earth and I'll be impressed.

Yesterday, I saw a request from a freelance writer working for Maxim. He wants to speak to experts about the US Defense department policy regarding alien invasion. I shudder to think about how much we paid for this, but I guess Rumsfeld is already locked and loaded.

More on Bowels

One of the neat thing about being a father is that you take an unnatural interest in bowel movements. From day one doctors want to monitor how your child poops. Actually, they want to know about both peeing and pooping, but us fathers enjoy the pooping stuff more. Once you get past the "yuck" factor of diaper changing, it's fun to freak out your childless friends with endless discussions of how your child does the deed.

In that vein, Benjamin has lots of trouble pooping. The doctor has suggested we increase his fruit intake, focusing on blueberries, plums, peaches, nectarines, and other such things. But sometimes, his body just backs up. As a parent, this is painful. Not only is it tough to watch your child be in pain and struggle, but his yelling and screaming takes a toll on my ears. But today took the cake... so to speak.

During a trip to Atlanta, Benjamin went through his bouts of constipation. Every hour or so he screamed for a few minutes, pushed and pushed and pushed, but couldn't seem to make the breakthrough. At one point, I had to go myself, and felt guilty at being able to do it. My mother started eating prunes, hoping that would help. Finally, in the early afternoon, I put him in a warm bath.

It worked. When his body finally had that urge to push, he got that poop out. Boy, was it a relief! Not just for him, but for me, my mother, my father and my aunt, who is visiting. He's the only kid whose poop made four other people feel good!

How do the terrorists win?

In a conventional war victory is easy to determine: the other side loses either by admitting defeat or being driven from power. Historians would probably argue about what constitutes an "end." Did World War I really end with the Treaty of Versailles or did the terms worked out in France just lay the groundwork for the Second World War, making the entire first half of the 20th century one long dispute? Regardless, it's pretty well established that one war ended and another began, even if they are somewhat related. For those of you who forgot, the Germans lost twice. Hirohito managed to admit defeat but stay in power.

But the terrorist strikes against the US don't seem to have a goal, other than to make us afraid. The crazies who attacked American commerce at the World Trade Center were not trying to take down American government, but wanted to prove to us that we are vulnerable, to make us afraid. It’s a war that can only be won one person at a time.

When the blackout hit much of the east cost, people naturally worried about terrorism. It’s an understandable fear. But once the nation’s leaders came out and said that this isn’t terrorism, you’d expect people to be fine, and most were. But one friend, who lives in a tertiary metro area, is convinced our leaders are lying, that this is the act of terrorists. I know our President is not above lying to the American people, but this is a little far-fetched, even for me. You can make an argument that lying to the people make sense in a situation such as this, just to keep people calm, but I don’t believe this is the case at all. The power went down on a hot day, when the strain on the power grid is at its peak. This has happened twice before, so while it’s not common, it’s not without precedent.

What worries me more is her willingness to accept that this is terror. That’s one small victory, let’s hope there aren’t many others.

California's Recall

Just the words "California's Recall" make me laugh. Sounds like a bad Schwarzenegger movie.

Oh.

From the "Is it real or is it satire?" column, guess on this one:

"Cable's Game Show Network announced Tuesday plans for a one-hour special devoted to the state's unprecedented exercise in democracy: Who Wants to Be Governor of California?.

"Subtitled The Debating Game, the program, set to air October 1, will feature five candidates pushing buzzers and sweating it out through bonus rounds. The prize: A $21,200 campaign contribution, the max allowed from a corporation under state law, to the hopeful who earns the most votes in the October 7 election."

Unfortunately... it's real.

Stat of the day

489: Amazon sales rank of yet to be released Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right by Al Franken on August 11th

4: Amazon sales rank of yet to be released Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right by Al Franken at 5pm on August 12th, the day Fox news filed a suit against the comedian for, among other things, using the phrase "Fair and Balanced."

Source: The Washington Post

There is something wonderful about free speech. It lets even the weakest have a voice, it lets everyone have a fair say.

But fair and balanced, it’s not.

One weekend afternoon, as I sat in my living room watching CSPAN—both kids were napping and Ellen was out—I had the opportunity to watch a very lively argument between Al Franken and Bill O’Reilly. What was supposed to be a bland discussion of politics at a Los Angeles book exposition, turned into a shouting match between opposite ends of the political spectrum. Frankly, O’Reilly came out looking better, Franken tried too hard to be funny rather than sticking to facts. One simple fact is O’Reilly, for all his bluster, is a smart guy. Franken is smart, but is too much of a comedian to be taken seriously. The more interesting part of the afternoon was a side discussion between Molly Ivins and O’Reilly.

However, the media being the media, it picked up on the Franken/O’Reilly debate, so that’s the story we hear.

The latest salvo in this is quite amusing. Fox News has filed suit against Franken, saying that his book would “blur and tarnish” the Fox News saying “Fair and Balanced.” Apparently, Fox News believes it owns “Fair and Balanced.” There is something amusing about that in itself, since many would argue that Fox News has itself tarnished the concept of fair and balanced by creating a right-learning station, then calling it fair and balanced.

My favorite quote from the lawsuit, filed in State Supreme Court in Manhattan, is this: "Franken is neither a journalist nor a television news personality…He is not a well-respected voice in American politics; rather, he appears to be shrill and unstable. His views lack any serious depth or insight."

What constitutes a “well respected voice in American politics”? Is Bill O’Reilly such a voice because he anchored a tabloid magazine show, then landed a talk show on Fox News? Does exposure alone make someone respected? If that’s the measure, then what about the fact that Franken has sold other books, most notably Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot? What about the fact that Franken is regularly paid for his political humor, especially at events inside the Beltway?

Also, since when does anyone have to be stable in order to have a political opinion in this country? Isn’t that the joy of all of it? For $3500 and a dream, you too can run for Governor of California. With typewriter and few bucks at Staples, you can create a magazine to give out to your friends. With a computer and an Internet connection, you too could have a Blog.

Is any opinion worth more than your own? I think I need a fair and balanced opinion.

The Yankees traded their recently acquired reliever Armando Benitez to Seattle for new-old Yankee Jeff Nelson. The Yankees roster changes seem like a six-year-old at a buffet table. Touching everything, tasting it, then putting it back as a castoff.

The message made my heart jump when it came up across the screen.

“Had a scary moment. Took some laundry up from the basement to our room and noticed that Goldie was lying at the bottom of her bowl,” my wife instant messaged me.

Goldie is my 4-year-old son’s pet goldfish. She’s currently in our room because of some potty training regression. You see, Alex earned Goldie by pooping on the potty. He’s quite proud of her, he swears he taught her tricks, like swimming to the top of the water and turning over. But he’s had quite a few “accidents” recently, some seemed like more than accidents, so Goldie moved down to our bedroom until he can stay clean and dry again. He’s doing well and is about to get her back upstairs.

“She's ok... right?” I IMed desperately.

“She was kind of lethargic, so I cleaned her bowl. It was disgusting. She seems much happier now,” my wife told me in, what I took to be a calming tone.

“Whew,” I both typed and said. What would we do if Goldie died while in our care? I’d feel terrible. The fact is, she looked a little sad to me recently. She didn’t get as excited as she usually gets around feeding time. Maybe she wanted to see Alex, who knows?

“I have her in the kitchen to give her some sunlight. Maybe she has Seasonal Affected Disorder, too much time in the dark :)” Ellen typed. Our bedroom doesn’t get as much light as our son’s.

“The thing that really disturbed me before was that her lips were not moving. When's the last time we had given her fresh water? Maybe she couldn't breathe,” she said, trying to analyze the situation with her best lawyerly instincts.

“Maybe. Are her lips moving now?” I asked.

“She's breathing deeply now,” Ellen said. And so was I. What do you tell the 4-year-old when the goldfish dies in your care? How would we ever get him to poop in the potty again? It’s one thing if it happens in his room and you can explain death. Do you just go out and get another goldfish that looks just like her and pray he doesn’t notice? With our luck, he would.

“This conversation is somewhat amusing,” I finally typed out loud.

“You think so too? Glad I am not the only one!”

So John Poindexter is being forced out because of his role in this stupid terrorism betting idea. Rumsfeld has decided he's too much of a political liability. You have to wonder about Rumsfeld in this situation... since Poindexter has always been a political liability. This is the guy behind Iran Contra!

Am I the only one bothered by what's going on? I don't hear much screaming.