zen.org Communal Weblog

I telecommuted yesterday, an advocation I had I had not undertook for some time. For a portion of this time I left MSNBC playing in the background, the only twenty-four hour news station limited basic cable allows me. The entire hour, or so, I heard: Blå blå blå blå blå Bush. Blå blå blå blå, Bush. Blå de blå, blå blå, Condoleezza. Blå, blå blå blå blå blå, Bush. Blå blå, blå blå blå blå blå, blå Beckham. Blå blå blå blå, Bush. Blå de blå blå, Condoleezza. Bush, blå.

I started wondering, while I struggled getting the Princeton VPN to work, why did Ms. Rice always get des in her blås when Mr. Bush and Mr. Beckham didn’t? Then I pondered what Mr. Beckham had to do with Iraq. Now, after some snooping on the Internet, I just think Mr. Adu is going to kick Mr. Beckham’s ass.

Leaver machines are gone in Bucks County this year. Not knowing how to use the new computer voting system, and having never done a write-in vote before, I visited the Bucks County web site to see haw to vote. That web site forwarded me to a Pennsylvania State site, that site said Bucks County votes on a Danaher ELECTronic 1242. It was easy, the shockwave demo showed me, it would pop up a keyboard on the screen and I enter the name there.

It seems Yardley Borough didn’t have the Danaher ELECTronic 1242. The League of Women Voters Bucks County web site actually had a better description, though that was not quite right either. The bothersome part was I needed a pen, had the government web sites been accurate I would of brought a pen. Instead I had to ask a very helpful volunteer for a pen, he had to ask the police if he was allowed to lend me a pen. He lent me the pen and I wrote in my candidate. Everybody in the room now knows I wrote-in a vote. The ladies who make sure you where registered told me my house looks very nice, I thanked them.

It seems that whomever picked these machines did a very good job. They where easy to use, and though not required by Pennsylvania law, they had a paper trail. Since I’m probably the only person in Yardley Borough who voted for Carl Romanelli, I hope, like last time, I can see the one vote tick one the Bucks County vote totals web page.

Election day is coming up, I sat down do choose who to vote for. Candidates in Bucks County where finally published by the Board of Elections. It’s funny that the League of Women Voters of Bucks County had the list online first. Starting from the top of the Board of Elections list:

For United States Senator I feel I’m picking between Hitler and Stalin, should either of there careers advance. Rick Santorum, so popular amung gays he got his own sexual slang named after him (really, don’t read the definition, I regret I did (I’m not kidding)) is a bushbot. I think Bob Casey, Jr. has the campaign slogan of I am not a bushbot. Both say they are a pro-life Catholic. So both would rather see a child who made a mistake get a coat hanger, alley abortion rather then facing an abusive family. I agree with Bill Clinton when it comes to abortion: Abortion should not only be safe and legal, it should be rare. So I’m writing in Carl Romanelli.

For Governor it’s incumbent, pro-choice Ed Rendel. Or pro-life, Ex-Pittsburgh Steelers Lynn Swan. I always try to make the environment my main deciding factor on who to vote for, but for some reason abortion always trickles to the top. Sorry Marakay, I’m voting for Mr. Rendel, maybe next time.

Now we finally start getting to the good stuff, Representative in Congress – 8th District. No Green or Libertarian write-in candidate here. Both bourgeoisie candidates put environment issues not close to the top on there issue web page, so abortion bubbles up to the top again. You go Iraq veteran Murphy J. Murphy!.

Now state election, crap. It’s hard enough remembering what U. S. Congress district I’m in let alone state congress and senate. With bourgeoisie gerrymandering it’s probably changed since last time. Again no Green or Libertarian write-in though, for either. For my little Senator in the General Assembly – 10th District there is no incumbent, I’ve read that Joe Conti didn’t run again becauso of the 2005 Pennsylvania General Assembly pay raise controversy. Well, I read some place that the Bucks County Green party supports Chris Serpico. Wait, I read that on Mr. Serpico’s web site! Hopefully he is not lying.

Last, and least I think, it’s the Representative in the General Assembly – 31st District. Thank the goddess this is the last one. Whomever I pick, this will probably be the most world wide endorsement they well get! Well, nobody will be reading past the first line of this past anyway. So, well, I can’t find Mike Diamond’s web site. His sign is across the street, he has a fine graphic artist! Well we all have to abstain from something, maybe I’ll vote for Mr. Diamond just because he isn’t incumbent David J. Steil, another Pennsylvania General assembly pay raise controversy alumni. I’ll choose in the booth.

That’s everybody! There is still some question. Shit.

I’m worried about George W. Bush’s marriage. Since New Jersey said homosexual unions can be equal, but separate, Mr. Bush said it he now raises doubts about the institution of marriage., or that the rulling raises doubts about the institution of marriage as a whole I think. I asked my wife after we heard the article on NPR about it, and she said she felt our marraige is in no less doubt now then it was before the New Jersey rulling. I think our marriage is strong and harmonious, but it seems Mr. Bush didn’t start questioning every marriage in his courtry until after this court ruling. Trust me Mr. Bush, my love for my wife is going to get no less strong no matter how you manipulate marriage, but I’m worried about yours.  I actually think marriage in a religious thing, not a government thing.

President Bush has been lying for years, and most of the Republicans agreed. While the GOP rating had been going down people have not been to outraged by the Republican party. Now what presses peoples buttons? A sex scandle. Unless your congress man was related with the scandle why change your vote? I think Democrats, and other party members for that matter, are just as likely to have homosexual pedophiles as the Republicans; though perhaps republicans are more likely to have in-the-closet homosexuals then Democrats. The Democrats are also just as likely to have corrupt leaders that would cover somebody misbehaving as the current Republican leadership of congress.

Mr. Bush’s lies should be the outragous headlines that drastically lowers the GOP poll numbers nation wide, not Mark Foley’s lust for young boys. My best wishes go out to Mr. Foley and his family, I hope he can over come his issues.

When I lived in San Francisco, before the election I would get a piece of mail telling me where to go to vote, and a sample ballot. It even came with a list of pros and cons for each item on the ballot. In Bucks County I get nothing. I’ve search Bucks County’s web site, nothing. Thank you Bucks County League of Women Voters for publishing a voters guide.

In Yardley Borough there are no parties on the ballot apart from the bourgeoisie Democrat and Republican. Not a Libertarian or Green to be seen. There are a couple of Independents running in Bucks County, but not in my area. Being a registered Green party member, what I usually do is go vote for all the green party members, and if they lack a canditade I vote for the Libertarian. Lacking either member of those parties is when things get hard and I actually have to do some reading to see which bourgeoisie is least likely to cover up there parties evil doings. I got a lot of research to do this year. If non-bourgeoisie start winning I’ll have to start doing some research into those people too.

Now, I do have a peeve about the Green party, at least in Pennsylvania, maybe just in Bucks County. Claming to be grassroots I always see more Green running for major offices, U.S. Senate, or President, rather then local offices. I would rather see these people running and winning local offices then running and loosing national and state offices. Perhaps they are scared of winning? This years race for Pennsylvania’s U.S. Senate in a prime example:

The bourgeoisie took the Green party to school. First the Republicans help the Greens pay for getting the 67,000 signatures needed to get on the ballot. Then the Democrats took the Greens to court claming they didn’t have enough signatures, and won. Thus the Greens have to pay the Democrat’s legal bills and there own, a total nearing a million dollars. The Green candidate should of run for a local office, if you can’t win locally don’t bother running for a bigger office. I hope the Pennsylvania Greens learned there lesson.

The 67,000 signatules needed is also biased against third parties, bourgeoisie candites need 2,000 signatures. The 67,000 number is 2% of the votes from the last state wide election. So, if I want to encourage third parties to be on the ballot next election I should not vote? It’s a trap no matter which way a look.

I bet you are sitting there thinking, I wonder what the two candidates running for the Pennsylvania senate are bickering about. Global warming, property tax, Bush? Let’s get down to the dirt, it’s about a unibrow:

Thank you http://www.wonkette.com/politics/unibrow/metrosexual-unibrow-war-201817.php for the picture. I know nothing about him but Carl Romanelli is looking better and better.

Going through immigration in Ottawa yesterday, the nice lady asked me a bunch of questions. She finished with, “Do you have a computer with you?” I replied that yes, I had a laptop (as would lots of other people at the GCC Developers Summit I’m attending). Boy was “yes” a wrong answer.
I was sent to a mystical back room for a further search. A big guy in a police uniform did a cursory look at my two bags, then focused primarily on my laptop. He opened it, turned it on, asked me to log in, and with the screen turned away from me proceeded to click his way around the system. (It’s my backup laptop running a 2-letter commercial O$ … I so wished I had Linux on it instead, just to see if they’ve any idea what to do.)

He explained he was looking for “objectionable material, which most people think is just child pornography.” Nope, it’s anything that may cause offence (left to be defined) including “beastiality” and anything that is “traitorous”.

I asked if there’s a list somewhere listing what they go looking for; he repiled, “Well, if there’s any kind of a match there’s a database we consult,” and continued—click, click … click. “Do you use your computer to connect to the Internet?”

What the hell kind of question is that? I felt like I was back in 1984 dialing up to Telenet.

I just stood there looking around, my brain pondering all sorts of things: is the arbitrary examination of your personal files legal? What would he do if it were any other OS? Why would anyone transporting illegal stuff like child porn leave it in any form this guy with Windows Explorer could find? Why not encrypt it all and rename it to “quicken.exe”? Why not just wait and download everything over a secure link once you’ve gotten to your hotel? The possibilites are endless.

When he’d finally seen enough to satisfy himself, he gave me the laptop back and said I could leave. Meanwhile my friend Doug’s out in the baggage area waiting to see if I’d ever show up after walking up to the immigration people at the same time.

I still wonder if it’s equally legal to open up a binder full of paper and start reading what’s on the sheets, waiting to see something derogatory about the Prime Minister.

Canada appears to have its own Department of Homeland Decency.

“The NSA wants to remind everyone to call their mothers this  Sunday.  They need to calibrate their system.”

From The Financial Times

Bush administration’s telephone snooping

George W. Bush assured Americans this week that his administration was doing nothing illegal by maintaining a record of telephone calls made by about 200m US subscribers. But the president has already made clear that his definition of what is legal applies to virtually anything he chooses to authorise in the name of national ­security.

The leak on Thursday to the USA Today newspaper revealing that the US National Security Agency was keeping a log of billions of calls made each year in America – in what is surely the largest database ever assembled – is troubling at many levels. It is the latest example of the administration’s habit of intruding on American freedoms – whether the right to privacy, habeas corpus or other ironclad constitutional protections – without having obtained permission from the courts or Congress.

Following the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001, Mr Bush de­clared America was engaged in a war that had no apparent territorial or temporal limits. He also made it clear he believed it was the president’s prerogative to decide how, where and when to conduct the war on terror – or any other war – without recourse to Congress. Mr Bush’s doctrine, which some call the “new imperial presidency”, strikes at the heart of America’s constitutional separation of ­powers.

The implications of Mr Bush’s doctrine are too manifold to enumerate here. But it is worth restating the most egregious. Since 2001 Mr Bush has decreed that it is the right of the executive alone to decide who – whether American or foreign – qualifies as an “unlawful enemy combatant” and then to detain that person without access to a lawyer or possibility of trial for an indefinite period, until death if necessary. Likewise, Mr Bush has absolved himself from following US and international laws that ban the use of torture for certain categories of people who are determined by the executive alone. Any attempt by Congress to constrain the administration by enacting new statutes is treated as advisory rather than legally binding. Mr Bush has appended more than 500 “signing statements” to new laws that give him the right to interpret what the law means. The most shocking example was Mr Bush’s assertion of the president’s right to ignore elements of a bill enacted by Congress last December that outlawed the use of torture.

In the words of the pro-Republican Cato Institute, Mr Bush’s doctrine states that, “when we’re at war, anything goes, and the president gets to decide when we’re at war”. Any attempt to question Mr Bush’s doctrine or to divulge its operational detail to the public is portrayed as assisting America’s enemies, including al-Qaeda. The only safeguard proffered against the executive’s abuse of these extraordinary wartime powers is that Mr Bush can be trusted to do the right thing.

None of this is to dispute the fact that the fight against terrorism is different to the prosecution of conventional war and might necessitate the temporary curbing of certain freedoms, including the right to privacy. Most reasonable people, including judges, legislators and ordinary citizens, can agree on this. But Mr Bush’s actions go much further. Ultimately, they are also self-defeating. Whether or not Congress turns Democrat in November, Mr Bush faces a constitutional backlash that is probably unstoppable. In pursuit of the imperial presidency, Mr Bush has turned himself into a very premature lame duck.