Eben Moglen Speaks about the Future

... among other things.
Professor Moglen is counsel for the Free Software Foundation and advisor to the Electronic Freedom Foundation, among others organizations. He is on the front lines of the legal battle affirming the GPL's robustness and validity.

And he's winning.

Professor Moglen was my favorite in all of law school. He's energized, opinionated, funny, arrogant, stimulating, thought provoking, acerbic, and utterly brilliant. People tend to either love or hate Mr. Moglen, and I fall into the former camp. He spoke to the Harvard Journal of Law and Technology the other day, I thought his talk is, as ever, fascinating. It covers ground from SCO to Cal v. Eldred (boo! hssss!) to just how masterfully constructed the GPL is (and he would know, he wrote it, whatever RMS might say) to the legal future of free as in speech software.

By utterly brilliant, I don't mean your average run-of-the-mill genius smartypants. Moglen is on a different intellectual plane from most of us. Speaking as someone who is pretty darn certain of my own intellectual credentials, Moglen smokes my intellect and then goes to have an NYU student or three for dessert. I've never met anyone quite like Moglen (who, in addition to being a lawyer and a professor, is a historian and a programmer) - and this is a good thing. Moglen's self-described mode of scholarship is:

Step 1: try to create freedom by destroying illegitimate power sheltered behind intellectual property law.
Step 2: See what happens.

That's a revolution I'm ready to join and fight for. Every open source argument I've ever made or concept I've thought of, he's probably already done. So, really, if you want to hear the scoop from the man himself, read The Invisible Barbeque. If there were a cult of Moglen, I'd be a disciple, or perhaps a high priest. I like to think of myself as an individual carving my own path, but dammit, that guy's already doing it so we might as well climb aboard. Anyway all of this to here is beside the point, but I thought I should let you know of my respect and admiration for Moglen before continuing.

You may have heard about the SCO lawsuit against "Linux." Let me also get this out of the way: the case is without merit and SCO is going to get their asses handed to them should this ever make it to court, regardless of how many cash infusions they get from Microsoft (said cash infusions are investments and have nothing - NOTHING! - whatsoever to do with the fact that SCO is trying to litigate the GPL (and by association, Linux) to its death. Nothing!). Moglen addresses that topic in depth in his Q&A but I really don't want to cover that ground here.

Instead, I'd like to point out some of the highlights of what is meant by "Free Software," as stated by Moglen. Part of the ethos behind free as in speech software is educational:

Free software, of which the operating system kernel called Linux is one very important example among thousands, free software is the single greatest technical reference library on Planet Earth, as of now.
The reason I say that is that free software is the only corpus of information fixed in a tangible form, through which anyone, anywhere, can go from naivete to the state of the art in a great technical subject -- what computers can be made to do -- solely by consulting material that is freely available for adaptation and reuse, in any way that she or he may want.

We enable learning all over the world by permitting people to experiment, not with toys, but with the actual real stuff on which all the good work is done.

For that purpose, we are engaged in making an educational system and a human capital improvement system which brings about the promise of encouraging the diffusion of our science and useful art in a way which contributes to the perfectability of human beings.

and an example of his humor and cutting wit, in addition to what I feel is an incredible grasp of the new economy and the true definition of the software world (the italicized part):

[SCO's CEO]Mr. McBride does not want to go out of business. This is understandable. Mr. Gates does not want to go out of business either. But they are both on the wrong side of a problem in the political economy of the 21st century. They see software as a product. In order to make their quote "business model" close quote work, software must be a thing which is scarce. And out of the scarcity of software there will be a price which can be extracted, which will include an economic rent, from which Mr. McBride has suggested somebody will be enabled to buy a second home.

(note: he hates Disney as much as he hates Microsoft and SCO. He's a righteous mofo when his dander is up, like Gary Oldman after a bender, but he's always sarcastifunny. The paragraph above probably says more about why I like him (it's the wicked sardonic part) than anything else; that's right up my own alley. You should probably insert a mental sneer every time you read "Mr. McBride" in the Q&A). some more:

We think that software is not a product, because we do not believe in excluding people from it. We think that software is a form of knowledge. The International Business Machines Corporation, the Hewlett Packard Corporation, and a number of other organizations either represented here in body or in spirit this evening have another theory, which is that software in the 21st century is a service, a form of public utility combined with knowledge about how to make best use of the utility, which enables economic growth in peoples' enterprises generally, from which there is a surplus to be used to pay the people who help you produce the surplus, by making the best possible use of the public utility.

That's at least three competing views of software (two revolutionary or at least non-mainstream), within the space of three oral paragraphs (I omitted the middle one). Software as a form of knowledge rather than a hybrid utility or a scarce good appeals most strongly to my sensibilities and worldview.

about the GPL:

To those who like to say there has never been a court test of the GPL, I have one simple thing to say: Don't blame me. I was perfectly happy to roll any time. It was the defendants who didn't want to do it. And when for ten solid years, people have turned down an opportunity to make a legal argument, guess what? It isn't any good.
The GPL has succeeded for the last decade, while I have been tending it, because it worked, not because it failed or was in doubt.

the result of the misguided Supreme Court holding in Cal v. Eldred (boo! hisssss!):

Copyright term extension now provides that, whether or not a Sonny Bono skis into a tree again in the next ten years or so, every once in a while Congress will extend the term of copyrights a little while longer. And then, as the ball approaches midnight in Times Square, they'll extend it a little longer. And so on and so on. Nothing need ever escape into the public domain again, least of all Mickey Mouse.
...
In short, the actual holding of Eldred against Ashcroft is, Congress can make such copyright law as it wants, and all licenses issued under the presumptively constitutional copyright law are beyond constitutional challenge

The true threat to libre software in the future (patents (boo! hiss!)):

Patent law, unlike copyright law, presents certain features which are egregious for the freedom of technical knowledge. If the copyright law presents a workable form of the great 18th century ambition of the perfectability of human kind, the patent law regrettably does not. This is not surprising, 18th century thinkers were a little dubious about the patent law as well. They had a concern for statutory monopolies and a deep history of English law that made them worry about them very much. Patent law in the 21st century is a collection of evil nuisances. There's no question about it. And in the world of software where we exist, there are some particularly unfortunate characteristics of the way that the patent law works. We are going to have to work hard to make sure that the legitimate scope of patent, which is present, but which is small, is not expanded by careless administrators any further in the course of the 21st century to cover the ownership of ideas merely because those ideas are expressed in computer programming languages rather than in, say, English or mathematics.

on DRM, "trusted computing," and your datastream rights in the future:

the owners of culture now recognize that if they are going to prop up their own methods of distribution, a method of distribution in which distribution is bought and sold and treated as property -- and you can’t distribute unless you pay for the right to do so -- unless they can prop up that structure, they are done in their business models. And for them that requires something which I truly believe amounts to the military occupation of the Net. They have to control all the nodes in the Net and make sure that the bitstreams that pass through those nodes check in before they go some place that the right of distribution hasn’t been bought or sold in order to permit that bitstream to go.

It is precisely because software is free, that the owners of culture have to occupy the hardware of the Net in order to make good their business model. Free software, like, for example, Ian Clark’s Freenet or other forms of free software that engages in peer-to-peer sharing of data, or for that matter just free software like TCP/IP which is meant for sharing data, presents overwhelming obstacles to people who want every single bitstream to bear requirements of ownership and distribution inside it and to go only to the places that have paid to receive it. The result is an increasing movement to create what is in truly Orwellian fashion referred to as trusted computing, which means computers that users can’t trust. In order to continue to move for the freedom of knowledge in 21st century society, we have to prevent trusted computing and its various ancillary details from constituting the occupation of the hardware of the Net, to prevent the hardware from running free software that shares information freely with people who want to share. Beating the trusted computing challenge is a difficult legal problem, more difficult for the lawyer in dealing with licensing and the putting together of software products than the original problem presented by freeing free software in the first place. This, more than the improvement of the free software distribution structure as we currently know it, is the problem most before my mind these days.

(emphasis added)

On distribution as knowledge rather than a product:

in the world in which we now exist, though hardware is cheap and software is free, there are major difficulties in disseminating knowledge and encouraging the diffusion of science and the useful arts, because people are too poor to pay for the bandwidth that they require in order to learn.

This arises from the fact that the electromagnetic spectrum too has been treated as property since the second quarter of the 20th century. That was said to be technically necessary as a result of technical problems with interference that are no longer relevant in the world of intelligent devices. The single greatest free software problem in the 21st century is how to return the electromagnetic spectrum to use by sharing rather than use-by-propertization.

Moglen also separately makes a compelling argument for the unconstitutionality of the parcelling of the airwaves to a few corporations (if the scarcity rationale no longer applies - which it doesn't - then the justification for broadcast licenses disappears). It's another great topic, with which I also agree (and trust me, I wish I disagreed with at least one of Moglen's fundamental positions, but I don't so I'm relegated to cheerleader status. Dangit, Moglen, quit being right!)

and, in sum:

in the end, it is our ability to unify all of the elements of the information society -- software, hardware, and bandwidth -- in shared hands, that is in our own hands, that determines whether we can succeed in carrying out the great 18th century dream, the one that is found in Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution, the one that says that human beings and human society are infinitely improvable if only we take the necessary steps to set the mind free. That’s where we are really going.

Bravo, Professor Moglen. Bravo.

Now, if you really want to be impressed, read his off-the-cuff responses during the Q&A session. Yowza.

FSF Site Re: the SCO Claims

In case you were wondering what the FSF's position was regarding SCO's third-party infringement claims and interpretation of the SCO v. the world lawsuits.

Nation's First Ever RFID Consumer Privacy Bill is passed

In Utah, of all places. I guess they don't want RFIDs in their LDS undergarments?

Kerry Smear Continues

Not content to merely slander Kerry with intern sex allegations and misleading caricatures of his voting record, the right wing slander machine is gearing up for the Kerry-the-Commie-Sympathizer campaign. :eyeroll:

Didn't this kind of attack die out in about, oh, 1958? Certainly by 1972. Commie rhetoric in 2004? Get real. What's next, bringing back COINTELPRO? (wait... I think Ashcroft is ahead of me there)

Also, the first paragraph, has been proven. Most recently with the revelation of Tiger Force by the sterling work of a the independent Toledo Blade.

No Farkin Way

According to the Hill, the GOP convention plan could be titled "George W. Bush, Superstar". Included at the convention would be 50,000 tv sets, offsite breakout sessions (e.g. from the deck of the Intrepid), and most gobsmackingly heinous of them all: an acceptance speech given from Ground Zero.

No way does this happen. Right? Right?! They can't possibly be that crass and stupid can they? Wait, don't answer that.

“Or, and this is a real possibility, we could see President Bush giving his acceptance speech at Ground Zero,” he added. “It’s clearly a venue they’re considering.”

I'm going to go ask some really stupid people that I know what they think of that statement. This will totally be in MSG, but if they do go to ground zero and politicize (even more) the WTC (as if that's some sort of good reflection on the guy who didn't react for four hours and couldn't be found for almost 20). "Outrage" would be my first-guess descriptive language, which is why I don't buy it. Still it's fun to say FU to the GOPpers. So, FU, GOPpers!

I liked this part the best (and find it more plausible):

“The entire format and actual physical setup could be radically different,” one GOP insider commented. “They might not even have a podium, or maybe a rotating podium or even a stage that comes up from underground. It would be like a theater in the round, with off-site events that are part of the convention.”

Don't forget the lasers and smoke machine!

Another Reason Why Gay Marriage Should be Recognized

Legal privilege, as in spousal incompetency and marital privilege rules. Rosie makes some good points, even if she's, uh, not too bright.

"If you are a homosexual talk show host," O’Donnell continued, "and you’re sued by a corporation, anything you have ever said and/or written to your spouse/partner/wife is allowed to be entered into the record. It is totally unfair."

"Unfair" is exactly correct. Hellooooo Due Process!

John McCain and Joe Lieberman Stand Up for the Right Thing

Even though they are using parliamentary procedure to hold up the process of governance, it's for a good cause and the harm stemming from their actions is minimal.

What are they doing, you ask? They are holding up a highway spending bill in order to force the other congresspeople to vote to grant an extension to the 9/11 Commission so that the Commission can complete their work. The reason they need an extension is because of the White House's intransigence. The reason why they should get one is because we, the People, and we, the State, both deserve and need to know how 9/11 occurred in order that we may heal and avoid such attacks in the future.

As Lieberman said:

He said the choice was between minor disruptions in highway projects and "telling the families of those who died on 9/11 that the commission will not be able to complete its work."

I haven't said this... ever, probably, but: go Joe! (and John)

Turning Poo Into Light

Now, why didn't someone think of this sooner? As the world's energy resources become more scares, we must pursue both ways we can be more efficient with our remaining dwindling sources and find new sources of energy. Here, turning poo into electricity performs a triple good: power from currently-wasted (heh) resources, eases the energy required for sewage treatment, and cleans rather than pollutes the environment. Sweet! (though maybe not so much in the smell department)

Say Goodbye to the Great Barrier Reef by 2050

Well this sucks. Apparently, due to rising global sea temperatures, the GBR is going to die within the next 50 years.

Don't ask the bushies, though. They still believe there is no such thing as global warming.

One Step Closer to the Grey Goo Planet

IBM has brought self-constructing nanothings closer to reality. Nanotech is going to be a world-revolutionizer. It also has the potential to kill us all, and the planet and all the animals. Embrace, but with caution.

I Have Some Pet Peeves

One of them, and one that I'm going to share with you today, is when people the standard "How are you doing?" query with "It's [insert name of day here]." The frequency of this response increases exponentially with the proximity of CurrentDay to Friday.

I've had six, count 'em - SIX!, people already say to me (it's only 900 as I write this) "It's Friday!"

To date, I have resisted kicking them in the shins, but I don't know how much longer I can hold out.

Scalia Finally Getting His Due?

...as a corrupt, intellectually bankrupt jerk, that is. Turns out that the Cheney hunting trip was not unique; in 2001, he was a guest of the Kansas law school and went on a hunting trip with the dean [latimes.com, reg required, but you can lie] a mere two weeks after and two weeks before the dean argued two cases before the Supreme Court (for those that don't know, the decisions aren't handed down until months after oral arguments).

In a rational world, Scalia would have already been impeached. Can this be the tipping point? I hope so.

Support the LA Times, people. They're the last, best investigative journalism institution left. They're the ones solely responsible for breaking the Scalia stories.

Quick Question

Why the hell were Kucinich and Sharpton onstage at the Dem debate last night? They've had their equal access and they've shown they can't win more than 3%, generally. Fuck 'em! Now's the time where we need to choose between Edwards and Kerry, and all Sharpton and Kucinich do is dilute the message. Which, not coincidentally, is better for Kerry than it is for Edwards.

Then again, Chris Suellentrop doesn't think they were anything more than tangential, so, whatever, I guess. Saletan thinks Kerry 0wn3d everyone (Suellentrop says it was Edwards early, Kerry late).

Also, why doesn't Dean - who absolutely detests Kerry - publicly back Edwards? Would the move backfire for Edwards? Would the Deaniacs not go out in force for the drawling southern cute boy? Oh, wait, I know. He's just waiting to be named head of HHS, so he's not going pro or con against anyone.

Bush Cancels Clinton Policy on Landmines

Clinton's plan was to bar all military use of the landmines by 2006. Bush is canceling this plan. I thought that the Clinton plan was a pretty silly decision at the time, since landmines have perfectly legitimate military uses (like, you know, saving your troops' collective asses). They do have some really nasty side effects on civillian populations post-conflict, especially when the military doesn't clean up after themselves.

The real problem, of course, is that mines are super cheap, easy to obtain, and there's no way to stop their manufacture. So its the irregulars, warlords, and lesser developed countries where the real problem is at.

In sum, I'm against the unilateral boycott of a perfectly legitimate tactic or weapon system. Note: that doesn't mean I condone the tactic or that it should be used (see also: nukes), just that it is counterproductive to make your soldiers more vulnerable when it's not going to help anyone.

Is Special Sauce a Durable Good?

Because, as Paul Krugman points out, the Bush administration is trying to claim burger flipping jobs as manufacturing (the quote is from John Dingle,though).

Uh... no, boys. Not so much.

Krugman's also in favor of a national health care system; a position with which I happen to agree strongly. You go, Paul.

US Spied on Blix

... and still tried to discredit him when they knew he had found nothing. According to ABC Australia, anyway. Blix is a hell of a tough guy, and recognized as such by pretty much everyone. Which probably explains the fear and loathing from our government.

Hey, How do you turn on trackbacks with blogger?

If you know, let me know, please. Thanks, yo.

Bush Administration Hires former Apartheid Enforcers

Whiskey Bar is covering this in detail, but in sum, we are employing racists murderers as private security in Iraq. I love this administration.

Mudslinging at Kerry

Some of it seems to be sticking, in re: the waffling patrician part. What shouldn't stand is his voting record on defense programs. Fred Kaplan makes this case well, most notably that the weapons programs he "voted against" were not voted against with particularity (it was a penumbric spending bill).

Why this matters, I don't know. The peace dividend should be realized, and Bush41 and Cheney and Powell all cut programs. We've still go the Osprey, and it's a useless pork barrel boondoggle. Crusader? Useless and gone. F-22? unnecessary pork-barrel boondoggle. Another boomer sub? Unnecessary. Two more CVA nuclear carriers? Mega unnecessary. NMD? Stupendously idiotic, but funded. Is every military program a great idea? No! Does recognizing that a particular hardware or technology is unnecessary or just a poor design, or that we already have sufficient capability for the foreseeable future harm our national defense? No! All it does is harm the military-industrial complex and congressmen's constituencies (some more than others). Hell, the Army just cut the Crusader and Comanche in the past two years (I should say Rummy cut them, but left the huge F-22 order in place because he likes planes. Planes go fast. zzzZZZOOOOM! Sorry, Rummy moment there.).

Anyway, the mudslinging has started in full force. I think it would be oh-so-delectable if Rove is the one responsible for Edwards taking the nom and Bush's eventual defeat. Beaten by your own evil! Likely? No. But it would be sweet.

Thoughts on Greenspan and Social Security

Greenspan, a Nixon-appointed grouper (I'm talking about this -> ) shills for the GOP (again) and threatens retirees and soon-to-be-retirees with their social security money. As Alterman summarizes "We’ll cut your Social Security to pay for tax cuts for the rich." If the Dems can't win on that, then they need a new country (and we, the People, will be getting what we deserve). Indeed.

How Does Blair Survive?

He's an inept, running pig-dog lackey of the imperialist regime (that is to say, us) who prosecutes whistleblowers... and loses - whistleblowers who reveal that the UK spies on enemies of the US , apparently when we ask them to do so. The country hates him, he helped back the unJust war in Iraq, and has had millions of people march against him.

Seriously, why is he still in power? He's eloquent and can be a stand up kind of guy, sometimes, when things don't break right. But still... the hell? Things like this:

"The prosecution offer no evidence against the defendant on this indictment as there is no longer sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction. It would not be appropriate to go into the reasons for this decision."

make even Ashcroft look competent by comparison.

But Back to Bush for a second. This administration used the info gathered in the spying by the UK to disrupt a backdoor attempt to get the Iraqis to agree to greater inspections and avoid an invasion. Why would the administration do this? It couldn't be because they had a hardon for Saddam and were going to invade by hook or by crook, and the evidence and people of the world be damned, could it? Nah.

Not that Edwards is Any Better

Questioned yesterday on his support for gay civil unions but opposition to marriage, Edwards snapped. Here's the relevant portion:

Speaking to reporters yesterday afternoon, Edwards explained that he personally opposes gay marriage but supports civil unions, and believes each state should set its own marriage policy.

When asked why civil unions could not simply be called marriages, Edwards said, "My answer is the same."

Asked why states, not the federal government, should decide policy, he replied, "Because it's something I think should be decided by the states."

And when asked to explain his personal opposition to gay marriage, he snapped, "I'm done with that question."

See, this is the problem you run into when your statements make a distinction without a difference. I think Edwards knows this is an untenable position, but at least he hasn't backed a Hate amendment.

The Dems need to stand up for what's right. Is there anyone not named Kucinich who will stand up to this? What's Ted Kennedy saying?

As If I Didn't Dislike Kerry Enough Already

He's come out in favor of a Massachusetts-level Hate amendment. You asshole, Kerry. Not only is it bad politics (since you are now indistinguishable from Bush on this issue), but it's a craven and evil thing to support bigotry and unfairness. I'll support anyone but Kerry up to the point that it is Kerry against Bush. JFC, what an asshole!

Tom DeLay is a Crook

We already knew that, but it certainly looks like his PAC violted a bushel of election laws. That gerrymandering of Texas, though, was totally legit.

Another Reason Why Good Writing Skills are Essential

... to being a lawyer. Because without such skills, you could have your attorney's fees reduced, even in victory.

Heh. I can think of a few people that I think would be a lot like Mr. Puricelli in practice.

Civil Rights, Marriage, and the Law

Loving v. Virginia (1967) is an interesting case, and fairly on point. Though race was the distinguishing characteristic, I think it is a good case for the anti-Hate side. For the rigid legal thinkers out there, you may state that race is a protected class, gender and sexual preference are not. You are free to shout "strict scrutiny" v. "rational means" and go home now. Please.
Here are some choice quotes (emphasis added):

The State does not contend in its argument before this Court that its powers to regulate marriage are unlimited notwithstanding the commands of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nor could it do so. Instead, the State argues that the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause, as illuminated by the statements of the Framers, is only that state penal laws containing an interracial element as part of the definition of the offense must apply equally to whites and Negroes in the sense that members of each race are punished to the same degree. Thus, the State contends that, because its miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their reliance on racial classifications, do not constitute an invidious discrimination based upon race.

to the conclusion:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.

Now, if you frame the issue as "people have a fundamental right to get married," it's a slam dunk for the anti-Hate crowd (that is, the folks on the side of goodness and light). If you try to frame it as a "gays are non-protected and thus this doesn't apply" issue, then you are merely aiding and abetting the forces of hate that are trying to tear our country apart and turn good citizens on one another (thanks, Ashcroft!).

Thinking More Upon Davey v. Locke

You know, the WA case that said the State may deny State money to students pursuing sectarian education? I'm going to do the Larry King thing here, since I can't get free time enough to construct more than the barest of sentences together. Feel free to connect the dots yourself.

I love the irony that the opinion was written by Rehnquist.

I love the irony that the justification used mirrors that of government funding to programs conservatives don't like, such as stem cell research and abortions (they're elective! You don't have to accept federal funding for you research! You don't have to go to the only doctor you can go to on Medicaid!).

I love that the only two dissenting opinions were Scalia and Thomas. Seriously, has Scalia ever been right? Probably, much like a stopped clock, he's correct about twice per session, but he's always, always to the (hard) right. Also, I love reading Scalia when he's going apeshit. Great entertainment, really, only from someone with a lot more power than he should have in any reasonable world.

Does Thomas have an independent thought in his head? The jury is still out on that one; there's no evidence to support an argument either way.

All that said, there is no getting around the tension between the free speech and the establisment clause parts of the Constitution in this case. There is no denying that it is discrimination against religion, but there is also no denying that such funding gives the appearance of the State condoning a particular religion over others. I'm with the majority opinion on this one, but then again, when it comes to the Establishment Clause, I'm an absolutist (as in, there should be absolutely no contact between government and religion).

Eugene Volokh is wrong on this one, I think, because it's not about specifically denying a particular religion regular benefits (that is, specially denying a regular benefit). Nor is it the converse that he argues would be acceptable (that is, it is not a regular denial of a special benefit). Rather, it is about not creating the appearance of support of one over the other (thus it is a regular denial of regular benefits). But then, he's a religious guy so this is in his wheelhouse.

As always, it is in how you frame it. After all, he who frames the picture, paints the canvas.

Hate Amendment Equivocaters

I'm talking about the people who are who are anti-Hate Amendment, but still think marriage should be between a man and a woman and gays can have civil unions. This is the majority of Dems, It's this kind of illogical fence sitting that kills me. The end result of this kind of argument is "separate but equal." I think we can all recognize that that wasn't the greatest (or most defensible) system in the history of the world.

Look, either homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else or they do not. It really is that simple.

And in my not too humble opinion, gays are people too. Wow, shocking, huh. They should be able to be married and recognized as such. The DOMA should be ruled unconstitutional on Due Process grounds and those who voted for it should get kicked in their respective nether regions.

Sad as it may be, this issue is becoming a litmus test both for my political endorsees and my friendships. Respect of civil liberties and human rights is such a core part of my personality that, frankly, anyone who doesn't agree on this issue is dead to me or close thereto. I haven't decided how I feel about the fence sitters, yet. Acceptance with unease for the moment.

Senators are all Inside Traders

That's the only way to really explain how their stocks consistently beat the market while the shares they sell perform exactly at market after the shares are out of the senators' hands. Note that the study finds the timing of the senators' trades "uncanny." Indeed.

This just in: money and politics go hand in hand. More breaking news: politicians are corrupt. News at 11.

White House Continues Hindering the 9/11 Commission

They found a willing tool in the House, Dennis Hastert (R-IL) this time to fight against the 60-day extension the Commission requested (due to the White House's stonewalling and foot dragging, mainly) because, get this:

"[Hastert] is also concerned it will become a political football if this thing is extended and it is released in the middle of the presidential campaign"

Heaven forbid that the findings of a fully-informed (or at least, better-informed) Commission be revealed during a time of trouble for the President! Who needs or wants to know what caused the intelligence failures leading to 9/11, anyway?

Has there ever been a more autocratic, evil, lying, and self-interested administration? Not in my lifetime. Hell, not even the Reagan administration was this bad.

Zealots in the Ascendancy

So Howard Stern got fired today from Clear Channel. The same Clear Channel that is a big Bush contributor. The same Clear Channel that organized faux pro-war (under the guise of patriotism) rallies during the time of the Senate Iraq debates. The same Clear Channel that centrally controls somewhere around two-thirds of the media markets in America.

Yeah, that Clear Channel.

Their action just happens to come on the day after Stern provided a great critique of the Hate Amendment and the culture war, called John Kerry a hero for what he did in Vietnam, and promised to do everything in his power to get Bush out of the White House.

I'm positive there was (no) correlation.

More on the Hate Amendment

According to a different survey than the DU's count I mentioned earlier, of 61 senators examined, the count is 28 for the Hate Amendment, 28 against, 3 undecided, and 2 cop outs. No way is this turkey passing. Nice going, Rove!

More proof that, like the Clinton impeachment, this is not a serious attempt at legislation. It's Political Kabuki theater and shameful hatemongering. FU, Bushies!

Remember When Deaths in Iraq Counted

... and didn't, you know, only merit a two-sentence wire service mention?

Say, when's duhbya going to attend one of these funerals for the elective war he misled the nation into waging?

US Lifts travel restrictions on Libya

Even though the administration keeps trying to take credit for what is largely the work of 10 years of British diplomacy (and the deal that was accepted was initially proposed by the Clinton administration), behold! good things can come from a rational foreign policy.

Japan Raids Microsoft, Accuses Them of Monopolistic Practices

Gee, this sounds kinda, sorta, familiar. I mean, I'm sorta remembering something similar somewhere, at some time about this. Hmm.

Nope. Doesn't ring a bell.

Perle Resigns!

In other good news, evil asshat Richard Perle is (finally) resigning his seat from a Pentagon advisory council.

I guess now that he's responsible for the death of thousands, he figures his work is done. The multiple ongoing criminal investigations against him have nothing - NOTHING! - whatsoever to do with today's actions.

Stick a Fork in the Anti-Gay Amendment

With 34 senators already confirmed to be against or have stated that they would be against such an amendment in the past, this "vision" stinker of a cultural war mortar shell is looking like quite the dud.

Awesome.

I didn't vet the list, but I think the has done their job here, and Josh Marshall has confirmed some of the names on the list. Thanks for doing the heavy lifting, guys.

Counterinsurgency that Works

Worked in 'Nam, anyway and may work in Iraq. Different wars, though, so I have my doubts. What works in a war of nationalism may not work in a war of religion (with nationalism mixed in).

Bush on Gay Marriage, circa 2000

Bush's naked bigotry is a blatant attempt to start a new culture war (though this time, I don't think it's going to work as well as it did in 1972) and a clear sign that they know they can't run on their record in this election cycle (because it sucks!).

It wasn't always this way, though.

Dana Milbank keeps up his excellent reportage (he's the only reporter on the White House beat with any cojones anymore that hasn't been marginalized).

The interesting part of the article is, to me, the results from the Pew research that ranked gay marriage as 23rd out of 24 possibilities on people's priorities. Probably just below the eradication of lima beans and just above a manned trip to Mars.
You can read exactly what Bush said in 2000 on Larry King or just this salient part:

BUSH: It doesn't matter. Let's talk about that issue. Each person needs to be judged with their heart and soul. I don't ask the question what somebody's sexual orientation is. I don't ask the question.

KING: So if you have gays working for you, that's fine. And you don't have a problem. You'd appoint gays in the Cabinet, et cetera.

BUSH: Well, I'm not going to ask what their sexual orientation is.

KING: Oh, so you wouldn't know.

BUSH: I'm going to appoint conservative people in the Cabinet. It's none of my business what somebody's -- now when somebody makes it my business, like on gay marriage, I'm going to stand up and say I don't support gay marriage. I support marriage between men and women.

KING: So if a state were voting on gay marriage, you would suggest to that state not to approve it?

BUSH: The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into.

KING: You just did. You have an opinion.

He has gays working for him, but doesn't ask? How does he know?

Note, that makes it 5, count 'em, 5 Amendments that Bush has backed (Flag burning, victims rights, balanced budget, abortion, and gay marriage. But he opposed the ERA. I guess some things are just too trifling to actually be put in the Constitution).

Money

... or lack thereof, is going to the biggest problem the Dems face in taking on the current president. As weak of a candidate as he is, much like Microsoft, $200M will buy you a lot of face time and votes. The Dems will be lucky if they have half as much, and they'll more likely have somewhere closer to 30% than 50%.

The problem with the money, of course, is that those who give to the cause benefit from the cause. Typically we refer to it as "crony capitalism." Bush calls 'em his Rangers.

The media's non-coverage of the immense gap in money between the two candidates is appalling.

Alan Greenspan, you're overstepping your authority. So today, Alan Greenspan testified before congress - as an individual, mind, not as the chair of the FRB (because, you know, mere individuals get to testify before Congress daily).

At this hearing, he said that cuts in spending would not be enough to eliminate the deficit and the economy is not going to grow enough to eliminate the deficit either.

His solution? Cut social security! (by increasing the retirement age, increasing (the regressive) taxes, and lowering benefits).

a) that's a total elitist asshat move; and
b) if you can't cut spending enough and growth isn't going to take care of the taxes, the remaining option is to repeal the Bush tax cuts!

The fact that he never mentioned tax cuts reveals more about him than anything else (not that we did not know that he was a partisan ideologue anyway, see: the defense of the Bush tax cuts in 2001). The fact that the media isn't discussing the 5-ton elephant sitting in the middle of the fuckin room says a lot about them as well.

Back in your box, Greenspan!

This is certainly an interesting political time

Check out the post-2 March Dem primaries:

March 9: FL, LA, MS, TX
March 13: KS
March 16: IL
March 20: WY, AK
April: 13: CO
April 27: PA
May 4: IN, NC
May 11: NE, WV
May 18: AK, KY, OR

That is overwhelmingly Edwards territory. 2, maybe 3 states are Kerry. It is possible, though unlikely, that Edwards stays in the race. Thus leading to a brokered convention where the Super/Dean/Clark delegates have to make a choice between the guy with the most delegates or the guy who's won the last 12 states. Interesting times.

Now, I don't think that will happen, but it's a fun idea to play with.

How badly does Bush want to court the NASCAR vote?

Check out the Feb 2004 Whitehouse Q&A visitor. Looking at the other Q&A people, for some reason a phrase keeps going through my head. It says "one of these is not like the other". Can't imagine why.