I protest.

Wiped out.

Life has been complex lately. Not only has my personal life been difficult, but the current State of Things has been and continues to be incredibly depressing, with the Right crowing at their "mandate," Bush consolidating his Legion of Sycophancy, Iraq casualty rates reaching new record highs, the dollar reaching new record lows and the Idiots in Charge happily pretending that nothing at all is wrong with anything, anywhere. Oh, and the sneak attacks via last-minute secretive amendments in the House haven't made life very much fun, either.

It is almost enough to make one want to run amok.

I have a post in progress regarding "red states," "blue states," "values" and the current fad of denigrating the Left. Hopefully I'll manage to finish it this weekend. I do have things to say, things that I think are important, but it seems at times that it's futile, hopeless, that I'm trying to move all the sand of the Sahara with a teaspoon.

Despite our best efforts, the inmates have taken over the asylum. Bush in his arrogance, egotism and delusion has taken his "reelection" as confirmation that he is indeed "chosen by God" and so has embarked on a course that, I'm afraid, will make the last four years look like a golden age. Meanwhile, I watch as the Democratic "leadership" pisses and moans about losing the election while they do nothing to actually oppose those who want to eliminate us. And make no mistake: Those in charge of the Republican Party want to eliminate dissent, to eliminate liberalism as a political force and to eliminate the Democratic Party as a rival for power. And I watch as Democrats (not all, but far too many) whine about "values" while they move further to the right, losing anything that might have distinguished them from out opponents.

I strongly believe that Howard Dean or someone very much like him is the only hope for the Democratic Party and, by extension, those of us who depend upon Democrats to make our voices heard. As I said some weeks ago now, we need Churchill, not Chamberlain. Unfortunately some Democrats would rather sell their souls to the Republicans than risk actual confrontation.

What I really want to do is to grab a few people by the ears and yell in their faces until they start waking up. My dream, though, is, somehow, to actually meet George W. Bush, personally. Walk up to him. Tell him, "this is for all those without power, all those whom you have have neglected, ignored, mocked, spat or walked upon, all those whom you have harmed who cannot defend themselves." And then slap him in the face. Hard.

And walk away.

Pretty unlikely, yes, but as a dream it has its attraction. Of course, if I were to start slapping people, George would be only the first and my hand would be awfully sore before I was finished.

Another day in the land of the "free."

First there's this little bit of censorship of which I learned by way of Neil Gaiman: U.S. Government Seizes Parody Comics At Customs. It appears that Customs has decided that parody of Bush isn't protected by the First Amendment. Of course, they claim that these are "'clearly piratical copies' of registered and recorded copyrights." Of course, were that the case, as both Neil and Peter David point out, Mad Magazine would have been killed many, many years ago.

So. Censorship. But wait, it gets worse. Much, much worse.

From Dan Gillmor I learned about John Perry Barlow's recent brush with the inconveniences of modern air travel in which he got A Taste of the System. Now, yes, it does appear that he did have a miniscule amount of pot, along with an equally tiny amount of each of some "magic mushrooms" and ketamine, which were, according to the agents, "in the bottom of a bottle of Ibuprofen, still three quarters full of its original contents." There's only one tiny little unimportant problem with this situation. It appears that there's a certain fairly important document which has an amendment that states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It is arguably reasonable that luggage may be searched for explosives. I tend to think that modern searches are far too intrusive in this respect, given the number of bombings we've had here in the United States (that is, zero), but I do accept that there are some valid arguments for this kind of search. On the other hand, why would agents need to search the contents of a nearly-full bottle of Ibuprofen for explosives? Seems to me this is a direct violation of that "probable cause" thing I quoted above. Both Barlow and John Gilmore agree, because they are contesting his arrest as having violated that Amendment. By the way, if you don't recognize the words or if you voted for Bush last month, that is the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.

In reading John Perry Barlow's article and the comments to it I learned one other thing that is somewhat disturbing, as well. I haven't flown in a couple of years, so I haven't been aware of the changes in the security procedures. When I flew last, in mid-2002, the procedures were inordinately intrusive but that was to be expected in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Unfortunately, rather than getting better, things have apparently gotten worse. Not only is luggage being searched regularly (which I was aware of) but people are now being regularly patted down before they are allowed to board. I must repeat that: People are now being patted down before they are allowed to board. I had read about women having been groped during such searches, but I didn't realize that they were doing this to everyone. This is, well, "appalling" doesn't even come close. Vile and despicable. Intolerable.

Of course, people support this because it keeps the elephantsterrorists away, right? Look, no elephantsterrorists here! See, it works!

Inch by inch we lose our liberty, and we slowly become numb to it. When will we be required to present proof that we are allowed to travel from state to state? We are already "required" to show identification, even though it's not strictly legal nor is it really a legal requirement (John Gilmore is outspoken on that issue as well). But try flying without it. Possible, just, but about as inconvenient as it is possible to be.

If anyone tells me that it's "worth it, because it makes us safer," I'll tell them that if they want to be safe in that way, they should move to North Korea. They'll be safe, at least from "terrorists." They also won't have those nasty "rights" that they're so afraid of. I find it utterly, incredibly ironic that it is easier to fly in the People's Republic of China than in the United States. My wife and I flew from HangZhou to HaiKou (on Hainan Island) and back over the week of January 1, 2002. It was trivial, about as much trouble as flying here used to be. Sure, there if you forget your ID you stand a damned good chance of winding up in prison, but there were no pat-downs, no inspections, no luggage searches as far as I know. I'm also pretty sure we were very safe from the possibility of "terrorists." Of course, we were in an authoritarian, totalitarian state, so most liberties I take for granted as a citizen of the United States were nonexistent there, but on the other hand, someone show me the difference between the nonexistent liberties I had there and the vanishing liberties I have here.

At least there, no one was lying to me, trying to make me believe that it was "making me safer."

I fly to Texas on December 22 and back on December 30. I'm emphatically not looking forward to it. But my wife is not a citizen and these days, that's a strong reason to choose ones speaking places very carefully. Unfortunately, protesting a pad-down in the airport would be a bad idea, for her sake if not for my own.

Welcome to the Fascist States of America.

Thanks a lot, you fucking morons who voted for this!

What "Social Security crisis?"

Via the Angry Bear, who himself got it from Brad DeLong, the following chart, which neatly illustrates the fact that when Bush and the rest of the Republicans speak of a "Social Security crisis" they are lying:

So as we all knew to begin with, and despite the lies from the Right, Social Security is in perfectly fine shape. The Republican desire to "fix" it is entirely and solely motivated by their desire to do away with it entirely. Part and parcel of their desire to roll back not only the War on Poverty but the New Deal and take us back to the days of laissez-faire capitalism and the Robber Barons (the so-called "Captains of Industry" such as Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, Morgan and a number of others, who made such innovations as the company town and who from time to time employed Federal troops as strikebreakers). Which makes a certain amount of sense, I guess, since Bush is the first President since Herbert Hoover to preside over such a large increase in unemployment.

My mother is 74 and lives on the Social Security check she receives because she and her husband (now deceased) worked for over fifty years. They were never even middle class, much less wealthy, and without Social Security she would have to depend upon her family for all of her support. While I could, if necessary, afford it, I'm in the distinct minority; most families could not. Further, I myself have worked (and have paid into Social Security) for some twenty-seven years, now. Bush wants to take the several thousands of dollars I have accumulated in my Social Security account and invest it in the stock market.

For those who cannot normally afford to invest in stocks, there is one maxim one learns very quickly when so doing: Don't invest any money you can't afford to lose. In other words, don't invest the grocery or rent money, and don't invest the savings that you'll be depending upon for your retirement. Why? Because the stock market is volatile, because the value of your investment can drop to nothing in less time than it takes me to write this. Just ask all those who held NASDAQ stocks in early 2000. I was one of them and thanks to the fact that I foolishly trusted someone whom I shouldn't, I lost some $15,000 or so. And at that, I was lucky, since that was, in fact, money that I could afford to lose. It hurt, yes, but it didn't put me on the street. And at the time I still had that Social Security fund sitting there waiting for my retirement.

But if Bush and the Republicans have their way, we'll all know the hollow sensation as the value of an investment plummets. And we'll all get to see our retirement vanish into thin air, while the wealthy (that is, Bush and his friends) laugh at us for trusting them.

And now...

It's the White House Christmas Special!

The man has real talent.

Getting a medal.

Ginmar at A View From A Broad writes about An assortment of annoyances. In her rant, as she writes about a recent convoy, she says,

We convoyed up to Baghdad for a medal ceremony. Except for four people, every one got a medal. Afterward, more than a dozen guys went out to the lake and tossed theirs in the drink.

That says it all, I think.

Afterward, more than a dozen guys went out to the lake and tossed theirs in the drink.

Bronze Stars and Army Commendation Medals.

Bring them home. The war is over, and we lost.

Getting the information out.

From Simbaud, Fear of Fairness, where he quotes part of a Bill Moyers interview with Rep Louise Slaughter about the now long-defunct FCC Fairness Doctrine. When I was a child and even through college, when a political statement or opinion was broadcast on television (or, I guess on radio), the broadcaster was obligated by FCC regulation to allow a representative of an opposing viewpoint or political affiliation to rebut the statement on the air and in (if I remember correctly) the same amount of time. This was at the broadcaster's expense, so even an organization with few sources of funding could publically state, on the air, their opposition to whatever opinion or viewpoint had been advocated. Louise Slaughter described it to Moyers this way:

Pretty much that you had an obligation to present two sides of an issue. There wasn't really an obligation to go out and hunt for somebody if something outrageous was said on a station that you owned, or television station. But if someone asked to come on to present an opposing view, they were allowed to do it. And the stations were obligated to do it. And most station owners that I've talked to have said it wasn't onerous. They didn't find it all that difficult.

This lasted until 1986 (the year I graduated from college), when the FCC discarded the regulation and Reagan vetoed legislation that would have codified it into law. And the Democratic Party, which at the time controlled Congress, refused to even try to override the veto.

Now, nearly twenty years later, Limbaugh and his ilk have a near-monopoly on mass communication. As Slaughter said, "at least half the people in the United States have no voice because they're not allowed in on talk radio" due to media consolidation and the stranglehold the Right has on radio and television broadcasting.

We must bring back the Fairness Doctrine or something like it. The only way the owners of Fox News, MSNBC, CNN and the rest will allow opposing viewpoints to be presented is if they are forced to do so, because they quite clearly will not do so voluntarily. If they are forced to allow us to do so, we would have the chance to interrupt the unending stream of right-wing distortions and lies. Of course, we could try to buy the time, but that doesn't always work when the corporation with which you're dealing is so biased that it will refuse to air your statements regardless. See recent events involving Sinclair and CBS.

So, without a Fairness Doctrine, how do you get the messages out? (And it's not just one message, it's a response to every single misstatement, distortion, misrepresentation, omission and lie made by the Right.) Blogs ain't gonna do it. As good as they might be, Blog for America, Kicking Ass, even Eschaton and the Daily Kos just aren't going to get the messages to people in places like East Texas (where I spent far too much of my childhood). Or to the people of the farms of Kansas and Nebraska, or anywhere else where people are inundated with Limbaugh constantly and without respite or a dissenting voice.

Echidne asks in the Bowtie Parade why people like Molly Ivins, Al Franken or other well-known personalities on the Left don't have television shows while Tucker "Lying Hack" Carlson gets his very own on MSNBC. She says,

The answer is, of course, so very simple. The media is not liberal. It is owned by right-wingers, and the bits that are not are scared of our present government's maffia-like tactics. Those who speak against the government are punished: reputations are lost overnight, new jobs don't materialize and vilification will go on 24/7. You can get away with a little criticism if you are like Bill Moyers, well-known, respected and retiring anyway. For anyone else it's a really suicidal mission.

Meanwhile, the Left makes up a vanishingly small fraction of media voices, while the Right makes an ever louder din.

Obviously Air America isn't enough. Compared even to right-wing radio, the left has only a tiny voice, and there simply are no left-wing television stations. Hell, these days there aren't even any left-wing shows, with the sole exception of, as Echidne points out, Bill Moyers' Now, which with his retirement is going from an hour to thirty minutes.

So what can we do? Well, one thing, at least, that can be done, is for our elected representatives to start actually representing us, by standing up to those bullies, liars and hypocrites in Congress and demanding that we be heard. While the Republicans have successfully silenced most of us, they cannot (yet) silence their Democratic colleagues. Unfortunately, besides Nancy Pelosi, who in either house really makes themselves heard? Apparently Daschle was annoying enough that the bullies concentrated on defeating him, but they must be damned thin-skinned, because Daschle was about as inoffensive as they come. And what we need is offense. The Republicans have been too damned offensive for far too long, and it is long past the time they should be receiving the same in return.

So why aren't our Senators and Representatives taking every single opportunity they have to deconstruct the lies and distortions constantly put forth by the Republicans and the Bush administration? Why isn't every Democrat speech in the Senate and House peppered with direct attacks on those lies?

Certainly here in my little corner of the universe there's not a lot I can do. My audience is tiny (although appreciated), so nothing I write here will get very far. What I can do, though, is write this and reach those I can. I can write my Senators (Feinstein and Boxer) and my Representative (Harman) and not just request but as much as demand that they leave defense and go on the attack. That they start screaming loudly every minute, that every single fucking time a Republican makes a statement, a Democrat is there shouting him down, calling him the liar he is. That they start beating up the media for abrogating its responsibility to report the truth, not just "he said, she said" assertions. That they use every single tool at their disposal to oppose, impede, delay or slow Republican programs. No matter what those programs happen to be, because if it's a Republican program, you can be damned sure that there's something about it that stinks. And that goes double for the Executive Branch.

I'll be sending copies of my letters to the local papers, as well.

So that's what I can do. What you can do, if you actually want things to change for the better rather than continue to plummet down the Republican cliff they've driven us off, is to write your own letters to your own Senators and Representatives. Then you can spread the word in whatever way you can.

I, for one, will not meekly submit to the tyranny that the Republicans seem to want to impose upon us. I refuse to sit quietly and allow them to return us to the era of unregulated corporations, powerless workers and starving old people. I just hope that words and political action can defeat them, because if that is not the case, we have a long, terrible struggle ahead of us.

Outta here.

My wife and I are venturing deep into a Red State (into the reddest part of one of the reddest states, in fact) to visit my aged mother, whom we haven't seen in quite some time. Our flight leaves tomorrow, Wednesday, at the impossible hour of 6:17AM, meaning that we must arrive at the airport no later than 4:30 to brave the gauntlet of morons that is the TSA. Morons with guns. Hopefully none of them read this weblog.

We will return Thursday of next week, if we have survived time with my brother and his wife, my mother and potentially a few more family members. My mom and brother (and other brother, as well, whom we likely won't see but who lives in Jasper, Texas; yes, that Jasper) are relatively liberal, but unfortunately I can't be sure of the rest of the extended family. (One cousin is for certain dead conservative, being a member of an extreme fundamentalist church. Her fundamentalism is unable, apparently, to tolerate the fact that I believe in no god or gods and that fact destroyed what could have been a great friendship a few years ago. We were close as kids, but idiocy is stronger than family, I guess.)

The best part will be walking through a Nacogdoches grocery with my Chinese wife. One average-height long-haired, earringed West Coast liberal elite and one short funny-looking furriner. Hopefully we'll attract as many stares there as we did in China.

I'll undoubtedly have something about which to write upon our return, but in the meantime there will be a short silence. Not that it will be much different from normality, just a tiny bit longer.

Until then, adieu.