A Little Speech

It's one of the little things that I hate about our shrub (as opposed to a whole slew of big things). The screening of audiences to only include supporters. Previous presidents have allowed dissenters into their audiences (remember how often Clinton was heckled?), with the only screening being for security purposes. Shrub maintains his bubble:

The problem, in this case, wasn’t with the president’s inoffensive message, but rather with his audience.

You might think that a presidential speech on Thanksgiving would be open to all comers. But no, even when President Bush is talking about something as uncontroversial and inclusive as the essential goodness of our country, he wants his audience prescreened for obsequiousness.

Bush traveled to the historic Berkeley Plantation in southeastern Virginia yesterday for an event carefully calibrated to emphasize his compassionate side. In his remarks, he encouraged “all Americans to show their thanks by giving back.”

But, as usual, he wasn’t talking to all Americans. At least not in person. Admission to the event was tightly controlled by White House and Republican party officials.

Tyler Whitley and Mark Bowes write in the Richmond Times-Dispatch: “President Bush found something to be thankful for yesterday — a friendly, invitation-only Virginia audience. . . . “‘We love you!’ one woman yelled as Bush prepared to deliver a 16-minute Thanksgiving message to a standing-room-only crowd of about 800 people standing at Berkeley under a tent facing the James River.

Yes, it appears Bush can’t even wish Americans a happy Thanksgiving without the comfort of his ever-present Bubble.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13663.html#more-13663

I realize that this is a minor issue compared to all of shrub's crimes, but I find his arrogance infuriating.

An Apology

Sorry about the light posting lately. I owe you all a few good posts soon.

Townsend's Greatest Hits

Fran Townsend is resigning, not that it will change anything. Here's a few of her "better" quotes:

But before she goes, let’s take a moment to consider some of Townsend’s greatest hits. Because, let’s face it, she’s had a few doozies.

Last month, for example, Townsend defended the Bush administration’s “harsh interrogation techniques” during an interview on CNN. She assured Americans that the abuse of detainees stops “if someone becomes cooperative.” (In other words, “We stop torturing when we get what we want out of the suspect.”)

In July, Townsend appeared on NPR to talk about terrorist activities in Iraq. When the host asked if al Qaeda had any capabilities in Iraq before Bush launched his 2003 invasion, Townsend said, “I don’t know — I wasn’t at that briefing.”

Also in July, Townsend told a national television audience that Americans can’t bring shampoo or bottled water on airplanes, but lighters are fine.

Around the same time, Townsend couldn’t explain why the war in Iraq had become a boon for al Qaeda recruitment and fundraising.

And finally, last December, Townsend was on CNN when she delivered one of my favorite lines of all time. CNN White House correspondent Ed Henry noted that, despite Bush’s promises, Osama bin Laden remains a free man. Henry suggested that this should probably be considered a “failure” in the war on terror. Townsend responded, “I’m not sure — it’s a success that hasn’t occurred yet.”

So long, Fran. We hardly knew you.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13651.html#more-13651

Another fine example of the shrub adminstraion's incompetence. I don't expect her replacement will be any better.

Animas Pic

A Saturday river pic, from the Animas. A cataraft going into Smelter rapid.

Renewable Energy Update

The current energy bill has no funding for renewables, as I posted earlier, but thanks to commenter "kwolph" for alerting me to this petition to change that.
http://ga3.org/campaign/blog_energy_alert
I would like to urge you to sign on.

Quotes

"If they can get you to ask the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers"- Thomas Pynchon.
"Those who can make you believe aburdities can make you commit atrocities"- Voltaire
"Give Bush an inch and he thinks he's a ruler"- seen on a bumper sticker.

A Symphony Joke

I'm not very good at jokes, but here's one I enjoyed:
Beethoven's ninth symphony has been played many times. The local orchestra is playing it. The bass section has no part until the end. So the bass players sneak out the back door, to the local pub for a drink. Or two.
They do it every show, coming back for the finale.
At last nights show, the drinks flowed. So one of the bass players tied the last pages of the conductors sheet music together (so he could drink longer).
The bass players got more drunk. They show up at the last second.
Time comes where the conductor finds problems with his score sewn into a pillow.
The woman next to me says " the conductor looks nervous".
Response:
"Of course he's nervous. It's the last of the ninth, the score is tied, and the basses are loaded

Wait a Minute

For reasons that are far beyond my comprehension, the New York Times "opinionator" chose to link here on the Maria Luisa planted question "diamonds or pearls?". Um, thanks. And a big hello to all the new visitors.
But really, why me? This is a tiny, mediocre blog compared to so many others.
But we do have boobies, which might make it worth your time stopping by.

More Manipulation

I guess I wasn't wearing enough tin foil last night. I was bothered by the shallow "diamond or pearls" question. Now the student who asked it, Maria Luisa, explains:

“CNN ran out of time and used me to “close” the debate with the pearls/diamonds question. Seconds later this girl comes up to me and says, “you gave our school a bad reputation.’ Well, I had to explain to her that every question from the audience was pre-planned and censored. That’s what the media does. See, the media chose what they wanted, not what the people or audience really wanted. That’s politics; that’s reality. So, if you want to read about real issues important to America–and the whole world, I suggest you pick up a copy of the Economist or the New York Times or some other independent source. If you want me to explain to you how the media works, I am more than happy to do so. But do not judge me or my integrity based on that question.”

That's so true about how the media works. Remember this as the election cycle unfolds: the media is controlling the message.
We deserve better.

Must Be Friday

Time to show some boobies.

The Media Mess

Watching the debate last night, I was reminded how much I hate the media. Wolf (the woof) Blitzer (blather) did his best Tim Russert impersonation by asking questions designed to provoke fights based on "gotcha" non-issues (i.e. drivers licenses for illegal immigrants) in a blatant attempt to advance the republican agenda. One of the worst examples:

Later, when members of the audience got a chance to ask question, we saw this gem:

SUZANNE MALVEAUX: LaShannon Spencer, please stand up for a moment. What is your question?

LASHANNON SPENCER: We constantly hear health care questions and questions pertaining to the war. But we don’t hear questions pertaining to the Supreme Court justice or education. (Applause.) My question is, if you are elected president, what qualities must the appointee possess?

MS. MALVEAUX: I’d like to get to Senator Dodd, if you would. And in answering that question, also tell us whether or not you would require your nominees to support abortion rights.

Got that? A smart voter asked a smart question. As someone who cares a lot about the Supreme Court, I was genuinely curious to hear the candidates’ responses. But CNN’s Suzanne Malveaux decided the voter’s question wasn’t quite good enough, so she decided to “fix” it, twisting it into a more conventional question about litmus tests.

After Dodd answered the question, Blitzer added insult to injury: “All right, let’s go through the whole panel. I want everybody to weigh in. This is an important question that was raised. I’ll start with Senator Biden. Would you insist that any nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court supported abortion rights for women?”

In other words, according to Blitzer, the “important question that was raised” wasn’t the one from the undecided voter, it was the one from Suzanne Malveaux who changed the important question from the undecided voter.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13613.html#more-13613

The question from the audience was thoughtful: "what qualities..." is a real question that should be answered with substance. By turning the question into one on abortion, Blitzer moved it onto a republican talking point. Don't get me wrong, I think abortion rights are important. But a supreme court nominee should have other "qualities".

A truth: Whoever becomes the Democratic nominee will have to defeat two opponents, the Republican AND the media.

A Very Short Debate Comment

Is this what we're down to? The last debate question was to Mrs. Clinton, and the question was:
"Diamonds or pearls?"
It doesn't matter how you feel about Hillary Clinton, this is just wrong.
Added: Yes, the question came from a woman in the audience, but it was stupid and sexist.
Added update:

Maria Luisa, the UNLV student who asked Hillary Clinton whether she preferred "diamonds or pearls" at last night's debate wrote on her MySpace page this morning that CNN forced her to ask the frilly question instead of a pre-approved query about the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.

"Every single question asked during the debate by the audience had to be approved by CNN," Luisa writes. "I was asked to submit questions including "lighthearted/fun" questions. I submitted more than five questions on issues important to me. I did a policy memo on Yucca Mountain a year ago and was the finalist for the Truman Scholarship. For sure, I thought I would get to ask the Yucca question that was APPROVED by CNN days in advance."

Your media at work...

a homebrewer's concerns regarding a possible complete collapse of our civilisation

Okay so lets just imagine that it all goes to shit. Everything. No utility grid. No groceries. Supposing we survive- how will we have beer?
Pygalgia says he can carve up a dead critter pretty good. Super! Dead critters will probably be ubiquitous after a stupendous crisis-say,a calamitous sudden plunge back to the bronze age or something -the skills to make 'em dinner will be in demand.
How will we have beer when all the taverns and homebrew supply stores are long gone? Hmmm. Frankly, i find such a scenario terrifying, but maybe i shouldn't... as folks all over the world have always managed to contrive fermented beverages for 10,000 years or so.

I need a grain. Preferably barley. The barley must be sprouted i.e. malted by soaking and rinsing the husks in cool rainwater (assuming it rains) saving half of it for gruel, and half pressed into biscuits and baked at a long low temp (perfect for campfire coals) . Both the sprouted gruel and the half baked biscuits are spooned into a wood or stone lined trough and mixed, as hot rocks are dropped strategically into the mixture.Refer to picture above- this is neolithic style mashing!
Sprouting barley activates the enzyme diatase, which converts the inherent starch compounds to maltose- a basic sugar necessary for fermentation. The reason why half is grueled and half is baked is, the biscuit maneuver facilitates still more enzymatic activity necessary for fermentation, while the barley gruel provides lactic acid which inhibits nasties while somehow attracting Saccharomyces Cerevisiae- the yeast we want.
Now comes the tricky part... How do we get yeast? The homebrew shop, with its neat little vials of beer yeast around the world, is perhaps a smoldering ruin. Seems shaky to me, but the tried and true i.e. 10,000 year old method is simply to toss wild fruit skins into the wort. Grapes, preferably. Maybe i can find some in some canyon. More likely apples.
I have nearly exhausted myself, attempting to research where to find Saccharomyces Cerevisiae in the wild, at this latitude/elevation/eligible flora. 7000 ft desert is not a "fruity" place.
But some folks in Peru, even before the Mayans, had large-scale breweries at 10,000 ft. Apparently, they collected yeast from pepper trees.
We will figure it out, won't we? We always have.

November Weather

It's the middle of November, and we still have t-shirt and sandal weather. That is just weird for our area. I mean, I'm living at 7000ft. up in the mountains. We've been in a drought for years, so I'm not holding out for snow, but it usually is much colder.
But there's no global warming.

Spelunking on Renewable Energy

Once again, the dems are caving, this time on renewable energy:

Last Thursday, Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid said that they would jettison the renewable energy provisions in both the House and Senate versions of the 2007 energy bill in the interest of passing a bill before the Thanksgiving recess begins on November 17.

Republicans have been holding up action on the bill for months now, refusing to participate in conference committee meetings to reconcile the House and Senate versions. The big sticking points for Republicans have been support for renewable energy and ending billions of dollars in subsidies for oil companies. Democrats would like to use the oil subsidy money to support solar and wind power.

Representatives of the renewable energy industry were dismayed by the Democrats' abandonment. "This is basically Congress delivering an early Christmas present to the American public -- and it's a lump of coal," said Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA). "We are feeling disgusted because this energy bill goes right back to maintaining the status quo."

The renewable energy provisions in the bill come in two forms: a Renewable Electricity Standard that requires utilities to supply 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources like solar and wind, and tax provisions, including a production tax credit for wind power and a tax credit to encourage investment in solar power equipment.

While the Renewable Electricity Standard would be a new federal program (31 states already have some kind of renewable mandate), the tax incentives for solar and wind would continue programs already in place. Losing these tax breaks would be devastating to the renewable energy industry, said solar lobbyist Scott Sklar of the Stella Group: "It will cause sales and investment to implode."

http://www.alternet.org/environment/67793/

I'm beyond appaled...the amount of money being proposed for renewables is a mere pittance when compared to the oil subsidies, and only a small fraction of what should be invested. The American public supports alternative energy. The future of the planet demands it. So why the hell can't the dems stand up for something as simple as including renewables in an energy bill. Another spineless cave-in.

We deserve better.

And After the Crash?

Strange and interesting talk at the brewery tonight. What do we do in the event of a crash? A disaster? How will our community react?
The folks in the discussion aren't tinfoil extremist types; we're pretty much "workin' for a livin'" who happen to talk politics. But I'm hearing more and more "disaster" scenarios.
Is it a market crash, a plague, or a natural disaster? Doesn't matter. We've learned that Grover Norquist won. The government can no longer swim.
This part of the country is not agriculturally sustainable. We talked about the native population density compared to the current population density. Not a good mix, or why our food isn't local is because local is high mountain desert.
But we are communitarian. We talked about skills (my having spent my younger years on a farm, and knowing how to carve up an animal was highly valued) and who has what tools, and I realized that we'll be OK.

Why Win in '08?

I'm starting to wonder why anyone would want to win the presidency in '08 (I know, rhetorical question). Who would like to inherit the wreckage of the shrub debacle?
The economy is in shambles, the deficit is huge, and the American infrastructure is falling apart after years of neglect. The latest example being the cleanup of the S.F. Bay oil spill, where the response was slower and weaker than a cleanup roughly 20 years ago. What does this portend for a federal response in the event of a major earthquake?
Global warming continues to get worse, but the efforts to address it are pitiful. Energy demand and prices will continue to increase, but the development of alternatives are so weak as to be useless. The technology is there but the development isn't.
The next president will inherit the Iraq quagmire, where "things are getting better" means that the violence is down to the level of 2005, like that was a rosy time. And shrub still has over a year to fuck up the rest of the region (which one will be the next disaster? Place your bets now).
I wish that I thought that one of the candidates looked to be the potential "great president" who could repair the damage and inspire a bright new future. I don't see one.

On Diplomacy with Iran

In an interview done by Maziar Bahari of Newsweek with Sadegh Kharazi, Iran's former ambassador to France and the person reported to have penned the famous 2003 Iran offer to resolve outstanding issues with the United States, Kharazi makes a powerful argument for a positive diplomatic exchange.

Sadegh Kharazi: Because of the disastrous results of American unilateralism in Iraq, they are looking for an international support of their initiatives vis-à-vis Iran. Everyone knows that an American military attack will not only damage Iran but also other countries in the region as well as American interests in the Middle East.

...

We may have the same illusion. In either case it's wrong. Both sides should put aside the smear campaign against each other and populist slogans and adopt more pragmatic policies.

...

In diplomacy everything's possible and nothing is impossible. I think both countries should lay all the issues on the table and discuss their problems. There is no problem that cannot be solved. If both countries recognize each other's rights, then they can collaborate on many issues, including Iraq, Afghanistan and smuggling of narcotics. They can have differences of opinion, but there is no reason for the current hostility. America has its own differences with China, Russia and even Europe, but that doesn't mean that they cannot talk.

...

Even though Iran is ready to defend its interests by any means necessary, the first priority of Iran's supreme leader and the government of Iran is stability of the region. They don't want war and tension. That is why Iran cooperated with the United States to topple the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam in Iraq. Under the leadership of Ayatollah Khamenei Iran has normalized its relations with many countries who were our enemies in the past.

...

What our current government is doing is a reaction to years of Americans ignoring Iran's positive gestures. During the presidency of Mr. [Mohammad] Khatami, whenever we wanted to have a rapprochement with the United States they demanded more. We cooperated with them in Afghanistan and we were called a member of the Axis of Evil. On the eve of the invasion of Iraq we sent them a letter with a package of proposals, but they chose to ignore it. Extremism breeds extremism.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/69268

The sad fact that our administration will never engage in such a discussion leaves us so much weaker.

New Hydrogen Technology

I've posted a few things in the past on alternative energy technologies, mostly on the advantages of butanol and cellulosic ethanol over the current ethanol from foodstocks system. But this really got my interest:

Hydrogen as an everyday, environmentally friendly fuel source may be closer than we think, according to Penn State researchers.

"The energy focus is currently on ethanol as a fuel, but economical ethanol from cellulose is 10 years down the road," says Bruce E. Logan, the Kappe professor of environmental engineering. "First you need to break cellulose down to sugars and then bacteria can convert them to ethanol."

Logan and Shaoan Cheng, research associate, suggest a method based on microbial fuel cells to convert cellulose and other biodegradable organic materials directly into hydrogen in today's (Nov. 12) issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences online.

The researchers used naturally occurring bacteria in a microbial electrolysis cell with acetic acid – the acid found in vinegar. Acetic acid is also the predominant acid produced by fermentation of glucose or cellulose. The anode was granulated graphite, the cathode was carbon with a platinum catalyst, and they used an off-the-shelf anion exchange membrane. The bacteria consume the acetic acid and release electrons and protons creating up to 0.3 volts. When more than 0.2 volts are added from an outside source, hydrogen gas bubbles up from the liquid.

"This process produces 288 percent more energy in hydrogen than the electrical energy that is added to the process," says Logan.

http://live.psu.edu/story/27233

Using organic processes to generate hydrogen has huge potential, and if the 288% return is accurate then this could be a system to watch. It's certainly research worth investing in.

Veterans Day

Hanging at the brewery, I was repeatedly reminded how many veterans I know. Not a surprise by itself, but an interesting snapshot on America.

In honor of Veterans’ Day, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and former Sen. Max
Cleland (D-Ga.) wrote a joint-post for Wired’s Danger Room on the thousands of U.S. troops who return home only to find that their jobs (and benefits) are gone. In 1994, Democrats in Congress and the Clinton White House successfully passed a law to protect veterans’ seniority, salary, and benefits when they return home, but today, the Bush administration is lax about forcing private businesses to follow the law.

Today, however, the federal government is failing in this responsibility. It’s not even adequately informing returning service members about their rights, and it’s not protecting them when their rights are violated. A study by the Government Accountability Office this year found that when the Department of Labor decided to refer federal cases for litigation, it took an average of 247 days.

The Government Accountability Office also found serious problems in collecting and reporting data on claims under the law. Four different agencies collect this data. But they collect it in inconsistent formats, making it impossible to understand the problems that veterans face — particularly disabled veterans.

Until the hearing, the public had little knowledge of the problem, because the Pentagon had been classifying the most accurate statistics. Now that we know the extent of the problem, Congress must act to protect the reemployment rights of our forces.

Damn straight. I know a few too many Republicans believe “supporting the troops” means “supporting their mission,” but protecting veterans when they return home seems to be the trickier part for the Bush administration.

I'll start by saying that I'm not a veteran. I'm in the "lucky years". When I came of military age, Vietnam was over and the military was downsizing. I had an athletic scholarship to pay for my next 2 years of college, so I had no reason to go into the military. I didn't need them, and they didn't need me.
But a lot of my friends did.
My Father served during the Korean war, but in a "non-combat" role (I know that it involved intelligence and computers, but Dad took some secrets to his grave).
But then there is my friend "ducky". He was a helicopter pilot in 'nam. Shot down 5 times, 3 purple hearts, bronze star, and also got PTSD as a throw in. Ducky is a genius, a madman, and a totally loyal friend. So when we discuss current issues, I can say almost anything. The issue of VA and treating PTSD came up. He explained how hard that he had to fight to get help. I worked the psych emergency ward during the same years. While PTSD was not my area of expertise, I got psychiatric emergencies that should have been VA treated. That was then.
This is now:

Study: 1 Out of 4 Homeless Are Veterans And we really appreciate their service.

I don't have a answer, but couple this with the number of TBI cases, and this is a new health care crisis.

Nice Job

Our economy is truly in the hands of greedheads with no basis in reality:

Together, former Merrill chief executive E. Stanley O'Neal and former Citigroup chief executive Charles O. Prince have lost more than $20 billion in company money. Yet they left with $360 million in their own pockets.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/09/AR2007110901563.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

As one of the little people who tries to get by on around 20k a year, I have a hard time wrapping my head around these numbers and the belief behind them. What skills do you need to lose billions of dollars? And why are those skills worth millions?

Nuthin' To Say

My raft, ready to launch.

There Are No UFO's

I now have conclusive proof that UFO's do not exist. My proof: The utterly corrupt and dishonest former Governor Fife Symington claims he saw one:

(CNN) -- In 1997, during my second term as governor of Arizona, I saw something that defied logic and challenged my reality.

I witnessed a massive delta-shaped, craft silently navigate over Squaw Peak, a mountain range in Phoenix, Arizona. It was truly breathtaking. I was absolutely stunned because I was turning to the west looking for the distant Phoenix Lights.

To my astonishment this apparition appeared; this dramatically large, very distinctive leading edge with some enormous lights was traveling through the Arizona sky.

As a pilot and a former Air Force Officer, I can definitively say that this
craft did not resemble any man-made object I'd ever seen.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/11/09/simington.ufocommentary/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

Given that anything Symington says is patently untrue, there must not be any UFO's (I'm sorry, Mr. Kucinich, but Mr. Symington's dishonesty outweighs your honesty by several magnitudes).

This Weeks Boobie

For Friday, a masked boobie with an egg (also known as a "potential future boobie").

A Level of Idealism

Over a beer with Zymurgian, the discussion turned to "waterboarding" and why it's wrong. I'll try not to be a naive idealist, but here goes. America used to stand for the "ideal" in human rights. By saying that our interrogation techniques are "classified", America has tacitly admitted to engaging in torture. And that tacit admission has destroyed our credibility on the international stage. While Zymurgian rightly pointed out that all wars include atrocities, in my life it was never considered that American policy would accept torture. Shrub changed all that. When our "policy" is now "classified" as far as interrogation, we have lost the moral standing to condemn the brutal practices of others.
A very stupid person at the bar said "they do worse in ...", and I tried to explain that this argument was shot down when I was a child. Simply put, "johnny did something worse" was shot down by my mother's "that doesn't change the fact that what you did was wrong".
My good friend "ducky" (yes, that is his nickname) is a Vietnam vet, who saw more shit than I can even imagine, pointed out that while atrocities occurred in Vietnam, they were considered crimes. He pointed to several cases where people who engaged in brutal acts were prosecuted.
Now we have Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib as a legacy. This is now "policy". The fact that an AG nominee won't state that "waterboarding" is illegal is a symbolic admission that we have abandoned the American ideal.
This is the tragedy of shrub. We are no longer the symbol of "idealism".
Added: The Senate confirmed Mukasy. Torture is now official policy.

A Photo

Guess where this is. Here's a truly beautiful photo album . Take a look at some places the Cheney would like to bomb.

Dear Landlord

Along with every other thing that could cause anxiety, today I'm having "landlord induced anxiety". Here's why I'm worried: The roof over my head.
I've been living in this house for about six years. The roof leaks in several places. We don't complain too much, because the rent is low for the local market. As long as I've lived here, the landlord has talked about putting a new roof on the house, which would be a good idea. But I don't have much faith.
Today, I heard tromping on the roof. It was a young man taking measurements and planning the replacement of the roof. I talked, and he explained that he's our landlords daughters boyfriend. That somehow was a qualification.
Our landlord is a really nice guy, but he's cheap and unreliable. Over a year ago, he decided to re-paint the house. Today, half the house has primer, but no new paint. The other half still has the old paint.
So I'm worried about the "new" roof. It is November. While we've had unusually dry, warm weather, we will get snow sometime soon. I fear that the roof project will begin, and then be forgotten.
I'd really rather have a roof over my head for the winter, even if it leaks.

The Upcoming Disaster

$100 a barrel for oil? Go read our pal monkeyfister for a ton of insight and information (and yes, Sweaterman, I'm glad I didn't take the bet). The falling dollar? No, I'm talking about a REAL disaster: The hops shortage:

A worldwide shortage of hops — a key beer-making ingredient — could have a big effect on the taste of specialty brews and force smaller microbreweries to hike the price of their products.The shortage can be blamed on a perfect storm of events — bad weather in hop-growing areas of the United States, Europe and Australia and a depressed U.S. dollar.

Brian Titus, president of Halifax's Garrison Brewing Company, said his brewmaster isn't sure he'll be able to make some of his beers in the new year because he hasn't been able to find some varieties of hops at all.

"It's bordering on disastrous actually. If you don't have hops then you don't have beer," said Titus.

The shortage has some breweries rethinking their brews and possibly changing beer recipes to cut down on the use of hops.

"So maybe you find something that smells similar but doesn't have the same taste profile and it doesn't have the same bitterness," said Titus.

Industry analysts speculate the shortage could force smaller breweries to hike the price of some beers by as much as 10 per cent.

Larger breweries are less likely to have to raise prices because they buy in bulk with long-term contracts.

Craft brewers don't have the means to hedge against rising prices, like their industrial rivals.

http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2007/11/01/hops-shortage.html?ref=rss

This is really hitting home. My local brewery had to make a hops substitution for their latest batch of IPA, and Zymurgian has altered recipes for his 2 latest batches of homebrew. As someone who likes "hoppy" beers, I'm really worried.

Added: Here are some links to the oil/dollar issue:

DOLLAR NEW LOW...

OIL NEW HIGH...

GOLD $850

One State, Two State, Red State, Blue State

In regards to Py's earlier post on the "beginning" of the election campaign, it's nice to see how things have changed.

Remember this picture?


Well, it seems that some things are, ahem, a little different now:

And while I agree with Py that the 2008 election is far from decided right now, that blue picture shore duz warm my heart.

Another Bad Idea

There are so many bad ideas in our current society that I can be called "petty" for being upset about this, but I'm against this idea:

ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) -- For the first time Tuesday, baseball general managers recommended instant replay be used to help umpires make difficult decisions.

The recommendation, by a 25-5 vote, was limited to boundary calls -- whether potential home runs are fair or foul, whether balls go over fences or hit the top and bounce back, and whether fans interfere with possible homers.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AuhD4G5t2tyKykgQoeipLGgRvLYF?slug=ap-instantreplay&prov=ap&type=lgns

I've been a baseball fan since I was a small child, and played for decades, so maybe I'm a traditionalist. But a part of the beauty of the game is the human factor of the umpires. In the course of the long season, bad calls even out. And they give us fans something to argue about. Instant replay will only slow the game down, while removing some of the inherent emotion.
Then again, I still oppose the designated hitter rule.

52 Weeks

Today we are 52 weeks away from the election, so it's now truly campaign season (yeah, I know the campaigns started a long time ago, but I consider that "pre-season"). Now we'll get to see who's got the best arm when slinging the mud. We'll watch the media spin the images to fit the pre-planned narrative. By the time the actual votes are cast, the average voter will be disgusted with the entire process. They'll be voting for whoever they hate the least.
Brilliant prognostication, right? Not really. Just the observations of a political junkie who's been involved in every election since 1968.
The consensus amongst the pundits seems to be that the Dems are a shoe in, in the wake of the disaster that is shrub. I don't buy it. There is plenty of time for slime.
Likewise, the punditocracy has chosen Hillary as the winning Dem. I remain unconvinced. While she has great name recognition, she's not that popular with the general public. The question is whether Obama/Edwards/Other can take advantage of the opening.
On the rethuglican side...agh, I'm not going there (I would rather retain my lunch). Suffice to say that the eventual nominee will be a white guy who the media will portray as strong and manly. The talking heads will swoon over him while blathering for hours on any petty flaw they can find on the Democratic nominee.
Thanks to the flurry of early primaries, the nominees will probably be chosen by February, leaving plenty of time for a long mud slinging season. But there is a real possibility that all the early primaries will split between candidates, creating an intense political playoff lasting into March. We'll see.
The bottom line is that we will not get the person who would be the best President, but rather the person with the best mud slinging and dodging talent. It's a strange, sad system.

Pakistan

I have been trying to write a "smart" post on Pakistan, but it keeps falling apart. Basically, "what a fucking mess" is not a profound insight. The best insight I've come to is the old axiom "there are no national allies, only national interests".

General Musharraf is engaging in a power consolidation. He's suspended the courts, arrested the opposition, and is now dealing with rioting lawyers. It has nothing to do with terrorism, as Musharraf has basically taken the appeasement route with the islamist factions, ceding a fair amount of autonomy to the tribal regions in the northeast.

Shrub and Condi are calling for a return to "democracy" and elections. But you can tell that they really don't want it. Musharraf has been our guy, and they don't want to risk the possibility that Pakistan would end up with a leader less friendly to America.

And there are the nukes.

For real analysis, I suggest Barnett Rubin at Informed Comment: Global Affairs

Added: Shrub adds his own brand of ... well...whatever he adds:

on Secretary Rice's recent phone call with President Musharraf. I asked the Secretary to call him to convey this message: that we expect there to be elections as soon as possible, and that the President should remove his military uniform.

So he told Condi to tell Musharraf to "get naked"? That's just weird.

(sorry. the writers guild is on strike.)

Inflating Value

Yesterday I jokingly posted the results of "what is your blog worth?". I found some amusement that somehow this blog could have a dollar value, since it produces nothing tangible or marketable.
But it got me thinking about the inflating value that markets place on assets that have no intrinsic worth. As Citibank is reporting a loss of $11 billion dollars in what are basically unregulated markets that are based purely on speculation, I'm wondering where the next shoe will drop. I look at the stock market which currently operates like a giant casino, as opposed to an actual investment in solid business practices. Google is now the fifth most "valuable" corporation, based on stock prices. This makes no sense. I mean, Google is a wonderful thing, but what do they actually produce? Advertisements to sell products that others produce.
I'm no economist, but I wonder how much of our financial system is really one big ponzi scheme? The real estate bubble assumed that there would always be someone who would pay more for the house in the future. The stock market assumes that someone will be willing to pay more for the stock tomorrow. And the federal budget assumes that other countries will continue to buy our debt.
How many of these "assets" have any more intrinsic value than this blog?

Story Time

Over at Jones Town our dear friend Dcup of PoliTits has written a masterful piece of short fiction. I strongly suggest that you go read. I'm not going to spoil it for you, but suffice to say that it's quite timely and it fits with some of the feelings of paranoia that occur as a result of our current political climate.

Pygalgia Sells Out

I decided to plug Pygalgia into "how much is your blog worth?" and got this as a result:

Your blog, http://www.pygalgia.blogspot.com/, is worth
$19,758.90

My blog is worth $19,758.90.
How much is your blog worth?

So Pygalgia is now up for sale. Heck, I'll settle for the straight $19K, never mind the change.

Salt River Pic

Some friends came by last night, and we had a great visit. "D" makes wonderful mead. Just plain delicious. However, I am now reminded that mead can cause hangovers (not bad, but slightly foggy). The pic is from a trip that said friends and I were on this past spring.

Changing Times

Tonight, most of you get to set your clocks back. Not me. I get to change time zones. I get to move from Pacific time to Central time without even getting out of bed. That's one advantage to living here. When I lived in other states, I hated the disruption of time changes. I have a very stable bio-rhythm which takes about 2 weeks to adjust to changes.

So, does the time change mess with you, or is it no big deal?

He Vetoed What?

OK, this is mind numbingly stupid. Shrub vetoed the water resources development act, even though it passed congress with enough support to override the veto?

President Bush has yet to be truly challenged on any of his vetoes of Democratic bills this year.

But with his Friday veto of the water resources development act, known by the acronym WRDA, Bush may have finally found something that unifies Congress against the veto pen.

The WRDA bill passed both chambers of Congress with much more than the two-thirds margin required to override a veto, but the White House has decided to create a confrontation over spending in the bill because $9 billion was added to the measure, which funds water infrastructure projects around the nation. The legislation's total cost is about $23 billion, and it has won such widespread support in Congress because it would help with hurricane protection, flood mitigation and wetlands restoration.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/1107/Bush_veto_of_water_bill_may_be_nixed.html

In light of the water crisis in Georgia, and pending water shortages around the country, the WRDA bill is actually way too little, too late. But this might be the stupidest veto I've seen in my lifetime. Shrub is a lame duck, so he has nothing to lose. But the country does. Earlier this week, he was bitching about congress not getting appropriations bills to his desk. Now he vetoes another one.

We deserve better.

Masked Boobie

It's Friday. Here's a masked Boobie, hoping to make you smile.

An Interesting Plan

Well, this doesn't fit with shrub's anti-Iranian rhetoric. Our friend Saudi Arabia is offering nuclear cooperation with Iran:

U.S.-allied Gulf states are willing to set up a body to provide enriched uranium to Iran to defuse Tehran's stand-off with the West over its nuclear plan, Saudi Arabia's foreign minister told a newspaper on Thursday.

Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries -- Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates -- share Western concerns that Iran's nuclear energy program will lead to it acquiring atomic bombs, a claim Tehran denies.

"We have proposed a solution, which is to create a consortium for all users of enriched uranium in the Middle East," foreign minister Prince Saud al-Faisal told the Middle East Economic Digest (MEED).

"(We will) do it in a collective manner through a consortium that will distribute according to needs, give each plant its own necessary amount, and ensure no use of this enriched uranium for atomic weapons," he said, according to MEED's Web site.

Prince Saud said Iran was considering the offer, which envisages building a plant in a neutral country.

"We believe it should be in a neutral country -- Switzerland, for instance," said Prince Saud. "Any plant in the Middle East that needs enriched uranium would get its quota. I don't think other Arab states would refuse. In fact ... other Arab countries have expressed a desire to be part of the proposal."

"They (Iran) have responded that it is an interesting idea and they will come back to us. We hope the Iranians will accept this proposal. We continue to talk to them and urge them not only to look at the issue from the perspective of the needs of Iran for energy, but also in the interests of the security of the region."

The six Gulf Arab states have announced plans to start their own nuclear energy program, raising concern over an arms race in the world's top oil exporting region.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071101/ts_nm/iran_nuclear_saudi_dc_2&printer=1;_ylt=AkZyB4yZ9zLZiBEdZZVPpxtg.3QA

It's actually a very rational idea, and coupled with Russia's nuclear offer to Iran, could allow Iran to have nuclear energy with a much lower risk of nuclear weapons.

Of course, this would remove one of shrub's justifications for a war with Iran. By offering to work with Iran, Prince Saud has changed the whole Middle East dynamic.

Cheney is probably drop kicking kittens as he reads this.

Shanker Tackles Uranium

One of the major environmental issues in this region is the contamination left from uranium mining. When the mines shut down in the late 80's, there was no clean up of the radioactive tailing's, and the result has been an estimated 3500 deaths from lung disease. Now, Howard Shanker (http://www.howardshankerforcongress.com/) is trying to get congress to act:

Many of you have read about the testimony in recent Congressional hearings presented to Rep. Henry Waxman, Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, regarding the legacy of uranium contamination on Navajo land. For decades, the Navajo Nation and many grass roots organizations have been trying to address this human tragedy in real terms -- with only marginal success.

Hopefully, one of the defining moments of this struggle took place last week. As one of the attorneys representing the Navajo Nation on the uranium contamination issue, I had the privilege of working with the Navajo delegation to help prepare them for this hearing. I was also honored to attend the hearing in Washington, D.C. and to monitor the testimony and questions first hand. In spite of ongoing discussions with the Bureau of Indian Affairs ("BIA"), the Department of Energy ("DOE"), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"), and limited clean up of specific areas, this was the first sense I had that something meaningful may actually be accomplished-that this tragic legacy of contamination may eventually be addressed on a large scale.

An L.A. Times article from November 2006 first alerted Chairman Waxman to the plight of the Navajo - not the fact that the federal government had utterly failed to
address this mess for decades. As outlined in the L.A. Times article, "from 1944 to 1986, 3.9 million tons of uranium ore were chiseled and blasted from the mountains and plains. The mines provided uranium for the Manhattan project, the top-secret effort to develop an atomic bomb . . . private companies operated the mines, but the U.S. government was the sole customer. . . . As the Cold War threat gradually diminished over the next two decades, more than 1,000 mines and four processing mills on tribal land shut down." The radioactive waste and debris from these operations, however, largely remains. People live in and around uranium-contaminated areas. Livestock grazes and children play amongst radioactive waste and debris. There is a palpable threat of radioactive contamination to the ground water in many areas.

At the hearing, Edith Hood, while choking back tears, talked about the mining waste near her home in the Church Rock area, and the sickness and illnesses that plagued her and her family. These sentiments were echoed by Larry King and Ray Manygoats. Phil Harrison, although a Navajo Nation Council Delegate, testified as to his personal experience with uranium contamination. George Arthur, also a Council
Delegate, testified in his capacity as the Chairman of the Navajo Natural Resources Committee. Mr. Arthur made it clear to the Committee that enough study has been done. It was now time for the federal government to take action to address this ongoing human tragedy. Stephen Etsity, the head of the Navajo EPA, managed to bring Navajo soil (from the Tuba City area) into the hearing chambers, where he used a device to demonstrate the existence of gamma radiation.

It was, however, the Committee's questioning of government officials following the Navajo testimony that truly shed light on the process. Chairman Waxman led the charge, berating officials from EPA, DOE, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC"), Indian Health Services ("IHS"), and BIA. Waxman asked what these agencies needed to make this situation right. He also commanded that the parties come back before the Committee on December 12 to discuss what, if any, progress has been made. I must add, however, that I was also impressed with the passion and questioning of Congressman Udall from New Mexico -- as he pressed the head of the BIA as to his understanding of the government's trust responsibility to the tribes. Congresswoman McCollum from Minnesota was also among the representatives who presented a strong showing of support for the Navajo Nation.

Although skepticism in matters such as these is usually the rule, I left the hearing with a feeling of hope. I am hopeful that Congress will follow through on the journey it has apparently committed to beginning. As a candidate for Arizona's Congressional District 1, not just an attorney helping to represent the Navajo Nation, one of my priorities has been and will continue to be to address this ongoing human tragedy on the Navajo Nation.

Regular readers know that I'm supporting Mr. Shanker here in AZ-01, both because of his stance on a wide variety of issues and his overall integrity, and I'm glad he's standing up for the Navajo Nation on the uranium issue. In light of the current push for increased nuclear power, it's important to address the problems from past uranium mining to ensure that we don't repeat past mistakes.
I am once again reminded why I think Howard would be a damn good representative in congress.

The AG Quandary

I've been thinking about the Mukasy for attorney general nomination and the "waterboarding" issue. Many smarter blogs have pointed out that if Mukasy admitted that waterboarding is torture, he would then be obligated to prosecute members of the CIA and others for their acts.
And this got me thinking of the essential quandary facing congress regarding the next attorney general. If the AG is to uphold the constitution, they must prosecute members of the administration. Shrub is not going to nominate anyone who will prosecute his people. Therefore, any shrub nominee is going to be constitutionally unacceptable.
I believe that congress should reject Mukasy, and most probably any other shrub nominee, but that leads to another problem. How long can the justice department, and the country, operate without an attorney general? Given that the administration won't prosecute itself, congress is the last line of defense.
The constitutional answer would be impeachment. But congress lacks the strength to impeach.
It's a huge dilemma, with no good answer in sight.

Morality and Sexuality

Zymurgian and I were talking, and he brought up a woman that I was having an affair with a few years ago. He cooked one fine dinner, so I was ready to tell the story: It was all about the sex. She is a very nice lady, but not the kind of woman I would want to spend my life with. Her husband is in a very high paying field, and they live the "good life". She liked the lifestyle. The only problem in their relationship is that he doesn't like sex. He told her it's "unsanitary". She is a normal woman (well, more enthusiastic than average).
So we had an affair. A very sexual affair. She spent a river trip with me (on which we had a hell of a lot of fun), and several other trysts.
Zymurgian asked if her husband knew. I've spent time with her husband, and I think he knew but really didn't care.
Was our sexual relationship moral or immoral? I know that I thought it was moral, but some have told me I'm wrong.

Halloween

I'm not doing anything special for Halloween, but I was amused by a local NPR news story that Halloween generally marks the end of the Tarantula mating season here in Arizona. That's right, Tarantulas have a mating season. Late summer to early fall:

Male tarantulas mature when they are 10 to 12 years of age, at which time they leave their burrows in search of females. Upon finding the burrow of a mature female—she’s usually at least 10 years old—the male will announce himself by stroking the silk at the top of the burrow and tapping particular sequences that the female responds to. During mating, the male must reach under the female to insert his pedipalp into her gonopore to deposit sperm. He is particularly vulnerable to predation by the female when mating. The male’s first pair of legs has a “spur”located behind the knee which he uses to hold the female above him during copulation. After copulation the male makes a hasty retreat. The female lays her eggs in a burrow, sometimes staying with them. The young remain in the burrow until they disperse.

http://www.desertmuseum.org/books/nhsd_tarantula.php

They're a pretty common sight around here, but they might give some city folk a good Halloween scare.

I would have worn a costume if I could have found a "flying zombie vampire pig" disguise, but, alas, none were available.

Added: But this picture is pretty scary:

(found somewhere on the web)

Some Thoughts on the Debate

I watched last nights debate (yeah, masochistic behavior of a political junkie), and here are a few of my thoughts:
The "lightning round" format sucks. Giving each candidate 30 seconds to answer policy questions? Impossible to do. There is no serious policy question that can be answered in 30 seconds. All you can do is spew out a "talking point" or a "sound bite". It's a fine format for a game show, but not a real, important debate. Unfortunately, our media treats the campaign for president as one big game show. Entertainment trumps substance.
Brian Williams was bad, but Tim Russert was absolutely horrible in asking "gotcha" questions. The whole debate was a series of Republican based attack points, designed to provoke fights, mud slinging, or other embarrassments. Russert oozed a slimy contempt toward everybody.
Everybody is running against Hillary Clinton, whom the media have already crowned. It was the "6 guys vs. Clinton" food fight that Russert/Williams were trying to provoke, and they were mostly successful.
Clinton handled it fairly well, appearing confident and unflappable while basically saying nothing (or contradicting herself). She's good at selling an image, but carefully avoided any substance. I hate this type of politics, but it will be tough to beat. She's slick, and no one landed a major blow against her. If the debate were a game show, she won.
Barack Obama came off poorly, looking rather tired and uninspired. His message, which seemed to be "can't we all just get along" while throwing in some subtle digs at Clinton, got mixed results. He was much better at handling questions on policy, and it was clear that he would prefer to discuss substantive ideas over playing "gotcha", but he got sucked into the game. Overall, he was fairly flat.
John Edwards looked good, and he was able to make some arguments with substance while attacking Hillary. In a "real" debate, he did very well. In this "food fight", Hillary was able to duck everything he threw.
Chris Dodd continues to be a fiery constitutionalist. In a true intellectual debate, he would have been tough to beat. In the "game show" debate, he never had a chance.
Bill Richardson continues to be Bill Richardson: calm, intelligent, extremely experienced, and (unfortunately) completely uninspiring. In a serious campaign to choose the person most qualified to be president, he would be a serious contender. In the media circus, he doesn't stand a chance.
Dennis Kucinich...what can you say? The guy makes a lot of sense, but ends up looking goofy at the same time. Let's face it, the media finds him an easy target to make fun of because he's an easy target. Kucinich has some really good policy positions which are completely ignored, as Russert would much rather ask him about UFO's. It's a sad reality.
Joe Biden is verbose. Experienced and knowledgeable, therefore almost invisible, the format of the debate made him irrelevant.
Is Clinton inevitable? No. But she does have a large advantage thanks to the media. For either Edwards or Obama to defeat her, they will need a "blockbuster" performance.
That is the current sad state of politics in America. The person who ends up holding the most powerful office on the planet will be chosen by a process similar to "American Idol".

Safety

Our shrub likes to claim he's makin' us safer. That's why he needs all kinds of secret authority to ignore the constitution.
The latest example of shrub keepin' us safer comes from the Consumer Product SAFETY Commission:

But as it turns out, Bush’s appointed chief of the CPSC wants less money, a smaller staff, and weaker rules for product safety.

The nation’s top official for consumer product safety has asked Congress in recent days to reject legislation intended to strengthen the agency, which polices thousands of consumer goods, from toys to tools.

On the eve of an important Senate committee meeting to consider the legislation, Nancy A. Nord, the acting chairwoman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, has asked lawmakers in two letters not to approve the bulk of legislation that would increase the agency’s authority, double its budget and sharply increase its dwindling staff.

Ms. Nord opposes provisions that would increase the maximum penalties for safety violations and make it easier for the government to make public reports of faulty products, protect industry whistle-blowers and prosecute executives of companies that willfully violate laws.

That's right; less inspection and enforcement of product safety is GOOD for you!
We deserve better.

Dam Problems

As if Iraq wasn't enough of a disaster, Mosul could be wiped out if this dam goes:

AT THE MOSUL DAM, Iraq -- The largest dam in Iraq is in serious danger of an imminent collapse that could unleash a trillion-gallon wave of water, possibly killing thousands of people and flooding two of the largest cities in the country, according to new assessments by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and other U.S. officials.

Even in a country gripped by daily bloodshed, the possibility of a catastrophic failure of the Mosul Dam has alarmed American officials, who have concluded that it could lead to as many as 500,000 civilian deaths by drowning Mosul under 65 feet of water and parts of Baghdad under 15 feet, said Abdulkhalik Thanoon Ayoub, the dam manager. "The Mosul dam is judged to have an unacceptable annual failure probability," in the dry wording of an Army Corps of Engineers draft report.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/29/AR2007102902193.html

Of course, we're trying to fix it...right?

At the same time, a U.S. reconstruction project to help shore up the dam in northern Iraq has been marred by incompetence and mismanagement, according to Iraqi officials and a report by a U.S. oversight agency to be released Tuesday. The reconstruction project, worth at least $27 million, was not intended to be a permanent solution to the dam's deficiencies.

"In terms of internal erosion potential of the foundation, Mosul Dam is the most dangerous dam in the world," the Army Corps concluded in September 2006, according to the report to be released Tuesday. "If a small problem [at] Mosul Dam occurs, failure is likely."

The effort to prevent a failure of the dam has been complicated by behind-the-scenes wrangling between Iraqi and U.S. officials over the severity of the problem and how much money should be allocated to fix it. The Army Corps has recommended building a second dam downstream as a fail-safe measure, but Iraqi officials have rejected the proposal, arguing that it is unnecessary and too expensive.

...

Almost immediately after the dam was completed in the early 1980s, engineers began injecting the dam with grout, a liquefied mixture of cement and other additives. More than 50,000 tons of material have been pumped into the dam since then in a continual effort to prevent the structure, which can hold up to 3 trillion gallons of water, from collapsing.

And then we have more mind numbing stupidity from the administration:

The debate has taken place largely out of public view because both Iraqi and U.S. Embassy officials have refused to discuss the details of safety studies -- commissioned by the U.S. government for at least $6 million -- so as not to frighten Iraqi citizens. Portions of the draft report were read to The Washington Post by an Army Corps official who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter. The Post also reviewed an Army Corps PowerPoint presentation on the dam.

How patronizing is this? We don't want to frighten the Iraqi's, so we won't tell them about the risk? First, many people in Iraq can read the WaPo. Second, a good evacuation plan could save many thousands of lives in the event of a collapse.

Is there anything in Iraq that we haven't screwed up?

A National Shame

The U.N. takes a look at shrubs "war on ..." practices, and is not pleased:

Martin Scheinin, the U.N.'s independent investigator on human rights in the fight against terrorism, said in a report released Monday that he's concerned about U.S. detention practices, military courts and interrogation techniques.

He urged the U.S. government to end the CIA practice of extraordinary rendition, in which terrorism suspects are taken to foreign countries for interrogation.

...

Scheinin, a law professor from Finland appointed by the Geneva-based U.N. Human Rights Council, issued a preliminary report after visiting the United States in May. His final report was issued on Monday, coinciding with the report to the U.N. General Assembly's human rights committee.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2007/10/un_try_or_release_enemy_combat.php

That would be the human rights commission that the U.S. was kicked off of a few years back. It's a sad time for America, once the beacon of human rights, is now in violation of international law:

In the report, Scheinin called for the abolition of the military commissions which were established in 2001 by President and declared unlawful by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2006 because they were not authorized by Congress. Congress responded by passing the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

Scheinin said the offenses in the 2006 law — including terrorism, wrongfully aiding the enemy, spying and conspiracy — "go beyond offenses under the laws of war." He argued that the offense did not apply at the time of the alleged acts by detainees, and maintained that the commissions are applying criminal law retroactively in violation of international law.

Due to various concerns, Scheinin recommended the abolition of the commissions. "Wherever possible, ordinary civilian courts should be used to try terrorist suspects," he said.

Scheinin also recommended that the U.S. government abandon "the categorization of persons as `unlawful enemy combatants,'" calling it a "a term of convenience without legal effect."

The report called on the "United States to release or to put on trial those persons detained under that categorization."

While acknowledging the need to bring those accused of war crimes to justice, Scheinin emphasized that "the chance of ensuring a fair trial diminishes over time." He added that "the detention of persons for a period of several years without charge fundamentally undermines the right of fair trial."

Scheinin called on the U.S. to lift restrictions that prohibit Guantanamo Bay detainees to seek "full judicial review of their combatant status." The U.S. prohibition violates the International Covenant's prohibitions on arbitrary detention, the right to a judicial review which could grant freedom, and the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time, he said.

How did it come to this? Do we have any legitimacy left when we condemn human rights abuses in other countries? If our own congress lacks the will to end this type of abuse, how much of an impact can the U.N. have?

We deserve better.

Studs!

Studs Terkel cranks out an Op-Ed for the NYTimes today, and it's a very good one on history and surveillance:

EARLIER this month, the Senate Intelligence Committee and the White House agreed to allow the executive branch to conduct dragnet interceptions of the electronic communications of people in the United States. They also agreed to “immunize” American telephone companies from lawsuits charging that after 9/11 some companies collaborated with the government to violate the Constitution and
existing federal law. I am a plaintiff in one of those lawsuits, and I hope Congress thinks carefully before denying me, and millions of other Americans, our day in court.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/29/opinion/29terkel.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

At 95 years old, Studs is a cultural icon with a long and fiesty history. His perspective:

During my lifetime, there has been a sea change in the way that politically active Americans view their relationship with government. In 1920, during my youth, I recall the Palmer raids in which more than 10,000 people were rounded up, most because they were members of particular labor unions or belonged to groups that advocated change in American domestic or foreign policy. Unrestrained surveillance was used to further the investigations leading to these detentions, and the Bureau of Investigation — the forerunner to the F.B.I. — eventually created a database on the activities of individuals. This activity continued through the Red Scare of the period.

In the 1950s, during the sad period known as the McCarthy era, one’s political beliefs again served as a rationale for government monitoring. Individual corporations and entire industries were coerced by government leaders into informing on individuals and barring their ability to earn a living.

I was among those blacklisted for my political beliefs. My crime? I had signed petitions. Lots of them. I had signed on in opposition to Jim Crow laws and poll taxes and in favor of rent control and pacifism. Because the petitions were thought to be Communist-inspired, I lost my ability to work in television and radio after refusing to say that I had been “duped” into signing my name to these causes.

By the 1960s, the inequities in civil rights and the debate over the Vietnam war spurred social justice movements. The government’s response? More surveillance. In the name of national security, the F.B.I. conducted warrantless wiretaps of political activists, journalists, former White House staff members and even a member of Congress.

Terkel is a great writer, and a true giant in American cultural history, chronicling the people and times in ways that both outrage and inspire the reader. This column has both:

Compounding these wrongs, Congress is moving in a haphazard fashion to provide a “get out of jail free card” to the telephone companies that violated the rights of their subscribers. Some in Congress argue that this law-breaking is forgivable because it was done to help the government in a time of crisis. But it’s impossible for Congress to know the motivations of these companies or to know how the government will use the private information it received from them.

And it is not as though the telecommunications companies did not know that their actions were illegal. Judge Vaughn Walker of federal district court in San Francisco, appointed by President George H. W. Bush, noted that in an opinion in one of the immunity provision lawsuits the “very action in question has previously been held unlawful.”

I have observed and written about American life for some time. In truth, nothing much surprises me anymore. But I always feel uplifted by this: Given the facts and an opportunity to act, the body politic generally does the right thing. By revealing the truth in a public forum, the American people will have the facts to play their historic, heroic role in putting our nation back on the path toward freedom. That is why we deserve our day in court.

Studs Terkel is the author of the forthcoming “Touch and Go: A Memoir.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/29/opinion/29terkel.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

Keep fighting the good fight, Mr. Terkel. I wish I had his optimism, but it improved my mood just by having his wisdom for part of my morning reading.