More internet tools I love

Because this is a such a fun world, on Oct. 7, 2005 I wrote a post called, "Tools I love." The Internet grew because people were generous with information--good information. And technology changes very fast.
I said then that,

The criteria for what I like in computer stuff includes these characteristics: The tools are handy and help me organize. Instructions are clearly written. The authors valued simplicity of form, but complexity of capacity. The company has a good reputation and history of reliable service.

My Blogs: South by Southwest is my primary blog, mostly political and "serious." Feeling the need to be more visual and literate, I have a new blog hosted by Bloglegion called Southwest Blogger. I link back and forth between the web pages.
Good tools: In addition to Bloglines I use another aggregator called newsgator that has some features I like such as a good set of folders, ratings, and save-to-clippings.
Little tools:

• I am adding Technorati tags at the end of each post.
• Because Pingomatic does not always work, I have added Pingoat as my pinging tool.
• I use "sticky notes for my desktop from MoRUN.net Sticker Lite.
• I have discovered another neat little program called Sideblog, that adds a short independent section for quick entries along the side of my S/SW blog (i.e. the Creative Commons nomenclature and the My Sites annotated list).
• Rather than a plain list of links via the template, I have added Blogrolling's list.
• del.icio.us: At the bottom I have the tags from my del.icio.us. To add any links to documents in del.icio.us, I save from My Documents into MyYahoo! Briefcase, and then post them into the del.icio.us favorites. I also use the Bundles feature for grouping tags.

Things I dropped: Since that post include, I removing the Yahoo !Companion toolbar and the Google toolbar and desktop search, because it really slowed my computer down. I also disabled the XP indexing for more speed. Speed vs. tools is always the question for me, one with which I constantly struggle.
Tags: blogging tools site news web technologyMy "creative" post today at Southwest Blogger is about Jackie and the Kennedy family.

Executive vs. Judiciary vs. Legislative

Tensions among the branches of the U.S. government are apparent in many current news stories. It seems really hard to find a good judge these days. And our current president continues to ignore Congressional intent and act above the law in what he says is "protecting us." Alarmed citizens worry that an imperial president is ignoring the laws that Congress passes. They also worry that he is appointing judges who will support his increasing assertions of executive powers. These trends are clearly subverting the three-branch system of government established in the constitution.
Our current president is going around the law regarding FISA Court oversight of domestic surveillance, and those judges want to know how and why. So does the Senate, who will hold hearings on the matter early in February, with Republican Senator Arlen Specter presiding. Our current president wants to fundamentally change the direction of the Supreme Court of the United States. His extreme Right Wing nominee, Judge Alito will probably take a seat on the SCOTUS, despite strong Democratic opposition. Bush appointee Chief Justice Roberts has come down on the side of the administration in one of his recent court votes.
Nor are things going swimmingly for the administration of justice in Iraq. The new judge in the trial of Saddam Hussein in Iraq is being seen as a Baath party leftover. Aljazeera reports that the new Saddam trial court judge should resign. This BBC article is also saying that Iraqis feel the judge "should resign:" To quote,

The body set up to remove Baath party members from positions of power in Iraq has raised objections against the judge in charge of Saddam Hussein's trial. The Iraq Commission said Said Hameesh was a member of the former ruling party and should be barred from the case.

Many of us sincerely wish that Judge Samuel Alito would be barred from taking Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's place on the SCOTUS. But our current president will probably have his way in the matter. Democrats are able to do little more than delay the inevitable. This is the Reuters headline: "Democrats force delay on high court nominee vote"; to quote:

Democrats on Monday forced a one-week delay on a vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, but the 55-year-old conservative was still expected to be confirmed by the full Republican-led Senate.

Senator Patrick Leahy, Judiciary Committee Ranking Member, announced his opposition yesterday. He feels that Alito will do nothing to check presidential power grabs. Several Senators, including Harkin, Mikulsky, Baucus, Durbin and Kennedy, all plan to vote against our current president's nominee. CNN reports on that; the article further states that a filibuster remains unlikey, saying that the Democrats just do not have the votes.
The makeup of the SCOTUS is of vital importance to average American citizens for many reasons. Why? Your very freedom under the Constitution is under fire from our current president. It is his position that spying on us without judicial oversight is an absolute presidential right. The story about the NSA intelligence gathering operation came out in December. And those who would have been doing the required oversight wanted to find out what was going on. The Washington Post reported in a December 22 story that FISA court judges wanted to be briefed on the NSA domestic surveillance program.

Several members of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court said in interviews that they want to know why the administration believed secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading e-mails of U.S. citizens without court authorization was legal. Some of the judges said they are particularly concerned that information gleaned from the president's eavesdropping program may have been improperly used to gain authorized wiretaps from their court.

What is more, illegal domestic spying has been going on for a very long time without any of us knowing about it. The Washington Post, in an article by Peter Baker (on 12/18/05), maintains that OCP approved secret eavesdropping on American citizens shortly after the 9/11 attacks. I quote from the article,

A high-ranking intelligence official said yesterday that the presidential directive was first issued in October 2001, not in 2002, as other sources have told the Times and The Washington Post. And yesterday Bush said his directive came "weeks" after Sept. 11. The high-ranking official would not say whether the authority was changed or broadened significantly in 2002 or later during regular reviews.

The NYT reports that the Congressional Research Service determined that the domestic surveillance program probably broke the law. Our current president recently says he had no objections to Congressional hearings on the subject, if it does not give away secrets to our enemies. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will testify before the Senate Judiciary hearings scheduled to begin Feb. 6. He has sent a report to the congress asserting the legality of the NSA program.
A recent Supreme Court ruling by the majority supports Oregon's so-called "assisted suicide" law. But there is evidence of what I believe will be a major rebalancing trend towards the extreme Right on the court. Voting with the minority, was Chief Justice Roberts, who voted to support the Bush administration's wish to strike the state law down.

With the new chief justice, John G. Roberts Jr., in dissent in the most high-profile case since he joined the court, the decision lifted a major barrier to state initiatives like the one in Oregon, which has the only assisted-suicide law in the country.

In conclusion, all these stories convince me that the congress and the judiciary must act assertively to check our current president's assertions of an extreme right wing agenda power grab. Two legs, of the three holding up the Balance of Power Stool of our system of government, have been cut short. That stool, upon which we all sit, is tilted. If something does not change we will slip off.
Tags: government Bush administration judiciary
My "creative" post today at Southwest Blogger is about an internet mystery--the disappearance of "the Apartment" .

Our Current President-What now OCP?

This series about OCP (Our Current President) began because I was thinking about how long it is until 2008. The term "OCP" became my favorite for President Bush because it reminds me that he is currently in office, but that is only temporary. And, because it is unhealthy to "stew" about something I cannot change, I began to ask my self whether our chief executive was capable of change. My first two posts explored that question. This, the third and final post, explores the possibilities for change in OCP.
First let us look at what I perceive to be the situation. We seem to be in an interminable war. OCP has seen little reason to change since the events of 9/11, because these circumstances have been the reality until very recently:

• Congress goes along. Because Republicans also controls the House and Senate, there has been little opposition to anything the president proposed.
• Reelection. OCP saw his reelection as "political capital" that he pledged to "spend."
• Jihadis remain active in their fight. Being in a state of war has justified the resolute/strong/stubborn stance of OCP. The so-called war on terrorism informs other decisions.

What must change to force OCP to behave differently? What now?

• The 2006 election results could change party dominance in one or both houses of Congress and perhaps state governors.
• Increases in congressional oversight or legislative action could force OCP to do things differently, if the courts did not nullify any laws passed, and if any vetos were overridden. There are already signs that this is happening.
• Courts' legal decisions could force change if they went against the practices of OCP, or upheld new legislation. This has happened in a few recent cases, and could continue. It this trend continues those who considered going to court will not be overly discouraged.
• If public opinion polls continue to be as negative as the current trends, congress could see this as a something to which they would have to listen, the media might see it as news or analysis for increased focus.
• The situation in Iraq could be largely driven by public opinion. Reedeployment of troops away from Iraq will lessen the vigor of the insurgency.

Tags: Bush administration public opinion Congress terrorism war commentary
My "creative" post today at Southwest Blogger is about dream imagery as a tool for dream analysis, includes a "mess with your head image."

The President's Switch in Thinking

The period of September-December 2001 was a very crucial period of change for OCP (Our Current President). What were the forces driving the switch from peace to such widespread war against "terrorism," the tactic? What went on in December, which is when I believe OCP really got on board with the neocons? The internal "drivers" and "messages" fueling the change, in my opinion, center in these areas:

• The ascendency of neocon influence via V.P. Cheney, Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld, et al: "We know what is best for you.": This momement is, according to Anatol Lieven, "because over the last 40 years the American political system has been substantially taken over by a militaristic rightist ideological movement married to religious fundamentalism and popular chauvinism." Over time I have often written about the neocon influence on foreign policy. My S/SW post, Bolton and Neocons, is a sort of primer on the subject. Neocons Revisited elaborates on the first and subsequent posts. When the terrorists attacked the United States, it was then that the neocons provided the methods, rationale, and purposeful arguments thw OCP needed to finish his own agenda, fitting very nicely in with it.


• Fear and anger from the terrorist attacks = "Head for the bunkers.": The terrifying events of 9/11 reverberated across the nation and around the world. That is the whole point of terrorist-style conflict; it is done in a manner to terrorize and render paralysis. But eventually resilient people get back up and go on with their lives. But to fight a "global war on terror," means that we must remain anxious and fearful, "hunkered down." On the website, Veterans for Peace, Jim McDermott wrote an article on 7/1/03, arguing that the administration wanted to make everyone afraid. Quoting MCDermott,

  On September 11, Americans suffered a horrible trauma, and we still suffer from the psychological fallout of the terrorist attacks. The administration's calculated campaign to raise and maintain fear and anxiety in America has been an effective tool in prolonging the effects of post-traumatic stress disorder caused by 9-11. As the Bush administration builds its military presence in the Middle East, it is upping the psychological ante here at home. The deputies of the Bush Terror Posse -- Donald Rumsfeld, Tom Ridge and John Ashcroft -- are conducting a deliberate campaign to frighten us.

• Isolation = "We are in this alone": The rest of the world felt genuinely concerned and sympathetic to our people with the attack by the terrorists on 9/11. There was widespread support for the war in Afghanistan. But when it came to attacking Iraq, much of that support vanished. A significant number of our traditional European allies refused to go to war with us. This caused a fundamental change in the world view of OCP. He was probably genuinely surprised by their refusal to follow our lead. After all, "are we not the absolute leaders of the free world? "
• Anxiety = "Things have changed forever.": This fascinating website, September 11 News, is an even more elaborate timeline . Focusing on the month of December alone reveals some fascinating events that fueled the anxiety of OCP, and must have coalesced his determination to widen the war as soon as possible. It was a month of profound change in the world situation, with many ironic and significant turning points - some good, some bad. Adjustment to change is stressful and anxiety producing: The Afghanistan Taliban surrendered in Kandahar on December 6. On December 10, Kofi Annan accepts the Nobel Peace Prize. The bin Laden videotape is broadcast worldwide on Dec. 13. That same day saw OCP pulling out of the ABM Treaty with Russia, opening the way for the development of a U.S. antimissile defense system. December 6-16 saw the U.S. attacks on Osama bin Laden's Tora Bora headquarters, and bin Laden's escape to Pakistan. The last large piece of the World Trade Tower ruins is removed on December 15; the fire is extinquished on the 19th; the last large nearby building comes down on the 20th. The "shoe bomber," Richard Reid tried to attack an airplane on the 22nd. The 25th saw Christmas and the Indian and Pakistani military amassing many weapons on the disputed Kashmir border. Aljazeera , on Dec. 27, played the entire bin Laden tape, indicating the he is alive and well and taking credit for the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. On Dec. 31 Michael Bloomberg is sworn in as New York's mayor, and Rudy Giuliani bows out.

• Aggression = "Fight them over there": This idea seems like a good one on first blush. But I do not believe the plan was ever made clear to the Iraqis, the idea that their land was the planned battleground. In a December 11, 2001 speech to cadets at the Citadel, OCP had definitely crossed over to the idea of an imperial presidency. (See my January 3 post on the subject). His choice of words is very prophetic. To quote the CBS News,

  In a speech to cadets at the Citadel, the state military college, President Bush called for sweeping improvements in intelligence-gathering and military readiness to combat terror, calling that campaign "the military and moral necessity of our time." . . . . . . "I said here at the Citadel ... America was entering a period of consequences that would be defined by the threat of terrorism, and that we faced the challenge of military transformation," Mr. Bush told some 2,000 cadets and campus officials. "That threat has now revealed itself, and that challenge is now the military and moral necessity of our time." On the three-month anniversary of the Sept. 11 suicide hijackings that killed more than 3,000 people, he said the attacks had shattered America's "illusion of immunity." "We will fight terror and those who sponsor it to save our children from a future of fear," Mr. Bush said.

From this study of what was happening in the news and what was said by OCP, I believe that he crossed over completely into the neocon realm sometime in December, 2001. The idea is nor original to me, but I cannot remember who proposed it first, so I beg forgiveness. That timing fits with my reading of what I believe to be the internal dynamics of OCP as events occurred during that month (see the event paragraph in smaller print, under "anxiety" above). Think about the sadness and anxiety he must have felt as each bit of December's news came into his consciousness: We beat the Taliban but bin-Laden escapes completely, and then sends a mocking videotape broadcast in full on Aljazeera. Kofi Annan, of all people, wins the Peace Prize. The ABM Treaty with Russia goes away and a missile defense system if fully considered. The last most visible architectural remains at the World Trade Center site are being cleared away, and the fires are fully extinguished. The "shoe bomber" tries to ignite his own shoe on an airliner. Christmas Day and Pakistan and India are about to go to war with each other in Kashmir. Rudi Giuliani isn't Mayor any more. What to do, what to do? We will go to war in Iraq, by golly, like they're suggesting. That'll handle it.

Tags: Bush Administration commentary foreign policy leadership neocons terrorism 9/11

My "creative" post today at Southwest Blogger is an imagery-poem called "Living at Sea Otter Slough."