Under the Bush/Cheney administration, America tortured people. We waterboarded someone more than 180 times in a single month. We slammed people into walls. Bush, Cheney, and other scum were so chickenshit that they decided to "protect" America by lowering our standards. We needed to destroy human rights to protect... well, something or another. This was a dark period of American history. We descended so low that far too many people were willing, and sadly still are willing, to defend torture. I'm glad it's over, and I hope we can recover quickly. I want America to again be a shining city upon the hill, a beacon of hope, the highest standards against which all others are compared; not just a cowardly, petty nation lashing out blindly.

(2009-04-23: Typo fix)

It's been a while since we've checked in on the amazing success story that is post-invasion Afghanistan. How are things?

A new Afghan law makes it legal for men to rape their wives, human rights groups and some Afghan lawmakers said Thursday, accusing President Hamid Karzai of signing the legislation to bolster his re-election prospects.

"As long as the husband is not traveling, he has the right to have sexual intercourse with his wife every fourth night," Article 132 of the law says. "Unless the wife is ill or has any kind of illness that intercourse could aggravate, the wife is bound to give a positive response to the sexual desires of her husband."

Right then.

"Critics assail Afghan law that 'legalizes rape'", Associated Press. (backup) Via Deus Ex Malcontent NSFW</a>.

I'd like to thank "Mikes DELETED" from DELETED@yahoo.com. Mikes spammed me repeatedly with messages trying to convince me to supporting Prop 8. (Prop 8 would amend California's constitution to eliminate the right of gay couples to marry, and in doing so invalidate existing marriages.) Up until this point I'd figured I should stay out. After all, it's a California issue, and I live in Wisconsin. But Mikes's spam annoyed me and got me fired up about it. If Mikes thinks it's appropriate to spam out of state people, I think it's appropriate to meddle in Mikes's state. So congratulations, Mikes. In your attempt to get support for "Yes on Prop 8," you instead convinced me to donate to "No on Prop 8." I wish you and the rest of Yes on Prop 8 the worst of luck.

While I'm at it:

Copy this sentence into your livejournal if you're in a heterosexual marriage, and you don't want it "protected" by the bigots who think that gay marriage hurts it somehow.

Normally I find such memes annoying and occasionally outright insulting, but this one rings true for me. It comes to me via billzilla.

On that note, that you can amend your state constitution with a simple majority vote is just one more brick in the Great Wall of Why California's Politics Are Insane.

Edit 2008-11-25: I noticed today that Mikes didn't email me entirely out of the blue. We had exchanged a few messages a few years ago about a programming question. However, he also emailed everyone in his address book, including both email addresses he had for me. There is no possible way this was a targeted message. This was unsolicited bulk email, and thus spam. However, out of respect for him as someone I had a perfectly aimable technical discussion with, I've redacted most of his name and his email address.

If you live within 100 miles of the border, you and your vehicle can be searched without probable cause, in violation of the fourth amendment. Two-thirds of US citizens don't have their fourth amendment rights under this reasoning. Absolutely sickening.

Apparently the trick is twisting two Supreme Court rulings: that the Border Patrol is allowed to do random stops to check for illegal immigrants in their areas, and that if a drug dog just happens to alert handlers that there are drugs, that is probable cause. So, just stop everyone to check for illegal immigrants and happen to have a bunch of drug dogs there. Oh, and take advantage of the fact Dogs frequently issue erroneous alerts.

I found this Washington Post graph comparing McCain and Obama's tax plans enlightening in ways that a simple chart would have failed at.

(Via Mark Evanier's news from me.)

China's totally trustworthy official news agent reported on their glorious, successful space launch. Unfortunately the launch hadn't happened yet.

Knowing a good idea when they see it, McCain's election team started running ad declaring "McCain won the debate-- hands down." several hours before the debate.

I was originally just going to post the China story, but the coincidence is too excellent.

John McCain on healthcare, from this article he wrote (backup link):

Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.

I was just looking at our banking system and thinking how successful our new innovative, less regulated banking system is. (backup link)

(Added 2008-09-22: This is via Mark Evanier's news from me.)

In a small victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the rule of law. What's depressing is how close this was. The dissenting opinion sickens me; that four justices are willing to abdicate their responsibilities as one of the three equal branches of government turns my stomach. Apparently "strict constructionist" means "roll over for whatever the other two branches want, ignoring your duties as a check and line of last defense on them."

(Via Mark Evanier's news from me.)

New rule: if you're on a talk show, talking about the California's Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage, and you say something to the effect, "They ignored the wishes of the 60% of Californians who voted to ban same-sex marriage in 2000," the host of the show shall be required to punch you in the face. If you think that courts should consider, even for a moment, the majority preference, you clearly have no idea what the purpose of the state Supreme Court is and should shut your pie hole.

If you argue that banning same sex marriage isn't sexist or religious, but instead the state encouraging childbearing so our population doesn't shrink, you might also need face punches administered. If you honestly believe this, you need to explain why it's legal for sterlized men and women to wed. Also, if you're really afraid that our country is about to shrink, check the numbers. We're expecting 4.3 million new births, but only 2.5 million deaths. We're not in any danger of having a shrinking population. Also, what's the point? Do you think that if same-sex marriage is banned, they'll decide to marry someone of the opposite sex and have kids?

Bleh. Too many stupid people on the radio.

Tomorrow is the Wisconsin primary. After much consideration, I'll be voting for Barack Obama. I only became sure of my choice in the last week. In the unlikely event any cares, ths is my reasoning.

Both Clinton and Obama have appealing traits and flaws.

Clinton is reportedly a policy wonk. I like policy wonks. Lots of good is done by people who sit around thinking about problems and trying to find concrete solutions. On the downside she's willing to sacrifice free speech to pander to, well, some. For example, this idiotic anti-flag burning law that would have made things that were already illegal more illegal. Or her anti-video game efforts.

Obama, on the other hand, is not just charismatic, he fires people up. That's important. In this day and age, someone who can get a large part of the American people working together for a common cause could be a great boon. He can put a new face on our country. On the down side, he's reportedly a big picture kind of guy. As I said, I prefer policy wonks over visionaries.

I'm also influenced by the idea of electability. But I couldn't find a compelling argument for or against either one.

So, what tipped the scales? The endorsement of Obama by Professor Lawrence Lessig. I've been following Lessig's work, especially in regards to copyright law, for some time. I have a lot of respect for the man. His arguments are good. Here is Lessig's endorsement of Obama. Here is a 20 minute video on why Lessig prefers Obama over Clinton, and a transcript of the same. I also found his 10 minute video on why Obama is more electable than Clinton compelling.

President Bush, talking about our dear sweet friend in the war on terrah, dictator Musharraf, "You can't be the President and the head of the military at the same time."

Delicious irony.

(To be clear, I appreciate the core point, and he's right. I just find it a funny juxtaposition.)

(Source: White House transcription. Backup link. Via Tim Grieve's War Room at Salon.)

Flip-flopper Dick Cheney, presented a surprisingly rational argument against invading Iraq, noting that it would be a "quagmire" where the country fractures.

(Via This Modern World.)

By interesting coincidence, two articles which both come to the same point: to younger Americans, homosexuality is as boring and non-threatening as women voting, mixed-race marriages, rock and roll, and Dungeons & Dragons. I hope they're right.

From "Bid to Ban Gay Marriage Fails in Massachusetts" in the New York Times:

Most moving, [Massachusetts State Senator Gale Candaras] said, were older constituents who first supported the amendment, but changed after meeting with gay men and lesbians.

One woman had “asked me to put [a gay marriage ban] on the ballot for a vote, but since then a lovely couple moved in,” Ms. Candaras said. “She said, ‘They help me with my lawn, and if there can’t be marriage in Massachusetts, they’ll leave and they can’t help me with my lawn.’ ”

(Via ronin_kakuhito's blog which was pointed out to me by Eva.)

The article "The Quiet Gay Revolution" in Time doesn't have any quotes that pull out well, but it points out that the Republican party is on the wrong side of history in this matter.

[I find it] hard to believe that the New York court would tell American families that 'shit' and 'fuck' are fine to say on broadcast television during the hours when children are most likely to be in the audience.

Ah, the delicious irony. Thank goodness children never read the news.

And the battlecry of the enemies of freedom everywhere, "Who will think about the chiiiildren?!"

If we can't restrict the use (of the two obscenities) during prime time, Hollywood will be able to say anything they want, whenever they want.

Even ignoring Martin's gross misreading of the verdict, I love the implication. Heaven forbid that people have the freedom in what they say. This Speech-Freedom, or whatever you filthy liberals want to call it, is clearly un-American!

Bob was calling in to tell everyone why as a "life long Republican," he couldn't vote for Mitt Romney. Bob is so anti-Romney that he would rather vote for a Democrat. Why is Bob so against Romney? Because Romney is a Mormon.

Bob's first problem: Romney's missionary work. Mormons are expected to do missionary work as part of their religion. That Romney did apparently this missionary work makes him "religiously intolerant." Apparently it never occured to Bob that most mainstream religions have missionaries out trying to spread their beliefs. Neither George Bush may have ever personally been a missionary, but I assure Bob that their donations to their church support "religious intolerance" in the form of missionaries. I'm quite confident that almost every politician he has ever voted for has funded, through their church, missionary work.

Perhaps most missionaries are quite reasonable and it's just those intolerant Mormons who are a problem? I don't believe it. I happily live in the greater Madison, Wisconsin area. Madison is famed for being a liberal hotbed. (The reputation is overstated. Good education leads to a booming upper middle class, and a booming upper middle class leads to more moderate views.) We see a steady stream of missionaries here to try and save our liberal heathen souls. Our campus has a central park area, Library Mall, which is frequently used by people to get the word out, whatever their word might be. We're frequently visited by non-Mormon Christian missionaries who feel the best way to save us is to yell at passerby that they are all going to hell. Sometimes they bring along their little kids, no older than fourteen to join in. Seeing a twelve year old year Fred Phelp's hatemongering group visited to harass high school students and parent when a local high school put on a The Laramie Project, a play about the horrible murder of Matthew Shepard for his homosexuality. I guess it was a slow month and there weren't any military funerals to disrupt.

Compared to missionaries like those, two young men in white shirts, black ties, and black slacks ringing your doorbell and politing asking if you'd like to talk about religion and offering a free book on their religion hardly seem like agents of intolerance.

(To be clear, I believe groups like Phelps and the nuts who visit Library Mall are exceptions, not the rule. My point is that there is real intolerance and hatred, but I'm not seeing it in Mormon missionaries.)

Bob's second complaint: Romney believes in the "fable of Mormonism," so he must not be very smart. I agree that intelligence is important in a president, but making his religion the test seems silly. Religion fundamentally requires you to have faith in the unprovable. Saying that some unprovable beliefs as acceptable thinking in intelligent people, but that others are not is unreasonable. Christians believe Muslims are foolish to believe in the additions Mohommand made to their faith. Protestant Christians believe that Catholics have screwed up the religion, and vice versa. Religious Jews believe that Christians are foolish to believe in the additions Jesus made to their faith. Athiests believe that belief in any religion is foolish. Why are these things acceptable in political candidates, but the Mormon offshoot of Christianity is not?

Ultimately this is irrational religionism, plain and simple. This sort of irrational thinking is why our elections are so insane. It's sad that we live in a society were people feel no embarrassment about calling up and announcing their religionism on state-wide radio.

In a worrying move US military forces in Afghanistan forcibly deleted video and photographs of the aftermath of a suicide bombing and shooting. "[Col. Victor Petrenko] added that photographs or video taken by 'untrained people' might 'capture visual details that are not as they originally were.'" The free press is too important to sacrifice for such nonsensical concerns. Preemptingly censoring the journalists is a dangerous precedent.

Relatedly, the executive branch is calling for a case against AT&T to be thrown out of court because it endangers national security. Given that the entire case is about the legality of the government's actions, this is pretty low. It amounts to nothing less than a demand that the executive branch's actions be immune to investigation and accountability. Depressing, but unsurprising from the Bush administration.

Any serious discussion of minimum wage adjustments needs to take into account the historic inflation adjusted data, as well as the projected inflation adjusted data. Ideally it would be a nice graph showing inflation adjusted minimum wage over time. I failed to find anyone providing this, so I made one.

(Feel free to comment here if you prefer, but this is the official place for comments.)

Can Alberto Gonzales open his mouth without revealing that he failed high school civics?

Alberto Gonzales: The fact that the Constitution - again, there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There is a prohibition against taking it away. [snip]

Arlen Specter: [snip]

Gonzales: I meant by that comment that the Constitution doesn't say that every individual in the United States or every citizen has or is assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn't say that. It simply says that the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended.

(Unofficial transcript, as well as a video of the discussion.)

Okay, let's check that out:

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Gonzales is seriously arguing that our founding fathers found the right of Habeas Corpus so important that they stuck it in the first article of our constitution, that they wanted to ensure it was only suspended under the most grave of circumstance, but simultaneously they didn't care if individuals were denied that right? They wanted to ensure that government couldn't take Habeas Corpus away, but didn't intend to specifically grant it?

By that reading we don't have a right to freedom of religion, speech, or the press. Amendment I only prohibits abridging those freedoms, but doesn't expressly grant those freedoms. (Via Tom Tomorrow at This Modern World. Also influenced by Tim Grieve at War Room at Salon.)

From "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam," by George Bush and Brent Scowcroft, as published in Time on March 2, 1998. A copy of the article.

We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. ... Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land.

(Via Tim Grieve's War Room at Salon.)

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says federal judges are unqualified to make rulings affecting national security policy, ramping up his criticism of how they handle terrorism cases.

If judges are unfit to make rulings, who exactly is fit? Isn't the entire point of the judicial branch to judge the laws passed by the legislative branch and the actions taken by the executive branch? If someone feels that the legislative or executive branches have violated ones constitutional right, where should you turn beyond the judicial branch? Did Gonzales fail civics in high school?

Of course for the Bush administratin the answer is that there is no one to turn to. The Bush administration continues to want to live above the law, accountable to no one, no even the founding fathers who specifically created a system of checks and balances that included the judicial branch.

(Hat tip to Pete Keller, who correctly predicts that this would make me angry.)