Wulfie's Wurld
An island of questions in a sea of confusion.Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Let's hope this gets posted correctly. It took a week for the last ones to finally display as they should.
Editorial: State of the Union
When did it become such a dog-and-pony show? I'm talking about the State of the Union address, the annual communication from the president to congress as required by the Constitution.
I tried to watch one a few years back (it's been on television since 1947). It wasn't about what state the union was in. It was a photo-op stretched out to interminable length. Perhaps Thomas Jefferson was correct when he discontinued delivering the speech in person and began sending it in written form. If we were to do that today, we'd all be able to read it and judge it solely on what the content was. Jefferson thought delivering it in person was too much like the Speech from the Throne, something our Founding Fathers were trying to get away from. Should we curse Woodrow Wilson for making it a circus again?
Perhaps not. People in bars can have fun throwing popcorn at the screen and heckling what is said. Others can wave their flags and salivate. The Administration gets the chance to maybe squeeze out a dead-cat bounce in the polls. Clinton delivered an address in the middle of impeachment proceedings. Bush definitely needs help in the polls right now, coming off his worst year ever.
Is there any content to the speeches? Whatever became of the Axis of Evil? One of the evil triune became a bit of a quagmire similar to Johnson's Vietnam or Carter's poorly planned and executed hostage rescue. The other two are going their way without even sanctions imposed. Perhaps they aren't so evil after all. Let's not mention the infamous "16 words" of the following year. Oops, too late.
What will be the subject of discussion this year. Hurricane relief? Exit strategy? Wire-tapping? Iran's Nukes? Social Security? Medicare? Will we hear the usual rhetoric about "doing what it takes to protect the American people from terrorists?" We'll have to wait to find out.
During the speech, while waiting for substance, there's a little game you can play to keep your mind occupied. It's called "Count the Standing Ovations." You see, every time the president says a sentence, sometimes only a clause, certain members (okay, the majority) of Congress will leap to their feet and applaud wildly as though Moses has just returned with the tablets. They'll be up and down more times than they are when they're with their mistresses. This is probably a good thing, since it may be the only exercise many of them get.
Still, I have to wonder, can anyone watch this circus and walk away with the warm and fuzzies about functional checks and balances? What kind of balance can we expect from a Congress that wildly endorses every sentence of a president no matter what the content?
Editorial: State of the Union
When did it become such a dog-and-pony show? I'm talking about the State of the Union address, the annual communication from the president to congress as required by the Constitution.
I tried to watch one a few years back (it's been on television since 1947). It wasn't about what state the union was in. It was a photo-op stretched out to interminable length. Perhaps Thomas Jefferson was correct when he discontinued delivering the speech in person and began sending it in written form. If we were to do that today, we'd all be able to read it and judge it solely on what the content was. Jefferson thought delivering it in person was too much like the Speech from the Throne, something our Founding Fathers were trying to get away from. Should we curse Woodrow Wilson for making it a circus again?
Perhaps not. People in bars can have fun throwing popcorn at the screen and heckling what is said. Others can wave their flags and salivate. The Administration gets the chance to maybe squeeze out a dead-cat bounce in the polls. Clinton delivered an address in the middle of impeachment proceedings. Bush definitely needs help in the polls right now, coming off his worst year ever.
Is there any content to the speeches? Whatever became of the Axis of Evil? One of the evil triune became a bit of a quagmire similar to Johnson's Vietnam or Carter's poorly planned and executed hostage rescue. The other two are going their way without even sanctions imposed. Perhaps they aren't so evil after all. Let's not mention the infamous "16 words" of the following year. Oops, too late.
What will be the subject of discussion this year. Hurricane relief? Exit strategy? Wire-tapping? Iran's Nukes? Social Security? Medicare? Will we hear the usual rhetoric about "doing what it takes to protect the American people from terrorists?" We'll have to wait to find out.
During the speech, while waiting for substance, there's a little game you can play to keep your mind occupied. It's called "Count the Standing Ovations." You see, every time the president says a sentence, sometimes only a clause, certain members (okay, the majority) of Congress will leap to their feet and applaud wildly as though Moses has just returned with the tablets. They'll be up and down more times than they are when they're with their mistresses. This is probably a good thing, since it may be the only exercise many of them get.
Still, I have to wonder, can anyone watch this circus and walk away with the warm and fuzzies about functional checks and balances? What kind of balance can we expect from a Congress that wildly endorses every sentence of a president no matter what the content?
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Editorial: Domestic Spying
Let me be clear about one thing: I condone domestic spying. As an intel guy from way back, the best way to make a decision is to make sure you have all the facts. If I, or my family, show probable cause that we may be engaged in terrorist acts, I would hope that the authorities would be listening in to my conversations, reading my emails, and gathering as much information about me as possible.
Probable cause.
That's the kicker, isn't it? There should be probable cause. That's why you get warrants. It's part of the checks and balances process of the government to make sure one branch doesn't get carried away. All you need for a warrant is to show probable cause.
In the case of probable terrorism, you don't even need to get the warrant first. If something happens that the NSA or whomever needs to jump on a lead right away, the can do it legally. The warrant can follow any time up to 72 hours later. For those bad in math, that's three days. If we're engaged in a war against terror, then the Attorney General damn well better have a pager. Granted, with three days we won't have to yank him out of a warm bed. We could wait a few hours until the sun comes up. Then the A.G. can look over the request to determine whether there is probable cause or not.
Is that so hard? It's not rocket science.
But, some may say, the law governing this was written back in the 70s, when only Dick Tracy in the comics had two-way wrist radios, and cell phones were only wet dreams in the pizza-infested slumber of geeks and yuppies. Noted. But, some may say, "probable cause" needs to be redefined in response to a thread that wasn't perceived then. Noted. Times change. Things need to be revisited. That's why there's a different branch of the government set up to make the laws and define the definitions, to make sure one branch doesn't get carried away. If the Homeland Security Act can be expedited through that different branch, an update to these laws should be a no-brainer.
Ah, but what to do in the meanwhile?
Well, consider the following two statements. Both are in response to the same need, and in response to the same actions taken in dealing with that need.
1. "The President can do whatever he wants in a time of war."
2. "We understand the concerns of the citizens. We're asking Congress to evaluate and update the old laws concerning these issues. In the meanwhile, we are going to do what it takes to protect our citizens. We will try to get warrants ahead of time, even for the terrorists. We will have the Courts review our work where that is not possible, but until we get the updated guidance from Congress, we'll do our best and accept the responsibilities for our actions."
To me, statement #2 sounds reasonable and fairly well thought-out. Statement #1 sounds like an egotistical power grab. I don't know about you, but I feel warmer and fuzzier with #2. I feel like the concept of checks and balances as established by our Founding Fathers are not being crushed under heel. I feel like all three branches, in that case, are working for a common goal. With statement #1, I feel the terrorists have already won.
Let me be clear about one thing: I condone domestic spying. As an intel guy from way back, the best way to make a decision is to make sure you have all the facts. If I, or my family, show probable cause that we may be engaged in terrorist acts, I would hope that the authorities would be listening in to my conversations, reading my emails, and gathering as much information about me as possible.
Probable cause.
That's the kicker, isn't it? There should be probable cause. That's why you get warrants. It's part of the checks and balances process of the government to make sure one branch doesn't get carried away. All you need for a warrant is to show probable cause.
In the case of probable terrorism, you don't even need to get the warrant first. If something happens that the NSA or whomever needs to jump on a lead right away, the can do it legally. The warrant can follow any time up to 72 hours later. For those bad in math, that's three days. If we're engaged in a war against terror, then the Attorney General damn well better have a pager. Granted, with three days we won't have to yank him out of a warm bed. We could wait a few hours until the sun comes up. Then the A.G. can look over the request to determine whether there is probable cause or not.
Is that so hard? It's not rocket science.
But, some may say, the law governing this was written back in the 70s, when only Dick Tracy in the comics had two-way wrist radios, and cell phones were only wet dreams in the pizza-infested slumber of geeks and yuppies. Noted. But, some may say, "probable cause" needs to be redefined in response to a thread that wasn't perceived then. Noted. Times change. Things need to be revisited. That's why there's a different branch of the government set up to make the laws and define the definitions, to make sure one branch doesn't get carried away. If the Homeland Security Act can be expedited through that different branch, an update to these laws should be a no-brainer.
Ah, but what to do in the meanwhile?
Well, consider the following two statements. Both are in response to the same need, and in response to the same actions taken in dealing with that need.
1. "The President can do whatever he wants in a time of war."
2. "We understand the concerns of the citizens. We're asking Congress to evaluate and update the old laws concerning these issues. In the meanwhile, we are going to do what it takes to protect our citizens. We will try to get warrants ahead of time, even for the terrorists. We will have the Courts review our work where that is not possible, but until we get the updated guidance from Congress, we'll do our best and accept the responsibilities for our actions."
To me, statement #2 sounds reasonable and fairly well thought-out. Statement #1 sounds like an egotistical power grab. I don't know about you, but I feel warmer and fuzzier with #2. I feel like the concept of checks and balances as established by our Founding Fathers are not being crushed under heel. I feel like all three branches, in that case, are working for a common goal. With statement #1, I feel the terrorists have already won.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
No questions this week . . . only answers. Below is the list of movies I saw in 2005 IN THE THEATER. (DVD and rentals are not included here.) The best one is at the top, the worst is at the bottom. There may have been far worse ones released this year, but I didn't pay money to see any of them. The only one I regret paying to see was the second from the bottom. Though worse, "Ep III" still needed the big screen.
Of the list, I plan to own the top three on DVD (own two already), and will continue debating about the next four.
1. Serenity
2. Sin City
3. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
4. King Kong
5. Mr. and Mrs. Smith
6. Wallace and Grommit
7. Chronicles of Narnia: LWaW
8. Good Night and Good Luck
9. Batman Begins
10. Corpse Bride
11. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
12. War of the Worlds
13. The Pacifier
14. Fantastic Four
15. Transporter 2
16. Sky High
17. Constantine
18. Miss Congeniality 2
19. Star Wars III
Of the list, I plan to own the top three on DVD (own two already), and will continue debating about the next four.
1. Serenity
2. Sin City
3. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
4. King Kong
5. Mr. and Mrs. Smith
6. Wallace and Grommit
7. Chronicles of Narnia: LWaW
8. Good Night and Good Luck
9. Batman Begins
10. Corpse Bride
11. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
12. War of the Worlds
13. The Pacifier
14. Fantastic Four
15. Transporter 2
16. Sky High
17. Constantine
18. Miss Congeniality 2
19. Star Wars III
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Only one question this week.
Iran has broken the seals. Iran will be able to produce 24-30 nuclear weapons each year. Iran has been supporting terrorism. Iran has been supporting Hamas. Iran has been supporting Syria. Iran has been supporting the insurgents in Iraq. Iran has a totalitarian government pledged to destroying Israel and the west. Iran has ballistic missiles. So . . .
Where's Dubya?
Iran has broken the seals. Iran will be able to produce 24-30 nuclear weapons each year. Iran has been supporting terrorism. Iran has been supporting Hamas. Iran has been supporting Syria. Iran has been supporting the insurgents in Iraq. Iran has a totalitarian government pledged to destroying Israel and the west. Iran has ballistic missiles. So . . .
Where's Dubya?
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Been flying recently? Why do they keep announcing that you should report unattended packages? Didn't you just stand in a three-hour line where they confiscated fingernail clippers so the packages that got through would be safe? If the checks aren't safe and explosive fingernail clippers are still getting through, why waste time and money on them? And what's with the seats in the upright position? What will that extra three inches matter? When a plane crashes, do those extra three inches have any bearing on who survives? Do we feel safer with all this extra effort? Can't belts still be used as garrotes? Should we perhaps be allowed on planes only when naked and with no carry-ons at all?
Archives
October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 February 2007
