The modern democratic police state

Columnist Richard Reeves writes about the radical reform taking place in America and Britain in the wake of the so-called "war on terror":

The great English-speaking democracies are almost inevitably remaking themselves as police states. Changing or ignoring the laws of liberty and instituting more and more invasive technological monitoring of citizens are the new passions of the interventionary state -- all in the name of spreading freedom.

While the U.S. government, supported by majorities in national polls, is ignoring laws on oversight of homeland spying, the British are developing systems to literally follow, photographically, every citizen on his or her daily rounds. Big Brother, the fictional invention of a British writer, George Orwell, will be real and functional within a year. The first step, scheduled to be operational next March, will use thousands of cameras linked to government databases to photograph every vehicle entering or leaving London, driving on major highways or stopping for gasoline -- and checking those movements against driver's licenses and other government information over two- and five-year periods.

So if the terrorists frighten us into adopting high-tech versions of the KGB's and Gestapo's tactics for surveiling the citizenry, does that mean that the "evildoers" have won? If the "haters of freedom" scare us into giving our very freedom away to secretive government agencies, can we really claim to have won the "war on terror"?

Which is more to be feared - a few outlaw extremists who might manage to kill some people once in a great while, or an all-powerful government that knows where we go, what we buy, with whom we associate, what's in our medical records, what causes we support and oppose, and which gives us nothing but its own word (and maybe not even that) that it would never, ever even think about abusing all that information... not that such a government has any real reason to bother with telling the truth, since secrecy is so much more expedient, anyway.

So many people say, "Stop being so alarmist. You're just blowing hot air, anyhow - that could never happen in America!" Take a look - it's happening (and without any apology) in Britain, and
if the Blair administration is doing such things publicly, is there any doubt that the secretive Bush administration is already hatching similar plans behind closed doors? I promise you that Tony Blair is not now, nor has he ever been, the innovator in the "war on terror" - he takes his cues from George Bush.

The revelations about Bush's illegal spying on Americans through the NSA are only the tip of the iceberg - and if this much is already being done, one can only imagine what three more years of Bush's terrifying "war on terror" will do to everything that's worth protecting about America.

The ultimate snow removal machine

I previously blogged on the Dakota Snoblade, a rather neat take on the old snow shovel, and probably a good bit easier than using a traditional pusher. However, Mom and Dad nabbed a small snowblower for me for Christmas, and it's done very well against the 8" or so we got overnight. I'm pleased.

Still...

If it's the very pinacle of snow-removing tech one wants, I doubt there's anything better than the $25,800 custom-built V8 Snowblower. *evil laugh* The 454 cubic inch big block Chevrolet V8 in this bad boy produces 412 horsepower, 430 foot pounds of torque and can throw snow 50 feet at just 3500 rpm. It even keeps you warm - it routes the engine coolant through the handle bars, with the rear mounted, enclosed radiator keeping the operator toasty.

It also apparently roars along at a minimum of 92 db!

This is clearly the Hummer of snowblowers... the only thing better would be a plow.

Quote of the Day: On Impeachment

From Jonathan Turley, a professor at the George Washington University School of Law, who testified to Congress in favor of Bill Clinton's impeachment, regarding George W. Bush's flaunting of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act:

Looking at this controversy objectively, you inevitably end up with a question of impeachment.

The fact is, the federal law is perfectly clear. At the heart of this operation was a federal crime. The president has already conceded that he personally ordered that crime and renewed that order at least 30 times. This would clearly satisfy the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors for the purpose of an impeachment.

Many of my Republican friends joined in [President Clinton's impeachment] hearing and insisted that this was a matter of defending the rule of law, and had nothing to do with political antagonism. I'm surprised that many of those same voices are silent. The crime in this case was a knowing and premeditated act. This operation violated not just the federal statute but the United States Constitution. For Republicans to suggest that this is not a legitimate question of federal crimes makes a mockery of their position during the Clinton period. For Republicans, this is the ultimate test of principle.

An unhappy holiday for the White House

Karl Rove's got to be feeling a little ill right now, and not from too much Christmas ham or "freedom fries." Conservative financial journal Barron's will publish tomorrow an editorial calling for the investigation of and possible impeachment of President Bush for his brazen disregard for the limits Congress and the Constitution place on the executive. Barron's goes so far as to say in as many words that Bill Clinton's dalliances under the Oval Office desk are small potatoes compared to the actions of which Bush stands accused. That's some pretty scary stuff for the Bushies, when it's coming from Barron's rather than the NY Times!

As for me, I think an impeachment trial would be a fine little bit of winter entertainment! As our president has been known to say, "Bring it on!"

A Christmas idea...

...well, for next Christmas, anyhow!

Shipping from Master Replicas sometime in October or November next year (looks like it might be available now) is this exact replica of the hero sword Rhindon used by Peter in the film "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe." I've always wanted a sword for my study, and this one took my breath away when it was first drawn from its sheath onscreen. The fine gold lettering on the blade's fuller, and the brass Lion's-head pommel are especially fine touches.


So keep this in mind for your favorite blogger! I'm sure he could find a place for it! ;)

Dakota Snoblade

Here's an interesting concept for snow removal. I'd seen "plow" style shovels at Wal-Mart, and was calling around to see if the stores in Valley had something similar - one of the hardware fellows mentioned this gizmo, but didn't have any in stock. Looks like the Wal-Mart cheap-o version done right. I especially like the very wide blade, and the wheels look convenient. Also, it's a local product, from Linton, ND. Too bad it costs $70-80... that's a little out of my budget, although it's still far more reasonable than a snowblower. Watch the video, and you'll see why I'm impressed with the Dakota Snoblade.

Two Days to Stop the USA PATRIOT Act

I'm about to be a political shill - but a political shill in the service of a very important cause:

The White House is pressuring Congress to reauthorize a new version of the USA PATRIOT Act that is worse than the original law and doesn't include needed reforms. This could come before the Senate as soon as Thursday.

A bipartisan group of senators have agreed to fight the Patriot Act –by filibuster if necessary.

This is a huge moment. Senators from both parties are standing together to protect freedom and liberty --and they’re ready to fight. Can you sign this petition to show them and the rest of the Senate that you support filibustering this bad bill? The Patriot Act has to be stopped until it includes reforms.

http://political.moveon.org/patriotact/

Thanks!

NYT - "A Man's Right to Choose"

Dalton Conley, writing in today's Times, expresses a controversial opinion that I must admit resonates with me:

Nobody is arguing that we should let my friend who impregnated his girlfriend off the hook. If you play, you must pay. But if you pay, you should get some say. If a father is willing to legally commit to supporting and raising the child himself, why should a woman be able to end a pregnancy that she knew was a possibility of consensual sex?

...The bottom line is that if we want to make fathers relevant, they need rights, too. If a father is willing to legally commit to raising a child with no help from the mother he should be able to obtain an injunction against the abortion of the fetus he helped create.

It's not very fashionable in the liberal circles in which I usually travel to suggest that anyone other than the woman herself should have a say when it comes to bearing or not bearing a child. "It's her body," you'll hear them say. "No one can tell her what to do with her own body."

(This is, perhaps, disingenuous. There are a great many laws that legitimately proscribe what a person can and cannot do with their own body.)

The point that gets missed, the thing that nags at me - and at Dalton - is that this issue is made out to be about "her body" as opposed to "their child."

Why is it acceptable for a woman to unilaterally abort a child that is as much her partner's offspring as her own? Why does one parent have the absolute right to make this decision, while the other parent has no rights whatsoever? Why is it that a father who is legally responsible for providing for his child's wellbeing after it is born has no legal right to see to that child's wellbeing before it is born.

Perhaps the difficulty here for the left (and I admit to normally being happily among those lefties) is that all this talk of a "father's rights" implies that the fetus in question isn't just another lump of the mother's own flesh like a tonsil or an appendix, which she has a right to remove or not remove. It's hard not to use the word "child" when you're talking about "fathers" and "parents." (You'll notice that abortion is never described as something a "mother" has a right to choose... it's always and very carefully an issue of "women's rights.")

I don't mean to imply that there are easy answers to be found here. What seems clear to me, though, is that it is terribly wrong for fathers to be locked out of this decision entirely.

It is obviously best for this to be a matter decided between a loving husband and wife, far from the realms of jurisprudence. But pregnancies happen outside of loving marriages, and as child support activists point out, it takes two to make a baby. We can't turn away from this issue, simply because it is challenging.