So far, so good.

Edward R. Murrow, a nation turns its lonely eyes to you

The coffin of one of three young Muslims who were shot in Chapel Hill, N.C., this week was carried to a funeral prayer service on Thursday in Raleigh, N.C. Travis Dove for NYT

 

Credit
Newsflash: We have crazy, murderous extremists right here in America.

They torture and murder, oftentimes--to the shock of the rest of the world--spectacularly and en masse; oftentimes claiming they do it in the name of a larger cause: the voice of a deity in the heavens or the head, and even, most recently, a seething anger toward the Constitutionally-protected worshipping of any deity of choice, period.

Terrorists abroad usually have to steal their weapons and equipment, often from the people America had originally supplied them to; sometimes they finance their weapon stash by kidnapping journalists and aid workers and holding them for ransom. Here in the States, though, any crazy, murderous extremist (or group of them) with a few bucks on hand can just go to one of the more than 51,000 gun retailers currently in business. (Yes, America has more gun retailers than grocery stores.)

If these murderous people and organizations in America circulated slick propaganda videos of themselves carrying out their rapes, lynchings, and shootings (and on and on), would we be okay with having other countries start dropping bombs on us?

Because that's exactly what many in American media are calling for right now: Crazy murderous extremists are doing crazy, murderous, extreme things in Iraq and Syria, so let's go to WAR! (Again.)

Charles Krauthammer and Morning Joke are just the most baldfaced and risibly ignorant-sounding of the chattering lot.

What concerns me: the insidious influence of the quiet, "polite", well-remunerated chatterers--the nascent Judy Millers, and the ones who work for networks either owned by defense contractors or heavily advertised-on by same; many of whom, amazingly, moonlight as corporate speech-givers and de facto lobbyists. And have the nerve to call themselves journalists, all the while tut-tutting about the "black eye to our profession" they seem to think has occurred because the odd one among them got caught lying a bit too obviously.

Anti-Choice, therefore Anti-Health and Anti-Women

Go read Natasha Chart's heartbreaking piece at RH Reality Check, entitled I Had an Ectopic Pregnancy, and Anti-Choice Laws Could Have Made My Experience Much Worse.

It's stunning, and infuriating, that in addition to the heartbreak and fear a woman goes through when facing something like this, she must now think about things like, Is this hospital going to provide me with *actual* medical care, or are their decisions going to be guided by the misogynistic laws of a church I don't even belong to? Consider, for a moment, that in some regions of this great country, Catholic-controlled hospitals are all that are available if you need obstetric/gynecologic care--unless you wish to embark on some long-distance travel--and you'll begin to realize how commonplace this predicament has become.

How commonplace? The news is bad:

Between 2001 and 2011 the number of Catholic-sponsored or affiliated hospitals increased by 16 percent, while the overall number of hospitals nationwide declined. In 2011, one in ten acute-care hospitals were Catholic-sponsored or affiliated. That same year, 10 of the 25 largest hospital systems in the country were Catholic-sponsored. 

With the rise of Catholic hospitals has come the increasing danger that women's reproductive health care will be compromised by religious restrictions. The Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (the Directives), issued by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), govern care at these facilities. The Directives prohibit a range of reproductive health services, including contraception, sterilization, many infertility treatments, and abortion care, even when a woman's health or life is in danger. Moreover, they often restrict even the ability of hospital staff to provide patients with full information and referrals for care that conflict with religious teachings.

Are we or are we not living in the twenty-first century?

It needs to be said, over and over until everyone in the country (especially those who occupy the governors' mansions and state and national legislatures) gets it: By placing the prevention of pregnancy termination ahead of safeguarding a woman's health and, even, her life, you are stating in no uncertain terms that women are not people, and our very lives are of diminished value. It's that simple. Trust that women are fully-realized human beings endowed with natural rights to control our own bodies and health--that we are people--and the absolute necessity of protecting choice becomes obvious.

This is supposed to be a nation of laws, not a nation of churches.

But this is the reality:

Photo via ACLU Blog of Rights; graphic via ACLU.org.

UPDATE:

My friend Sara Robinson recommends the excellent blog Catholic Watch, which follows and reports on the various ways the church influences and controls healthcare in the United States.

They write:

The Catholic bishops are imposing their moral values upon Catholics and non-Catholics alike through their control of Catholic hospital and medical systems, which are heavily financed with taxpayer dollars. 

In WA State, almost half of the acute care hospital beds (a proxy for the health care system more broadly) are now subject to the "moral authority" of three Catholic bishops. These bishops oversee medical policy and employment practices for all Catholic "health care ministries," which now includes hospitals, labs, physician practices, hospices, and even insurance companies. These bishops oppose same-sex marriage, birth control, "direct" abortion in all cases - even to save the life of the mother, fertility treatments, and Death with Dignity. 

A recent article in Mother Jones showed that Catholic hospitals contributed 2.8% of total patient gross revenues as Charity Care, which is lower than the industry average of 2.9%.

CatholicWatch is committed to safeguarding patient and taxpayer rights and protecting our health care system from theocracy-based medicine.

Boko Haram terrorists slaughter hundreds--perhaps thousands--of Nigerians; US cable news too busy in Paris

Photo via The Telegraph

Here are terrorists brutally murdering--burning alive!--not just dozens, but as many as two thousand human beings in Baga, Nigeria. Same week as the AQAP attack in Paris. Just more deadly by orders of magnitude (and they're busily wiping out people in Cameroon now).

And yet... Did you see 24/7 cable news coverage of this horrific slaughter, as we saw of the Paris murders?

Can you guess why? Go on, guess.

UPDATE:

Amnesty International has details. Awful, sick-making details. And satellite shots that give one a clearer appreciation for the scope of these shocking attacks (click to enlarge):

A Whiter Shade of Male: Meet the GOP's 2016 Presidential Lineup 1.0

From Sean Hannity comes the January 2015/FOX News version of the GOP's 2016 Presidential Offerings, fondly referred to--among lefty wags, at least--as The Clown Car.  It's early still, and the thing is not quite ready for market--call it a Concept Clown Car.

For one thing, Rand Paul, Dr. Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, and Allen West seem to be missing, though you'll often hear their names bandied about the blogosphere and Twitterverse. And where is Marco #DubiousRubio Rubio, Mr. Hannity? Do you have something against Floridians? Harrumph.

Which Republican do you want to be president? Hannity asks brightly.

No, there's not a woman in sight, but Hell's bells, people, look at all these choices! You've got:

• Overweight White Guy
• Wealthy White Guy From Political Family
• Generic White Guy
• Generic White Guy with White Hair
• Another Generic White Guy
• White Guy With Indian Name Who Changed His First Name To Sound More White-Guy-ish
• White Guy with Glasses and Felony Indictment
• White Guy With Strong Religious Convictions and Simmering Woman Issues, and…
• Wealthy White Guy, Also With Religious Convictions, Also From Political Family, Also With Simmering Woman Issues (binders full of 'em, in fact).

Never let it be said that the Republican Party isn't all about the diversity.

Thoughts on Paris #JeSuisCharlie

To arms, comrades! #CharlieHebdo

By Chilean political cartoonist Francisco J. Olea

Writing, drawing, and publishing criticism of people's religion--and doing so in a deliberately crass, offensive, and even obscene way--is not something that I personally would engage in. Even if it was not, in today's environment, the equivalent of poking at a wasp's nest or splashing kerosene on smoldering coals, I simply wouldn't do it. Not in that manner.

I don't belong to any organized religion. But some of the people I love, do. To them, and to people I don't know and may never know, but whose rights to believe as they see fit I nonetheless recognize and respect, it is my custom to extend the courtesy of not mocking their religion. Of refraining from questioning tenets of their faith, no matter how silly I might consider them, until and unless they affect me personally or affect public policy. And even then, I would challenge their beliefs only inasmuch as they restricted the freedoms of others; I would do my best to avoid being nasty or sneering. TL;DR: I'm a nice girl, and being a provocateur is not my job.

At the same time, though, I not only wholeheartedly support the right of citizens and members of the press to write, draw, and publish criticism of people's religion--even highly offensive criticism--I'm also moved to reiterate the absolute necessity of them doing so in a free society, and to oppose any and all notions that the state should somehow restrict the free expression of religious criticism.

To invoke Frank Zappa: Words. Just Words.

I sometimes get offended by things I see and read. But I am not harmed by them: instead, they provoke me to examine my thinking, at which point I may be offered, as Mill once said, "the opportunity of exchanging error for truth", or else "the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error."

Moreover, I have the freedom to click away; to turn my head from the television; to not buy the magazine; to ignore; to forget.

When power--be it in the form of traditional government or self-appointed or state-sponsored terrorist forces--gets involved in restricting free speech, we no longer fully have those opportunities, perceptions, or rights. Because the end result of the restriction of speech by power is violence, as it was in Paris yesterday. And when people wind up dead, we no longer have anything at all--neither freedom, nor rights, nor, ultimately, breath.

Je suis Charlie.

Florida's proposed Amendment 2, the Right to Medical Marijuana Initiative, begets advocacy group Kush Liberty

As the November elections draw near, with Amendment 2--commonly known as the Florida Right to Medical Marijuana Initiative--getting plenty of press in our state, I wanted to share this press release sent to me today:

Kush Liberty of Tampa, Florida, a group of local marijuana advocatesthat provide marijuana news and resources via their websiteKushLiberty.com, are raising funds for an online community and mobile application that will serve as advocacy tools for the legalization of marijuana for medicinal and industrial uses.

The Group is asking for $30,000 with which the team will produce an online community, a mobile application, and the necessary marketing and promotional tools to build awareness of the Group's offerings. The online community will be an extension of the current website and will provide a safe environment for users to communicate publicly or privately and to organize meet-ups and rallies. The Android/Apple mobile app will provide updated stats and information about the legalization of marijuana. The Group feels these tools will enable the community to be effective advocates who will then work to spark the vote in Florida and beyond. 

Lots more information here.

Be sure to get out and vote, everyone!

Grand jury dismisses charges against fired TSA agent Jeno Mouton

Former TSA agent Jeno Mouton worked for the agency for twelve years, often putting in overtime hours at George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston.

As TSA News reported in February, Mouton was fired from his job and arrested on charges of making "terroristic threats."

A Harris County grand jury recently dismissed the charges against Mouton, finding there was insufficient evidence to corroborate the TSA's case.

TSA News spoke to Mouton, as well as his attorney, Shanna Hennigan, who confirmed that all the charges were dropped and that the grand jury dismissed the case, also known as "no-billing" it.

"They ruled that the details [as submitted by the TSA] were either uncorroborated or completely untrue," said Hennigan.

Hennigan said the TSA's case focused on a single sentence of Mouton's discussion with a supervisor on Saturday, January 25th of this year -- a discussion that Mouton himself had requested, following protocol that employees should bring workplace concerns and frustrations to the attention of their supervisor.

"At the end of it, I said something like, 'I'm glad we could have this talk, because I don't want to be like some type of crazy person that would come back and do something like shooting up the place', and I thanked her, and then I punched in and went back to work my overtime shift," said Mouton.

After a little over an hour, however, Mouton says he was asked to hand over his credentials and go home for the rest of the weekend, then report back on Monday morning, before his scheduled shift that day.

On Monday morning at around 8 o'clock, he met with Federal Security Director Olusheyi Ogunleye. Ogunleye had Mouton sign a written statement about his discussion with the supervisor on Saturday, then he handed Mouton back his credentials and told him to return to his post. Mouton worked the entire day. At 4 p.m., a TSA administrative assistant informed him that he was being placed on administrative leave until further notice. He was required to once again turn in his credentials.

Mouton said that he didn't hear from anyone at the agency the following day, but on Wednesday he started getting calls from concerned friends (co-workers) at the agency, who told him there was now a BOLO ("Be on the Lookout") alert for him. That Friday evening, Houston Police Department showed up at Mouton's door and arrested him.

Mouton and his attorney said his statement at the end of his conversation with the supervisor was in no way meant as a "terroristic threat." They believe the TSA were being both disingenuous and illogical. Disingenuous, because supervisors saw fit to take a single sentence completely out of context, attach the dread T-word to it, and fire a man who had worked for them for twelve years--and then have him arrested on charges of making a "terroristic threat," effectively ruining his chances of finding well-paying work in the future. Illogical, because if Mouton had posed such a threat, why was hensent back to work that Friday afternoon? Why was he also told to report back to the airport on the following Monday, at which point he was given his credentials and assigned to his post for the entire day?

This isn't the first time the TSA has either taken words out of context or overreacted to an innocent joke. There is also a common theme in evidence: the lack of logic and common sense that has TSA agents confiscating supposed potential explosives -- be they tubes of toothpaste, bottles of shampoo, or jars of face cream -- and casually tossing them into a bin located just a few feet away from hundreds of passengers waiting in line; and the lack of logic and common sense that led the TSA to send Jeno Mouton, a man they considered to have made "a terroristic threat", back to work, for multiple shifts, in one of the country's largest international airports.

Attorney Hennigan also noted that her client did not return to the airport after he was put on administrative leave, as news reports claimed. Mouton confirmed this, and added that there was no videotape record of such an appearance, either. Said Mouton:

"And on top of all that, if they really believed I was any kind of threat, there are protocols they were supposed to have followed. They never shut down any part of the terminal. They brought me back to do my job, that afternoon, and then again all day Monday."

Mouton has filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Hennigan says he is working part-time, but at a greatly reduced salary. Mouton says the most important thing for him right now is to clear his name and find well-paying work. In an email to TSA News, he points to an egregiously racist and erroneous article online (we won't link to it). He writes:

"Some of the things that I've been encountering on the Internet and stuff that's been damaging to myself and my family. All because of this alleged allegations of the TSA. My God, this stuff is so hurtful and degrading." 

TSA News reached out to the TSA for comment; no one from the agency has responded.

(Screengrab photo courtesy of Click2Houston)

Also at TSA News.

TSA crime featured in Netflix series Orange is the New Black

TSA is the new IRS.

Allow me to explain. Throughout history, literature, cinema, television, and even religious texts have employed the archetype of the heartless, obtuse, and abusive government agent; in so doing, writers have frequently turned to some variant of the tax-collector. This character--a loathsome IRS agent, say--usually symbolizes an overarching societal ill. By giving physical form to the source of our despair--and oftentimes, equipping him or her with a bitterly comedic persona and a reliably Orwellian vernacular--writers have explored, with varying degrees of success, such issues as the soullessness and waste inherent in bureaucracy; the creeping malignancy of government overreach; and the sadistic, sociopathic criminality that invariably begins to flow when some humans are allowed to wield outsized, unearned power over other humans.

Now that Americans--a people whose very existence  as a nation and culture is largely rooted in migration, in travel--find themselves being forced to submit to unwarranted, intrusive searches of their bodies and belongings, at the hand of the government, simply because they wish to engage in said travel, it was probably inevitable that the TSA-agent-as-emblem would begin appearing in popular culture.

The well-received Netflix series Orange is the New Black, now in its second season, is a drama set in a women's prison. What makes the show compelling is that the writers, in addition to scripting a present-day storyline that takes place inside the institution, routinely explore the inmates' individual backstories through flashbacks. Thus, characters who initially seem harsh, difficult, and generally unlikeable become fully realized and sympathetic once their humanity is revealed to the viewer. Concurrently, a funny, attractive, and/or appealing character can, when her backstory is told, turn the viewer's perception of her on end: she has now become abhorrent.

This is precisely what happens in Season 2, Episode 7 of Orange is the New Black (entitled Comic Sans), wherein we get to really know the once-likeable inmate named Cindy. From Tom & Lorenzo's excellent recap:

Cindy gets her flashback this episode and like Lorna’s, it served as a jarring reminder that some of these ladies, no matter how entertaining they are as inmates, are real assholes in the outside world. To an almost shocking degree, she was shown to be irresponsible and self-absorbed, leaving her sister/daughter alone in a car while she runs upstairs to get high with friends or constantly abusing her position as a TSA agent, in a manner that taps into real fears people have about the security state in this country.

By "abusing her position as a TSA agent", they are referring to the Cindy character engaging in the unethical and illegal acts that real-life TSA agents engage in every day, at airports across the country, and have for years. As documented in TSA Newsblog's extensive (and ever-growing) Master List of TSA Crimes and Abuses. Waste. Fraud. Theft of passengers' belongings (especially electronics, like iPads). Inappropriate sexual touching. Waste writ large.

The TSA's abusiveness being so clearly depicted in a TV show can be viewed two ways. It is disturbing to consider that this agency's criminality has become pervasive (and invasive) enough to earn the TSA agent/character a place in the imaginations of screenwriters. But it's also gratifying in the sense that these artists are choosing to shine the light of popular culture on issues--most saliently the government-sanctioned violation of our Fourth Amendment rights--that far too many Americans still pooh-pooh as "needed security". Until the abuse, theft, or assault happens to them.

[Photo via the tumblr Orangeis]

I'm on BBC World Radio, talking about Edward Snowden

Greetings, all.

I'm back at my blogging dashboard after an extended hiatus. Though I have been tweeting regularly in the interim, as time permitted, which is how the BBC found me yesterday and invited me to be on their discussion panel show, World, Have Your Say.

The topics: Edward Snowden--traitor or patriot?--as well as the NSA's warrantless wiretapping of hundreds of millions of innocent American citizens and residents (crimes against the Constitution or jaw-dropping treason, ahem).

(I've made it clear that I believe Snowden is a patriot. And I stated long ago how wrong these warrantless surveillance programs are.)

I'm not an experienced radio personality, but I nonetheless enjoyed speaking my mind. My debate opponents, arguing in opposition to me, were a constitutional lawyer in New York and an IT engineer in Washington, DC.

I'd love to hear your thoughts. You can access the May 29th show here, then mouse over the leftmost photo in the middle row of the photo grid, and you'll get a Listen now pop-up. The Snowden discussion begins at the 45:50 point.

Right wing radicals; Right wing terrorism

The money quote, so to speak: what if, instead of yelling "Heil, Hitler!", the Kansas City white supremacist who shot three people dead this weekend had instead shouted "Allāhu Akbar!"?

You know the answer to that. There would've been a an enormous uproar--Terrorism!--and Dear Media would've been all over it like a cheap suit.

Instead, an odd silence. Just as a few years ago, when the DHS issued an analysis of these groups and warned they were gaining more recruits, they backed down after being met with the bleatings of Limbaugh, Malkin, et. al. Yet as Maddow shows, in recent years the right-wing extremists--the neo-Nazi groups and clinic bombers and right-wing seditionists--have committed significantly more deadly attacks against Americans, in America, than Islamic extremists have.

This is an important piece. Please watch and share it.

Edward Snowden nominated for Nobel Peace Prize

Friends, family, and readers know I applaud Snowden's brave whistle blowing and feel he should be allowed to return to the United States, granted total clemency, and thanked for his service to the citizens of this country. So clearly, I'm very happy about this, via CNN:

Two Norwegian lawmakers have jointly nominated National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden for the Nobel Peace Prize, they said Wednesday on their party website. 

Snowden has "revealed the nature and technological prowess of modern surveillance," and by doing so has contributed to peace, said a joint statement by Bard Vegar Solhjell and Snorre Valen of the Socialist Left Party. 

Nominations for this year's Nobel Peace Prize -- whose previous winners include such figures as the late South African President Nelson Mandela, Myanmar opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi and President Barack Obama -- close on Saturday, with the winner announced in October.

R.I.P. Pete Seeger, a great American

Arlo Guthrie:

I usually do a little meditation and prayer every night before I go to sleep - Just part of the routine. Last night, I decided to go visit Pete Seeger for a while, just to spend a little time together, it was around 9 PM. So I was sitting in my home in Florida, having a lovely chat with Pete, who was in a hospital in New York City. That's the great thing about thoughts and prayers- You can go or be anywhere. 

I simply wanted him to know that I loved him dearly, like a father in some ways, a mentor in others and just as a dear friend a lot of the time. I'd grown up that way - loving the Seegers - Pete; Toshi and all their family. 

I let him know I was having trouble writing his obituary (as I'd been asked) but it seemed just so silly and I couldn't think of anything that didn't sound trite or plain stupid. "They'll say something appropriate in the news," we agreed. We laughed, we talked, and I took my leave about 9:30 last night. 

"Arlo" he said, sounding just like the man I've known all of my life, "I guess I'll see ya later." I've always loved the rising and falling inflections in his voice. "Pete," I said. "I guess we will." 

I turned off the light and closed my eyes and fell asleep until very early this morning, about 3 AM when the texts and phone calls started coming in from friends telling me Pete had passed away. 

"Well, of course he passed away!" I'm telling everyone this morning. "But that doesn't mean he's gone."

Photo via John Nichols

Entitled, empowered, and indicted

Photo via.

Former First Lady of Virginia Maureen McDonnell, aka The Honorable Mrs. Governor Ultrasound, can't be faulted for merely fantasizing about swirling around the dance floor in an over-the-top-expensive Oscar de la Renta gown. I know I've entertained more than a few Walter Mitty reveries in which I'm a twirling princess or goddess or queen, my taffeta skirts swishing in the spotlight as I soak in all the admiration.

And then the light turns green and someone honks a horn.

Being empowered, being celebrated--whether one is a public servant, the spouse thereof, or even a vice-presidential nominee with a borrowed Neiman's card (ahem, Sarah Palin)--is not the same as being entitled.

But sometimes power-drunk people confuse real life with television.

In the HBO program Sex and the City, Sarah Jessica Parker's character got to live out an Oscar de la Renta fantasy. She was dating Mikhail Baryshnikov, and the day after reading aloud to him from that month's Vogue--describing a gown by the designer as "her poetry"--Baryshnikov presented her with the very dress she'd coveted. The episode's final scene shows the couple in a Manhattan McDonalds; Parker is wearing her fantasy dress, à la McDonnell, doing what one does while wearing an Oscar de la Renta: pirouetting on someone else's dime.

And other people's dimes are subject to wildly varying laws when it comes to gifts and goodies bestowed upon public servants by individuals and businesses. Then there are federal regulations. Clearly the intent is to maintain the illusion (if, sadly, little else) that public servants are there to serve the public--the people who vote them into office and pay their salaries--and not, as is all too often the case, to do the bidding of this billionaire or that foreign interest or those corporations.

Seemingly, there isn't much in the way of such laws in the Commonwealth of Virginia. According to the Washington Post, the state is one of ten that allows officeholders to accept gifts of virtually unlimited value. (There certainly are federal laws. To wit.)

Speaking of the word commonwealth, it comes from the late middle English commun welthe, the wealth of the people. It is the wealth of the people that paid Governor Bob McDonnell's salary, as it is with all American public servants and the families they support: it's the people's money.

In short, the spouses of public servants are supposed to buy their own dresses.

And really, there is no excuse for what Maureen McDonnell did. Oh, there are plenty of reasons for her behavior, with baldfaced greed topping the list.

(Yes, what Governor Bob McDonnell did is obviously far worse, because he was the one the people voted for and entrusted with all that power, but right now, we're talking about dress-greed, not megalomania, abuse of power, or for that matter, rank misogyny, all of which deserve long posts of their own.)

But there is no excuse because, hey, ever heard of regular old ready-to-wear? Forgive me, but other than its label, the blue dress in the picture is no different from those on racks in bridal and department stores all over Virginia. (Moreover, I can only imagine the state is home to countless gifted seamstresses, any one of whom could have whipped up a gown to rival Oscar's.)

And I don't for a moment buy the whole "We're under so much pressure to look nice, we simply had to get donors to spend tens of thousands of dollars on clothes for us" line, either.  Please. Professional American women with actual jobs manage to pull themselves together and stand in front of courts, cameras, and classrooms every single day.

It was about entitlement, pure and simple. We're the First Couple--we're entitled to fine watches, elegant holidays, and couture gowns!

And this from a so-called "conservative" couple! Who, when it comes to providing for the basic needs of the people who elected them, love nothing more than to preach the gospel of cutting spending, not living above one's means, tightening that belt, honey.

Learn to sew, Mrs. Governor Ultrasound. Perhaps you can replicate that gown--I hear orange is the new blue.

Welcome home, Scarface

It was past ten when we arrived home from holiday last night, and the resident muscle-men were kind enough to haul all the bags and boxes from the car to the kitchen.

All but one duffel: mine.

And I was damned if I wasn't going to have my favorite nightgown and the engrossing book I was reading, having just traveled for ten hours, through pounding rain, in a vehicle whose interior was dark enough to make reading said book impossible but light enough that I could see the ghost-whiteness of my knuckles.

Mamas, don't let your babies grow up to marry race-car drivers.

So I trudged out to the car, heaved my duffel's neck-breaking entirety onto one shoulder, yanked Ruby's pillow from the backseat, and wound my way in the dark through the family's various trucks and heavy machinery, back to the house.

The fever-steam we call Florida rain had ceased a while earlier, but water was still trickling and splatting everywhere. And then an enormous fan palm frond, its moorings weakened by God knows how many gallons of water and miles-per-hour of wind, tumbled from above, hitting me in the face--hard--and giving me a lovely diagonal gash on the bridge of my nose. I knew it was a gash because I immediately tasted the blood now coursing downward, ruining my camisole.

Oh joy.

I pounded on the much-closer back door, because Robert had locked it so the boys wouldn't go in and out and in and out the way they always seem compelled to do, letting mosquitoes in. Nothing. I pounded again, feeling more anger than pain at that point. Then I gave up, shifted the duffel (which was getting wetter by the minute) to my other shoulder, and traipsed, pack-mule-like, to the kitchen door, all the while trying to ignore the earsplitting din of the incessantly copulating tree-frogs who rarely have anything better to do on a Saturday night in rural Florida and who can fucking blame them.

My poor nose duly Neosporined and Band-aided, my tea made (with condensed milk, because the bloody milk had gone bad before its time--typical), I went to bed, looking forward to a good six hours of oblivion.

But I'd forgotten about the vicious, inconsiderate bastards who drive the Tropicana train along the lake at all hours of the night. In just a few hours, there they were again, blasting their house-rattling, dog-awakening horns.

There is nothing you can do to me that Florida has not already done.

Photo via.

On Privacy

Here is why intruding on my privacy, and the privacy of millions of other people living in America, is wrong on its face: it is not that I have something to hide--it's that I have everything to lose.

And when the intruder is the State, with its ominous, full-on power to destroy any individual by accident or intent (because as said destroyed individual will tell you, the results are the same), that which an individual has to lose can be significant, and the results of his having lost it, life-altering.

The notion of "innocent until proven guilty" underpins our jurisprudence for a good reason. The burden of proof is not, and should never be, on me: I should not have to prove a negative, that I am not something bad, that I'm not doing something bad. I simply am. I exist.

Thus, if I am suspected of wrongdoing, well, prove it in court. Prove it in accordance with the laws that, however imperfect, have managed to convict and imprison serial killers, armed robbers, and terrorists alike (at least they did until the Patriot Act afforded the State an easy, lazy way to do an end-run around the Constitution).  But if I am simply existing, minding my own business, communicating with my family, friends, and business associates, the State should have no right to monitor my words--not the time when, or location where, they were written or spoken; not the frequency with which some recipients (as opposed to others) crop up on some concocted list of my associates; and certainly not the words themselves.

That is--or rather, was--the point of having warrants: to protect those who are merely existing from intrusion into their private, personal lives by the State. By setting forth very specific requirements, most saliently probable cause, that must be met before allowing intrusive evidence-gathering that disrupts an individual's security and privacy.

Proper warrants, too, not bullshit rubberstamped-anytime-anyplace-totally-unspecific-to-any-one-crime-applicable-to-countless-millions-of-citizens-FISA-warrants that are issued in secret.

The only reason all this is happening is this: we're allowing it.

The existence of secret courts with secret rulings--much like secret police--does not bode well for the health of our democracy. And when the death rattle kicks in, we will not be able to blame the terrorists. The government is us.  We are the ones who harvested, processed, and swallowed our own hemlock, because someone, somewhere, convinced us that the potion would protect us from all evil, and damn if he didn't make a pretty penny in so doing.

On Ed Snowden's "Oppressive Regime Tour"

For those who argue--ridiculously--that Edward Snowden should have "faced the music" and stayed in the US rather than "tour the oppressive, anti-human-rights regimes of the world", a little reminder: Neither Russia, nor Ecuador, nor Venezuela, nor Cuba executed anyone in 2011 (the most recent year for which statistics are available).

The United States? We put 43 human beings to death in 2011 alone.

That puts us behind China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq, but ahead of every other nation in the world in terms of the state killing of citizens.

Torture?

Does it count when the US "renditions"--aka, has other cruel regimes do it for us, like Syria, Egypt, or Jordan? Because even if it doesn't, we're right up there at the top among the world's torturers.

Good grief, people. Take off the prima-donna sleep mask, open your eyes, and wake the hell up.

P.S. As for rendition, the U.S. is still at it, too--the only difference between then (under Bush) and now is that our government currently claims it is overseeing things so that when we do apprehend someone suspected of wrongdoing, throw a hood over his head, and haul him off to another country to be "interrogated", the questioning will not be accompanied by torture--at least, not as far as we know (because it is, after all, taking place in another country, and we can't completely control what goes on behind closed doors). Don't you feel better?

Image: Andy Warhol, Little Electric Chair (Green), 1964

Cinnamon-Chocolate Bat Cookies

There are blue sugar crystals on that there bat.

Chocolate Bats: The Legend. The tale begins about eighteen years ago, when Son One was in Montessori, and I was in the mood to bake cookies for Hallowe'en. I played around with one of Martha Stewart's recipes, adding cinnamon to the mix at the behest of the lad, and cut them into bats: WELL, thought I, let me put on some strong coffee right this minute.

The following morning, I packed a couple of bats in the royal lunchbox, and then, on second thought, wrapped a half-dozen more and put them in too: If there are other kids at the table, voilà--everyone's happy.

Mistake.

At twelve-thirty, I received a call from the teacher: "Er...Mrs. Tornello,  I'm calling about those chocolate bat cookies."

Uh-oh.  Did the sharing go okay, I wondered. (We really were working on that stuff.)

"Your son came over to the teacher's table and gave each of us one of your chocolate bat cookies--such a lovely, thoughtful boy--and they were so good. Could you...possibly...would you mind making a big batch for the whole class?" (Note: she meant the whole school, since they all ate lunch together.)

I made a triple batch of the cookies that night and sent them in. They became a regular thing around here, too, and not just at Hallowe'en.  I still have the kitschy little black plastic bat cookie cutter, used to make the cookie in the photo; the boys--there are three of them now--are still capable of reducing the chocolate bats by half within an hour of baking. I made them last night, in fact. I think there might be one or two left. Sigh.

This unfrosted, mostly unadorned cookie is texturally akin to slightly-cakey sugar-cookie, that is, it combines the best qualities of a wafer, a sugar cookie, and a brownie.  It's deeply chocolatey but not overly sweet, especially if you go light on the sugar-sprinkling. At Hallowe'en, use orange sugar to make them sparkle and jump off the plate (as if they needed help).

Deborah's Chocolate Bats

3 cups all-purpose flour, sifted
1 1/4 cups best quality unsweetened cocoa
1/4 teaspoon salt
2 generous teaspoons ground cinnamon
3 sticks (3/4 cup) unsalted butter, softened
2 1/2 cups confectioner's sugar, sifted
2 large eggs, lightly whisked
1 1/2 teaspoon pure vanilla extract

Sift together the flour, cocoa, salt, and cinnamon. Set aside. In another bowl, with an electric mixer, cream the butter and sugar until fluffy; add the eggs and vanilla.

Switch to a wooden spoon and stir the flour mixture into the egg-butter-sugar mixture; combine thoroughly but don't over-mix. Divide the dough into two balls, wrap each in plastic, and flatten slightly so you've got two very thick chocolate frisbee-like shapes. Put in the fridge for an hour or so.

Heat your oven to 350º F (my oven can get a bit too hot, so I always bump this down to about 325º F and wait a bit longer--it's preferable to having them burn on the underside).

Cover your cookie sheets with parchment paper.

Using a rolling pin and a clean, lightly floured surface, roll the dough out carefully until it's about 1/8" thick--mine are often a tiny bit thicker, as the humidity this time of year makes it nearly impossible to work with very thin dough of any sort. Flouring both your rolling pin and hands will help keep the dough from sticking too much. (So will working with cooled dough, in a nice cool kitchen--lucky you--if you possibly can.)

With a bat-shaped cookie-cutter--or one that's any favorite shape, of course--cut out your cookies. A wafer-thin metal spatula will be useful in transferring them onto the cookie sheet. As with many things containing flour, the less you manhandle this dough, the more tender and melt-in-your-mouth the final result will be, so be gentle and take your time. You can put the bats fairly close together, as they don't tend to swell and spread the way some cookies do. Sprinkle them with a little sugar, either plain granulated, raw, or colorful.

Bake for 8-10 minutes. They're supposed to be juuust this side of crisp and not darkened at all.

I have to admit it: chocolate bats, when oven-warm, are quite gorgeous--more so when eaten while standing at the stove with a little cup of espresso in one hand, enjoying the peace that you know is as temporary as it gets: that deep chocolate-cinnamon aroma might just as well be a fifty-foot-wide bat signal.

Enjoy!

Unwarranted email-snooping ruled unconstitutional in 2010

 
I was poking around in some 4th Amendment case law online and came across a relatively recent (2010) ruling (.pdf) by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. It's a solidly pro-civil liberties ruling that seems tailor-made for the files of whoever wants to challenge the legality of the NSA's unwarranted domestic surveillance programs.

The case was United States. v. Warshak et. al., and it involved the prosecution of Steven and Harriet Warshak, owners of Enzyte (a herb-based "male enhancement" supplement). The court upheld Warshak's conviction, more-or-less, because of the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule (whereby law enforcement is recognized to have been doing its job and following the law as it existed then).

(I will note here that I vehemently disagree with the so-called "good faith exception".)

However--and this is encouraging--the court ruled as unconstitutional the very statutes that enabled the prosecution's secret evidence-gathering.

Circuit Judge Keith, concurring (emphasis mine) (the last couple of lines are my favorites):

     Following NuVox’s policy, the provider would have destroyed Warshak’s old emails but for the government’s request that they maintain all current and prospective emails for almost a year without Warshak’s knowledge. In practice, the government used the statute as a means to monitor Warshak after the investigation started without his knowledge and without a warrant. Such a practice is no more than back-door wiretapping. I doubt that such actions, if contested directly in court, would withstand the muster of the Fourth Amendment. Email, much like telephone, provides individuals with a means to communicate in private. See Warshak v. United States , 490 F.3d 455, 469-70 (6th Cir. 2007), vacated , 532 F.3d 521 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc). The government cannot use email collection as a means to monitor citizens without a warrant anymore than they can tap a telephone line to monitor citizens without a warrant. The purpose of § 2703, along with the Stored Communications Act as a whole, is to maintain the boundaries between a citizen’s reasonable expectation of privacy and crime prevention in light of quickly advancing technology. S. Rep. 99-541, at 4. To interpret § 2703(f) as having both a retroactive and prospective effect would be contrary to the purpose of the statute as a whole.

     While it was not the issue in today’s decision, a policy whereby the government requests emails prospectively without a warrant deeply concerns me. I am furthermore troubled by the majority’s willingness to disregard the current reading of § 2703(f) without concern for future analysis of this statute.

Thoughts?

Image via techpp.com.

Friday Frank: My Guitar Wants to Kill Your Mama and Willie The Pimp; Texas; 1984

After having spent years searching for live video of Maestro playing My Guitar Wants to Kill Your Mama (a sentimental favorite in our house), I do believe I've got it.

And for afters, another Zappa great: Willie the Pimp.

You're welcome.

[Frank wouldn't approve of me appending this post with the digital version of a warning label. So I won't.]