Happy New Year To Everyone!

Hello again loyal readers. I hope everyone has sufficiently recovered from Christmas enough to be ready for New Years.
I want to wish all of my readers a Happy New Year and remind you not to drink and drive. I would also like to remind my readers that you need to eat pork and sauerkraut on New Years Day (at least if you want to have good luck in 2006).
Having said that, I would like you to note a few changes on the page. The most notable change on the page is that a link to EvoStats has been added, and for those of you who do not use Mozilla Firefox (or are using an outdated copy), there should be a button on the page that says "Upgrade To Firefox 1.5" (or similar). I have been having trouble with the Mozilla button, so if you are using Explorer, Opera, Safari, or the like and you are not seeing this button, let me know. EvoStats is a free service that allows me to see where my visitors are coming from. If you have a blog or webpage, give them a try.

And now the part you've all been waiting for (or not), my predictions for the college football bowl games. Ignoring the bowl games that have already been played, and going with the theory that the closer you play to New Years Day the more important the bowl game (excepting the BCS bowls which have their own rules), here are my predictions for the remaining games:

Music City Bowl--Virginia 27, Minn. 12
Sun Bowl--UCLA 41, Northwestern 7
Independence Bowl--South Carolina 17, Missouri 14
Peach Bowl--Miami 35, LSU 31
Meineke Bowl--South Fla. 38, NC State 35
Liberty Bowl--Fresno St 31, Tulane 14
Houston Bowl--TCU 21, Iowa St. 14
Outback Bowl--Florida 28, Iowa 17
Cotton Bowl--Alabama 35, Texas Tech 24
Gator Bowl--Louisville 42, Virginia Tech 35
Capital One Bowl--Auburn 27, Wisconsin 21
Fiesta Bowl--Notre Dame 38, Ohio St. 6
Sugar Bowl--West Virginia 45, Georgia 28
Orange Bowl--Florida State 22, Penn State 21 (upset game of bowl season)
Rose Bowl--USC 56, Texas 49

Now if you are smart and want to make alot of money, run out and bet against every team I predicted to win. You should make a killing! These are my predictions and they stand as called. I must note that if you actually bet on the basis of my predictions, you are a very large fool (I am a notoriously bad handicapper). (Oh, and before anyone gets mad and tells me that I am wrong [after the games, of course] about the predictions, 1. these are made as a wild guess, and 2. I expect to be wrong in nearly everycase. So read them at your own risk.)
Once again, Happy New Year to everyone, and don't drink and drive.
I am Chuck and this message is a service of the (bad) psychic sports network.
Coming Soon: My predictions for 2006!

Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays

Hello again loyal readers. I hope everyone is well.
Well, there are officially NO shopping days left until Christmas (unless , of course, you are Eastern Orthodox, in which case there are roughly 12 or 13 shopping days left. The reason for this is complicated and I won't explain it here).
So, I want to wish everyone a Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukah, Happy Holidays, or Happy "Whatever-You-Care-To-Celebrate".
I hope everyone gets what they want.
Here are a few personal Christmas wishes for people I know (minus the names):
For My Friends: I hope you get everything that you want and the batteries to go with it.
For My Girlfriend: Love, Happiness, and a bright, shiny, new pony (and all the stuff to go with it). (She REALLY wants a pony!) I suggest you name the pony...Norman.
For My Relatives: A day free from turmoil, family disputes, strife, and cooking.
For My Country: A day without anyone getting killed (anywhere).
For the World: At least one day where we all just stop and get along (or at least don't irritate one another)
And yes, I even hope George W Bush has a merry and happy Christmas (although I hope he gets coal in his stocking...along with an indictment on wiretapping charges).
So, from me to all of my readers and their families, Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and remember not to drink and drive.
I am Chuck, and this has been anything but a rant.

Apparently It Was "Faulty Intelligence"

Hello again everyone. I usually don't post so soon after a previous post, but this story has me shaking my head and wondering.
As loyal readers know, I have been on a tear about the whole Bush Admin/NSA domestic spying story. Just when I thought it couldn't get any stranger, this comes along.
The Washington Post is reporting that, earlier this week, the President rebuked reporters for breaking the NSA domestic spying story. During the rebuke, the President took reporters to task about publishing stories based on governmental leaks (basically he told them that they were being un-American by publishing news that might hurt intelligence gathering operations related to the war on terrorism. Call me a misguided idealist, but I thought that reporting news was the press' job. Guess White House approved news is the only acceptable news now!) Anyway...During the chastisement, Bush cited a 1998 news story (developed from a leak) that reported that Bin Laden was being tracked using his cell phone. The report supposedly caused Bin Laden to turn off his phone, and, thus, he was able to elude tracking for a while. Now, apparently in Bush's mind, no other reason would have caused him to shut down his phone. I mean the fact that we used cruise missiles to bomb his camps the day before he shut off the phone had nothing to do with him actually shutting it down, it was the newspaper story (yeah, that's the ticket).
Now the Post is reporting that the newspaper story cited by Bush is an urban myth. Plainly put, there never was any story. This "damaging" story never even existed, yet it was cited as "fact" by Bush. I guess it falls into the same category as the other facts bandied about by Bush and the White House. Facts like "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction", and "Iraq was involved in 9/11." Facts like "The Patriot Act isn't eroding or taking away your rights if you have nothing to hide" and "We don't have secret CIA prisons overseas and we never torture the prisoners in them." I guess this "fact" was just another example of the faulty intelligence that Bush is getting. It must have come from the same source as the Iraqi WMD intelligence. Gee, I wish Bush would get start getting some decent intel, and do so before more "faulty intelligence" kills another two thousand service men and women.
As always I am Chuck and this has been my "defeatist," but factual, rant.

This Just In To Fox News...

Hello again loyal readers. I trust that everyone is doing well.
Today's post concerns something I heard on Fox News yesterday (21 DEC 05).
I was watching Fox News yesterday afternoon. They had on a news discussion show (I don't recall the title) in which they present the days news and allow audience members to participate in a discussion of the day's events. As I watched, a young lady in the audience got up and made a comment. The comment was in reference to Bush's authorization of the NSA to conduct domestic spying without court oversight. When asked what she thought, the woman replied, "The only ones who have something to worry about are those with something to hide." This struck me as being a hideously ignorant comment (ignorant of the real issues at hand, that is) until I realized that Fox News is not "Fair and Balanced" as their tagline states, but rather tilted toward the Neo-Conservative viewpoint. In fact Fox News is so tilted toward the Neo-Cons that they should change their name to the Neo-Con News Network. Of course that would probably get them sued by CNN as Fox's new "call letters" would be NCNN. I also think that they should change their tagline from "Fair and Balanced" to "Whatever The Bush Administration Wants You to Hear" or "All Government Approved News, All The Time" (of course they'd probably get sued by Pravda for using the latter tag).
Having said that, my purpose in writing this is not to bash Fox News (I actually kind of like Neil Cavutto's business show), but to address the appalling ignorance of the woman's statement.
The woman making the statement can't really be faulted for feeling the way she does. She was merely parroting a sentiment that the Bush Administration and The Republicans have been spouting for the last 3 or 4 years. "Gee, Mr. President, what about the erosion of civil liberties under the Patriot Act?" "The only one's who need worry are those with something to hide." "Gosh, Mr. President, don't you think that domestic spying without court oversight is not only a bad idea, but downright illegal?" "No. The only ones who have something to worry about are those with something to hide." "Gee, Chancellor Hitler, isn't locking up all of the Jews and other non-conformists a bad idea, not to mention a violation of their human rights?" "No. The only ones who have something to worry about are those with something to hide." You see where I am going with this?
"Those with something to hide" aren't the only ones with something to worry about. You, the average America, should be worrying also. This departure from the rule of law is perhaps the most troubling of all of the developments during Bush's reign as president (or wannabe dictator, your choice). The Patriot Act, in all of its repugnance, is a law. It was approved by Congress, and it can be repealed by Congress (with enough popular pressure). The NSA spying was authorized by EXECUTIVE ORDER, Congress cannot repeal an executive order. The only person who can repeal or withdrawl an executive order is the president. Now given that this president authorized this order, I highly doubt he is going to recind it. This particular order is troubling in the fact that, heretofore, spying on American citizens was conducted by either the Secret Service, or the FBI, and then only after receiving judicial approval! The NSA spying has neither asked, nor recieved, any judicial approval, not even from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC)(the secret intelligence court)! As a matter of fact, the Washington Post has reported that one of the judges on the FISC has resigned in protest over the spying citing the fact the information gather may have been used to obtain tainted FISA warrants (tainted due to the lack of judicial oversight).
The problem with all of this domestic spying isn't that it is aimed at catching terrorists. The problem with it is that it represents, and embodies, a blatant disregard for the Constitution and the safeguards contained therein. The Constitution's Fourth Amendment reads: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Now I don't know about you, but what that means to me is that the government shall not come into my house and look around for illegal things without first having probable cause and, second, a search warrant. The Fourth Amendment is, essentially, both a limitation on the government's powers and a safeguard for the people. It limits the government's powers in that, without probable cause, they can't get a judicial order to enter your house, and without a warrant based upon that probable cause, you can deny the government entry to your home. It also safeguards you against governmental harrassment at your residence, not to mention that it stops over eager, under intelligent, and just downright nosy cops (and other government agents) from entering your house "just to see if you're up to no good". By ordering the NSA to spy on Americans without judicial oversight, the Bush Administration has pretty much thrown the Constitution out when it comes to catching terrorists here in the US. By engaging in this activity, the Bush Administration has shown that it will let nothing, not even the US Constitution, stand in the way of its wholesale attempt to seize unchecked power. Bush claims that the spying was prompted by his desire to catch terrorists. Might I remind the President that, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." No matter what your intent, as the President, you, above all people, must respect the rule of law, especially the Constitution (which, by the way, you are sworn to uphold). By tossing away one Amendment, you are essentially tossing them all away. Upholding the Constitution is an "all or none" proposition. One cannot just arbitrarily choose which Amendments one wishes to uphold and disregard the rest.
This administration has thrown away, violated, and just plain ignored our Constitutional rights for far too long. We, the average citizens, have a right and a duty to call them on it. We have a duty to see to it that those rights are restored. The Constitution allows us to do this by any means necessary. I personally prefer the ballot box, but you can decide your own path. My concern with this whole thing is, if we allow the government to just toss away the protections of one amendment, how long will it be before they decide that another amendment is "just in the way" and discard it? Which Constitutional Amendment will it be next? The First so as to shut up "troublemakers" and "rabblerousers" like me, or the New York Times? Maybe the Second, that way the populace can't fight back with anything BUT words. Ah, the hell with the Fifth and Eighth Amendments, now we can force you to testify against yourself, and we can torture you too (whoops, they already did do away with the Eighth. See CIA torture of terrorist suspects). The Sixth Amendment is already gone by virtue of the Patriot Act and the fact that domestic terrorist suspects are now considered "special enemy combatants" and, therefore, not entitled to the luxury of an impartial trial by a jury of their peers. Nine and Ten are already gone too. Nine says that any rights not listed in the Constitution shall be construed as belonging to the people. And Ten actually states that the individual States (or people) retain all the rights not given to the Federal Government. Silly States, thinking that they have rights, tsk, tsk, tsk. I left out amendment Three dealing with the quartering of soldiers in private houses as it seems to me that, since the members of the National Guard most likely own those private houses, and since the only military option we seem to have anymore is the National Guard (the regular Army seems to have all quit, or at least most of it [not the Army's fault, see defense cuts, ill advised miltary adventures {aka Iraq War}, and problems recruiting]), this wasn't really an issue. However, the issue at hand is how are we, the average American citizen, going to react? Are we going to finally stand up and say enough is enough and take back our Constitutionally guaranteed rights? Or are we going to react as the woman on the Fox News show did and say, "The only ones who have something to worry about are those with something to hide"?
I know what choice I am making. And if believing that the US Constitution is both inviolable and the highest law of the land makes me an enemy of the Bush Administration and the powers that be...so be it. But I shall remind the powers that be that being a patriot is neither a crime, nor is it defeatist (see Bush Speech, 18 DEC 05), nor is it terrorism.
As always, I am Chuck and this has been my rant.

The KGB Is Alive And Well And Living In Fort Meade, MD.

Hello again loyal readers. I hope everyone is doing well today.
Today's post concerns a recent story I read in the Washington Post.
It would seem that our cluless leader, one George W. Bush (male, caucasian, no distiguishable intelligence or scars), authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans here at home. He did so in 2002 via an executive order and then renewed the order a further 36 times!! Since the authorization, the NSA has been surveilling hundreds (possibly thousands, the exact number is classified [like most things in the Bush Admin.]) of Americans, not overseas where the NSA is allowed to operate, but domestically. The NSA has been gathering intelligence on Americans who communicate with individuals overseas. The NSA has been conducting both electronic and physical surveillance of people through various military intelligence agencies. The spying has been conducted without the judicial oversight required by the Patriot Act, FISA, or the Constitution. Whatsmore, during the entire time that this has been going on, the information has been released on a need-to-know basis. That means that only two people outside of the Bush Administration, and those directly involved, knew about this. Both of those people were sitting judges on the ultrasecret Intelligence Court (see unconstitutional "Star Chamber"). They were briefed in about the operation by then-AG John "I admire Himmler" Ashcroft. His succesor in the post as Reichsfuhrer Attorney General Alberto "I wanna be like 'Iron Felix'" Gonzales is quoted as saying that terrorism is a war of information and that the DOJ will be aggressive in gathering that information, but "...we will always do so in a manner that's consistent with our legal obligations." Yeah, ok, this from a man who composed a memo stating that torture was legal! I don't think Al would know constutionally legal if it bit him in the ass!
Now all this might not sound to bad until you consider that the surveillance could have been requested (without too much trouble) under the Patriot Act. However, the Bush Administration decided that it would be too much bother to follow the rules (or at least to comply with the law) in this case. So in classic Bush style, it was decided "the hell with the law, we'll do what we want! It is secret, who'll be any the wiser?!!?" On top of that, the memos discussing this basically have said that the President has unlimited powers to fight terrorism. Unlimited powers...hmmm, what about the law? What about the limits on Executive power contained in the Constitution? Unlimited power my ass! Of course given the Bush Administration's propensity for flippantly ignoring the law, I guess GW would have unlimited power.
Of course this brings up several issues. The first issue is, if the NSA has been surveilling people using military intelligence, isn't that a violation of the Posse Comitatus prohibition on using the Armed Forces to maintain domestic order? For those of you who don't know what I am talking about, the Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of the military in performing domestic law enforcement. Posse Comitatus is the reason that FBI is the federal government's chief law enforcement agency and not the Army.
The second issue raised is that this spying has gone on without judicial oversight. This intelligence gathering has been done with no warrants. Thus, this has been a warrantless surveillance. That makes the surveillance patently illegal. Under the rules, intelligence gathered from a warrantless surveillance is considered to be tainted and, therefore, inadmissible in any court case. Since there is a veil of secrecy around who was surveilled and what was gathered, it can be argued that it is possible that any terrorist trial held since 2002 could have used evidence gathered through this operation, therefore the evidence was inadmissible. That makes all terrorism convictions from 2002 to present suspect and in need of review. Furthermore, it can be argued that, if indeed intelligence from this operation was used in the government's cases, the convictions should be overturned, AND under the rules of double jeopardy, the terrorists should go free without the government getting another shot at the prosecution.
Another issue that is highlighted by this whole mess is the fact that the Bush Administration is treating the "War on Terror" as exactly that, a war. Now the last time I checked the Constitution, only Congress had the power to make war. If the Bush Administration wants to treat this as an actual war, then GW's powers are (Constitutionally) very limited in what he can do. If he wants to treat this as a limited military operation, then his powers are (legislatively) very limited. Either way, the President's is not omnipotent in fighting terrorism. However, as long as Bush continues to think he is all powerful, abuses like this will continue to be exposed.
Back in the 90's, Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath about an extramarital affair. At the time, I supported the impeachment because no person, President or otherwise, should be above the law (and Bill did lie). Bill was also indicted on "abuse of powers" charges. Now it is 2005 and we have the Bush Administration showing everyone exactly what "abuse of power" is all about. George W. Bush should be impeached immediately! He should be brought up of charges of abuse of power, criminal facilitation, criminal conspiracy, lying to congress and treason. It is clear that Bush views his power as unlimited with no constitutional or legislative bounds, it is also clear that he abuses that power on a regular basis. Mr Bush and his administration did work to criminally facilitate warrantless searches, he conspired with others within his administration to circumvent legislative and constitutional protections and guarantees (concerning civil liberties). And lastly, he committed treason by conspiring with at least 2 others within his administration is violate several Constitutional amendments and provisions.
Will GW be impeached, well let me put it this way...NO! Not with the gutless Congress currently being run by the Nazi, er, Republican Party. To show you how gutless these guys are, and after all this about domestic spying by the NSA, when asked about the whole affair, Sen. Trent Lott (R-Mississippi) said "I don't agree with the libertarians. I want my security first. I'll deal with all the details after that." Well, Senator Lott (by the way how are things in the Klan nowdays?), a man with more wisdom in his little finger than you have in your entire body (and a man who had a helluva lot of guts) once said "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety!" The man who said this was none other than Benjamin Franklin (scholar, inventor, and Founding Father). Given that Ben went through a revolution against the most powerful nation on earth at the time (Britain), I think he had a bit more balls than you, eh, Senator?
Well, time to go.
As always I am Chuck, and in the words of 80s one hit wonder Rockwell, "I always feel like somebody's watching me..."

The Barbary States Are No More...

Hello again loyal readers. I hope everyone is doing well out there in cyberland.
This post concerns my recent problems with copyright infringement (a type of "print piracy"), thus the odd title. Without going into a history lecture, suffice to say that the Barbary States were a group of states in North Africa (in the vicinity of present day Tunisia and Libya) that conducted what US considered, at the time, to be piracy. We attacked and defeated them in the early 1800's. It is from this war that the "shores of Tripoli" phrase in the US Marine Corps Hymn originates. Lesson over, now on with the show.
From reading an earlier post, you may know that one of my posts, "Updating A Few Things..." was recently reprinted without permission by another website. After much digging, I finally found the true owners of the offending website.
I must stop the story here and apologize to the people involved with California Regional Internet, Inc., of San Diego, CA, and "jlambert@complexdrive.net". While the Whois on the IP address came back to California Regional Internet, Inc, and subsequent investigation yielded the email address above, California Regional Internet, and the owner of the above email address had NOTHING to do with this. Thus I am apolgizing for naming them in the previous post.
Now on with the rest of the story...
As I said, after much digging, I finally found the party responsible for the offending website. I subsequently emailed the person and received a very polite reply. After a bit of discussion and the email below, the person responsible agreed to remove my post from his/her site. I won't reveal the person's name out of respect for their privacy. Other than taking out the names, the letter appears unedited.
Here is the letter I sent:

Dear [person responsible's name],
I am the owner of a blog called "Chuck's Occasional Rants" (http://lobstercigs.blogspot.com). During an inspection of my blog, I came upon a link to your website under the "links to this post" section of an entry entitled "Updating A Few Things..." I clicked the link and was directed to an entry on your website. Upon examination, I found that the entry on your website was an exact duplicate of my post including the title.
As you may, or may not, know the entries on my blog are both my intellectual property and are copyrighted. The fact that the reprint appearing on your website is not an excerpt (and thus subject to "fair use"), but a reproduction of my work in its entirety, without my permission, constitutes "copyright infringement" as defined by Title 17 United States Code.
I am asking that you take one of the following actions concerning this matter:
1. You may remove the entry on your site, within 7 calender days, without penalty provided that you do not repost the entry in question ad infinitum. ; or;
2. You may retain and display the entry entitled "Updating A Few Things..." provided that you prominently credit me with the work. The credit shall contain my name, my blog's name, and a link to my blog. The limited permission to reprint granted herein shall not exceed 180 calender days. Furthermore, at no time shall you remove the credit from the entry. After the expiration of the limited permission to reprint, you may seek a renewal of this agreement. If you do not seek said renewal, the permission will be considered to have been willingly terminated by both parties. Upon termination, the entry must be removed and must not be reprinted at any time in the future without seeking a new permission agreement.
For the purposes of measuring the 7 calendar days and the 180 calender days, the date of this letter shall be set as 16 December 2005.
I am not seeking anything unreasonable here, nor do I have a great desire to engage in a lengthy criminal investigation and possible prosecution. I am merely seeking to be credited with the authorship of my own work.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
[my name here]

I sent the email and within minutes the post was removed from the offending site. I have left the link intact so that you, the reader, may verify that it is indeed gone (the post, not the link).
While I retain all rights to these posts, I am not adverse to someone republishing them on another site. I don't want money for the posts (they're not good enough for that). All I ask is that the person seeking to republish any of my posts obtain permission to do so first (you may leave a comment asking to do so), and that they give me full credit for my work. I don't think that this is unreasonable. However, if you just come and grab a post without permission and republish it without crediting me, then I have a problem with it and shall seek any and all legal remedies.
As for the issue with the offending website, I consider the matter closed. Also, I am claiming a victory (albeit a small one) against copyright infringement.
As always, I am Chuck and this has been my rant.