It's My Way Or The Highway!

Hello again loyal readers. I hope everyone is in good health.
Today's post concerns the Bush Administration's unwillingness to reconsider the ports deal.
As those of you who follow the news know, a United Arab Emirates-based company called "Dubai Ports World"(DPW) recently completed a takeover deal with the UK-based company "Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation" (P&O). The deal would turn over control of several large American ports to DPW.
Now in my opinion, this is a bad idea. The UAE has, in the past, supported Al Qaida money laundering operations and two of the 9/11 hijackers came from the UAE. In the UAE's defense, they have recently been cooperating with the US in intelligence operations and have been allowing US ships to anchor in their ports. However, given that the UAE has a past record of supporting terrorist operations, is in a part of the world where radical Islamic fundamentalists have a real chance of co-opting the government, and that allowing a company from such a place to run one of our strategic assets would be giving the terrorists a wide open backdoor into the US, I believe that this is a bad deal. I believe that it is so bad that it is akin to giving aid and support to terrorists.
In order for the deal to proceed, the White House needs to give its blessing to the deal. They have already done so and, according to an AP report today, they are refusing to reconsider the deal. In essence, the Bush Administration is saying that on this deal, "It's my way or the highway!" Then again, perhaps Bush is afraid that reconsidering the deal would be an admission that he didn't investigate the matter as thoroughly as he would have us believe (in other words he lied, again). After all, just the other day he claimed that he didn't even know about the deal. Of course, later that evening it was revealed that the White House had a secret agreement in place with DPW. That leads me to believe that this deal is a "payoff" of sorts for the UAE's recent cooperation.
As I recall, didn't Bush state that countries that had supported terrorist operations were enemies of the US? Well, given the UAE's record concerning terrorism and money laundering, isn't this selling a strategic asset to an enemy? Do you know what giving US strategic assets to an enemy of the US is called? It is called "treason"!
We now know that Bush had a secret deal in place for this sale, we know that the UAE has supported terrorist money laundering, we know that a government that supports terrorism is an enemy of the US, and lastly, we know that turning over control of US ports to DPW is, essentially, assigning US strategic assets to an enemy of the US. We can also speculate that turning over these ports to DPW would give the terrorists a potentially large backdoor into the US and that, according to the information put out by the Bush Administration, the most likely place for a terrorist to get a WMD into the US is through the ports.
Now, I ask you the readers, is the Bush Administration a collection of the mentally challenged or are they criminally negligent? By approving this deal the Administration is not only giving "aid and support to terrorists", but they are also giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and they are committing treason! This deal, coupled with the fact that Bush likes to violate the Constitution on a regular basis and the fact that his administration has violated or ignored several other federal laws, should give Congress enough to impeach him. But will they? The answer is a resounding "NO". This Congress is the biggest bunch of cowards and turncoats that I have ever seen, heard, or read about (and remember, I am a historian, so I have read about quite a few!) This deal should be the final nail in the coffin for the Bush dictatorship, but, again, nothing will come of it.
Folks, we need to stand up and demand that George W. Bush, et al, be impeached, tried for treason, and, at least, imprisoned. And we need to do it before the terrorists can smuggle a WMD into the US through the soon to be DPW/terrorist-controlled ports!
I am Chuck and this has been my rant.

Star Naming For The Mentally Challenged Or The Independently Wealthy (Or Both)!

Hello again loyal readers. I hope everyone is doing well.
The title of today's post concerns star naming. By "stars" I do not mean the folks on tv and in the movies, they are "actors" not stars. I mean the celestial balls of (mostly) hydrogen that shine in the night sky (they shine in the day sky, but our own star is so bright that you can't see them).
It would seem that because I listed astronomy as one of my hobbies in my email profile, the scum of the internet (spammers) have seen fit to bombard me with dozens of emails concerning certain star naming organizations. The organizations mentioned in the spam are not the International Astronomical Union (IAU) which is the organization that gives stars their official scientific names. No, the organizations mentioned are the ones that will name a star for or after someone for a fee.
Now being an amateur astronomer, I know that if I discover something, I am supposed to send a telegram to the IAU telling them exactly what I discovered, where it is located in the sky, and when I made the discovery. After they receive the telegram, they will have the object confirmed, and make sure that no one has discovered it before me. Once these, and a few other checks, are done I would get the credit for the discovery (providing I did indeed discover the object), but as I read the rules, they, the IAU, get to name the object. As it sits now, planets pretty much get named after Greek or Roman gods, comets get named after the discoverer, and stars get a rather mundane catalog number owing to the fact that there are so many of them. So, if I discovered a star, unless it is something spectacular, or unless I am a world famous astronomer (say on the par of someone like Stephen Hawking or Carl Sagan or the like) the star would get a number and not a name.
Having said this, there are certain companies (who shall remain nameless to keep me from getting sued rather than to protect those who are obvious scam artists) out there who are more than willing to name a star for a fee. The companies will allow you to name a star anything you like as long as you pony up the cash. The fee for naming your own star runs from roughly $40 up to roughly $150. For your cash, you get a nice certificate, the coordinates of your star, and, in some cases, the star is placed in a book containing the name you give it and the coordinates. That is all well and fine except for one thing...no legitimate astronomer in the world will be using the name of your star to refer to that star! I'll give you an example of what I mean: Say your pet turtle passes on to turtle Heaven. Having had your pet for some number of years, and while grieving his loss, you decide that you want to do something special in memory of him. So after searching a bit and finding that headstones cost too much, you decide to name a star after your late pet turtle. So you go to a star naming company's website and enter all of the necessary information, pick your naming package, and voila, several dollars later you have named a star Gamera after your deceased turtle. After a few days, you decide that you want to see your star, so you truck on down to the local observatory and hook up with the resident astronomer. You tell the astronomer that you want to see your star named Gamera. It is then that the astronomer has to tell you that there is no star with the officially recognized name of Gamera.
Now this may not sound too bad, considering that the star was named for a pet turtle, but imagine being an astronomer and having to break that kind of news to a person who named a star after a recently departed loved one. Let's just say that I wouldn't want to be the one to do it.
So my advice to those who want to name a star is: Avoid the commercial star naming places, take your $40 to $150 and get some nice certificate making software, pick a random star either out of a star catalog or the sky, then use your computer to print out a nice certificate with your name for the star and the star's coordinates on it. It will be just as official as using the commercial star naming places and it will save you a few bucks.
Oh, and to the spammers who keep sending me these emails...don't bother, they just get trashed anyway, so you are wasting your time!
I am Chuck and I will be having the spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, eggs, and spam! (Apologies to Monty Python for the shameless reference).

A Little Something To Think About...

Hello again loyal readers. I trust everyone is in good health.
The subject of today's post is "A Little Something To Think About". I arrived at the subject after reading several newspaper reports on the current NSA wiretapping scandal. After reading a few that basically said that Congress is about to waffle on the scandal and let Bush slide on the legality of it all, I came across one report that said that, according to an AP-Ipsos poll, 48% of Americans now think it is "OK" to conduct warrantless wiretaps as long as it is to stop terrorism.
It depresses me to think that 48% of Americans are willing to give up their Constitutional rights just to obtain a little security. Are you really that afraid of the big bad terrorists? The terrorists are an unconventional enemy, but they are not the omnipotent, omnipresent bogeymen that Bush has fashioned them into. If Bush gets away with warrantless wiretapping in the name of fighting terrorists, when and where will he stop (or be stopped)? If the blatant disregard of the Constitution continues, pretty soon we will have no rights whatsoever! With no rights, you won't have any protection against the government. Who's going to tell the government "No, you can't do that" when they want to take away your guns, or your property, or you? Are you going to be the one to stop them? How about your neighbor? No, you in the 48% will stand idly by and watch people who disagree with the government be dragged off to God-knows-where, just as long as you are safe, secure, and comfortable.
How long will it be before we are reciting Martin Niemoller's 1946 poem to express our own regrets at letting our government get out of our control. How long will it be before we are saying...

First they came for the gays, and I did not speak out - because I was not gay;
Then they came for the civil libertarians, and I did not speak out - because I was not a civil libertarian;
Then they came for the liberals, and I did not speak out - because I was not a liberal;
Then they came for the Muslims, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Muslim;
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me.

I changed the groups contained in the original to more contemporary political targets, but the sentiment is the same, as is the message. (The original and a biography of the author may be found here.)
Think about the poem and think about the actions of the Bush Administration. Then think about how long it will be before they come for you or your family. The only solution, the only way to avoid this, is to demand that the Bush Administration adhere to the rule of law and the Constitution. If we fail to do that, then these things will come to pass, the poem will become an American lament, and we will only have ourselves to blame.
I am Chuck and I can see the writing on the wall. Can you?

Those Who Forget Their History...

...Are doomed to make idiotic statements before Senate committees!
Hello again everyone. I hope you are all doing well.
A bit of explanation may be needed for the title and above statement.
As you may know, if you read or watch the news, the Senate Judiciary Committee has been holding hearings on the NSA wiretapping scandal. So far the committee has been hearing testimony from Alberto Gonzales. Gonzales is the current US Attorney General.
I don't know where Gonzales grew up or went to school, but he must not have paid much attention in history class. In his testimony to the committee, Gonzales made the statement, "President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt have all authorized electronic surveillance on a far broader scale." Hmmm, really?!!? Washington authorized electronic surveillance? When did this happen?
I have checked both my primary and secondary sources on the American Revolution, and nowhere can I find anything on Washington's electronic surveillance.
Furthermore, I am curious about how, exactly, he authorized electronic surveillance in the days before electricity and electronics existed! Did he use a Leyden jar as a power source?? Perhaps he tapped into some long forgotten work by Ben Franklin. I'd suggest that he used the principles established by Michael Faraday (concerning magnetism and electrical current generation) except that Faraday wasn't born until 1791!!
However, I have figured out that Washington could have conducted electronic surveillance, and this is how:
First, Washington had the continental army construct a HUGE Leyden jar (a type of primitive capacitor). Then, he took some old English pennies he had laying around, had them melted and drawn into copper wire. After that, and on the same fire used for the copper smelting work, he had his men make charcoal (for carbon). From there, he constructed a crude microphone using the carbon, some of the copper wire, and a magnetized nail that he once used as a primitive compass. He then ran a lead to a speaker (also made of the copper wire and carbon along with an old magnet Franklin had laying around). In the meantime, he sent his men out to a sheep pasture with a little of the wire and the Leyden jar. He had his men attach the wire to two different sheep. The men rubbed the sheep together until they had adequately charged the Leyden jar (rubbing wool against itself will generate a static charge. Think socks on a carpet. The whole process took several days and the sheep were not especially happy.) The charged Leyden jar was then returned to the camp and isolated, lest the jar discharge and kill a regiment or two. Then, when Washington was ready to conduct his electronic surveillance, he hooked the microphone to Franklin's famous kite, wired the kite to the speaker, and finally to the Leyden jar. From there he sent the kite aloft and was able to listen to the British plan their next attack. As Washington later learned, sending the microphone up on the kite was a stroke of genius as it had the side benefit of keeping the Leyden jar charged during thunderstorms! (Yes, Washington was the MacGyver of his day!)
What? What do you mean you don't believe it? The Attorney General of The United States said Washington conducted electronic surveillance before a Senate committee, and he would never lie to a Senate committee! Oh, that's right, I keep forgetting, those who forget their history are doomed to make idiotic statements before Senate committees!
I am Chuck and you may be interested to know that, according to the Bush Administration, James Madison used a Mac G5 and an iPod to decode British messages during the War of 1812!

Edited for typos 9FEB06 @ 0037hrs--C.

Why You Shouldn't Let Important Legal Justifications Be Written By Idiots

Hello again loyal readers. I hope everyone has recovered from their Super Bowl parties.
The title of this post refers to the current battle over the legality of the NSA wiretapping program.
I was reading the Bush Administration's arguments for justifying the NSA wiretapping program when I came across something that I hadn't noticed before. The administration states that presidential authority to conduct warrantless surveillance has been around for as long as there have been US Presidents. It goes on to cite the fact that, during the American Revolution, George Washington himself authorized the intercept of British mail.
Now, this is true. George Washington did authorize the interception of British mail during the Revolution. However, this citation fails to take into account one small, but exceedingly important, fact...George Washington WAS NOT the US President at the time!!! At the time of the interception authorization, George Washington was merely the leader of a band of rebels. As such, he was already acting outside of the law and one more illegal act would have made little difference in his fate had the revolution failed. Also, it is implied that because Washington was authorized by the Continental Congress to lead the American forces, the Continental Congress was the legal authority in America at the time. Bad news for Bush, it wasn't. The Continental Congress was meeting illegally at the time that it gave Washington his authority. The officially sanctioned legal authorities in America were (from lowest to highest) the individual colonial assemblies, the royally approved colonial governors, the British Parliament, and finally, King George III (and Parliament and the King can be reversed depending on your interpretation of British law at the time). Furthermore, because he was appointed by an illegal body, under British law Washington had no more authority or standing than any other British subject at the time, and was, in fact, considered an outlaw by both Parliament and the Crown!
What all this means is that Washington had no more legal authority to intercept mail than any other citizen at the time. His order to intercept the British mail would the equivalent of your neighbor swiping your mail out of your mailbox today.
Thus the Bush Administration's assertion that Presidential surveillance authority dates back to the time of George Washington and the American Revolution fails due to the fact that Washington was not the President at the time, was appointed by an illegal body, and, while leader of the American cause, he had no more legal authority than any other citizen.
I'm not sure whether the Bush justification is disingenuous or, plainly put, borne of stupidity. I do know that the next time the White House wishes to make a historical argument they should probably consult a historian first (or at least someone who has taken more than just a freshman level Intro to American History). And as I said to open this post, this is why you shouldn't let important legal justifications be written by idiots!
I am Chuck and this has been a brief "bitch slapping" of the historical arguments of the Bush Administration!

Ok, I Had To Write About This...

Hello again sports fans and loyal readers. I trust that everyone is ok.
Well, I could not resist. I just had to make a post concerning the fact that approximately 3hrs ago, the Pittsburgh Steelers became only the third team in the history of the NFL to win 5 Super Bowls. The also became the only playoff 6th seed to ever win the big dance.
Yes, as probably most of you know by now, the Pittsburgh Steelers defeated the Seattle Seahawks 21-10 at Ford Field in Detroit.
As a lifelong member of the "Steeler Nation", I am unabashedly overflowing with joy, pride, and a tinge of sadness right now. I am joyful that the Steelers finally won "one for the thumb". I am proud of the Steelers for the season that they had and for what they've achieved. And I am touched by a bit of sadness as one of all-time great players in Steelers' history announced his retirement after the game.
When asked about next season, Jerome Bettis (#36,RB), a much loved figure in Pittsburgh who goes by the affectionate nickname of "The Bus", said "I'm a champion. I think the Bus' last stop is here in Detroit. It's official, like the referee whistle."
I can't say that I blame The Bus for ending his career in this manner. After all, every athlete, no matter what the sport, wants to go out a winner. All I can say is, "Say it ain't so Bus!" If Bettis sticks by his decision to retire, and I suspect he will, he will be greatly missed, not only by the team, but by loyal Black and Gold fans everywhere.
So, at least for a week or two, I am going to enjoy the fact that the Pittsburgh Steelers are Super Bowl XL champions. I would advise members of the Steeler Nation everywhere to do the same.
After that it is time to start thinking about how we are going to win Super Bowl XLI next year in Miami!
I am Chuck and like the one song in the pregame show said, I am "dancing in the street"!

You Heard It Here First...

Hello again loyal readers. I trust everyone is doing well.
Well, right to it. As the title says, you heard it here first. In a post dated 22 Dec 2005, I asked which Constitutional Amendment the Bush administration would attempt to destroy next. Well, according to a Washington Post article entitled "Goss Says Leaks Have Hurt CIA's Work, Urges Probe" by Spencer S . Hsu and Walter Pincus, the answer is the First Amendment. According to the article the current director of the CIA, Porter J. Goss, is more than a bit miffed at the leaks. The Post reported that, "CIA Director Porter J. Goss told a Senate committee yesterday that unauthorized leaks of classified information about agency activities have caused "severe damage" to the CIA's operations and that journalists who report leaks should be questioned by a grand jury."
Yup, that's the ticket Porter, let's not do an in-house investigation to discover and stop the leaks, let's go after the reporters who reported the information. Yeah, instead of stopping the leaks ourselves, let's question, and possibly indict, reporters for doing nothing more than reporting the news. So, Porter, what was it that got you all fired up? Was it the fact that the news came from a leak? Or is it the fact that the reporters reported news that you didn't like? Or is it just the fact that you, as part of the administration, hold the same disdain for the Bill of Rights as your more illustrious colleagues? Oh, and why can't you discover the leaks without questioning the reporters? I mean, after all, isn't the CIA supposed to investigate and develop intelligence for this country. I would think that doing that would be somewhat more difficult that catching a leaker. Or are you admitting to the country that your agency's derisive moniker as the "Central Incompetence Agency" is correct? Nope, wait, I finally got it, you and the boys haven't had any good torture candidates in weeks and now you want to torture the messengers, right?
The fact that another administration official wants to use official pressure and intimidation to violate another Constitutional Amendment should give everyone cause to suspect this administration of being repressive. Even you sycophantic, empty headed, hardcore Republicans should now be questioning the methods and goals of this administration. My question is "WHEN ARE YOU PEOPLE GOING TO GET IT?!!!???" This administration, everyday in every way, is pissing away YOUR rights. And all I hear from people is, I am not a terrorist, what do I have to worry about. I have an idea, how about this, for all those people who feel that way, I want you to go buy a bucket of sand. Then take that bucket of sand everywhere you go, that way when someone tells you something that you don't want to hear, you can just stick your head in the sand. Wake up America! The NSA, the CIA, and the administration have all now admitted to having as a goal of their policies the wholesale violation and disposal of your Constitutionally guaranteed rights. This must stop now or one day we will all wake up to find we have no rights anymore!
I am Chuck and this has been my rant. I've decided that I stand for one thing, the preservation of our constitutional rights, and if you don't like it...I don't give a damn!

PLEASE NOTE: This post may show up twice. If it does, please leave me a comment stating that it does so. The reason that it may show up twice is that the first version of it published, then, for some mysterious reason, it stopped showing up in my list of published entries and on the main page of the blog. This may be due to a problem at Blogger, or it may be due to someone having the post removed (for unknown reasons). Therefore, I have decided to republish it. The above post appears in its original form (as published the first time, on Feb 4, 2006 @ 0142hrs EST). If it goes down again, I will simply continue to republish it until the problem is fixed or until whoever is having it removed realizes that fighting with me is an exercise in futility.--Chuck.