Something You Should Read.

Hello again readers, I hope everyone is doing well.
Today, as I was going through my usual routine of reading the news and a few of my favorite blogs, I came across an article that I think you should read.
The path I used to find the article was somewhat circuitous and the blogs involved deserve both credit and a mention here. The story goes like this; I was reading a post on "Politics through the eyes of a teenager". The article, concerning a humorous video clip on the subject of illegal immigration, had a reference to another blog at the bottom. The blog mentioned at the bottom of the article is called "Terrorism News". I clicked on the link and began reading the blog. As I read, I came across a post called "Top 10 Signs Of Impending US Police State". The post had a brief comment and a link leading to the article I think you should read. The link lead to an article called "Top 10 Signs of the Impending U.S. Police State" by Allan Uthman and Buffalo Beast. While it is obvious what the article is about, I think that it is a very good, thought-provoking, and chilling piece. I urge all of my readers to go to the site, read the article, and then see if you don't find yourself agreeing with the authors' points and conclusions.
I am Chuck and this has NOT been a rant, but rather a recommendation.

Edited: 27 May 06, 0257hrs to correct an HTML link.

Long Time, No Post...

Hello again readers, I hope everyone is doing well. First of all, I apologize for the delay in posting. Things have been rather hectic here at the Chuck Ranch (and House of Ill-Repute).
There are two subjects that I would like to tackle in today's post. The first subject deals with the fact that Iran now wishes to engage in talks concerning its nuclear program. The second topic concerns an FBI raid on the offices of Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-LA).
The Washington Post is reporting that Iran now wants to talk directly to the US concerning its (Iran's) nuclear program. According to the Post's story, this signals a change in the Iranians attitude toward the US. The story also is reporting that US intelligence officials are regarding this as a major overture by the Iranians. According to the Post, administration officials, including Bush and Rice, have dismissed the overture as nothing more than a "tactical move" and have stated that the request contains nothing new.
Ok, let me get this straight, the Iranians want to talk about their nuclear program, the overture has been assessed by experts on Iran as being "real", and yet, the Bush Administration says that the Iranian efforts are nothing more than a "tactical move". Gee, George, what tactic would that be? The tactic of trying to avoid a war? If this is a real effort for the Iranians to engage the US diplomatically, as the experts have said it is, then what is the harm in talking to them? Someone wiser than I once said that there is no last word in diplomacy. If you are so smart George, then prove it, talk to the Iranians and do so in good faith. I realize that talking to them might delay your timetable for starting World War 3 and completing your program of world conquest, but look at it this way, at least the military will have more time to prepare for the upcoming war. George, are you so stupid that you can't see that talking to the Iranians will at least delay a war, if not avert one? Are you so blind that you can't see that the American people don't want another Middle Eastern military adventure? I don't know what is going through your head George, but this is not the 19th century and the doctrine of Manifest Destiny went out with the end of the Civil War! Furthermore, the Age of Imperialism is long over. This is not the British Empire and you are not Queen Victoria. This is America and, in case no one told you, we believe in talking to anyone who will talk to us. On top of that, we don't believe in going to war with someone just because they pissed us off, or at least we didn't until you took office. George, pull your head out of your ass, start paying attention to the people we pay to be experts on the subject at hand, and then tell your empty headed Secretary of State to set up a meeting with the Iranians. If they are truly serious about resolving this issue, who knows, they might just show up to that meeting and they might just talk about it. And, who knows, we might just avoid a war and the thousands of dead servicemen that will ensue. Of course talking to someone as bloodthirsty, vindictive, insane, and stupid as you, George, is like teaching a pig to sing...All it does is frustrate the teacher and annoy the pig.
Let us move on to our next subject, the FBI raid on Rep. William J. Jefferson's offices. Yesterday, the Washington Post reported that the FBI raided the Congressional offices of Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-LA). Jefferson is currently under investigation for taking bribes for promoting business ventures in Africa. According to the story, Jefferson denied any wrongdoing and called the raid an "outrageous intrusion". The story goes on to report that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL), and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) are all up in arms over the raid. They view the raid as violating the Constitutional clause concerning separation of powers. According to both the Constitution and the courts, a raid such as this violates the prohibition on the Executive Branch of the government intimidating the Legislative Branch.
Well, I can see why Hastert is up in arms, he is afraid that the FBI is going to raid his offices as he is under investigation regarding his ties to the convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff. The other two may have a point though. When conducting a corruption investigation, usually the FBI subpoenas the relevant documents from the office of whomever they are investigating. This raid does seem to be very unusual. But then again, stop and consider a few things. First, the Representative in question is a Democrat. Second, he is from Louisiana and has been critical of the Bush Administration concerning the government's response to the Katrina disaster. Third, he is up for reelection in a district that, if there were no allegations of wrongdoing, would probably remain in Democratic hands. And lastly, the FBI is part of the Department of Justice which is run by Bush lapdog Alberto Gonzales. Gonzales is the man who wrote justifications of torture and the NSA spying program for the Bush Administration, so why should we expect him to respect the norm or the law when it comes to conducting this investigation? The answer is that we shouldn't. You can bet that this raid was conducted on orders from the top in an effort to both intimidate Congress and to discredit a Bush opponent.
As for the Congresspersons complaining about their rights being violated, all I can say is, "Shut up!" Where were you guys when the Patriot Act was being debated and passed? I didn't hear you screaming about rights then. And what about the efforts to try and legalize the NSA spying program? How much complaining about rights violations did you do then? When your rights are violated you complain to anyone who will listen, but when the rights of the American people are violated, strangely enough, you are silent. People have told me that I should treat our elected officials with respect. Well, I hate to tell you boys and girls, respect is something which is earned and not given. Until you crybaby Congressmen start standing up and fighting for the rights of those you are elected to serve and represent, you will get no respect from me. And the more you complain about your rights while disregarding the rights of your constituents, the less respect you will earn as far as I am concerned. If you want to earn the respect of the American people, I suggest that you quit complaining about your rights being violated, start opposing the Bush regime instead of rubberstamping everything he wants, start thinking critically about the direction this country is headed, and start serving those who put you in your position in the first place (the people, not the special interests you've been serving). Until then I will continue to consider you to be nothing more than lying, corrupt, reprobates whose only interest is in lining your pockets at the expense of the American people, and, therefore, not worthy of my respect.
I am Chuck and this has been my rant.

The Tangled Web: Part 2, The Plot Thickens

Hello again readers, I hope everyone is in good health.
The subject of today's rant is once again the NSA and their illegal and ill-advised domestic spying program.
Since the last post on this subject, it would seem that BellSouth, and Verizon have been vigorously denying their involvement in the program. The companies have issued several statements saying that they never cooperated with the NSA and that the USA Today story claiming that they did is just plain wrong. They have also called on the USA Today to retract the story.
Well boys, if the story is so wrong, why not just sue the USA Today for libel? After all, statements such as those contained in the USA Today story are, according to you, damaging and false. As I am sure your corporate attorneys are aware, damaging and false statements in print are the foundation of any libel suit. However, since there is no suit forthcoming, I am left with only one alternative and that is to believe that the USA Today report is substantially correct in its assertion that you did, indeed, cooperate with the NSA and thus committed a violation of federal law. The USA Today has issued a statement in response to the BellSouth and Verizon denials asserting that they believe their story to be correct.
In other news regarding the NSA domestic spying scandal and these companies, BellSouth, Verizon, and AT&T have all been named in a suit in New York. The suit alleges that these companies have all violated federal law and customer trust by divulging their customers' information to the NSA without a warrant. According to CNN, the class action suit, filed in the Manhattan District Court, is asking that the companies pay $200 billion to their 200 million subscribers. Wow, talk about a helluva a rebate on your phone bill!!
The Manhattan suit is not the only court trouble for AT&T. AT&T is currently in the process of being sued by the Electronic Frontiers Foundation in US District Court in San Franscico for their (AT&T's) role in aiding the NSA. A retired AT&T employee has alleged that the company had installed equipment in a San Francisco office that was tapping into customers' dial-in information. The retired employee supplied EFF with documents substantiating his claim which EFF then filed under seal in US District Court as part of their lawsuit against AT&T. EFF then asked the judge in the case to unseal the documents so that they could be made public. AT&T opposed the move claiming that the documents were obtained illegally and contained "trade secrets" that could allow hackers to compromise their (AT&T's) system. In the meantime, the US Department Of Justice has gotten involved in the case. The DOJ is claiming that unsealing the documents and allowing this case to proceed could jeopardize national security. On Wednesday, the judge in the case ruled that the documents would remain sealed until he considered the DOJ's claims and, if the suit isn't quashed, until AT&T and the EFF could come to an agreement regarding the potential trade secrets contained in them.
What a load of crap. I can understand AT&T's desire to have these documents suppressed. If they are incriminating, AT&T's case would be shot to hell. I can also understand AT&T's claim that the documents contain trade secrets. The "trade secrets" claim is a commonly used tactic when companies don't want damaging documents released to the general public. However, the DOJ claim that national security may be compromised is pure bull. This is nothing more than one government agency stepping into to cover evidence of wrongdoing by a company on behalf of another government agency. At best, this is a misguided policy, at worst, it is criminal obstruction of justice and conspiracy in the advancement of a criminal enterprise, specifically the NSA spying. A quote from the San Francisco Chronicle shows just how far the DOJ is willing to go to obstruct justice in this case:
"When Justice Department lawyer Carl Nichols urged Walker to read the classified material -- which would have to be transported from a secure department site -- before ruling on the dismissal motion, the judge asked whether that would be fair to the plaintiffs, who will have to contest arguments they will never see.
'That is how it has to be done,' Nichols replied. 'To do otherwise would be to disclose facts, the result of which would be harmful to national security.' " (source: SF Chronicle, 05-18-06)
So according to the DOJ, it is harmful to national security to allow the plaintiffs to see the arguments that they will have to contest. In a country where the justice system is supposed to be transparent and the courts are supposed to be open to public scrutiny, this is the worst kind of obstruction possible. The DOJ is saying that now, due to "national security", you have to defend yourself against secret arguments. How can someone defend themselves against a secret argument? It is illogical. If you don't know what the argument is, you can neither defend against nor counter that argument. This is the DOJ saying to someone that "We have something against you. We're not going to tell you what it is, but you better be prepared to argue against it in court!" The sad part of this whole affair is that the DOJ is obstructing the very thing that they are charged with defending, JUSTICE! Tactics such as this have turned the Department Of Justice from an organization designed to defend the American people from the unlawful excesses of their government into the governmental equivalent of a Mafia lawyer who is less worried about true justice and more worried about assigning guilt.
In other news, Gen. Michael Hayden, Bush's choice to head the CIA, continues to insist that the NSA program is legal and necessary to catch terrorists. He also claimed that the privacy rights of American citizens were a constant concern at the NSA. Yeah, right, let me guess, they were a constant concern that you considered and dismissed as being unimportant. Furthermore, General, you claim that the program is legal, how the hell would you know?!!? As evidenced by a recent MSNBC interview, you don't even know what the Fourth Amendment says. If you don't know what the Constitution says, how can the American people depend on you to make an informed decision about what programs are legal and what programs aren't? I will give you the benefit of the doubt and guess that you are using the same logic that the DOJ uses in it's "national security" type cases!
I am Chuck and I am sure that I will have a few more rants on the NSA before this is all done.

Who'd Have Thunk It!!

Hello again readers, I hope everyone is doing well.
The subject of today's rant is Bush's speech on immigration earlier tonight. The title comes from the fact that I actually agree with most of what Bush said.
The speech, 18 minutes in length, addressed the current controversy regarding illegal immigration. The complete text of the speech is available here. Bush put forth proposals that included moving 6000 national guard troops to the Mexican border in support roles, hiring and training 6000 new border patrol officers by 2008, building a new high tech fence and barriers, increased federal funding for local law enforcement agencies that aid the border patrol in the apprehension of illegals, a guest worker program that includes background checks and tamper-proof ID cards, and a procedure for making [now] illegal immigrants who are in the US into legal immigrants and, eventually, citizens.
Now, believe it or not, I agree with most of the proposals. The only proposal I don't think is a good idea is moving the 6000 national guard troops to the border. There are better things these troops could be doing, like helping with the Katrina cleanup, prosecuting the war on terrorism, or being at home working in their normal jobs. As it is, the national guard is stretched pretty thin, which makes me wonder if there truly are enough troops available to fulfill this mission. What I mean is that between their deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan and the high attrition rate that the military is currently experiencing, the guard, as well as the regular forces, are shrinking. Bush states that there are enough guard troops to fulfill all of their missions, but I am not convinced.
The proposals that I like the most are the plan to hire more border patrol officers, and the guest worker program. I think that both of these ideas are prudent responses to a difficult problem. The proposed increase in border patrol officers leaves the responsibility for securing the border where it should be, in the hands of civilian authorities, not in the hands of the military as some have proposed. Provided that the government does thorough background checks on the applicants, I think that the guest worker program is a very good idea. Not only does it allow for Mexican citizens to legally enter and work in the US, but it also secures a reliable, legal labor force for the agricultural businesses who are now dependent on illegal immigrants.
The big question with these proposals now is how much will they be altered by the corrupt grandstanders in Congress. As I sit here listening to the reactions on the news, I can tell already that both the Republicans and the Democrats are practicing their political posturing. Well, here's an idea for those Congressmen...Can the political bullshit. Sit down, read the proposals, think about and debate the points, then get off your lazy asses and craft legislation that will incorporate these proposals. I know it is a radical idea, guys, but just for once try to doing something that benefits the country as a whole instead of lining your pockets as usual!
I am Chuck and this has been my rant.

Oh What A Tangled Web We Weave...

When first we practice to deceive!--Sir Walter Scott, Marmion Canto vi. Stanza 17 (Source:Bartlett's Familiar Quotations)
Hello again readers, I hope everyone is doing well.
The subject of today's post is the NSA wiretapping affair. The title refers to the Bush Administration's obfuscation efforts regarding that program.
For those who don't know, multiple media sources are now reporting that three major communications companies (BellSouth, Verizon, and AT&T) have been supplying user/customer data to the NSA. The NSA has been using this data to discern the calling patterns of these companies' customers. This discernment is routinely referred to as "data-mining". The data being supplied isn't the US-origin-foreign-country-termination communications as previously claimed by Bush and the NSA, but domestic calling information. The Bush Administration, the NSA, and the communications companies involved are claiming that no customer's individual information (name, address, etc.) is being passed on to or stored by the NSA.
Well, whoop-de-doo, so no individual information is being passed to the NSA. Does that make the obtaining, storage, and data mining of such information right or legal? The answer is resoundingly no!
Despite the Bush Administration's best efforts to justify such actions, they have yet to prove that the program is legal under the Fourth Amendment. They also have yet to prove that the Executive branch has the right to enact such a program under Article 2 of the Constitution as Bush has previously claimed.
Furthermore, the Bush Administration's and NSA's claims that no individually identifiable information is being collected and stored lack are somewhat unbelievable to me. This administration has a severe credibility gap. The lies from the Bush White House concerning this program have ranged from "We're not illegally wiretapping American's communications" to "We're not tapping domestic communications" to "We aren't collecting individual's personal data." Everytime the administration has claimed that they aren't doing something, it turns out that they are doing exactly that. Couple the lies concerning this program with the lies about Iraq and their supposed WMDs, the lies concerning the federal response to Katrina, and the infamous "Mission accomplished" deception, and you begin to see how this administration might have a small credibility gap. And Bush wonders why his approval ratings are hanging around 30%!??! It is because the American people, even hardcore conservative Republicans, are sick of the lies.
As for the companies involved, we can't expect the whole truth out of them either. The companies involved (BellSouth, Verizon, and AT&T) have a vested interest in preventing the whole truth from coming out. Under the Federal Communications Act of 1934, communications companies are prohibited from handing out an individual customer's personal information except when required to do so by a search warrant. What that means is that if these companies have been giving the NSA individual customer information, and since the NSA program is warrantless, then these companies are guilty of committing a federal crime. The penalty for such a breach of the FCC Act of 1934 ranges from $130,000 to $1.35 million per violation per day. That means that, conceivably, these companies could be responsible for fines ranging from several million to several billion dollars depending on the number of violations and the length of their cooperation with the NSA. However, if the companies are not giving out individual information, only things such as general calling data (i.e., number of calls per day, peak usage hours, etc.), then they are breaking no laws and would not be responsible for such enormous fines. Now if I know this, I would certainly think that the management of these companies would know this, and no company is going to voluntarily disclose the fact that they have been betraying their customer's trust and violating federal laws. Therefore, I have to conclude that these companies will never tell the whole truth as to the extent of their cooperation with the NSA, nor will they ever disclose the entire truth as to what information they did give to the NSA.
I would like to see the termination of this illegal program immediately. I would also like to see a thorough (and I do mean THOROUGH) Congressional investigation of this entire program conducted by an impartial third party such as a special prosecutor who is neither Democrat nor Republican.
As long as I lived, I thought that I would never, ever see the day when a dissenter such as myself would have to be guarded in his criticisms of the government for fear of being targeted as a terrorist or terrorist supporter. I never thought that is my lifetime I would see the day that America would become a true police state. But now that big business has decided to forgo the best interests of their customers in the name of "national security", now that the government has decided that the citizens of this country are more of a threat than the terrorists and foreign powers, and now that the government's covenant with the people (the Constitution) has been violated and ignored by a power hungry madman who calls himself the President, that day has come. How sad will it be when, in years to come, people will tell their grandchildren, "I can remember the day when America became a dictatorial police state, and I did nothing to prevent it." Perhaps it is time for people to remember something that Thomas Jefferson once said and take action to prevent the government from robbing you of all of your rights. Jefferson once stated, "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." How much do you fear your government?
I am Chuck, and this has been my rant.
Oh, and if this rant gets me on an NSA list, let me know so that I can change the subtitle to "now banned in 16 countries!"

Let's Talk About...Things.

Hello again readers, I hope everyone is in good health.
The odd title of today's post refers to the fact that this post isn't on one specific topic. Since there isn't much going on in the news that is worthy of a rant, I have decided to take this opportunity to pontificate on a few topics that have been on the backburner. I will also address a few current topics. So without further ado...

• Here in Pennsylvania it is primary election season. The spring primary is scheduled for May 16th. The most interesting race in my local area has to be the Brightbill-Folmer race. Chip Brightbill is the current incumbent state senator. Mike Folmer is a former Lebanon (PA) city council member. As an incumbent, Brightbill is/was responsible for helping to pass the unconstitutional legislator pay raise. According to reports, as a councilman, Folmer didn't show up for meetings a great deal of the time. Both are running for the Republican nomination. What a sorry state of affairs it is when your two choices for the Republican nomination for a state senate seat are between a politician that willfully violates the state constitution and a supposed deadbeat. I guess we should expect nothing less than this from one of the entrenched political parties be it the Republicans or the Democrats. (BTW, I am an Independent, they don't let us vote in primaries. I guess we are a bit too free thinking for the established parties.)
• I read a story a few weeks ago about a San Diego school district banning t-shirts with "hurtful" slogans. The school district was sued in Federal Court by a student who wore a shirt that said "Homosexuality is shameful". It would seem that the school district banned the shirt and the student sued stating that the district's dress code violated his freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and right to due process. The US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 that the district could ban shirts that contained "hurtful slogans". The judges gave various longwinded decisions, but what the majority opinion boiled down to is that the First Amendment (in their opinion) apparently no longer protects unpopular speech. I guess idiocy isn't limited to politicians. Apparently the judges who were in the majority in this case must have skipped the class in Constitutional Law while in law school. If they had attended that class, they might have learned that the First Amendment does, indeed, protect unpopular speech. In fact, the First Amendment was specifically designed to do just that. It was also designed to give an unpopular minority protection against majority repression. I guess since the Executive branch of the government has decided that the Constitution is no longer a valid document, the Judicial branch has decided to join them. If I were the student in question, I would definitely appeal this decision.
• I see that Zacarias Moussaoui is now trying to change his plea. According to various news reports, Moussaoui has instructed his lawyers to submit a motion to change his plea from guilty to not guilty. He says that his story about being involved in the 9/11 plot was a complete fabrication. He is also saying that since the jury gave him life in prison instead of the death penalty, he is now convinced that he could get a fair trial here in the US. Well, Zac, I will let you in on a little secret, you can't change your plea after you have been sentenced. Does the phrase "a day late and a dollar short" mean anything to you? And, gee whiz, what happened to the "I won and you lost" rhetoric? Did you finally figure out exactly what it is that you "won"? I thought you were a big, bad, macho terrorist hellbent on destruction. I guess the thought of spending the rest of your life in a small cell is showing you for exactly what you and your kind are, sniveling little cowards who make up for their inadequacies by inflicting pain on others. Now shut up and get back in your cell little girl!
• I read an article on CNET News (a few weeks ago) that reported that the US Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, is calling for US ISPs to start retaining user data. The plan he is proposing is similar to the data retention provisions recently passed by the EU. The supposed reason for proposing this retention is to aid law enforcement in catching sexual predators on the Internet. While the idea of making it easier to catch sexual predators is laudable, I don't for a minute believe that this is the real reason for this proposal. Given that Gonzales has helped the Bush administration justify torture and warrantless wiretapping, I believe that his stated goal of protecting children from perverts is pure bull. This is nothing more than an attempt to allow the government to conduct more domestic spying, and all without a warrant. However, despite the fact that this kind of spying is illegal, this proposal will be codified by Congress because anything that "protects the children" gets passed without question and without any kind of verification that it will, indeed, protect kids. Seeing as anything that supposedly "protects the children" gets passed, I am proposing that sugared bubblegum and candy be banned because, as we all know, it rots your teeth and ruins your supper. We must protect the children against the evil forces of tooth decay and bad nutrition. All the data retention proposal will succeed in doing is generate more dead-end leads that waste precious FBI resources, and it will violate your right to privacy in your communication. But then protecting your rights doesn't seem to be a priority of the current administration.
• Thinking of the current administration...Now that the Moussaoui trial is over, I am wondering when the administration is planning to bring the other 9/11 conspirators to trial. What I mean is that we hold 5 or 6 of the 9/11 co-conspirators in Gitmo, yet there are currently no plans to try these people for their crimes. What is the administration waiting for? Trying these guys for their crimes would be the best thing the administration could do insofar as showing the American people that they (the admin.) is actually doing something to win the war on terrorism. I can't fathom why they wouldn't bring these people to justice unless they are afraid of something. Could all the crazy conspiracy theorists be right?
• On the subject of 9/11, I read a news story that one Representative is blocking a monument to Flight 93. The story goes that a group, consisting of family members of the passengers and crew, has proposed that the Federal government help to construct a monument to the victims of Flight 93. The money for the proposed monument has to be approved by the House Interior Appropriations subcommittee as they are the subcommittee responsible for approving Federal property acquisitions. Normally, proposals such as this one fly through the committee and are passed to the full House in due course. However, this time the chairman of the subcommittee has seen fit to block the proposal. The Federal government has been asked for $10 million dollars to help in purchasing the land needed. The chairman of the subcommittee, Rep. Charles H. Taylor (R-NC), has decided that this is too expensive and is blocking the proposal from coming to a vote before the subcommittee. Apparently, Rep. Taylor has unilaterally decided that these people do not deserve a monument. I guess that he feels that since these were common, everyday people who rose to the defense of their country and not the scions of the rich and powerful, they deserve no recognition. I hate to tell Rep. Taylor this, but there are more common people in this country than rich and powerful people. I hope that these common people show up in November to voice their opinion of your decision (Taylor is up for reelection this year). Of course, I would have expect nothing less from a Republican than to reject anything that benefits the average person.

Well, I think that is about it for now. So until next time, remember...
I am Chuck and this has been my rant.

The Verdict Is In.

Hello again readers, I hope everyone is doing well.
The subject of today's rant involves our favorite "bit part" terrorist, Zacarias Moussaoui.
According to various wire service reports, the jury in the seemingly neverending trial and sentencing of Moussaoui has found that Moussaoui is deserving of life in prison. According to the AP report, when sentenced Moussaoui said, "America, you lost, I won" and then clapped his hands.
I decided long ago that this clown wasn't nuts. I didn't know what was wrong with him, just that he wasn't the looney that his lawyers claimed he was. I now know what his problem is...He is blindingly stupid.
What I mean is, here is a guy just sentenced to spending the rest of his natural life within the confines of the USP Florence ADMAX (aka the "Supermax") and he thinks that he won?!!? Well, Mr. Moussaoui, let me tell you what you've "won" and then we'll see if your opinion of the verdict changes.
Mr. Moussaoui, you've won a fabulous stay at the United States Penitentiary-Florence Administrative Maximum Facility (accommodation courtesy of the Federal Bureau of Prisons). While in USP Florence, you may enjoy their fabulous guest program. The guest program includes a lovely 7ft by 12ft concrete cell luxuriously appointed with a concrete desk, concrete stool, and concrete bed (it also has a toilet and shower). You will enjoy plenty of solitude as you will be confined to your cell 23 hours a day with no contact from anyone except the guards. Your gourmet prison meals will be delivered to you on the finest styrofoam and eaten with utensils lovingly machine crafted by skilled plasticsmiths. You will get to look at the four walls and not much more as your cell has a window, but it is too high up for you to see through. Your cell also has mood lighting consisting of rather harsh fluorescent lights creating a mood style we like to call "interrogation". And while your buddies Richard Reid, Omar Abdel-Rahman, and Ramzi Youssef are also imprisoned in USP Florence, I highly doubt you will EVER see them. Yes, Mr Moussaoui, for playing the "I'm a terrorist" game with the US Government, you've won a fabulous stay at a sterile Hell-on-Earth. I hope you enjoy every minute! Oh, and by the way, while you are rotting, the country you tried to destroy will be going on as usual right outside your door. Mr Moussaoui, that is the price of playing and losing.
I am Chuck and this has been my rant.

Hey Stoners, Get Your Passports Out!

Hello again readers, I hope everyone is doing well and feeling good.
The subject of today's rant comes from a story by Reuters called "Mexico's Fox To OK Drug Decriminalization Law". The story reports that Mexico's president, Vincente Fox, is going to sign a bill that decriminalizes possession of small amounts of various drugs. The bill is designed to help combat narcotics trafficking and drug gang violence. The bill would do this by legalizing small amounts of marijuana, opium, heroin, cocaine, LSD, hallucinogenic mushrooms, amphetamines, ecstasy, and peyote. The story goes on to state that this will probably complicate Mexico's relations with the US.
Well, I guess spring break in Cancun just got a lot more interesting. Seriously, I am curious as to how this will complicate Mexico's relations with the US. Mexico is, after all, a sovereign country, they can do as they please when it comes to drug enforcement within their borders. If this will solve the epidemic of drug violence that has plagued Mexico for the last couple of decades, all I can say is, "Pass the bong, man." It should be interesting to see how "Snort" Bush and his administration handles this. I predict that they will severely criticize Mexico, threaten to cut off any foreign aid that may be headed Mexico's way, they will threaten to list Mexico as being off limits to American tourists, and they will threaten to start the second Mexican-American war. After all, we all know that the neo-conservatives only want freedom and democracy if it is freedom and democracy as they say it should be. And as we all know, the Reagan-begun, zero tolerance "War On Drugs" has gone so well and has had such success that it should be a model for the rest of the world when it comes to dealing with drugs. Oh, wait, that failed, whoops, my bad. In all seriousness, this is going to drive Bush and the neo-cons nuts. On one hand, Mexico supplies a great deal of oil to the US and too much criticism from Bush could threaten to cut off that supply. On the other hand, the neo-cons have a stated position as tolerating NO drug use by anyone (except themselves and Rush Limbaugh). The conflict between securing this supply of oil while condemning Mexico's tolerance of drug use should drive the neo-cons absolutely batty. I guess in the coming months we will see which factor is more important to the neo-cons, ensuring a cheap oil supply so that their buddies in Exxon-Mobil can make obscene profits on the backs of the average American, or attempting to further their policy of supporting a failed prohibition that denies individual freedom and wastes taxpayer money.
Until then, however, stoners, get your passports out, it is party time Mexican style!
I am Chuck and my actual question is, "What are you people, on dope?!!?"