It’s ground to a halt. We use email mostly, no one’s seen anyone for a while. Merle’s dad’s got cancer so he spends all of his time over there or at home climbing the walls. Q’s just been to the doctor and he’s telling her to take a few weeks off from classes to preempt imploding. Caught between a rock and hard place, surrounded by people who are supposed to care but find it too much of an inconvenience, she sleeps a lot, but really doesn’t.

Early in the morning my brother jumps online when he’s in port and we talk while he’s laying in bed on the boat. The screen sways, I struggle to focus, I bulge my eyes out and he laughs. We keep it all just beneath the surface, pretend that black is light gray, and talk about the weather.

I keep waiting for it to get colder, for the air to thin out, for the mailman to arrive with my AbioCor and an enormous rebate cheque. In the mornings over coffee the bodies and excuses and sycophancy keep piling up; dogs bark, phones ring, the elevator doors rattle, but none of it makes a sound. It’s perfectly silent here, like a graveyard with house keys.

Greenpeace has launched an initiative called Green My Apple which focuses on the hazardous substances contained in Macs. To learn more about the campaign visit their about page.

“At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.â€? - Abraham Lincoln, January 27, 1838.

It’s not as if there isn’t a cavalcade of empirical evidence pointing towards the eventual demise of the United States, the damage inflicted, of course, being entirely self administered. But yesterday’s passing of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (S 3930) has accelerated that process to the point of providing one of the death nails.

Visages of Ingsoc

The Military Commissions Act’s most dangerous inclusions (Source: The New York Times)…

Coerced Evidence: Coerced evidence would be permissible if a judge considered it reliable — already a contradiction in terms — and relevant. Coercion is defined in a way that exempts anything done before the passage of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, and anything else Mr. Bush chooses.

Enemy Combatants: A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant� in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.

The Geneva Conventions: The bill would repudiate a half-century of international precedent by allowing Mr. Bush to decide on his own what abusive interrogation methods he considered permissible. And his decision could stay secret — there’s no requirement that this list be published.

Habeas Corpus: Detainees in U.S. military prisons would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment. These cases do not clog the courts, nor coddle terrorists. They simply give wrongly imprisoned people a chance to prove their innocence.

Judicial Review: The courts would have no power to review any aspect of this new system, except verdicts by military tribunals. The bill would limit appeals and bar legal actions based on the Geneva Conventions, directly or indirectly. All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him an illegal combatant and not have a trial.

Secret Evidence: American standards of justice prohibit evidence and testimony that is kept secret from the defendant, whether the accused is a corporate executive or a mass murderer. But the bill as redrafted by Mr. Cheney seems to weaken protections against such evidence.

Offenses: The definition of torture is unacceptably narrow, a virtual reprise of the deeply cynical memos the administration produced after 9/11. Rape and sexual assault are defined in a retrograde way that covers only forced or coerced activity, and not other forms of nonconsensual sex. The bill would effectively eliminate the idea of rape as torture.

There is still hope that this legislation will be referred to the Supreme Court, but the fact that it has been willingly passed proves without question that a portion of the government of the United States has become so insulated and partisan as to have abandoned belief in the founding principles of their own country. If laws are required to usurp the authority of the Constitution in the name of national security, then true liberty no longer exists in the United States. To think that this might have been undertaken at this particular time because of its impact on the upcoming midterm elections is also a sickening thought.

Molly Ivins commented two days ago that…

“With a smug stroke of his pen, President Bush is set to wipe out a safeguard against illegal imprisonment that has endured as a cornerstone of legal justice since the Magna Carta.

[…]

“This bill is not a national security issue—this is about torturing helpless human beings without any proof they are our enemies. Perhaps this could be considered if we knew the administration would use the power with enormous care and thoughtfulness. But of the over 700 prisoners sent to Gitmo, only 10 have ever been formally charged with anything. Among other things, this bill is a CYA for torture of the innocent that has already taken place.�

And a New York Times editorial exclaimed yesterday…

“Here’s what happens when this irresponsible Congress railroads a profoundly important bill to serve the mindless politics of a midterm election: The Bush administration uses Republicans’ fear of losing their majority to push through ghastly ideas about antiterrorism that will make American troops less safe and do lasting damage to our 217-year-old nation of laws — while actually doing nothing to protect the nation from terrorists. Democrats betray their principles to avoid last-minute attack ads. Our democracy is the big loser.�

The following is a list of proposed amendments to the bill that were defeated…

 
George Walked Bush has a little over two years left in his second term. In truth, perhaps the only peaceful way of saving not only the integrity of the United States, but the Union itself, is if the Democratic Party wins both houses in November and they move to impeach the President and convict members of his administration.

The Second Amendment of the US Constitution reads:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.�

The Second Amendment is interesting in that it ensures all Americans the right to take up arms to defend the security of a free State. One would assume that that includes action against the tyranny of the federal government and the military apparatuses that it holds power over.

In my opinion, there has never been a greater reason provided the American people to take into their own hands the revolutionary reclamation of their own government. For if the literal promises of the Constitution are to be lost, it is not enough to say that the people did not act because of apathetic resignation. If the government exists to prosecute the will of the people, then surely the loss of true representation provides reason enough to cause such significant offense that to not refuse to tolerate it would be tantamount to national suicide.

When I die I don’t want a eulogy read at my funeral. I just want a decent sound system to play all 53.6 minutes of Henryk Górecki’s Symphony No. 3. Someone remember that so that one day I don’t end up laying in a box in a powder blue tuxedo being sobbed over by people that I never knew, didn’t particularly like, or used me for financial gain. Just press play, listen, and then go get a drink.

One: Only twenty percent of those recently polled in the United States still have confidence in the Bush administration’s Iraq policies.

Two: Three quarters of Baghdad’s residents claim that they would feel safer if all foreign forces left Iraq, 65% of them believing that an immediate withdrawal is preferable.

Three: The House just approved a $70 billion dollar supplemental for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Four: The highest US Defense budget in history has been approved - $448 billion dollars for the fiscal year 2007.

Five: The war in Iraq costs the United States 8 billion dollars a month, meaning that by next spring more money will be required.

Six: It’s estimated that the total cost for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could total $549 billion dollars this year.

One would think that, given the findings of the Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar, RCMP Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli would resign. Shockingly, in a move that perhaps betrays his true character, he is refusing to. To be perfectly honest, I think were the Canadian government truly concerned about this matter they would remove Zaccardelli from the position altogether. I think it’s gone past the point of PR induced public apologies.

Zaccardelli, like so many others, most of whom reside in lofty government positions to the south, is being given a free pass, one steeped in the continued use of the exclamation - ‘after 9/11 everything changed’. I had no idea that the definition of justice itself was altered come September 12th, nor competency.

Maher Arar, who was rendered to Syria by the United States because of information provided them by the RCMP, spent a year in a Syrian jail, during which he was tortured. And while the Department of Foreign Affairs worked to secure Arar’s release, the RCMP did not support their efforts.

Zaccardelli admitted that it wasn’t until 2002, after Arar had already been rendered to Syria by the Americans (in fact he was flown to Washington, then to Jordan, and then driven to the Syrian border where he was transferred to the Syrians), that he became involved in the case, and that prior to that he had ‘some knowledge’ of the investigation, which claimed Arar to be ‘a person of interest’.

So the question remains: why did the RCMP provide, in the words of Justice O’Connor…

“…American authorities with information about Mr. Arar that was inaccurate, portrayed him in an unfairly negative fashion and overstated his importance in the RCMP investigation.”

Every Canadian, every decent member of Parliament, should be demanding the release of the information possessed by the RCMP that initially condemned Arar. And while it will most assuredly remain sequestered for reasons of national security, I think that the real national security concern is to be found in the fact that this injustice not only took place, but that it has taken this long for Mr. Arar’s name to be cleared of any and all wrong doing or affiliation with any terrorist organization. The Canadian people deserve to know what information the RCMP possessed about Arar in 2002 that claimed otherwise.

Macleans columnist Barbara Amiel wrote in late August of this year…

“Still, a system of ex parte, in-camera hearings, with the power to put people in prison, whether citizens or not, even for a week never mind years, without being charged or having full knowledge of the evidence against them, denies the values of a liberal democracy. True, we are dealing with a new enemy, stealthy, infectious and dangerous, who needs to be controlled. But not by throwing the rule of law out the window.�

It might come as a shock to you, but she is not referring to the United States. She is referring to Canada.

Though an unusual topic for me, I found this article from the BBC rather interesting. An excerpt…

“The debate kicked off when Madrid fashion week decided, in response to local government pressure, to ban models with a body mass index (BMI) of less than 18. UN health experts recommend a BMI - a calculation based on height and weight - of between 18.5 and about 25.

Milan fashion week then opened with a plus-size show - and the announcement of a new code of conduct from February, under which models will have to carry a health certificate.

Action may have been prompted by the death of a 22-year-old Uruguayan model who collapsed after a catwalk show in August. She had reportedly eaten little but leafy vegetables for months in order to lose weight.
Commentators have also questioned the negative impact of underweight models on ordinary girls’ and women’s body image, amid concerns over anorexia.

Of course, whether the move away from the super-skinny gathers weight will not be down to the models - it’s the modelling agencies, designers and fashion magazines who hold the clout.

The question is, will the powerhouses of the industry listen to the chorus of concern - or argue they are simply meeting the desire of the buying public to see clothes on waif-like women?�

Having experienced years of living with someone entirely obsessed with their weight, appearance, and the pressures caused by fashion marketing, I think this, if it takes, is a very important step in the right direction.

I posted a link to Keith Olbermann’s ‘True American’ commentary yesterday, but I think it deserves a little more attention than being added as an update.

Throughout the American military occupation of Iraq, President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld have repeatedly claimed that they make decisions based on recommendations of field commanders.

Well, two retired senior field commanders have recently spoken out about the conduct of Secretary Rumsfeld. One of the two, Major General John R.S. Batiste, who actually resigned last year on principle, had this to say recently in front of the Senate Democratic Policy Committee…

“The detailed deliberate planning to finish the job in Iraq was not considered as Secretary Rumsfeld forbade military planners from developing plans for securing a post-war Iraq. At one point, he threatened to fire the next person who talked about the need for a post-war plan.�

You can read both statements here (video included).