Profile

unixronin: Galen the technomage, from Babylon 5: Crusade (Default)
Unixronin

December 2012

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031     

Most Popular Tags

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Sunday, April 11th, 2004 02:09 am

Germany is preparing to start making life hard for spammers ... and that's as in hard time.  A new draft law features heavy fines for both spammers and companies that use their services, with prison terms for the worst offenders.

Meanwhile in Iraq, thousands of Marines are being told it's their patriotic duty to pray for George Bush, complete with mail-in coupons to certify that they've been doing so.  (At least they're not being told to pray TO him yet.)

Ireland plans a referendum to change Irish citizenship law, which currently grants automatic citizenship to any baby born in the country regardless of the nationality of the parents -- the only EU nation to do so.  Hmmmm, as far as I know, the US does that too.....

Dateline Miami, Florida, where the Crown Prince of Spain and his fiancee passed through Thursday evening with their official bodyguards, to make a flight connection enroute from the Bahamas to Madrid ... and where the Transportation Safety Authority decided it was necessary to screen and search them both.  It has apparently not been decided yet whether Spain will file an official diplomatic complaint.  Gee, look, foreign relations at work!

And last but not least, speaking of your tax dollars at work, the Bush white house has released a memo showing that it was clearly known Osama bin Laden was planning and conducting terrorist actions in the US.  The BBC's Jon Leyne says it may be no coincidence that the White House has chosen to release this document at a time in the weekend when most Americans are not following the news very closely.  Meanwhile, the FBI has accused National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice of perjury regarding her testimony before the 9/11 commission.  The FBI assertion is that Rice is cooking the numbers to make it appear that far more resources were being devoted to al-Qaeda than there actually were; Among other disputed statements, Rice apparently bundled investigations of other organizations, and even simple criminal investigations, into her claimed "70 separate investigations of al-Qaeda cells" before 9/11.

Update:

Fixed a missing link in the last story.

Sunday, April 11th, 2004 08:59 am (UTC)
...Meanwhile in Iraq, thousands of Marines are being told it's their patriotic duty to pray for George Bush...

Well, when I first read your blurb, I thought that was completely reprehensible. Upon reading the link, however, I find that they are not being told that by their officers, but rather by a church group distributing pamphlets. Somehow, it matters who is doing the telling, don't you think?
Sunday, April 11th, 2004 11:08 am (UTC)
While I'm not arguing that, I still find it uncomfortably theocratic. You can bet they wouldn't be doing this if Bush wasn't a card-carrying member of the religious right himself. They wouldn't be being told to pray for Clinton, for example. This isn't about "patriotic duty to your country", it's about "slavish worship of OUR man in the Oval Office".

These guys are in the line of fire, in harm's way; Bush is sitting safe and pretty in Washington DC; and they're being told to pray for HIM? Excuse me? Do we have a little problem with priorities and maybe reality here?

(Apart from anything else, sorry and all that, but anyone who's delusional enough to think that they can persuade their god to take a direct hand in influencing the next election on their behalf is not someone I want having any influence in the government that has the power to really fuck up my life even worse than it already is, thank you very much. The world already has a more than sufficient quota of nations ruled by religious zealots.)
Monday, April 12th, 2004 02:48 pm (UTC)
While I'm not arguing that, I still find it uncomfortably theocratic.

Well... it's a known quality of human nature that if a religious group should find itself able to legislate its own beliefs, it will do so. The Framers knew this, and took steps to prevent it. We should expect this behavior from a church -- but find it unconscionable in a government. So far, I'm not squicked by this sequence of events.

In the heavy-on-the-irony department, this church will lose its 501(c) standing if the current Administration has its way with changing IRS regulations to gag religious groups.
Monday, April 12th, 2004 03:51 pm (UTC)
In the heavy-on-the-irony department, this church will lose its 501(c) standing if the current Administration has its way with changing IRS regulations to gag religious groups.

That would be humorous. However, I roll to disbelieve that this administration would not find -- or create -- a loophole to prevent any God-fearin' Christian Church And Moral Foundation Of Our Community, especially one that exhorts troops under fire in the field to pray for Bush, from losing its 501(c) status.
Sunday, April 11th, 2004 11:54 am (UTC)
Why does everybody and their cousin think it is amusing to sprinkle umlauts all over the neighbourhood when faking German.

Personally, the w versus v, g versus k, s versus zz are much more comical. At least they retain some of the characteristics of the language, unlike the scattershot umlauting.
Sunday, April 11th, 2004 12:04 pm (UTC)
Actually, I thought there properly was an umlaut on the o in verböten. Is my memory in error?

(hmmm..... actually, thinking about pronunciation instead of relying on memory .... yes, that would be incorrect, wouldn't it? Oops.)
Sunday, April 11th, 2004 12:34 pm (UTC)
Pronunciation is quite reliable a mnemonic between o and ö and pretty reliable between a and ä -- the ä, however, is subject to greater variation, and may get confused with an e.

Mistakes happen. This time it did not change the sense of the word, only created a non-word. Whereas if you umlaut the subject of your earlier posting, getting Schützstaffeln, you'd be talking not about homeland security but a shooting squad.
Sunday, April 11th, 2004 01:04 pm (UTC)
you'd be talking not about homeland security but a shooting squad.

There's a practical difference?
Sunday, April 11th, 2004 01:07 pm (UTC)
One is easier to market, and a catchier slogan.
Sunday, April 11th, 2004 02:14 pm (UTC)
And that is becoming our downfall.
Sunday, April 11th, 2004 04:11 pm (UTC)
Well, when I first saw your blurb my first thought was to wonder how you were going to ask a bunch of Marines to stop thinking about Bush. Then I figured you probably meant our President and was a bit concerned this was a State (in the form of the DOD) sponsored thing. I am glad to discover it is not; and a bit dismayed that the current climate leads me to be willing to believe it could be.

But, in the end, I think it is just plain tacky. "Hiyee! We know you're out here getting shot at and stuff; but, could you please pray for the President back in the States surrounded by bodyguards? Thanks!"

What's the source for the "FBI has accused National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice of perjury" statement. I didn't see that in the referenced article and a quick news search didn't turn up much. For anyone speaking for the FBI to be making these sorts of accusations at the National Security Advisor pretty much would indicate that the Administration had chosen Rice to be the 'fall guy'. And I am just not seeing that....
Sunday, April 11th, 2004 05:59 pm (UTC)
Well, when I first saw your blurb my first thought was to wonder how you were going to ask a bunch of Marines to stop thinking about Bush.

Heh. Point. :)

Yeah, tacky is the least of it. I think partly, I no longer believe that Bush isn't loony enough (and convinced enough of his holy mandate) to make it a Presidential order. But, hello Washington? THESE are the guys who need praying for, if that's your thing.

As for Rice, the article didn't specifically use the word perjury, no, and I don't know if the FBI specifically used the word perjury. They said she lied under oath in her testimony before the Congressional committee, which last time I looked was the definition of perjury -- lying under oath. They charged Ollie North with perjury when he did it, and this is a more senior official in the government, lying to cover the President's ass in what is arguably at least as serious a matter.
Sunday, April 11th, 2004 07:14 pm (UTC)
They said she lied under oath in her testimony before the Congressional committee, which last time I looked was the definition of perjury -- lying under oath.

Indeed. But, I just went back and re-read the article and I am still missing where the FBI says that Condoleeza Rice lied during her testimony to the 9/11 Committee. So, I was just wondering if this comes from another article, or if I am just completely on crack and missing it in this one, and who the "they" is who is saying it.
Sunday, April 11th, 2004 08:44 pm (UTC)
Oops. I appear to have omitted a link and somehow missed the fact.

Now if I can find it again .........

Aha! Found it (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-rice0410,0,3695500.story?coll=ny-nation-big-pix), and fixed it in the original post too.
Monday, April 12th, 2004 12:31 am (UTC)
Ah. That explains it. Thanks.