It’s been a very long time since I have gotten any new music, and I find that gravely disturbing. Truth be told, I haven’t been all that impressed with what’s been coming out lately, as evidenced by my resounding response to the Best of 2005 lists…

“Meh.”

I did just get the new Cat Power album today, mostly on account of I am going to see her in about three weeks down in the city. Can’t say much as how it compares to her previous work—while I’ve heard her stuff before, I haven’t really listened to it. I can say, though, that I like this record. The Dusty Springfield comparisons have been flying fast and furious in the reviews I’ve read, but I don’t find them particularly informative. Sure, she’s a chick from the south and has a horn/rhythm section now, but beyond that, the comparisons just seem like critics looking for shortcuts.

I also finally got around to picking up the LCD Soundsystem record, but I haven’t really had a chance to listen to it yet.

On a side note, while it’s not new, I’ve been listening to Luna quite a bit for the last few weeks—mostly Romantica, which I actually own(!) on CD. There’s nothing crazy stand-out amazing about this band, but they just write really good songs and play really good music. Rendezvous is quite good as well, and it makes me sad that they have called it quits as a band. I’ve been digging around for any of the Galaxie 500 stuff I have, as it’s most of the same people.

As you may or may not know, I have become a pretty big fan of the Sci-Fi Channel’s Battlestar Galactica series.

With the small remnants of human civilization being menaced by a seemingly implacable alien foe, as well as a civilian government and citizens being protected and shepherded by the military, the show obviously provides a rich opportunity to reflect upon and examine current events here in the real world. One of last seasons’ big crises involved a declaration of martial law by the military and a rather tense stand-off with the civilian government. Meanwhile, the president of the colonies has become caught up in a religious prophecy, and now a faction has developed among the humans that is agitating for an end to hostilities with the Cylons.

While my inclination is to look for clues as to whether the show comes down on the left or the right of the political divide, the writers seem to be smarter than that. On the surface, they often lean right. The military in general, and Commander Adama in particular, is valiant and honorable. They are clearly the heroes of the piece, constantly saving the civilians (often in spite of the civilians’ best efforts). Meanwhile, the president’s religious crusade/mission consistently wins out over her skeptics and doubters.

However, this isn’t Fox News. While the military may be well-intentioned, last season’s declaration of martial law was a trainwreck, and with this season’s arrival of the Battlestar Pegasus, we see the horrors of a totalitarian military dictatorship with no civilian control. Likewise, while the show takes a sympathetic view of the president’s religious fervor, we also see that the Cylon’s drive to wipe out humanity is motivated by their own desire for religious purity.

As in the real world, ideology within this series is a complicated thing. It might be more rewarding to one’s own views to have the show sit squarely on one side of the aisle or the other, but I find the shades of grey much more interesting.

In the background, at the podium, is US Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, giving a speech yesterday to law students at Georgetown University, attempting once more to convince everyone that silly things like the Constitution and the rule of law should not get in the way of the President being able to do whatever he wants.

In the foreground, are said Georgetown law students, with their backs turned to the Attorney General.

I salute these students for taking a stand, but I do wish they had gotten the Ben Franklin quote right before unfurling their banner:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

In a recent posting at TPMCafe, Matthew Yglesias provides a very good summary of the problems with the latest justifications for the Bush administration’s NSA eavesdropping program. As I mentioned earlier, the White House has begun carpet-bombing the media and the punditocracy with their protestations that we needed to do it and that it’s really not that big a deal anyway and you should really just trust us.

Through all this chaff, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that regardless of the merits of said program (dubious though they may be), it is illegal and unconstitutional.

I apologize that I have to keep beating this same horse over and over again, but in this case, it just will not die.

The White House, having realized that the NSA wiretapping scandal is not going to go away of its own accord, has now hit the trail to convince the public that there is nothing to fear and that we should we be glad we have President who is willing to take such bold action. Now, we are told, it is a “terrorist surveillance program.” Who could argue with that?

Perhaps, according to the Bush administration, the Democrats:

Let me be as clear as I can be: President Bush believes if Al Qaeda is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interest to know who they’re calling and why. Some important Democrats clearly disagree.

That’s right. That’s exactly it. Democrats do not want the US to be able to eavesdrop or spy in any way on terrorists. Anyone who objects to this wonderful new program that Our Beloved Leader has implemented to protect us from the evil terrorists must love the terrorists and hate America, right? RIGHT? You’re either with us, or you’re against us.

I would like to think that people will see through this transparent attempt to pin a ridiculous straw man argument on the Administration’s critics. After all, there is not a single Democrat who is suggesting that we should not be able to spy on Al Qaeda or any other terrorist group. As as has been pointed out over and over, there are laws and processes in place that allow us to do exactly that. What people object to (among other things) is that the President is claiming that he can decide which laws to obey and which laws to break.

My fear is that Democrats will waste their time and energy leading up to the elections this coming November trying to refute the administration’s charges by protesting that they too are tough on terrorists. There is no way they can win that fight—Bush and his crew have proven time and again that they will continue to up the rhetoric, no matter how outrageous, until it drowns everything else out.

As I have mentioned from time to time, I make a habit of regularly reading a number of right-wing, Republican, and/or conservative web sites.

While perusing Redstate.org earlier today, I came across this posting about the necessity of invading Iran RIGHT NOW. According to the authors, estimates that it will take Iran years to build a functioning nuclear weapon are inaccurate. Instead, they argue, Iran has purchased enriched uranium from the North Koreans, and is, in reality, only a few months from having a bomb. Further, they suggest that Iran is acting like it already has a nuclear weapon, and that if this is the case, the rather than attacking them soon, the US should attack them now.

Obviously, I have my reservations about the main story itself. Personally, I do not know how much credence to give the North Korea claim, but the fact that it is asserted as fact with no supporting evidence to back it up makes me suspicious. The same goes for the two opinion pieces on which the article is based—one of them makes no mention of North Korea, while the other states the possibility and then precedes as though it were fact.

More disturbing to me is the discussion that follows the posting.

Granted, these are random people posting to a web site, not policy experts. We should also note that just like on the Left, the people who post to a right-wing web site are probably not going to be perfectly representative of Republican voters. However, the Right has a large head start over the Left when it comes to mobilizing its base, and sites such as Redstate are a big part of the reason why, much as talk-radio helped mobilize grass-roots conservatives 5-10 years ago. In other words, while perhaps not indicative of the average Republican voter, the people on this site and others like it do represent its active base.

The discussion of the posting runs the gamut from somewhat sensible to completely whacko. Like any discussion site, there is a range of opinions and some conflict between the various points of view. Nonetheless, the general consensus is that the US must invade Iran, or at least bomb them and their nuclear program out of existence. Except for a few posters, there is little discussion of the fact the US military is tied-down in Iraq, and several posters even suggest the “shock and awe” treatment. The reasoning behind this strategy (again, with the exception of a few isolated posters) is that “the mullahs” are Islamic extremist intent on global jihad who would be more than happy be obliterated in a nuclear conflict with the West. They are, we are told, evil and crazy and cannot be reasoned with or contained. Furthermore, the alternative to invading Iran as soon as possible is the detonation of a nuclear weapon in an American city, an outcome which a number of posters mention, and which several others suggest would be welcomed by the defeatist terrorist-loving appeasers on the Left.

I honestly am not even sure how to respond to this sort of reasoning, and believe me, I use the word “reasoning” reluctantly here. From the near-total unwillingness to admit the military and political realities of the situation in the Middle East, to the assumption that the government of Iran cannot be differentiated from the dreaded Crazy Arab bogeyman, to the outright attacks on anyone suggesting that we ought to think twice before pursuing this adventure, it’s an argument that is nearly impossible to untangle.

In case there was any doubt, I give you this article from the Washington Post,.

To make a long story short, we can look forward to ten months’ worth of the White House decrying any criticism of its policies in Iraq as irresponsible partisanship. Meanwhile, its toadies, stooges, and other proxies in the media and punditocracy will scream about how anyone who opposes the war or suggests that the President has some things to answer for is a traitor.

I will admit that I am rather interested to see whether or not it works this time around.

Oh my god, they killed David Palmer. You bastards.

How very Whedonesque—good from a storytelling standpoint, bad because he was a great character.

Thus far, I am enjoying the new season immensely. As usual, there is some stuff that doesn’t make a lot of sense, the biggest being that Palmer, having received intelligence about an imminent and dire threat to national security, attempted to communicate it solely through the First Lady. For one thing, even though we are told that the current President has cut off Palmer’s access, surely a former President would still have some contacts in the government and/or intelligence community. Palmer’s former campaign manager and chief of staff works for the new President Logan, after all. For another, Palmer, being good friends with the First Lady, would almost have to know that she is unstable.

I like that President Logan, while not a particularly good President, does not seem to be a bad guy. So far as I can tell so far, anyway, he seems to want to do good things, and while he may not handle his wife’s psychological problems particularly well, he clearly loves her.

Jack, of course, has learned nothing over the last four seasons. “You just have to trust me!” and “I promise, I’ll tell explain everything when I see you” continue to be the mantras that end up causing him no end of problems. One wonders how many of these crises would actually have gone the whole 24 hours had he actually told anyone what was going on.

The biggest problem with 24 is that there are only so many tricks and surprises the writers can throw at the audience. This limit affects any kind of TV series, but is particularly evident on this one due to the constantly high tension. As a result, it has become easier to see where the story is heading with each subsequent season. While the airport hostage crisis that has consumed the two most recent episodes seemed bad, anyone who has watched previous seasons knows that it is only a distraction staged by the villain to keep the authorities busy while he pursues his real goal. Likewise, it is always only a matter of time before Jack’s loved ones are put in danger. Fortunately, the writers seem have backed off somewhat from the absurd perils they threw at Kim during the second and third seasons, but we have already seen it this season with the kid who got caught up in the hostage crisis.

As I stated in previous post, though, when the show is good, none of the plot silliness matters. And so far, this season is good.

The news of Supreme Court decisions this week regarding Oregon’s assisted suicide law and New Hampshire’s parental notification law has gotten me thinking about this idea of “the framers’ intent” that Conservatives like to toss around.

The idea, as I understand it, is that when deciding whether or not a law is consitutional, judges should rule based solely on what the framers of the Constitution originally intended. Any notion of adapting Consitutional law to contemporary society, technology, and culture amounts to unwarranted judicial activism and should be condemned. Thus, we get arguments such as, “There is no right to privacy mentioned in the Constitution, so therefore the rights to abortion and birth control should not be protected under the law.”

Such a viewpoint, as far as I can tell, has exactly one merit, and that is that it is easy to explain and therefore makes a good talking point. Complicated theories, abstract discussions, and nuanced legal arguments can be quickly shouted down with “That’s not what the framers intended!”

Beyond that, this notion of “originalism” is laughable on its face.

There is no way for anyone making this argument to get around the fact that judges must interpret the law. You may prefer Antonin Scalia’s interpretation of the law over David Souter’s, but unless Scalia has become possessed by the spirits of John Adams and Alexander Hamilton, it is still just that—his interpretation. Not even the most die-hard conservative can claim to know exactly what the framers intended, especially when it comes to legal issues not explicity dealt with by the Constitution. For instance, on what basis does one determine whether men writing in the 18th Century would have intended the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against warrantless searches and seizures to apply to a browser search history? To say that they only meant it to apply to physical property is, in the age of cellphones and pervasive Internet connections, an overly cramped view of the law that leaves the door open for all manner of government abuse.

Meanwhile, the same conservatives who tell us that original intent is all-important will then turn around and claim that the Second Amendment, originally meant to guarantee the availability of armed citizen militias in a country lacking a professional army, should now be interpreted to mean that anyone can buy an automatic weapon.

Now you’ll have to excuse me, as I need to go work on a proposal for a sitcom in which Antonin Scalia is possessed by the the spirits of John Adams and Alexander Hamilton. It’s hi-larious!

Sorry for the title, but I just couldn’t resist.

The way I look at it, this whole business with Iran removing the seals from its nuclear research facilities and restarting its program present the Bush administration with a great money-saving oppotunity. They can simply recycle the entire script for the run-up to the Iraq war, and all they have to do is change one letter. That is pretty important, given that the budget deficit is once again being forecast to hit another all-time high this year. Thank goodness we have the fiscally responsible conservatives running the show, not those spend-happy liberal Democrats.

When it comes to Iran’s nuclear program, though, there is a slight difference from Iraq. That difference would be that Iran actually has a nuclear weapons program.

Despite the White House’s “best intelligence we had at the time” claims, there was a vast amount of uncertainty concering the claims made prior to the invasion of Iraq that that country was pursuing and/or producing chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. Not that it mattered, obviously—the media was on board, and Democrats, having just gotten their collective ass handed to them in the 2002 mid-terms following a bruising fight over the Department of Homeland Security, were falling all over themselves to line up behind the President.

With Iran, it is pretty clear that they are actively pursuing nuclear technology. They say it’s for peaceful purposes, but the US and the Europeans are justifiably suspicious of this claim. What remains unclear at this time is what, if anything, will be done about the Iranians’ latest actions. Tied down as we are in Iraq for the forseeable future, it seems unfeasible for the Bush administration to pursue any sort of military action against Iran. However, the prospect of sending an under-manned and inadequately provisioned force on a poorly planned mission hasn’t deterred this bunch before.

Also, let’s not forget that we’re heading into another round of midterm elections.

Here is my prediction. For the next eight months, we will hear escalating rhetoric from the White House about the danger posed by Iran, echoed and amplified by an army of right-wing pundits and think tanks. The media will lap it up, broadcasting endless and uncritical variations of Republican talking points. The ceaseless (but nonetheless substantively empty) racket from the administration on this topic will serve to distract the public from the Abramoff scandals, the NSA wiretapping controversy, the debacle that is the Medicare prescription drug plan, and every other problem that has been dogging the White House and congressional Republicans. Democrats, who have been getting both traction and spines in the last few months, will suddenly find themselves back to being painted with the soft-on-terrorism brush and will, at best, maintain their current numbers in Congress.

It is a depressing outcome to contemplate, but as I stated at the beginning of this post, we have seen this whole set-up before.