There's a thundering hailstorm in Phoenix today, sending drops of frozen hate clattering across the skylight and beating the life out of weak trees. On the outskirts of my peripheral vision, I caught a glimpse of something white and jagged -- the future.
Life as a human right now is akin to having woken up inside the chute of a woodchipper. We may not even recall how we got inside the woodchipper in the first place. The one thing that is clear : the inevitability of the blades.
A feeling like saws chewing into my neck. The sounds of weeping just outside my door. And a cold light knife into my pupil reminds me : This is a world divorced from hope.
When facing a suffocated reality of nonexistent future, what do you do? Here are some options :
1) Lie down and wait quietly for the ice weasels to come. 2) Cry until you're too tired to cry any longer, then die. 3) Fight until death. 4) Put on heavy metal records and rock out for as long as possible.
Now, I don't know which of these sounds most attractive, or which you, the reader, may already be doing. I choose option #4. Here's why :
* Metal music is brain floss. * Metal music improves blood flow to the face. * Metal music is not a norm. * Metal music has no sympathy for your suffering. * Metal music remembers when you were only an animal. * Metal music hasn't heard about your regrets, but it can drench them in molten @#$%^& * Metal music will survive long after the Universe is toast. * Metal music recognizes your true form and can restore it if lost. * Metal music connects you with that aspect of youself that you forgot about. * Metal music is truth erupting from a sea of lies.
There's no future. But with metal music, the present can be made to rock. In these bleak and doomed days, everybody looks for help. Some go to shrinks, some watch TV, and some try in futility to numb the pain with drugs. Well, you all are welcome to your 'cheese' heroin, 'lean,' and amphetamines. I'm an Earache man myself. (47,348)
Anthony Romero, et al, key points from "Freedom under Fire" :
-Jingoistic nationalism is the norm in attitudes; dissent draws oppression -Lawmakers largely silent on issue -War on terror is a war of ideas; if 'democracy' is a value that we strive for, then we must promote free speech and civil liberties -Attempted suppression of dissent only increases dissent -Cites historical precedents such as the Alien and Sedition Acts, Lincoln's habeas suspension, Wilson's Espionage Act, Red Scare -Law enforcement using tactics ranging from pepper spray to denial of protest permits to asset seizure to squelch dissent -Some tactics are subtler : long waiting periods stifle timely protests, investigations on campus; 'designated protest zones' during Prez appearances
Andrew McCarthy (real name!) key points from "Free Speech for Terrorists":
-In the hands of 'Islamofascism," speech is itself a weapon -Moral relativism and the 'marketplace of ideas' cannot disguise the fact that advocacy of mass murder is wrong -- when murder advocates lose in the 'marketplace,' they simply kill more persons -Speech that materially threatens national security (such as incitements to mass murder a la jihadi fatwas) can not be rationally considered as protected free speech -In comparison to Sedition Act, Lincoln, Wilson, Red Scare, even the heaviest strictures currently proposed represent significant progression in speech rights
Richard Posner key points from "The Right of Free Speech with a Comment on Profling" :
-Terrorism is political, rather than commercial or personal in nature [ed. note : no ish, Sherlock] -Terror advocacy raises three constitutional questions : Is terror advocacy acceptable as the basis for surveillance? Is it punishable? What level and methods of concealing sensitive information, including 'disatasteful elements' of our 'response,' is acceptable? -Secrecy is essential for effectiveness of some aspects of the anti-terror effort; not all censorship is unconstitutional (CIA nondisclosure agreements) -Lack of laws preventing the publication of leaked national security secrets shows USA's 'culture of nosiness' and 'distrust of government bordering on paranoia.' -Injunction against (censorship of) disclosure of national security secrets can be justified -- it's arguably less onerous than jailing publishers after the fact, and the protective benefits of stopping such disclosure outweigh the drawback 'chilling effect' on free speech -Government should be permitted to prevent publication of classified material, provided that it was classified according to valid criteria. -What about publishing research that could provide instruction to terrorists, e.g., biological research on how to make supervirii? -Bottom line : the press should not enjoy blanket immunity from sensible measures designed to protect national security -It is reasonable and legal to surveil radical imams, but does this infringe on the First Amendment due to the chilling effect, even though speech itself is not being forcibly curtailed? This is the border between curtailment and infringement -Civil libertarian's aversion to 'viewpoint discrimination' is 'too squeamish' -Dennis 'imminent lawless action' test doesn't work for those preaching holy war -Free speech laws that allow the preaching of violent holy war against America but prohibit false advertising of products are 'excessively lacking in nuance' -On the other hand, especially considering the relative lack of radical imams in the USA, laws limiting the speech thereof may be 'needlessly provocative' -Speaking of provocation, our doctrine should be 'flexible' enough to curtail hate speech against Muslims that may itself incite terrorism (cf. Muhammad cartoons) 0- legit Muslim community must not be alienated -Lastly, just because something (i.e. forbidding terror advocacy) is unsound policy does not make it unconstitutional. (41,695)
Oren Gross main points from "Prohibition on Torture and the Limits of Law" :
-"Pragmatic absolutism" and "Official Disobedience" characterize Gross' view -The torture debate is often viewed in absolutist terms; that torture is immoral (due to the debasement of the tortured and the depraving of the torturer; or else due to the corrupting effects on society) and therefore inexcusable regardless of the consequences of not torturing -Arguments for the permissibility of torture are generally from a 'consequentialist' viewpoint, which is a cost/benefit perspective - "ticking bomb" logic, etc, supports a 'conditional prohibition -Variations include "orders of magnitude' approach, which considers only threats of massive scale to outweigh long-term bad effects of torture -Absolute prohibition is morally untenable when viewed in cases of imminent catastrophe -- suggests an absolute legal ban on torture that actors may circumvent by extralegal actions for which they'll be called to account ex post -Crucial to distinguish between 'truly catastrophic' cases and 'artificial cases'; general policy vs. special cases -Crucial to uphold the symbolism of the inviolability of human dignity and the human body -- cries of national security, etc, do not trump fundamental rights -Absolute legal ban 'resists the less-inevitable but more-dangerous' - that is, it cannot prevent the extralegal use of torture in catastrophic cases, but checks against the spread of torture to less-catastrophic cases, etc -Absolute legal ban rejects cost/benefit and avoids slippery slopes -Torture will be used ("official disobedience") in extreme ticking-bomb cases, legal or not, so the question becomes what legal and other consequences result from its use -In a constitutional society, extralegal acts will be done wit trepidation and will have to be accounted for (justified or condemned) ex post ('ex post ratification') -- these factors are powerfully limiting -- responsibility to 'moral judgments of history,' also international legal consequences for actor and state -Extralegal actions, unlike bent laws, are unlikely to create dangerous legal or even moral precedents -Also, the extralegal actor is an 'autonomous moral agent,' not an an agent of an institution -- this curbs institutional violence
Alan Dershowitz key points from "Tortured Reasoning" :
-Torture is currently in widespread use with no accountability -- this is not acceptable; use will expand without accountability -- 'pervasive torture with deniability' -it is better to legalize torture in certain warranted cases than to de facto permit it in all by avoiding the issue -- as in current 'don't ask, don't tell' situation -'necessity' arguments result in too much elasticity -- Abu Ghraib proves this -The risk of ex post ratification or condemnation should rest with a judge called upon to issue a 'torture warrant,' not with the interrogator -Since the courts' function is to finely balance liberty and security, it's appropriate that they do so in the case of catastrophic situations as regards torture -If a democratic nation is to undertake any action, then that action must be subject to the rule of law. -The core debate isn't about whether torture can be justified, it's about accountability in the case that it is used in fact -Requiring warrants adds an unfortunate degree of legitimation, but provides accountability -Cool judicial heads > hot interrogator heads -We want torture to be used if it'll save millions of lives, and we should never want our agents to do anything we deem wrong or illegal -'Tragic decisions should be made at the top whenever feasible,' not by individual operators 00 cf decision on whether or not to shoot down passenger jets -Judicial review / warrants would prevent another Abu Ghraib by eliminating deniability and 'necessity' arguments
Elaine Scarry key points from "Five Errors in the Reasoning of Alan Dershowitz" :
-The argument that those who argue for an absolute ban on torture are morally impaired or hypocritical is false -Just because an act is necessary does not mean that it is no longer wrong and punishable; a 'savior of the city' is unlikely to be deterred by the spectre of possible legal culpability -The act of torturing requires no courage if warranted, but much courage if possible consequences must be borne by torturer -- soldiers regularly give their lives to save others, so it's unclear why legal impunity is needed for the torturer (who might have to give up his liberty to save others) -Warrants eliminate the 'how certain am I that this subject has the knowledge I need which would justify torture?" test -Vast number of current detainees make it seem unlikely that, in the event of a 'ticking bomb,' we'd have only one person to interrogate - it'd be more like 5,000; it's ludicrous to suggest after our myriad intelligence failures that we can recognize the ticking bomb accomplice -These assumptions -- lack of courage, that test is not necessary, intelligence omniscience -- make ticking bomb 'threshold' the inappropriate one through which to enter the torture debate -The assumption that the judicial or executive officer confronted with a ticking-bomb warrant request will be able to effectively distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate scenarios is false -Example : FISA has only declined one warrant request out of 25,000 -Warrants may actually limit legal review, as is the case with search warrants -- once the warrant is obtained, the requestor is free from further review -Dershowitz repudiates, then employs, concepts that he admits are monstrous ('torture lite,' necessity') by giving them different names later ('nonlethal torture,' 'exceptional circumstance warrants') and making them into formal legal procedure (46,832)
*** This is Cole's rebuttal to Ackerman's revised 'Emergency Constitution' proposal ***
- the terror problem is fundamentally one of technological progress
- it'll never be known if or when Al-Qaeda is defeated, and other loose-knit groups may spring up as well
-Terror awareness is 'the new normal' (cf Cheney)
-Ackerman proposes a change in const system to address present inadequacy to address the "political emergency" caused by terror attacks (neither war not crimes)
-Ackerman's proposal has three basic flaws : 1) There is no reason to believe that suspicionless preventive detention will make us safer 2) This provision would "not forestall the abuse of civil liberties" 3) Inappropriate preference of legislative over judicial checks
-Preventive detention, as shown by Palmer, Korematsu, Ashcroft incidents, has not been shown to work. -The "terribly thin hope" that such detention may one day be effective is inadequate to justify such an 'awesome' extension of power
-Ackerman's revised plan adds "reasonable suspicion" to the preventive detention, but since the detainees have no legal recourse while held and are not entitled to any additional compensation when released if their jailers did not use the 'reasonable suspicion' test, the addition of that test has zero effect or meaning.
-Ackerman's idea that his solution will prevent civil rights abuse is 'mere wishful thinking' and is contrary to the lessons of history -Bush's declaration of emergency after 9/11 allowed him to arbitrarily freeze assets, etc, but the provision of these powers did not stop the government from 'radically infringing' civil liberties with other acts (wiretapping, torture, etc) under the aegis of war
-Emergency and war are not mutually exclusive, and neither are their powers-- 9/11 'gave rise to an emergency and was followed by a war'
-Ackerman himself says that terror is a permanent condition, so it's unclear why a temporary solution makes sense whatsoever
-Ackerman acknowledges that constitutional amendments are virtually impossible to pass, but his proposal would only work as such -- any other implementation would be insufficiently binding
-Ackerman's proposal betrays a 'fashionable' distrust of the courts -Calls Ack's criticism of Hamdi 'overblown'
-The reliance on the legislature is clearly an invitation for panic and overemphasis on security to carry the day -- again, see history
-Bottom line : there are already ample measures both legal and appropriate that are available in times of emergency : tightening security in airports and chemical plants, co-ordinating intelligence efforts, etc -These available measures have real preventive value without undermining Constitutional principles (40,920)
-Travis Barker, who was in one of my least favorite bands of the 1990s (Blink-182), has put together a really superb mix of one of my favorite recentish singles, Soulja Boy Tell 'Em's "Crank That." Sounds like a slowed-down Chemical Brothers remix or something, only listenable, and gives even more weight to an already-propulsive tune.
-Microsoft is a demonz. Thanks for making your software explode in a giant puff of pink hate dust when its output is viewed cross-platform, guys! You just cost me about 6 hours, some credibility and a bunch of money; here's your merit badge for Total Slumpitudidiniousness.
-The price of instant coffee is mysteriously escalating. Self-styled "premium" brands like Starbucks are fielding entries into the previously-ghettoized instant Joe market. Is the rest of the world finally waking up to this longtime Latewire staple, or is this merely the first whiff of a great fartburst of hyperinflation and / or caffeine imperialism? Interestingly enough, the "cool person's instant," Nescafe Clasico, holds the line as low-price leader.
-All crypto-fascists should give thanks to the murdering swine who perpetrated the several recent shooting rampages which have consumed the news, as these incidents have galvanized mainstream opinion against private firearms ownership once again. From the gun-makers' perspective, though, it's not so bad -- at least they can charge a hugely inflated panic price as liberty-minded citizens flock to buy their wares before fear-driven bad policy impedes their legal sale and leaves us exposed even more nakedly to tyranny.
-Companies that fail to test products for usability before bringing them to market should be turned into Slim Jim Spicy Beef Snacks. Recent examples from the dirtlake : -Battery retainer assembly in Honda Civic that a) uses completely unsecured hooks which are virtually guaranteed to fall out and cause one to crawl around on the ground to recover them; b) has a base-pan which makes it hard to tilt the battery sufficiently within its cramped space to get a grip; c) does not use captive fasteners in its terminal attachments, again guaranteeing droppage. -Shoe rack, small shelf, and shower rack from Target that were clearly never designed to be assembled. The shoe rack will not support the weight of shoes before buckling; the shower rack cannot be put together to function at all as advertised and falls apart upon attempted installation, the small shelf cannot -- cannot! -- be installed on a wall without buying aftermarket hardware due to obviously untested ergonomics problems, and would simply fall down if it were installed in its factory configuration (hint : if you have a ghost screwdriver or can telekinetically command drill bits, you may be able to install this unit with only a new set of drywall anchors and some L-braces!). -Microsoft Office -U
-Yupha's Thai Kitchen in Tempe made my life better with absolutely astronomical papaya salad, tiny but delightful spring rolls, and shatteringly yumnacious panang curry with rice noodles.
-Jon Stewart, on his show, "connected Kevin Bacon with Hitler in only three degrees of separation." I think I can do better : Hitler employed the Red Skull. The Red Skull is obviously Kevin Bacon's dad. There you go.
-I'm pretty sure that my mind has been replaced by a bat (39,770)
Share
