It looks obvious

So when neoconservatives talk about spreading Freedom and Democracy this is what they have in mind:

We should tell Maliki, loudly and in public, that he owes his job to us, and that further prosecution of our military operations in his country will be conducted with regard only to U.S. interests, as determined in consensus by our established domestic political processes. And if he doesn’t like that, he can go to hell.

I probably got confused a little bit since this is sound very much like colonialism. But I guess this what it was all along….

I always thought that terror organizations are pretty small - few hundred members at most. Even if we will count in obvious guerilla organizations the number would not increase significantly. Therefore I’m somewhat skeptical about the accuracy of the FBI terrorist watch list. If the number stated by the ACLU is correct the list seems to be a little bit to inclusive and not so efficient about who should the FBI really watch. I also wonder about the resources needed to effectively maintain a list of million suspects - including intelligence gathering.

I wonder what were the criteria used to add someone to the list - was it an inelegance report, hard evidence or the fact that someone name is Ahmed or Osama was sufficient…

The nation’s terrorist watch list has hit one million names, according to a tally maintained by the American Civil Liberties Union based upon the government’s own reported numbers for the size of the list.

[...]

“America’s new million record watch list is a perfect symbol for what’s wrong with this administration’s approach to security: it’s unfair, out-of-control, a waste of resources, treats the rights of the innocent as an afterthought, and is a very real impediment in the lives of millions of travelers in this country,” said Barry Steinhardt, director of the ACLU Technology and Liberty Program. “It must be fixed without delay.”

The list of links I collected today have no unified theme, aside from the fact I find them interesting enough to share with other.

We read a lot of criticism about the famous OLC memo, written by John Yoo that allow the suspension of the fourth amendment in cases of “domestic military operations”, including a petition to UC Berkeley to fire John Yoo. I agree with the most of the criticism, and would argue that the “War on Terror” was used in a very generously as an excuse to increase the powers of the executive branch, and to limit our human rights, far and beyond the necessities of war time temporary needs. However it is important to think about the concept of war fought at home, and its implications for the ways the government should act, and this post trying to briefly give some other point of view:

Fourth Amendment rules are all about proportionality; by contrast, military strategy often requires overwhelming force. I don’t know how a Fourth Amendment lawyer could be expected to weigh in on questions of military strategy to try to respect some sort of Fourth Amendment constitutional values. What would the lawyer say — that the Army should break into enemy safehouses only during day time, for fear that breaking in at night could interrupt the enemy’s “period of nighttime repose”? That they should “knock and announce” their presence before the Marines take a hill? It’s hard to know how the two worlds are supposed to mix; they are just totally different.

A very interesting review of what inflation is, its causes common fallacies about it and suggestion how to fight it:

The first question to be asked today is not how can we stop inflation, but do we really want to? For one of the effects of inflation is to bring about a redistribution of wealth and income. In its early stages (until it reaches the point where it grossly distorts and undermines production itself) it benefits some groups at the expense of others. The first groups acquire a vested interest in maintaining inflation. Too many of us continue under the delusion that we can beat the game — that we can increase our own incomes faster than our living costs. So there is a great deal of hypocrisy in the outcry against inflation. Many of us are shouting in effect, “Hold down everybody’s price and income except my own.”

Dave Barry in , as always, entertaining column about taxes:

My point is that, as you do your taxes, you should remember where your tax dollars are going, and recognize that you, as a citizen, have a moral obligation to prepare your tax return with the same degree of conscientiousness that Congress exhibits in spending your money. So let’s get started on your taxes! Here’s a step-by-step guide:

Step one is to gather together your tax forms, your financial records, and, if you plan to itemize your deductions, at least two liters of vodka.

Step two is to go through all of your receipts, separate the ones that are for tax-deductible expenses, and mail them to me, because I need some. The way my accounting system works is, when I get home at night, I take off my pants. (Usually inside the house.) If I find what might be tax-related documents in my pockets, I put them into a two-ply grocery bag labeled TAXES.

At tax time, I go through this bag, hoping to find receipts that say things like, ”BUSINESS SUPPLIES TO BE USED FOR BUSINESS — $417.23.” Instead, I find some ticket stubs for Shrek the Third and several hundred wadded-up snippets of paper on which the only legible printing says ”Thank You.” Now, because I am mentioning Shrek the Third in this column, I can legally deduct the $10 cost of my ticket, plus a large popcorn, which I estimate cost $53, for a total of $63, or, rounding off, $250. But that still leaves me a little short of what I need, deductionwise.

This is where the vodka comes in. If you go to the official Internal Revenue Service site on the Internet (www.irs.gov) and start poking around among the thousands and thousands of forms, instructions, bulletins, etc., you would be amazed at the range of deduction options. For example, according to IRS Rev. Proc. 2006-50, certain individuals recognized by the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission may deduct up to $10,000 for whaling expenses. Could this deduction apply to you? Think about it! I, personally, have done many things that I later could not remember; being a recognized Eskimo whaler would not be the weirdest of these. So go ahead! Find an empty box on your 1040 form and write ”Harpoons — $9,990.” (Don’t claim the full $10,000, because that might arouse IRS suspicion.)

And last, a short presentation of collected photographs taken by a very talented friend of mine.

It is common knowledge that government use the fear to promote problematic regulations. It is easier to limits one’s freedom when warning about the “enemy in the gates”. It is much easier to pass laws such as the Patriot Act, or to suspend the Habeas Corpus when the government argue that these are necessary measure to prevent terror attacks. But since it is such an efficient tool to pass legislation it is being used to pass any kind of legislation:

The U.S. Justice Department seems to believe that if you tell a big enough lie, people will listen. Here’s the latest: Attorney General Michael Mukasey claims that terrorists sell pirated software as a way to finance their operations, without presenting a shred of evidence for his case. He’s doing it to push through a controversial piece of legislation that’s bad for you.

[...]

So why is Mukasey trying to convince people there’s a link between software piracy and terrorism, even though one doesn’t exist? To force Congress to pass controversial intellectual property (IP) legislation that would increase IP penalties, increase police power, set up a new agency to investigate IP theft, and more.

This yet another, small, example why War is the Health of the State

I’m reading the book Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror , and it is a fascinating reading. The writer, Michael Scheuer, served as the chief of the Bin Laden issue station and is an expert on issues of radical islam, Al-Aqeda and Bin Laden. His point of view, the one that when repeated by certain politicians is considered crazy, is very simple: Radical islam react to America’s actions, not to its values. The book provides interesting analysis how the US imperial policies are being used by Bin Laden to increase the popular support for his cause, and how these policies prolonging the “War on Terror”.

When I’ll finish reading the book I’ll try to write a longer review and some personal thoughts, But don’t wait you should read it your self.