According to an ABC News/Washington Post poll, support for Dubya and his little war continues to slip.

56% of those asked now believe that the cost of the war outweighs the benefits and is not worth it.

57% disapprove of the way that Bush is handling the situation in Iraq.

53% disapprove of the way that Rumsfeld is doing his job.

52% believe that Rumsfeld should be replaced.

Fewer than half believe there has been significant progress towards restoring order. But 60% believe that the elections should take place in as scheduled in January, and 58% believe we should remain there until order is restored.

Bush’s approval rating on Iraq is down to 42%.

The margin of error is 3%.

I wonder where all of these people were during the election? What suddenly opened their eyes? And I keep reminding myself that Time’s Person Of The Year title is given to the person who has the largest impact — for good or ill.

There was no Wacky Wednesday yesterday, probably because I hadn’t caught up on my sleep since The Great Frozen Door Latch Fiasco. Nothing yesterday seemed all that wacky to me. But… if Monday came on Tuesday this week, then Wednesday can come on Thursday.

Yesterday was Bill Of Rights Day It was the 213th anniversary of the first 10 Amendments to the US Constitution — those wacky little afterthoughts that give us some of the freedoms we all seem to take way too much for granted. Like the first one, for example:

Amendment 1 - Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, Petition

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This is the little addition to the Constitution that give me the freedom to write here about whatever I please — even if it’s to make derrogatory and derisive comments about Dubya and his neo-con wing-nut followers. And, if you are one of those, it give you the freedom to make derisive comments about me, too. And I find that very cool.

It means that I can blog in peace without expecting the Secret Service, CIA, FBI, or a handful of other letters, to show up on my doorstep and cart me away only to bury me in some deep dark hole where I will never be seen or heard from again, but wherein I will suffer a long and painful demise, simply because I made some remark that the Government saw as subversive.

It means that journalists can not be forced to reveal their sources.

It means that your faith is your business, and you can raise your children in that faith without fear of negative consequences from the government.

It means that your faith is your business, and I don’t have to worry about having my nose rubbed in it all the time.

It means that I can send my son to public school without fearing that his head will be stuffed with a lot of religious nonsense that I don’t agree with under the guise of teaching “science,” “sex education” or civics.

Well… OK, some of these statements are uphill battles, still.

In fact, a lot of them are.

A federal judge last week sentenced Rhode Island television reporter Jim Taricani to six months of house arrest for refusing to name the source of an FBI surveillance tape. Taricani broke no law by airing the tape, and the source voluntarily identified himself before the sentencing.

Reporters from The New York Times and Time magazine are appealing a contempt ruling and could each be jailed for up to 18 months for refusing to testify about their confidential sources in a probe into whether the Bush administration illegally leaked a covert CIA officer’s name to the media.

U.S. reporters have been held in contempt for refusing to disclose sources in stories about scientist Wen Ho Lee, who was suspected of espionage at the Los Alamos nuclear laboratory and later pleaded guilty to a less severe charge.

In April, U.S. marshals seized reporters’ tape recorders during public remarks by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, and returned them only after Scalia’s comments were erased.

U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton declared his speech at Tufts University “off the record,” even though the event was open to the public.

In 11 of its last 12 free-speech rulings, the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected First Amendment claims.

A judge refused to delay a trial Tuesday when an attorney objected to his wearing a judicial robe with the Ten Commandments embroidered on the front in gold. Circuit Judge Ashley McKathan showed up Monday at his Covington County courtroom in southern Alabama wearing the robe. McKathan told The Associated Press that he believes the Ten Commandments represent the truth “and you can’t divorce the law from the truth. … The Ten Commandments can help a judge know the difference between right and wrong.”

A Texas school district was sued Wednesday for censorship after a third-grade student was prohibited from distributing candy canes with religious messages.

Don’t let the wing-nuts erode our basic liberties. Let’s keep the ones those whack-job Founding Fathers guaranteed us in the Bill Of Rights. When you see something that is contrary to these freedoms, exercise the one given you in the First Amendment and speak out!

Former New York police commissioner Bernard Kerik has abruptly withdrawn his nomination for Homeland Security Secretary.

Kerik said in a withdrawal letter to Bush that he had suddenly discovered that there were questions regarding the immigration status of his housekeeper and nanny. He apparently discovered the problems while filling out the documents required for Senate confirmation.

Homeland Security oversees Immigration.

Oops.

Quoth Kerik:

I uncovered information that now leads me to question the immigration status of a person who had been in my employ as a housekeeper and nanny. It has also been brought to my attention that for a period of time during such employment required tax payments and related filings had not been made.

Hmmmm… no employment taxes paid, either. I wonder how that little detail escaped his mind?

Wednesday at an information-technology security conference in Washington, former CIA Director George J Tenet is calling for new security measures to protect against terrorist attacks on the USA via the internet.

Quoth Tenet:

I know that these actions will be controversial in this age when we still think the Internet is a free and open society with no control or accountability, but ultimately the Wild West must give way to governance and control.

[The Internet] represents a potential Achilles’ heel for our financial stability and physical security if the networks we are creating are not protected.

[al Qaeda] is undoubtedly mapping vulnerabilities and weaknesses in our telecommunications networks.

Tenet believes that the open architecture of the internet which allows activities such as web surfing, Google searches and a myriad of blogs, including this one, makes the system more vulnerable. Modernization of industries by creating connections to the internet makes the industries, in turn, open to attack. It is Tenet’s opinion that “intelligence services, military organizations and non-state actors,” are researching the feasibility of expoiting these vulnerabilities.

The Department Of Homeland Security has the accountability to protect the internet from terrorism. But the former Director of the National Cyber Security Division, Amit Yoran, resigned last October, amid rumors of frustration and clashes with superiors, after giving a single day’s notice of his intent to leave.

Under Yoran, the National Cyber Security Division was responsible for implementing recommendations in the Bush Administration’s National Strategy To Secure Cyberspace. As part of this initiative, Homeland Security established a cyberalert system that warns of virus alerts and Internet attacks as they occur, along with detailed instructions on protection. They also mapped the Governement’s networked devices and began routinely identifying US computers and networks that were victims of attacks and break-ins.

Tenet would like to go beyond identification. He says that access to networks like the World Wide Web might need to be limited to those who can show they take security seriously. That might eliminate quite a few home users, whose virus-laden computers are used as zombies in various types of attacks, from any access to the Internet.

Tenet’s suggestion to limit access does not go against the National Strategy To Secure Cyberspace, which states:

The federal government could not—and, indeed, should not—secure the computer
networks of privately owned banks, energy companies, transportation firms, and other parts of the private sector. The federal government should likewise not intrude into homes and small businesses, into universities, or state and local agencies and departments to create secure computer networks. Each American who depends on cyberspace, the network of information networks, must secure the part that they own or for which they are responsible.

The federal government need not intrude anywhere in order to exclude.

One wonders how it would be determined who is serious about security, and thus worthy of access to the Web? One also wonders how many more freedoms must be given up in the name of national security?

The national press was excluded from this event at Tenet’s request. Wonder why?

My friend K lives in a small town not too far from Portland. She and her family live in a cute little house on a quiet street. Quiet, that is, until the church moved in across the street.

I use “church” in a loose sense. The man who moved in “saw the light” after a life of sinning. He now fancies himself something of a preacher and is trying to form a new congregation. In his garage. Which no longer sports the typical garage door, but now has a regular door, and a sign declaring its status as a congregation meeting place. Nothing wrong with any of that, of course.

But where does your right to form a church end and my right not to join it start?

The members of this congregation are not afraid to cram their beliefs down the neighborhood’s collective throat share their beliefs with their neighbors. On Sundays and Wednesdays when the meeting is in session, the sermon carries throughout the neighborhood thanks to the magic of amplification. At 4:00 am each weekday morning, taped hymns drone through the air along with the rasp of a flaky car starter. Last summer, when K and her family tried to enjoy their yard, the congregation was always ready to stand across the street singing hymns as loudly as possible.

The neighbors are beginning to feel a bit harrassed.

There is speculation among the neighbors that the real “reason” for forming a congregation has less to do with suddenly finding Jesus and more to do with suddenly discovering the tax-exempt status of religious bodies.

An elderly neighbor who had lost her husband of 50 years only two weeks before, lost control of her car and damaged some of the “church’s” property. Being an honest citizen, she confessed to the “reverend” what had happened.

Under the circumstances, one might expect a certain amount of understanding and compassion from a minister. After all the damage was relatively minor. The driver was insured and the church, one would expect, is also insured. Instead, the confession was answered with a threat to sue the driver for malicious damage. Not the most “Christian” of reactions.

But how do you get a church moved out once it’s moved in? It’s not a business, per se, so zoning laws may not apply.

For now, K is sleeping with earplugs to avoid the 4:00 am choir and considering an outdoor stereo system for use during the summer.