Here’s a letter I received from one of Barbara Lee’s supporters:

“As one of Representative Barbara Lee’s constituents, I am proud of her
opposition to issuing the President blanket authorization to respond to the
September 11 terrorist attack. I’ve told her so in a note to her office and
I’ve shared with friends my agreement with her position. The response the
people of this nation take to these acts needs to reflect the public will.
Giving one man unfettered discretion to determine the response is dangerous
and undemocratic.”

“The current wave of patriotism is an understandable sentiment. We all feel
outraged and violated … just as we did when we believed one of our ships
had been attacked back in 1964. It didn’t take long for that sentiment to
change once America’s youth started coming home in body bags. For once let’s
take the time to determine all the facts before writing ANY check. The
separation of powers concept has worked well for nearly 225 years, let’s not
abandon it and vote our way into a dictatorship just yet.” — Neil Cook, Attorney, Berkeley, California

Philip Zimmermann (PGP Encryption Software Creator) was recently quoted out of context in a Washington Post article.

Here’s a Slashdot article that tries to set the record straight: Slashdot | Philip Zimmermann and ‘Guilt’ Over PGP.

Man Shoots Hermaphrodite Moose.

I think that says it all. (Thanks Cory).

The Industry Standard’s Private Eyes, by Michaela Cavallaro, gives us a few examples of what kinds of government surveillance tactics we can expect in the future.

I took my first flight yesterday since the WTC attack.

How very strange it was to be flying again. The flight was eerily empty and the airline employees sure seemed happy to see us.

As my plane ascended and rose above the pillowy layer of fog that stretched out as far as the eye could see, I suddenly felt both fragile and invincible.

All and all the experience went smoothly. If you are a frequent traveller under normal circumstances, the best thing you could do right now is FLY! I think it’s highly unlikely now that something like 9.11 will have the chance to happen again anytime soon. The sooner we all get back to business, the better for our country’s economy.

I would still recommend taking the earliest flight of the day so as to avoid delays.

More random tidbits of travel information gleaned from the travel experiences of myself and others over the weekend:

• Carry on luggage cannot exceed 22 lbs (each bag)

• There is such a thing as getting to the airport too early. If you get there sooner than 3 hours before your flight, they won’t let you check in your bags. (3 hours should be plenty of time for you to get through security and catch your flight.)

• Many of the flights are only serving coffee and juice, and have dropped their in-flight meals, except in first class, so if you’re like me and can’t make it 4 hours without a nibble, better bring a banana, eat before you go to the airport or just eat in the long lines after you check in. (You’ll probably have time to kill before your flight after you check your luggage and get through security, but be warned: the lines for food in the airport are quite long, and there’s even less cream cheese on that overpriced bagel — but at least the prices don’t seem to have gone up yet.)

• Reliable sources have reported experiences of being held up an extra two hours or more during international flights (after boarding the plane) due to the Border Patrol’s performing random checks. According to my source, 12 brown-skinned people were escorted off of the plane and about half of them returned. I’m trying to find out more about this. If anyone knows more details, please let me know.

Here’s an editorial by Jesse Walker for Reason Online about the Current Situation and one possible long list of options to consider before moving forward: What Happens Next? Six options beyond war and peace. (Thanks Bobby)

An editorial by InfoWorld’s Ed Foster takes a good hard look at how Microsoft’s actions are speaking a whole lot louder than its words: A punitive puppeteer?.

The shift in Microsoft’s focus from licensing to services will change the way it does business with its customers, both corporate and consumer — and not necessarily for the better.

For example, the fine print of Front Page 2002’s license has been tightened up to stop Microsoft’s customers from criticizing it using its own software:

” ‘You may not use the Software in connection with any site that disparages Microsoft, MSN, MSNBC, Expedia, or their products or services… ‘ the license reads in part. Good thing InfoWorld doesn’t use FrontPage 2002 to post this column, I guess.”

Here’s how “disparage” is defined at Dictionary.com:

“To speak of in a slighting or disrespectful way; belittle.”

“To reduce in esteem or rank.”

“To dishonor by a comparison with what is inferior; to lower in rank or estimation by actions or words; to speak slightingly of; to depreciate; to undervalue.”

Doesn’t leave a whole lot of room for objective criticism or invaluable customer feedback.

Barbara Lee explains the rationale behind her “lone vote” in her own words on her own website: REP. BARBARA LEE

The Authorization for use of Military Force that Congress voted in last week cited two sections from the The War Powers Act of 1973:

“Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.”

Section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution:

“Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred (1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution… “

Section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution:

“Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of Untied States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces. “

I’m not sure what exactly this all means yet, but these citings seemed relevant.

Here’s the official Authorization for Use of Military Force that was agreed to by the house last week.

Apparently, we still aren’t sure who “those responsible” is, but when we find out, the President is now officially authorized to kick their ass:

“To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States. “

“The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”