Andromeda

The U.S., having given Mars repeated opportunities to prove it has no WMD, is preparing to launch a weaponized space vehicle into Mars orbit, where it will fire a copper projectile at Mars, exploding a thirty-foot crater targeting Martian command-and-control.

The Italians have already updated their calculations for 2006 BQ6 based on three new observations, and the Palermo Scale is now just 2.78. Proving Andromeda has amazing psychic powers because using our awesome telekinetic abilities we moved the asteroid with our mind!

And we WILL move that asteroid right back -- unless humanity agrees to renounce coercive violence as a form of conflict resolution. Or Ben & Jerry's introduces an Andromeda-themed ice cream.

The end of the world! A new top Palermo Scale Near-Earth Object, 2006 BQ6, has just shown up on the JPL Risk page at a Palermo Scale rating of 1.12 (max). The Torino Scale is still 0 because the potential for impact is only 6.2e-06, a couple of orders of magnitude less than Apophis (but 2006 BQ6 weighs in slightly heftier at a diameter of .413 km). Only 42 observations over about 4 days, so the usual pattern is for this to drop off the bottom of the chart after a couple of days. But otherwise it's hitting the Earth on July 31, 2006.

But how do the Italians calculate it? Palermo Scale for the same 42 observations, for the same date, July 31, 2006 is 1.74. Well, that's not as exciting as 1.12, but, hey, it's respectable.

As a public service, Andromeda presents its analysis of one of the core issues surrounding the Terrorism Surveillance Program.

ISSUE PRESENTED: Does the Constitution apply during a time of "war"?

SUMMARY RESPONSE: No. But what do you mean by asking the question in the first place? And why did you put quotes around "war"? Oops, I did it myself!

ANALYSIS: During a time of war, the government must issue regular reminders and increasingly dire warnings about how dangerous things are. For unknown reasons, this is generally followed by a sense of fear and uncertainty among the population. Once the population is thoroughly worked up, it is crucial that the President claim as much power as possible, with as few restrictions as possible. Anyone questioning those claims is giving comfort to the enemy, so don't question it.

At this point, the Congress must decide if it's going to become irrelevant, or else issue a broad unlimited authorization to the President. The President will then announce that it is far broader than the extremely broad authorization that it is, and then he will secretly do many things under his interpretation of the authorization.

Because the President's actions are secret, they will not be tested. If they are revealed, anyone challenging them will be declared an enemy non-combatant and detained secretly and indefinitely without charges or a lawyer. The politicians will approve the President's actions after the fact, rather than be blamed by the President for possibly not protecting the public he frightened from possible dangers. Litigants will be intimidated, and judges will be cowed. And so the Constitution will not be applied. That is, the Constitution won't apply.

"if I wanted to break the law, why was I briefing Congress?"

"The Bush Administration has refused invitations for Chief of Staff Card, Joe Hagin, and others to testify before the oversight congressional committees investigating the government's response to Hurricane Katrina, causing the ranking Democrat on the Senate committee, Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT), to describe the White House as providing 'a near total lack of cooperation. . .'"

The grave risks of spies in America -- communicating with and working for foreigners -- doing everything they can to destroy this country -- is a danger so frightening, so great, and, most importantly, so new and so unheard-of, that Bush's warrantless spying is surely justified -- no: absolutely necessary.

Certainly, at the time the Fourth Amendment was demanded by the States, the people of the United States had no conception of the kind of danger such spies pose, they were far too foolish and naive to even grasp what we face today, and if they knew such horrors, fears, terrors as we know, they would have agreed that Americans could be spied on without probable cause.

Imagine, for example, if they had lived in a fledgling country, whose very existence was in doubt from day to day, and their enemies lived among them:

Loyalists came from all social, ethnic and economic classes of society, and were therefore able to mingle and interact easily in the countryside, under the guise of being Rebels themselves.

In addition to acting as spies, several prominent Loyalists ran intelligence networks. Cortland Skinner, the commander of the New Jersey Volunteers, directed an elaborate spy web in New Jersey from his headquarters on Staten Island.

If only the people who insisted on the Fourth Amendment had known such awful fear, uncertainty and dread as we have today, having a tiny percentage of the country consisting of people determined to destroy that country:

Loyalists made up at least one fourth of Americans. When a Loyalist spy sent a written warning of the imminent American attack, the Hessian in charge at Trenton tucked the note in his vest pocket and continued playing cards.

(Sorry, the last part of that quote was from the 9-11 Commission Report -- it's supposed to say "Bush" instead of "Hessian.") Certainly, there would be no Fourth Amendment at all if having the enemy in their midst had been "commonplace" during the time the Bill of Rights was adopted:

Espionage and counterespionage were as commonplace during the 18th century as they were in the 20th century during the Cold War. During the Revolutionary War, spies for both England and America obtained and transmitted information about troop movement, supplies, fortifications, and political maneuvers. Loyalists in America (or Tories as they were often called) were happy to provide secret information to the Crown....

The dangers Americans face to day are nothing like those the country faced at its founding. Clearly, the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement can be ignored.

As the peaceful Plutonians groom their icy fields, raise their icy children, and worship their icy gods, far away the people of the blue planet searched the Solar System for the smallest, meekest, most defenseless planet, and fired a nuclear-tipped rocket at it. Initially flummoxed by gentle breezes and delicate clouds, Earth's fastest rocket finally launched, and will reach Pluto in just nine years. Let that teach you, planet-pretending Kuyper-object Pluto!

President Bush said recently:

The American people know the difference between responsible and irresponsible debate when they see it. They know the difference between honest critics who question the way the war is being prosecuted and partisan critics who claim that we acted in Iraq because of oil, or because of Israel, or because we misled the American people. And they know the difference between a loyal opposition that points out what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right.

But is anything the President says true? That is, do the American people know the difference between "a debate that brings credit to our democracy" and one that gives "comfort to our adversaries"? This quiz will both test that assumption and, hopefully, perform the patriotic service of helping Americans know what they can and cannot say.

Mark the following as "credit to democracy" or "comfort to adversaries":

1. Asking, "is anything the President says true?"
   
2. Pointing out there is oil in Iraq.
   
3. Pointing out there is oil in Iraq, and none in North Korea.
   
4. Pointing out there is oil in Iraq, none in North Korea, and lots and lots more of that oh, so, delicious oil, in Iran.
   
5. Revealing an illegal domestic spying program to the press, at great harm to the President's political standing.
   
6. Revealing the identity of covert CIA agent to the press, in an idiotic attempt to protect the President from great harm to his political standing.
   
7. Filing a lawsuit complaining of illegal wiretapping.
   
8. Failing to voluntarily wiretap yourself.
   
9. Calling for a government of "laws not men" supported by "checks and balances"
   
10. Al Gore
    
11. Jack Abramof, Tom Delay, Bob Ney, Bill Frist
    
12. Mentioning Jack Abramof, Tom Delay, Bob Ney, Bill Frist as a group
    

ANSWER KEY: If any answer was given to 1-12, you have given "Comfort to adversaries." Patriots do not question things. Assuming answers were given, score as follows: 1. CTA. 2. CTD -- we need to know where the oil is. 3. CTD -- we need to know where it isn't. 4. CTD -- we need to know where lots and lots of that oh, so, delicious oil is. 5. CTA -- People don't need to know these things. 6. CTD -- People need to know these things. 7. CTA -- This will only force the Executive Branch to ignore the Judiciary Branch, and it's hard enough just ignoring the Legislative Branch. 8. CTA -- wiretapping yourself is patriotic, provided the microphone is placed in a manner consistent with Leviticus. 9. CTA -- first, this kind of talk threatens the "plenary" power of the Commander-in-Chief; second, these requirements would make building a democracy in Iraq very difficult. 10. Extremely CTA. 11. CTD -- a great bunch of guys. 12. CTA.

Would you fight for liberty?
Well, she won't fight for thee.
When you sally battleward,
She dallies under a tree.

When you grab her by the collar
And drag her to the lines,
Where you shove a rifle at her --
She falls to her knees and whines.

Liberty's not heroic,
Brave or brawny or bold,
She won't stand up for you
Or shelter you when you're old.

No, she lays around imperiled,
Invites her enemies home --
She lets them draw their blades out
And helps them whet the stone.

You rush inside to shield her,
From knives pressed to her neck,
Knock them safely to the floor,
But then she gives them back.

And finally you must save her
From endangering herself
In wiretaps you wrap her
And lock her in a cell.

Wiretapped and chained, she'll die there,
Because Liberty must be free.
The price for her life is hazard,
As they say, freedom isn't free.

Now will you fight for Liberty
When she can't fight for thee?
You've nothing to lose but your wiretaps,
And your complacency.

The news from the White House today sent a shiver down our collective spine here at Andromeda:

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, and as I just pointed out, his doctors and the Vice President's Office provide information in an appropriate way. And I'm sure that they will continue to. I would direct those questions to his office, because what they can do is check with his doctors and check with the Vice President and then provide that information to you all.

Q But there's a rather large foot secrecy going on here -- (laughter) -- considering the Vice President's left appendage and we're just curious as to --

It is only after lengthy deliberations, with due consideration for national security, balanced against our fiery patriotism, that we decided we could, nay, we must, reveal this SCI/SI-level secret -- the highest level of security clearance (as far as you know) -- even if it brings down the Republic.

And here it is: The Cheney Administration's obsession with security is so great, not because of their natural rat-like desire to do things in the dark, but because of the width and breadth of the things that must be kept confidential. One thing in particular, his foot, has grown enormously since he became secret-President. In the early days, of course, special lighting and make-up were all that was needed to keep his foot on the down-low, but after 9-11 it began expanding by leaps and bounds to the point that he gave all his speeches and public appearances while standing awkwardly next to billowing curtains or wearing a flowing gown. As it grew exponentially, NASA was brought in to keep it un-noticed through the ingenius manipulation of magnets, mirrors and lasers, but now, God-no! -- the secrecy is finally unravelling and the consequences, though certainly most dire, cannot be known or predicted.

Our greatest fear is that (pesky) reporters will insist on speaking to Cheney himself -- he's been zooming on horse tranquilizers for four years -- and asking him if it is true, as his foot has been saying, that the foot's orders are Cheney's orders.

Admirably, the laudable President Bush graciously acknowledged defeat and agreed to a "compromise" on torture. Poor McCain. While he was foolishly wasting his time in a North Vietnamese prison, George Bush was sacrificing himself to the poolside lounge chairs and rich-people get-togethers where he learned valuable lessons about "fingers crossed" and "opposites." What good is McCain's paltry "honor" if he doesn't even know to say "No Backsies" when he shakes your hand?

Oh, President Bush, whom we laud as admirable, how gracious of you to write out your "rubber-glue" codicil to the torture bill! "I will follow this law consistent with my interpretation of the unitary executive branch which means I don't have to do anything I don't want to -- including triple stamp a double stamp, which I do herewith."

Thank goodness Bush has checked out this Putin guy:

I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul.

Otherwise, the words "cold war" and "ultimatum" and "warlike" might make me nervous.