In Which Our Heroine Wonders Even More About US Privacy Laws
I have a handy little thing over in the corner that keeps track of who is logging on to my website. Sort of. It gives me the IP adress, so I know if you're coming from a particular domain. It also tells me if you've linked to me from a search engine (I am popular under "rubber duck 1992" and "cotimundi" searches, along with the occasional "tall leggy spandex woman" search, but I really try not to think about those so much.) or from another web page. This is occasionally amusing to see what people find me listed as, and sometimes interesting, but today it is a bit scary, because someone has twice in the last week been reading me from the Department of Justice - the DOJ. Now, this could be a perfectly innocent reader who happens to find me amusing or interesting or whatever, or it could be something far more malevolent. Given the current state of play of the privacy laws and Patriot II, I'm not desperately inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to our government. I think John Ashcroft is one of the scariest Attorneys General we have ever had in this country, and I'm not afraid to say it. Much. There is fear there. My country is violating basic rights on a level that I have never seen before, and not many people seem terribly concerned about it. But I am. And, just maybe, someone in the DOJ is interested in my being concerned about it. Patriot Act my fat scarred butt, is what i have to say about it. The only patriotic thing about it is the name. It reflects nothing of what this country stands for. The government should fix its own house first before coming after the likes of me, but it won't. As Bill Cosby once said "The government comes for the ordinary people first." Mind you, it is a bit like the Catholic Church, who are burning my buttons today because of their renewed vigor in making sure there is no such thing as legalized gay marriage. Now, I'm neither gay, nor am I married, and actually I'm not Catholic, but I have to say that this is one of the most hypocritical things going round at the moment. Two people who love each other and want to commit to each other is wrong in the church's eyes, but ordained clergy molesting scores of people is something to be covered up for years? There is a substantial credibility gap there, and I'm not buying it. I suppose it isn't hypocritical in that opposition to same sex relations has always been part of church teaching. But then so is a priest not being celibate, abusing his office, not being honest with his flock, premarital sex, and again same sex relations. But priests who did these things were not dismissed from the clergy or even ex-communicated from the church. Most of them are still there. In many cases, they were promoted through the ranks. And the church has continued to stay rather quiet about that whole issue. But same sex marriages, even of non-Catholics? That topic the church is going to town on. The shame of it all is what I notice.

Of course, credibility gaps abound these days. Starting with George W. Shrub and the whole Yellowcake fiasco. "I gave the speech but it is everyone else's fault but mine." And what has such a gaffe cost us? American lives, a billion dollars a week, and confirmation that America is a big old USSR style bully and a half. Heck, as if this wasn't enough, we're threatening to withdraw military support to countries that don't agree not to prosecute us in the International Criminal Tribunal! Latvia now can't afford to send the troops to Iraq to replace ours. Way to go, USA!

Yours Canadianly,
Anne