The Associated Press reveals the latest imposition by Homeland Security upon our individual autonomy:

Without notifying the public, federal agents have assigned millions of international travelers, including Americans, computer-generated scores rating the risk they pose of being terrorists or criminals.

The travelers are not allowed to see or directly challenge these risk assessments. The government intends to keep the scores on file for 40 years.

The scores are assigned to people entering and leaving the United States after computers assess their travel records, including where they are from, how they paid for tickets, their motor vehicle records, past one-way travel, seating preference and what kind of meal they ordered.

Don’t worry, by morning I’ll have my dudgeon fully worked up. But tonight I’ve just got to ask:

WHAT KIND OF MEAL THEY ORDERED?

I’d just love to see the regression analysis behind this one, although I suppose I never will. Do terrorists especially like mayo? Do they prefer it on the side? Does a terrorist avoid the dill chips? Do violent fanatics ask for extra honey-roasted peanuts?

I just learned of a thoroughly obscene, disgusting piece of art put on display in Clarksville, Tennessee before the good people of the town had the sense to Just Say NO:

A museum director in this military town has removed an art exhibit featuring several deep-fried American flags.

Art student William Gentry said his piece, “The Fat Is in the Fire,” was a commentary on obesity in America. “I deep-fried the flag because I’m concerned about America and about America’s health,” Gentry said. Customs House Museum executive director Ned Crouch took down the artwork Wednesday less than 18 hours after it went up in this community next to Fort Campbell.

“It’s about what the community values,” Crouch said. “I’m representing 99 per cent of our membership - educators, doctors, lawyers, military families.”

He also said the timing of the piece could cause “incendiary reactions.”

A Deep-Fried American Flag?

He Deep Fried the American Flag?

Shocking!

Obscene!

Disgusting!

Beyond the Pale!

I mean, come on! Everybody knows that the best way to prepare an American Flag is to saute it, with a little bit of olive oil, some onions and garlic, and perhaps just a touch of lemon juice or white wine.

What has America come to? Deep frying the flag, indeed!

“Boy, this is just a hoot!” said Illinois Senator Barack Obama last Sunday as he played an impromptu game of Frisbee Golf with his daughters Malia and Sasha on the lawn in front of the Trinity United Church of Christ. Church volunteers brought out a hula hoop for a big target, and Malia and Sasha made a game of throwing frisbees into it. Because there were only two frisbees, Senator Obama made makeshift use of his hat, missing the ring by a wide margin twice before throwing his hat into the ring on his last attempt.

“You know,” Obama was heard to say to an aide as he mopped his brow afterward, “I’d never be able to have this much fun if I ran for President…”

Here’s an enigma for the 2008 presidential campaign: In his October, 2006 campaign finance paperwork completed for the Federal Elections Commission, Al Hamburg, a candidate for the Democratic nomination for President in 2008, wrote the following note in the Summary section:

“FEC, do me a favor. Put the enclosed info on my sale of Hell Town on your web. Thanks.”

Politics1 has this to say about one of Hamburg’s brushes with fame in the past: “Hamburg also made news in the 1980s when he sued a woman for breach of contract involving a car he sold to her. In the lawsuit, he said the woman agreed to have sex with him fifty times in exchange for the car — but that she stopped performing her end of the deal after 33 times.”

Is that what makes it Hell Town?

The 2008 elections are almost two years away, but now is the time when the stage is being set upon which a limited number of characters will dance. Inside the DC Beltway, elite power brokers are already wrangling away about who does and who doesn’t deserve the mantle of “serious presidential candidate.” If we non-elite Americans want to provide a populist counter to the elitist machinations, we need to carry our own conversation about who we’d like to see as a presidential candidate.

You may be making a choice in your mind between voting for a progressive candidate whose values you believe in and a candidate whose values do not match yours, but who you’ve been told “can win.” This is an appeal that DC insiders often use to promote their “pragmatic” candidates. The election of 2004 should be instructive in this regard. The experience we all had with John Kerry shows that sometimes, candidates who “can win” actually cannot win. And George W. Bush’s victory demonstrates that voters are willing to elect someone with an ideological agenda (albeit a misguided one) so long as it is promoted by someone who can project the appearance of resolve and confidence in that agenda. A lot of Americans want a leader who sets the agenda, not a sheep who follows the wind.

Do you hold your progressive values with confidence in your heart? Do you show that confidence, or do you cloak it? Throw off the cloak. Be who you are, and don’t be afraid to show confidence in your progressive ideals. It takes both moral and interpersonal courage sometimes, especially for those who espouse a value set that celebrates the right of people to express different opinions. But people includes you; you get to speak up just as much as those who disagree with you. So speak up in this new presidential election season and let people know in forums large and small just what matters to you. Then expect the same of your presidential candidates. Let’s look for someone who knows what she or he believes, can articulate those beliefs, and doesn’t spend all day bending over backwards and apologizing for holding them. Let’s do what we can to support an honest, forthright and robust progressive candidate for president.

Earlier today, I wrote in praise of those who promote the cause of individual freedom, against the nationalist vision contained in a legal motion filed by lawyers representing the American Department of Justice, who wrote, “When the national security conflicts with an individual’s interest… the interests of the individual must give way.”

It was startling for me, this afternoon, to come across a similar vision of sacrifice of individual rights for the sake of the national good. This time, however, the vision was not articulated by lawyers representing the American government. It was articulated by Adolph Hitler, speaking at Buckeburg on Oct. 7, 1933. Hitler said,

“It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole… that above all, the unity of a nation’s spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual… We understand only the individual’s capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow man.”

History has shown us what happens when the interest of government security is allowed to overrule the rights of individuals. Unless they want their nation to go the way of Nazi Germany, Americans should not support the right wing ideology that proclaims that individual rights are subservient to the uninterrupted operation of the Department of Homeland Security. Those who do support such an ideology stand on Hitler’s side of history.

First task for the Vilsack for President 2008 campaign manager: Work on getting more dynamic stock photography out there for journalists to use. After seeing this photograph used frequently today to accompany stories about the Vilsack for President campaign, I’m wondering if the official motto of Vilsack 2008 is “Hm.”

Although he already announced his campaign for President on November 8, Tom Vilsack is going to Waterloo, Iowa today to announce his intention to run for President in 2008. Anonymous sources in the Vilsack campaign indicate that he is considering going to Ottumwa to make another declaration of candidacy in early December. From there, Vilsack will go to Pierre, South Dakota to make a final official announcement in January, 2007.

Pope Benedict (I can’t remember: Is it Benedict LMXVI, or is it Benedict XXL, or Benedict IV: A New Hope?) went to Ephesus yesterday, to a home that some believe is the place where the Virgin Mary, mother of Jesus, spent the last years of her life. Today, Benedict goes to Istanbul, to visit the Starbucks where some believe that the Virgin Mary had her last cup of coffee. Tonight, Benedict will visit the movie theatre on the island of Rhodes, where some believe that the Virgin Mary saw Paul Reuben’s movie, Pee Wee’s Big Adventure, for the last time.

Well, it’s what some believe, so it must be worth reporting, right?

Progressives believe that the direction American history should be one of increasing individual rights. We agree with diplomat and Nobel Peace Prize recipient Ralph Bunche when he said,

“In democracy the gap between ideal and practice must be constantly narrowed. For democracy, to prosper, or even to live, must ever be dynamic. It must move forward toward the goals of greater freedom, better life, fuller dignity for the people it serves. Any backward step, any encroachment upon the rights of democracy’s citizens, any violation of the dignity of the individual, any retreat in the well-being of the people strikes at the virility of the ideal and retards the course of human progress.”

We progressives agree with History professor Melvin Urofsky when he states, in The Rights of the People, published by the United States Department of State, “The Bill of Rights can be read as the definitive statement of that most American of values: the idea that the individual is prior to and takes precedence over any government.”

We are alarmed, however, to see that America’s history of increasing individual rights is now being eroded by a government run by right wing activists who believe in the nationalist principle that the government has the right to disregard individual rights in the name of security. Lawyers representing the American federal government recently wrote in a legal motion that “When the national security conflicts with an individual’s interest… the interests of the individual must give way.”

Americans should elect a progressive President in 2008 because we still believe that the history of the United States of America should be defined by the protection of individual rights, not the promotion of nationalist power. (Sources: The Rights of People, Melvin Urofsky, 2003; The Road to Peace, Ralph Bunche, 1954; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of the Motion by Intervenor United States to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment in Civil Action No. 1:05-cv-01417-TSE-TRJ)

Earlier this year, I ignored a knight. I didn’t mean to, but I just didn’t notice when Sir Imperato announced back in July that he will be running for President of the United States in 2008.

I did notice the press release this morning announcing that Daniel Imperato has hired Kush and Associates to manage his campaign. In that announcement, Imperato is described as Papal Knight and leading 2008 Independent Presidential Candidate. He’s an independent, actually, not a member of the Independence Party.

I love this idea of an independent knight. What makes him a knight, then? Well, Mr. Imperato is not quite so independent, really. He’s been invested with membership in the Knights of Malta, which is an old, old, old organization that dates back to the Crusades and once ruled over the island of Rhodes. Imperato puts a photograph of the certificate, with the wax seal and everything, on his campaign web site, just to satisfy the doubters.

DaVinci code conspiracy enthusiasts may well question whether, as a member of the Knights of Malta, Daniel Imperato is a member of the mysterious Illuminati, or Templars, or Keepers, or some other secret society devoted to covering up ancient mysteries of alien visitation, the Martian origin of Jesus, or some other such thing. Well, the truth is that I don’t know anything about secret societies. They’re secret, you see.

Imperato certainly has his campaign in better shape than most independent presidential candidates. He’s actually received some donations, over a thousand dollars, and none of the donors are listed, so we know that the donations must have been multiple, indicating that he has been able to get the support of someone other than his mother.

Check out the Imperato for President web site. He seems somewhat reasonable on some issues, which is better than many independent candidates achieve.

But what do we really know about this guy, this self-proclaimed “second generation immigrant”? What is a second generation immigrant? Am I a fifth generation immigrant?

Deeper investigation is clearly called for. As soon as I can get my squire to fetch my horse, I’ll be off to gather more information on this candidate.

Why vote for a progressive president in 2008? Because the allies of our regressive president are really, really, really scary when they tell you what they really, really, really think.

There’s a spurt of right-wing pundits out there writing “lemme tell ya what I really think” pieces, in a wave of frustration leading from the losses of the 2006 elections. Spouting the Republican Party line for years, and all for nothing, must be maddening. It’s like selling your soul, and then finding out that you’re getting paid in Monopoly money. So as a purgative, Bush’s allies are trying out sincerity. They’re telling you what they really think. And what they really think betrays the unAmerican agenda of this country’s regressives.

Take, for instance, Dennis Prager, radio host and newspaper columnist syndicated through Townhall.com. In his latest column, Prager reflects on the election of Keith Ellison, the first Muslim member of Congress:

Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.

He should not be allowed to do so — not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization. First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism — my culture trumps America’s culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.

Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison’s favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don’t serve in Congress….

When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization. If Keith Ellison is allowed to change that, he will be doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9-11. It is hard to believe that this is the legacy most Muslim Americans want to bequeath to America. But if it is, it is not only Europe that is in trouble.

Dennis Prager really, sincerely believes that the job of government is to maintain Christianity’s advantageous position. Dennis Prager really, sincerely believes that “American values” is equivalent to “Christian values.” Dennis Prager really, sincerely believes that “America is interested in only one book, the Bible.”

Dennis Prager really, sincerely doesn’t care that the Constitution’s First Amendment prohibits the use of government to establish an advantaged state religion. Dennis Prager really, sincerely doesn’t care that Section Six, Clause three of the Constitution reads, “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Dennis Prager really, sincerely doesn’t care that nowhere in the Constitution is the Bible specified as the object upon which members of Congress (or, for that matter, ANY member of government) will swear their oath of office.

Dennis Prager doesn’t care about the Constitution because he doesn’t believe in the value of the Constitution as a foundational American document. Dennis Prager claims that the Christian Bible stands above the Constitution as a foundational American document. Dennis Prager is a real, sincere theocrat, and he exemplifies “the base” pundits refer to when they talk about regressive American presidential candidates. If Prager’s vision for America isn’t your vision for America, then it is important for us to support candidates who stand up for the Constitution. To prevent theocracy, we must vote progressive.

I read this morning that the Iraq Study Group has come to a conclusion:

The Iraq Study Group, which wrapped up eight months of deliberations yesterday, has reached a consensus and will call for a major withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, shifting the U.S. role from combat to support and advising, according to a source familiar with the deliberations.

Will George W. Bush refer to the members of his own commission as Cut-and-Run Defeatocrats? Will Dick Cheney label them traitors? And will Fox News note that they look French, or include a gay Canadian?

Progressives understand that basic rights like the freedom from self-incrimination and the right to a fair and speedy trial are necessary because prosecutors and the politicians who back them often make grave mistakes. For instance, back in 2004, after the bombing of trains in Madrid, the Justice Department took Brandon Mayfield, a Muslim lawyer from Oregon, prisoner for two weeks. The Justice Department publicly accused Mayfield of having left a fingerprint on a bag of detonators, even though the Spanish police informed the FBI that they had found a closer fingerprint match from an Algerian man suspected in the case.

The FBI admits that it willfully ignored that evidence because its investigators were convinced that Brandon Mayfield was guilty. That admission only came, however, with extreme public pressure on the FBI. These days, right wingers seem to believe that if someone is accused of connection to terrorism, the investigators and prosecutors could not have made a mistake. Progressives know better, and that’s reason number 60 in our growing list of reasons to elect a progressive President in 2008.

This morning, news broke that while George W. Bush has been giving happy talk about the great, great Iraqi government and the Prime Minister’s important role in ending the burgeoning Iraqi not-a-civil-war, his National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley had already written a memo to Mr. Bush with the conclusion that the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nuri al-Maliki, was incapable of ending the burgeoning not-a-civil-war. Wrote Mr. Hadley:

The reality on the streets of Baghdad suggests Maliki is either ignorant of what is going on, misrepresenting his intentions, or that his capabilities are not yet sufficient to turn his good intentions into action.

By this afternoon, the Republican spin doctors had worked themselves into knots and come up with the following interpretation of the undeniably real memo: this memo was actually an expression of support for the Iraqi Prime Minister. Yeah, that’s the ticket:

“You have a constant reiteration of the importance of strengthening the Maliki government, the need to work with him, to augment his capabilities,” the official said. He added that Bush and al-Maliki have a “personal relationship” that allows them to “talk candidly about the challenges.”

Another official, also speaking anonymously because of the classified nature of the memo, said it was not “a slap in the face, but it’s, ‘How do we grow his capability.’ ”

Later this afternoon, Tony Snow emerged from a not-altogether-disclosed location underneath his office desk to issue the following “clarification”:

“The president has confidence in Prime Minister Maliki.”

Yeah, usually when I have confidence in someone, I refer to them as ignorant, misrepresenting, or incapable. Like when I am impressed with a waiter at a restaurant, I usually say, “thanks so much for the egg rolls, you ignorant, lying buffoon! I have confidence in you!” Or when I notice my son is almost done with his homework, I say, “clearly, either you didn’t listen to the teacher, or you’re lying about not being able to do your homework, or you’re just stupid. You pick one!” Yeah, I say that kind of crap just all the time to, you know, instill confidence and shit. It really works wonders.

Oh, wait a minute. Tony Snow is a smart man. See, he said, “The president has confidence in Prime Minister Maliki.” Not the Bush administration, just Bush. George W. Bush probably hasn’t read Stephen Hadley’s memo, so he probably still does have confidence in Prime Minister Maliki.

Don’t bother sending George Bush another copy of the Hadley memo. Maybe you could turn it into a YouTube video for him.