Okay, we have officially entered Orwellian-Land. I don’t really have anything to add except check this damn headline out: White House Privacy Panel OKs Controversial Surveillance Programs.

And it gets better still!

A White House privacy board has determined that two of the Bush administration’s controversial surveillance programs — electronic eavesdropping and financial tracking — do not violate citizens’ civil liberties.

After operating mostly in secret for a year, the five-member Privacy and Civil Liberties Board is preparing to release its first report to Congress next week.

You can’t make this stuff up, people. The Privacy and Civil Liberties Board. Now, strictly speaking, there’s an O in there for Observation, and in case you’re wondering what the PCLO board does here it is for you.

The Board will (1) examine the activities of the Department to ensure that it continues to fully protect the privacy and civil liberties of all Americans; (2) recommend policies, guidelines, and other administrative actions; and (3) refer credible information pertaining to possible privacy or civil liberties violations by any federal employee or official to the appropriate office for prompt investigation.

Okay, they’re making sure our privacy stays in tact. Good stuff. Is there a catch? Of course there is. Back to the original article.

The board does not have subpoena power, and the White House can check its annual reports to Congress. The members serve at the pleasure of Bush, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has final say over whether officials must comply with the board’s recommendations.

Okay, so the board can’t really do anything, the White House checks its reports, and Berty can say if any of their recommendations. Wait, what was number 2 in their purposes again?

2) recommend policies, guidelines, and other administrative actions

Right, recommending stuff. No actual POWER, but they sure can wave their arms and say “hey, why dontcha do this?” Not that I think they will. Once again, back to the article.

Bush appointed [Carol Dinkins, a Houston lawyer and former Reagan administration assistant attorney general], a Republican, to chair the board. A longtime friend of the Bush family, she was treasurer of Bush’s first campaign for governor of Texas, and she is a longtime partner in the law firm of Vinson & Elkins, where Gonzales was once a partner.

I’m not sure it’s possible to make this story any more ridiculous. My comments have been sparse here, because honestly there’s not much I can do to mock it or comment on the complete and utter idiocy. I mean… jeez.

More unsurprising news. Poll after poll has come out declaring that the United States is the most religious developed nation in the world, and the least tolerant of atheism. Though our nation was founded by strong, strong secularists, theism has crept up and overtaken the country. Equally unsurprising? The fact that most people have no idea what’s going on in their own dang religion.

Fewer than half of us can identify Genesis as the first book of the Bible, and only one third know that Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount.

Approximately 75 percent of adults, according to polls cited by Prothero, mistakenly believe the Bible teaches that “God helps those who help themselves.” More than 10 percent think that Noah’s wife was Joan of Arc. Only half can name even one of the four Gospels, and — a finding that will surprise many — evangelical Christians are only slightly more knowledgeable than their non-evangelical counterparts.

This surprises me less than apparently most would think. I’ve noticed that the most religious of those I know only are aware of generic lessons gleaned from the Bible, or various prayers and lessons taught by priests or other church leaders. They aren’t too aware of what’s actually in there.

By contrast, I’ve found that nonbelievers know a heck of a lot of what’s between the covers, often in the Qu’Ran as well. The critics are capable of pointing out certain particularly damning verses, often motivated by such things as the oh so friendly folks such as Donald Spitz in my comments below who use selected verses to make hostile attacks on others. These folks are generally unaware of everything surrounding it or perhaps context, which atheists such as myself are more than happy to research.

Surprising? No. Depressing? Hell yes. I’ll leave you with a quote by Sam Harris: “People who harbor strong convictions without evidence belong at the margins of our societies, not in our halls of power.”