The Sideshow Archive for October 2007 Main Check box to open new browser windows for links.



Wednesday, 31 October 2007 Happy Halloween

I need someone to remind me of where I stole this image from. It could have been Lucy or Maru.

I was listening to Thom Hartmann earlier and John Edwards came on and talked to him. Ordinarily, the only legislator Thom talks to (every Friday) is Bernie Sanders, because he's the only one who will agree to unscripted questions. So, John Edwards just got big points from me. (Listen here for the continuous loop of the most recent Hartmann show - and don't forget to throw some cash to The White Rose Society.)

Some people suspect that it's because they actually believe the same things the Republicans do, but Chris Bowers believes it really is mere fear that makes the Democratic leadership behave the way it does. (via)

Chuck Dupree wonders why a city like San Francisco has such crummy representatives - such as Tom Lantos, who managed to say many appalling things recently to some Dutch legislators who had visited Guantanamo. "Europe was not as outraged by Auschwitz as by Guantanamo Bay," for example. And, "You have to help us, because if it was not for us you would now be a province of Nazi Germany." Yeah, that's tellin' 'em.

When couples want to adopt a child, they look to poorer countries where women have low access to contraception and abortion and where there are few social supports to ease parenting. Guess the country of choice for the British.

|

23:32 GMT



The worst disease "Obama's gospel mistake" - David Ehrenstein is in the LAT this morning discussing how Obama failed to negotiate the issue of gays in the black community, worth reading for the historical notes alone, but let's have some of the raw Ehrenstein, too, back at his blog. "Theocracy Now!" - Max Blumenthal checked out the Value Voters Summit, and watched a bunch of people going out of their way to show how awful they are. " Neoconservative activist Frank Gaffney appeared at the Summit as well. Before a standing room audience, Gaffney exclaimed that "by not being bigoted and not being racist, [George W.] Bush has embraced Islamofascists on several occasions." Phyllis Schlaffly echoed Gaffney's comments, declaring that there are too many mosques in America. " Some days I think they become conservatives because they know that if they managed to get degrees, then "education" can't mean anything. (I kept expecting Bush to appoint Schlaffly to replace O'Connor....) As usual, I can't get the video to play, so you'll have to tell me what goes on in it. (Why is this? I never used to have any trouble with Flash.) Oh, yeah, they're the party for really stupid gays, too. Chumbawamba |

14:34 GMT



Nowhere to hide A while back a friend - another American blogger, but someone who usually avoids any taint of partisanship and rests his work on his expertise - invited me to dinner during a visit to London and took me to a delightful restaurant of a sort I could never afford to dine at on my own. In between marvelling at the food, he confided to me that he thinks we've lost the battle and he and his wife are now looking at countries they might move to. I found out a long time ago that there's no escaping the United States. The repercussions of what our country does reach far and wide; no one is immune. When I first moved to England, I had to spend a lot of time explaining to people that "landslide" does not mean, "Everyone in America voted for Reagan." I thought this was a big hurdle until I realized that, despite the fact that everyone knew Reagan was brain-damaged, his policies were still being held up as models for the rest of the world, even here where he was loathed. "The Americans are doing it" was all the excuse that was needed to embark on projects that were at best moronic, at worst devastatingly destructive. And so I watched the long parade of insults to democracy, economic security, and civil liberties that began with Thatcher but only seemed to swell under Blair. Because, after all, the Americans are doing it! So now there's a "new" government. God, we all hope so. But, as Henry Porter puts it: But then the clouds of suspicion began to gather as I watched the Labour commentariat, their expressions resembling nothing so much as the empty rictus of halloween pumpkins. Surely they see what Brown and Straw are up to. Both men were members of the Blair cabinet which mounted the greatest attack in peacetime on the people's rights and liberties. Having taken what was ours, they now offer it back to us - reduced and compromised - but as though it was somehow their beautiful gift to the people. They are repackaging our liberty and selling it to us as a new bill of rights and duties. Nobody points out that the only reason we are now discussing a new bill of rights is because Labour's villainous laws have made it a political necessity for Brown to win back voters' confidence. Few question the addition of responsibilities - or 'duties' - to a code of rights. Many of our duties as citizens are already established in law and a Labour government, least of all Jack Straw, has no business defining our responsibilities to each other or, more odiously, to the state. And let us not forget that duty is primarily a matter of conscience, not coercion. It seems Labour cannot give something away or, in this case, return a small portion of what was ours without imposing conditions. Putting Jack Straw in charge of the consultation process on a bill of rights is like turning over a campaign against prostitution to the head of an escort agency. Such a man can only see a bill of rights as political tool and a way of further entrenching the powers of government and the executive. Jack Straw was certainly an able steward of the project to remove the rights of Britons throughout the Blair years, and now they've put him in charge of "giving" them back. Astonishing. Technically speaking, I suppose Americans have more rights in law than Brits - at least in theory. But those rights have to be defended in court - with more and more frequency, these days - if you are allowed to defend them at all, in a judicial system that has been twisted beyond all recognition. In practice, however, I have somehow managed to retain the ability to prevent most strangers from phoning me constantly in attempts to sell me something, and I don't have to pay for calls I receive on my cell phone (which seldom rings, anyway, since I've only given the number to about three people). But I'm harmless and white and don't even trawl the net for pornography, so I'm unlikely to become a target of most of the deeper offenses to human liberty that have been undertaken in the name of public safety in the time I've been here. My campaigning in Britain doesn't hurt any major players economically, so they probably won't fit me up or try to shoot me. My neighbors get shot, and my friends who campaign against mining companies get fitted up, but aside from assorted indignities at Heathrow, life at home is generally quiet. Things would seem nearly perfect, if only I didn't care. (Via Martin Wisse.) |

12:05 GMT



Tuesday, 30 October 2007

Footnote on Social Security JHB in comments: Just to highlight how long there has been an effort to manufacture a climate of crisis about Social Security, its worth revisiting some articles by Doug Henwood of the Left Business Observer on the subject, going back thirteen years: 1994:

"The bankruptcy scenario is based on an assumption that GDP will grow at a rate seen only in depression decades." [Link] 1998:

"Rerun the projections with more reasonable -- though still conservative -- projections and the "crisis" largely or fully disappears." [Link] and 2005:

"It's uncanny reading Paul Krugman's New York Times column these days - his stuff on Social Security sounds like what LBO was saying in 1998." [Link] Yes, I remember running into this stuff in the late '90s and being astonished that anyone was even talking about it. I recall having to explain to an otherwise quite liberal guy that it was all rubbish and anyway all we needed to do if we wanted to make Social Security more solvent is remove the cap. He didn't know there was a cap, of course, and was even more surprised to hear that that would be enough. The entire basis of the scam, anyway, is the apparent belief that baby-boomers did not reproduce. Well, they did. The baby-boom that started more than 20 years ago is actually bigger than the original post-war boom. Funny how you seldom hear about that. The conservatives hate it that Social Security has actually created real security for the middle-class and we don't have old people dying in the streets. They hate it that young families aren't more heavily-burdened by trying to take care of aging relatives. They hate it that ordinary working people actually had a hope of improving their lives. They have done their best, often successfully, to mitigate this as much as possible, but that one sticky program is dragging them down, and they're desperate to get rid of it. So, of course, they lie. Never forget this: If conservatives appear to be making sense, they are almost certainly lying. |

15:02 GMT



Overdue news For those who came in late, Atrios explains the history of the fight against cat-food accounts. He also links to an old post from Matthew Yglesias examining the "rationale" for cat-food accounts by "serious" people like Joke Line. (Basically: the moronic idea that programs that evolved out of the Industrial Age are old-fashioned and we need to "modernize" for the Information Age. I have long been disgusted with the way many of the neolib/libertarian crowd got hitched to the stupid idea that all natural laws died with the invention of the internet, and thousands of years of historical reality just ceased to be operational because we happened to have a speedier method of communication handy. These idiots actually believed that "information wants to be free" meant that people would not be vulnerable to arrest for expressing Unauthorized Thoughts because of the magic of the internet, for example. Some of them openly asserted that censorship was dead just because the net was designed to route around obstruction. Well, sure, it's conceivable that your words can proliferate around the net forever, but that doesn't mean no one will find out you said them and put you in jail, or that no one will experience the chilling effect of your arrest. Applying the "everything is changed by the internet" meme to Social Security makes even less sense, since nothing about speedy information changes the fact that private financial facilities are still operated for profit, which in itself adds costs to the program, even if you could eliminate the vastly-higher cost of administration when each person has a different type of account from a different financial institution. The people who support these ideas are regarded as "serious" because they advocate for destructive programs, not because their ideas are any good.) Last year when it was announced that the UK would set the clocks back in autumn at the end of October rather than in early November, I was delighted to know that the week of not remembering what time it is in New York would be eliminated - and then I found out the US was going to put the clocks back a week earlier. But I forgot that Sunday night, so I missed the first hour of Seder on Sunday. Fortunately, it eventually appeared on the widget, so I managed to hear the discussion of the FISA bill, but I was disappointed to note that Matt and Christy dropped the ball on the question of whether money might have influenced Jay Rockefeller's decision to put the telecoms above the law. Sam went out of his way to prime Matt, but he treated it as, "Oh, yes, money is always in there somewhere," without pointing out that the telecoms recently threw a pile of money at Rockefeller's campaign and then suddenly Rockefeller became very happy with the get-out-of-jail-free provision for the telecoms. Apparently, eRobin's local press gave the demo over the weekend pretty good coverage. I was amused to note that liberal talk radio host Stephanie Miller, whose father was once the Republican nominee for vice president, got a call from the daughter of the guy who was top of the ticket with a suggestion, so they called their October 27th rally Goldwater-Miller '08. Their slogan was, "Family name. No skills. Just like W." Pretty cloudscape; neat clouds. |

12:04 GMT



Monday, 29 October 2007

Nuts Since lately people are giving more serious examination to the fundamental craziness that seems to motivate a lot of anti-terror warriors, I am grateful to Natasha for reminding me once again that John Rogers wrote this two years ago: Tyrone: And again, I must point out Bush said "the militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, allowing them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region." That's what the militants believe. They may just be delusional. He says that himself: "Some might be tempted to dismiss these goals as fanatical or extreme. Well, they are fanatical and extreme -- and they should not be dismissed. Our enemy is utterly committed." John: But he's citing that desire as a basis for our strategy. You can't cite your enemy's delusional hopes as a basis for a rational strategy. Goals don't exist in a vacuum, they're linked to capability. David Koresh was utterly committed to being Jesus Christ. See how far that got him. Either Bush is making strategy based on a delusional goal of his opponent, which is idiotic; or he's saying he believes his opponent has the capability of achieving this delusional goal, which is idiotic. Neither bodes well for the republic. I keep forgetting that Bush actually said this explicitly, it's not just something that shows up in my comment threads from time to time as an incomprehensible response to criticism of BushCo's little adventure. And the thing is, they don't necessarily specify that they are talking about this, they just drop it as a non-sequitur - you say Bush has made a mess of things and we have to get out of Iraq, and they say something about how the Mullahs won't have any tolerance for people like me. And it's baffling, because it never occurs to you that they really think a handful of Muslim loonies are going to take over the western world. (It's also baffling because it is clear that the handful of loonies who have already taken over the western world also have an eliminationist attitude toward people like me, so what's so special about other people's crazies?) It's hard, I know. So much gibberish comes out of Bush's mouth that it's hard to know what to take seriously, but somehow I missed the fact that this was hiding in plain sight all along. I don't have words for how crazy this all is. Even Harlan Ellison doesn't have language for how crazy it all is. |

12:30 GMT



Sunday, 28 October 2007

Saturday, 27 October 2007

Notebook This is rather astonishing. Redacted from documents censored for national security, a quote form a Supreme Court decision: " The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect 'domestic security.' Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. " Yeah, they wouldn't want the enemy to get their hands on that. The irony is unbearable. (And thanks to Charles for tipping me off to this lovely folly. I'd love to go see the thing. Maybe someone will invite me up to speak in Wigan.) Why Senator Bernie Will Vote "No" on Mukasey. Does anyone know what a "Stay away" is? I'd never heard of it before, but Medea Benjamin and others who were arrested before Condi's hearing started the other day were given something called a "Stay away" and told they couldn't be anywhere on Capitol Hill until further notice. So, apparently, there aren't too many people from Code Pink who can do any actions there for a while. (There is a call for more women to join to take up the slack, of course.) New Rules: "We have become most insecure paranoid superpower ever." (And, found in the comment thread, this quote from DDE: " If all that Americans want is security, they can go to prison. They will have enough to eat, a bed, and a roof over their heads. But if an American wants to preserve his dignity and his equality as a human being, he must not bow his head to any dictatorial government. ") |

23:06 BST



The roar of the greasepaint Why some people should stay off the internet: The House Judiciary Committee accidentally sent the details of all their whistleblowers out to a huge mailing list that got into the hands of Richard Bruce Cheeny. (I'm spelling "Cheney" that way because I heard he loves it that no one knows how to pronounce his name.) Jamison Foser on Matt Drudge's Mini-Me, Mickey Kaus, who thinks passing on unsourced rumors from a single alleged (possibly entirely fabricated) source is the same thing as what Woodward and Bernstein did: " The fact that Kaus apparently has lower evidentiary standards than Matt Drudge is bad enough. But he doesn't stop there: He chides journalists who don't follow him in his race to the bottom and mocks those who think reporters shouldn't repeat as facts the claims of someone else's single anonymous source. " My sources tell me, of course, that Mickey Kaus has sex with Goats. Just how ludicrous is David Horowitz? Sinfonian finds him whining because no one wants to listen to him, and Josh sees he thinks having people disagree with conservatives is like putting a noose at their doors. Kevin is talking bollocks again. No, Kevin, the Democrats were not in the wilderness because of liberal policies. They never did move "to the center". They were right-of-center already, and then they moved right, and then they sorta won the presidency for a bit but lost Congress. Then they so totally failed to fight their corner that they managed to lose the presidency to people who openly deride the Constitution and have hugely unpopular policies. (The fact that they are even more unpopular now doesn't mean they were popular then.) Trifecta wonders, " Why is it that if a candidate has popular ideas, they are "unelectable"? " and then presents a fine platform. |

16:27 BST



Tip sheet Pruning Shears is suggesting that Dodd's leadership on FISA is changing the calculus for the Democratic nomination. Me, I don't know, but via Buzzflash I see that this interesting poll included some questions about Al Gore, including: DEMOCRATIC CHOICE FOR THE NOMINATION

(Among Democratic primary voters)

Clinton...37

Gore......32

Obama.....16

Edwards....7

Gore took support from all the major candidates. In the first horserace question, which did not explicitly offer Gore as a choice, 2% of Democratic Primary voters volunteered Gore’s name. 46% of registered voters view Al Gore favorably, his highest rating since October, 2000. Interestingly, his favorables are as high as they were in 2000 and his unfavorables are much lower than they've been in previous polls (and Undecided/Don't Know is much higher than it was in 2000). Alas, there is also this: AS PRESIDENT, HOW WOULD THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES HANDLE IRAQ?

(Among Democratic primary voters)

Remove Most Troops From Iraq:

Clinton.....65 percent

Obama.......54 percent

Edwards.....44 percent Keep most troops in Iraq

Clinton.....27 percent

Obama.......28 percent

Edwards.....32 percent *sigh* |

00:28 BST



Friday, 26 October 2007

Only words Lambert finds an interesting speech by Steny Hoyer (Steny Hoyer!) in which he stands up for restoring the Constitution. The speech, delivered a couple days ago at Georgetown Law School, has many fine words about the obligation of legislators such as himself to uphold the Constitution, and these: Simply stated, it would be grossly irresponsible for Congress to grant blanket immunity for companies without even knowing whether their conduct was legal or not. And, importantly, this view is shared by the Chairman and Ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee. I'm not happy with that "without even knowing whether their conduct was legal or not" - this shouldn't even be a question. If they didn't break the law, they don't need immunity, and if they did (or do), they shouldn't have immunity. It's nice if this phrase is included as a lure to get Bush to give them information, but not if it's going to be a basis for how they vote; they should never give them immunity, period. Hoyer also said: Let me add that I also believe we made a tremendous mistake in eliminating the right of habeas corpus. Congress must revisit this issue. Y'think? So, how did that happen? How do Democrats just happen to make these stupid mistakes? Were you asleep? Were you absent that day? Did the dog eat your homework? *Sigh* You can call Steny's office on (202) 225-4131 and tell him you agree completely and hope to see this sentiment expressed with a complete refusal by Congress to grant any immunity to the telecoms. Natasha: " In other words, follow closely here, upholding the Constitution is a partisan left position in American politics now. Utterly disregarding it is the partisan right position. Deciding that utter disregard for it needs to be smoothed over by special legal dispensation, so we don't have to settle the question distastefully in court, is centrist. " In the WaPo, Eugene Robinson talks about Republican Hot Flashes and their unmanly insecurities (particularly in regard to SCHIP and the Dream Act), and Michael Gerson writes an astonishingly inoffensive column about faith and tolerance (as seen through Harry Potter), something I thought it impossible for a Republican to even recall. Meanwhile, Krazy Krauthammer says the Republicans have a terrific presidential field because, after all, Reagan was really just as crappy. Well, he doesn't exactly use those words, but.... Actually, I don't think for a minute that Romney's Osama/Obama "error" was a mistake. Perhaps it was said best by the commenter who replied, "Romney? Wasn't he the Nazi tank commander?" |

13:40 BST



Thursday, 25 October 2007

Do the right thing Kevin Drum has a question that shouldn't need asking: when we blogosphere types complain about this weak-kneed attitude, are we complaining because (a) we think the centrists are wrong; they could keep their seats in marginal districts even if they toed the progressive line on national security issues. Or (b) because we don't care; they should do the right thing even if it means losing next November? Is it really likely that a huge number of voters are going to reject legislators because they refused to give telecoms immunity after breaking the law? I don't think so. But legislators are supposed to uphold the Constitution, and if they don't do it, they shouldn't be in office. More importantly, why should I want them in office if they won't do it? Look, right-wingers aren't going to vote for Democrats, even if they seem almost like Republicans, when they can vote for actual Republicans. Progressives don't do much for Democrats who seem almost like Republicans - often, they won't even vote. (Remember Harold Ford? He's the poster child for guys who "had to" run to the right in their reddish districts. He lost. Some people want to say it was because he was black, but that's not why progressives didn't vote for him.) And it doesn't matter what you do, the GOP will still say you don't support the troops and you hate America and are a far-left moonbat just because you're a Democrat. So, if you want to do the wrong thing to get votes, run as a Republican. If you run as a Democrat, you'd better be willing to do the right thing, or we have no use for you. You just make it seem more obvious that "there is no difference between the two parties," and that means people won't get out and vote. (And Senators who don't have to run again for another four or six years really shouldn't be using this as an excuse. The handful of people who hate you for voting against telecom immunity won't even remember it in 2010 or 2012. But I wouldn't make the same bet that progressives will forget your betrayals of the Constitution.) |

15:24 BST



Say it with me: I'm pro-life, and you're not. Amanda Marcotte has a post up at Reality Check, "Anti-Choice Lingo Decoded", which provides my good quote of the morning: When an anti-choicer petulantly says, "Sex has consequences," he usually means, "People are getting away with having sex and we should artificially introduce more risks in order to scare people off of it." Bean at Lawyers, Guns and Money adds: Amanda's right to lift the oh-so-sheer sheet of euphemism to reveal the dirty underbelly of their smart talk. But what she doesn't address -- and what I think is important -- is why their rhetoric is so powerful and ours is, well, not. They won the war of words. Think about it: most Americans still use "pro-life" to describe the forced pregnancy movement and still label people who support reproductive justice as pro-abortion (as in, we love a procedure that can include invasive surgery! Woo hoo!). While it's good to decode their language, it only gets us so far. What's next - -and perhaps even more important -- is figuring out how to get away from that language, not only in our happy progressive blog world, but more broadly. So long as we are not understood to be "pro-life" -- despite the fact that we are actually the only ones in this debate who actually are supportive of life -- we won't be able to make any gains. Blogs would be a good start, though - it has long aggravated me that there are people throughout the liberal community who persist in thoughtlessly identifying the forced-pregnancy movement as "pro-life". Look, they are not pro-life, on this or any other issue, and you know it, so why keep doing this? They aren't opposing women's reproductive control because they want to save lives, they are opposing women's reproductive control because they oppose women's reproductive control. They want women to be punished for having sex. They don't care if people die. None of their policies have anything to do with protecting life. If anything, they deserve to be called the "pro-death" movement, because that's where their policies go - including their position on reproductive choice. We are the pro-life movement. We're the ones who want to stop war and care for the poor and the sick. We're the ones who want to make sure children in our society are taken care of. And we're the ones who want to be sure that children are loved and their mothers don't die having abortions. The anti-choicers don't want women to have abortions even when they know that both mother and fetus will die as a result of the pregnancy. Even when they know that there will never, ever be a live birth. And if it's a choice between the mother and the life of a blastocyst, they will always choose against the woman. Their policies are so punitive that you can't help getting the impression that they enjoy the fact that women will die. And they certainly don't worry about all those children their wars are killing. Nor do they care about all the children who are dying in America because of lack of healthcare. They are petty and nasty and spiteful and murderous people and it is disgusting that they call themselves "pro-life". "Pro-life" is how they want to be identified because it steals the moral high-ground for them. Don't help them out, eh? |

13:03 BST



They're stealing the media The FCC is trying to sneak one past us again - they suddenly announced that they were going to announce the new rules on media monopoly in a month. That's not a lot of time for consultation with the public, is it? And it's clear that they want to do is eliminate the restrictions on media monopolies. It would become legal for one entity to own all the newspapers, radio stations, television stations, etc., in an area. Maybe even the entire country. Obviously, this is something that has to be stopped, and fast. Byron Dorgan is leading the charge: U.S. Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) predicted Wednesday the Senate will vote to reject efforts to relax media ownership rules. "If the FCC proceeds on the schedule it is planning, it will be a big mistake," Dorgan said. "It's clear the concentration of media ownership that has already taken place has not been good for our country. I'm confident any plan to allow additional concentration of media ownership will be rejected." Dorgan said the rushed schedule the FCC is planning for proposing and voting on the proposed rules change is also unacceptable. "In a democracy, making sure that citizens are able to get news and information from a variety of independently owned sources is crucial," Dorgan said. "We already have too much concentration of media ownership. Before the FCC moves forward to allow even more, we need to have an informed, reasoned and unrushed discussion about that. The American people need to be heard." I disagree with Dorgan on a number of things, but this is one that he's right on. Rachel interviewed him on her show, and as always you can hear it here until it's replaced with the next show. Barack Obama has called the FCC's call for an early vote on the rules change "irresponsible": "Minority-owned and -operated newspapers and radio stations play a critical role in the African-American and Latino communities and bring minority issues to the forefront of our national discussion," writes Obama, also a Democratic candidate for president. "However, the commission has failed to further the goals of diversity in the media and promote localism, and, as a result, it is in no position to justify allowing for increased consolidation of the market." Meanwhile, in the continuing story of conservatives buying up local stations that carry Air America Radio and turning them to Christian, sports, or Spanish-language programming (usually in markets that are already saturated with same), despite the fact that AAR gets higher listenership, Austin's KOKE went dark earlier this month and the local community is trying to get together to get another station to carry AAR. |

03:08 BST



Wednesday, 24 October 2007

In the tubes Riverbend reports from Syria: " The first evening we arrived, exhausted, dragging suitcases behind us, morale a little bit bruised, the Kurdish family sent over their representative - a 9 year old boy missing two front teeth, holding a lopsided cake, 'We're Abu Mohammed's house- across from you- mama says if you need anything, just ask- this is our number. Abu Dalia's family live upstairs, this is their number. We're all Iraqi too... Welcome to the building.' I cried that night because for the first time in a long time, so far away from home, I felt the unity that had been stolen from us in 2003. " The Los Angeles Times has a map of the wildfires. Barbara Ehrenreich says, "Happy Fascism Awareness Week!" (You know, I very much doubt that Horowitz, Coulter, et al. have the faintest clue what is said about extremist Islamists in women's studies classes.) David Obey: " Its amazing to me that the President expects to be taken seriously when he says we cannot afford $20 billion in investments in education, health, law enforcement and science, which will make this country stronger over the long term, but he doesn't blink an eye at asking to borrow $200 billion for a policy in Iraq that leaves us six months from now exactly where we were six months ago. Only this White House would call this progress. The President needs to rethink his position on both fronts. " Right, so how are you going to vote, guys? (via) Reprehensible: Who told Pete Stark he had to apologize? And why did 13 Democrats fail to vote against censure? (Stark sure wasn't wrong.) Imperial Ecuador: " Ecuador’s leftist President Rafael Correa said Washington must let him open a military base in Miami if the United States wants to keep using an air base on Ecuador’s Pacific coast. " Really expensive bra (Thanks to MadKane for the tip.) |

02:50 BST



Tuesday, 23 October 2007

Land of the free, continued Steve Bergstein was reading a rather exciting and revealing court decision: The long and the short of it was that an Egpytian national, Abdallah Higazy, was staying in a hotel in New York City on September 11 and the hotel emptied out when the planes hit the towers. The hotel later found in the closet of his room a device that allows you to communicate with airline pilots. Investigators thought this guy had something to do with 9/11 so they questioned him. According to Higazi, the investigators coerced him into confessing to a role in 9/11. Higazi first adamantly denied any involvement with 9/11 and could not believe what was happening to him. Then, he says, the investigator said his family would go through hell in Egypt, where they torture people like Saddam Hussein. Higazy then realized he had a choice: he could continue denying the radio was his and his family suffers ungodly torture in Egypt or he confesses and his family is spared. Of course, by confessing, Higazy's life is worth garbage at that point, but ... well, that's why coerced confessions are outlawed in the United States. So Higazy "confesses" and he's processed by the criminal justice system. His future is quite bleak. Meanwhile, an airline pilot later shows up at the hotel and asks for his radio back. This is like something out of the movies. The radio belonged to the pilot, not Higazy, and Higazy was free to go, the victim of horrible timing. Higazi was innocent! He next sued the hotel and the FBI agent for coercing his confession. The bottom line in the Court of Appeals: Higazy has a case and may recover damages for this injustice. As I read the opinion I realized it was a 44 page epic, too long for me to print out. I blogged about the opinion while I read it online and then posted the blog as I ate lunch. Then something strange happened: a few minutes after I posted the blog, the opinion vanished from the Court of Appeals website! I had never seen this before, and what made all the more strange was that it involved a coerced confession over 9/11. What the hell was going on? I let some other legal bloggers know about this, particularly the How Appealing blog and Appellate Law and Practice. They both ran a commentary on the missing opinion. Then someone sent How Appealing a PDF of the decision (probably very few of them were floating around since the opinion was posted for a brief period of time) and How Appealing posted the decision. Then things got even stranger. The Court of Appeals actually phoned How Appealing to request that he remove the opinion from his website since it contained classified information. The Court said that a revised opinion would come out the next day without the classified information. How Appealing actually refused to remove the opinion. Through it all, hundreds of people came to my legal blog to see my summary of the opinion. It was either my blog or printing out and reading a 44 page epic. The next day, the Court of Appeals reissued the Higazy opinion. With a redaction. You should read the whole thing, but the short version is that there was top secret information about how they extract confessions that mustn't get into enemy hands - that is, that you can threaten people to get "confessions" out of them. Because no one would ever think of that, and no one knows we've already been doing it and it's been in all the papers for several years now. In other anti-terrorist follies, a judge declares a mistrial in the case of someone who appears to have no ties to terrorism, rather than allow a proper "not guilty" - so the government can waste more money trying the same non-terrorist again. And Chertoff breaks the law to build a fence. |

17:14 BST



Monday, 22 October 2007

Checkin' it out In The New York Times, Adam Liptak is talking about the loss of free speech in America, in "Say What You Like, Just Don’t Say It Here." As we know, foreign academics and even artists are being denied entry to the US because they are critical of our government (or just Muslims in some cases). " The question before the judges considering the two cases is thus a difficult one. What role should the First Amendment play when foreigners are doing the talking and the topic may be terror? " Of course, this shouldn't even be a question. Free speech just isn't a sometimes thing. (Nor is the topic "terror" just because the government chooses to ignore some kinds of terrorism and focus on others.) Richard Bruce Cheney gave a speech containing some predictable lies and ginning up war against Iran, and Gregory at Belgravia Dispatch says: " It's really an appallingly strange time in our country. We have a singularly powerful Vice-President (compared to any of his predecessors)--openly quite enamored by the tactics employed by the Soviet Union--our former arch-foe whose human rights standards we derided. Indeed, we fought a decades-long Cold War so that Western style constitutional freedoms would trump Soviet authoritarianism. But yes, from this Sovietophile posture, use of torture and black-sites and detention without habeas corpus protections makes all the sense in the world, doesn't it? Because we have a Vice-President all but openly emulating and cheer-leading the tactics of the KGB, not in the wilds of Wyoming, but to a soi disant sophisticated audience in Washington DC. Put differently, he is very proud of his world-view, indeed eager to share it with Beltway 'elites'. Who will clear this dangerous rot out of Washington and help us restore our good name? The stakes are high, that is, the preservation of the American democratic model as a leading force for moderation and rule of law on the world stage. " Over at Tennessee Guerilla Women, egalia has a bit of coverage of the recent Republican debate, particularly regarding fear of Hillary. And Bill Maher has some good advice for "values voters". Good point: " I watched Timmeh's interview of Stephen Colbert this morning. I'd have to say it was the hardest-hitting interview he's done in 15 years. Sad. " (C&L version) Hillary Knew, via Middle Earth Journal. I'm still pretty buzzed out. You know, I can't remember when I've enjoyed a live concert that much. |

13:40 BST



Back late from a surprise event So, this guy I haven't heard from in a couple of decades sends me an e-mail and says he's in town and can I get up to Kilburn on Sunday night, and he Has A Plan. Now, I don't like to go out Sunday nights because that means I miss Sam Seder live on the SammyCam, but I always did like Graham and he's being all mysterious, so how can I refuse? It's supposedly for dinner but due to some bad timing and messed up trains I missed that part and end up in this little place where P.F. Sloan is playing. I've been hooked on PFS since I was 14 but I've never seen him play. And he did a few of my favorites, and some of his more famous tunes and some new ones, and I even got a hug when I bought the new CD and got him to sign it. I went all teenaged. |

02:21 BST



Sunday, 21 October 2007

I hear he wasn't that good as a sports reporter, either It would almost be a decent column about what's wrong with the line-item veto, a stupid idea that conservatives have been pushing for decades, now, except that, this being George F. Will, he completely fails to mention that his arguments apply equally to the "unitary executive" theory and signing statements, and he also says: The line-item veto expresses liberalism's faith in top-down government and the watery Caesarism that has produced today's inflated presidency. Liberalism assumes that executive branch experts, free from parochial constituencies, know, as Congress does not, what is good for the nation "as a whole." This is contrary to the public philosophy of James Madison's "extensive" republic with its many regions and myriad interests. I see. In the same way that Republicans persistently expand government when they are in power, and then complain that "liberals believe in big government", we are now being given a new theory of liberalism that is defined by the runaway executive best exemplified by George Bush, Dick Cheney and their authoritarian supporters. |

16:34 BST



Only you can save America As I mentioned earlier, Democratic Party insiders - and I include many good-guys in this - perceive the netroots as people who stay home in front of their computers instead of getting out and doing something. To a certain extent, this is true - a lot of people are devoting their energies to blogging rather than to public activism, and it seems to have enervating effect for many. But the netroots do make a difference, as Chris Bowers details here. Online activism has generated quite a bit more money than you may realize, particularly for candidates who have had little support from the party itself. As Chris notes, this is especially useful in that it creates challenges that draw resources from the GOP in areas where they thought they wouldn't have to fight. And many people who have gotten involved online do indeed get involved in the real world - pay particular attention to Chris' sixth point, about people who are networked into local party infrastructure via the net. If you really want to make a difference, use that as an instruction - a lot of positions in local party groups are vacant because they don't have enough people do to the work. You can amplify your own voice considerably by getting involved at that level. But, as I say, getting out there in the streets is important. The new new mobe to end the war in Iraq is set for Saturday, October 27th, and there are regional demos planned for 11 cities, none of which, I'm interested to note, is Washington, DC. I don't know why that is, but perhaps it would be a good day for hundreds of people to show up at The Washington Post demanding more honest coverage of what's happening on the Hill. Perhaps being mobbed would wake them up. It is unfair to blame the American people for the wretched job our "leaders" are doing; they're smarter than legislators who get their cues from the media. As eRobin says, " I submit that the American people can get their teeth into and their heads around any crisis facing the country if the facts of it are presented to them clearly and repeatedly. It's the powers that be behind the corporate media in whom I have no faith. " Americans have decided without the help of the press that our country is being mismanaged. Now someone has to tell our "public servants". Unfortunately, they read The Washington Post. |

14:41 BST



Saturday, 20 October 2007

"Mrs. Peel, we're needed." Paul Krugman and MahaBarb both have things to say about how the Democratic Party has been winning back corporate donors and how that may bode ill for progressives, but there has always been a way to counterbalance that, and it's still true. After all, in the days before Rove/Bush, business used to give to both parties. So, when did progressive do better? When we put our bodies where our politics were. One reason why a lot of Democratic Party insiders have a lot of contempt for bloggers is that we are sitting in front of our computers getting fat rather than getting out where it becomes a public affair. It's all very well to phone and mail legislatures (and you should), but you need to be out there where people can see you. Yes, I know people are still shy about being associated with the circus, but visibility matters. It's a lot harder for the talking heads to pretend that Bush is still popular and people don't mind the destruction of the Constitution if they're being deafened by protests. And 2007 is not 1968. The public isn't freaked out by hippies anymore, it's freaked out by losing a major American city, and being known as a nation of torturers, and having our money sucked away by an illegal war and assorted con-men in expensive suits. Thom Hartmann often points out that neither of the Roosevelts ran as progressives, and Lyndon Johnson certainly didn't run on civil rights. When progressives came to FDR with their program he let them know that he was convinced, but he needed one more thing: "Make me." They did it because we made them. It wasn't done just by people sitting at home and writing. Yes, I know the media seems to find it easy to down-play public action. That just means there's a need to get better at being more visible. Take your demonstrations to the media. I'm all for a big demonstration at the doors of The Washington Post, and one the next weekend at NBC, and the next weekend at CBS, and the next weekend at ABC, and the next weekend at The New York Times. Wear a suit. Have a simple message: Stop the war, bring freedom back to America. It's up to you to give them a spine. |

17:05 BST



Friday, 19 October 2007

Late night news and stuff Chris Dodd: " I have decided to place a "hold" on the latest FISA bill that would have included amnesty for telecommunications companies that enabled the President's assault on the Constitution by illegally providing personal information on their customers without judicial authorization. " The Impolitic: " Not unexpectedly, the SCHIP override failed by a heartbreaking 13 votes and the conduct of the Congresslizards that opposed it was breathtakingly slimy. " Damn, I missed The Funny Farm blogiversary again. I like the bumper sticker. (I'm worried about that guy who uses six exclamation points. Are you sure you're safe?) A little reminder of the way judges are supposed to deal with matters that may involve people known to them, as opposed to the way certain Supreme Court justices behave. Argue With Everyone, discussion forum. |

03:02 BST



Thursday, 18 October 2007

Wednesday, 17 October 2007

Stuff I found So, the other day I complained that, though Al Gore warned us not to get into Iraq, I hadn't heard him say anything about getting out. Then I learned that Citizen Gore has been making little movies on important topics on Current TV, and he posted one the very next day saying we need to get the troops home as quickly as possible. He also says we need to be protected against the government spying on us, and that healthcare is a right. These aren't impassioned or detailed speeches, they're just concise, plain-language statements of personal views, part of a series of them from users, on various topics. The WaPo op-ed "The Real Iraq We Knew" doesn't say anything you didn't already know, but it's 12 former Army captains saying it, and they aren't messing around: " There is one way we might be able to succeed in Iraq. To continue an operation of this intensity and duration, we would have to abandon our volunteer military for compulsory service. Short of that, our best option is to leave Iraq immediately. A scaled withdrawal will not prevent a civil war, and it will spend more blood and treasure on a losing proposition. America, it has been five years. It's time to make a choice. " They say it "might" work, but I think it's probably too late for that, too. If it was ever going to work, it would have to have been before BushCo screwed it up. (via) New Council of Europe Recommendation fails to uphold online freedom of expression: " European Digital Rights (EDRI) wishes to express its serious concerns over the adoption on 26 September 2007 by the Council of Europe (CoE) Committee of Ministers of a new Recommendation on 'promoting freedom of expression and information in the new information and communications environment' (Rec(2007)11). [...] We consider the result to be promoting opaque "self-regulation" and other soft law instruments driven by private interests and implemented through technical mechanisms. As a result, we have great concern that the Recommendation will fail to uphold respect for freedom of expression and information in the online world. " Lambert suggests some good clean fun - phone Jay Rockefeller's office on (202) 224-6472 and say, " Is this the number I call to get retroactive immunity for illegal acts? " |

03:34 BST



Tuesday, 16 October 2007

Things to see Spencer Ackerman is recommending the PBS Frontline feature Cheney's Law, and provides a preview. I have to take issue with the idea that Cheney was only trying to expand a president's war powers - it's clear that Cheney makes no distinction between times of war and other times. For one thing, he started up the FISA violation program before 9/11. Greenwald on The conservative vision of America, by National Review: " And what of the fact that the U.S. has managed under every President from Carter to Clinton to defend itself in compliance with this horrendous "probable cause" burden under FISA, even as Ronald Reagan -- as the National Review folklore goes -- heroically vanquished the Soviet Empire? According to NR, that all happened before the Greatest and Most Sophisticated Threat Ever Known to Mankind -- small roving bands of stateless and army-less Islamic Terrorists -- Changed the World Forever " See, in the olden days, our opponents were gentlemen, like the commies and Nazis. We Want You - For Primary Challenges To Bush Dog Democrats. It's no use waiting for someone else to do it. Unless you have serious skeletons in your closet, maybe you should quit your beefing and do the job yourself. Even if you lose, it makes the point. |

21:08 BST



Internet nights The scariest guy in the race is far-left loony John Edwards, judging from the horrors Bill O'Reilly warns of. Glenn Greenwald is worried, too: " Who could even fathom an America plagued by habeas corpus, search warrants, and a military that fails to beat, freeze and mock-execute its detainees? And nothing is more sacred to core American values than branding other countries' armies as "Terrorists" ("The [Revolutionary] Guard is the SS of Iran"). " I bet he reads Marx or something. Problem is - as Glenn notes - it's not just the O'Reilly's that seem to feel this way, but the "serious" folk in the mainstream press, as well. Not that you didn't already know this, but it's definitely the right-wingers who are spitting on the troops this time. Digby discusses. Paul Krugman on Gore Derangement Syndrome: " What is it about Mr. Gore that drives right-wingers insane? Partly it’s a reaction to what happened in 2000, when the American people chose Mr. Gore but his opponent somehow ended up in the White House. Both the personality cult the right tried to build around President Bush and the often hysterical denigration of Mr. Gore were, I believe, largely motivated by the desire to expunge the stain of illegitimacy from the Bush administration. And now that Mr. Bush has proved himself utterly the wrong man for the job - to be, in fact, the best president Al Qaeda’s recruiters could have hoped for - the symptoms of Gore derangement syndrome have grown even more extreme. " Claims that Obama is a practicing Muslim circulated briefly but faded from the mainstream media after Obama stood up and said they were nonsense. But it turns out they're still circulating under the radar in e-mail that suggests he's part of the extremist agenda. (via) Man, I hate it when people call me a Brit. |

00:40 BST



Monday, 15 October 2007

Onward Christian atheist soldiers A funny thing happened at the Freedom from Religion Convention, as PZ Myers reports: Then it was Hitchens at his most bellicose. He told us what the most serious threat to the West was (and you know this line already): it was Islam. Then he accused the audience of being soft on Islam, of being the kind of vague atheists who refuse to see the threat for what it was, a clash of civilizations, and of being too weak to do what was necessary, which was to spill blood to defeat the enemy. Along the way he told us who his choice for president was right now - Rudy Giuliani - and that Obama was a fool, Clinton was a pandering closet fundamentalist, and that he was less than thrilled about all the support among the FFRF for the Democratic party. We cannot afford to allow the Iranian theocracy to arm itself with nuclear weapons (something I entirely sympathize with), and that the only solution is to go in there with bombs and marines and blow it all up. The way to win the war is to kill so many Moslems that they begin to question whether they can bear the mounting casualties. It was simplistic us-vs.-them thinking at its worst, and the only solution he had to offer was death and destruction of the enemy. Marvellous. But it's not merely that he thinks "we" can defeat an "enemy" that is actually bigger than we are, but he doesn't seem to have worked out who "we" are, either: This whole last third of his talk had me concerned about the first part. He had just told us in strong terms about the failures of religion and its detrimental effect on our culture, and now he was explaining to us how the solution in the Middle East was to simply kill everyone who disagreed with you. He didn't relate the two parts of his talk, which was unfortunate. I'd like to know whether he thinks the way atheists ought to end religion in America is to start shooting Baptists, or whether he sees other ways to educate and enlighten - in which case I wonder why he doesn't see any virtue in applying those same methods to Islam. I didn't ask the question since the line for the microphone was long, and I had a depressing feeling that the solution would involve sending the Baptists over to Iraq to kill and be killed. This is not my freethought movement. The Hitchens solution is not my solution. Hitchens' "atheism" turns out to be indistinguishable from everything he's said is wrong with religion - Jihad, Crusades, and all. (Via Roz Kaveney, who also provided a link to Which Dyke to Watch Out For Are You? Which was not nearly as bad as some of them are.) |

14:38 BST



Sunday, 14 October 2007

"I'm sentimental, if you know what I mean" I want to emphasize that my point about Gore isn't that he wouldn't be the best person for the job, but rather that I think he needs to do more work if he's going to get the kind of support he needs to beat the machine. Of course, so do the rest of us - people will need to be prepared to get behind the nominee, whoever it is, in a big way, or the media will take him apart and the Democratic Party leadership will help them. (Well, the Democratic Party leadership might be willing to get behind Hillary, since they seem determined to make her the nominee and she seems to be doing all the "right" things to please the DLC - unsurprising, since she is still one of them.) I think Gore really is the best person for the job, you understand. I don't mean just that he's "the anti-Bush", but that we need someone with towering stature in the rest of the world, too, and he's certainly got that. Foser - Members of the corporate media seem to be outraged that some Democrats criticized Rush Limbaugh, because it smacks of government censorship, they say - yet they were unfazed by formal condemnation in both houses of Congress of MoveOn. And, of course, right-wing attacks on Media Matters for America itself continue, including from known GOP shills who say that MM's work can be dismissed because they are progressive. But that's the right wing, for you - they have to attack the messenger because they can't deal with the message. MahaBarb has an extremely linky post which, among other things, notes some of the whacky responses the wrong-wingers have provided to this weekend's NYT op-eds. I see Barney Frank is leaping to defend Nancy Pelosi against mean nasty liberals who want Congress to do its job. We are so unreasonable! (And how can Nancy Pelosi think she's a leader when she has allowed the body she "leads" to become irrelevant?) |

20:11 BST



Of record In the NYT, Bob Herbert tells the truth: When I heard that Mr. Gore had won the Nobel, my thoughts wandered to the younger Mr. Bush and to Rudolph Giuliani, who is leading the current field of Republican presidential candidates. Mr. Bush came to mind because, for all of the obvious vulnerabilities he exhibited in 2000, it was not him but Mr. Gore who was mocked unmercifully by the national media. And the mockery had nothing to do with the former vice president’s positions on important policy issues. He was mocked because of his personality. In the race for the highest office in the land, we showed the collective maturity of 3-year-olds. Notice he says "we". And he doesn't mean, "all Americans are guilty" in that vague, mistakes-were-made way certain of his colleagues use to wave the thing away. One of them is Frank Rich, who still hasn't apologized for his treatment of Gore, and today is blaming you and me for the fact that BushCo has been literally getting away with murder, not to mention destroying the country. Yes, I'm sure we could all be doing a lot more, but the thing that's supposed to help protect us against this sort of thing is called a "free press", although at this point it's only the paid press that seems to be able to break big stories, and I haven't seen them inviting you and me to make our case. True, the NYT has been a little better these days than it was during 2000 and certainly during the run-up to invasion of Iraq, but it's still pretty wibbly and moronic a lot of the time, and anyway the broadcasters seem to have developed a preference for The Washington Post, which continues to carry water for the administration. (I see Face the Nation is devoted today to John McCain, a presidential candidate who has about three supporters left and no one believes is ever going to be president. The rest of the shows look little better. Is anyone actually talking about those big stories about BushCo corruption Rich mentions? No? You can bet O'Reilly and Limbaugh will be giving the administration spin to plenty of listeners. Where's Charlie Savage? Where's Glenn Greenwald?) Hundreds of people went out and marched and no one paid attention - or else pretended that there are just as many people supporting Bush as opposing him. Meanwhile, the press encourages Democratic leaders to feel it is safe to ignore the demands of their "crazy", "left-wing" constituents. On the bright side, Maureen Dowd, who sort of (but unconvincingly) once said, "Forgive me, Al Gore," after a long record of saying things the rest of us should not forgive her for - and who is doing her best to repeat that performance ("Obambi") this time around - let Stephen Colbert write her column today, which is an improvement. First, she quotes him from a recent appearance by way of introduction: He was sneering that Times columns make good "kindling." He was ranting that after you throw away the paper, "it takes over a hundred years for the lies to biodegrade." I'm told he added, "And another six months if there's a Thomas Friedman column in it." I like Colbert, but the best thing about this column is that there's less Dowd in it. In other news, Lambert has successfully managed to catch my attention again with the tinfoil bra, but needs to do something about that formatting. |

17:00 BST



Saturday, 13 October 2007

So... Draft Al Gore? In the wake of the ad in the NYT and the awarding of the Nobel, a lot is being said, again, about how much better off we'd be with a president like Al Gore. Once upon a time, I would have said that, hey, it's October, it's still early. It seems like that was the theory four years ago, and it was probably right. So, why am I, of all people, suddenly not in the mood to jump on the bandwagon? Well, partly, I'm not sure the groundwork has been completed. On the two biggest issues underlying all the others, Al Gore has been silent, and that's not a good thing. Yes, Al Gore was the first to stand up and explain why we should not invade Iraq, and why the administration's other policies that violate both the Constitution and all human decency, in the name of "The War On Terror", are wrong and should be stopped. He's been brilliant in that regard. But he hasn't said anything about pulling out. And he's said nothing about Iran. And on the destruction of the American economy, which NAFTA underlies in a big way, Gore has offered only the very vaguest repudiation of precisely the way it has been carried out, but from Al Gore we would need a great deal more than that. Vice President Gore played a significant role in the passage of NAFTA, and was a major proponent of the belief that "free trade" would be good for America's economy - and it's pretty clear that Gore was wrong. There are those who maintain (and not without justification) that Gore's loss in Ohio was directly down to the instinctive recognition by many ordinarily Democratic voters that Ross Perot was right; it may even be why Clinton was never able to get a majority of the vote. Al Gore long ago distanced himself from the DLC, but it was largely on the invasion, not on trade. And the disastrous employment and trade policies that started with Reagan, were stepped up by Clinton, and have gone into overdrive under Bush, must be repudiated and overturned if America is really going to be saved, because an eroded middle-class just isn't strong enough to demand restoration of our democracy. It's true that Gore made the very important step of being the first leading Democrat to advocate for single-payer, but he seems to have stopped there. Healthcare is not our only economic problem. I think there are still a lot of people who aren't prepared to forgive him for NAFTA, and he has made no moves to court those people. If, in the course of the last few years, Gore had included in his wonderful speeches one or two about the mistakes we have made - that he made - by allowing our economy to be pirated away as it has been, I would not hesitate to say that he is the person who should be running right now. But I'm not so sure, now. He needs to repudiate NAFTA in a big way, and I'm not even sure he's prepared to do that. There's no doubt in my mind that he's been transformed by his bath of fire - his statement on single-payer is proof of that - but he may still feel too wedded to NAFTA to openly treat it as the mistake it was. For the last seven and a half years, my support for Gore has owed a lot to the fact that he should be president - not in 2008, but right now. Because we elected him. And because eight years of George Walker Bush and Richard Bruce Cheney could never be anything but a disaster. But right now... I'm feeling twitchy. |

18:50 BST



Notations At long last, it seems that some people who call themselves "pro-life" are actually standing up for the lives of children in a new ad campaign: "I'm the mother of three children, and I'm pro-life. I believe that protecting the lives our children must be our nation's number one moral priority. That's why I'm concerned that Congressman X says he's pro-life but votes against health care for poor children. That's not pro-life. That's not pro-family. Tell Congressman X to vote for health care for children. Call him today at XXXX, that's XXXXX." C&L has the ad. Now, if only we can get across to these people that abortion bans don't reduce abortion, they just kill mothers. My father made his own bumper-sticker saying, "We remember April 15, 1914," with scimitars dripping blood on either side, and stuck it in the back window of his station wagon. Now, I adored my father, and we were on the same side of most issues, but for a change I had to agree with my mother when she said something like, "Oh, Gary, is that necessary?" Still, it pains me to have to say that Bush was right about this: It was hardly urgent to waste energy insulting Turkey on behalf of Americans of Armenian extraction whose parents raised them to hate the Turks (like me). It's worth noting that it took a good deal more than a century before Americans began making a serious effort to recognize the moral horror of our own country's origins in genocide - and that was perhaps made a bit easier by the fact that many of us had no roots among the early settlers, being from families that had only set foot on American shores in the late 19th or early 20th centuries (like me). It's not that I wouldn't like to see Turkey make a similar re-examination of their past, but I have to agree with those who say that this is not the time, and shoring up a bunch of votes in Fresno isn't a sufficiently compelling cause for it, either. (And, really, if you can't defend the US Constitution, who are you to judge the Turks?) Maybe foreign policy should not be hostage to this sort of thing. You know, I can't help the feeling that the cool idea the Marines have for wanting to be redeployed to Afghanistan suggests they aren't terribly gung-ho about Iraq. I mean, why else would they think it would enhance efficiency to go to a land-locked country? (And who would want to serve alongside people who actually draw their weapons on US soldiers?) Stealing from the best: It looks like one of Mark Evanier's readers has found a short-cut for getting the kind of letters he'd like to see into The Washington Times, by the simple expedient of plagiarizing from Mark's blog. I can't fault the guy's choices, but what's truly remarkable is that they get printed in the Moonie paper. Honestly, I think we all hope, in the back of our minds, that our smarter insights will be propagated (although getting credit would be nice), but I'm right there with Mark when he complains, "Y'know, I don't mind the guy stealing my writing...but he also stole my father." Someone please tell me what this is and why I can't see it. I just get a little grey icon and " LOADING PLAYER ". |

15:19 BST



Friday, 12 October 2007

Suggestion box PERRspectives suggests some conservative Nobel Prizes: " Predictably, the conservative chattering class and its amen corner in the right-wing blogosphere are apoplectic about the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Al Gore. But their rage and angst about the Nobel Committee's "politicized awards" for "mass exaggerators" and "deceptive rhetoric" isn't merely a function of the inconvenient truth of the success of Gore's global warming campaign. No, the rugged individualists of the right are just hopping mad that they never win prizes designed to recognize contributions to, well, the rest of humanity. To remedy this perpetual slight, here are Nobel prizes for conservatives we'd like to see " Bill Scher suggests that Democratic members of Congress need to grow up and learn to respect the base. Susie Madrak has a suggestion for people who want to do something to make a difference, for a family that was nearly finished rebuilding after Katrina when someone set a car on fire and it burned down their house. Roy Edroso suggests that flag pins are a useful barometer. |

22:58 BST



People are talking James Wolcott: " Rush Limbaugh and his fellow talk-radio troll dolls didn't "pervert" conservatism--he didn't lay siege to some maiden fair and debauch her virtue. Rush Limbaugh didn't inject an "ideology of hate" into conservatism, he extracted the contemptuous, divisive animosity inherent in the Gingrich doctrine and sugared it up with comedy and his own personal saga for popular consumption. He, like Clarence Thomas, was just what the Republican overseers ordered. " Robert Farley: " Quite right. Rush and Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin aren't aberrations that the Right can explain away; they are, to borrow Glenn Reynolds phrase, the authentic face of the American Right. They determine the terms of debate, decide on the points of emphasis, and unleash the bloodthirsty mobs. They are the literal manifestation of American reactionary ressentiment. " Ann Coulter's attack on Jews puts Thom Hartmann in mind another conservative creep: " Similarly, Justice Antonin Scalia turned history on its head several years ago when he attended an Orthodox synagogue in New York and claimed that the Founders intended for their Christianity to play a part in government. Scalia then went so far as to suggest that the reason Hitler was able to initiate the Holocaust was because of German separation of church and state. [...] Justice Scalia and Ann Coulter may well benefit from looking back at the photographs that came out of Germany that were all over the newspapers and news magazines at war’s end. The photos that can be seen, for instance, at [link] of the Catholic Bishops giving the collective Nazi salute. The annual April 20th celebration, declared by Pope Pius XII, of Hitler’s birthday. The belt buckles of the German army, which declared "Gott Mit Uns" ("God is with us"). The pictures of the 1933 investiture of Bishop Ludwig Müller, the official Bishop of the 1000-Years-Of-Peace Nazi Reich. That last photo should be the most problematic for Ann Coulter and Justice Scalia, because Hitler had done exactly what Scalia is recommending - he merged church and state. " The Founders knew what they were doing. Some days it seems like wanting accountability is the only thing left that's illegal: " The director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, has ordered an unusual internal inquiry into the work of the agency’s inspector general, whose aggressive investigations of the C.I.A.’s detention and interrogation programs and other matters have created resentment among agency operatives. " "The end of the era of cowboy diplomacy is at hand." |

20:25 BST



FISA - Make the call Wow, I just called Mikulski's office and talked to someone polite for a change. Said they've been getting a lot of calls on this. "Have you? I bet you're not getting many supporting letting the telecoms off scott free." "Oh, I've had one." Anyway, Christy has the details: Please call your Senators today and say two things very clearly: no retroactive immunity for telecom companies and no umbrella warrants. Period. Direct dial numbers for Senators can be found here. Talking points from the ACLU website on the FISA bill are here (H/T to Phoenix Woman for the link). The members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which is primarily responsible for this bill, are as follows: *Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Chairman - (202) 224-6472*

*Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) - (202) 224-3841

*Sen. John Warner (R-VA) - (202) 224-2023

*Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) - (202) 224-5244

*Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) - (202) 224-4224

*Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) - (202) 224-5623

*Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) - (202) 224-4654

*Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) - (202) 224-5344

*Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) - (202) 224-5274 Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) - (202) 224-3154

Sen. Kitt Bond (R-MO), Vice-Chairman - (202) 224-5721

Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) - (202) 224-3521

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) - (202) 224-5251

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) - (202) 224-5323

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) - (202) 224-2921 The ones with the asterisks are the ones who really need the call. (The rest have pretty much made up their minds already one way or the other. That doesn't mean you shouldn't call, it just means you really do need to call the others.) You can call from anywhere, but if you are actually in their constituency, do let them know. |

16:42 BST



Article 1 Everybody needs one of these: WASHINGTON, Oct. 10 - The way Representative John Yarmuth of Kentucky sees it, lawmakers on Capitol Hill and Americans everywhere have forgotten who the Founding Fathers really intended to run the country -- not the President who was more of a Constitutional after-thought but the Congress, the people’s elected representatives. Mr. Yarmuth said he and many of the 41 other freshman Democrats in the House had been puzzling for some time over just how to remind voters of this, how to mold a most basic lesson of American civics so that it could be carried far and wide by the modern techniques of political messaging. And then an idea struck. Today, on the House floor, Mr. Yarmuth began distributing small buttons, seemingly made of parchment, with the words, "Article 1" - as in Article 1 of the Constitution, which states, "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." In other words: Mr. President, the Congress would like to remind you, that you, dear pal, are Article 2. Of course, if Congress acted like they were familiar with Article 1, it'd be a lot harder for others to forget. "All legislative powers are vested in the Congress and, in fact, the Constitution grants very limited powers to the executive branch," Mr. Yarmuth said. "We lost sight of that." The Article 1 buttons, he said, were "a reminder that we have not just power but responsibility under the Constitution. Hopefully, if this catches on, the public will see that we understand our power and our responsibility." It's not the button that'll demonstrate that. Mr. Yarmuth acknowledged that some of his fellow Democrats were not quite up to speed on Constitutional fine-print. More than one, he said, had asked "Article 1? Which one is that again?" In some cases, he said they confused it with the First Amendment. And, of course: Some Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, were supportive and accepted a button but did not put it on, apparently unwilling to let the Founding Fathers interfere with fashion. That'd be the fashion of pretending there is no Article 1. |

14:03 BST



Thursday, 11 October 2007

It's going around Paul Waldman: " Last Tuesday, a remarkable article appeared on the front page of The Wall Street Journal, able chronicler of the interests and habits of America's economic elite. "GOP Is Losing Grip On Core Business Vote," it read, no doubt causing more than a few Republican strategists to spit out their morning coffee. " Yep, it's finally started to come to their attention that conservatives are bad for business. Jimmy Carter on Dick Cheney: "He's a militant who avoided any service of his own in the military and he has been most forceful in the last 10 years or more in fulfilling some of his more ancient commitments that the United States has a right to inject its power through military means in other parts of the world," Carter told the BBC World News America in an interview to air later on Wednesday. "You know he's been a disaster for our country," Carter said. "I think he's been overly persuasive on President George Bush and quite often he's prevailed." If you ever doubted that the recording industry has been stiffing its artists, consider the fact that, in the wake of Radiohead's recent experiment, not only are other bands following their lead, but some leading bands are planning to give their music away for free. And why not? The music companies have always been so stingy about paying royalties that live performance has always been where the real money was for them. Getting people to hear the music (for free - just like we first heard Sam Cooke, Stevie Wonder, The Beatles, Cream, the Doors, and Springsteen) gets them to buy tickets to concerts. If they pay for downloads, too, that's just gravy. But it's interesting to note that, " Google say that searches for Radiohead have increased tenfold this week as fans log on to the band’s site, with the majority - according to the band’s spokesman - spurning the opportunity to download the album for as little as 45 pence and instead signing up for the £40 box set, which includes vinyl records, CD and artwork. " The fans still like to have the physical product in their hands. The Democratic Daily has a new URL. Here we go again: " Babel Minute Zéro" is a geopolitical thriller. It plays in, probably, 2015, but it is not a sci-fi book: it really just adds a few years of solid perspective on things that are already happening now ... " Man, it's like Chinese water torture. (Thanks to Charles for the pointer.) Folding House - an architectural optical illusion. |

16:45 BST



It's no secret Caro brings my attention to this timely cartoon at The Daily Scribble which makes a point that has been bugging me and yet no one really seems to talk about it - the fact that the "state secrets" we're being told are sufficient to prevent all ordinary United States law from being obeyed and carried out are in fact widely known. The fact of the matter is that there are now, thanks to the way this administration functions, absolutely no genuine state secrets, because our most vital intelligence is thrown to the press like confetti whenever it serves the administration's political purposes, or else it is traded away to foreign (and sometimes hostile) powers to make money for Bush cronies. There is not a single matter of national security that is not in the hands of numerous people, including companies registered with foreign (and sometimes hostile) governments as well as those governments themselves. All of our technology has been sold off to other nations who reap the profits without even having to pass a royalty our way, thanks to Reaganomics. Our economy is controlled to a large degree by other countries that hold our massive IOUs. What is there to not know? Seriously, there is nothing mystical about how they are spying on everyone for any reason that takes their fancy. There is no mystery to how they are torturing people and getting them to say whatever they want them to say. The only thing we would learn by exposure in open court of their programs is that they aren't doing it for justifiable reasons. And, though we already suspect this, what they are hiding is the proof. That's the big "state secret" - that the nation is being run by criminals. And we already know that, too. |

12:55 BST



Wednesday, 10 October 2007

Feeling our way I went a little stir-crazy yesterday from all the endless rain. Susie Bright's site may not be entirely work-safe for you, but I really recommend you read her post "Sex at the Margins with Laura Agustín". I often have to point out to people that a lot of these sex panic stories are somewhat exaggerated. Remember in the '70s when three hundred thousand children a year were supposedly being kidnapped in the United States in order to make child porn? Well, of course, it wasn't true. Now we're hearing similar claims about sex-trafficking between countries. It's not that no one is in bondage - it's just that these people get a bit carried away when sex is the issue. (Would that they were capable of the same sort of concern when it's not about sex.) Responsible people look for the evidence before demanding that "Something must be done!" Back in 2003 I was freaked out by a bombing in Istanbul. There were a lot of reasons for it, but mainly it was the sense that my worst fears would be realized. These things are all in the meaning when you warn that the area will be destabilized, and you assume others know what you mean, but they all laughed, didn't they? And now that they've convinced themselves that they are in the war to end all wars between the innately bad religion versus our innately good one, I guess they don't really mind. Ezra has a moment, here, about the hideous attacks on the 12-yr-old kid. But read the thread, and marvel at the inability of some people to discern the difference between actually behaving monstrously and calling someone a monster for doing it. (The idiots who don't understand economics are just a bonus.) Excellent point from Jim Henley, as well - yes, of course you single people out publicly to hurt them. The Bush-supporters don't just disagree with what you say, they want to ruin you for saying it, and make sure no one who disagrees with them dares to speak up. (And more from Digby, of course.) Imagine my surprise upon learning that one Republican actually understood, and agreed with, the complaint about Rush Limbaugh, and it was Norm Coleman. I got a better shot of the front entrance of the Prudential Building. |

18:13 BST



Tuesday, 09 October 2007

Judicial inactivism In an editorial - not an op-ed - the Financial Times says, "It is time to speak truth to US power": Since the attacks of September 11 2001, the administration of President George W. Bush has sought to cast a cloak of legality over the wrongs that it has committed in the name of fighting terrorism. Mr Bush seems to think that legal sleight of hand can be used to justify almost any tactic to battle terrorists - including, it emerged last week, simulated drowning and other cruel interrogation techniques that Alberto Gonzales, his former attorney-general, appears to have authorised by secret legal memorandum. Time and again, Mr Bush has twisted the law to serve his own national security goals. He has given the rule of law a bad name, and devalued the US constitution - all in the name of protecting the American people. But now the US Supreme Court has a chance to pierce this veil of spurious legality, and reveal the constitutional and legal abuses inherent in the anti-terrorism crusade - from the treatment of detainees at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, to the torture of terrorism suspects in secret prisons overseas, to the unwarranted surveillance of the phone calls and e-mails of US citizens. [...] The genius of American democracy is that it gives each branch of government - the executive, the legislature and the judiciary - the power to check abuses by every other branch. Mr Bush has abused his power, and Congress has failed to hold him to account; it is time the Supreme Court did so. Fat chance. The Supreme Court couldn't even be bothered to hear this: Khaled el-Masri, (also spelled al-Masri) the 42 year old German shoe salesman and father of five who was plucked off a street in Macedonia while on holiday, beaten and flown to a secret CIA prison in Afghanistan where he was held for 5 months until the U.S. and Condoleeza Rice admitted he was picked up by mistake (a case of mistaken identity) has had his lawsuit against the U.S. rejected by the Supreme Court today. If we ever do get a real Congress, I'd like to see at least the last two SC appointees removed. But I'm absolutely certain that Supreme Court justices who fail to recuse themselves from cases in which their own family members have a stake (Bush v. Gore) should rightly be impeached. |

21:53 BST

