Big surprise, eh?
Jane Hamsher
has the details; watch the video. It's the radios, stupid: Rudy allowed seven years to elapse after the
firefighters' radios... obtained in a sweet deal with Motorola, for all practical purposes a no-bid contract...
were known not to work in the first WTC bombing. Replacements were obtained that also didn't work, and
firefighters were reissued their original radios. Many police, who had working radios, heard the announcement
that the Towers were on the verge of collapse. Many firefighters didn't. This happened on Rudy's watch as mayor,
and however disgustingly he may spin it... watch the video to see him do that before the 9/11 Commission...
he's no hero of 9/11. Those firefighters died because of his negligence. "Heckuva job," Rudy.
According to Jon Weiner, Scott Ritter and Sy Hersh, in their book Target Iran, says Democrats are the ones that want to bomb Iran. Who knew!
An ACLU poll of registered voters shows that "[t]he majority of U.S. voters want the next president to protect civil liberties and the Constitution." Well, yes, it'd be nice if the next president stopped digging the hole we're in.
... specifically, Dick Cheney's ongoing revolution, the premeditated sidetracking of American constitutional
principles in favor of a virtually all-powerful Executive, will be examined in a PBS Frontline episode called
Cheney's Law, to be shown
tomorrow (Tuesday) evening. Check your schedule for time. If you miss it, PBS often archives earlier episodes
online, and may do so with this episode, if Cheney doesn't get to them first.
(H/T Carl Whitmarsh of the excellent Democratic email list for reminding me of this.)
I suppose that should go without saying these days, but when McCain is about the only public figure in America to
condemn Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize,
I believe we all need a reminder. One would think McCain would at least share some national pride that an
American won the prize, even as our nation endures one of its least peaceable times. But no... it's all politics
to him. McCain dishonors himself by not participating in this honor. He could, like the rest of us, bask in the
reflected glow from one of our most brilliant, diligent and committed leaders. But no... again, it's all
politics to him. If ever you thought he was different from other well-known Republicans, think again.
Oh... the "ignorant" part? McCain was quoted as saying this:
I would have liked to see that prize go to the Buddhist monks who are suffering and dying in Burma.
Ummmm... Senator McCain is apparently unaware that the Nobel committee saw fit to award the 1991 prize to
Aung San Suu Kyi.
It's not quite the same thing, but the clear intent is not that different. The earlier award (which he may or
may not even be aware of) makes it even clearer that McCain's statement is not praise for the monks but rather
condemnation of Al Gore and the United Nations. Everything... everything... is politics for McCain. Aung San Suu
Kyi's long-term and ongoing house arrest and the deaths of countless Buddhist monks are merely another political
opportunity for him.
Here's the thing McCain chooses not to understand. As much as some of us would love to see Al Gore resume his
status as a political figure, in the world at large, that is no longer his role. He has taken up the issue of
issues, the essential issue of our times, the make-or-break issue for humankind's survival, indeed, for the
survival of much of life on our fragile planet... and successfully raised awareness of it, in the face of
deliberate concealment, obfuscation and suppression by... well, to put not to fine a point on it, by many of
Sen. McCain's cronies. The shame is theirs, and his... and the honor is Al Gore's.
I don't think I need to tell any of my readers of the relationship of global climate change to peace. Take a
simple example: if in fact many of the world's coastal cities are inundated in a few years or a few decades,
even if gradually, the world's capacity to distribute energy resources will be greatly diminished, and of course
the available supply of livable land will be taxed beyond the breaking point. Not merely the Western
industrialized world's lifestyle, but the ability of all nations to engage in agriculture... to feed
themselves... will be stressed if not outright broken. I'm sure Sen. McCain is confident that all peoples will
remain peaceable toward each other as this happens. Yeah, right.
I must admit that I love the sound of wingnuts' heads exploding, but never until now was I certain that McCain
is one of them. What an embarrassment to himself. What a dishonor he brings upon the honorable service of his
youth. Not only is he not fit to be president... he should not be in government at all. We've had enough of
government by ignorant people.
I intended this to be a post about Rachel Maddow's interview on Air America Radio with Charlie Savage,
Boston Globe legal affairs writer and author of the book
Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy
(see link in LibraryThing, right column). But after a day or two, Rachel's shows are available only by paid
subscription to AAR. So I'm referring you to Savage's appearance on
Firedoglake
instead. To my regret, I haven't obtained the book; one of my tasks this week is to see if the local library
carries it. But I wander from my point...
Charlie Savage remarked in the radio interview that for Cheney, it is of no concern whether the next president,
likely a Democrat, gains the imperial Executive powers Cheney is so busy engineering for his own and Bush's use.
Why? Because, says Savage, Cheney has always (since the Nixon days) wanted those powers for any
president; i.e. (in my words, not Savage's), Cheney is not merely a greedy bastard shilling for his corporate
cronies, but an ideologue determined to modify the form of the government of the United States into something
quite different from, and in many ways diametrically opposite to, from that of our Founders' vision as expressed
in the Constitution.
I have my doubts. For one thing, Cheney is proving immensely successful as a greedy bastard and a grabber of
power for his own (vice) presidency. For another, we haven't yet seen what happens under a Democratic
administration with a Democratic Congress... my guess is that the GOP will try to prevent a Democratic
government from exercising the very powers it arrogates to itself in the current administration. What do you
think?
It's over two weeks until Halloween, but Samantha is already practicing her "possessed" look...
Sometimes, when Samantha flops like that (which she really likes to do), I worry that she's having a seizure of
some sort. If I am sufficiently worried, I tickle her tummy. It's unkind, I know, but it does verify that all
essential parts of her are in working order, especially her legs and paws and (fortunately trimmed) claws. We
don't continue the game to the point at which she uses her teeth.
Three days ago, in a fit of old-fashioned political masochism, I attempted to subscribe to the email lists of
five Democratic presidential candidates: Kucinich, Richardson, Edwards, Obama and Clinton.
Guess which candidate's campaign I still haven't heard from.
(I suppose it may have been designated spam. One could reasonably discuss whether the filter would be justified
in that designation.)
You knew it would come to this, in the Bush era of personal responsibility, voluntary corporate compliance and
other mythical beasts:
ConAgra
has
refused to recall
its beef pot pies, after its chicken pot pies were found to be contaminated with Salmonella... despite the
requests of two state health departments to do so:
ConAgra Foods Inc. is refusing to recall Banquet-brand and other potpies tied to a national salmonella outbreak,
rejecting direct pleas by Oregon and Minnesota health officials.
The state officials say the company needs to recall all of its potpies because the source of the salmonella has
not been identified. Doing anything less, they say, allows potentially dangerous food to remain on the market
and confuses consumers.
The company says a recall is unnecessary. It contends that contamination is limited to its poultry potpies.
Risks can be eliminated, the company says, by instructing consumers to cook the pies thoroughly enough to kill
salmonella bacteria.
The dispute highlights a long-standing limitation in America's system for safeguarding the food supply: State
officials who most frequently unearth the cause of foodborne illness have no regulatory authority over food
makers. Federal officials can ask companies to recall food, but that process can take days or weeks.
...
This is by no means the first time for ConAgra. According to the
list of ConAgra's offenses
on Wikipedia, ConAgra has an astonishingly bad history in health, environment and labor matters.
Conned By Big Agra
If it's our brand of pies you've bought,
There's more than chicken in your pot.
You think we'll help? we don't recall.
What you can't prove's not ours at all.
Who cares if a consumer dies...
We're not recalling OUR pot pies!
Fuck you! We're keeping this one in-house.
(Now 'scuse us... we must guard the hen-house.)
Steve Bates
Here
is s a list (possibly incomplete) of brands from ConAgra. There are several dozen of them. If you were to
decide, say, not to eat them for the sake of your health, it might be difficult to avoid all of them. But at
least you might want to think about avoiding the Banquet pot pies.
UPDATE: (Thu. morning)
RESTORE passes House Judiciary.
Jeralyn
has details. (Any further updates on the YDD will appear in a new post.)
UPDATE: (Wed. night)
This
is a move in the right direction:
WASHINGTON, Oct. 10 — Two Congressional panels today rejected President Bush’s request to renew without added
restrictions his administration’s broad eavesdropping authority, and instead adopted a measure that gives
federal judges greater oversight authority over foreign electronic surveillance conducted by the National
Security Agency.
The bill approved by the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees was along straight party lines, just as
they split to defeat the administration’s proposal. The legislation, sponsored by Representative John Conyers of
Michigan and Representative Silvestre Reyes of Texas, the chairmen of the Judiciary and Intelligence committees,
respectively, conspicuously did not contain two provisions demanded by the White House. One would have provided
retroactive legal immunity to telecommunications companies that had helped the N.SA. to conduct eavesdropping
without warrants. A second would have made the surveillance program permanent — instead, the legislation expires
in two years.
As the administration has sought, the legislation provides authority for the government to obtain “basket” or
“umbrella” warrants for bundles of overseas communications. But White House and Justice Department officials
nonetheless criticized the legislation because of the greater authority it gives to a special foreign
intelligence surveillance court.
...
Those pesky "basket" warrants are still in there. I know, I know; the preznit is a basket case. But the Fourth
Amendment still requires warrants of great specificity, "particularly describing the place to be searched, and
the persons or things to be seized." A basket warrant is far too broad and generalized to meet that test.
UPDATE:Christy Hardin Smith
has more info and analysis this morning (Wednesday), including an incident that makes it look as if Steny Hoyer
is, to use Hardin Smith's word, "freelancing" with the information he is giving to the press. She is pursuing
the particulars of who said what to whom, and when. Some of the RESTORE hearings should be underway about now
(10:41am ET); some are to be webcast. Check FDL for more info.
UPDATE:TPMElection Central
has some info that liberal Democrats in the House (all both of 'em? actually, they appear to mean the
Congressional Progressive Caucus) are considering whether to balk at allowing "basket warrants" (called
"umbrella warrants" below). That would be good... basket warrants are a clear violation of the intent of the
Fourth Amendment to compel individualized suspicion in the issuing of warrants... but I'm curious just what
leverage these mythical liberals have to put a stop to it. The latest rumor appears to be that they are leaning
toward supporting the bill anyway. This whole internal debate is all apparently the outcome of the
postponement
of release of the proposed legislation last week, apparently driven by the list of demands (talking points?)
issued by the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
The often rowdy commenters at TPM have some interesting speculations, e.g., that House Dems may be thinking
forward to a day when there is presumably a Democratic president who may want to use these new provisions him-
or herself. Jeez, I hope not. I am no happier with broad constitutional violations by a Dem than by a GOPer;
it's wrong either way.
(Original post follows.)
So many things to blog about; so little inclination... but I suppose I'd better address the Democrats' proposed
RESTORE Act
(REsponsible Surveillance That is Overseen, Reviewed and Effective). Oh, yeah; the acronyms have been getting
longer, from the PATRIOT Act forward. We wouldn't need to RESTORE our missing civil liberties if
Congress had not been so quick to PASS (Pass Asinine Stupid Shit) the PAA (Protect America Act)
before recess.
The NYT
(New York Times) has this to say:
WASHINGTON, Oct. 8 — Two months after insisting that they would roll back broad eavesdropping powers won by the
Bush administration, Democrats in Congress appear ready to make concessions that could extend some crucial
powers given to the National Security Agency.
Administration officials say they are confident they will win approval of the broadened authority that they
secured temporarily in August as Congress rushed toward recess. Some Democratic officials concede that they may
not come up with enough votes to stop approval.
As the debate over the eavesdropping powers of the National Security Agency begins anew this week, the emerging
measures reflect the reality confronting the Democrats.
Although willing to oppose the White House on the Iraq war, they remain nervous that they will be called soft on
terrorism if they insist on strict curbs on gathering intelligence.
A Democratic bill to be proposed on Tuesday in the House would maintain for several years the type of broad,
blanket authority for N.S.A. eavesdropping that the administration secured in August for six months.
...
Here's another reality the Democrats need to be confronted with: along with
"War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength,"
please note that Temporary is Permanent: any law passed to restrict civil liberties for a few months
or a year will be with us until the dying day of the Republic. Democrats: you allegedly have control of
Congress...
Stop. Passing. Draconian. Temporary. Measures.
(Sorry, no cool acronym for that one.) Personally, I'd rather see REPEAL (Rescind Egregious Provisions;
Expunge Awful Language) of the PATRIOT Act, the MCA, the PAA, the whole bloody acronym soup
imposed on us in haste and with so little careful Democratic examination in the past few years.
And damn it, bring back habeas corpus, with no exceptions other than those explicit in the Constitution.
On its face, if the RESTORE bill in fact contains what Rep. Conyers says it does, it's better than
nothing, though worse than an outright repeal. Most of FISA is put back the way it has been. I am still very
uncomfortable with two things: the "umbrella" warrants, long-term warrants the government could seek from the
FISA Court for surveillance of "bundles of overseas communications" (NYT's language), and the proposed new
45-day window in which surveillance can be conducted before seeking a warrant; if I recall correctly, it
used to be something like 72 hours. But what concerns me about the whole process is that it buys into the whole
"unitary Executive" model (a.k.a. the "I'm the Deciderer" model) in giving the Bushists (actually, specifically,
the NSA) more authority to proceed legally with surveillance that is questionable from a Fourth Amendment
standpoint.
On the positive side, the bill apparently does not specify any amnesty for past warrantless
surveillance... not that the Bushists have suffered any consequences whatsoever for what they have done to date.
It also contains a provision requiring a quarterly audit by the Justice Department's Inspector General, to be
reported to Congress. That, together with no less than $4.25, will get you a frappucino at Starbucks.*
But there is this provision mentioned in the
TPMMuckraker post
analyzing the bill:
And the Department would be required to maintain "a database of all Americans subjected to government
eavesdropping without a court order, including whether their names have been revealed to other government
agencies."
Ah, yes. Another secret hit list, in case the Bushists need one.
* (I have no idea what a frappucino costs now. They're not in my budget these days.)
... and saw The Road out to sea, filled mostly with oil tankers...
... very few pelicans, after which the island is named (and they looked downright prehistoric)...
... some colorful boats and ships of various sorts, including a ferry named after former Houston mayor Bob
Lanier...
... a cargo ship of some sort...
... a picnic of gulls...
... the end of the rainbow...
... something you could spend the pot of gold on...
... and a ferocious rainstorm which drove us from the island moments after the cruise ship passed.
Oh... Seawolf? It's the name of an historical U.S. submarine which is maintained at the park. Somewhere I have
a picture, but I did not take one today. Neither did I tour the sub... I'm a bit claustrophobic, and I've
already toured my one sub for this lifetime.
Thank you all for your well-considered comments in the presidential race thread below. I think you can
understand why I'll wait until tomorrow to rejoin the fray.
I've been trying to think what to say about Bush's SCHIP veto, and it's a real challenge. As many years as I've
been observing Bush... that's six years more than most of you non-Texans out there... I still have difficulty
believing Bush can do something that is both so deeply morally wrong that even many members of his own party
find it repugnant, and so thoroughly politically stupid that it might be designed on purpose to leave that very
same party stranded in the next election. Like his Poppy before him, Bush seems clueless about how the working
class lives, especially those who work but still can't make ends meet. But I believe
Jon Stewart,
assisted as he frequently is by John Oliver, comes closest to "explaining" the inexplicable, or at least leading
us to laugh at a thing that, when you get right down to it, isn't funny.
But if that isn't enough of an explanation for you, there's always this...
Think of it as our decade's version of "Better dead than Red."
Here's irony for you. I know a family... not what I'd call financially secure; one-issue voters who always vote
Republican... whose kids have medical problems and who have been helped through SCHIP in the past. I'd be
willing to bet a dollar (my maximum bet) that they still vote Republican in 2008. If Bush pays a price for this
veto, it will not be thanks to the True Believers in the Moral Virtues of The Deciderer.
Maybe "it's not against any religion... to want to dispose of a pigeon" (Tom Lehrer, Poisoning Pigeons in the
Park), but this ominous sign in a shopping center walkway outside an ice cream parlor seems to take the
concept a bit far.
The actual consequences were predictable: the birds no longer settle near the wire, but have migrated to the
upper reaches of the building's exterior, where gravity assures a greater impact on targets at ground level when
they unload. I suppose it's a reasonable tradeoff for being able to eat one's ice cream in peace.
UPDATE:Katha Pollitt of The Nation
asks the question, "How Different Are the Top Three Dems?" Her answer is well worth reading. (Aside: I didn't
know Katha Pollitt has a
blog.)
My Texas Democratic primary vote is meaningless as far as determining the Democratic Party's presidential
candidate is concerned; the nomination will almost certainly be a done deal by then. Rather than strategize the
least unpleasant of the Big Three candidates... each has done more than one thing to disappoint me...
I'm thinking of voting for Kucinich, who has done the right thing (what a concept!) most of the time, whatever
it may have cost him politically, with only one exception I can think of. (As noted before, I am committed to
vote for the Democratic nominee in November 2008.)
In 2004, after Kerry had effectively already won the nomination, Kucinich spoke (as he was scheduled to do
before the race was decided) at the Texas Democratic Convention. I was a delegate there.
Despite the fact that everyone (including me) was by then committed to Kerry, Kucinich received a
standing ovation from just about everyone present. He then earned that ovation with his speech, speaking in
support of Kerry on those issues they had in common, but never for a moment compromising his own positions on
issues such as the Iraq war, his health care plan, etc.
If Kucinich had a realistic chance of becoming president, I'd be a much more enthusiastic Democrat than I am
today. I'd be interested in readers' thoughts. Apart from the (in my opinion bogus) electability issue, who
would you really like to see become the Democratic nominee?
Samantha and Tabitha have been less than cooperative about posing while Stella is away. This picture is about
a month old. The kitties somehow found a way to share some end-of-summer rays on a crowded window sill and
platform, with neither cat obstructing the other's sun:
I suppose it's too much to quote the late great Sir Fred Hoyle twice in a week,
but as I was reminded by the kitties about catching rays, I'm going to do it anyway. Besides, in its day,
Hoyle's tale was reportedly the only known triple pun in the English language; how could I resist that... and I
certainly wouldn't want to risk even a small chance that one of my readers doesn't know it. Here's a free
paraphrase and elaboration of the original...
It seems three brothers decided to establish a cattle ranch, and dutifully consulted their father about what to
name the ranch. Glancing at the bright midday sky and removing a small magnifying glass from his pocket, the
father said that the ranch should of course be named Focus. Asked why, he held the glass in just the right
position above a wood shaving, and as the shaving began to smoke, replied...
"Isn't it obvious? 'Focus' is where the Sun's rays meet."
This may be the only time you'll ever see a Republican logo on the YDD:
Elephant: "OK, Senator Craig, I'm bending over just the way you asked me to... hey, wait a minute! Where'd that
donkey come from? HEY, you stop that!"
I notice the GOP has trademarked the image; I wonder who else they think would want to appropriate it for their
own event. No, they'll get no argument from me; this is definitely a Republican elephant.
The UN's attempt to resolve the political crisis in Burma and end the brutal treatment of protesters has not
succeeded, the secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, admitted last night.
Mr Ban said his special envoy, Ibrahim Gambari, had delivered "the strongest possible message" about the junta's
bloody crackdown against anti-government protesters to Burma's reclusive military leader, General Than Shwe.
However, in the first account of the meeting, which took place on Tuesday, Mr Ban said he could not describe it
as a success.
During his four-day trip to Burma, Mr Gambari also twice met Aung San Suu Kyi, the detained pro-democracy
leader. He will give Mr Ban a full briefing on his visit later today, prior to a UN security council meeting on
Burma tomorrow.
Scores of Burmese have been arrested overnight, as the country's military continues its crackdown following last
week's protests, witnesses say.
Security forces are said to be using recordings of the demonstrations to compile lists of activists for arrest.
A source has told the BBC that as many as 10,000 people - many of them monks who led the demos - have been
rounded up for interrogation in recent days.
The body of a Japanese reporter killed during the protests has arrived home.
Kenji Nagai, a video journalist with Japan's APF News, was shot dead while filming in Rangoon.
Japanese officials say he was shot at close range, contradicting earlier claims by the Burmese authorities that
he was hit accidentally by a stray bullet.
...
Americans accustomed to relative freedom from violent response to protest (in that such response is still the
exception rather than the rule) should take particular note of the use of technology to identify protesters.
I've been videotaped at antiwar demonstrations a number of times by TV stations (I've given brief interviews
twice), fellow protesters, and people who I presume were agents of three-letter government departments. If some
future American government decides to go after protesters even more vigorously than they do already, technology
certainly will enable them to do so.
CTV.ca
is reporting specific hunting of dissidents, as well as soldiers pulling people from their homes at night,
people attempting to flee (mostly to Thailand) but being prevented in various ways, army roadblocks and
checkpoints, etc. In response, Canadians (among many others) are demanding action. I shall be interested to see
what actions are possible... economic sanctions? accepting refugees? From the same article:
Meanwhile, some degree of normalcy began to return to the streets of Rangoon Wednesday. Some shops opened and
light traffic was visible on roads. However, Villarosa said deep-rooted issues were still unresolved.
"People are terrified, and the underlying forces of discontent have not been addressed," she said. "People have
been unhappy for a long time ... Since the events of last week, there's now the unhappiness combined with anger,
and fear."
Sound familiar?
WaPo examines
the plight of some refugees who have already made it out. Over the decades, according to the Thai government's
estimate, some three million Burmese have fled to Thailand and taken up residence, some in camps on the border,
some further into the country. Refugee status is an unhappy lot for those displaced, and few countries really
welcome refugees... being a refugee beats being dead, but often not by much.
Burma's junta have been in power for about 40 years. That helps clarify a central point about this conflict: it
is not a short-term matter, and it does not have short-term solutions. Obviously the current crisis must be
dealt with by the international community to the extent possible; the human costs inflicted by these rulers
have truly gotten out of hand in recent weeks. I'm not sure of the right short-term remedy; that is presumably
being attempted by the UN and various NGOs (if any remain) with far more knowledge of the country and its
culture than I have. But it is important to keep the long-term perspective even as this crisis is dealt with.
Through our
Amnesty International USAlocal group,
I was writing letters in support of Aung San Suu Kyi long
before Burma became a page-one news item. (For what it's worth, Google News doesn't have a topic link for it
today; it has given way to K-Fed and Britney's custody battle, Princess Di, several sports figures, etc.) And
if I become active in that community again (a distinct possibility; this horror has been a reminder to me),
I regret I'll probably be writing letters in her behalf for years to come. Contrary to my natural preference
for things that move quickly, dealing with the human rights situation in Burma requires slow, steady,
relentless, persistent action. It's an approach I need to relearn.
HOUSTON -- Retired Congressman Charlie Wilson is leaving a Houston hospital 10 days after a successful heart
transplant.
The 74-year-old Wilson will be discharged from The Methodist Hospital on Thursday. Wilson received a heart from
a donor in Kansas on Sept. 24.
Wilson, who represented Texas' 2nd district in the House from 1973 to 1996, is the subject of an upcoming movie
starring Tom Hanks.
...
My guess is that Wilson is one of a number of politicians who have recently experienced a change of heart.
(Sorry, I couldn't resist.) Seriously, my best wishes to Rep. Wilson for a speedy recovery.
Oct 3 (Reuters) - Eight years after he seized power in a bloodless coup, [name of nation] President [name of
president] looks set to cruise to re-election ...
Wrong! One day, that may be Bush, but today, it's Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf. It's the seizing
power in a bloodless coup that fooled you.
I know I should be happy about this, but somehow it makes me uneasy. My commitment to electing a Democratic
president in 2008 has more to do with the potential for major policy changes. Every corporate dollar raised
is an obligation to be paid back later; the corp's don't contribute out of the goodness of their hearts,
because they have no hearts.
The House, with overwhelming, bipartisan support, voted yesterday to give the Bush administration two months
to present to Congress its planning for the withdrawal of combat forces in Iraq.
The 377 to 46 vote was the first salvo of a new legislative strategy adopted by House Democratic leaders,
away from partisan confrontation and toward a more incremental approach to war policy that can bring
Republicans to their side. The withdrawal-planning bill had met fierce opposition this summer from ardent
Iraq war foes, who scuttled an earlier vote by saying it would do nothing but give Republicans political
cover for their support of President Bush's policies.
This time, amid the stirrings of a bipartisan centrist coalition on Iraq, Democratic leaders stared down the
antiwar left and went forward with the vote. With Senate leaders stymied in their efforts to force a change
of course in Iraq, House Democratic leaders faced a choice of whether to continue pushing firm timelines for
troop withdrawals, as many liberal Democrats want, or to search for bipartisan comity, even after the Senate
had failed to find it.
...
Stared us down? WTF? This bill is completely inadequate... anything that passes by that margin is surely
watered down... and Bush will do as he pleases whether or not it passes. (I hope to post on Joe Conason's
It Can Happen Here later this week; it is clear that Bush is an old-fashioned monarch in all but
name.) But really... does anyone else feel "stared down"? I thought we all wanted the same thing, to exit
this godforsaken war, and the debate was over how best to do that. If someone wants to stare someone down,
let them play poker; the rest of us can discuss the real issue instead.
What a thoroughly petty man he must be. And I, for one, am convinced that he is a damned liar and a serial
sexual harasser. If you haven't read Hill's Speaking Truth to Power, I recommend it highly. (Now if
I could just find my copy...)
WASHINGTON, Oct. 2 — Jack L. Goldsmith, a Harvard law professor who led the Justice Department office that
objected to a Bush administration domestic eavesdropping plan, told a Senate committee on Tuesday that the
situation became a “legal mess” because the White House did not believe either the courts or Congress had
any role to play.
Professor Goldsmith told the Judiciary Committee that chances to create a legally justified program were
undercut by senior White House officials who were averse to any restraint on presidential power and devoted
to extreme secrecy.
“It was the biggest legal mess I had ever encountered,” said Professor Goldsmith, who raised his objections
to the program run by the National Security Agency while head of the Office of Legal Counsel.
He also said David Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney’s counsel, told him that his position might mean
failure to halt a new terrorist attack that would leave him with the blood of thousands on his hands.
Professor Goldsmith was greeted largely as a hero by Democrats on the Judiciary Committee who praised him
for standing up to enormous pressure with his objections.
...
So, let's see, who actually ended up "with the blood of thousands on his hands" ...
That's Ars Technica's headline, not mine. And you have to read this to see how well-justified the adjective
"ridiculous" is. Consider this your tech/law entertainment piece for the morning.
Tabitha (left) and Samantha (right) are wandering around Stella's patio, looking for her, looking a bit lost.
I'm not in the picture, but you may reasonably assume the same expression on my face. Stella is on a week-long
family trip to Georgia and North Carolina, and as her kitties can tell you, it's awfully quiet around her place
(mine as well, though T. and S. don't know that). Stella departed sometime after 3:30am to meet an early flight.
She and I were both up most of the night, packing of course, but also preparing material for a celebration which
I'll tell you about after it has happened. Well, OK, Stella did all the artistic and musical work; I just
downloaded the video, burned the DVD and made copies of the accompanying scrapbook. They also serve, who only
stand and click.
I do plan a couple of political posts later today, but in addition to cat-sitting duties, I have a few other
essential things to do, so I'm not sure exactly when they'll be up. Thanks for checking back.
(Did you know, unscientific non-studies don't prove, but at least strongly hint, that if you added up all the
time you spent waiting for HaloScan in the course of the past year, you probably could have written a novel in
that time?)
Years ago, Jim Hightower pitched a show with that title to radio networks (there used to be more than one in
those days) that broadcast Rush Limbaugh, Hightower's idea being that his own show would immediately follow
Limbaugh's in the schedule. Alas, Rush threatened to sue any networks that used the name Hightower proposed, and
the idea was abandoned.
So it's not out of any imagined sympathy for Rush that I write this post. He can suppress speech with the worst
of 'em, if it suits his purposes, fat pill-popping child-sex-slave-fucking asshole that he is.
But
Jane Hamsher
and
Wesley Clark
are both out of bounds in proposing that Congress defund Limbaugh's appearances on Armed Forces Radio. Such an
action is no different from urging Congress to defund PBS because wing-nuts perceive it as having a "liberal
bias" in its programming. If I cannot approve the latter, I cannot approve the former, either. If Congress
authorizes funding for broadcasting political speech of any sort, it either accepts all content, or it comes
perilously close to violating the First Amendment. Congressional funding for broadcasts should be
content-neutral, even when it comes to assholes like Rush.
Besides, I believe this can be worked out much more effectively than by passing empty resolutions or
withholding funds. A meeting should be arranged at a suitable neutral location, a meeting in which Rush could
get to know a dozen or so members of our armed forces who oppose the Iraq war, i.e., the ones whom he calls
"phony soldiers." To minimize unpleasantness, and also to give these soldiers a bit more of a break from the
dangers of Iraq, the meeting could be held at a nice vacation spot, say, Galveston, TX, perhaps near the always
charming Strand area, famous for its shops, eateries and Galveston's version of Mardi Gras...
That's what they got away with... unbelievable surveillance, shutdowns of peaceful protests, mass arrests,
abusive detentions and more... during the 2004 GOP convention. You think our rights are any better protected by
NYPD's finest today? Read this and think again.
Rep. David Obey (D-WI), chair of the House Appropriations Committee,
announced
that he will block any war funding measures that do not include three things... including a specific timetable
for ending the war in Iraq. Yes, the chair of Appropriations has the power to do that. Read the details at the
TPM link. I will list the three things Obey is demanding:
I would be more than willing to report out a supplemental meeting the President’s request if that request were
made in support of a change in policy that would do three things.
Establish as a goal the end of U.S. involvement in combat operations by January of 2009.
Ensure that troops would have adequate time at home between deployments as outlined in the Murtha and Webb amendments.
Demonstrate a determination to engage in an intensive, broad scale diplomatic offensive involving other countries in the region.
But this policy does not do that. It simply borrows almost $200 billion to give to the Departments of State,
Defense, Energy, and Justice with no change in sight.
As Chairman of the Appropriations Committee I have absolutely no intention of reporting out of Committee anytime
in this session of Congress any such request that simply serves to continue the status quo.
The language is not as strong as I would like, but it's a start. And no one doubts that Obey has the authority
to determine the committee's agenda. After the recent
ABC poll results
showing the American people overwhelmingly want out of this godforsaken war, I double-yellow-dog-dare the GOP to
try to make political hay out of Obey's action. Bring it on.
That said, Obey predicts that he will have neither the support of the Democratic leadership nor the backing of
the full Democratic caucus at this point. WTF is wrong with the Democratic Party? No one ever lost elections
giving voters what they want.
In related news, Obey and two other Democrats have actually mentioned
the T-word...
no, not terrorism, taxes... indeed, progressive taxes at that. They think that fiscal responsibility
demands that the Iraq war should be paid for by the generation that started it and pursues it to the tune of
$10 billion a month (CBO estimate)... rather than passing the debt on to our children. Count me in...
liberals are, as we have always been, the strongest advocates of fiscal responsibility. From the Reagan
era forward, Republicans have been the party of don't-tax-but-spend-anyway. Let's take away their credit
cards, and make them pay what they already owe.
A Planned Parenthood clinic in Aurora that will offer abortion services is scheduled to open today after city
officials late Monday issued an occupancy permit for the controversial medical center.
While the permit clears the way for the immediate opening of the 22,000-square-foot clinic, opponents vowed to
continue their efforts to keep the center shuttered.
...
Aurora Mayor Thomas Weisner announced late Monday that three legal reviews concluded the city couldn't withhold
the permit from the clinic.
"The city of Aurora has no legal basis to deny Planned Parenthood an occupancy certificate," Weisner said,
though he indicated he believes Planned Parenthood "was less than forthcoming in some ways."
One review, by Kane County State's Attorney John Barsanti, specifically concluded there was no criminal action
committed by the group in the planning process.
Weisner said the city had no recourse but to allow the center to open. "There's no doubt we've tried to follow
the law," he said.
...
The only surprise to me is that the city of Aurora followed through with legitimate legal reviews and came to
what seems to me should be, but frequently enough isn't, an inevitable conclusion.
The protests are nothing unique; anyone who has ever done work for a Planned Parenthood clinic (that includes
me) knows the drill of nonviolently fending them off on entering the clinic. As long as they stay outside and
don't assault the clientele, they're exercising their free speech rights. But not all of them are interested in
nonviolent protest. And not all police departments are interested in protecting the clinics: our local sheriff a
few years back forbade his deputies to take off-duty security work at Planned Parenthood locations. But again,
this is nothing new. Planned Parenthood has plenty of experience coping with these people.
I know I've said it a hundred times before, but bear with me, as some people (probably not readers here) seem
not to have gotten the message: Planned Parenthood is, first and foremost, a women's health clinic. Often
enough, it is the only source of health care... including, please note, prenatal care... available to indigent
women. Abortion is far down the list of services offered there, though it is almost the only one that makes the
evening news. Well, OK, sometimes people demonstrate against contraception; Planned Parenthood supplies that,
too... and those protests demonstrate the extremity of views of some of the anti-choice activists.
So here's my signature "money quote," which is almost certainly true on its face, though of course there is no
way to collect statistics:
Planned Parenthood prevents more abortions than any anti-abortion group active in the United States today,
bar none, by preventing unwanted pregnancies and helping to assure that wanted pregnancies result in healthy
babies.
If the anti-abortion activists really cared about ending abortion in America, they should support Planned
Parenthood in its effort to provide contraceptives, education and prenatal care to its clients. But this has
never been about preventing abortion for many among the anti-choice faction: it is about controlling women. A
woman who has no control over her reproductive status has no control over her life. To some of the more
extreme among the anti-choicers, that's a desirable thing: for religious or other reasons, they believe women
should not be in control of their own lives. As some columnist said about 30 years ago, in America, one can
believe any damned fool thing one wants to believe. But unless America is forcibly turned into the Gilead of
Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale, that damned fool has no right to impose his or her views on the
rest of us. Planned Parenthood is a fully legal institution performing a valuable service, and abortion is a
constitutionally protected right. I wish more communities would "[try] to follow the law." What a concept!
The FBI will investigate the recent killings. There's now email evidence that the State Department has been
doing "damage control" regarding Blackwater incidents. In addition, the State Department "employee" who
interviewed Blackwater personnel about the most recent incident was... you guessed it... a Blackwater employee.
Blackwater is turning out to be a terrible deal even from a dollar viewpoint. And last but not least, the GOP
would like Henry Waxman to delay his Blackwater hearings.
This is just awful. Why, who knows; the Bushists may be forced to back off on the use of Blackwater within the
U.S. Can you imagine?
... for this Miscellany post. (Pace, Sir Fred Hoyle.) Most of these items were collected days ago, and web
news spoils if not quickly refrigerated posted. But some are too significant to omit:
The new Court term could lead to enhanced rights for terrorism detainees, a ruling against part of a child
pornography law and shorter prison terms for crack cocaine dealers.
Little seems changed on the bench, where Justice Anthony Kennedy remains the decisive vote between four
conservatives and four liberals. The difference with the new term is the mix of cases that are before the
justices.
Instead of last term's defining cases — abortion, race and campaign finance — in which Kennedy's views
aligned him with the conservatives, the big issues are those on which Kennedy has more often sided with the
liberals.
...
"Liberal." Heh. "Conservative." Right. Say your prayers for Justice Stevens.
BuzzFlash reproduces a blurb and a review of John Bowe's
Nobodies: Modern American Slave Labor and the Dark Side of the New Global Economy
(you can find it on Amazon, but why not follow the BuzzFlash link and help them out a bit), an examination
of labor abuse... including actual slavery... in three American workplaces. Jeebus! Enough said, I think.
A U.S.-based private security firm received a contract worth up to 92 million dollars from the Department of
Defense amid hard questions about its involvement in two separate violent incidents in Iraq.
"Blackwater has been a contractor in the past with the department and could certainly be in the future,"
said the U.S.’s top-ranking military officer, General Peter Pace, at an afternoon press conference here.
The future arrived just two hours later when the Pentagon released a new list of contracts – Presidential
Airways, the aviation unit of parent company Blackwater, was awarded the contract to fly Department of
Defense passengers and cargo between locations around central Asia.
...
Extraordinary rendition, anyone? I have no evidence, but isn't that what it sounds like?
Britsh MPs visiting the Pentagon to discuss America's stance on Iran and Iraq were shocked to be told by one
of President Bush's senior women officials: "I hate all Iranians."
And she also accused Britain of "dismantling" the Anglo-US-led coalition in Iraq by pulling troops out of
Basra too soon.
The all-party group of MPs say Debra Cagan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Coalition Affairs to Defence
Secretary Robert Gates, made the comments this month.
...
The MPs say that at one point she said: "In any case, I hate all Iranians."
Although it was an aside, it was not out of keeping with her general demeanour.
...
Warning: based on the photo in the linked article, Ms. Cagan is one of the ugliest human beings I have ever
seen... and that's before she speaks her mind. And... what's that "interesting" cross around her neck?
[UPDATE: Bryan, in the comment thread to this post, informs us the cross is
the Commander's Cross Order of Merit from Hungary. Could've been worse. Now if someone can please explain
why she is wearing it in her role as a U.S. official...]
Do Not Call Listings to Expire in 2008
Telemarketers Could Start Calling Millions of People in 2008 When Do Not Call List Expires
By JENNIFER C. KERR Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON Sep 21, 2007 (AP)
The cherished dinner hour void of telemarketers could vanish next year for millions of people when phone
numbers begin dropping off the national Do Not Call list.
The Federal Trade Commission, which oversees the list, says there is a simple fix. But some lawmakers think
it is a hassle to expect people to re-register their phone numbers every five years.
Numbers placed on the registry, begun in June 2003, are valid for five years. For the millions of people who
signed onto the list in its early days, their numbers will automatically drop off beginning next June if
they do not enroll again.
"It is incredibly quick and easy to do," Lydia Parnes, director of the FTC's bureau of consumer protection,
said in an interview with The Associated Press this week. "It was so easy for people to sign up in the first
instance. It will be just as easy for them to re-up."
But Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Pa., says people should not be forced to re-register to keep telemarketers at bay.
Doyle introduced legislation this week, with bipartisan support, to make registrations permanent.
...
You know what else is "incredibly quick and easy to do"? Vote Republicans out of office. I do not
know anyone of any other party affiliation who believes advertisers have a free-speech "right" to ring your
phone.
Is it too much to ask that people who want to vote first show identification with their picture on it?
Judge Richard A. Posner, perhaps the most prominent and certainly the most provocative federal appeals court
judge in America, thinks not.
“It is exceedingly difficult to maneuver in today’s America without a photo ID,” Judge Posner wrote for a
divided panel of the federal appeals court in Chicago in January, upholding an Indiana voter identification
law enacted in 2005. “Try flying, or even entering a tall building such as the courthouse in which we sit.”
But somewhere between 13 million and 22 million Americans of voting age, most of them poor, get by without
driver’s licenses, passports and other kinds of government documents bearing their pictures, perhaps because
they do not have the money to drive, much less to fly.
Judge Posner seemed to think it a small burden to ask such people to get a photo ID in order to vote.
“That’s the perspective of the typical ivory-tower, elitist lawyer,” said Daniel P. Tokaji, who teaches
election law at Ohio State. In a private conference today, the Supreme Court will consider whether to hear
an appeal from Judge Posner’s decision.
...
Notwithstanding Judge Posner's ruling, Judge Wapner, Judge Judy, Judge Roy Bean and Judge Dredd were
unavailable for comment. I believe I'll print this article and carry pages with me for use in stuffing the
mouths of any Republicans who say "agenda-based adjudication" to me.
CHICAGO, Sept. 21 -- The money spent on one day of the Iraq war could buy homes for almost 6,500 families or
health care for 423,529 children, or could outfit 1.27 million homes with renewable electricity, according
to the American Friends Service Committee, which displayed those statistics on large banners in cities
nationwide Thursday and Friday.
The war is costing $720 million a day or $500,000 a minute, according to the group's analysis of the work of
Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard public finance lecturer Linda J. Bilmes.
The estimates made by the group, which opposes the conflict, include not only the immediate costs of war but
also ongoing factors such as long-term health care for veterans, interest on debt and replacement of
military hardware.
"The wounded are coming home, and many of them have severe brain and spinal injuries, which will require
round-the-clock care for the rest of their lives," said Michael McConnell, Great Lakes regional director of
the AFSC, a peace group affiliated with the Quaker church.
The $720 million figure breaks down into $280 million a day from Iraq war supplementary funding bills passed
by Congress, plus $440 million daily in incurred, but unpaid, long-term costs.
But some supporters of the Bush administration's policy in Iraq say that even if the war is costly, that
fact is essentially immaterial.
...
As you are so often told... it's your money. It's also your military, your economy,
your family members suffering and dying, and your America that has to live in this world.
Bushists think all that is "essentially immaterial." What do you think?
Click any permalink below to go to the original article on a previous page.
Click a comment link below to add a comment to the original article.
Your comment will be noticed, by the YDD at least:
HaloScan has a page allowing me to view recent comments, no matter which post they refer to.
Maybe "it's not against any religion... to want to dispose of a pigeon" (Tom Lehrer, Poisoning Pigeons in the
Park), but this ominous sign in a shopping center walkway outside an ice cream parlor seems to take the
concept a bit far.
Tabitha (left) and Samantha (right) are wandering around Stella's patio, looking for her, looking a bit lost.
I'm not in the picture, but you may reasonably assume the same expression on my face. Stella is on a week-long
family trip to Georgia and North Carolina, and as her kitties can tell you, it's awfully quiet around her place
(mine as well, though T. and S. don't know that). Stella departed sometime after 3:30am to meet an early flight.
She and I were both up most of the night, packing of course, but also preparing material for a celebration which
I'll tell you about after it has happened. Well, OK, Stella did all the artistic and musical work; I just
downloaded the video, burned the DVD and made copies of the accompanying scrapbook. They also serve, who only
stand and click.