This (found at rereason, via Josh) is the funniest, snarkiest thing I've read in days:

And as to the faculties of the mind, ... such is the nature
of men that, howsoever they may acknowledge many
others to be more witty or more eloquent or more
learned, yet they will hardly believe there be many so
wise as themselves, for they see their own wit at hand
and other men’s at a distance. But this proveth rather
that men are in that point equal than unequal. For there
is not ordinarily a greater sign of the equal distribution
of anything than that every man is contented with his share.

-- Hobbes, Leviathan Chapter XIII.

I find it difficult to believe that was written without tongue in cheek.

OK, here we go: this is just one of the stomach churning stories I alluded to at the start of the last post. Terrance has the full story and links here and here. Briefly: Laurel Hester and her partner of six years, Stacie Andree, registered as domestic partners a year ago, when Hester was diagnosed with lung cancer. Hester now has months to live, and New Jersey law has a loophole of sorts that allows the five assholes pictured above, the Ocean County freeholders board, to decide whether Andree will get Hester's pension when she dies (it will mean the difference between keeping or losing the house they bought together). The board has said no. You can send them email; keep in mind that these scumbags have all the power here, since there's no way to change the law before Hester dies, so forgo the satisfaction of a vicious rant and try to get them to do the right thing. Here's what I sent:

Sirs --

I write to ask you to do the decent thing in respect of Lt Laurel Hester. She has earned that pension, and the right to say to whom it will pass when she dies, with almost a quarter of a century in service to her community. It is simply unjust to deny her that right.

The world is watching. Please show them that American justice has compassion at its core. Please do the right, the fair, the just, the American thing -- and grant Lt Hester's request.

Before I could write that, I had to get this out of my system:

You maggots. You self-righteous, self-satisfied, evil fucking bastards.

Laurel Hester worked her whole life in public service; she's earned that pension and the right to say to whom it will pass on her death, and you have no right to deny her that. You happen to have the opportunity -- the law has made an error, and handed you the opportunity to hurt someone -- and you're falling all over yourselves in your rush to take it.

You contemptible excuses for human beings. If there is a God of eternal torture, as the good Christians tell me, be assured that He is setting aside coals and pincers for you even as you read this.

The spousal unit tells me that Hester may be able to sidestep this whole thing by granting Andree power of attorney. I have the feeling that there's a reason that won't work, or they'd have simply done it and avoided the fuss. Any lawyers reading this? I didn't explain it properly -- spousal unit didn't realise it was an inheritance issue, for which power of attorney is no use.

I've got a dozen posts in the pipeline, none of which will probably ever be finished because I just don't have the heart for it. Das Welt tut mir weh.
So here, in case you too are feeling overwhelmed: go see what real humanity looks like:

Sixty-one years ago, Joanna Zalucka hid a young Jewish girl in her bedroom for eight months, keeping the child from the Nazis in their native Poland during the Holocaust.

The girl survived, rejoined her parents and moved to Brooklyn in 1953. On Friday, Ruth Gruener, now 72, was reunited with her Polish friend at Kennedy International Airport.

Via Julia; modern picture from ABCNews, childhood pictures of Ruth (right) and Joanna from The Jewish Foundation for the Righteous.

Orac has a post up about MacGyver science -- you know, supercolliders made out of toilet rolls and chewing gum, or in this case an electrophoresis rig made out of kitchen stuff. Orac concludes, sadly, that it's not a practical way to cut lab costs. He's right, but there are good ways to cut lab costs.

(There are bad ways, too. I've done the grow-your-own Taq thing that RPM mentions in comments; it's not worth it. Too much fiddling and no one else in the lab will trust their experiments to your crappy enzyme anyway.)

For instance, commenter Dave raises a good point about resource pooling. A colleague of mine, lab manager in the last lab I worked in, estimated that he saved the lab about 30% of its running costs just by instituting a central ordering system. Once all orders went through him, he could shop around for best prices and pool orders with other labs to save on shipping. The institute that lab was in also saved itself a ton of money by putting together a central Store, so they could buy in bulk.

(A brief digression. It occurs to me that most of my tens of readers won't be familiar with what it costs to do biomed research. Quite apart from salaries, on-costs and infrastructure, I'd guess that most labs spend at least $500/month/staff member just on reagents and consumables (such as disposable plasticware). For a medium sized lab of five people, that's $30K per year. On top of that, costs vary widely from experiment to experiment; for instance, the lab I'm in now probably spends at least a further $20K/year on facilities for transgenic mice. If, like Orac, you do a lot of qRT-PCR, that's spendy too -- I think it goes close to $0.5/reaction and "a lot" is thousands of reactions per month, if not per week. To take a less fine-grained view, the average cost of an NIH grant (1992-96) was $274,710/year. Them's your dollars, taxpayers, so you should be keeping an eye on us -- in fact, there's a whole nother post -- hell, a whole nother career -- right there.)

Anyway, the whole point of this post is: there's another kind of resource pooling that is due for an internet-era upgrade: simple "hey have you got an antibody against X?" sharing. A while back, my current PI came up with the idea of a central database for sharing biological reagents; it's an idea best illustrated by example. (For non-scientists that is; labrats reading this will already be punching themselves and going "oh man why didn't I think of that, does it already exist, where is it gimme gimme gimme". Patience, I'll get to it.)

I happen to be interested at the moment in a protein called Smad3. We had an antibody to the molecule, but I also wanted to be able to distinguish between the phosphorylated (active) and non-phosphorylated (inactive) forms. You can buy an anti-phospho-Smad3 antibody, but it'll cost a bundle and you may be buying a lot more than you need. For instance, the one I linked comes in 40 µl lots for $110 (though most antibodies typically aren't sold in such small lots; the 100 µl/$250 size is much more usual). The company says that's enough for 4 blots, but I could probably stretch it to 40 -- if I wanted to run 40 blots, that is. Until I ran the first experiment, I didn't know whether I was going to pursue that line of inquiry, so I didn't want to toss 110 hard-earned taxpayer dollars (plus shipping and handling, and you really get screwed on that believe me) at something that might not pan out. (Plus, I wasn't too keen on the cross-reactivity with pSmad1, a related molecule, that the linked antibody displays.)

In such cases, and there are MANY, MANY such cases, what you typically do is wander forlornly around the building, asking if anyone has the antibody (or plasmid, or yeast strain, or oligo, or whatever it is) that you want. I did that -- even sent a couple of emails to groups elsewhere on campus -- but no luck. So I did the next thing you do, which is I ran a few searches and read a few papers, and discovered that there were a couple of antibodies in the literature that fit my requirements nicely. One of these was made in the lab of Prof Ed Leof at the Mayo Clinic; promisingly, it was cited in several papers by other groups ("the anti-pSmad3 antibody was a gift from Ed Leof"). So I sent Prof Leof email, and about 24 hours later someone in his lab sent me enough of his antibody for at least 100 blots (Prof Leof, Dr Edens -- if you're reading this, thanks again, and FYI the Ab can be re-used at least ten times, just put azide in the dilution buffer). All it cost our lab was FedEx shipping for a small container on dry ice.

Now, that's the way it's supposed to work -- and in fact, in my experience, the majority of such requests are met with similar collegiality and generosity. For myself, I am always pleased when I can help a colleague out. But here's the thing -- there's probably a lab right here on campus that has an antibody I could have used. I tried the obvious suspects (labs working on systems in which Smad3 might play a role), but even though they didn't have any I bet there's someone on campus who does. It's even likely that they bit the bullet and coughed up for the antibody on spec, and it's been sitting in their -80°C freezer since that first experiment didn't go the way they hoped. That shit happens all the time, ask any researcher. I want to emphasize that: this whole example, from me wanting something for just one look-see experiment to the likelihood that it was available on campus but I just couldn't find it, happens all the time.

Enter the idea whose time has come: an online database into which labs everywhere input the biological reagents they're willing to share: antibodies, plasmids, viruses, bacteria, yeast, mutant model animals, peptides, oligos, primer sets, cytokines, spendy chemicals -- the list of potential shareables is enormous and ever-expanding. Some of this functionality exists -- for instance if the mouse you want already exists, Jackson Labs probably has it or knows about it, and you can always do the literature thing like I did -- but it's scattered and inefficient. Think how much easier my quest for an anti-pSmad3 antibody would have been made by such a tool: one search and up comes a list of labs and antibodies, pick an antibody, sort the resulting labs by location, email (or walk over to) the nearest one. Here's another example: I have a new search going right now -- I want some Smad2/3-null mouse embryo fibroblasts and a set of Smad2/3 expression plasmids. I've sent out seven or eight emails to colleagues I found in the literature; I've had one negative and one positive response, but the positive response depends on permission from someone else from whom I'm still waiting to hear. I'm still not sure I'm bothering the right people, it's been almost a week (and Thanksgiving's coming up), and dammit there's probably someone in Portland, or maybe at the Hutch in Seattle, who has what I want and would share it with me.

See what I mean? Happens all the time. I want that database and I want it now! Peter suggested I make it happen, at least initially on a limited, local scale -- start with the six labs in our institute, then expand to include the whole OHSU campus. Great idea, so as a first step I googled around to see whether anyone had already done it -- turns out they have:

Welcome to BioRoot Bioinformatics
BioRoot is a non-profit organization dedicated to fostering communication, collaboration, and increased productivity in the biological sciences through information exchange.
We provide centralized databases to collect, store, and disseminate information about commonly used molecular biology reagents: antibodies, plasmids, strains, and oligonucleotides.
Use of these BioReagent databases will cut costs, save time, and accelerate research benefiting the bench scientist, the PI, and the public.

W00t!

The guy behind it is David Nix, who clearly has the programming chops to go from "an Excel spreadsheet uploaded to my web space somewhere", which is probably where I was going to start, to a fully-functional database complete with privacy/security measures. Major, major kudos, dude. (What is slightly odd is that I found out about BioRoot by googling, and found David the same way. Why haven't I heard of this everywhere? It's the best thing since PubMed, it should be huge. Apart from one subscriber-only article in The Scientist, I couldn't find anything.)

I've sent BioRoot an email, so we'll see how things work out. If it's what it looks like (and why wouldn't it be?), I'm going to become a hardcore BioRoot evangelist.

That's weird. My comment on this Inhabitat post was deleted. From memory, what I said was

Love the site too, but ads in feeds are a dealbreaker. If the ad-free excerpt feeds go I'll just stop reading.

Am I missing something here? Why would you delete that? It occurs to me that there was no mention of culling the ad-free excerpt feeds, so I over-reached a bit there, but still. As it happens I have unsubscribed, because the "excerpts" turn out to be title-only and the titles aren't all that informative. I read rss feeds for the convenience, because I don't want to have to click through on every post. If the ads are all-important, if you're running the blog as some kind of business, then this rant's for you.

Schade, I really liked their stuff.

Update: I wrote the admin, and Jill F wrote back to say that my comment was collateral damage when she deleted a couple of obnoxious ones. I'm glad not to have given offense. Jill also points out that the site is free so it's a bit rich for me to complain about ads. I confess to a deep hatred of advertising, but I didn't mean to complain so much as add a data point to the thread. I can stand ads on the site, hell, I'll even click through occasionally; it's just ads in rss feeds that cross my personal line. I've left a new comment that I hope is clearer. (And -- now that I look at that first comment again -- less pushy.)

And if more of them were like Adam Frankel we'd be a lot better off. I'm really impressed with his "ten lessons from the Kerry campaign", for which he was a speechwriter. The excerpts below are to whet your appetite; do go read the whole thing.

The difference today between having good leaders and not having them is the difference between war and peace, life and death. It's the difference between a satisfying, rewarding life and a miserable one, the difference between good health and sickness, prosperity and poverty, enlightenment and ignorance. Ultimately, it's the difference between right and wrong.

When I was a senior in college, working on a thesis about the global AIDS pandemic, I met with a former Dean of the Yale School of Public Health. He asked me, "What's the goal of the fight against AIDS?" I said, "To increase condom distribution around the world." He said, "That's a tactic. What's the goal?" I tried again: "To increase our support for the Global AIDS Fund so countries can tackle their own epidemics." He said, "That's also a tactic." "The goal," he said, "is to stop the spread of AIDS and care for those who have it."

If a politician needs a poll to know whether to raise an important issue, that politician has failed a central test of leadership.

I joined the Kerry Campaign, because I was angry about the course of our country, and I thought Kerry could change it. But as I realized, a few months into the campaign, anger will not sustain you ... Whenever I was feeling exhausted or beat, no matter how small or unimportant the issue I was working on, I'd think about all the people in this country who were depending on us. That's where I got my energy. You have to have a hunger to build -- to repair -- not just to tear down.

If you were born with a sense of injustice, hold onto it. If you were born with a sense of entitlement, I hope you'll outgrow it. And if you were born with curiosity and an active mind, I hope it will lead you to a life in public service.

The caption reads, "Each prayer tassel hung on the pickets at the Department of Official Morality represents a visitor's hope for honest government or a corrupt official's atonement," and my first thought is, "so few?"

The Tao of Bush, Morgon Mae Schultz, Utne.com, via Eliot.

Further to this entry, I got the same form letter back from Target that Joseph got:

From: guest.relations@target.com
Date Fri, 18 Nov 2005
To: me
Subject: Filling Prescriptions at Target

Dear Bill Hooker,

In our ongoing effort to provide great service to our guests, Target consistently ensures that prescriptions for the emergency contraceptive Plan B are filled. As an Equal Opportunity Employer, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also requires us to accommodate our team members’ sincerely held religious beliefs.

In the rare event that a pharmacist’s beliefs conflict with filling a guest’s prescription for the emergency contraceptive Plan B, our policy requires our pharmacists to take responsibility for ensuring that the guest’s prescription is filled in a timely and respectful manner, either by another Target pharmacist or a different pharmacy.

- The emergency contraceptive Plan B is the only medication for which this policy applies.
- Under no circumstances can the pharmacist prevent the prescription from being filled, make discourteous or judgmental remarks, or discuss his or her religious beliefs with the guest.

Target abides by all state and local laws and, in the event that other laws conflict with our policy, we follow the law.

We're surprised and disappointed by Planned Parenthood’s negative campaign. We’ve been talking with Planned Parenthood to clarify our policy and reinforce our commitment to ensuring that our guests’ prescriptions for the emergency contraceptive Plan B are filled. Our policy is similar to that of many other retailers and follows the recommendations of the American Pharmacists Association. That’s why it’s unclear why Target is being singled out.

We’re committed to meeting the needs of our female guests and will continue to deliver upon that commitment.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Hanson
Target Executive Offices

What weaselly bullshit. It appears to have been updated in response to other people's letters; for instance, the bit about Plan B being the only "refusable" was not in the earlier response Portia got. A simple google search reveals yet other variations.

I sent this back:

Dear Ms Hanson:

You cannot hide behind the Civil Rights Act: there is nothing in the
idea of "religious freedom" which allows a person or organisation to
force their beliefs on another, which is what a Target pharmacist will
be doing if they refuse to fill a Plan B scrip. Further, what is the
moral difference between condoms and Plan B (which, as I'm sure you are
aware, is not an abortifacient)? Does your odd interpretation of the
CRA also oblige you to accomodate factual inaccuracies and logical
inconsistencies?

You write that your pharmacy employees are not allowed to "make
discourteous or judgmental remarks, or discuss [...] religious beliefs"
-- bunk, and you know it. The simple act of refusing to fill the scrip
is discourteous and judgemental. Let your pharmacy employees show the
courage of their convictions and resign if the job conflicts with their
beliefs, rather than shift the weight and cost of those beliefs onto
Target's female customers.

And quit whining about being "singled out". What you are doing is
wrong, and "others are doing it too" is no excuse. My own boycott
extends to any and all pharmacies who implement reprehensible policies
like Target's. Planned Parenthood's refusal to let Target get away with
it in no way precludes simultaneous action against other groups.

Until and unless Target recognises that the physical autonomy of their
female customers takes precedence over any employee's personal belief, I
will withhold my custom entirely and encourage everyone else to do
likewise.

Planned Parenthood's detailed takedown of the Target response letter is here. PP has a ton of other resources, including fact sheets on refusal clauses and the difference between EC and medication abortion, a list of documented pharmacist refusals, summaries of state actions and laws and a list of ways to get involved, including a followup email campaign.

PP also has an email you can send to thank companies whose policies are in line with the PP position; so far, only Costco, CVS, Harris Teeter, K-Mart and Price Choppers qualify.

Update: the National Women's Law Center also has a page of resources for women's health, including the Pharmacy Refusal Project and information about emergency contraception.

Further to the last post: via Americablog, the Repub-dominated Congress has voted to drop the "bridge" part and let Alaska keep the pork with no strings attached. And the pliant press has reported it as instructed, as though the project was killed. If you haven't yet taken 30 seconds to lend Sen Cantwell your support, please do.

Via On The Road To 2008, Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) has a petition she'd like you to sign:

Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska has introduced a bill to repeal the Magnuson Amendment, a law written by Washington's own Warren Magnuson in 1977 to limit oil tanker traffic in Puget Sound. The Magnuson Amendment has kept the Cherry Point Refinery near Bellingham from becoming a super-port for oil to be shipped overseas and across the country. Stevens' bill will undo these protections. If it passes, pristine Puget Sound is at risk for oil spills, with little economic or energy benefit to our state.

Senator Stevens has also suggested that Cherry Point should expand dramatically to refine oil taken from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. As you know, I have been leading the fight in the Senate against under-handed measures to open the Refuge to drilling, and I intend to fight this expansion. Stevens' plan will quietly reverse important protections supported by Washington's Republicans and Democrats for decades.

Last month, Democrats and Republicans in the House blocked a similar plan, but Senator Stevens is trying again. And this time he is keeping a low profile. But we can't let him get away with it. We have to show Senator Stevens that Washington state won't stand by silently and let one of our greatest treasures fall to the whims of greedy oil companies. Please join me in signing this petition to keep the Magnuson Amendment in place and protect Washington's waterways and coastlines from being overrun with oil tankers.

Stevens (R-Porkbarrel) is, you may remember, the guy who wants to build a $223 million bridge from Ketchikan, Alaska (pop. 8,900) to its airport; the ferry ride the bridge will replace takes seven minutes. Stevens is also a constant menace to the ANWR. If you have a minute, go help Sen Cantwell smack him around some.

While we wait to see whether congress will piss all over habeas corpus, the most important freedom in this wonderful experiment, the US of A, I want to ask any US resident reading this: please call your senators. I also want to repeat something that might have been lost at the bottom of the last, somewhat lengthy, post.

I know long-distance calls are spendy, and I know what it is to watch your budget to the last cent. That's why the spousal unit and I have a phone card for your use -- it won't cost you a thing. If you're concerned about using work facilities for political activity, the card might solve that problem too. Here's how it works:

1. find your senators' phone numbers: look here or here
2. call 1-800-323-6263 (for English) or 1-800-323-6269 (for Spanish)
3. the voice will ask for your PIN; dial 2785446232
4. the voice will ask you to dial the destination number; dial your
senator and let him/her know you're watching, and you expect him/her to
do the decent thing and support the Bingaman amendment.

In fact, don't just call your own senators. From the CCR, here's a list of the key senators, complete with phone/fax numbers:

Collins (ME) T: (202) 224-2523 F: (202) 224-2693

Snowe (ME) T: (202) 224-5344 F: (202) 224-1946

Dewine (OH) T: (202) 224-2315 F: (202) 224-6519

Mccain (AZ) T: (202) 224-2235 F: (202) 228-2862

Warner (VA) T: (202) 224-2023 F: (202) 224-6295

Hagel (NEB) T: (202) 224-4224 F: (202) 224-5213

Nelson (NEB) T: (202) 224-6551 F: (202) 228-0012

Conrad (ND)T: (202) 224-2043 F: (202) 224-7776

Landrieu (LA) T: (202)224-5824 F: (202) 224-9735

Lieberman (CT) T: (202) 224-4041 F: (202) 224-9750

Wyden (OR) T: (202) 224-5244 F: (202) 228-2717

If you have the time, we have the money: call 'em all.

Fuck. The Bingaman amendment was rejected. When the roll call goes up you can see who the traitors were by clicking the vote number (324).

Looks like the bullshit compromise might have got up, vote 325 was on "Graham Amdt. No. 2524; In the nature of a substitute" and was agreed to.

From vote 324, the following so-called Democrats voted nay and are hereby advised (let them tremble!) that I will be working to see them out of office:

Bayh (D-IN)
Conrad (D-ND)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Nelson (D-NE)

I knew that venal ratfucker Nelson would turn. In this Congress, he's voted more times with the Republican position than with his own party (I'll have more on that later).

Attention conservation notice: if you already know that the Graham amendment is vile and just want to get to the part where we'll pay, go here.

Further to this post, it appears that there's a compromise amendment on the table aimed at undercutting the Bingaman amendment:

A bipartisan group of senators reached a compromise Monday that would allow detainees at Guantanamo Bay to appeal the rulings of military tribunals to the federal courts.

Under the agreement, detainees who receive a punishment of 10 years in prison to death would receive an automatic appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Lesser sentences would not receive automatic review, but detainees still could petition the court to hear their cases.

In addition, the 500 or so detainees at the U.S. naval base in Cuba would be allowed to challenge in federal court the procedure under which they were labeled "enemy combatants."

This is bullshit. Quite apart from anything else, "only" ten years? Oy. But more to the point, habeas corpus is a Good Thing™ and there is no reason to suspend it for "enemy combatants" or anyone else. Digby's right, it's the "very foundation of our system of government and the single most important element of liberty". We do not want to (continue to?) be a country where people disappear. More from that WaPo article:

Graham said he opposed Bingaman's proposal because it did not correct "lawsuit abuse" by prisoners at Guantanamo, and, he said, it would continue to treat terrorism suspects as criminals by affording them the right to file habeas corpus petitions to fight their detentions in a U.S. court.

The Supreme Court gave that right to the 500 or so prisoners held at Guantanamo in 2004. Many of the prisoners were captured in Afghanistan and have been held at Guantanamo for several years without being charged.

Is this asshole trying to claim we can't afford to have 500 petitions heard in three years? Tell it to Adel, motherfucker.

The Center for Constitutional Rights has a debunking of seventeen myths and distortions about the Graham amendment; read it all, but here's a short version:

Myth: Everyone in Guantánamo Is a Terrorist
Fact: According to Military Officials, Most of the Prisoners in Guantánamo Are Innocent and Should Not Be Detained

Myth: Everyone in Guantánamo Was Captured on the Battlefield
Fact: The Prisoners in Guantánamo Include Many Civilians Who Were Seized All Over The World - Not Just From Afghanistan

Myth: The Rasul Decision Gives Terrorists the Right to Sue U.S. Soldiers in Federal Court
Fact: The Rasul Decision Simply Reaffirmed the Historical Right to Challenge Indefinite Detention

Myth: The Rasul Decision Gives Terrorists in Guantánamo More Rights than Those Held by U.S. Soldiers Captured By Our Enemies
Fact: U.S. Soldiers Imprisoned By Other Countries Cannot Be Detained Indefinitely and Must Be Given a Fair Hearing

Myth: U.S. Soldiers in U.S. Military Custody Do Not Have the Right to Habeas Review
Fact: U.S. Soldiers Have the Right to Habeas Review of Their Detention by the U.S. Military

Myth: The Habeas Petitions by Guantánamo Detainees Are Clogging Our Federal Court System Across The Country
Fact: The Habeas Petitions Are Coordinated in a Single Federal Court and Proceeding in an Orderly Fashion

Myth: Habeas Review Interferes with the Military's Intelligence Gathering
Fact: the Military is Not Receiving Any Meaningful Intelligence from the Men Imprisoned in Guantánamo

Myth: The Graham Amendment Preserves Meaningful Post-Conviction Review of Military Commission Prosecutions
Fact: The Graham Amendment Eliminates Post-Conviction Habeas Review for Military Commission Defendants, Even Those Sentenced to Death

Myth: CSRTs Provide Robust Due Process
Fact: The CSRTs Are Sham Proceedings That Fail to Provide Minimal Due Process Protections

Myth: CSRTs Are "Geneva Conventions on Steroids"
Fact: The CSRTs Are Kangaroo Courts That Denigrate Our Military Justice System

Myth: Court of Appeals Review of a CSRT Conclusion Provides Meaningful Due Process
Fact: Any Review of A Sham Proceeding Is Meaningless - The Underlying Hearing Must Provide Adequate Process

Myth: Terrorists in Guantánamo Are Being Held in Humane Conditions
Fact: Innocent Men Are Imprisoned Under Inhumane Conditions at Guantánamo

Myth: Meaningful Monitoring of Guantánamo Will Continue Without Habeas Review by Federal Courts
Fact: Without Judicial Review, Guantánamo Slips Back Into A Legal Black Hole And We Will Never Know Who The Prisoners Are and What Has Happened to Them

Myth: Eliminating Habeas Corpus Review Is Consistent With Our Legal Traditions and Values
Fact: The Graham Amendment Is a Radical Rejection of Our Anglo-American Legal Traditions Dating Back to the Magna Carta

Myth: Any Problems That May Have Occurred In the Past Will Be Solved By Future Annual Review Boards (ARBs)
Fact: The ARBs Serve a Different Purpose and Fail to Correct the Flaws in the Initial CSRT Record

Myth: The Graham Amendment Will Improve the CSRT Procedures
Fact: Congress Will Not Be Able to "Fix" The CSRTs Because the CSRTs Are Completed for Every Individual in Guantánamo

Myth: The Habeas Petitions Raise Frivolous Issues
Fact: The Habeas Petitions Raise Limited and Fundamental Challenges to Imprisonment

Speaking of short versions of things that should be tattooed onto Lindsey Graham's body, Hilzoy and Katherine have wrapped up their argument against the Graham amendment, and Norbizness has posted the Cliff's Notes.

I hope you're convinced, now, that this is important enough to warrant 60 seconds of your time. That's all it will take, because the spousal unit and I will pay for your call to your senators. Here's what you do:

1. find your senators' phone numbers: look here or here
2. call 1-800-323-6263 (for English) or 1-800-323-6269 (for Spanish)
3. the voice will ask for your PIN; dial 2785446232
4. the voice will ask you to dial the destination number; dial your senator and let him/her know you're watching, and you expect him/her to do the decent thing and support the Bingaman amendment.

There's enough on that card to pay for nearly 500 1-minute phone calls.

Please. Call now.

P.S. if you're worried about calling from work, you could use the method above on your break: use a cellphone, or duck out to a payphone, and remove all workplace/politics conflict. Just, whatever you do, call.

Via Atrios: Target is allowing their pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for Plan B emergency contraception. Not acceptable. John at AmericaBlog has the skinny.

The contact form for their pharmacy dept is here. I sent 'em this:

Dear Target:

your pharmacists do not have the right to refuse to fill Plan B prescriptions, under the CRA or any other law. Do your Jewish or Muslim cafeteria workers have the right to refuse to serve pork? Can your fundamentalist Christian employees refuse service to the glbt?

I will not spend a penny at Target until and unless this reprehensible policy changes.

Admittedly, I haven't set foot in a Target since I moved to the US, nor is there much chance of me doing so -- there simply aren't any convenient to me and I tend to avoid large multinationals on general principle. Now, however, if I happen to be by a Target and in the market for something they sell, I will go elsewhere. It's a teeny inconvenience, which makes my boycott letter a little disingenuous -- but I can live with that.

Via Majikthise: Chris of Creek Running North proposes December 01 2005 as the inaugural Blog Against Racism Day. Quoth Chris:

Discussion of racism is often shot down by the nervous – conservatives and liberals alike - as "playing the race card," a close semantic kin to the "PC" gambit often used to squelch criticism of offensive language in the public sphere. Odd, then that objecting to the term is itself a form of political correctness: "don't say racist! That's offensive!" The thing is, if we discuss racism as a systemic ill, as a function of misinformation and reversible prejudice, if we describe racism in terms of effects rather than intent, then we do a couple things. First, we grant the possibility of redemption, the possibility that people raised in a racist society – me, you, everyone I know – can root out those prejudices. Second, we grant our opponents the freedom to think whatever they like: it's the effects that count.

Society needs to have this discussion. But the responsibility for discussing racism has long been relegated to those people most directly affected by it. In other words, people who aren't white. Us white folks have the luxury of not thinking about racism on a daily basis. As a result, most of us don't. I think it would be helpful if we started to do our share of that particular chore.

Which is all a very long-winded way of declaring December 1, 2005 - the 50th anniversary of Rosa Parks' heroic act of civil disobedience on that Montgomery bus - "Blog Against Racism" day, in which people post something on the very broad and complex subject of racism. You don't need to have a political blog to participate. Race, after all, affects almost every aspect of life in one way or another. Your post might be literary in nature, or historical, or concern current issues in need of political attention. You might take the opportunity to debunk scientific racism, or write poetry or essays about personal experiences, uplifting or depressing.

With luck, the discussion engendered will endure past midnight on December 2.

I'm in, even if I do no more than collect links to better entries. If you're really unlucky, I'll get drunk and post about my redneck past. (And for the record, I think Chris is right -- the cartoon is racist -- but it's more subtle than KKK-style racism and an excellent illustration of the sort of conversations we need to have, and why we need to have them.)

The categories are all screwed up, the blogroll needs fixing (many good blogs not included simply because I cannot add them to my Bloglines feeds or I'd never do anything but read online), the bio needs updating (I have a new job, in cancer biology) and I want to add my del.icio.us links as a sidebar feed.

Resolved: must get to all that. Some time in next decade or so.

How do you live with this? You war-hawks, you keyboard commandos, you rightwing talkshow hosts, you wretched frightened little men with your senate amendments facilitating torture?

How do you live with this?

Because I haven't reveled in it, as you have; I haven't excused it, as you have; I haven't pretended it isn't happening or it isn't my fault, like you have; I've done my feeble best to stop it; -- and I don't know how much longer I can live with it.

Christ ha' mercy on us all. That's the first thing that came into my mind when I saw that photo, even though I don't believe.

----

Photograph of Manadel al-Jamadi's wife and son holding a picture of US Specialist Sabrina Harman bending over his body, smiling and giving the thumbs-up, from here, via Julia. Al-Jamadi was tortured to death by US forces in Abu Ghraib (I noted the depraved treatment afforded his body here).

Now comes Senator Lindsey Graham (R-Antenora) with an amendment to the 2006 National Defense Authorization Act designed to strip rights afforded by habeas corpus from detainees of the Secretary of Defense (military detainees, a term whose compass Bushco seeks to broaden to "anyone the President pleases to imprison"). And the Senate passed it, 49-42/9.

Obsidian Wings has an ongoing series of posts covering this; I linked the ninth, scroll to read the others.

Then please call or write or visit your senators; ask them to vote for the Bingaman Amendment, S. AMDT 2517 to bill S. 1042. Bingaman's amendment would delete the jurisdiction-stripping provision of Graham's amendment.

If I have to explain to you why Graham's amendment is vile or Bingaman's is vital to the character, security and moral standing of the US, you're probably a lost cause. If Bingaman's amendment fails, the whole damn country may be a lost cause.

Update: Ron Wyden's voicemail is full, but I'll keep calling tomorrow -- and you should, too.

Update update: I got through to a staffer who knew exactly what I wanted as soon as he heard "Bingaman". I should've asked how many calls they've had, but I didn't want to waste the guy's time.

Also, you can read the Graham amendment here; I'll add the Bingaman text when I find an online copy.

One more update: Lindsay has a roundup of informative links on the Graham and Bingaman amendments here.

Did you call? The vote's today Tuesday morning.

Today I put aside my troubles and remember the many dead of both World Wars -- indeed, of all wars -- for their sacrifice.

Lest we forget.

Anthem for Doomed Youth

What passing-bells for these who die as cattle?
   Only the monstrous anger of the guns.
   Only the stuttering rifles' rapid rattle
Can patter out their hasty orisons.
No mockeries for them; no prayers nor bells,
Nor any voice of mourning save the choirs, --
The shrill, demented choirs of wailing shells;
And bugles calling for them from sad shires.

What candles may be held to speed them all?
   Not in the hands of boys, but in their eyes
Shall shine the holy glimmers of goodbyes.
   The pallor of girls' brows shall be their pall;
Their flowers the tenderness of patient minds,
And each slow dusk a drawing-down of blinds.

-- Wilfred Owen

2004 entry.

You may never have heard of Jimmy Massey; I hadn't, until today. He's an Iraq War vet with severe PTSD who's been telling anyone who'll listen that civilians are being killed nineteen-to-the-dozen over there. He's published a book you can't buy in the US because, apparently, all of our publishers are chickenshit; it's called Kill Kill Kill and -- that popping sound is wingut heads exploding -- it was published in France. (You can, however, buy a couple of DVDs of Jimmy talking about his experiences and the military here.)

How did I come to hear of Jimmy Massey? A few days ago, the St Louis Post-Dispatch published a hit piece by Ron Harris claiming that Jimmy was lying; Charles points out that you'll be hearing "Jimmy Lied!" a lot in certain circles over the next little while, as though it invalidated the entire case against the war, and Nathan talks sense about why it doesn't.

As it turns out, Jimmy isn't lying: Ron Harris is a sleazy hack who never lets the facts get in the way of sensational copy. In the linked article, Stan Goff makes a detailed case that Harris has propagated a smear, false in all particulars, probably because Massey caught him out in a lie last September.

So consider this post a gift from me to that special rightwing nutjob in your life. When they start crowing about Jimmy's lies, send 'em here (or rather, to Stan).

Fuuuuuuuuuuck. Phosphorus bombs, crucifixion, extraordinary rendition (aka torture outsourcing), our very own gulag archipelago and an administration trying desperately to give itself the unassailable legal right to continue what its lying asshole figurehead says "we" don't do.

Fuuuuuuuuuck.

The idea that a woman should not be legally required to (that is, liable to criminal prosecution if she doesn't) tell her husband if she has an abortion is being spun as "pro-wife extremism". I shit you not.

Lemme tell ya, these pro-wife extremists are a danger to America. They've destroyed a husband's right to beat 'em, don't consider 'em a man's property, and won't let the law tell 'em what to do with their own bodies. What next, equality or some shit?

Oy.

(For the sarcasm-impaired: I am a pro-wife extremist. My wife's body is her own, and if I cannot establish a mature and trusting relationship with her, in which she feels safe involving me in medical decisions, that's my problem and I shouldn't go whining to Johnny Law to step in and solve it. Grow a pair, you foetus-worshipping feebs.)

Teenagers like sex; that right there is a basic, ineluctable fact of human nature. They like it the way they like, you know, breathing, and telling them it's bad and dirty won't help anything. Threatening them with lakes of fire and disapproval and excommunication might make them feel bad, and if you're a certain kind of grubby Christianist¹ moralizer that might make you feel good, but it won't stop the teenagers from making like the sex-crazed monkeys they are, every chance they get.

So you don't have to agree with me that sex is good and fun and wholesome, and teenagers (and adults and pensioners and dogs and chickens, though not all in the same bed) should get as much of it as they want, to agree with me that abstinence-only sex "education" is a worthless crock of shit. Rep. Henry Waxman recently commissioned an investigation which found that

...over 80% of the abstinence-only curricula, used by over two-thirds of SPRANS (Special Programs of Regional and National Significance Community-Based Abstinence Education) grantees in 2003, contain false, misleading, or distorted information about reproductive health.

Today NARAL sent me email about an amendment put forward by Sen Frank Lautenberg that ensures that "federally funded "abstinence-only" programs teach only medically accurate information". It's S. Amdt. 2269 but you can't read it on Thomas for a day or so (printing delay or some such). I do want to read it, because there are plenty of ways to weasel out of a commitment to "medically accurate information", but it's a start. NARAL has made it easy for you to send a letter to your representatives in support of Sen Lautenberg's amendment. Here's mine:

Abstinence-only programs will receive $168 million in federal funding this year. This is an unconscionable waste of taxpayer dollars.

Quite apart from scientific inaccuracies, factual errors (or, you know, lies) and rampant misogynism, it is plain that abstinence-only advice is utterly ineffective.

Teenagers are going to get busy; you know it, I know it, the kids know it. Only a narrow-minded, repressed, moralistic right-wing fringe lunatic who prefers rising rates of teenage pregnancy and STD to admitting this basic fact of human nature, would deny the kids the information they need to stay safe and healthy.

It's critical that you join with your colleagues to review and correct these programs. Please contact Rep. Inslee or Rep. Crowley to join their efforts.

----
¹By analogy with "Islamist", and distinct from anything that might properly be called "Christian".

Picture from WaPo via Atrios. My original caption was unsubtle and vaguely sexist, so I stole a better one from commenter "The Fool" in Atrios' thread.

P.S. as Atrios says, reward good behaviour: if you have a few dollars to spare, send 'em to the Senator.

I'm swiping this transcript from For The Record, just because I want it on my site. Em nau.¹

----

Mr. Reid:

Thank you very much, Mr. President. Just a couple of days ago, my son Lief called me and indicated that his lovely wife Amber was going to have another baby. That will be my --? our 16th grandchild. Mr. President, I have thought about that, and I have to say that I've been in public service a long time.

Never have I been so concerned about our country. We have gas prices that are really unbelievable. This year they've been over $3 in the state of Nevada. Diesel fuel is still over $3 a gallon in Nevada. The majority leader of the House of Representatives is under indictment. The man in charge of contracting for the federal government under indictment.

Deficits, Mr. President, so far you can't see them. The deficits have been basically run up by President Bush's Administration these last five years. We're the wealthiest nation in the world but we are very poor as it relates to health care. We have an intractable war in Iraq. Is it any wonder that I'm concerned about my family, my grandchildren

This past weekend, we witnessed the indictment of L. Lewis Libby, the Vice President's chief of staff, also on the President's staff, a senior advisor to the President. Mr. Libby is the first sitting white House staffer to be indicted in 135 years. Is it any wonder, Mr. President, that i'm concerned about my grandchildren?

This indictment raises very serious charges. It asserts this Administration engaged in actions that both harmed our national security and were morally repugnant. The decision made to place united states soldiers, our military into harm's way I believe is the most significant responsibility the constitution vests in the Congress and in the President. The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really all about, how this Administration manufactured and manipulated Intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions.

Mr. President, these are not just words from Harry Reid. Larry Wilkerson, Colonel Larry Wilkerson, Colin Powell's former chief of staff -- Colin Powell, of course, was Secretary of State. This man was his chief of staff for four years. Here's what he said about the war in Iraq.

"In President Bush's first term, some of the most important decisions about U.S. National security, including vital decisions about post-war Iraq, were made by a secretive, little-known cabal, was made up of a very small group of people led by Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. But the secret process was ultimately a failure. It produced a series of disastrous decisions."

That's what I'm here to talk about today, Mr. President. As a result of its improper conduct, a cloud now hangs over this Administration. This cloud is further darkened by the Administration's mistakes in prisoner abuse, hurricane Katrina, and the cronyism and corruption in numerous agencies throughout this Administration.

And unfortunately, it must be that said a cloud also hangs over this Republican-controlled Congress for its unwillingness to hold this Republican Administration accountable for its misdeeds on these issues. During the time that we had a Democratic President, eight years, and when the Democrats were in charge of the Committees, we were in the majority, oversight hearings were held covering the gamut of what went on in this Administration -- that Administration. Today there is not an oversight hearing held on anything.

Let's take a look at back how we got here with respect to Iraq. The record will show that within hours of the terrorist acts of 9/11, senior officials in this Administration recognized those attacks could be used as a pretext to invade Iraq. The record will also show that in the months and years after 9/11, the Administration engaged in a pattern of manipulation of the facts and retribution against anyone who got in its way as it made its case for attacking, for invading Iraq.

There are numerous examples of how the Administration misstated and manipulated the facts as it made the case for war. The Administration’s statements on Saddam's alleged nuclear weapons capabilities and ties with Al Qaeda represent the best examples how it consistently and repeatedly manipulated the facts. The America people were warned time and time again by the President, the Vice President, the current Secretary of State and their other capacities about Saddam's nuclear weapons capabilities. The Vice President said -- and I quote --

"Iraq has reconstituted its nuclear programs,"

Playing upon the fears of Americas after September 11, these officials and others raised the specter that left unchecked, Saddam could soon attack America with nuclear weapons.

Obviously we know now that their nuclear claims were wholly inaccurate. But more troubling is the fact that a lot of Intelligence experts were telling the Administration then that its claims about Saddam's nuclear capabilities were false. The situation is very similar with respect to Saddam's links to Al Qaeda. The Vice President told the America people -- I quote again –

"...we know he's out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the al qaeda organization."

These assertions have been totally discredited, not a little bit, totally discredited. But again, the Administration went ahead with these assertions in spite of the fact that the government's top experts did not agree with these claims.

Again, Wilkerson is a person in point. What has been the response of this Republican-controlled Congress to the Administration's manipulation of Intelligence that led to this protracted war in Iraq nothing. Did the Republican-controlled Congress carry out its constitutional obligations to conduct oversight no. Did it support our troops and their families by providing them the answers to many important questions No. Did it even attempt to force this Administration to answer the most basic questions about its behavior? No.

Unfortunately, the unwillingness of the Republican-controlled Congress to exercise its oversight responsibilities is not is not limited to just Iraq. We see it with respect to the prison abuse scandal. We see it with respect to Katrina, and we see it with respect to the cronyism and corruption that permeates this Administration.

Time and time again, this Republican-controlled Congress has consistently chosen to put its political interests ahead of our national security. They have repeatedly chosen to protect the Republican Administration rather than to get to the bottom of what happened and why it happened.

There's also another disturbing pattern, namely, about how this Administration responded to those who challenged its assertions. Often this Administration has actively sought to attack and undercut those who dared to raise questions about its preferred course. For example, when General Shinseki indicated several hundred thousand troops would be needed in Iraq, his military career was ended -- fired, relieved of duty when he out its inspectors.

When Nobel prize winner and head of the IAEA raised questions about the Administration's claims of Saddam's nuclear capabilities, the Administration attempted to remove him from his post.

When ambassador Joe Wilson stated that there was an attempt by Saddam -- no attempt by Saddam to acquire weapons from Niger, the Administration not only went after him to discredit him, they launched a vicious and coordinated campaign, going so far as to expose the fact that his wife worked as a C.I.A. spy.
These people are now having 24-hour protection fearing for their own safety.

Given this Administration's pattern of squashing those who challenge its misstatements, and I've only mentioned a few, what has been the response of the Republican-controlled Congress?

Absolutely nothing. And where with their inactions they provide political cover for this Administration at the same time they keep the truth from our troops who continue to make large sacrifices in Iraq. Now everyone may think that the troops in Iraq are 100% Republican.

I've made a friend. He's a Marine. He was over in Iraq when the elections were held ten months ago. He said where he was and he never even went to the bathroom without a rifle, wherever he was in his duty all over this area, he said he couldn't find anyone that was happy with the way the elections turned out.

They, the Republicans, do anything they can to keep the truth from people like my Marine friend. This behavior -- I would give you his name -- this behavior is unacceptable. The toll in Iraq is as staggering as it is solemn. More than 2,000 -- 2,025 now -- Americans have lost their lives. Over 90 Americans have paid the ultimate sacrifice in the month of October alone, the fourth deadliest month in this going-on-three-year war. More than 15,000 have been wounded. More than 150,000 remain over there in harm's way. Enormous sacrifices have been made and continue to be made.

Mr. President, we've had soldiers and Marines from Nevada killed, from Eli, from Las Vegas, from Henderson, from Boulder City, from Tonapaw. Every time one of these deaths occur, it's a dagger in the heart of that community. This behavior is unacceptable.

I'm a patient man, Mr. President. I'm a legislator and I know things don't happen over night. I'm a patient man but the call from my son has put this in perspective. I'm worried about my family. The toll in Iraq is as staggering as, I repeat, it is solemn.

The troops have a right to expect answers and accountability worthy of that sacrifice. For example, more than 40 Democrats wrote a substantive and detailed letter to the President canning -- asking four basic questions about this Administration's Iraq policy, and we received, Mr. President, -- we received a four-sentence fence that is response:

"Thank you for your letter to the President expressing your concerns with Iraq. I've shared your letter with the appropriate Administration officials."

--Remember we wrote it to the President --
"and agencies responsible in this area. Please be assured your letter is receiving the attention it deserves. Thank you for your compliments, Candy Wolf."

That's the letter the Senators of the United States wrote to the President of the its body and we get a letter from Candy Wolf saying,

“Thanks, we're working on it.”

America deserves better than this. They also deserve a searching and comprehensive investigation into how the Bush Administration brought this country to war.

Key questions that need to be answered include:

~~How did the Bush Administration assemble its case for war against Iraq? We heard what Colonel Wilkerson said.

~~Who did the Bush Administration officials listen to and ignore?
How did the senior Bush Administration officials manipulate or manufacture Intelligence presented to the Congress or the American people?

~~What was the role of the White House Iraq Group, a group of senior White House officials, tasked with marketing the war and taking down its critics? We know what Colonel Wilkerson says.

~~How did the Administration coordinate its efforts to attack individuals who dared to challenge the Administration's assertions? We know what happened to them. I listed a few.

~~Why has this Administration failed to provide Congress with the documents that would shed light on their misconduct and the misstatements?

Unfortunately, the Senate Committee that should be taking the lead in providing these answers is not.

Despite the fact that the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee publicly committed to examine these questions more than a year and a half ago, he has chosen not to keep that commitment.

Despite the fact that he's restated the commitment earlier this year on national television, he has still done nothing except assemble a few quotes from Democratic and Republican Senators going back to the first Iraq war.

We need a thorough investigation that that Committee is capable and tasked to do. At this point, we can only conclude he will continue to put politics ahead of our national security. If he does anything at this point, I suspect it will be playing political games by producing an analysis that files any of these important questions.

Instead, if history is any guide, this analysis will attempt to disperse and deflect blame away from this Administration. Key facts about the Intelligence --

a Senator: Would the Senator yield for a question.

Mr. Reid:

Key facts

June 4, 2003, Intelligence Committee commits to bipartisan review of the deeply flawed Intelligence in Iraq's w.m.d.
Phase one.

February 12, 2004, Intelligence Committee commits to Phase 2, an investigation looking at five areas including whether the Administration exaggerate and manipulated [unintelligible].

July 9, 2004, Committee publishes phase one report on the Intelligence agencies mistakes on Iraq. Senator Rockefeller says publicly that phase two is as yet unbegun. Republican Chairman Roberts says it is one of my top priorities.

July 11 on Meet the Press, Republican Chairman Roberts says, “Even as I'm speaking our staff is working on phase two and we'll get it done.”

Fall of 2004, House Intelligence Committee, after no follow through on the Iraq w.m.d. Investigation, the House announced on May 2003, “No final report.”

Republican Committee Chairman Peter Goss is selected to C.I.A. Director. Regarding the question of vetting the Valerie Plame leak, Goss said,

“Show me a blue dress and some DNA and I'll give you an investigation.”

End of quote.

November, 2004, we had the Presidential election.

March 2005, President's hand-picked w.m.d. Intelligence Committee says the Intelligence agencies got the Intelligence dead wrong, but says that under the President's terms of reference we are not authorized to investigate how policy-makers used the Intelligence assessments they received from the Intelligence community.

March 31, 2005, Senator Roberts says it would be monumental waste of time to replow this ground any further replow
April 10, 2005, "Meet the Press" Senator Roberts commits to Tim Russert that the review will get done.

September 2005, Committee Democrats file additional views to their authorization bill blasting the Committee for failing to conduct phase two. There have been letters written to the Committee, a press release was issued even saying that they were going to go forward with this. Mr. President, enough Time has gone by. I demand on behalf of the America people that we understand why these investigations aren't being conducted, and in accordance with rule 21, i now move that senate go into closed session.

Mr. Durbin: Mr. President, I second the motion.

The presiding officer: The motion has been made to closed session. The chair pursuant to rule 21 directs the sergeant at arms to clear all galleries, clear all doors of the Senate Chamber and exclude from the chamber and its immediate corridors all employees and officials of this senate who under the rule are not eligible to attend the closed session and are not sworn to secrecy. The question is nondebatable.

----
¹This Tok Pisin expression (a carryover from my childhood in New Guinea; pronounced "im now") doesn't have a satisfactory translation in English; it's approval and satisfaction and affirmation and more. In this context it's something like "aaaaaaah! that's the stuff!", and something like "well done!", and something like "now you've got it", and not quite like any of those. A cold beer after a day's hard work is em nau. A proud parent viewing a good report card might say em nau. I once saw an ocean going yacht, a yearned-for retirement home, named the Em Nau.