This is it, folks. Time to find out whether the US is going to be a fascist shithole for the next 50 years, or start to claw its way out of the pit of horrors that BushCo has dug for us. Election time.

You don't need me to tell you how to vote, or why. If you vote for a Republican, any Republican, even one of the few remaining decent ones, in this election, then you are a moral midget and an idiot and I hope you get chiggers. Genital chiggers.

That said, there is something I would like to suggest. Lindsay Beyerstein is blogging the Jim Webb/George Allen race live from Virginia, and could use a few clams to defray expenses (like, you know, food). Trust me, she's earning it:

This rally was the most exhausting photo assignment I've ever done. The cab got lost, so I ended up being on time instead of early. So there was literally no room on the riser. The place was so packed that if I didn't make it onto that riser, I wasn't even going to see the stage, much less photograph it. So, I took up a place on the stairs, but the media people just started yelling, "Hey, you, get off the stairs!" (I had credentials, they just had a rule about people being on the stairs of the rise.) There was nowhere else to go, so I had to force my way onto the platform with all the big TV cameras. This was a small platform about fifteen feet off the ground and nobody was giving an inch.

I had to put my gear down, but there was only about three inches between my bag and the back edge of the platform.

Then my camera battery cut out for no reason. I had a backup charged and ready to go, but when I say there was no room, there was literally none. I couldn't reach over to grab the battery out of my bag. Local TV news cameramen were screaming at me--Not at the white guys in suits who were pushing me, or ordering me to move over so they could stand in the non-existent empty space on my right, though. ("Let me just squeeze past you, hon...")

Luckily, I had a backup camera. Unfortunately, there was no room to change the lens, either.

I shot the whole thing standing on one foot because I couldn't figure out where to put the other one without knocking my bag off the podium or incurring the very vocal wrath of Mr. Local News.

I've previously suggested supporting Glenn Greenwald, and now I suggest sending your spare change (or more!) Lindsay's way for the same reasons. The web, by way of truly professional-class writers and reporters like Glenn and Lindsay, is very likely our Last Best Hope for an effective media, transparency in government, community involvement in a real representative democracy, and all those good things. Schlubs like me won't do it -- I have a day job. What we need, and I mean need, is people like Lindsay who can deliver professional independent journalism. The web makes this possible, but it won't work in practice unless we who value it are willing to pay for it.

Holding your nose and voting Democrat in this election is essential, but it's emergency care -- a stopgap, treating the symptoms but not the underlying causes. Lindsay is right there with the bandages and the cardio paddles, but she and other independent reporters like her are -- if we pony up! -- also going to be around in the long term, treating the disease, actually curing what ails the Republic.

So if you don't have extra, spend what you can to get rid of BushCo. If you do have extra, now or at any later time, consider supporting online independent journalism so that We-The-People, by way of people like Lindsay, can hold the bastards' feet to the fire.

(Update: The picture is, of course, one of Lindsay's.)

In lieu of real content, a pointer to excellent things you'd already know about if you were sensible and had picked up my blogroll.

As if directorship of the North Country Academy for the Excruciatingly Fine Arts were not enough, Rob Helpy-Chalk has been on fire lately. Here's a backgrounder on the Military Commissions Act (aka the We'll Torture Anyone We Damn Well Please" Act), followed up with lists of the traitorous swine who voted for it (so you can avoid voting for them) and two posts on absentee voting throughout the country (viz, how to vote the way you want to, instead of the way Diebold wants you to). Here's another backgrounder, this time on torture methods interrogation techniques, with a particular focus on waterboarding, the adoption of which technique our honorable, humanitarian Puppeteer-in-Chief Vice President calls a "no brainer".

All of this is part of Rob's activities with Save Our Constitution, an SLU campus organization devoted to pushing back against the Bush Junta's efforts to gut the US Constitution, the model and gold standard for representative democracy everywhere and one of the principal reasons I still intend to become a US citizen. Next week they are sponsoring a "teach-in", a four-hour seminar on The Constitution, Human Rights, and the War on Terrorism:

Schedule of Events

Welcome Remarks
Noon: Natalia Singer (Department of English)

The Military Commissions Act
12:10: Eve Stoddard (Department of Global Studies)

12:25 - 1:10 -- Panel 1 -- Erosion of the Constitution, Moderator: Eve Stoddard

1:15 - 2:15 -- Panel 2 -- Torture and International Law, Moderator: Rob Loftis

2:20 - 3:15 -- Panel 3 -- Language, Rhetoric, Politics of Fear, Moderator: Gus diZerega

3:20 - 4:00 -- Wrap-up -- What You Can Do, Moderators: Natalia Singer and Jon Cardinal

Damn, people, this is what universities are for! This is what "public intellectual" means -- or should mean.

Further to the petition and boycott pledge I linked a while back, Tom Stafford has put together an open letter to Reed Elsevier that you can sign if you are an academic or researcher. Tom writes:

The letter will be sent to the Times Higher Education Supplement, a leading UK academics' weekly, with potential for other national and international coverage. This will be the next in what has now become a series of open letters from professional users of Reed products. Previous letters have been signed by medics (in The Lancet) and high-profile writers (in the Times Literary Supplement), and both have received considerable, and worldwide, media attention.

Here's the text of the letter (also available as a pdf here):

Mr Jan Hommen
Reed Elsevier PLC
1-3 Strand
London
WC2N 5JR

xx October 2006

Dear Mr Hommen

ARMS FAIRS AND ACADEMICS

We are an international group of academics who are extremely concerned
about Reed Elsevier's involvement in organising major arms fairs in the
UK and around the world.

We rely on our academic work to be disseminated chiefly by means of
books and peer-reviewed articles, a significant share of these via Reed
Elsevier publications. Being both contributors and (unpaid) referees,
and readers of Reed Elsevier journals makes us stakeholders in the Reed
Elsevier business.

On its website, your company states that it is "committed to making
genuine contributions to the science and health communities" and that it
is "proud to be part of [these] communities". Conversely, we are not
proud to be associated with Reed Elsevier as we feel your statements are
undermined by the conflict between your arms fair activities and our own
ethical stance. Arms fairs, marketing the tools of violence, are a major
link in the chain of the global arms trade which proliferates arms
around the world and fuels a cycle of human, scientific, economic and
cultural destruction.

This is entirely at odds with the ethical and social obligations we have
to promote the beneficial applications of our work and prevent their
misuse, to anticipate and evaluate the possible unintended consequences
of scientific and technological developments, and to consider at all
times the moral responsibility we carry for our work.

We call on Reed Elsevier to cease all involvement in arms fairs since it
is not compatible with the aims of many of your stakeholders.

Yours sincerely

[Signatories]

If you want to sign it, send email to tDOTstaffordATsheffieldDOTacDOTuk with "open letter to Reed Elsevier" in the subject line and a brief note including your full academic title, name, discipline and institution (or former institution if retired). The petition is ongoing, so also please sign that if you haven't already. As I write there are 357 signatories; if you're reading this you will probably recognize #19, 32, 55 and 90 (I'm #28).

I know that, after the umpteenth petition or letter or fundraiser or whatever, outrage fatigue starts to set in; and I know that, as world affairs go, there are more important issues than scumbags Reed Elsevier branching out into arms dealing. But -- and here I'm speaking to my colleagues: researchers, teachers and academics the world over -- this is our issue. It's in our professional backyard; we own a chunk of it. Not only is a major academic publishing house part of our community, or at least of its infrastructure (whether we like it or not), but as the primary consumers of their primary products and services we have an unusual degree of leverage in this situation. Reed Elsevier is a business: if enough of their customers sign Tom's letter and petition (and Nick's boycott), they will get out of the arms trade.

I'd vote for him. Highlights from his platform:

End the current superstitious rituals at airport security that any fifteen year old could figure out how to get around. Instead, require every passenger to rub a lucky rabbit foot.

Put the "pro-life" back into "nuclear non-proliferation" by unilaterally scrapping all of our nuclear weapons.

New high priority task for the Army Corps of Engineers: Build drive-in movies. Everyone loves drive-ins.

New policy about gays in the military: "Don't Ask, Don't Care. Be Fabulous."

Tough new copyright law provides works with a full fifteen years of protection...one more than our Founding Parental Units intended.

Government offices will use open source software unless they're being punished.

I'm tired of tough justice. Let's get some tender-hearted judges on the bench.

Since we're not trying to turn out standard kids, why do we educate them to pass standardized tests? New option: To get a high school diploma, either pass a standardized test or be a wiseass in public.

I'd be wrong in public. A lot. I'm good at that!

Any senior government official who does not blog has "[bureaucrat]" appended to her title.

Secretary of the Internet becomes the first wiki-based cabinet post.

I will never ever clear brush on vacation.

David is, of course, kidding around -- but many a true word, etc.

Update: oh, nooooo!

I don't want to, but I have to, at least a little; the US political situation is intolerable. Here are some photos from today's World Can't Wait rally in Portland. The organization was poor and the pre-event publicity worse, but they still got around 1000 people (my estimate; the local idiots claim 400 and the WaPo estimate is 800).

Wherever you live, I hope there was a rally and I hope you were in it.

I don't know what my tens of readers can do that Nature's millions (?) of readers can't, but Declan and everybody else is right -- we have to try.

Briefly: five nurses and a physician are in danger of being executed by Libya for deliberately infecting children with HIV while working at al-Fateh Hospital in Benghazi in 1998. The court rejected an investigation by Luc Montagnier and Vittorio Colizzi (full report here, pdf) which found that the infections were in fact caused by poor hospital practices. The science is being ignored in favour of the political expediency of blaming some foreigners for an internal problem (the nurses are Bulgarian, the doctor Pakistani). The Libyans are not the only parties guilty of racism here: can you imagine the outcry if the nurses were, say, British and the doctor American?

This is utterly unacceptable to law, science and common decency. Please do what you can. I've swiped the contact information below from Mike; in addition to letters/faxes/phone calls to the people he suggests, consider supporting Advocats Sans Frontieres and, if you have a blog, writing about the case (as Bora suggests, make sure you have the words "Tripoli Six" in your entry so that Google/Technorati etc will pick it up).

People to contact:

1: Libya. This is probably going to be the least
effective, but it's still worth a try - and you never know, it might
just work. The Libyans have invested a huge amount of effort in trying
to regain international respect, so there's at least a small chance
that they might be responsive.

Mail:
I'd suggest mailing letters to a Libyan embassy. For Americans, the best choice would be the Libyan UN Mission.
Mission of Libya to the United Nations
309 - 315 East 48th Street,
New York, NY 10017

Phone:
The phone number for the UN mission is: (212) 752-5775

Email: The Center for Nursing Advocacy has an online form and form letter. The email address that they are using is: libya@un.int I have not used that address myself, and cannot vouch for whether or not it works.

2: Your own Congresscritters.
Get in touch with your own representatives. Feel free to remind them that you vote in their districts (if this is true.) Contact them even if their political views are totally opposed to your own, and particularly if they also sit on a key committee.

As long as you know your zip code, this website will quickly provide you with the contact information for your representatives.

3: Key congressional committees.

Contact the majority and minority leaders of the House Committee on
International Relations and the Senate Foreign Relations Committees.

Senate:
Committee Chair: Richard Lugar
Ranking Member: Joseph Biden

Mailing Address:
U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
Dirksen Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510-6225

Majority Phone: (202) 224-4651
Minority Phone: (202) 224-3953

House:
Chair: Henry Hyde
Ranking Member: Tom Lantos

Mailing Address:

House Committee on International Relations

2170 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20515

Other contacts:
Phone: (202) 225-5021
Fax: (202) 225-2035
E-Mail: HIRC@mail.house.gov

4: Executive Branch Officials.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice

U.S. Department of State

2201 C Street NW

Washington, DC 20520

Main Switchboard:
202-647-4000

President George Bush
The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20500

Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
FAX: 202-456-2461
comments@whitehouse.gov

*rolls eyes*.

On the 50th anniversary of our national motto, "In God We Trust," we reflect on these words that guide millions of Americans, recognize the blessings of the Creator, and offer our thanks for His great gift of liberty.

From its earliest days, the United States has been a Nation of faith. During the War of 1812, as the morning light revealed that the battle torn American flag still flew above Fort McHenry, Francis Scott Key penned, "And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust!'" His poem became our National Anthem, reminding generations of Americans to "Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation." On July 30, 1956, President Dwight Eisenhower signed the law officially establishing "In God We Trust" as our national motto.

Today, our country stands strong as a beacon of religious freedom. Our citizens, whatever their faith or background, worship freely and millions answer the universal call to love their neighbor and serve a cause greater than self.

As we commemorate the 50th anniversary of our national motto and remember with thanksgiving God's mercies throughout our history, we recognize a divine plan that stands above all human plans and continue to seek His will.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim July 30, 2006, as the 50th Anniversary of our National Motto, "In God We Trust." I call upon the people of the United States to observe this day with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities.

I have just one question: which God, asshole?

Twenty-five. Twenty-five senators with something resembling principles. That's all we got.

Fortunately, we also have Digby. I mean it, if you're down about the Alito debacle (which is to say: if you live in the US, were paying any kind of attention and are not dead from the neck up), go read this post. It'll help.

Update: MoveOn has a handy letter you can send to the twenty-five (not twenty, as I originally wrote!) senators who stood up. It's as important to encourage congresscritters when they do the right thing as it is to excoriate them when they don't, so please take a moment and send a note of thanks.

I was all set to work my way through news, press releases, blogs and so on in order to find where the crucial votes lay on the Alito/filibuster issue -- but Bob Fertik has already done the legwork.

Here's an even briefer version of Bob's post: call THESE senators (the post below contains instructions for doing so for free):

Democrats who will vote for Alito (i.e., traitors):

• Ben Nelson (D-NE) 202-224-6551, fax: (202) 228-0012
  
• Tim Johnson (D- SD) , 202-224-5842, fax: (202) 228-5765
  
• Robert Byrd (D- WV) , 202-224-3954, fax: (202) 228-0002

Democrats who won't vote for Alito but won't support the filibuster:

• Mark Pryor (D- AR), 202-224-2353
  
• Ken Salazar (D- CO) , 202-224-5852
  
• Kent Conrad (D- ND), 202-224-2043
  
• Bill Nelson (D- FL), 202-224-5274
  
• Daniel K. Akaka (D- HI), 202-224-6361
  
• Mary Landrieu (D- LA), 202-224-5824
  
• Byron L. Dorgan (D- ND) 202-224-2551

Democrats who won't vote for Alito but are undecided about the filibuster:

• Joseph Biden, Jr. (D- DE) , 202-224-5042 (will vote for filibuster but only once)
  
• Blanche Lambert Lincoln (D- AR), 202-224-4843
  
• Joseph Lieberman (D- CT), 202-224-4041
  
• Thomas Carper (D- DE), 202-224-2441
  
• Daniel Inouye (D- HI), 202-224-3934
  
• Tom Harkin (D- IA), 202-224-3254
  
• Evan Bayh (D- IN), 202-224-5623
  
• Barbara Mikulski (D- MD), 202-224-4654
  
• Carl Levin (D- MI), 202-224-6221
  
• Mark Dayton (D- MN), 202-224-3244
  
• Max Baucus (D- MT), 202-224-2651
  
• Frank Lautenberg (D- NJ), 202-224-3224
  
• Robert Menendez (D- NJ), 202-224-4744
  
• Jeff Bingaman (D- NM), 202-224-5521
  
• Jack Reed (D- RI), 202-224-4642
  
• Patrick Leahy (D- VT), 202-224-4242
  
• Maria Cantwell (D- WA), 202-224-3441
  
• Patty Murray (D- WA), 202-224-2621
  
• Herb Kohl (D- WI), 202-224-5653
  
• John Rockefeller, IV (D- WV), 202-224-6472

Republicans who might do the right thing:

• Lincoln Chafee (R- RI), 202-224-2921
  
• Olympia Snowe (R- ME), 202-224-5344
  
• Susan Collins (R-ME), 202-224-2523
  

If your State Senator is not on that list, call them anyway -- calls from a constituent always carry more weight. If any of the above are your representatives, consider also calling their local offices (Bob's post has the contact details). It's also worth a call to those Dems who are going to support the filibuster, to thank them:

• Barbara Boxer (D- CA) , 202-224-3553
  
• Dianne Feinstein (D- CA) , 202-224-3841 (1,)
  
• Christopher Dodd (D- CT), 202-224-2823 (1,)
  
• Richard Durbin (D- IL) , 202-224-2152
  
• Barack Obama (D- IL), 202-224-2854, fax: (202) 228-4260
  
• John Kerry (D- MA) , 202-224-2742
  
• Edward Kennedy (D- MA) , 202-224-4543
  
• Paul Sarbanes (D- MD), 202-224-4524
  
• Debbie Stabenow (D- MI) , 202-224-4822
  
• Harry Reid (D- NV) , 202-224-3542
  
• Hillary Rodham Clinton (D- NY) , 202-224-4451
  
• Charles Schumer (D- NY) , 202-224-6542
  
• Ron Wyden (D- OR) , 202-224-5244
  
• Russell Feingold (D- WI) , 202-224-5323
  

Call your Senators, and then no matter where you live call Ben Nelson (who has said he will vote for Alito): if confirmed to the Supreme Court, Alito will be a disaster for progressive politics in this country for the next four or five decades.

Here's how to do your part in the last-ditch effort to prevent this disaster (the spousal unit and I will pay for the call):

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 vote against Samuel Alito's nomination.

5. call Ben Nelson on 202-224-6551 (Washington) and let him know that if he votes for Alito he will betray his party and his country.

For those who haven't been paying attention, here's Barbara Boxer to explain:

... after reviewing the hearing record and the record of his statements, writings and rulings over the past 24 years, I am convinced that Judge Alito is the wrong person for this job.

I am deeply concerned about how Justice Alito will impact the ability of other families to live the American dream -- to be assured of privacy in their homes and their personal lives, to be secure in their neighborhoods, to have fair treatment in the workplace, and to have confidence that the power of the executive branch will be checked.

As I reviewed Judge Alito's record, I asked whether he will vote to preserve fundamental American liberties and values --

Will Justice Alito vote to uphold Congress' constitutional power to pass laws to protect Americans' health, safety, and welfare? Judge Alito's record says NO.

In the 1996 Rybar case, Judge Alito voted to strike down the federal ban on the transfer or possession of machine guns because he believed it exceeded Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. His Third Circuit colleagues sharply criticized his dissent and said that it ran counter to "a basic tenet of the constitutional separation of powers." And Judge Alito's extremist view has been rejected by six other circuit courts and the Supreme Court. Judge Alito stood alone and failed to protect our families.

In a case concerning worker protection, Judge Alito was again in the minority when he said that federal mine health and safety standards did not apply to a coal processing site. He tried to explain it as just a "technical issue of interpretation." I fear for the safety of our workers if Judge Alito's narrow, technical reading of the law should ever prevail.

Will Justice Alito vote to protect the right to privacy, especially a woman's reproductive freedom? Judge Alito's record says NO.

We have all heard about Judge Alito's 1985 job application, in which he wrote that the constitution does not protect the right of a woman to choose. He was given the chance to disavow that position during the hearings -- and he refused to do so. He had the chance to say, as Judge Roberts did, that Roe v. Wade is settled law, and he refused.

He had the chance to explain his dissent in the Casey decision, in which he argued that the Pennsylvania spousal notification requirement was not an undue burden on a woman seeking an abortion because it would affect only a small number of women, but he refused to back away from his position. The Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, found the provision to be unconstitutional, and Justice O'Connor, co-writing for the Court, criticized the faulty analysis supported by Judge Alito, saying that "the analysis does not end with the one percent of women" affected... "it begins there."

To my mind, Judge Alito's ominous statements and narrow-minded reasoning clearly signal a hostility to women's rights, and portend a move back toward the dark days when abortion was illegal in many states, and many women died as a result. In the 21st century, it is astounding that a Supreme Court nominee would not view Roe v. Wade as settled law when its fundamental principle -- a woman's right to choose -- has been reaffirmed many times since it was decided.

Will Justice Alito vote to protect Americans from unconstitutional searches? Judge Alito's record says NO.

In Doe v. Groody in 2004, he said a police strip search of a 10-year-old girl was lawful, even though their search warrant didn't name her. Judge Alito said that even if the warrant did not actually authorize the search of the girl, "a reasonable police officer could certainly have read the warrant as doing so..." This casual attitude toward one of our most basic constitutional guarantees -- the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches -- is almost shocking. As Judge Alito's own Third Circuit Court said regarding warrants, "a particular description is the touchstone of the Fourth Amendment." We certainly do not need Supreme Court justices who do not understand this fundamental constitutional protection.

Will Justice Alito vote to let citizens stop companies from polluting their communities? Judge Alito's record says NO.

In the Magnesium Elektron case, Judge Alito voted to make it harder for citizens to sue for toxic emissions that violate the Clean Water Act. Fortunately, in another case several years later, the Supreme Court rejected the Third Circuit and Alito's narrow reading of the law. Judge Alito doesn't seem to care about a landmark environmental law.

Will Justice Alito vote to let working women and men have their day in court against employers who discriminate against them? Judge Alito's record says NO.

In 1997, in the Bray case, Judge Alito was the only judge on the Third Circuit to say that a hotel employee claiming racial discrimination could not take her case to a jury.

In the Sheridan case, a female employee sued for discrimination, alleging that after she complained about incidents of sexual harassment, she was demoted and marginalized to the point that she was forced to quit. By a vote of 10 to 1, the Third Circuit found for the plaintiff.

Guess who was the one? Only Judge Alito thought the employee should have to show that discrimination was the "determinative cause" of the employer's action. Using his standard would make it almost impossible for a woman claiming discrimination in the workplace to get to trial.

Finally, will Justice Alito be independent from the executive branch that appointed him, and be a vote against power grabs by the president? Judge Alito's record says NO.

As a lawyer in the Reagan Justice Department, he authored a memo suggesting a new way for the president to encroach on Congress' lawmaking powers. He said that when the president signs a law, he should make a statement about the law, giving it his own interpretation, whether it was consistent with what Congress had written or not. He wrote that this would "get in the last word on questions of interpretation" of the law. In the hearings, Judge Alito refused to back away from this memo.

When asked whether he believed the president could invade another country, in the absence of an imminent threat, without first getting the approval of the American people, of Congress, Judge Alito refused to rule it out.

When asked if the president had the power to authorize someone to engage in torture, Alito refused to answer.

The Administration is now asserting vast powers, including spying on American citizens without seeking warrants -- in clear violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- violating international treaties, and ignoring laws that ban torture. We need justices who will put a check on such overreaching by the executive, not rubberstamp it. Judge Alito's record and his answers at the hearings raise very serious doubts about his commitment to being a strong check on an 'imperial president.'

In addition to these substantive matters, I remain concerned about Judge Alito's answers regarding his membership in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton and his failure to recuse himself from the Vanguard case, which he had promised to do.

[...]

Perhaps the most important statement Judge Alito made during the entire hearing process was when he told the Judiciary Committee that he expects to be the same kind of justice on the Supreme Court as he has been a judge on the Circuit Court.

That is precisely the problem. As a judge, Samuel Alito seemed to approach his cases with an analytical coldness that reflected no concern for the human consequences of his reasoning.

Listen to what he said about a case involving an African-American man convicted of murder by an all white jury in a courtroom where the prosecutors had eliminated all African-American jurors in many previous murder trials as well.

Judge Alito dismissed this evidence of racial bias and said that the jury makeup was no more relevant than the fact that left-handers have won five of the last six presidential elections. When asked about this analogy during the hearings, he said it "went to the issue of statistics... (which) is a branch of mathematics, and there are ways to analyze statistics so that you draw sound conclusions from them..."

That response would have been appropriate for a college math professor [No it wouldn't! Shit, I expect better than this from a Senator, especially Boxer --senn], but it is deeply troubling from a potential Supreme Court justice.

As the great jurist and Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. wrote in 1881, "The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience... The law embodies the story of a nation's development through many centuries, and it cannot be dealt with as if it contained only the axioms and corollaries of a book of mathematics."

What Holmes meant is that the law is a living thing, that those who interpret it must do so with wisdom and humanity, and with an understanding of the consequences of their judgments for the lives of the people they affect.

...I conclude that Judge Alito's judicial philosophy lacks this wisdom, humanity and moderation. He is simply too far out of the mainstream in his thinking. His opinions demonstrate neither the independence of mind nor the depth of heart that I believe we need in our Supreme Court justices, particularly at this crucial time in our nation's history.

If you live in the US, you know that the Senate hearings regarding Samuel Alito's appointment to the Supreme Court are underway. I've noted before that Alito is a dyed-in-the-wool asshole. Inter, no doubt, alia, MoveOn, Planned Parenthood, NARAL and People for the American Way all have petitions you can use to let your representatives know that they must do all they can to stop this self-serving, woman-hating lickspittle to the rich and powerful from being appointed for life to the most powerful court in the land. Please take a moment to sign one, or, preferably, all of them.

I'm with Rafe: this is IT for the Dems for me. If it comes down to it, they must filibuster. The nucular option is going to be hanging there all Damoclean and shit until they fight that fight anyway.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

MoveOn has a petition to stop the appointment of Sam "Scalito" Alito to the Supreme Court. They're trying for 250K signatures in 48 hours; please take a moment right now and go sign it.

Briefly, here's why this matters so much:

Basic Rights for Working Families
As a judge on the Appeals Court, Alito issued a ruling to gut the Family and Medical Leave Act, which guarantees most workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a loved one in an emergency. The Supreme Court effectively overturned that ruling in 2003—but if Alito were on the Supreme Court he would pose a grave threat to the basic rights of working families.

Civil Rights (in the workplace and beyond)
In separate cases, Alito wrote dissenting opinions that would have made it essentially impossible to prove employment discrimination based on race or disability. He was overruled and harshly criticized by his colleagues, but if he were on the Supreme Court he could turn back the clock on decades of progress in securing civil rights for minorities and the disabled.

A Woman's Right to Choose
Alito's judicial record and published views make him widely regarded as a sure vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. The extremist anti-abortion group Operation Rescue (who opposed Harriet Miers) responded to Alito's nomination today by saying: "Roe's days are numbered...We are trusting that we are now on the fast-track to derailing Roe v. Wade as the law of the land." If Alito were on the Supreme Court, reproductive freedom would be in serious jeopardy.

Privacy and Civil Liberties
In one significant case, Alito wrote a dissenting opinion that would have allowed an unauthorized strip search of a woman and her 10 year-old daughter, in their own home, without a warrant. Again, Alito was outvoted and strongly criticized by his fellow judges, but if he were to join Thomas and Scalia on the Supreme Court he would pose a grave threat to civil liberties and individual freedoms.

This guy is a wingnut's wingnut, an American Taliban wet dream come true -- and he's up for Day O'Connor's seat. Let your representatives know you're watching, and you expect them to fight this and win.

Amp has a post up about Portland city council pulling funding from the Salvation Army's Harbor Lights Program. While Amp is quite right that there is an urgent need to increase, not decrease, such resources, I'm not going to call for the head of Tom Potter just yet. (And to be clear, Amp's not asking anyone to do that -- just write Mayor Potter and Commissioner Erik Sten and advocate for improved emergency facilities for homeless women.)

A quick look around the internets turns up this story in the local news, which links to the city's plan to end homelessness and quotes counselors from a local intervention center as saying that

...while the city is doing a great job at moving women into permanent housing, there is always an urgent need for emergency shelters.

It seems there's also more to the story about Harbor Lights:

For some advocates, the continued presence of empty mats at Harbor Light represents their ongoing frustration with Portland's largest social service provider and symbolizes the city's inability live up to assurances it made last summer, when homeless women began showing up dead in Forest Park.

"I put my reputation on the line to get the funding for the women's Harbor Light shelter," said Chuck Currie, outreach director at the United Methodist Church and Goose Hollow Family Shelter, "and I really feel like they are failing to live up to their promises." [...]

"The Salvation Army has the ability to provide excellent service," Currie says. "So they can turn Harbor Light around. They have to want to, though. They have to look at this as providing service for homeless women who are often in danger rather than as padding for their budget."

(Those are very selective quotes, so go read the whole thing, and note that it's from 1999.) On top of that, the Salvation Army has a history of active homophobia and discrimination, so it's an organization I'd be cautious about funding with public monies. (Note, though, this story about the Canadian branch behaving more responsibly, so there's at least an argument for a sunshine policy instead of a boycott.)

In any case, what seems clear in all of this is that Portland needs more, not fewer, emergency shelters for homeless women. Amp makes the point that Potter and Sten do listen, and do have their hearts in the right place. Here's the text of my letter:

I read with concern that the city council has withdrawn its support for the Harbor Lights overnight emergency shelter program. While the city's long term plan to end homelessness certainly seems sound, and appears to be generating postive feedback from the relevant experts, I am very concerned that short-term, urgent needs may be overlooked in a ten-year plan. In particular, homeless women and children are an extremely vulnerable population who often require dedicated facilities, and I do not know of any other place for them to go for emergency shelter in Portland. If I have the figures straight, the city provides thirty such emergency beds for well over a hundred homeless women.

I would appreciate hearing back from you as to what plans are in place to provide for the immediate, urgent needs of homeless women and children in the absence of the Harbor Lights beds.

Update: damn, that was fast. Mayor Potter is overseas, but his office responded in about thirty minutes:

[...] Your email suggests to me that you saw or read the story broke initially by KATU. The Bureau of Housing and Community Development's (BHCD) decision to withdraw City funds from WENS was based on a long-term evaluation of the shelter. BHCD concluded that WENS has maintained both substandard facilities and services for a long time going. Furthermore, WENS did not transition their clients (many of whom have patronized the shelter for months) into long-term housing solutions.

Please know that BHCD, with community partnerships, is funding enhanced services for the 34 chronic residents of WENS to transition them into permanent housing. KATU's report fails to mention this, and that is extremely disappointing.

I was glad to read that you are concerned about homeless issues. I encourage you to support organizations that will find permanent solutions for the homeless.

Sincerely,

Jeremy Van Keuren, Public Advocate
Office of Mayor Tom Potter

(WENS= Women's Emergency Night Shelter; BHCD = Bureau of Housing and Community Development)

While this underlines the city's commitment to long term solutions, I feel it neatly sidesteps my point about overlooking urgent short term needs. I don't feel up to engaging Mr Van Keuren on the substance though, since another quick search turned up a Transition Projects report from 2004 (warning, pdf) that shows how little I know about the situation:

In June 2000, our "Women's Reality" report found that on any given night, there were more than 800 homeless single women in the city of Portland, with fewer than 161 beds available to homeless women who were not seeking shelter from domestic violence. While bed availability has expanded slightly in the interim, there is still a dramatic lack of shelter availability for homeless single women in Portland.

Eight hundred. Whoa. If I'd stopped to think about it, I'd have realised the number had to be well over the hundred of my initial guess (grabbed in haste from a website somewhere). I have some reading to do.

From a recent addition to my blogroll, Thoughts from Kansas ("Progressive politics, neat biology, and whackings of wackos", what could be better?), comes Be A Witness:

Genocide is the ultimate crime against humanity. And a government-backed genocide is unfolding in the Darfur region of the Sudan. As the horror in Darfur continues, our major television news networks are largely missing in action.

During June 2005, CNN, FOXNews, NBC/MSNBC, ABC, and CBS ran 50 times as many stories about Michael Jackson and 12 times as many stories about Tom Cruise as they did about the genocide in Darfur.

Whether it is coverage of the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 60s, the Ethiopian famine in the 1980s, or recent coverage of the tsunami, television news can help stop grave injustices and end human suffering. Increased television coverage of the genocide in Darfur has the power to spur the action required to stop a devastating crime against humanity.

There follows a web form with which you can send a letter to the major networks; a form letter is filled in but you can edit it. The site also includes a good brief background on the issue and plenty of links to more information and more actions you can take.

Here's my letter:

According to beawitness.org, whose web form I am using to send you this letter, during June 2005 CNN, FOXNews, NBC/MSNBC, ABC, and CBS ran 50 times as many stories about Michael Jackson and 12 times as many stories about Tom Cruise as they did about the genocide in Darfur. The data are available for perusal on the beawitness.org homepage.

You are not asking yourself "what genocide?", are you? You know what I'm talking about. The minimal coverage we have seen has reached as far as media professionals like you, who have decided NOT TO GIVE THE ISSUE ANY FURTHER COVERAGE.

Why? Why have you done this?

You don't need me to tell you the power that broadcast media have to influence public opinion and political action, any more than you need me to tell you what's happening in Darfur. And of all broadcast media, television is unquestionably the most powerful.

Why are you hiding from the responsibility that accompanies such power?

Are you truly more concerned to exercise that power in the pursuit of profit than in defense of innocent lives? Do you honestly believe you have no greater responsibility than to pander to the lowest common denominator?

What the fuck is wrong with you?

Astute readers will note some hypocrisy here: this is the first time I've mentioned Darfur. I can say "I can't write about everything" and "I'm not a major media outlet", but the fact remains that I do try to use this site to cover important events in human need and in politics, and I feel bad that I haven't talked about Darfur by now. By way of easing my conscience, I'll come back in a later post to the other actions that Be A Witness lists.

For many people, even for some of you reading this, the title of this entry is a bit too close to home. Violence is a daily reality for millions of mothers, sisters, daughters, wives, colleagues -- 700 women a day. Seven hundred a day. I'm seriously gonna toss my cookies if I think about that much longer.

Fortunately, I can do something about it. I already pointed to an ACLU letter writing campaign aimed at getting the Violence Against Women Act renewed and reinvigorated; now I want to ask you to consider sending a few dollars to 700women.org for the same purpose. In addition to donating, you can join (at time of writing) 60,000 other decent human beings in signing the petition to Congress.

This is a critical piece of legislation, and a crucial issue. Cough up, dammit -- just a few dollars. That's the whole point of grassroots; a dollar from everyone who can afford it (and if you're reading this, you almost certainly can afford it) will add up to enough.

Update Aug 02: bugger. Schmidt 52, Hackett 48. Either the public freely chose a lying corrupt shitweasel over an educated, charismatic family man and Marine Corps Iraq veteran, or the election was swiz. Either way, I'm severely bummed. You'd do better to listen to Julia:

...we'll have to console ourselves that a district which went 65% for Our Fearless Leader broke from three decades of yellow-dog voting to give 48 percent of the vote to a man who said that Our Fearless Leader is an idiot and a failure.

It cost the Republicans seven figures to achieve that result.

And they have to do it all over again in a year.

I suspect that cooperation with the White House on the right of the House just moved down a few notches on the To Do list.

The previous incumbent wouldn't have been named trade representative unless this was seen as the ultimate safe seat.

Guess not.

And the rest of them are less safe than that.

Update Aug 01: Hackett's campaign is asking for more money:

To Get Out the Vote, we need to raise $30,000 today. Here's why.

Last week, the netroots stepped up and delivered around $40K a day. The campaign gambled and put all of that on TV (the ads are great and a Democrat is leading the Republicans in gross points in every market in every medium!!!).

It worked, and now Independents are breaking rapidly our way. And Democrats in the district are so fired up that the far more than expected are signing up for GOTV.

This has drastically increased the cost of the GOTV mobilization. The enthusiasm over the weekend was more than expected and more was spend during the huge door-to-door effort. Now the campaign needs money for tomorrow to finish the job.

The cost breaks down to around $50 a precinct with 600 precincts. The netroots best friend, Matt from ActBlue, is flying in right now to coordinate moving the money.

But we need enough to finish the job.

Your investments have made Hackett a contender. Please give one more time so we can win this in the field.

I gave again, because I think this is a very important race. The seat in question has been a 70-30 GOP stronghold since approximately forever and the Republican in question is particularly vile. Per the excellent Malcolm Gladwell, I'm hoping this will be a tipping point. Please give. Seriously, even just a dollar -- don't think it's "not enough" or "not worth the time" -- the power of small donations from regular people is what grassroots is all about. (Hat-tips: Majikthise, Atrios, Seeing The Forest.)

Original entry:

With four days to go in the OH special election, this entry is late -- but better late than never. Terrance and Julia have all the details you need. Briefly, Paul Hackett is a returned Iraq veteran running for congress in a state that desperately needs an integrity infusion. Hackett looks like he might just provide one.

If Hackett loses he goes back to Iraq and another unprincipled greedy born-entitled asshole settles into a position of power.

Julia's exactly right when she says: