Malice Aforethought

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.)

Senator Harry Reid, folks!

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:

...a lot of us have been beating up on the powers that be for not fighting every race. Well, here's the thing. Right now, the Republicans are spending the best part of a million bucks to defend one of the safest seats in the country. The left ponied up, and because a very few activists made the statement that we're willing to fight, this has turned into a real race. That gave the DCCC the luxury of waiting until now, when last-minute dollars are going to make a much bigger splash, to chip in.

They can only afford what they can afford, and maybe the conventional wisdom is that dollars are better spent on "competitive" races.

What we need to do is let them know that when we get interested in a race, it becomes a competitive race.

Then we need to get interested in all the races.

Well, I'm interested in this one. If you can, please put your hand in your pocket. I'll leave this entry on top until after the election.

(For the record: I never ask readers to cough up unless I have done so myself. I won't usually say how much, because the amount is not the point. The point is to do what you can.)

What my friend Jared said is pretty much exactly what I've been thinking lately, except that I will have to take his word for it that a sense of decency was behind Durbin's apparent loss of backbone (I'd have called it a sense of vote-grubbing, though that is almost equally unsatisfactory as an explanation). I'd been working up a post, but J has saved me the trouble. Go read his entry, and then tell us both if you have any ideas about how to get progressive politics off the ropes.

Here's something that jolted me out of my hiatus: that maggot with legs, Catkiller Frist, has pulled the nuclear trigger in the Senate. MoveOn PAC has a petition you can sign, and I'm just going to crib this brief introduction directly from them:

Starting Monday, the petition will be delivered straight to Congress every three hours until the final vote, and many of our comments will be read aloud on the Senate floor.

Please sign right now at:

http://www.moveonpac.org/nuclear

Why is this an emergency?

This Tuesday, the Senate will vote on Republican Leader Bill Frist's "nuclear option" to break the rules of the Senate and give the Republican Party absolute control over appointing federal judges.

For 200 years the minority's right to filibuster has kept our courts fair, by making sure that federal judges needed to get at least some support from both sides of the aisle before they were given life time appointments.

If Frist eliminates the filibuster, his next step would be to force far right partisan judges onto the powerful U.S. Courts of Appeals. The real targets, however, are the four seats on the Supreme Court likely to become vacant in the next four years.

With that much power on the Supreme Court, the far right could strike down decades of progress on labor rights, environmental protections, reproductive rights, and privacy.

The "nuclear option" will live or die by a final vote, probably on Tuesday, and the vote is still way too close to call. There are at least 6 moderate Republicans still on the fence and only 3 more votes needed to win. If we can get enough of our voices into congress and into the streets in the next 72 hours, we can still save our courts.

More background can be had by reading Barbara Boxer's floor speech, in which she points out that the nutbags behind this naked grab for power are trying to effect profound change in the way this country is governed because they are not satisfied with a 95% success rate. The democrats have managed to stop 10 of 218 Bush judicial nominees, and that's not good enough for the radical right. They want ALL the power, now and forever.

The spousal unit points out that "forever" is exactly right. If you expected ever to be out of power again, would you try to eliminate one of the most powerful tools the opposition has? These bastards do not expect ever to lose another election.

Please do what you can to stop 'em, or I promise you we will all be sorry. Sign the petition and call your Senators.

Amp points to Rad Geek's bombing for choice campaign. I have done this sort of thing before, and I agree with Rad Geek's analysis of the results of that campaign, including Google's response. The answer to hateful free speech is not censorship but better free speech. Googlebombing is gaming the system, but it's inherently democratic: to have any impact it requires widespread adoption, and the "game" is available to anyone. So, I'm in:

Roe; Wade; Roe v Wade
abortion

I'll also, as Amp and RG suggest, add this to the sidebar over on the right, just above my links. It will be important not to overuse this idea, especially if "googlebomb sidebars" are going to become commonplace, but it seems a good way to add a little virtual weight to the right (that is, the correct!) side of the scales of public discourse concerning large-scale, enduring issues like abortion and racism.

PBS has decided not to distribute the "Sugartown!" episode of the children's animated series Postcards from Buster because it features a family with two female parents. Individual affiliate stations can decide for themselves whether or not to run the episode. You can find your local PBS station here; for me, it's Oregon Public Broadcasting. They do run Postcards from Buster, but it appears they won't be running "Sugartown!". My letter:

Dear OPB,

I am writing to ask you to air the "Sugartown!" episode of "Postcards from Buster", over which Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings has created an absurd controversy. (I searched both the OPB site and the TV schedule and could not find evidence that you plan to run that episode.)

I am a PBS subscriber for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that I believe I can rely on PBS to promote diversity and tolerance, and to be a voice for minority groups. This is particularly important in children's programs. A hateful but vocal minority in this country would like to see broadcast media reflexively self-censoring all mention of gay issues. Please do not let that happen. Please continue to send, particularly to our children, a message of inclusion and tolerance. Please air "Sugartown!".

Sincerely, etc.

Margaret Spellings is BushCo's brand-new Secretary of Education. According to the LA Times, last Tuesday she wrote to PBS asking them to consider removing her department's logo and returning public money spent on "Sugartown!". Hatefilled nutjob and self-confessed dachsund abuser James Dobson thinks that's just peachy, and his Focus Obsessively and Exclusively on the Straight, White, Evangelical Christian Family Foundation has provided a handy web form for use in patting Ms Spellings on the back. It shouldn't surprise anyone that I put it to better use:

Dear Ms Spellings,

I write to protest your recent complaints over the "Sugartown!" episode of the PBS children's program "Postcards from Buster". The positive portrayal of gay characters is in no way at odds with the educational goals that inform the public funding of such programming. According to the 2000 Census, same-sex couples make up about 1% of all US couples, and over 400,000 children live with same-sex parents. Gays and lesbians are a significant thread in the rich tapestry of American society, and the Education Dept should strongly support children's programming which reflects that fact.

You wrote that "many parents would not want their young children exposed to the lifestyles portrayed in this episode", and that is certainly true. Those parents are (perhaps unwittingly) harming their children, who will only suffer by taking on a regressive and intolerant outlook. It is not the job of the Education Dept to reinforce the preferences (or prejudices) of any particular group of parents. Rather, the nation relies on you to ensure that programs like "Sugartown!" are available to parents who want their children to value diversity and tolerance.

Sincerely, etc.

So, where did I hear about all this? SpeakSpeak, a website (and a 501(c)?) for those of us who are fed up with the lunatic fringe dominating public discourse:

SpeakSpeak will campaign for those of us who feel we’ve been unfairly written off as Popular Opinion’s pipsqueak kid brother. We know we’re not a minority fringe. We know we’re not bereft of morals or family values. We know that if the country were headed for damnation because of Janet Jackson’s boob, the scenery would probably be much more interesting.

And we know we have to work harder.

We must stop whining about the election. We must learn lessons from it. The winners won because they were organized. They mobilized. They did a very, very good job.

And on that note, welcome to SpeakSpeak’s inaugural campaign issue: "indecency," "obscenity," and who gets to define it.

SpeakSpeak’s first campaign comes in response to the chokehold the Parents Television Council (http://www.parentstv.com) has on the FCC. This has been a banner year for obscenity fines—$2 million so far, more than SIX TIMES the combined totals of 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003. By its own account (which it is today denying—see speakspeak.org/news.html for more), the PTC is responsible for the increase.

The FCC is not a policing agency. It does not monitor the television—it responds to citizens who watch the television. The FCC is required to keep "obscenity" off the airwaves, but it has been given a very vague definition of the term—one that involves the "average person" applying "contemporary community standards." Yet they’re only hearing from a very specific community, one that doesn’t represent most of the country.

And this is where we come in.

SpeakSpeak is still getting off the ground, and seems to be largely a labour of love for founder Amanda Toering, but there's a blog and you can sign up for email alerts (both of which, as you can see, I find useful). If you too are sick of the soi-disant Moral Majority, please consider joining SpeakSpeak and myself as we take arms against a sea of assholes.

Alberto Gonzales is the principal architect of the Bush administration's policy of torture. Under cover of legal sophistries provided by Gonzales, this administration has overturned longstanding US law, rejected the Geneva Conventions and abandoned key elements of the US Constitution. On Gonzales' advice, this president seeks to place himself above the law -- all law, everywhere. The infamous abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay are the public face of Gonzales' legal counsel and an enduring stain on this nation's history.

To appoint Gonzales to high office now would be to embrace this legacy and to declare openly that the US respects no law and cares nothing for human rights. I join Daily Kos and many others in urging the Senate to reject his appointment to the post of Attorney General.

STOP

TERROR

STOP

TORTURE

STOP

GONZALES

Update 050131: The list of blogs opposing Gonzales is up to 533. The vote on Gonzales is expected this week, so if you have a blog please consider joining the list and adding the banner to your site. Whether you have a blog or not, please call your senators.

STOP

TERROR

STOP

TORTURE

STOP

GONZALES

The Not In Our Name project has had a setback:

We had planned for the new Not In Our Name statement of conscience to run on Friday, January 21, in the New York Times. We had a contract and a confirmation number. This ad was to be our answer to the inauguration, and it was timed to appear in the middle of the inauguration news coverage.

The ad did not run. The advertising department were themselves deeply surprised by this, and have not been able to explain what happened. In fact, we were told that to their knowledge this had never happened before.

At the same time, the Times lead editorial said that this should be a time of legitimacy and acceptance for the President -- and that this was especially something that the opposition has to come to terms with.

It is unacceptable that we do not yet know why something that "has never happened before" happened -- a full page paid ad, accepted and slotted in, did not run. This is especially so when the content of the ad, the need to resist the course that this administration has set, is so important to the people of this country and the world. There needs to be an investigation of what went wrong and why. If it was just an honest mistake, we expect that the Times itself would want to know why in order to prevent it from occurring again.

The Times has given us a new ad reservation number and assured us that the ad will now run on this Sunday. However, there is the danger of it being buried in the back of the first section. This would be another way of marginalizing and rendering relatively invisible the voice of conscience and dissent.

We urge signers and supporters of the statement to e-mail the Times to demand that the ad run in the Sunday Week in Review section (where there will be summation of the inauguration) or in the first 10 pages of the first section. Send to the President and General Manager of the Times at president@nytimes.com and to the advertising department at advertising@nytimes.com.

You can read the statement here and sign it here. My letter, which I also sent to the NYT Ombudsman Daniel Okrent (public@nytimes.com) is as follows.

Dear Sir/Madam,

it has come to my attention that, for reasons as yet unexplained, the full-page advertisement taken out by the Not In Our Name project and scheduled to run on Friday Jan 21, did not run. The ad was accepted and a confirmation number was issued, putting the Times in clear breach of contract. Since its timing was particularly crucial to the effectiveness of the ad in question, the Times has a great deal of explaining and compensating to do.

Moreover, on the day on which the ad was scheduled to run, a Times editorial emphasized "legitimacy and acceptance" of the president and called for those who did not vote for Mr Bush to "wait for another day" to criticize him. The implication is very clear, and if the Times wants to retain public trust there must be a full, unfettered investigation into the reasons for the breach, the results of which investigation should promptly be made public. In addition, the Times must do everything possible to repair the damage done: specifically, the ad, which is now scheduled for Sunday, should run together with the inaugural coverage in the Week in Review section, or within the first ten pages of the front section. Finally, next to the ad the Times should run an apology to the Not In Our Name project.

Anything less will leave in the public mind a very strong impression that the NYT actively suppresses political dissent.

Sincerely, etc.

(via Sisyphus Shrugged)

Update 050131: Okrent replied, essentially, that it was just a screwup. I still don't know whether the ad ran in the organisation's second-choice position as requested.

Now that the dust has settled, I have a few final remarks to make about the recent storm-in-a-blogosphere-sized-teacup over Zephyr Teachout's remarks concerning blogs, ethics and a couple of prominent bloggers.

Regarding Kos: it's my enduring suspicion that Teachout thinks Kos somewhat less than honest, because there's a clear difference between her unequivocal apology to Jerome and her remarks regarding Kos. To the extent that it's because of the remaining clients that Kos won't disclose (and presently cannot disclose because of the nature of his contracts with them), I think ZT is being both inconsistent and overly hard on Kos. He was operating in the absence of the very community mores (concerning such things as client disclosure) that I am arguing for, and that ZT seems also to regard as worthwhile and necessary. If Kos got it wrong, that's something the blogosphere will work out with the benefit of hindsight, and it's a bit much to expect Kos to have nailed it first time around. ZT and Joe Trippi have both made similar arguments regarding decisions that were made in the absence of any precedents during the Dean campaign. (I will add, though, that I hope a more stringent standard of disclosure will become the norm as these conversations continue to take place.)

To the extent that ZT's attitude towards Kos has to do with history between the two of them, well, she should have kept it to herself -- but I have no idea and no way of ascertaining just what that extent may be. I will say that the accusations of grandstanding leveled at ZT ring hollow to me. Plenty of people comment on other blogs then post versions of those comments on their own site, and I see no reason to assume ZT is lying about having started the blog as a way of hashing out ideas for the much-maligned Harvard blogging ethics conference. Similarly, several commenters have raised, with varying degrees of vitriol, the idea that malice born of the refusal of Armstrong/Zuniga to employ ZT is behind any of this. Having no way to know how true that may be, suspecting as I do that ZT rather dislikes Kos, and observing that ZT has a pretty sweet job now and was never wanting for employment prospects, I think I'm just going to assume that particular accusation is bullshit.

Regarding the Dean campaign: my earlier comment was partly inaccurate, since although Trippi has directly quashed the idea that Armstrong was hired so that he would give the campaign good press, he was less clear about Kos' hiring. As I understand his remarks (in the Winer interview), Kos was hired as much to get him on side and keep him from advising others as anything. That's also the implication I read in ZT's narrative here. That scenario makes some sense to me, as I can't see that Kos had much to offer the Dean campaign that they couldn't already get from Armstrong. It seems to me both slightly unsavoury and probably standard-operating-procedure for a political campaign to have hired Kos on that basis. On that note, I don't buy Chris Nolan's assertion that ZT, politically astute Dean supporter, was all along carrying out a cunning political maneuver designed to boost Dean's chances at becoming DNC Chair. If the whole "blogola" thing has had any effect on Dean it's probably negative by way of a spurious association with pay-for-play, and if it did undermine Kos or Armstrong, well, they are both for Dean.

Finally, regarding the response to ZT: wow. I honestly didn't realise there were so many assholes nominally on the left. Kos and Armstrong may be excused the vehemence of their reactions, but their supporters and defenders, by and large, responded with inexcusable violence. I don't mean physical violence, but there were even threats of that -- one comment that sticks with me mentioned wanting to shave ZT's head in the manner of WWII collaborators. Jesus fuck. What's wrong with these people? Message to everyone who felt the need to call ZT vile names and post foul imputations about everything from her motives to her sexual habits: get off my side. Really. Go join Free Republic; I hear your ilk is welcome at sites like Little Green Footballs and Instapundit.

I have stayed away from news and discussion of the inauguration as much as I could; it makes me sick to think of that smirking moron at the best of times, and his $40 million orgy of self-congratulation is not the best of times. Excuse me while I sick up.

But others are not so faint of heart or weak of stomach as I, and have done a sterling job of pointing out the essential vileness of the event. Here are excerpts to whet your appetite, but in each case go read, as the kids say, the whole thing.

Juan Cole provides a pictorial commentary on Bush Minor's relationship with the US Constitution and says:

Bush has sworn an oath to uphold the US Constitution. He won't. But Congress can. It should insist that the sunset provisions of the so-called "Patriot Act" (which should be called the "Abrogation of the Constitution Act") be allowed to expire in 2005 and that the extremely dangerous "Patriot Act II" be completely rolled back. Republicans who care about the Constitution should join Democrats who care about the Constitution in putting a stake through the heart of this abomination. A noble 200-year-old experiment in civil liberties and democracy, for which US troops are giving their lives, must not be ended by a single act of terrorism and a clique of authoritarians in Washington.

Bush's speech was about bringing liberty to the rest of the world. Let's see if he can first do something to restore to the American public the liberties we enjoyed, as free men and women, until 2001. Let's see if he can bring US government policies back into alignment with the Geneva Conventions and other international law on human rights, to which the US is signatory. Only then would he have earned the right to even think about trying to extend liberty to others.

Brad Leiter points out that Bush's speech amounted to the declaration of World War III:

Very dark days lie ahead for humanity. On the most charitable (and implausible) interpretation, the talk about freedom is genuine. Even so, the idea that a single country would take it upon itself to "free" all those countries ruled by tyrannies would promise a global holocaust and bloodbath of unimaginable proportions.

On the more realistic interpretation, the talk about freedom is pure rhetorical pretense: the nation that enthusiastically supported tyrants and butchers in Indonesia, in Guatemala, in the Philippines, in Iran and Chile and Brazil and the list goes on; the nation that, today, does business with tyrants and monsters in the Central Asian Republics, in Saudi Arabia, in Pakistan, and elsewhere; this nation's profession of a commitment to "freedom" is a worldwide joke--a particularly sick joke coming from an Administration staffed by many of the architects and servants of the horrors just noted.

Max Sawicky notes the disconnect between imperialist Bush and his favourite shibboleth, "freedom", in Liberventionism, Rising:

It will happen like this: a new tipping point giving rise to some kind of generic terrorist threat with nuclear/biological overtones. We won't be treated to an excess of specifics. Have we ever? A provocation could stir the drink. In effect, the U.S. attacks and describes the roiled posture of the target nation as the new, imminent danger. Don't call it conspiracy. It's a simple plan, and an old practice.

Really, do yourself a favour and read all three. It's restorative to realise that one is, after all, not crazy: that the inmates really have taken over the asylum, and slack-jawed horror is a perfectly appropriate reaction.

Senator Barbara Boxer is one of the last bastions of actual liberal politics in the Democrat Party, and tomorrow she plans to ask Condoleezza Rice some hard questions during the latter's confirmation hearing. This is what our representatives should be doing, and it's important to support them when they do it.

Please consider signing the petition to lend your voice to Senator Boxer's.

Update 050127: Rice was confirmed anyway. Just to have somewhere to refer back to, here's a list of what T aptly describes as the few remaining Dems who can still look in a mirror without flinching:

Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.
Robert Byrd, D-W.Va.
Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.
John Kerry, D-Mass.
Carl Levin, D-Mich.
Jack Reed, D-R.I
Mark Dayton, D-Minn.
Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii
Evan Bayh, D-Ind.
Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.
Tom Harkin, D-Iowa
Richard Durbin, D-Ill.

Note to Democratic senators not on that list: forget about running for president. Ever. You'll be lucky to get support for re-election in 2006; I for one will oppose you vehemently if there's an independent or untainted Dem alternative. You maggots.

[Attention conservation notice: update 4 is actually the best place to start reading this entry.]

The mainstream print and broadcast media in this country is a noisome tangle of weasels, vipers and scum, with a supporting cast of rightwing lickspittles, fascist apologists and barking nutbags, so it was with no surprise that I read about pundit Armstrong Williams taking $240K in payola from the Bush administration to plug their disastrous "No Child Left Behind" program. My first thought, in fact, was that Williams was just the tip of an iceberg, something Williams himself indicated.

Nonetheless, I was still surprised and disappointed to read Zephyr Teachout's frank admission ¹ that the Dean campaign paid prominent progressive bloggers Markos Moulitsas and Jerome Armstrong as consultants "largely in order to ensure that they said positive things about Dean". There are numerous mitigating factors -- you can read all about them here and here. I'm not saying these guys rank with the ambulatory sacks of shit I listed above, or even with the dishonest and deceitful Williams (and neither, despite their whining, is Teachout). Kos had a disclosure notice up, and Armstrong was apparently on blog hiatus while under contract to Dean. Their own injured egos notwithstanding, it's not about Kos and Armstrong. Now that I know about the contracts, I'm not going to stop reading Kos (I never have read Armstrong). I consider his disclosure inadequate but I don't think he was bought -- for one thing, his politics are pretty similar to Dean's. Also, he has established a record of integrity which cushions him, in my view, from this lapse in judgement¹.

But that record, and my willingness to cut Kos slack on account of it, is the crux of the real question here: blogs are moving up in the media world, and it's important to ask, what kind of culture or system do we want to establish? The potential for corruption is obvious, and if bloggers want to retain the trust they now have (due in some part simply to being seen as "anti-establishment") then they'd better take all conflicts of interest, real and potential, seriously. There are a lot of comments in the threads I linked to the effect that bloggers can't/shouldn't be held to press standards, and Kos makes this argument himself. It's horseshit. Kos, for instance, wouldn't have got the consulting gig if he hadn't held himself out to be a pundit. The audience and the trust of that audience is part of what potential clients are buying.

The primary issue here is transparency, and b!X has got it right: drawing on journalistic ethics and Rebecca Blood's guidelines for weblog ethics, he lists a set of key principles to which readers can expect him to adhere. He has never been paid as a consultant, but he has taken advertising monies, about which he says:

My standard practice during the election was to include a disclosure statement in every post about those races that I accepted ads from candidates in that race. That sort of behavior needs to become the absolutely baseline below which bloggers will not sink -- at least those bloggers who want credibility.

And there you have the bottom line: credibility. Standards. Teachout is looking to start an important discussion, not a slanging match. I hope the progressive blog community will step up. If blogs are going to run with the big dogs, they'd better learn to piss in the long grass.

Update: Somehow Atrios, who thought this was a good idea, is inexplicably all sneer when it comes to the idea of ethics in blogging. I wonder if it has something to do with upstart Teachout criticizing poor defenceless Kos. I don't know who these "people" are who Atrios claims "think 'blogger ethics rules' will create clear bright lines to avoid controversies"; I think he made them up. I also think that standards are going to be imposed on blogs as their political influence and usefulness grows, and if bloggers who want to be taken seriously don't take the lead on this issue, that lack of forward thinking is going to bite them in the ass. Atrios and Jesse and co. can bury their heads in the "self-policing community" and "rules are for assholes" sand all they want, but if news and views online is ever going to get beyond the Wild West stage it's going to need ethical guidelines of some sort. Hell, maybe it's best for all concerned if blogs remain a maverick medium, but let's at least have the conversation.

Update the second: if this topic is of interest to you, you'll want to read Lisa Williams' excellent entry on blog policies.

Update the third: two of the most popular ways to blame Teachout for everything bad that ever happened appear to be as follows. First, Teachout must have known the rightwing media would grab hold of her comments and use them to cloud the Armstrong Williams issue, she shouldn't have said anything, she must be working for the GOP, waaaaaah. For instance:

Here we are in the midst of a huge ethical scandal in the right wing noise machine, and out marches Zephyr Teachout, goddess of the left blogosphere, with a salvo virtually designed to provide the SCLM with one of their patented false equivalence arguments. And, lucky for us, it serves to marginalize the left blogosphere at the very moment that the righties are being feted like princes in the salons of the Mighty Wurlitzer as right wing heroes! What excellent timing.

Note to left wing bloggers: if you're so terrified of the Big Bad Right Wing Media Circus that you expect others preemptively to do your cringing for you, I suggest you need a new hobby. If you're accusing Teachout of sabotage, you need a little something called evidence.

Second, who needs an empty formality like a code of ethics? Here's Digby again:

The larger question of blogger ethics in and of itself is a red herring. It's suddenly a "concern" of the [so-called Liberal Media] and by extension the halls of academe, because they are taking heat from us --- and people are listening --- and they don't like it. Sadly, the only bloggers who are going to be restrained by these concerns are on the left. The right wing bloggers are now a fully accepted part of the Right Wing Noise Machine --- positioned in the dumb mainstream media's collective lizard brain as fearless wild west mavericks defying the establishment. Their "ethics" are the same as any other right wing media --- non-existent.

So the left blogosphere will be the focus of this crusade for online ethics. We don't have institutions like the Claremont Institute who can hire us on as "fellows" --- and launder Republican money through it to pay us. We aren't going to get our marching orders and talking points through the coordinated "left wing" media because there is no coordinated left wing media. We are out here on our own, and when or if we say or do something controversial, there is no institutional defense of us because there is no institution. Certainly, we aren't going to get paid big bucks to be a member of the team.

So fuck a "code of ethics." It will only serve to marginalize us.

Right, right, ethics schmethics. You hero you. You lonely crusader for Truth and Justice, fighting the good fight out there on your own -- how could you possibly benefit from any discussion of proprieties? Second free clue: it's not about formalizing a code and etching it in a stone somewhere and calling everything good, and that's such a flimsy straw man you should be embarrassed to tilt at it. Blogs are playing an increasing role in politics and on the media stage, and it would be useful for progressive bloggers to decide among themselves what behaviours, disclosures, financial arrangements etc. are acceptable. A quick example: what's the best way to disclose financial involvement with someone you're writing about -- mention it the first relevant post? Every relevant post? A link on the front page? Teachout raised that question, but I've yet to see anyone but b!X and rebecca blood even try to answer it. Everyone in the game has their own rules for ethical blogging, whether they make them explicit or not; the value of making them explicit is in examining and discussing them and coming to a workable consensus. Again, I don't mean a shining monument on a hill to be set up and thereafter ignored; I mean an organic set of mores like that which covers things like linking and blogrolling. To return to the disclosure example -- "hat tip" and "via" links are now standard, and skipping them is considered bad form, and readers know to look for them in blog entries. I think it would be useful to have a method of disclosing financial arrangements every time they need disclosing that, like "hat tip", becomes commonplace and doesn't leave readers casting about for information.

That's just one obvious example; I'm sure there are plenty more to be had, but we're not even going to get around to talking about them if sneering assholes insist on casting Teachout as a traitor and themselves as shining paragons of virtue who should simply be trusted to get everything right and set the example for all who follow. Leaving everyone to their own devices in respect of increasingly important and complex ethical questions just because we can't be bothered to talk about them is not only stupid on its face, it almost guarantees that someone will make a preventable fuckup and hand some serious ammunition to the Wurlitzer.

¹Update the fourth: it's not clear to me that "admission" is the right word, since ZT's comments don't square with what other Dean staffers have said. It's clear that Jerome Armstrong is as clean as a whistle: he was hired because he had begun to build what became the Dean Internet Machine, and he stopped blogging while under contract. Kos' behaviour is equally clean. Reasonable people can disagree about how much disclosure is enough, but he made perfectly good faith disclosure. In view of my argument that a widely understood set of ethical mores among bloggers is currently lacking and would be a good way to avoid such controversies, I was wrong to use the phrase "lapse in judgement" in describing Kos' decisions. Most of my point in all of the above is that reasonable people should start disagreeing: individual judgement would be well served by pooling ideas and talking about these sorts of ethical issues.

Let's have the short version of that: neither Kos nor Jerome Armstrong did anything wrong in respect of their work with the Dean campaign, no matter what you hear to the contrary.

That leaves the question of what exactly Teachout is saying. She asserts that

we paid Markos and Jerome Armstrong as consultants, largely in order to ensure that they said positive things about Dean. We paid them over twice as much as we paid two staffers of similar backgrounds

where "we" means pretty clearly "the Dean campaign". Well no, "we" didn't, according to both Mathew Gross, Director of Internet Communications and "Blogger in Chief" for the Dean campaign at the time, and then-campaign manager Joe Trippi (mp3, interview by Dave Winer). Trippi says straight out that the decision to hire Armstrong and Kos was his, and that it had nothing to do with ensuring pro-dean commentary. What gives? I've left a comment on Teachout's entry; it will be interesting to see if she responds to these direct rebuttals.

I want to say more about the larger issue of blog ethics per se (which, unfortunately, seems to have been largely drowned out by the Teachout Controversy), but that can wait for a later post. I've also changed the title of this post to better fit the content.

Jessica Wilson at For the Record has a recent series of posts concerning left- and right-wing political agendas, and I think she's come up with something very useful. She began with the observation that "right-wingers" (aka "conservatives", "Republicans") are not very good at argument, which she then developed a little further in response to a letter from a self-identified conservative.

It has been interesting to consider the prospects for the stated purpose of Left2Right; that is, for progressives and independents... to engage in reasoned discourse with right-wingers and conservatives (so-called) about such issues as are presently facing the nation. The comment threads are fairly illuminating on this score. Dividing through by right/left content, it's all too easy (with sadly few exceptions) to identify the right-wingers by their poor skills at writing and argumentation... The failures of argumentation that are frequently manifest are the sort that characterize the writing of my worst students...

This is, I'm sure, a phenomenon familiar to most regular blog readers. The obvious question, though, is what's driving it? I recommend reading all of the FTR posts I'm linking, but what I want to talk about here is the idea that what underlies the difference in argumentation (style and quality) is a stark difference in goals. Progressives have no need for enthymematic or otherwise sophistic argument: they are following an agenda which is politically defensible and logically consistent. The right, in contrast, is following a regressive agenda which is fully opposed to the good of most people and must therefore rely on misdirection and appeal to the baser impulses in order to gather electoral support. Thus a lot of right-wing argument is either deliberately deceptive or muddled and confused, depending on whether the individual in question is a dupe or a would-be oligarch. There are, of course, exceptions, but I think that's broadly correct, and I think it's fundamental to any consideration of US politics, particularly for progressives wondering ~~what the sweet holy fuck to do about Smirky the killer clown and his handlers, minions and stooges~~ how to recover from recent setbacks.

This view is not especially new, but Wilson goes one very useful step further and boils the progressive agenda down to two key principles:

(P-1) That the interests of the many should not be sacrificed to sustaining and increasing the wealth and the power of the wealthy and powerful few.

(P-2) That unsound ideology, provincial prejudices, and antiquated religious doctrines should not be enshrined, encouraged, or used to guide public policy.

and argues that the majority of progressive policies derive from these central principles. Again, I think she's right; see the linked post for examples. The right-wing agenda, then, can be summarized as opposition to the progressive one:

(R-1): That the wealth and the power of the wealthy and powerful few should be sustained and increased, even if this means (as it frequently does) sacrificing the interests of the many.

(R-2): That it is acceptable, and even encouraged, that (since the many are generally not on board with policies that explicitly involve sacrificing their interests in service of the goal expressed in R-1) various ideologies of unsound factual and theoretical basis be forwarded, and various provincial prejudices and antiquated religious doctrines be encouraged (by way of distraction) and enshrined (by way of "payback" for votes), as a basis for public policy.

Positing (R1), a moment's reflection provides a host of examples for (R-2). Just off the top of my head: trickle-down economics, free market worship, antipathy to science, the current invented-out-of-whole-cloth social security "crisis", appeals to homophobia (this year's anti-gay marriage ballots, Bush's proposal to enshrine homophobia directly in the Constitution), racism and xenophobia ("Kerry looks French!") and anti-intellectualism (Dubya's whole persona), and pandering to the religious right (on stem cells, abortion, sex education).

I have just one quibble: I'd delete the word "antiquated" because I don't think it's doing any useful work there (separation of church and state applies to any doctrine, regardless of pedigree) and because in that context it smacks of knee-jerk anti-religionism (something I'm sensitive to because I'm prone to it myself). Otherwise, I think this is a valid and powerful framework within which to analyse right-wing politics. Wilson even provides a worked example to illustrate the method.

Finally, following also from George Lakoff's arguments about framing, all of the above got me to thinking: let's have an accurate term for our opponents. I'm not necessarily opposed to conservative or Republican aims per se, and "right-wing" invites the use of "left-wing" which, thanks to the mighty Wurlitzer, has become a slur. My aims are progressive, so my opponents are Regressives. Anyone whose politics reduce to (R-1)+(R-2) above is following a regressive agenda. Even if "regressive" doesn't stick (and it probably won't, being clumsier to my ear than "right-wing"), I think it useful to get away from the sullied "leftist" and promote the much more slur-resistant "progressive".

According to a study carried out by Cornell University's Media and Society Research Group:

About 27 percent of respondents said that all Muslim Americans should be required to register their location with the federal government, and 26 percent said they think that mosques should be closely monitored by U.S. law enforcement agencies. Twenty-nine percent agreed that undercover law enforcement agents should infiltrate Muslim civic and volunteer organizations, in order to keep tabs on their activities and fund raising. About 22 percent said the federal government should profile citizens as potential threats based on the fact that they are Muslim or have Middle Eastern heritage. In all, about 44 percent said they believe that some curtailment of civil liberties is necessary for Muslim Americans [i.e. agreed with at least one of those statements ---Ed].

Conversely, 48 percent of respondents nationally said they do not believe that civil liberties for Muslim Americans should be restricted.

Given that they likely voted for Bush, himself a big talking physical coward, I'm more inclined to believe that more self-identified Republicans than Democrats are chickenshit:

About 40 percent of Republican respondents agreed that Muslim Americans should be required to register their whereabouts, compared with 24 percent of Democratic respondents and 17 percent of independents. Forty-one percent of Republican respondents said that Muslim American civic groups should be infiltrated, compared with 21 percent of Democrats and 27 percent of independents.

On whether mosques should be monitored, about 34 percent of the Republicans polled agreed they should be, compared with 22 percent of Democrats. Thirty-four percent of Republicans said that profiling of Muslim Americans is necessary, compared with 17 percent of Democrats.

It's not just Muslim Americans whose rights appear to be in danger of being eroded by pusillanimous self-interest:

Happily, this is one of those rare surveys where you can actually get at the methodology and the questions asked (although they don't provide an actual script) -- the full report is available online (pdf), and additional methodological information is available on request. Kudos. Despite my reluctance to believe the numbers, I can't see any obvious major flaws in the study (which doesn't mean there aren't any -- I'm hardly an expert). The results are taken from 715 completed telephone interviews and weighted by age, gender and race (presumably to reflect national breakdowns, though the report doesn't say). Responses to the statements were on a 1-10 scale, so it would have been nice to see a breakdown by strength of dis/agreement, but they simply took 1-5=disagree, 6-10=agree. They also looked at measures of attention to TV news, knowledge of Islam, personal religiosity and fear of terrorism (all of which, I think, were a bit simplistic) and the interaction between those factors and attitudes to curtailment of civil liberties. It's worth a read, and so is the less publicized companion report on attitudes to the War on Terror, U.S. Foreign Policy and Anti-Americanism (pdf). All of this, by the way, courtesy of Brown Equals Terrorist, where Ian is doing a bang-up job of keeping tabs on the state of American civil liberties.

(followup to this post)

Democracy means you get one vote per election, but the influence of money on politics means you get another kind of vote every time you buy something. Choose The Blue gives you a guide to voting Democrat with your dollars. (They might think about changing the name for the next election cycle, when the incumbent will likely be coloured blue.)

For instance: of fifteen gasoline retailers listed, only one (Shell) donated more to Dems than to Repubs. Similarly, of 17 car manufacturers only Toyota donated more to Dems. Even these two companies hedged their bets, 57/43 and 74/26 respectively, and Toyota dealers skewed strongly Republican, so you might consider buying a bike; unfortunately, Choose The Blue doesn't yet list bicycle manufacturers. If you have to have a car, you also have to insure it, so give Progressive Insurance first refusal on your business if you can. If you want a car stereo, buy Sony; that goes for other kinds of consumer electronics as well.

And so on, and on. Every purchase you make has political ramifications. Politically informed consumer choices are not only an essential component of living according to your principles, but also a powerful and relatively easy way to have an impact on the political process.

Of course, "relatively" covers a lot of ground, and the primary barrier to informed consumer choice is a lack of information. As good as Choose The Blue is, there are a lot of things it doesn't yet cover -- like, say, bicycle manufacturers. If you know the relevant company or individual names, you can do a soft money search or donor lookup at opensecrets.org, the website of the Center for Responsive Politics. The power search at Follow The Money allows you to look at donations in State politics (note that the interface is a bit screwy and takes some getting used to). Political Money Line is selling information, but makes some available for free; this includes individual donations (including 527s) and industry totals (hard money only) grouped according to NAICS. Of course, you can always go to the source and run a disclosure data search at the Federal Election Commission, but the search interface is very limited and section 527 advocacy groups don't have to file with the FEC anyway. They can file with the relevant state government, some of which may provide that information to the public, or the IRS which, at least on its website, doesn't seem to. [An aside: the difference between hard and soft money is explained in some detail here, and more briefly here.]

So, to return to the example at hand: who the hell knows the names of bicycle manufacturers? I tried searching for a few common brand names (Schwinn, Mongoose, Trek, Giant) but didn't get anywhere: you need the parent company's name. Or more accurately, you need the name under which the donation was made; for a number of reasons (not all of them related to malfeasance!) that could be hard to find. For example, it turns out that Schwinn and Mongoose are both owned by Pacific Cycle, which is owned by Dorel Industries; neither of those names turns up anything useful either. So then I figured, maybe industry totals would be useful. At Follow The Money, using "selected business" we find that "sporting goods sales & manufacturing" donated a total of $11,850, mostly to Dems, across all states in 2004. At Political Money Line, industry totals-->manufacturing tells us that "sporting and athletic goods, nec" (what does the "nec" mean?) donated $56,000 to Dems and $20,500 to Repubs in 2003-4. (But if you check the NAICS, it turns out that bicycles fall under "Motorcycle, Bicycle, and Parts Manufacturing", not "Sporting and Athletic Goods Manufacturing", and you have to subscribe to Political Money Line to dig any further.) Those are all small amounts of money relative to the hundreds of millions being splashed around during the election cycle, but it's not at all clear where bicycle manufacturers fit in and we have no federal or soft money data. If I'm trying to buy a bike and avoid Republican supporters, none of that helps.

There are ways around this lack of information, to some extent. I can't find out about manufacturers, but I can check out the dealers: for instance, here in Portland I might consider buying my bike from The Bike Gallery (first result of a Google search). A quick search of their website turns up the name of the owner, and opensecrets.org tells me that he donated $2300 to Dem candidates and $2000 to the Bikes Belong Coalition -- so I'd be happy to shop there.

Even if Choose The Blue develops (as I hope they will) a really comprehensive database, their focus is at the level of brands and parent companies, so it looks as though there's no substitute for that sort of detailed research at the local level. I plan to put together a little collection of information on the local businesses I frequent, so it occurs to me that a central repository for such information might be a useful thing. Anyone out there want to build it? I'd certainly be willing to help out with design and costs.

If you must buy stuff this Xmas, buy it from the Good Guys, ok?

Good:
* Price Club/Costco donated $225K, of which 99% went to democrats;
* Magla Products (Stanley tools, Mr. Clean), $22K, 100% to democrats;
* Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, $153K, 99% to democrats;
* Estee Lauder, $448K, 95% to democrats;
* Guess ? Inc., $145K, 98% to democrats;
* Calvin Klein, $78K, 100% to democrats;
* Liz Claiborne, Inc., $34K, 97% to democrats;
* Levi Straus, $26K, 97% to democrats;
* Olan Mills, $175K, 99% to democrats.
* Gallo Winery, $337K, 95% to democrats;
* Sonic Corporation, $83K, 98% democrat;
* Triarc Companies (Arby's, T.J. Cinnamon's, Pasta Connections), $112K, 96% Democrats;

Bad:
* WalMart, $467K, 97% to republicans;
* K-Mart, $524K, 86% to republicans;
* Home Depot, $298K, 89% to republicans;
* Target, $226K, 70% to republicans;
* Circuit City Stores, $261K, 95% to republicans;
* 3M Co., $281K, 87% to republicans;
* Hallmark Cards, $319K, 92% to republicans;
* Amway, $391K, 100% republican;
* Kohler Co. (plumbing fixtures), $283K, 100% republicans;
* B.F. Goodrich (tires), $215K, 97% to republicans;
* Proctor & Gamble, $243K, 79% to republicans;
* Coors, $174K, 92% to republicans; (also Budweiser - sd)
* Brown-Forman Corp. (Southern Comfort, Jack Daniels, Bushmills, Korbel wines, Lennox China, Dansk, Gorham Silver), $644, 80% to republicans;
* Pilgrim's Pride Corp. (chicken), $366K, 100% republican;
* Outback Steakhouse, $641K, 95% republican;
* Tricon Global Restaurants (KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell), $133K, 87% republican;
* Brinker International (Maggiano's, Brinker Cafe, Chili's, On the Border, Macaroni Grill, Crazymel's, Corner Baker, EatZis), $242K, 83% republican;
* Waffle House, $279K, 100% republican;
* McDonald's Corp., $197K, 86% republican;
* Darden Restaurants (Red Lobster, Olive Garden, Smokey Bones, Bahama Breeze), $121K, 89% republican;
* Mariott International, $323K, 81% to republicans;
* Holiday Inns, $38K, 71% to republicans

Ugly:
* Hyatt Corporation, $187K, 80% to democrats;
* Rite Aid, $517K, 60% to democrats;
* Warnaco (undergarments), $55K, 73% to democrats;
* Southern Wine & Spirits, $213K, 73% to democrats;
* Joseph E. Seagrams & Sons (includes beverage business, plus considerable media interests), $2M+, 67% democrats.
[Texeira had these in the "with us" section, but I say screw the bet-hedging bastards.]

(from Donkey Rising via Digby)

Via Kip and Majickthise (see also Steve Gilliard, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and George McEvoy in the Palm Beach Post): there are currently several bills in the House and Senate that need to be beaten into quivering blobs of American Taliban mush. Let's take a look at them.

Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 (S. 2323/H. R. 3799=S.2082)
Title: A bill to limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism.
Summary:

Amends the Federal judicial code to prohibit the U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal district courts from exercising jurisdiction over any matter in which relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government or an officer or agent of such government by reason of that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.

Prohibits a court of the United States from relying upon any law, policy, or other action of a foreign state or international organization in interpreting and applying the Constitution, other than the constitutional law and English common law.

Provides that any Federal court decision relating to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction by this Act is not binding precedent on State courts.

Provides that any Supreme Court justice or Federal court judge who exceeds the jurisdictional limitations of this Act shall be deemed to have committed an offense for which the justice or judge may be removed, and to have violated the standard of good behavior required of Article III judges by the Constitution.

Safeguarding Our Religious Liberties Act (H.R.3190)
Title: To safeguard our religious liberties.
Summary:

Declares that among those powers reserved to the States and their political subdivisions are the powers to display the Ten Commandments, to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and to recite the national motto on or within property owned or administered by them.

Declares that: (1) the Pledge of Allegiance shall be, "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and justice for all."; and (2) the national motto shall be, "In God we trust."

Excepts from the jurisdiction of Federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court the display of the Ten Commandments and the use of the word "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Ten Commandments Defense Act of 2003 (H.R.2045)
Title: To defend the Ten Commandments.
Summary:

Declares the following : (1) that the power to display the Ten Commandments on or within property owned or administered by the several States or their political subdivisions is among the powers reserved to the States respectively (under the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution); (2) that the expression of religious faith by individual persons on or within property owned or administered by the several States or their political subdivisions is among the rights secured (under the First Amendment) against laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion made or enforced by the Federal Government; and (3) that the expression of religious faith by individual persons on or within property owned or administered by the several States or their political subdivisions is among the liberties of which no State shall deprive any person without due process of law made in pursuance of powers reserved to the States respectively.

Marriage Protection Act of 2004 (H.R.3313)
Title: To amend title 28, United States Code, to limit Federal court jurisdiction over questions under the Defense of Marriage Act.
Summary:

Amends the Federal judicial code to deny Federal courts jurisdiction to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of: (1) the provision of the Defense of Marriage Act that provides that no State shall be required to give effect to any marriage between persons of the same sex under the laws of any other State; or (2) this Act.

These are the six bills you can oppose at a stroke by using AU's one-stop emailer to contact your representatives. In addition, consider the following:

Pledge Protection Act of 2004 (H.R. 2028)
Title: To amend title 28, United States Code, with respect to the jurisdiction of Federal courts over certain cases and controversies involving the Pledge of Allegiance.
Summary:

Amends the Federal judicial code to deny jurisdiction to any Federal court, and appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of the Pledge of Allegiance or its validity under the Constitution. Makes this limitation inapplicable to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia or the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Oppose this via AU here.

Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act (H.R. 235)
Title: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect the religious free exercise and free speech rights of churches and other houses of worship.
Summary:

Amends the Internal Revenue Code to state that churches and other houses of worship shall not lose such designation because of the content, preparation, or presentation of any homily, sermon, teaching, dialectic, or other presentation made during religious services or gatherings.

States that such provision shall not affect campaign finance laws under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.

Oppose this via AU here.

Workplace Religious Freedom Act of 2003 (S. 893)
Title: A bill to amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to establish provisions with respect to religious accommodation in employment, and for other purposes.
Summary:

Amends the the Civil Rights Act of 1964 regarding religious observance in the workplace to declare that for an employer's accommodation of an employee's religious observance or practice to be considered reasonable, it must remove the conflict between employment requirements and the employee's religious observance or practice.

Deems as an unlawful employment practice an employer's refusal to permit an employee to use leave of general usage to remove the conflict solely because the leave will be used to accommodate the religious observance or practice of the employee.

Oppose this via AU here.

More to come on this, but not in a hurry as I'm swamped with work.

It turns out (see the previous entry) that I rather enjoy writing letters, especially snotty ones, to people who probably won't pay them the slightest bit of attention. It eases the pain of my frustration with stupid, selfish and otherwise bad people, very much in the manner of a laxative when one is constipated. In my defense, these are not really crank letters -- or at least, the topics are real and important, even if my tiny voice stands no chance of being heard in this modern wilderness of self-regard and Mammon worship.

So, my latest cranky letter: it seems that MEMRI has threatened Juan Cole with a lawsuit. Fools. Prof Cole has replied in fine style (also here and here), which made it easy for me to comply with his request that readers contact MEMRI and ask that they drop the threat. I even went along, pretty much, with Prof Cole's injunction to be polite:

Dear MEMRI,

I write to urge you to withdraw your preposterous threat of a libel action against Prof Juan Cole. There is no basis for such an action, as Prof Cole has ably explained on his weblog, and in particular the inclusion of the University of Michigan in the threat smacks of an attempt at intimidation.

I am not an expert on international media, the Arab world or any other aspect of this dispute. It is clear, however, even to me, that the lawsuit threat is an attempt to avoid having to engage Prof Cole on the substance of his remarks. You will only marginalise yourselves by continuing with this response, which is at stark odds with the workings and goals of an open, intellectually free society.

Please withdraw the threat and engage Prof Cole in a public debate, beginning with his weblog response to your threat letter. Not only will this allow you to present your side of the issue, but it will further your own goal of bridging the gap between the West and the Middle East -- without bringing your organisation into disrepute.

Sincerely, etc.

I like this so much I may add a separate category for it. Where's that address for the Oregonian editor again?

Update: Max weighs in. A momzer is a bastard (in both the literal "parents not married" and the colloquial "asshole" sense), afaik. From a trackback to Max, Chris of Explananda predicts that MEMRI will "rue the day", and provides links to nearly a dozen other responses.

Clarification the first; or, "responsibility". There's a lot of talk going around about how we (meaning variously "the left" or "blogs") should "be responsible" and not toss around accusations of fraud without hard evidence. I have some disagreement with the way that view has been put forward, but the basic point is sound. It seldom hurts to be precise in one's language, so mea culpa: I jumped the gun too. I agree in principle that I should have talked about "apparent discrepancies among voting tallies, exit polls and voter registration data" and avoided words like "rigged". Here's the disagreement though: someone has to be disreputable and shrill and jump up and down pointing at the numbers yelling something's not right here. If not blogs, then who? Weblogs are not an official anything and they never will be: blogs are just people with web sites which, as an information source, differs from people around the water cooler only in that blogs offer faster, wider dissemination. I've said before that I view the blogosphere as a sort of extended conversation, in which light bringing up the question of electoral fraud without taking the time to be professorially careful in our language is a faux pas, not a gross dereliction of bloggerly duty.

Clarification the second; or, "the questions are still open". There's also been some talk about "reasonable explanations being offered"; this is either simply wrong, or I've missed said explanations. For instance, Brad Leiter linked to this ABC story, saying that it "reviews the charges and seems to put them to rest plausibly enough". With all due respect, he's just wrong about that, and Jeanne of Body and Soul is right. The ABC piece was a disgusting hack job designed to smear "conspiracy theory" across any suggestion of electoral dysfunction and repeat the canard that exit polls are inherently unreliable (or, as they put it, " exit polls are not hard data, they are as accurate as polling" -- which is, again, just plain wrong: any poll is hard data, and exit polls are more reliable than projection polls because the population tested is known voters not likely voters). Some of the discrepancies have been accounted for -- for instance, there were some really odd numbers recurring in different counties in Ohio and Florida, which turned out to be an understandable glitch having to do with absentee ballots and placeholder figures (I can't find the damn link now). Others, however, have not been addressed or explained -- take a look at Radagast's data (see the post below), and then show me the explanation. I have yet to see one. So, when someone claims "oh, those conspiracy theories have all been debunked", they're either mislead themselves or they're trying to mislead you. Which brings me to:

Clarification the third; or, "the larger issue here is electoral reform". There is fraud in nearly every large election, committed on behalf of nearly every candidate. In the case of this election, however, preliminary evidence suggests that the fraud may have been organised and systematically committed by one side. The only way to be sure is to conduct a transparent public investigation, and I think there is sufficient evidence to justify such an investigation. Now, even if the fix was in, it's entirely possible that what will turn up, rather than anything dramatic, is either evidence of fraud that was not enough to overturn the result, or statistical evidence which might convince a wonk like me but won't be enough to prompt Kerry to sue for a recount or second election. Nonetheless, the very need for an investigation strengthens the case for a much-needed overhaul of the US election system. We should never reach the point where there is preliminary evidence of fraud; no such investigation should ever be necessary! Your vote should be as secure as your money: if banks can account for your money down to the penny, the election system should be able to account for every vote. There should be a paper audit trail on every voting station, and random audits should be a routine part of the process, as well as audits of obviously pivotal tallies such as Florida and Ohio this year. In addition, official exit polls should be conducted by several independent organisations and their data made immediately and permanently public. Finally, issues of voter intimidation and misinformation have to be addressed, and though I don't see quite so clearly how to go about that I am certain it can be done. We cannot have any kind of democracy without free and fair elections, and the technology and expertise already exist to make certain we get them. I can imagine that some might prefer to leave the system as it is with all its deep flaws intact, but that would be a difficult position to defend. With a little determination and media savvy, it should be possible to use this mess of an election as a catalyst for electoral reform.

I'm falling into the same old trap of wanting to have everything in order before posting anything, so here is a more or less random assortment of links worth following on the question of fraud in the 2004 election:

Radagast is doing a mighty job: data, data, data, data and yet more data, plus a whole bunch of links and a summary of the Ohio and New Hampshire recounts.

More data here, and a visual representation of same here.

Around the blogosphere: Sean Carroll, Lawrence Lessig, Brad Friedman, Eliot Gelwan and Kevin Drum -- inter, of course, many alia.

Media matters points out that mainstream media has given the question scant attention; indeed, articles like this and this seem mainly designed to throw around the phrase "conspiracy theory" enough that it will start to stick. Better coverage at the New Standard, but they're hardly mainstream, and Consortium News are part of the choir they're preaching to. Kudos to the principled exception to that rule, Keith Olbermann.

Miscellaneous: Schneier on the problems with e-voting, Buzzflash reports that RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie wants to eliminate exit polls, and the Caltech-MIT Voting Technology Project has some calm and presumably competent analysis.

Finally, LooterScibby at MyDD.com has a good argument indicating that I owe John Kerry another apology. We'll see.

[Update: the spousal unit points out that, if Looter's right, we may well not see. Looter's argument is that, by conceding, Kerry did not compromise any of the efforts to validate the vote but he did take the focus off himself: rather than "Kerry the sore loser", the story is the vote. This could be true even if Kerry does not have any further obvious, public involvement in vote counting/checking or the push for free and fair elections. It's certainly the sort of canny move I'd expect from a long-serving Senator, and fits much more closely with my (pre-tantrum) assessment of Kerry's character. Dave Johnson of Seeing The Forest makes the point that holding off on the concession might have made a stronger point that it was a close election and did not give Smirky the mandate he keeps claiming. I frankly think that any win, any margin at all, would have been viewed by the Republican party (at least, the far-right faction that seems to have taken over) as a license to print money and turn the social justice clock back a century or two; there was no avoiding the smug talk of "mandates" and "the will of the people". I was bitterly disappointed when Kerry conceded, but I'm beginning to think I was wrong about that too. Will I ever be right about anything again?]

It really does begin to look like the election was rigged. As Teresa Nielsen Hayden puts it, I deeply resent the way this government makes me feel like a nutbar conspiracy theorist. Unlike Jamie Zawinski, I don't want to believe it, because the idea that "the people would actually vote these fundamentalists into power" is less distressing to me than the idea that they stole this election. Why? Simple: if this election was rigged, the last one probably was and the next one certainly will be, and we are dealing with a cabal that does not intend ever to be out of power again. The very idea turns my bones to water. Here are a few places to start reading about it:

Zawinski and TNH, as mentioned
Democratic Underground (as a side note, Elizabeth Edwards -- may she recover rapidly and fully -- reads DU and has for some time), this thread being where I started taking the idea of fraud seriously
Greg Palast, who saw it coming
Kip dons his moonbat wings; incidentally, I think the phrase "galiel's canaries" should enter the lexicon permanently, and I too will be keeping an eye on them
humongous list o' links at what really happened, some of which should be taken with somewhat more NaCl than usual
Jeff Fisher, a candidate for the House of Reps claims to have evidence of fraud and is calling for a revote
Voters Unite is a clearinghouse for media reports of election problems
US Together has some data on Florida, which is easier to digest as a series of graphs
blackboxvoting.COM has a collection of stories about voting irregularities
blackboxvoting.ORG is Bev Harris' site and possibly our last, best hope if there really was systematic fraud; more below

The big deal is the apparent discrepancy between exit poll data and the final vote tally. When international observers monitor elections, one of the most (if not the most) important methods employed is comparison of exit polls with final tallies. In this case, the claim is that exit polls match closely with final counts except in cases where no paper trail exists. For instance, this picture is all over the place; here are a couple of excerpts:

These images highlight the current cause of my anguish: I don't know who put them together or where they got the numbers from. I went around the net copying all the numbers I could find for a while, but the data gained thereby is not official in any sense and is woefully inadequate anyway. Here's what we need, at a minimum:

exit poll data from as many sources and voting stations as possible
final tallies from the same voting stations
the same data from at least one previous election, preferably several, as controls

and we need those numbers to be reliable, not just "some guy with a blog copied these off the TV screen". There is fraud in every election, and in both directions (pro-Dem and pro-Rep); what the numbers can do is to expose a pattern of systematic fraud. The "usual background" of fraud will show up as a random distribution of anomalies, but if the anomalies collect strongly on one side we have evidence of organised fraud.

Strong statistical evidence will probably not be enough in the short term. No matter how clear, I don't see Bush going to jail on the basis of statistical evidence, nor do I see Kerry suing for a revote. Here's where Bev Harris comes in:

Black Box Voting has taken the position that fraud took place in the 2004 election through electronic voting machines. We base this on hard evidence, documents obtained in public records requests, inside information, and other data indicative of manipulation of electronic voting systems. What we do not know is the specific scope of the fraud. We are working now to compile the proof, based not on soft evidence -- red flags, exit polls -- but core documents obtained by Black Box Voting in the most massive Freedom of Information action in history.

You can see the FOIA requests here; they've been sent to 3000 counties and townships. While I think the exit poll evidence is more important than BBV seems to imply, I don't yet know where to turn for that data. I do know that BBV's FOIA initiative is of vital importance to the free and fair voting issue, as is their ongoing campaign for transparent elections. Please consider giving them some money.

I've got a lot of reading to do, and a lot of letters to write. I want to get my own hands on as much data as possible, and I want to find the people who are working to find out whether this election was rigged so that I can help. Whether the fix was in this year or not, and whether or not we can prove it to a court of law, I think I've found my issue: free and fair elections. Over the next four years, I'm going to be concentrating on making sure that American elections are transparent and fraud-proof. (Incidentally, there has been much speculation that anti-gay marriage ballot initiatives in 11 states provided a huge surge in conservative voter turnout; I wonder whether "free and fair elections" initiatives couldn't do the same for liberals?)

Yeah, so, "decent" to "maggot" in the space of two posts? I may be a bit of a drama queen. Sorry, Senator, for the bad names -- but I meant what I said about not forgiving you. Conceding was wrong; you promised you'd fight all the way, and that's what you should have done. I hope, in fact, that's what you are doing right now, quietly, behind the scenes -- there are plenty of suggestions that the election was swiz. I want those suggestions fully and openly investigated. If the answer is, no, America really did elect that vile idiot, well, so be it -- the point is to clean up the process, in which it seems hardly anyone has any faith left.

Other than that, I just dunno. I got every damn thing wrong. I thought Kerry would win, I was rocksolidsure he wouldn't concede before the last vote was in, I even thought Measure 36, Oregon's anti-gay marriage ballot initiative, would fail. I thought a few donations and a Kerry For President sign in the window was enough. Go, me.

I do know this, though: I'm not leaving. I had expected to be mired in a blue funk of despair if Kerry lost, but to my surprise I'm mostly angry -- not the lashing out pointlessly kind of angry, but the cool determined now you've pissed me off kind of angry. I'd thought about moving to Canada, and about whether I wanted to become a US citizen or not, but now I've decided: one has to stand somewhere, and this is my somewhere. I like it here, and I'm not going to just hand my new home over to the Gays Are Icky And Brown People Don't Count party.

Bush is an unimigated disaster, the worst elected leader I've ever seen (and I'm from the Banana Republic of Australia!). He lied to take the country into an unjustifiable and unjust war, which he then prosecuted with criminal incompetence. He has presided over the worst human rights abuses I've seen in any country whose citizens still largely kid themselves that "we don't do that". He took a record budget surplus and created a record deficit in record time by means of tax breaks for the superwealthy and blatantly corrupt government contracting. He's ignored and tried to marginalize science, promoted ideology over reason, rolled back environmental progress twenty years and shown himself determined to quash dissent from any quarter. Even the bloody abortion rate has skyrocketed under this administration, and he's supposed to be against that. And yet, barring revelations (and concrete proof) of fraud, there he is back in the White House for a second term. Why?

I have some ideas, but they're half-formed at best and my form as a political pundit does not encourage me to write about them anyway. If I were the type who could stick to that I wouldn't have a blog, so I'll be writing about them later -- but for now, I'm going to spend a while listening.

What happened, and how can we stop it from happening again? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Christopher Genovese says what I've been meaning to:

... lacking a clear record of my how my views have developed, I felt obliged to cover more and more, lest it seem to benefit too much from hindsight. Without meaning to, I've let this restrain me from commenting on political matters large and small

Man, do I hear you. Issue after issue, outrage after outrage, I didn't cover it because I didn't have time to cover it fully. I kept meaning to sum up in one big post -- perhaps a wonderchickensian catharsis of bile, perhaps something reasonable and balanced -- but I never got around to it. I kept meaning to post about how I wasn't getting around to it, and remind readers that in putting together my blogroll over there on the right I tried hard to combine comprehensive news and insightful analysis while keeping the number of sites to a readable level -- but I never got around to that either. I guess, like Chris, it just makes me feel better to say all that.

(There's no need for an endorsement from me, but here it is anyway: if you vote for Bush you are stupid, deluded, evil or some combination of all three. John Kerry is not everything I'd like, but I will probably never have that in a president anyway. Kerry is a decent man, a man of integrity, and he has the political and personal werewithal to start to undo some of the horrific damage that Apocalypse Inc and their smirking front man have inflicted on my new homeland and the world. If you give two squirts of cold ratshit about anything other than yourself, you'll vote for John Kerry.)

I admit I never paid a lot of attention to Derek Lowe's In The Pipeline, but I had good intentions of doing so. It seemed like a good way to get a look at the pharmaceutical industry from the inside. Now, however, Lowe has laid his political cards on the table, and in so doing revealed himself to be someone I cannot take seriously. He is going to vote for Bush. It seems that a dollar in his pocket trumps a thousand American and countless thousands of Iraqi casualties in an indefensible, illegal, immoral, inadequately planned and poorly executed war, and that the fear inspired in him by Kerry's "constant hammering on the drug companies" (that he will be "tossed out in the street", no less) overrides the deliberate erosion of civil liberties and democratic processes, the lavish and corrupt catering to the superwealthy at the expense of the middle and lower classes, the degradation of the education system, an undeclared war on women and an open war on the glbt. I don't buy Lowe's claim that his biggest argument with Kerry is on foreign policy: he (Lowe) does not seem stupid (which one would have to be in order really to believe that Kerry would be worse than Bush in re: foreign policy) so I take this to be merely a cover for Lowe's intention to vote on the basis of an exaggerated fear for his own bank balance. I won't waste my time reading the weblog of someone so intellectually dishonest -- particularly not when I want a balanced view of the pharmaceutical industry! -- so Lowe is off the blogroll.

Children's television network Nickelodeon has correctly predicted the winner of the last four presidential elections by polling their viewers. Since this year's poll shows Kerry a handy winner, I'm inclined to say things like "children are a clear window on the revealed preferences of their parents" and "400,000 is a lot of votes". Let's hope the rugrats are right. (via Leiter; Kerry cartoon swiped from nick.com)

Today's Guardian has two ideas, one good and one not so good, on how you might influence the outcome of the upcoming US election if you're not a US citizen. Love it or hate it (and after two years here, I've learned to do both), the US is the 800 pound gorilla of international politics, and what happens here affects all the world. So is it reasonable to expect the rest of the world to sit meekly by and hope we get it right? In one sense, it certainly is -- this is our country, after all. (Note the pronouns; I'll be a citizen in two years, and I consider myself an American now. There's more to love than to hate, despite ShrubCo's best efforts.) That's why I think the Guardian idea of getting their readers to write personal letters to strangers in swing counties is a mostly bad idea, more likely to generate resentment than anything. Their other idea, though, is much better: foreign donations to campaigns or explicitly partisan organisations are illegal, but there are other places to send money which will influence the outcome. In particular, if you want to send Smirky McKillemall back to the arse-end of Texas where he belongs, donate to the NAACP. Says Nathaniel Persily, a Pennsylvania university expert on election law: "It's quite clear that if there was 100% African American turnout in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida, John Kerry would win this election running away." The links go to NAACP offices in those states; other local offices can be found here. Black Americans are disproportionately affected by poverty, which tends to reduce voter turnout, and by felony disenfranchisement. Blacks have also been the target of deliberate malfeasance, because they are an easily identified group which votes largely Democrat. The NAACP runs a voter empowerment program which aims to "register, educate and get (African American) voters to the polls on Election Day".

The Guardian story concludes:

...much of the law banning foreign contributions has never been tested in court and, argues Michael Dorf at Columbia, may even be unconstitutional on grounds of free speech. "If a group calling itself Europeans for Truth wants to run ads giving their view of the truth," Dorf says, "it's hard to draw a principled distinction between that and a British newspaper available at a US newsstand that has an editorial calling Bush and Blair liars."

I'm not sure how I feel about that. I don't think I want you damn forriners meddling in my country's affairs that much.

I thought this an appropriate time to recycle something that made the rounds a while back: Open Debates is a 501(c)3 nonprofit, nonpartisan organization committed to reforming the presidential debate process. Presidential debates have been a part of the campaign cycle since 1976. They were originally run by the nonpartisan League of Women Voters, who pulled out in 1988 in protest over attempts by both parties to control every aspect of the debates, saying

...It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.

Sounds about right, given what I've seen of this year's "debates". No follow-up questions, no public questions, no willingness whatsoever to face even their opponents, let alone the people. Spineless and disgusting. In the wake of LoWV's principled withdrawal, the two major parties put together the Commission on Presidential Debates, which is essentially a way for them to maintain secret control over every detail of the debates. Worse, there appears to be a significant degree of input from corporate interests. The best democracy money can buy, indeed.

Open Debates supports the Citizens' Debate Commission, who describe themselves as "a nonpartisan organization that was established to sponsor future general election presidential debates [and] consists of national civic leaders from the left, center and right of the political spectrum who are committed to maximizing voter education". The Commission has seventeen members and an Advisory Board of over fifty community organisations. The proposed structure of future debates is as follows:

1. Participants to be selected according to criteria developed by the Appleseed Citizens' Task Force on Fair Debates, part of the Appleseed Electoral Reform Project at American University's Washington College of Law: third party candidates will be included if they make enough state ballots to win an electoral college majority and either register at five percent in national polls (designed to match eligibility for federal campaign funding) or register a majority in national polls asking eligible voters who should participate. The idea is to allow third party candidates with a reasonable level of support to take part, without drowning out majority candidates.

2. Schedule: five 90-minute presidential debates and one 90-minute vice-presidential debate at colleges and universities across the country.

3. Rules:

Follow-up questions must be permitted in every debate.
At least one debate must include candidate-to-candidate questioning.
At least two debates must include rebuttals and surrebuttals.
Response times must not be overly restrictive.
Candidates may only exercise a limited number of vetoes concerning the selection of moderators and panelists.

4. Formats:

Two single moderator debates, at least one to feature direct candidate-to-candidate questioning, loose time restrictions and minimal interference from the moderator.
Authentic town-hall debate: no screening of questions, audience to be a valid cross-section of America.
Youth debate: selbstverständlich.
Panel debate: questions from a panel of academic, civic, artistic, religious, media, labor and business leaders/experts.

Elected leaders should be accountable. Run properly, the presidential debates could force the major parties to face the people on every issue, not just the comfortable ones. It's not enough -- a good hard look at the presidential candidates once every four years -- but it's a start. Go here to see what you can do to make it happen. If nothing else, at least sign the petition.

Online polls at about 8:00 - 8:30 pm:

CNN.com: Edwards 82%, Cheney 14%, tie 4% (54524 votes)
Orlando Sentinel: Edwards 75%, Cheney 25% (30004 votes)
MSNBC: Edwards 76%, Cheney 24% (186952 votes)
Akron Beacon-Journal: Edwards 98%, Cheney 2% (19843 votes)
Fox News: Edwards 57%, Cheney 41%, didn't watch 1%, nota 1% (39639 votes)
Wall Street Journal: Edwards 95%, Cheney 4%, tie 1% (6152 votes)
Newsday.com: Edwards 96%, Cheney 4% (22666 votes)
CBS News: Edwards 78%, Cheney 21%, tie 2% (no numbers available)
CBS03 Philadelphia: Edwards 83%, Cheney 17% (2591 votes)
Houston Chronicle: Edwards 90%, Cheney 10% (1737 votes)
Detroit News: Edwards 89%, Cheney 11% (no numbers available)
Campaign Online: Edwards 95%, Cheney 5% (no numbers available)
Boston.com: Edwards 84%, Cheney 11%, tie 4%, both poor 1% (3982 votes)

Huh. I'd have thought this one would have tipped to Cheney. Not that the mendacious moneygrub didn't lie through his teeth more or less constantly, but to my mind Edwards let him get away with it. To illustrate, here's one of the few Edwards got right:

C: Kerry has voted 98 times to raise taxes
E: yes, and he's voted over six hundred times to cut them

That is exactly the sort of misleading cherry-picking of data that Cheney did all night, and I wish Edwards had nailed him for it every time and pointed out what Cheney was up to. Alternet predicted many of Cheney's lies, and provides the facts that Edwards should have had at his fingertips. For instance, Cheney claimed never to have met Edwards; it shouldn't have taken Edwards more than ten seconds to point out that lie. That was in reference to Edwards' attendance record, to which Bush's record-breaking holiday habit was a readymade reply that Edwards didn't bother with. I could go on, but it's too depressing.

The spousal unit made another depressing observation: perhaps Cheney's wonk act turned people off -- the wonkiness, that is, not the fact that it was a carefully scripted series of deceptions. Gah. I'd hate to think Edwards could win by spouting generalities and generally being handsome, but I guess I'll take it if it gets Apocalypse Inc out of the White House.

Two upbeat points before bed. First, in light of recent polls showing that up to 40% of Americans still think there is/was some link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, Edwards' insistence on the truth in that instance makes more sense, and may have done some real swaying of votes. Second, spousal unit reports that the post-debate factchecking on CNN was harsh on Cheney's lies, so maybe there's a wider awareness of his deceitful nature than I'd thought.

I surprised myself by making it all the way through the first of the presidential ~~synchronous press conferences~~ debates without barfing -- although it helped to have nerf balls to throw at the screen. Kerry did very, very well: he had clear answers with specific data, and he kept to a strong, simple core message. Bush got it wrong, here's how, I'll get it right, here's how. Someone in the Dem camp has been watching the Republican success with the press and taking notes. Kerry pushed home the fact that he has been far more consistent than Bush, despite the "flip-flop" theme, and he pushed hard on Bush's weaknesses: no plan for peace, no credibility with erstwhile allies, no action on bin Laden, insufficient support for the troops, allowing nuclear proliferation to accelerate. Bush looked confused and agitated much of the time, and relied on sound-bite nonsequiturs: it's hard work, the world is safer, you've got to be resolute. No matter the question, Bush kept coming back to the same few tired points without even varying the phrases; compared with Kerry's focused theme, it was unsubtle and ineffective. I am more confident than ever that, come November, Bush is a goner.

I have one specific question: Kerry claimed that Bush has cut funding for nuclear nonproliferation work, whereas Bush claimed he has raised it by 35%. Who's right?

Dear CBS,

there is apparently a campaign under way to get you to sack Dan Rather. Don't do it! Mistakes happen; Dan got punk'd, no one got killed and he owned up -- when will GWB admit even one of his many, far more costly, mistakes? If unscrupulous liar Lisa Myers still has a job, honest Dan should get to keep his.

Don't can Dan!

----

Feedback to CBS via the link at the bottom of this page; the above is the letter I sent them.

(I seem to be recycling a lot of links from the spousal unit lately.)

Media Tenor International claims to be "the world's leading provider of international media content analysis". I can't really judge that claim, but I like their Slant-o-meter because the September 21 edition cheered me up considerably:

It's not clear to me how they derive the numbers; for instance, of 120 statements regarding Crusader Codpiece by ABC news, "the share of negative reports exceeded the share of positive reports by 32.5%". So then

POS + NEG = 120
POS/NEG = 1.325

solves to NEG = 51.6. If NEG = 52, I get POS/NEG = 1.308. But never mind all that maths bollocks, look at the pretty picture! Fox "News" doesn't count, because they are the broadcast arm of the RNC. ABC news is strongly pro-Kerry and even NBC and CBS, despite being "more negative" about Kerry than about Bush, talked more about Bush and so made more negative comments about the Chicken-in-Chief than about THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, JOHN F KERRY. Ahem. 'Scuse me.

I would wonder whether there is something to all that whining about "liberal media bias" after all, except if you're talking about Chimpy it's impossible to say much positive without telling outright porkies (like, say, Fox). So maybe the US mass media is showing a teeny bit of spine after all.

(Via the spousal unit's sidebar.)

I think there is a strong possibility of malfeasance in the upcoming US election, particularly in respect of electronic vote counting (or not counting, as the case may be). WorldChanging (also here) and For The Record have good coverage of the background, and you can take action and learn more at Black Box Voting and Verified Voting.

One of the simplest actions voters can take is to use a postal ballot. This may not be necessary where you are, and it's certainly not a good long-term solution, but for many US voters it may be a good way to sidestep, and register dissatisfaction with, e-voting in the upcoming election. Overseas Vote 2004 is a good way to obtain the necessary paperwork and check the registration deadlines. Beware of state laws regarding eligibility for postal ballots, though: if your vote can be challenged, it will be challenged if the election is at all close.

While I'm at it, don't forget Project Vote Smart, one of the best political resources online.

Don't screw this up, America.

Remember Dudley "ain't no law against bein' a asshole" Hiibel (previous entry here)?

He lost.

UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh examines the decision here (also here and here). As I understand it, you don't have to provide ID on demand but you do have to give your (real) name. Also, since the decision is that the demand for your name does not violate the US constitution, what it really means is that state laws requiring you to give your name are not unconstitutional. Some states may not have such laws (yet).

photo of general secretary of the Burmese National League for Democracy Aung San Suu Kyi The general secretary of the Burmese National League for Democracy, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, is perhaps the world's most famous dissident. Her nonviolent campaign for democracy and human rights in a country that has been under a brutal military dictatorship for more than forty years has seen her, among other sacrifices, spend nine of the last 15 years in some form of detention; she is under house arrest at the time of writing, having been detained in May last year. She has been a tireless and selfless voice for her people since she began her political activism in August 1988, when she wrote an open letter to the military government calling for democratic multi-party elections. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is the recipient of numerous honours, the subject of several biographies (1, 2, 3) and the author of, inter alia, Letters from Burma, Freedom from Fear and other writings, a biography of her father Aung San and children's books on Bhutan, Nepal and Burma.

A brief bio can be found here and an extensive one here. Free Burma has an excellent brief introduction to the modern history of Burma, including why you shouldn't call it "Myanmar" and how to pronounce "Aung San Suu Kyi". Wikipedia has a brief history beginning with the Mon kingdom around 300 BCE. I swiped the picture from the Daw Aung San Suu Kyi pages, where you can read speeches, articles, interviews, news and more. Further news and info is available from burmanet, the Burma Project, freeburma.org, the Democratic Voice of Burma and links therein.

I wasn't in the US when Reagan was president, so all I "remember" of him comes from later experience with his legacies: as a researcher in HIV/AIDS, he became known to me as the man who could have, but didn't, save millions, and as a guilty white liberal with a mental illness of my own (major depression) I learned to loathe the man who shut down the US' ailing mental health infrastructure without doing a damn thing to build an effective replacement. In the light of these two failures alone, the current bumper crop of oily media eulogies is turning my stomach. That's all I have to say about that; for a glimpse of the personal, see Brad and Terrance, and for a savvy political summary Juan Cole.

Remember this story about worthless douchebag Scott J Bloch? As the newly appointed director of the Office of Special Counsel, which is supposed to protect whistleblowers and other federal employees from retribution, this subhuman sack of satanic dingleballs removed references to sexual orientation from the anti-discrimination information provided by his department. Not long after that, he blithely announced that gay federal employees could be fired without recourse on the basis of their sexual orientation.

It seems that Shifty George and his Uptight White Christian Right Junta liked that idea just fine, so now they're doing the same thing to women's issues. The National Council for Research on Women has released a report (available here) detailing the multitude of ways in which Shrub's Morlocks are undermining the body of reliable public scientific and sociological information. From the report's Executive Summary:

A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) fact sheet that focused on the advantages of using condoms to prevent sexually transmitted disease was revised in December 2002 to cast doubt on the effectiveness of condoms, calling evidence on condom use and transmission of HIV and other STD’s “inconclusive.”

Contrary to broad medical consensus, information on the National Cancer Institute (NCI) website was changed in 2002 to state that studies about the link between abortion and breast cancer were inconsistent. After an outcry by members of Congress, the NCI posted the panel’s actual finding: abortion is not associated with an increased breast-cancer risk.

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) has charged that officials distorted the CDC’s science-based performance measures to test the effectiveness of sex education programs to prevent HIV and other STDs and used “measures designed to obscure the lack of efficacy of abstinence-only programs.” [That's not all the UCS has charged, either. --s]

A valuable Department of Labor publication on the rights of women workers once distributed by the Women’s Bureau, Don’t Work in the Dark—Know Your Rights, is no longer available.

A much-used Department of Labor Handbook on Women’s Workers is scheduled for re-release, but as of March 2004, no date was available for its publication.

The Census Bureau touts the ratio of women’s earnings as compared to men – 76 cents for every $1 – as “an all-time high.” In reality, the disparity in wages has remained nearly constant with less than 1% change in the ratio in recent years, and was characterized in 2000 as a lack of pay equity.

Only extraordinary public outcry prevented the appointment of Dr. W. David Hager to chair the FDA’s Reproductive Health Drug Advisory Committee. Hager is known for prescribing prayer as a treatment for premenstrual syndrome and refusing to prescribe birth control pills to unmarried women. He remains a member of the committee.

The Title X funding appropriation bill for fiscal year 2004 allows the Health and Human Services department to collect the names of health providers that offer abortion services with their non-Title X dollars

There's a lot more where that came from. Removal of reliable information from the public domain is a favourite tactic of repressive regimes everywhere, and it is now clear that the Bush II administration has adopted it wholeheartedly. My answer to nearly every problem is, at least in part, "more information!", so I find this slimy methodology particularly repugnant. (I'm trying to back off politics, since I started this blog to talk about science and my RSS blogroll (over on the right there) is a better source for political information than I will ever be, but this story really chafed my scrote.)

(Props to Jeanne of Body and Soul, who has been all over this issue.)

I hope this will kill Diebold dead. The Oakland Trib has a better article:

the nation's second-largest provider of voting systems concedes that its flagship products in California have significant security flaws and that it supplied hundreds of poorly designed electronic-voting devices that disenfranchised voters in the March presidential primary.

Diebold Election Systems Inc. President Bob Urosevich admitted this and more, and apologized "for any embarrassment."

"We were caught. We apologize for that," Urosevich said of the mass failures of devices needed to call up digital ballots.

After the vile way in which the Bush junta siezed power in 2000, I have no doubt whatsoever that they will steal every vote that isn't nailed down. As this latest farce shows, using Diebold machines is just handing them opportunities. Bruce Schneier recently pointed out how cheap it would be to steal an election based on electronic voting, and Bev Harris has loads of info. This is one of the most important issues of the 2004 election, if not the most, and it gets more important with every upswing in Kerry's fortunes. BushCo™ has no intention of ever losing power; if The People™ are to thwart their designs, voting must -- must must must -- be transparent.

Die, you malignant corporate tumour on the tainture of America! Die!

(via Body and Soul)

Update: from For the Record, who have been all over this issue for some time, comes a related story from Florida, the spiritual home of election fraud, and a timely reminder that some of the best anti-disenfranchisement resources around can be had at Verified Voting.

Whenever I am tempted to sneer at religion and to think of it in terms of the Pat Robertsons and Fred Niles, it does me good to read something by or about ex-POTUS and tireless champion of the poor Jimmy Carter; but even he can piss me off sometimes:

I personally, in my Sunday-school lessons, don’t favor the religious endorsement of a gay marriage. But I do favor equal treatment under the law for people who differ from me in sexual orientation.

[...]

I have always been against abortion; it’s not possible for me in my own concept of Christ to believe that Jesus would favor abortion. But at the same time, I have supported the Supreme Court ruling of our country as the law of the land. And the present arrangement, whereby a woman is authorized to have an abortion in the first trimester of the pregnancy, or when the pregnancy is caused by rape or incest -- these are the things that moderates who have beliefs like mine can accept as the present circumstances in our country.

Baal's bollocks, man! What part of "my body, my business" does your invisible friend not understand?

Of course, quotes with neither context nor further comment can be misleading; perhaps Mr Carter favours state-administered secular unions for all, with "marriage" reserved for religious institutions and the blessings they see fit to grant or withhold. I could go for that. I still don't like the sound of "accept as the present circumstances", but I can't see Mr Carter endorsing legislation that would take away a woman's control over her own body. Perhaps he would favour leaving abortion legal but providing strong advocacy for carrying to term even rape babies, together with state support for women who choose that option. Perhaps I could even cope with that.

(link-fu props to the spousal unit)

Son of a bitch. From the excellent Orcinus comes the story (Salon, day pass req'd) of one ordinary citizen's encounter with his President:

It was July 4, 2001, and we were both at one of those things that the late historian Daniel Boorstin would have labeled a "pseudo-event:" A church picnic in Philadelphia, designed to help George W. Bush promote his faith-based policies. I was working at the time for a local nonprofit that had helped set it up, but I had some serious misgivings about the president's performance up to that point, and being a part of the whole operation had left me feeling a bit like a pseudo-person. So when I had the chance to shake Bush's hand, I said, "Mr. President, I'm very disappointed in your work so far. I hope you only serve four years."

His smiling response was swift: "Who cares what you think?"

In David's comments, Morgan (not his/her own page, but I presume he/she wants to plug it) points out that Snopes has not been able to confirm or deny the story. Well, how would they? It's Hangley's word against Shifty George's. (Hangley is a journalist, he took notes on the spot and there are witnesses. Those notes would be admissible as evidence in court, AFAIK. Unless Shifty can prove it's a lie I'm buying it.)

Opines Snopes:

There are plenty of traditional outlets for expressing dissatisfaction with the policies and actions of elected representatives, but walking up to the President at a public function and telling him he's doing a lousy job isn't one of them. Such behavior demonstrates a lack of respect for the office of President of the United States

Bullshit. What access does Joe Citizen have to an autocrat like GWB? The bastard doesn't read his mail, and his peons are afraid to relay negative opinions to him. In any case, turn it around: what right does a public servant have to expect nothing but rose petals and red carpets? Why shouldn't a member of the public take an all-too-rare opportunity to express an opinion directly to an elected official? As for "respect for the office", that's even worse bullshit. One respects persons, if they have earned it, one does not kow-tow to a job title.

Reason #1: Blake at American Footprint points to several news stories about the Bureau of Land Management's decision to sell 40000 acres of buffer zone around Dinosaur National Monument -- to oil and gas interests. Earthjustice has maps. I have a sick feeling.

Reason #2: DocBug has the good oil on HR-3261:

[this bill] would allow database maintainers to sue anyone who copies facts from their database for a competing product. Even if those facts aren't protectable under copyright. Even if they were produced by someone else. Even if the database itself was produced by someone else and is only being maintained by the plaintiff.

It's a landgrab by a bunch of scumbags like Elsevier; Doc points out the sorts of things they want to do with it and provides a bunch of references, including action alerts from the American Library Association and the EFF.

From billmon via Kip: spend Shifty George's ill-gotten campaign funds for him with this astroturf tool from georgewbush.com. You type in your zip code and up comes a list of local newspapers, helpfully grouped by circulation and proximity; check the ones you want to write to, ~~cut and paste some predigested GOP propaganda~~ write your own message into the form, and with a single click your letter is on its way to dozens of editors.

Do this. Do it now, do it tomorrow, do it as often as you can think of something to say about the state of the nation.

[P.S. billmon warns that the tool sets a cookie so you might want to nuke that little fucker after each session.]

I think the Beatles were crap and I can't stand hip-hop (the music, not the culture), so it's not surprising that I think DJ Danger Mouse's Grey Album is shite. That's not the point, though. From greytuesday.org:

DJ Danger Mouse created a remix of Jay-Z's the Black Album and the Beatles White Album, and called it the Grey Album. Jay-Z's record label, Roc-A-Fella, released an a capella version of his Black Album specifically to encourage remixes like this one. But despite praise from music fans and major media outlets... EMI has sent cease and desist letters demanding that stores destroy their copies of the album and websites remove them from their site. EMI claims copyright control of the Beatles 1968 White Album.

Hence Grey Tuesday, a day of online civil disobedience on which sites all over the web will be turning grey in support of artistic freedom from greedy corporate pirates and offering the Grey Album in mp3 format. I couldn't turn this site grey if my life depended on it (html is a dialect of Martian, right?), and I frankly don't have the stones to host the mp3s. My immigration status is somewhat delicate and I just don't need the kind of legal aggravation that bastards with deep pockets and squads of attack lawyers like EMI could give me. Linkage is the best I can do for now. Waxy first made me aware of the issue; mathowie and 6foot6 both have the album and a great, thoughtful post to go with it; and greytuesday.org is the official site and has lists of all participating sites.

I've been meaning to write about this issue, but the sheer scope of it has caused me to procrastinate. Now, however, someone has done the work I should have (and then some), and things appear to be coming to a head. Angry Bear at The American Street links to this story from the Union of Concerned Scientists:

...more than 60 leading scientists—including Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors and university chairs and presidents—issued a statement calling for regulatory and legislative action to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking. According to the scientists, the Bush administration has, among other abuses, suppressed and distorted scientific analysis from federal agencies, and taken actions that have undermined the quality of scientific advisory panels.

As AB notes, the place to go for coverage of this issue is Chris Mooney's blog; his take on the statement is here. See also the "politics" category at Pharyngula for some bracingly bilious background on the Bush administration's hostility to science.

You can read the statement here, see a list of heavyweight signatories here, and if you're a scientist you can add your mark here (yes, I signed it). The statement itself is part of a wider campaign in which I urge everyone to get involved. One of the focal points of the campaign and the force behind the signed public statement is a report entitled Scientific Integrity in Policymaking: An Investigation into the Bush Administration's Misuse of Science; you can download the full report or executive summary as pdf files from here. You should read the whole thing, but here are the basic findings:

1. There is a well-established pattern of suppression and distortion of scientific findings by high-ranking Bush administration political appointees across numerous federal agencies.

2. There is strong documentation of a wideranging effort to manipulate the government’s scientific advisory system to prevent the appearance of advice that might run counter to the administration’s political agenda.

3. There is evidence that the administration often imposes restrictions on what government scientists can say or write about “sensitive” topics.

4. There is significant evidence that the scope and scale of the manipulation, suppression, and misrepresentation of science by the Bush administration is unprecedented.

Remember how the media kept calling Howard Dean "angry"? Listen: if you're not angry, you haven't been paying attention.

Here's an update to two earlier entries on places to go to get away from the spin and find some facts, this time with a focus on electronic voting.

For the Record points to a post by Jeanne D'arc at Body and Soul about voting machines and the importance of a paper trail; if you haven't been keeping up, those two posts are a good starting point. This is a vital issue for all Americans. (A commenter in the BaS thread recommended absentee voting as a way to force a hand-count of your vote, and I could not agree more.)

FtR also links to Verified Voting, a watchdog site concerned with "transparent, reliable, and publicly verifiable elections in the United States". They say they have been operating for the last 8 months without funding from anyone but their core group of volunteers, but now that they are registered as a 501(c)(4) non-profit (can engage in political activity, donations not tax-deductible) they are beginning fundraising. No word on whose money they will or won't take. Of particular note, they have a good background on the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act and accompanying Senate bill which require require a voter-verifiable audit trail on every voting system.

Verified Voting links to Votewatch, "a nonprofit non-partisan organization of citizen volunteers, statisticians, lawyers, technologists, journalists and election officials who monitor public elections in the U.S.A., analyze patterns, and make their findings public prior to the certification of the election". It looks to be mainly exit polling plus a forum for citizen reporting on individual elections. When you follow the money, things get a bit fuzzy:

As of October 7th, 2003, Votewatch has been internally funded through the generosity of its team members and the good will of its partners. Votewatch is embarking on an external funding plan that will target foundations of all ideologies, the general public, organizations and philanthropists.

There's also the matter of partnership with for-profit research firm Aguirre International.

While I'm on the topic, Marylaine Block's Neat New Stuff links to the Center for Public Integrity, a "nonprofit, nonpartisan, tax-exempt organization" founded by Charles Lewis which "does not accept contributions from anonymous donors or from corporations, labor unions or governments" and lists donors over $500 in the last year, with a contact address for more information. The Center was founded in 1989, has a full-time staff of 40 and has "issued more than 200 investigative reports, including 12 books", and its "findings or perspective have appeared in roughly 8,000 news media stories". For an idea of what they do, check out this story on the windfalls of war:

More than 70 American companies and individuals have won up to $8 billion in contracts for work in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan over the last two years, according to a new study by the Center for Public Integrity. Those companies donated more money to the presidential campaigns of George W. Bush—a little over $500,000—than to any other politician over the last dozen years [...]

Update: just looked through my saved folder and found this post on the electronic voting issue from Ruminate This. Jack K provides more solid background and, in the process, links to Black Box Voting. This seems to be a blog associated with the book (also available free in pdf format at the site) of the same name by Bev Harris. No information on who pays for what, though.

the art of the possible Category Archive