Washington State proposed initiative: Have kids or be annulled!

Gotta love this story: same-sex marriage proponents are gathering signatures to get a somewhat controversial initiative on the ballot. Basically it would require married couples to have kids within 3 years, or risk having their marriage annulled! Did I say "somewhat" controversial?

Ha!

The idea is to respond to the conservative anti-gay civil rights folks who claim marriage is about raising families. Well, OK then, but a lot of married couples (including the one I'm about to become a part of) are not planning to raise families. Why is my impending childless marriage perfectly OK, while my gay friends' is not? Well, if this initiative passed (and I lived in Washington) it wouldn't be!

Some thoughts from around the blogosphere:

The Daily Gotham gives a pretty good run-down of the proposed initiative.

Crooks and Liars asks, "Who is making more of a mockery of marriage: a gay couple wanting to have their relationship recognized or Republican would-be candidates like Gingrich or Guiliani both on their third marriages?"

The Art of the Blog points to a second article that has some reactions...from a conservative who still manages to have a sense of humor, and from gay groups who don't want to support the idea of "taking away anyone else's rights."

OK, we can all agree that this is obviously being proposed just to make a point, and that it's pretty funny. What will it accomplish? Maybe just getting people talking about the absurdity of one of the arguments against same-sex marriage. Which is a worthy goal in and of itself, no?

How many bad appointments can one president make?

When it comes to Dubya the answer is: many, many.

The latest, a nutty appointment: a typical right-wing zealot to be Director of the Office on Violence Against Women. Here's Jessica Valenti's take from the HuffPo.

So why does it matter if she's a hyper-conservative running this office...won't she be really really law and order oriented or something?

Well, it's her record on how she likes to spend taxpayer money that's a little disturbing, including her $12M crusade against people selling bongs no the internet. Apparently she caught 55 people with that cash.

Look, it's just that it's disturbing that so many of Dubya's appointments aren't just Republican or conservative...I mean that's totally what we signed up for when we elected him, right? But do the all have to be on the zany, wacky, extreme edge of the right-wing? It communicates that either:

a) he is unaware of how little stomach the American people have for extremism on either end of the political spectrum

or

b) He's so giddy and drunk with power (and oblivious to how it's been slipping away from him) that he just doesn't care if more than half the country will be appalled by these folks.

Which is it?

Anti-terrorism Bill low point of Bush presidency?

There's no doubt that there are many low points. But some low points are, let's face it, of limited lasting impact, while others threaten to change the very foundation of our country.

The anti-terrorism bill heading toward Dubya's desk for signing is potentially one such threat. With broad strokes it creates a shadow justice system, designed to operate without the constraints of our typical system of checks and balances. It grants new levels of presidential power. It's very scary indeed.

Here are some sources to read about it:

Today's powerful NY Times editorial. Key excerpt:

There is not enough time to fix these bills, especially since the few Republicans who call themselves moderates have been whipped into line, and the Democratic leadership in the Senate seems to have misplaced its spine. If there was ever a moment for a filibuster, this was it.

We don't blame the Democrats for being frightened. The Republicans have made it clear that they'll use any opportunity to brand anyone who votes against this bill as a terrorist enabler. But Americans of the future won't remember the pragmatic arguments for caving in to the administration.

They'll know that in 2006, Congress passed a tyrannical law that will be ranked with the low points in American democracy, our generation's version of the Alien and Sedition Acts.

For the love of God, you are supposed to be our last line of defense. You are about to gut our whole system of government. Torture. Indefinite detentions. Unlimited and arbitrary executive power. What on God's green earth is American about any of that? You're going to let them turn us into a third rate banana republic.

I can understand if the average citizen doesn't comprehend the idea of habeas corpus, but a United States senator? It is the foundation of western government. An accused must be allowed to see a judge. If the executive branch has the sole authority to hold people indefinitely without ever charging them, we cease to be a civilized country. That is nearly the textbook definition of tyranny. What is left of America?!

What have you let Al Qaeda do to us? You let them win by destroying who we are.

In case I disappear, remember this. America is an idea, a dream, and that is all. We have borders and armies and citizens and commerce and industry, but all this merely makes us like every other nation on this Earth. What separates us is the idea, the simple idea, that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are our organizing principles. We can think as we please, speak as we please, write as we please, worship as we please, go where we please. We are protected from the kinds of tyranny that inspired our creation as a nation in the first place.

That was the idea. That was the dream. It may all be over now, but once upon a time, it existed. No good idea ever truly dies. The dream was here, and so was I, and so were you.

My friend, the former DOJ lawyer, on PBS' NOW...voting rights? What voting rights?

You know, sometimes you suspect how bad things are with this administration, but you're almost glad you don't know the real truth. I have a buddy who was a lawyer in the Voting Rights section of the DOJ for seven years. He toughed it out through Bush's first term, hoping that a Democrat would be elected in 2004 and swiftly reverse some of the damaging actions (or lack of action) being taken.

After the 2004 election he got out of there pretty quickly. He told some pretty harrowing stories about just how much the Bush Justice Dept. did not care about voter fraud, voter disenfranchisement and the like, but I wasn't really at liberty to blog his stories.

Now he's got a job as a senior attorney for People For the American Way and appeared this weekend on the PBS show NOW in a segment called "Block the Vote."

It was a great segment, with the reporter asking questions that most mainstream media types just let go unasked. Of course I wanted it to be longer and cover even more, but it was great nonetheless.

So check it, and my friend attorney Dave Becker, out.

The Republican agenda: Hate

For the last few weeks Republicans in the CA Legislature have voiced their hate of gays over and over. First we had GOPers walking out of an Assembly session that honored gay Californians:

A group of conservative Republicans walked off the Assembly Floor during a ceremony to honor six high profile gay Californians.

"Ladies and Gentlemen, I rise to point out the ridiculousness of the exercise," said Assembly Republican Leader George Plescia (R-San Diego). "We're wasting a lot of time we have a lot of bills on the floor."

Plescia remained in the chamber but Assemblymember. Dennis Mountjoy (R - Monrovia) and several other Republicans stormed out. Several others did not show up for the session.

And then when the CA Assembly discusses (and passes) a bill that would ban

materials and activities in schools that are discriminatory toward gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender individuals.

We get this reaction from GOP assemblymembers:

"This is a predatory bill," said GOP Assemblyman Jay LaSuer of La Mesa. "It preys on the innocence of children on a lifestyle that is unacceptable."

More below the fold...

And today we are treated to this fine example of hate by the Republicans:

"Here we go again," said Assemblyman Jay La Seur, R-La Mesa (San Diego County), a vocal critic of any expansion of gay rights during his nearly six years in the Assembly. "In the time I've been up here, there have been 40 bills in this house to further the homosexual, gay agenda."

La Seur described Migden's tax filing bill as further "erosion and dilution of morality in this state."

And this:

Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, who is gay, asked Republicans to be more civil, saying he was hurt by comments made by Assembly GOP Leader George Plescia of San Diego, describing a recent ceremony on the floor honoring gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons as "ridiculous."

Assemblyman Dennis Mountjoy, R-Monrovia, an outspoken opponent of gay rights, asked why Leno objected to his expressing those views.

"It is not normal. It is abnormal," thundered Mountjoy of homosexuality. "It is sexually deviant behavior."

Hate is the agenda of CA Republicans, hate that owns them, hate that drives them and a hate that is not only disgusting, it is all the GOP can offer. It is sad indeed that people like Mountjoy and LaSuer have been elected to office and one can only hope that their days in office will be short lived.

Bush II; Day 525: Gay families and the delayed Easter Egg Hunt.

You may have heard about this kerfuffle:

Unlike years past the Annual Easter Egg Hunt at the White House was split into two groups. All the gay families were given tickets for a Hunt with a later start date, noon. Laura Bush and other administration dignitaries only showed up for the morning Hunt.

Of course, you'll note that so-called liberal media outlets, like CNN, noted this split thusly:

The Bushes posed for pictures with families at the event, which was closed off to the public in the early morning hours. Attending at the event's start were White House staff, youth volunteer groups, kids from the Gulf Coast region and other invited guests.

To get a more personal take on the event, read this recap, complete with plenty of pictures, from Daddy, Papa and Me.

Bush II; Day 524: Re-segregation in Nebraska?

Wow.

Legislation has passed in Nebraska that would divide Omaha's schools into three districts, specifically identifiable by their dominant race.

Not only that, but the measure was pushed by the state's sole African American state senator...because he wants black educators to control the education of black kids.

I'm trying to wrap my head around that as a possible plus, but how is this not institutionalized and purposeful segregation? How is this not "separate but equal"?

IOW: How is this even constitutional?

Bush II; Day 518: I find this depressing...

We, the United States, decided to sit out trying to get on the new U.N. Human Rights Council.

Sure, there is some spin about leverage and signaling it's not "business as usual", but the plain truth is that we are going to miss out on the first year of the Council's existence when, according to some experts: "all key decisions about serious reform issues, from the curtailment of inappropriate bodies to whether and how countries are scrutinized, will be made in the first year."

Even a gaggle of Republicans were urging the White house to go for a seat on the Council.

So why wouldn't we? Could it be that we didn't relish the idea that "the United States was worried that revelations of abuses of detainees in Iraq and of clandestine prisons abroad had raised fears in the Bush administration that it could not get the 96 votes in the 191-member General Assembly needed for election."

It seems like a sad day for the U.S. that we have resigned ourselves to the sidelines, rather than leading the charge on human rights.

UPDATED: Bush II; Day 507: Color me confused

Massachusetts' high court confuses me.

So they start out by saying that Massachusetts must let gay couple wed.

But last week they ruled that gay couples who don't live in Massachusetts can't come to Massachusetts to wed...if said marriage would not be recognized in their "home' state.

I'm confused for a number of reasons.

Why should Massachusetts care if said marriages were only valid in Massachusetts?

Why would Massachusetts support what they consider the unconstitutional practices of other states?

What would Las Vegas do if they could only marry people from Nevada?

And how weak is it to rely on a 1913 statute that was designed to perpetuate a ban on inter-racial marriage as your legal foundation?

I like how one lawyer for the gay and Lesbian Advocates & Defenders put it:

"This is a ridiculous, confusing and badly formed law," Ms. Granda said. "We live in a mobile society, and where someone lives today may have no meaning for them when they go on vacation next month or relocate a year from now."

UPDATED: Over at Ann Althouse's blog she doesn't do much more than quote this same article, but the comments? Quite lively.

Bush II; Day 506: Some Republicans think the Voting Rights Act has "outlived its usefulness."

Hmm. I wonder if any black Republicans think so?

According to this NY Times article there are many Republicans who would love to not re-authorize the Voting Rights Act when it comes up in 2007. They think it's a done deal, outdated etc.

Now, let's just think back a couple of years to Ohio...where there were plenty of voting machines in white neighborhoods and long lines for limited numbers of machines in black neighborhoods. Or back to Florida in 2000.

Or how about the new law in Georgia to require a photo ID to vote? See it's the Voting Rights Act that requires this law to be reviewed by the Justice Department before it can take effect. Since other states have such a law it's doubtful Georgia will be stopped, but they did have to add a proviso that anyone who wanted one could get a state-issued photo ID at no charge...which should help the poor and elderly who don't drive and therefore don't have licenses.

I think the experiences of the last 6 years indicate that the issues that the Voting Rights Act was meant to address are still hot-button ones, and still relevant ones.

Bush II; Day 501: Censure Bush and...

...start working on getting the next person into office who will actually make progress on any issue, domestic or international!

Look Dubya's now an admitted lame duck, expecting the next person to clean up his mess.

So, why is everyone so afraid of him...join Feingold and censure the guy. If you need to be convinced it is neither premature, nor self-destructive, then read Glenn Greenwald's post on the HuffPo about why it is neither.

Key excerpt debunking the premature argument:

In defending itself, the Administration is offering only legal arguments -- not factual disputes -- as to why it had the right to eavesdrop without complying with the law (namely, that the President has inherent authority to eavesdrop even if the law prohibits it, and that Congress gave him implicit permission to eavesdropping outside of FISA when it enacted the AUMF). But the Administration is not denying -- and has never denied -- the fact that it engaged in the very warrantless eavesdropping covered by FISA.

Thus, no investigation could even conceivably shed further light on the question of whether the President broke the law. We know he did that. The sole question which Senators have to answer is what they think the consequences ought to be, if any, for a President to order eavesdropping on Americans citizens which Americans, through their Congress, prohibited by law.

It is critical that Democrats recognize that we are not in 2003 anymore. George Bush is a wildly unpopular President whom the public neither likes nor trusts. The public overwhelmingly believes that the President deliberately made false statements to induce the nation into war and that he cannot be trusted. It is nothing short of transparent delusion to suggest that Americans -- outside of the dwindling number of blindly loyal Bush followers -- will somehow be offended by Democrats objecting to Bush's violations of the law, or by demanding that he not eavesdrop on American citizens in secret, just as the law, for 30 years, has prohibited.

What he said.

Bush II; Day 500: Kick 'em when they're down

This is not a partisan issue, this is a basic decency issue: A somewhat new post-Hurrican Katrina organization called Color of Change is asking, and rightly so, why displaced New Orleans residents can't get the same level of treatment that ex-patriate Iraqis did?

What do I mean? The right to vote, despite being evacuated from your home.

Here's what the issue is:

On April 22nd, New Orleans will hold it's first mayoral election since the storm. Everyone watching knows what will happen if elections go forward without a change--the Black vote will be suppressed and the ability for Black New Orleanians to claim their future compromised. During Iraq's election, the U.S. government provided polling places in U.S. cities with large numbers of Iraqi-Americans. Why won't it do the same for thousands of mostly Black displaced New Orleanians?

Please join us in calling on Governor Blanco to protect the voting rights of Katrina survivors by demanding satellite voting and, if necessary, postponing the election to do so:

I did it, and you should too.

Bush II; Day 496: Gay Marriage vs. Polygamy

Conservative blogger Ann Althouse succinctly draws a distinction between gay marriage and polygamy (you know, that slippery slope that we'll surely be headed down once gay marriage is finally legal, as it inevitably will be.)

Main argument:

A gay person with a pension and a health insurance plan is incapable of extending those benefits to his (or her) partner. He (or she) can't file a joint tax return. That's not fair. A polygamous marriage, however, puts a group of persons in a position to claim more economic benefits than the traditional heterosexual couple. That doesn't appeal to our sense of fairness. [snip] But it's not all about love and who respects what. It's also about economics. And in that dimension, it's easy to distinguish polygamy.

She is, of course, getting ripped in her comments.

I find her argument intellectually interesting, but of course I do think it's about more than financial or legal equity. It's about societal recognition and respect.

Now, if we transition to an arrangement where civil unions are recognized byour government adn marriages are recognized by churches, then I'd be fine with that too. But if we're not going to do that, then it's equal social compacts that think are in order.

Bush II; Day 483: Rewriting the laws after the infraction

These are sad, sad times. But we do have the opportunity as a nation to do something about it in a mere 8 months.

According to this NY Times editorial, the Republican Congress is currently considering re-writing law to make sure Bush's currently illegal wiretapping activities are retroactively covered.

Yes, that's right.

Whether you live in a district with a Democrat or Republican currently in office, let that incumbent know that this is not acceptable to an American people who believe their country really does stand for liberty, justice, democracy and all those other values that seem to be trampled on at will by the Bush Administration. Republican congress people are assuming that standing up to the Administration and their party leadership on this one will make it hard for them to win re-election in November. Yet polls have shown that people from both parties are disturbed by the implications of what's been going on.

Republican and Democratic congress people alike should be encouraged by their constituents to do the right thing...and that's what will see them through in November.

Bush II; Day 481: California sets a good precedent on this one

California is one of only two states that forbids the shackling of female prison inmates if they are in labor.

And I say, more power to us. I haven't had a child, but any of you who have, imagine being in this position:

Shawanna Nelson, a prisoner at the McPherson Unit in Newport, Ark., had been in labor for more than 12 hours when she arrived at Newport Hospital on Sept. 20, 2003. Ms. Nelson, whose legs were shackled together and who had been given nothing stronger than Tylenol all day, begged, according to court papers, to have the shackles removed. Though her doctor and two nurses joined in the request, her lawsuit says, the guard in charge of her refused. "She was shackled all through labor," said Ms. Nelson's lawyer, Cathleen V. Compton. "The doctor who was delivering the baby made them remove the shackles for the actual delivery at the very end."

In case you're thinking Ms. Nelson was another Aileen Wuornos, serial-killer type, here's the skinny on her crimes:

Ms. Nelson was serving time for identity fraud and writing bad checks when she gave birth at age 30. She weighed a little more than 100 pounds, and her baby, it turned out, weighed nine and a half pounds. The experience of giving birth without anesthesia while largely immobilized has left her with lasting back pain and damage to her sciatic nerve.

I understand the concept of prison, punishment etc. But there is such a thing as "cruel and unusual", and there is such a concept as the punishment fitting the crime.

I hope the other 48 follow California and Illinois' lead on this one.

Bush II; Day 470: Dubya ain't convincing his own guys

Even the Republicans aren't buying the Dubya line on his illegal wiretapping activities.

Will they actually have the cojones to do anything substantive about it? Another story entirely.

Bush II; Day 461: When it says Libby Libby Libby...

Looks like Libby is going to turn over on his "superiors."
Source: Mercury News [Reg. Req'd.]
Source: National Journal

As StacyB asks over at BlogHer: Is it time for Dick Cheney to get a lawyer?

I should think so.

Bush II; Day 458: All talk, no cattle

Oh, Arlen Specter talks a good game. He doesn't take Alberto Gonzales' justification of the spying program on faith alone. He say Gonzales explanations thus far are "strained and unrealistic."

But when it comes right down to it, Specter refuses to even make Gonzales be sworn in for the hearing on the subject! Find video from this post at The Lantern.

And on those hearings: here's a recap link with lots of other links from You forgot Poland!

Specter, McCain etc. They're the biggest wanna-be-Democrats-but-don't-have-the-cojones wimps around.

Bush II; Day 453: Arrested for what you wear

I just shrivel up and die when I read about what our country is coming to. Arrested for a T-shirt. A T-shirt being worn in the house of Congress, supposedly the "People's House."

No obscenity on that T-Shirt. No pornography. No libel.

Just the number of our soldiers killed in Iraq.

Oh, and it was worn by Cindy Sheehan, during the SOTU speech, which may have had a teeny tiny thing to do with it.

I like what JD Lasica has to say about it.

Bush II; Day 450: Um, because it's the right thing to do?

I cannot stand these people, including Democrats who wonder how other Democrats can possibly continue to try to block Alito's nomination to the SCOTUS.

That includes you Senator Obama, who is going to have to work very hard to restore the level of esteem in which i once held him with his latest comments:

"We need to recognize, because Judge Alito will be confirmed, that, if we're going to oppose a nominee that we've got to persuade the American people that, in fact, their values are at stake," Obama said. "There is an over-reliance on the part of Democrats for procedural maneuvers.
There's one way to guarantee that the judges who are appointed to the Supreme Court are judges that reflect our values. And that's to win elections."

Oh, yes, true that I'm sure, but is Senator Obama (and those like him) saying that because we lost the 2004 presidential election Democrats should roll over, show their bellies and give up standing up for what is right until we win in 2008?

No, if Alito is an anti-choice proponent of an imperial presidency, then I think they have to stand up and do what they can to stop him. THAT would be the way to persuade the people our values are at stake, by being willing to take a risk for them.

And read Digby's views too.

Bush II; Day 442: Must-read Al Gore speech

Yes, you'll have to watch an ad to get access to Al Gore's full speech on Salon.com (if you're not a member.) It's worth it.

"A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government."

Yes indeed.

Bush II; Day 439: Republicans getting their hate on

Joining the ranks of other wingnut hate-mongerers radio host Janet Parshall has some choice words about homosexuality...all inspired by discussing a movie she, of course, hasn't actually seen.

So sad when they have to continue to go back to poor Matthew Shepherd and drag up what happened to him as some sort of cautionary tale about the dangers of the homosexual "lifestyle." Um, no, he is a cautionary tale about the dangers of intolerance, hate and self-righteousness.

If you have a stomach for the kind of hate Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin and the like dish out, click through. If not, take my word for it. Disgusting.

Am I sexist for feeling more shocked and disturbed that there are women who can be so full of hate?

Bush II; Day 438: The Spy Who Swamped Me

...in useless data that is.

OK, maybe some Democrats won't like this, but I'm not willing to say that just because Dubya's illegal spying program deluged the FBI with mostly useless data, that means there was no useful data gathered.

Let's leave aside that the useful data, if it exists, was gathered by unnecessary illegal means, let's look at the other part of the story here: the continued incompetence of the Bush Administration.

Yes, let's set up a program that will pull loads of data to be analyzed and dump it on an agency without the resources to mine the data efficiently, nor the focus of intelligence data analysis vs. crime-fighting.

You read this article and you're struck by the sort of left hand/right hand bungling described. Yes, this is exactly the kind of bureaucratic mess government is known for. Wasn't the MBA president going to change all that?

Well, I've worked with some pretty clueless MBAs without management or communication skills, so perhaps we should have checked that we were getting a skillful MBA president.

Bush II; Day 437: Hey Right-wing pundits: MLK Jr. was no conservative!

Josh Trevino methodically knocks over the carefully constructed house of cards that some conservatives build when trying to claim Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as one of their own.

The best way to honor King may be to go back and listen to and read some of his own words on this day, rather than the BS some people write about him.

Bush II; Day 436: Read this: Chris Nolan says Alito: NO

Chris Nolan has written an important post pointing to an important article by Noah Feldman in the Sunday Times Magazine about the Alito hearings.

We all know Alito is anti-choice...come on, is Dubya going to nominate anyone other than a pro-lifer? But the surprising and disturbing part of Alito's gig is his belief that our President should be more than "leader of the free world" powerful. (I mean, isn't that enough for Dubya?) No, of course not, he wants to be "dictator of America" powerful.

I guess increasing power in this country will compensate Dubya for how his policies that marginalize science, dumb down education, and reduce opportunity are actually reducing America's impact and power world-wide.

But I digress.

Let me just ask you this: have you contacted your Senators? Have you written a letter to the Editor?

Good. Because in 2008 when a Democrat is elected to the Presidency and has all that power Dubya grabs for himself now, we can look at the depressed Repugs and fight back the urge to say "we old you so"...most of the time.

Bush II; Day 433: Alito is Alarming

Looking for a succinct breakdown of why Alito's theoretically imminent coronation as the next Supreme Court Justice should disturb everyone, not just Democrats?

Look no further than this NY Times editorial.

Even if you buy his explanations that he never really believed the things he has proudly said in various job applications and off-court writings...then that's nearly as disturbing. It paints a picture of a weaselly, disingenuous toadying man without principles.

So, it's either that or he's an anti-choice, anti-regular guy, pro-dictatorial presidency extremist.

What a choice.

Bush II; Day 430: Wrong on Human Rights

Who is?

Well, according to this NY Times editorial, John Bolton and the Administration...big surprise, right?

Basically this is a case trying to replace Wrong #1 with Wrong #2. Bolton and the Administration don't want seats on the Human Rights monitoring council to automatically rotate, lest the seats be given to egregious human rights violators. Their solution? Have some seats automatically given to the 5 top Security Council members (including the US)...regardless of whether those countries ever become egregious human rights violators.

Um. Missing the point much? The problem was the "automatic" thing, not the giving of seats to particular countries we don't like at the moment.

But that's the current administration....what's good for the goose is definitely not good for anyone else...just us. Do as we say, not as we do.

And other parental cliches.

Bush II; Day 420: In case you're still wondering...

...why I can't support the death penalty:

Check out this brief story about how decades-old recovered DNA samples, when examined with today's technology, exonerated 5 men currently in Virginia prisons.

The sad truth was that the latest 2 exonerated men were found when examining a sample of only 29 cases. That's almost 10%.

The 5 men freed thus far had spent a combined 90 years in prison for crimes they are now proven not to have committed. Thankfully none of them were executed.

I'm not saying they're good guys or bad guys. But we have a system in this country where we're supposed to put bad guys away for the bad things they actually do. That whole, pesky innocent-until-proven-guilty thing.

Just further evidence that mistakes happen, and that someone's life isn't an OK price to pay for those mistakes.

Bush II; Day 419: Truth hurts, doesn't it?

Oooh. The righties are going crazy over the ACLU's NY Times full-page ad. I just don't see how you argue the point it is making, so pass it along:

Bush II; Day 414: Do they think there are limits?

Glenn Greenwald asks a very good question on his Unclaimed Territory blog: Do Bush and the people who continue to defend his every action think there are any limits on his "wartime powers?"

After Glenn goes point by point and obliterates the weak (but confidently expressed) justifications for Dubya's spying program, you have to believe the answer is "no."

Read the comments for a lengthy definition of Fascism.

Oh, and if you haven't seen "Good Night and Good Luck", now continues to be an excellent time to do so. We have come through such times before, but we needed brave people to stand up to the would-be oppressors.

Bush II; Day 412: When I'm right I'm right

I brought up the other day that this spying on US citizens who dared to communicate to overseas locations was bogus, not least because it's getting harder and harder to tell when someone is overseas and when they're not.

When I'm right, I'm right.

Meanwhile one of the judges on the "secret spy court", that is in place precisely to grant the authority that Dubya seems to believe he has just by being President, has resigned. One assumes it is in protest, although he hasn't publicly said so.

I hope those Senators who currently claim they're concerned enough to investigate don't get all pussy-footed and let it go.

They just extended the Patriot Act for 6 months, so they have demonstrated that their resolve has a very short shelf life.

Sigh.

Bush II; Day 409: Spies R Us

Are you an American who feels: "civil liberties are important, but we don't want another September 11", as though that is the forgone conclusion about necessary trade-offs?

The so-called liberal media thinks we all are such Americans according to this exchange quoted by David Sirota.

But, you know, in case you weren't nervous enough that the NSA is spying on Americans, recent revelations prove that everybody is in the suspect spying business. The FBI is spying on Greenpeace and the Catholic Workers. The Pentagon is spying on gay legal groups.

In other words, 9/11 hasn't just been the excuse to go into a "war of choice", using known unreliable intelligence to make the case to a scared populace, no, it's been the excuse to trample on the rights of individuals and lawfully assembled groups of individuals.

"Freedom ain't free" people like to say to justify military action. And it is, more and more, seeming like it's not really American anymore either.

Bush II; Day 408: King George?

Oh. My. God. If I have to hear our President sound so testy and annoyed at being asked reasonable questions one more time I am going to take a vow of silence: his.

A friend called me and told me to flip on NPR to hear Dubya being interviewed by Jim Lehrer. This interview was in the wake of the stunning NY Times story that Bush had authorized the NSA (usually confined to International spy work, like the CIA) to spy on US citizens and residents without warrants or court orders. [We're supposed to feel better because they only did this on calls and emails that were between the US and outside the US.]

You know, if you're so sure it's the right thing to do, Dubya, then explain it, justify it, give me one actual example of a person who was caught before doing something bad (a vague claim he made.) I mean if you caught someone, and they're actually in jail, then you can't be giving anything away to the person's buddies, right?

But no, Dubya is insulted he should even have to explain. "Yeah, I authorized it" he seems to be saying, "whaddya gonna do about it?" And he certainly has no intention of stopping it.

No, he's got sort of a "trust me" type attitude. Well, as recent polls have shown, the American people no longer really trust him. And a big part of it is his imperious "I don't need no stinkin' badges" (or court orders, or warrants, or Constitution) attitude.

We didn't get rid of one King George just to get another one. And isn't it the ultimate irony that we are losing American lives supposedly to spread democracy, while Dubya tramples the one we've got.

Oh, and if you think this is some liberal cause, you're not paying attention. True conservatives are extremely PRO-civil liberty and ANTI-government interference. Plenty of them don't like this latest development either.

Chew on this: with many new VoIP services people can retain their US phone numbers even when they're visiting or living in foreign countries. I know people who have done this. And most email addresses don't indicate a country of origin. So, you can easily be communicating internationally without even being aware of it. Hope you're not on a list somewhere for getting monitored.

Not that they ever make mistakes with those lists. Oh, wait. Yeah, they do.

Bush II; Day 399: Emigrating for freedom?

Andrew Sullivan writes a touching post about Britain starting civil partnerships for gay couples. And sounds a bit wistful that his birthplace has ended up outpacing his adopted home in the area of gay rights. He asks how many immigrants will actually be giving up civil liberties to move here. Not a pretty question.

Just as I can't understand how hearing Happy Holidays rather than Merry Christmas affects your reiligious feelings over the day, I can't understand how a gay couple's marriage impacts any straight couple's marriage. If it does, perhaps your marriage needs shoring up too!

Bush II; Day 396: Abuse of Power

Yesterday's NY Times editorial is spot on: this president is mistaking his temporary role as our head of state as an excuse to manipulate our checks and balances to try to have the powers of a dictator.

How are we as a nation allowing the kind of abuse of power being perpetrated by the Bush Administration, on the basis of a tiny majority win? (A win if you ignore all the irregularities that abounded in the 2004 election...which most of us, including our press, seem to be doing.)

Well, 2006 is an excellent and timely (no matter how much some of us would say it was tardy) opportunity to stop it.

What are you doing to help this country find itself again?

Bush II; Day 394: Ideology over Science...and, now, over Law

Majikthise succinctly extracts the key finding from a recent WaPo investigation of the Texas redistricting controversy.

"The leaked memo shows that the Justice Department's legal experts unanimously found that the plan was illegal, but that a senior political approved the plan anyway."

You know why I believe this is absolutely true, and absolutely political? Because I know someone who worked in the Voting Rights section of the Justice Dept., coming on at the end of the Clinton presidency and suriving thru four years of the Bush Administration, praying for a Kerry win. He finally quit after Bush's re-election...because he just couldn't stand the suppression of valid vote fraud investigations anymore. Basically any investigation that might have benefitted Democratic voters (note: they are not thwarting Democratic candidates; they are thwarting the will of Democratic voters) was simply curtailed or even ceased.

So, yeah, this leaked memo...no big surprise to me.

Bush II; Day 391: What would lead someone to renounce their citizenship?

No, not U.S. citizenship, Singaporean citizenship.

I have a good firend who is from Singapore. He's married to an American and can get his U.S. citizenship any time. The government of Singapore has done something that is motivating him to not only get his American citizenship, but to formally renounce his Singaporean citizenship.

Today they executed by hanging a young Australian man who was arrested at their airport with 14 oz. of drugs. The man was a 21-year-old "mule", whose excuse was needing money for his twin brother's medical care. After his arrest he helped the authorities nab some big fish in the drug trafficking pond.

My friend feels ashamed that his country has done something so barbaric. True, my friend is against the death penalty in general, as am I, but he at least comforts himself that it is much much more rarely executed here, and for more serious crimes.

Why tell this story? Because it shows that people can hold their countries and their governments to a high standard and feel devastated when that country or government doesn't live up to that standard.

The people protesting our own government's use of torture and shady, flimsy justifications for war don't hate America. They expect America to be a paragon of fairness and justice. They're disappointed to discover it is not. They are not betrayers...they feel betrayed.

Bush II; Day 387: What can happen to one of us can happen to any of us

I know it's not popular to use what's happening to someone like Jose Padilla as an example to the rest of us. It's so easy to separate him from you. (To me it's similar to how people can't bear to think of harm coming to a puppy, but have no problem eating other animals...but then that's just vegetarian me.)

Seeing Good Night and Good Luck on Friday really reminded me of that saying: what happens to one of us could happen to any of us.

It doesn't matter if Padilla is a bad guy or not. What matters is that in America there are certain standards. Standards like "innocent until proven guilty." And the reason we apply them even to people who turn out to be pond scum is that we want them to be applied to each one of us should we ever be in that position.

And if you are silently thinking, "well, just don't do anything wrong, and you'll have nothing to worry about", then you've got your head in the sand.

This NY Times examination of how the Bush Administration is acting as "judge, jury and executioner", hiding behind the veil of secrecy and waving the banner of national security, reminds me again...this is not the way we're supposed to do things.

So, it may not be popular. And Jose Padilla may not be a puppy, I don't claim to know. I just know he is an American citizen. And whether we like it or not, he has rights that we all have.

And just a bonus: here's one more person weighing in intelligently and passionately about why torture is just wrong. Source: Digby

A Must-see Movie

Just saw Good Night and Good Luck yesterday. It's a must-see.

Here's my review over at my personal blog.

Bush II; Day 384: Does our Constitution matter?

Say what you will about the character and quality of people in prison and detained in the U.S. and under American authority elsewhere, our constitutional protections were designed to apply to us all. Surely we can all admit that the innocent have been falsely accused, imprisoned, even executed, and surely we all remember that little "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy.

There is a reason that the founders of our nation included protections for all in our founding documents. They were rising from the ashes of a tyranny to build a better and more just society and government.

They knew how tyrannies can abuse their power.

But as Eric Alterman rightly points out:

"You know, if the Bush administration says it can pick up an American citizen off the street, hold him incommunicado, refuse him the right to a trial and refuse to explain what the nature of his crime is, I think this pretty much makes the United States Constitution inoperative.

Sure, not many of us are likely to face the problems that Mr. Padilla faces, and for all I know he is a bad guy. But our Constitutional protections are supposed to apply to bad guys as much as good guys."

There's more, and much as I don't have to know or like some of the guys being treated this way by our government...I have to care about the implications.

And so should we all.

Bush II; Day 356: One shoe drops: Miers withdraws

And it's all about lawyer/client privilege.

Uh, yeah, right.

Hey wasn't that "president's confidence in candid counsel" an issue during the Kenneth Starr witch hunt against Clinton? The right didn't think the president's right to that was so important back then.

OK, when I wear my conspiracy theorist hat, I think this is about having one nomination killed, so the Democratic Party's stomach to block another one is reduced, and now Dubya can nominate another Scalia or Thomas-type.

More likely, they realized that digging was going to reveal more and more crony deals that Miers benefitted from, from the inflated sale of land to the excessive payments received for campaign advice. That may have been the tip of the corruption iceberg, and what with the entire country holding ts breath to see who, if anyone, gets indicted, they probably want to avoid that whole "stench of corruption" cologne around the White House.

Or maybe my other theory is right: that eventually the moderate (non-fanatic) Republicans are finally going to realize that hitching their wagon to a lame-duck President with record low approval ratings ain't going to help any of them in 2006 or 2008, and they are going to start having the cojones to stand up to the radical faction of their party.

Time will tell.

Bush II; Day 342: Those who fight the good fight

Forgot to mention one of the highlights of my trip to the California Democratic Party Executive board a couple of weekends ago...a luncheon that featured California Assemblyman Mark Leno as the keynote speaker.

He spoke about many things, but of course talked a lot about the fight to get the marriage freedom bill through the ligislature (only to be vetoed, of coures, by Ah-nold.)

After the lunch he stayed and spoke to people (unlike most keynoters who skedaddle away from the teeming masses as quickly as possible.) My lunch companion told me that her husband didn't like Leno because he had killed a public safety bill in committee that her husband supported. So I said, "let's go ask him about it."

Which we did.

And he stood there talking to us for about 10-15 minutes. I don't know if he would have convinced my friend's husband, but you had to appreciate the consideration and focus.

And he did say he'd be back again with another marriage freedom bill.

Let's hope next time a Democrat who understands this is this decade's civil rights movement is in office!

Here's Mark:

Bush II; Day 334: What you need to know about Prop. 73

Yes, I know our main focus on Prop. 73 (the Teen Safety Prop...that equates forcing teens to talk to their parents no matter what those parents are like) is that this law tries to mandate healthy family communication and is likely to backfire on the most vulnerable of our teenagers.

But I'd like to point something else about this Prop. out to you...something that may give even people that just believe parents should always know, even if they're otherwise pro-choice:

This proposition has totally superfluous language in it to establish that life, or a "child," begins at conception. It's in a parenthetical phrase in the beginning of the Proposition, and it's thrown in there without much relevance to the actual nitty-gritty of the Prop. So why is it there, do you suppose? Well, it's been one of the unresolved conflicts of the legal battle over abortion. When does life begin? When does viable life begin?

This Proposition wants to sneak it into law that it begins at conception. And that is the very definition of slippery slope. Say goodbye to the morning-after pill. Hell, say goodbye to the IUD.

Think I'm being dramatic? Don't put your head in the sand. The chip-chip-chipping away is going on in all sorts of little ways. Check out this proposed Indiana law that would limit certain fertility treatments to married woman (obviously married heterosexual women, since Indiana doesn't have gay marriage.) The same legislation wants to "certify" prospective parents who want fertility treatments too. And wouldn't you know it, a "description of the family lifestyle of the intended parents, to include a description of individual participation in faith-based or church activities" is part of the certification process.

Creepy.

And a attempt to degrade women's civil rights.

So even if you live in a Pollyanna world where a teen girl should always tell her parents and live with the consequences, this other part should give you pause.

Bush II; Day 327: Karen Hughes surprised by Saudi women

Fascinating article in the NY Times abut a recent visit Karen hughes, spinstress extraordinaire, made to Saudi Arabia. Months after her appointment to the all-important post of reaching out to the Muslim world Hughes finally started doing some work. (See, the cronyism is really systemic...and pervades even the most strategic positions, not just the ambassadorship to Liechtenstein, as Jon Stewart is fond of citing.)

Anyway, while Hughes tried to drum up support for US meddling in Mid-East affairs by talking about letting women drive and vote, these women said it was presumptuous to assume they cared so much about that.

I'm really torn by this column. The University at which Hughes spoke hand-picked the audience, so it's quite possible they were chosen for their satisfaction level with current conditions for women. I usually hear men, even liberal men, like Bill Maher, say that we're imposing our cultural view of equality and opportunity and freedom on these Arab cultures, and I think: easy for him to say. He's not the one covered head to toe unable to drive or vote or be seen alone with a man, even in public.

These women say that's perfectly OK with them.

I can certainly understand their not wanting to be lectured to by a representative from the most gleefully repressive and globally reviled American administration in years, but are they really satisfied?

Food for thought, that's for sure.

Bush II; Day 312: Blogging the Roberts Confirmation Hearings

My BlogHer partner Lisa Stone is blogging the Roberts Confirmation hearings over at LegalBlogWatch.

Don't miss her report (and her commentary.)

Bush II; Day 307 REDUX: Proud to be Californian

This last few weeks it's been hard to feel pride in being American. Hell, Dubya has been making that hard for the last 5 years.

But yesterday when I saw this headline come across the wires I sure felt proud to be a California, as our Legislature takes a stand and does what is right.

California is the first state to have legalized gay marriage via a legislature, not the courts.

Now it's up to Ah-nold to sign it.

I urge you to write him and tell him you expect him to do it.

If it's against the will of the people I suppose they'll vote their legislators out of office in 2006. but I'm willing to bet that doesn't happen to most of these folks.

Bush II; Day 303: This ain't Philadelphia people!

I have been more than annoyed by the fact that our Administration hopes that we won't mind if Iraq fashions a constitutions that oppresses women. More than aggravated that they've been saying, oh, we should be happy if a 2005 Iraq Constitution is like one from 200 years ago in this country. (You know, especially since "human rights" has become their new reason we went to war.)

The Administration keeps trying to make these comparisons between the situation in Iraq and the situation in our own country post-Revolution.

The NY Times shoots down that analogy here.

Just in case you were being lulled.

Bush II; Day 296: It's not alarmist; it's reality-based

The folks who support the Patriot Act are saying that the people bringing up potential civil liberties degradation are "alarmists" and that if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to worry about it.

Yeah, right.

Anyway, yes, there are real-live reasons to be concerned. Check out this story about library records being perused. Source: Ny Times

A buddy on the Post Op-Ed pages: Reviving Jim Crow?

I have a friend who used to be a Justice Department attorney in the Voting Rights area. Once Dubya got re-elected he knew he had to leave because he couldn't stand to see the apathy the Republican administration showed toward voter suppression and fraud activities anymore.

Today Dave Becker has an Op-Ed published in the WaPo...about how some states are effectively trying to revive Jim Crow laws.

Bush II; Day 291 (in advance): More on women's place in the Dubya world

The other day I ranted a bit about how the radical right really wants to put women back into the "barefoot and pregnant" business.

Last night I watched Bill Maher's season premier of the new season of "Real Time." I noted with some distaste how the two conservatives on the panel back-pedaled any association between successfully getting democracy off the ground in Iraq and making sure women didn't get thrust back into the dark ages.

Well a quote from today's Meet the Press bolsters my rant and should get a good working over in the blogosphere today:

"...women's social rights are not critical to the evolution of democracy. We hope they're there. I think they will be there. But I think we need to put this into perspective."
Reuel Marc Gerecht, Director of the Middle East Initiative for PNAC

First things first, they seemed to be saying. "First things" obviously meaning civil rights for men.

Once again...bastards!

Bush II; Day 287: Women...do you want to be set back decades?????

OK, we women make up over half the damn population. It's time to wake up and realize what the current radical right wants to do to us: they want to put us back decades of progress.

It's not just abortion. Going back to when it was illegal, when, make no mistake, those who were wealthy could get them anyway, while those who were not wealthy could not.

It's not just birth control...which some states used to outlaw for married couples. If you're too young to remember that...think about it. And now wingnut pharmacists aren't just anti-"morning-after pill", they're anti-birth control pill!

And you know what, I'm not too surprised if SCOTUS nominee John Roberts is pro-life...what else could we expect. (Hey, just saying I'm not surprised, not that I'm happy about it.)

But I am a little surprised and disappointed to read this choice quote from Roberts' lawyering days:

"Some might question whether encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good..."

When will women and their like-minded male allies realize this has got nothing to do with unborn children. This has everything to do with limiting the rights of women.

This is the definition of "regressive."

And as half the population, I really don't think we should stand for it.

Bush II; Day 270: The Patriot ACT is on its way to permanence

The Senate approved the permanent extension of all but 2 provisions of the Patriot Act.

They have not made the controversial library provision permanent, nor the roving wiretaps provision.

The Republicans also agreed to give up pursuing extensions of the Patriot Act they were seeking.

So, do we interpret this as meaning that the Republicans had to compromise and that despite winning re-election and all that "political capital", Dubya is still unable to just push through his agenda unimpeded?

Or do we think this is just another tiny little compromise on the part of the Republicans, but a major capitulation on our part?

And could we expect a better outcome?

Bush II; Day 262: The Patriot Act skating by

In all the hooplah (deserved hooplah ) about the Supreme Court and Rove's likely perjury, obstruction of justice and just plain evil-tude, no one's paying much attention the extension of the Patriot Act. Well, except the blogosphere of course.

KRON's blogger does a little role-playing.

Here's a list of the spineless house Democrats who joined the Republicans to extend it as is, luckily I don't see any locals there.

But Digby makes the case that nobody is more spineless than a lapdog Republican with actual intelligence and good intentions who sublimates both to avoid getting on the bad side of their highest ranking perjurer, obstructor of justice and evil dude.

Oh, and in case you're waiting for more info on Rove's evil-tude the Daily Kos has a good update (hint: it's looking very, very bad) but I think it's even more interesting to hear from Republican former-CIA guy Larry Johnson spells it out nicely here. (Hint: he's giving the Democratc Party weekly radio address this week...think he's pissed?)

All appalling, All the time...the new slogan of the Republican Party.

Bush II; Day 236: Today is Gay Pride

The Gay Pride Parade is going on in San Francisco today, starting in less than 2 hours.

In honor of the Day I'd like to point you to this essay by a local performer, Heather Gold.

Key sentence:

"[The best part is...] knowing that no matter how politically useful queer fear is to this President, that the people in “the right of the people peaceably to assemble…” includes us too."

Yes it does. And I like her concluding thought too:

"Straight Families of Queer Folk: Or just people. It’s the beginning of bringing all of us together. One day Pride will just be a big party for everyone. "

Everywhere I go and with everyone I talk to I find pockets of people getting along as people, instead of focusing on the dividing lines between us. And everywhere I go and everyone I talk to I hear stories about casual prejudice.

I share Heather's hope that the former one day overwhelms the latter.

Bush II; Day 211: Anyone else surprised this was still happening?

New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer is a spitfire! Or that's what they'd call him if he was a woman I guess...do you ever hear ayone call a man a "spitfire"? And should I be offended by that?

But I digress. Point is that Spitzer went after employment agencies who were noting whether employers had racial preferences on their job orders. Eight agencies have agreed to cease asking for or recording such preferences from employers. And he is suing the 2 agencies who refused to agree to stop doing that.

And my question while reading this story was: Seriously? They were still doing that at all? I guess I am more naive than I realized. I was completely shocked.

Bush II; Day 209: Molly Ivins introduces me to a new hero

Man, I love it when I find an articulate advocate for positions with which I agree.

This time Molly Ivins introduces me to Texas legislator Senfronia Thompson.

While the Texas legislature (Republican-dominated thanks to an out-of-order redistricting, but you knew that) ignores the myriad serious issues facing Texas, from education to health care, they are making sure to take care of sexy cheerleading, and now the spectre of gay marriage.

Thompson's powerful condemnation of the hate and divisiveness driving the bill in question is all the more poignant knowing that the legislature could listen to her logical and passionate dissent...and ignore it.

People used to say "how California goes, so goes the nation", but you shoold realize that in the last few years it has been "how Texas goes, so goes the nation."

Be afraid. be very afraid.

Bush II; Day 189: There's good news and bad news for gay rights

First the bad news: According to the Associated Press, the FDA is going to implement rules that bar any man who has engaged in any homosexual sex in the last five years from being an anonymous sperm donor.

See, shouldn't it be about the behavior...like unprotected sex of any kind, not about the orientation? Are they going through the same screening for men who sleep with hookers, IV drug users, etc. etc.

Then there is the good news: yet another judge strikes down a gay marriage ban, this time in the form of a state constitutional amendment as, well, unconstitutional. Part of the issue is that the scope of the ban went way beyond marriage and prohibited gay couples from sharing health insurance or could interfere with child custody cases.

Judges are doing this all over the country, regardless of the red or blueness of the state and regardless of whether they were appointees of Democrat or Republican presidents.

Shouldn't that be telling us something?

Bush II; Day 180: Cuomo to the rescue

Mario Cuomo has always been one of the Democratic Party's bright oratorical lights.

It's a shame he hasn't been as much in the public eye in the last few years, I think we could have used him in 2004.

He's his usual incisive self on the current filibuster kerfuffle here.

Bush II; Day 176: The Judges Dubya Wants

Man, what a motley crew of judges who want to be activists and use the bench to further their out-of-the-mainstream passions...like destroying the environment, ruling against consumers in favor of corporations and equating gay Americans with necrophiliacs and pedophiles. (last time I checked the majority of child abuse cases involve straight men. Source: PBS Frontline)

It's good to remember a couple of things when wondering why Democrats are so passionately defending the filibuster:

1. It's only these 7 radical judges (out of over 100 nominated) that have been challenged. And it's good to remember that it's these 7 radical judges for whom Dubya and Frist are fighting so hard to get on the bench that they're willing to flout 200 years of a pretty good working system.

2. The Republicans didn't mind blocking Clinton's judges purely out of partisan pique...blocking dozens.

The Republicans are trying to act like the Democrats are engaged in some heinous, never-before-heard-of-obstructionist tactics...and that is yet another joke.

No president is entitled to just get a 100% pass...why bother holding committee meetings and votes at all if that were the case.

Sheesh.

Bush II; Day 172: South Carolina, where domestic violence is a real knee-slapper.

OK, can you really blame the left and right coasters for wondering if the South needs its own country when you read about stories like this?

Let me break it down for you.

The South Carolina legislature had been considering two bills...they considered and passed one that stiffens the punishments for cock-fighting...with which I totally agree. And I hope that this bill doesn't get belittled simply because at the same time the legislature had been considering...and tabling...a bill to stiffen penalties for domestic abuse.

Yes apparently you face harsher punishment for engaging in cock-fighting than for beating your wife in South Carolina. And apparently some legislators got caught on tape making cracks about the domestic abuse bill.

All while South Carolina is a pretty dangerous place to be a woman...ranking near the top for years in cases of men killing women.

Can we just admit the "visuals" on this don't look so good?

Feh.

Bush II; Day 171: Administration not committed to Voting Reform? Quel Surprise!

There I go getting all Frenchy-pretentious...just like a damn liberal, huh?

Anyway, the Republican head of a voting reform agency formed in the wake of the 2000 election has resigned.

Sure he states "family reasons", but he just couldn't resist throwing in that his decision was prompted by a lack of support from the Congress and Administration, adding:

"All four of us had to work without staff, without offices, without resources. I don't think our sense of personal obligation has been matched by a corresponding sense of commitment to real reform from the federal government."

I'm shocked, aren't you?

Source: Associated Press

Bush II; Day 158: A State Legislature does the right thing without a push from the judiciary

And why isn't this California?

Connecticut's State Senate has easily passed a bill legalizing civil unions for same-sex couples. Unlike Massachusetts they did so without being told they had to by their state's courts.

This is one area where I'm surprised California isn't leading the way.

Good for Connecticut.

Bush II; Day 142: Bloggers Breathe a Sigh of Relief...for now

Apparently the FEC has agreed to back off of bloggers...acknowledging that they are vehicles for either journalism or personal expression.

The great thing about this particular link is that they also provide links to the whole series of articles they posted as this issue bounced around from the peaks of "no regulation, no way" to the valleys of "every link should be considered a donation-in-kind."

Bush II; Day 139: The talk about regulating bloggers continues

It's been a completely volatile subject in the last couple of weeks.

First an FEC Commissioner whipped up a frenzy of speculation saying bloggers might fall under campaign laws. Then some Senators said Pshaw, don't even worry about it...free speech and all, you know?

Now, the WaPo reports, the issue has come up again. This time they're trying to walk a safer line and talk only about when actual money is being spent: should ads on blogs, in other words, fall under the same dollar limit rules as ads in newspapers or on TV.

You may be surprised, but I'd have to ask "why not?"

This is another case of wanting to have it both ways. There is a very vocal group of bloggers who want to be considered journalists...for source protection and other reasons. I'm not really one of them; this is a highly partisan blog after all.

But those same bloggers should then be willing to let ads on their sites be considered as part of a candidate's overall spending and fall under the same limits. And those same bloggers should divulge any paying arrangements they have with a candidate/campaign, otherwise it's hard to get quite as outraged about Armstrong Williams, right?

So for those journalistic bloggers who want the freedoms of the press along with their freedom of speech, I'm thinking there are some responsibilities that go along with those rights.

That's why I prefer to just come out and admit I'm a biased, highly partisan commentator...no veneer of objectivity here :)

Bush II; Day 121: Heavy regulation on blogs?

Interesting "controversy" that is beginning to brew.

First a Republican FEC Commissioner implies that blogs are going to be regulated as political speech, or even political donations-in-kind. Not just blogs either, but also mass emails..."anything that can be done on the Internet."

Bloggers start spreading the story getting lots of folks like me all riled up.

But then blogger The Iron Mouth puts forth an even more dastardly concept: perhaps this Republican Commissioner is just trying to get left-wingers to hate campaign finance reform by implying that blogs will fall under such reforms.

As said in Jurassic Park: Clever girl!

Cynicism seems to usually pay off when it comes to the Bush Administration, so I'm putting my money on The Iron Mouth.

More on the Broadcast Flag...for those who care about government overstepping its bounds

From Mark Cuban...healthy debate in his comments section too.

Bush II; Day Ninety: The assault on our most American values is working

The insidiousness of the current Neo-Con Republican strategy is less about today than about tomorrow. By using language that bests anything even Orwell imagined they are intent not so much on changing the minds of we, the currently outraged and galvanized. They are willing to fight these battles and skirmishes with us today because they hope to have no opposition in the future.

Why so conspiracy-theoristy today?

Check this out: More than a third of high school students think the government should get to approve newspaper stories before they're published!

Goodbye New York Times. Hello Pravda. Scary.

Bush II; Day Seventy-Eight: Honoring MLK by...not honoring MLK

Coinciding with Martin Luther King Day I read a couple of articles, from which I am going to make a wildly unfounded leap to a conclusion. Don't mind me.

First, according to HireDiversity.com, fewer employers are closing for MLK Day than before Bush took office. (I'm adding the Bush emphasis...they just cited years.)

Second, in a different article from HireDiversity.com, the annual "State of the Dream" report on how minorities are doing economically vs. whites shows a marked decline, again since Bush took office.

This decline coincides with an Administration who has consistently prioritized corporate and wealthy interests over the interest of other classes in American society. This is an Administration who repeatedly wants to reward the "ownership" society, when they know full well that includes significantly more whites than non-whites.

I've never like the implicit elitism in that "ownership society" talk. Those who "own" are more American than those who don't? I didn't own my home until I was 37...was I a lesser citizen all those years before?

This is a President, when discussing democracy for Iraq, referred to people doubting whether those of another color could handle democracy...as though there weren't nearly as many people "of another color" in our democracy!

President Bush used MLK Day to flog MLK's religion, but as I noticed when reviewing King's "I Have a Dream" speech...he knew that politics was a secular business...God isn't mentioned until the very last sentence.

I'm just saying, I don't think it's a coincidence that this Administration has been at the helm as the economic condition of minorities backslide, and I don't think it's a coincidence that fewer companies feel the need to recognize MLK Day either.

My opinion, pure & simple.

But don't forget: this is a partisan opinion blog, not a journalist blog. Consider yourself warned.

Bush II; Day Sixty: A ray of hope for gay couples

When the election was over, and the dust settled, there was a big part of me who thought I could no longer handle paying such close attention to what was going on in the country. I considered "burying my head in the comforting blue sands of the liberal Bay Area" and blocking out the frustrating and frightening reality in the rest of the country.

And once again California demonstrates why it's a haven for those who care about justice for all.

Read all about it in the extended entry:

I'm trying to think of a down side to the recently enacted Domestic Partners bill. (Here's a brief run-down of some of the new rights/responsibilities included in this bill.)

Do I think it's the ultimate goal? No. There are still those 1,049 federal rights that can only be obtained via marriage. Why do federal rights matter? because if a couple leaves California their rights are not necessarily secure in another state. let's say they vacation in Florida and one has a terrible accident? Hospital rights? Not secure.

But nonetheless, does this bill make a real leap forward for gay couples? You have to say it does.

Of course, California isn't exclusively populated by wise, fair people. First of all, the law is already being challenged by anti-gay marriage groups.

Another case in point is the parents in Orange County who want to expel a child of gay parents, because their parents don't follow church teachings. [Reg. Reqd.] The priest who runs the school has the perfect comeback:

Rev. Gerald M. Horan, superintendent of schools operated by the diocese, suggested that hewing too closely to Catholic beliefs would mean banning children whose parents divorced, used birth control or married outside the church.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Bush II; Day Forty-Eight: Am I the only one who finds this ominous?

The Associated Press reports that nearly half of Americans believe the civil liberties of Muslim Americans should be curtailed or restricted.

Muslim-Americans.

I find this scary. I find this disappointing. I find this ominous.

And I think our memories are short.

Bush II; Day Forty-Five: British Courts Agree There's No "Blank Check"

Earlier this year the US Supreme Court dealt Dubya a blow when they said he can't just lock people up indefinitely and ignoring all the principles upon which America was founded, simply by identifying them as potential terrorism suspects.

Seems the British high court agrees that Blair can't do that either.

Strike Two.

Eyes on Canada next.

Bush II; Day Forty-Four: Are we losing all perspective?

Back when I was a kid in school there were kids who made trouble. There may always be bullies, or Mean Girls or whatever other r you can think of.

And maybe we used to be a little too laissez-faire, "boys will be boys" about some schoolyard incidents. But nonetheless, there was an order to how things got dealt with. If someone was verbally mean, the process didn't start with a visit to the kid's home by the police!

Read this story in the WaPo.

Now, I actually think that kid deserves punishment, and his parents should definitely be notified and talked to. Believer in civil liberties and free speech though I may be, the kid was out of line.

But I think we're losing perspective, and that's changing how we handle problems, and that is proving that 9/11 did change America, and not always for the better.

If you care about censorship...

I've been writing about Michael Powell, the FCC, and their increasing intrusion into determining what adults can watch in their homes over at my Personal Blog.

Some of it's my stuff, and some of it is just links to other people writing great, insightful stuff about the topic. People like Frank Rich and Jeff Jarvis.

Here's today's post.

Bush II; Day Thirty-Two: Do we Need a National Nanny?

Today is a day we should think about chilling effects.

The chilling effect of knowing that Bush, FCC Chairman Michael Powell and others in the ring of power believe they know best for Americans, all Americans. And that they should have free reign to "correct" us, even if that means stomping all over civil rights, civil liberties, or just the good old Bill of Rights.

The chilling effect is self-censorship. The chilling effect is fear of speaking one's mind. The chilling effect is unwillingness to take a stand.

If you want to read the work of one man in America who is clearly articulating the problem we all should have with the national nanny syndrome, read Jeff Jarvis...here on Michael Powell, and here on Brent Bozell.

Some other examples you should know about are in the extended entry:

Example #1: The ongoing saga of the rejected church ads.
MediaMatters.org has a pretty good examination of hypocrisy swirling around this "controversial" ad pledging tolerance and inclusiveness.

Example #2: Bush and Press Conferences
First, he doesn't hold them. Second, he won't answer the questions that are asked and Third, reporters start to avoid the tough questions, so they don't get shut out altogether.

Example #3: Fear that reasonable complaints will inspire retaliation
Unhappy with airport pat-downs? Maybe. Too scared to speak up? Definitely.

Example #4: Just so you don't forget: The treatment of the RNC protesters in NYC
The lawsuits have started. Let's see if they are allowed to continue.

So, you ask, what does any of this have to do with me? I'm not a programmer, an advertiser, a protester, a reporter, a church.

Well, recently on a mail list I belong to a discussion arose about Target refusing to allow the Salvation Army to solicit funds outside their stores anymore. I posted that I was perfectly happy for them to do that...I hate being solicited when I'm running errands...I give my own way...and as a non-Christian I'm not going t donate to Christian charities anyway.

I got several direct emails from list members who did not want to post that they agreed with me on the public list...they didn't want to draw attention to their non-Christian-ness.

How sad is that?

Chilling effects of living in a country that is forgetting our founding philosophies.

Bush II: Day Thirty: Apparently contracts aren't binding if you're gay

And bear in mind this is a Democratic governor who is doing this:

Same sex partner benefits to be pulled from negotiated state contracts in Michigan.

Bush II; Day Twenty-Seven: Good News on the Gay Marriage Front?

The Supreme Court has declined with comment to hear a case seeking to overturn the Massachusetts ruling legalizing gay marriage there.

Not being used to good news, I'm trying to find the negative spin on this, but it seems like a good piece of news any way you slice it.

America Blog agrees.

Bush II; Day Twenty-Five: Politics That We Wish Wasn't "As Usual"

OK, sometimes there are just a couple of stories that make you really sad. You know, you think we're so modern, so past all that last-century stuff...like racism, like extreme partisanship etc. But, it is regrettably not so quite yet.

Cases in point:

1. Alabama voters refuse to amend their state constitution to remove references to segregated schools for white and "colored." Seriously, how can folks "protest too much" about the liberal elite, when it's this kind of thing that liberals are complaining about. Are you honestly siding with people who prefer to keep racial segregation in their constitution in the 21st Century, over those who protest such actions?

2. Speaker of the House Hastert will only let bills come to the floor for a vote if the majority of Republicans are for them, not the majority of the House itself. This "majority of the majority" philosophy effectively makes us a one-party nation, and takes partisanship to new extremes.

It's a sad, sad day.

Bush II; Day Twenty-Three: getting Bang for your Security Inspection Buck

More irony here.

What's more fun? Intrusive, invasive body searches at the airport? Or actually dealing with a major security hole right here on our own soil?

Find out in the extended entry.

The news has been buzzing lately with reports of the rather over-vigilant use of pat-down searches on airline travelers. Complaints have gone way up, primarily from women, but also from men.

See they changed the rules to allow screeners to be more aggressive with their searches in the aftermath of the downing of two Russian airlines. The rules were changed based on a theory that the planes were downed by explosives carried in the bras of two women passengers.

It seems clear that the screening equipment technology needs to be improved, so that it does the real and reliable job of detecting stuff, because if someone is really determined...well I think the drug business has shown us that people are willing to stick contraband material anywhere!

Meanwhile: we have yet another story on how the cargo holds of airplanes are woefully under-screened. This was a point Kerry was constantly hammering in his speeches and the debates, and I don't think ti resonated with people.

But the point was: here's this "Security President" saying he's going to make you safe, and he does it by focusing on the wrong, but highly visible target of inspecting passengers...see, we can all see him protecting us before our very own eyes. And the far more dangerous and vast problem (our ports, our cargo holds etc.) is ignored, because dealing with that would be "hard" (and cost money he would rather give back to the wealthy.)

I wanted to point you to a post I remember reading on Down The Avenue, a friend's blog that I read, but I couldn't find the specific post.

Her point was (if it was actually her, not someone else!): I'd feel a whole lot better about these impromptu breast exams at the airport, if I knew that other, even more critical, inspections weren't being ignored.

I haven't flown in some months, myself. Given the latest? I might not be flying again for a while.

Bush II; Day Eighteen: Trying to Pull a Fast One

Enjoying their "mandate" to the fullest, the Republicans keep trying to pull fast ones on the American people.

Unfortunately their last-minute anti-choice language did not get pulled from the recently passed appropriations bill (and you should contact your Senator to complain!) but thanks to some sharp-eyed Democrats another last-minute change was caught and pulled out:

A Representative Istook from Oklahoma tried to add language that would allow the chair of either the House or Senate's Appropriations Committee, or anyone they designated as their agent to look at any American's tax returns. And this language included designating that this bill would supersede any existing or new privacy laws that are or will be enacted.

Creepy, huh? There will never be another Watergate if Congress simply writes laws to allow them to invade any opponent's privacy just 'cause.

Source: Talking Points Memo

Bush II; Day Eight: Our Next Attorney General

Alberto Gonzales is the man Bush has tapped to replace divisive AG, John Ashcroft.

He seems to have a rather checkered past, according to TalkLeft, and not all of it even bad.

But unfortunately for him, the only way he came into most people's consciousness was by authoring the controversial memos, dismissing the 'relevance' of the Geneva Conventions, that may have led to the shameful events at Abu Ghraib, not to mention Guantanamo.

Couldn't Bush find someone who isn't associated with naked prisoner piles and dog collars to appoint?

One Attempt at Voter Suppression Pushed Back

You might have heard about the armies of Republicans planning to go to the polls in Ohio to "Challenge" voter authenticity?

Well, a judge has barred them from doing so, saying it's the poll workers' job to verify voter eligibility, not random people.

Score one for our Right to Vote.

Hard To Avoid Thinking...

That Republicans Can be Evil!

I try; I really try.

But when they are this brazen about suppressing the vote, particularly the vote of the poor...I struggle.

Good ol' Southern politics

Is rearing its ugly head again.

This time in South Carolina.

You surely cannot call me paranoid now.

Voter Fraud: Alive & Well in Ohio

Check this out.

Should I Be Worried?

Read this blogger's story.

She's just a blogger who wants Bush booted like I do, and like lots of other people do.

Some joke she made in her blog resulted in the Secret Service showing up at her door.

And what's worse is that it was some anonymous reader who turned her in.

Thank you, PATRIOT ACT. Still think Fahrenheit 9/11 was only propaganda?

Still Think I'm Paranoid Worrying About Voter Suppression?

Then read this about the latest shenanigans in Florida.

Awaiting the Outrage

I already mentioned in two earlier post how hypocritical I found this right-wing "outrage" on behalf of Mary Cheney.

And now the perfect opportunity has arisen for them to prove me wrong. To show outrage at someone actually besmirching the character of their lesbian daughter and all other gay people, not just outrage at a political opponent saying something accepting of her.

Seriously, did you hear what Alan Keyes said now? That dude is nuts!

The story and some links to more commentary on it are here at Matt Yglesias' blog.

Raise Your Hand...

If this doesn't surprise you at all.

Jeb Bush...ignoring advice that the non-eligible voter list of felons was severely inaccurate...until he couldn't avoid junking it.

Color me disgusted, but not surprised.

At the Risk of Sounding Knee-Jerk: Who's the Homophobe Here?

The right-wing brou-ha-ha over Kerry mentioning Mary Cheney by name and sexual orientation last night is, to me, the clearest evidence of their own rampant homophobia.

Mary is a grown woman who is about as far out of the closet, theoretically, as one can be.

Some would argue that as long as she allows herself to be kept off the convention stage, as long as she shills for her dad, despite the fact that her dad's boss wants to write discrimination against her into our Constitution, as long as she stays silent about this Administration's bigotry...then there is a part of her still in the closet.

But that's a topic for another time.

For these people to react with horror and call it a "cheap, low blow" for Kerry to mention Mary is disgusting to me. They are the ones who have made it a low blow by treating it like it was the worst insult to throw out there. They are only exposing their own bigotry. They are only admitting that their base is full of bigots.

Here's another recap of the topic, including a long excerpt from Andrew Sullivan, over at The Talent Show.

This Makes Me Weep For Our Democracy

You know I've been really concerned about voter suppression. And there are those who think I'm paranoid.

Well, this new story about what's happening in Nevada is so appalling, so disturbing...and so heartbreaking.

Seems the GOP hired a company to register voters. And the company shredded any registrations they collected from Democrats.

Read this story, and tell me I'm paranoid now!

Shout out to Talk Left for bringing this story to my attention.

NY Times: Black Voters Galvanized

The Times article today makes clear that Al Sharpton's fiery speech at the DNC Convention did indeed speak for many an African American.

Feeling that they were disenfranchised in 2000, they are coming out in large numbers, registering and volunteering to watch the polls.

And I'd just like to say to the young voters, and women voters and anybody else who feels like their vote doesn't matter: right now, they don't even have to try to disenfranchise you. You're disenfranchising yourself.

Maybe it's human nature to need to see something at risk of slipping away to really get riled up.

But I hope this year seeing our civil liberties, our environment, our prosperity and our young military personnel swept away is enough.

Deadline to register in California is 10/18/04...you have one more week. Get registered!

When is a Hate Crime not a Hate Crime?

Well, according to the GOP, when it involves some of those folks they consider less desirable, from gays to the disabled.

Nice, huh?

Check out the story here.

Voter Suppression Alive and Well...and Appalling

Very important piece today in the New York Times.

Up until working on this election year, I wanted to naively believe that such incidents were far behind us as a nation. If there is one thing I have become quite disillusioned about this year...it is in seeing the lengths to which the other side is willing to go to stay in power.

Seeing that willingness makes me feel that our democracy itself is at risk.

When I hear talk about "weakening America" I think mostly of this crew and how they are slowly destroying everything "America" is supposed to stand for: fairness, democracy, freedom, civil liberties, equality, free speech, opportunity for all etc.

Read this NY Times article on voter suppression, and you will see why I'm feeling dark and dramatic about this.

Full text in extended entry:

CAMPAIGN 2004: THE BIG ISSUES
The Poll Tax, Updated
NY Time
Published: October 7, 2004

When members of Mi Familia Vota, a Latino group, were registering voters recently on a Miami Beach sidewalk outside a building where new citizens were being sworn in, the Homeland Security Department ordered them to stop. The department gave all kinds of suspect reasons, which a federal court has since rejected, but it looked a lot as if someone at Homeland Security just didn't want thousands of new Latino voters on the Florida rolls.

The suppression of minority votes is alive and well in 2004, driven by the sharp partisan divide across the nation. Because many minority groups vote heavily Democratic, some Republicans view keeping them from registering and voting as a tactic for victory - one that has a long history in American politics. It is rarely talked about publicly, but John Pappageorge, a Republican state legislator from Michigan, recently broke the taboo. He was quoted in The Detroit Free Press as saying, "If we do not suppress the Detroit vote, we're going to have a tough time in this election cycle." Detroit's population is more than 80 percent black.

A recent report by the N.A.A.C.P. and People for the American Way includes page after page of examples of how this shabby business works. On Election Day, "ballot security" teams head for minority neighborhoods. They demand that voters produce identification when it is not required, take photographs of voters and single out immigrant voters for special scare tactics.

Two years ago in the governor's race in Maryland, leaflets appeared in Baltimore saying that before voters showed up at the polls, they had to pay off all parking tickets and overdue rent. The same year in Louisiana, fliers were distributed in African-American areas to tell voters, falsely, that if they did not want to vote on Election Day, they could still vote three days later.

What is particularly discouraging this year is the degree to which government officials have been involved in such efforts. In South Dakota's hard-fought statewide Congressional race, poll workers turned away Native American voters who could not provide photo identification, which many of them do not have, even though the law clearly says identification is not required. In one heavily Native American county, the top elections official, who is white, wrote out instructions saying no one could vote without photo identification. In Texas, a white district attorney threatened to prosecute students at Prairie View A&M, a large, predominantly African-American campus, if they registered to vote from the school, even though they are entitled to by law.

And in Florida, the secretary of state, Glenda Hood, had a list prepared to purge felons from the voter rolls; the list had many errors and would have turned away an untold number of qualified black voters. She abandoned the list only when news organizations sued to make it public, then pointed out its many inaccuracies.

In addition to these blatant forms of vote suppression, elections officials have been adopting policies that appear neutral on their face but often have the effect, and perhaps the intent, of disproportionately disenfranchising minorities. With huge registration drives under way among minorities in swing states, some secretaries of state have adopted bizarrely rigid rules for new registrations.

In Florida, Ms. Hood is insisting that thousands of registration forms on which a citizenship box is not checked are invalid, even though elsewhere on the forms each applicant has sworn that he or she is a citizen. In Ohio, Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell was insisting until recently that any registration form that came in on anything less than 80-pound paper stock had to be rejected. The continued disenfranchisement of convicted felons in many states also has an unmistakable racial component.

The suppression of minority votes has continued because it is perceived as a winning tactic, and because it is rarely punished. This needs to change.

Trying to prevent members of minorities from voting can be a violation of federal and state law. Election officials, poll watchers and voters should be on the lookout for vote suppression, and should report it. And prosecutors should look for criminal cases to pursue. A few high-profile prosecutions of political operatives, and even elections officials, would go a long way toward ending a disgraceful American tradition.

Making Votes Count: Editorials in this series remain online at nytimes.com/makingvotescount.

More on the Mis-treatment of RNC Protesters

If you read my earlier posted link that detailed on RNC protesters horrific experience in NYC a month ago, you're probably wondering why you haven't heard more about it in the mainstream media.

Well, there was a story in the WaPo that I posted here. And just today...over a month later, there's a brief story in the NY Times.

Bottom line: they blamed holding people way too long on hold-ups in fingerprinting.

Turns out the fingerprinting may have been illegal to begin with.

It gets more Orwellian every time you read about it.

Which I urge you to do, and make sure people you know realize that the Bush Administration's abuse of power can affect anyone.

Continue To Be Very Concerned ABout Voter Suppression

My biggest concern is NOT that Kerry will lose on votes. My biggest concern is that the Republicans, who have amply proved they will stop at nothing to retain power, will continue to attempt to illegally suppress proper voting.

Here are some of the stories that are making me concerned:

A Good Run-Down of Republican Tactics in the In These Times blog

Pandagon: Ohio is the next Florida?

Pandagon: Fox affiliates LYING to women registering voters at a mall!

How Women Got the Vote

This was forwarded to me by a friend, and I'm sorry to say I don't know who to credit this piece to.

If anyone out there recognizes it, please let me know and I will give proper attribution:

How women got the vote

The women were innocent and defenseless. And by the end of the night, they were barely alive. Forty prison guards wielding clubs and their warden's blessing went on a rampage against the 33 helpless women wrongly convicted of "obstructing sidewalk traffic." They beat Lucy Burn, chained her hands to the cell bar above her head and left her hanging for the night, bleeding and gasping for air.

Sounds like some of the stories from the RNC protesters, but it isn't. This is what happened to women marching for the right to vote.

Read the rest of the story in the extended entry. And if you're a woman, register to vote and vote. Our forbears fought like warriors for that right.

They hurled Dora Lewis into a dark cell, smashed her head against an iron bed and knocked her out cold. Her cellmate, Alice Cosu, thought Lewis was dead and suffered a heart attack.

Additional affidavits describe the guards grabbing, dragging, beating, choking, slamming, pinching, twisting and kicking the women. Thus unfolded the "Night of Terror" on Nov. 15, 1917, when the warden at the Occoquan Workhouse in Virginia ordered his guards to teach a lesson to the suffragists imprisoned there because they dared to picket Woodrow Wilson's White House for the right to vote.

For weeks, the women's only water came from an open pail. Their food--all of it colorless slops--was infested with worms. When one of the leaders, Alice Paul, embarked on a hunger strike, they tied her to a chair, forced a tube down her throat and poured liquid into her until she vomited. She was tortured like this for weeks until word was smuggled out to the press.

So, refresh my memory. Some women won't vote this year because--why, exactly? We have carpool duties? We have to get to work? Our vote doesn't matter? It's raining?

Last week, I went to a sparsely attended screening of HBO's new movie "Iron Jawed Angels." It is a graphic depiction of the battle these women waged so that I could pull the curtain at the polling booth and have my say. I am ashamed to say I needed the reminder. There was a time when I knew these women well. I met them in college--not in my required American history courses, which barely mentioned them, but in women's history class. That's where I found the irrepressibly brave Alice Paul. Her large, brooding eyes seemed fixed on my own as she stared out from the page."Remember!" she silently beckoned.

All these years later, voter registration is still my passion. But the actual act of voting had become less personal for me, more rote. Frankly, voting often felt more like an obligation than a privilege. Sometimes, it was even inconvenient. My friend Wendy, who is my age and studied women's history, saw the HBO movie, too. When she stopped by my desk to talk about it, she looked angry. She was. With herself. "One thought kept coming back to me as I watched that movie," she said. "What would those women think of the way I use--or don't use--my right to vote?

All of us take it for granted now, not just younger women, but those of us who did seek to learn." The right to vote, she said, had become valuable to her "all over again."

HBO will run the movie periodically before releasing it on video and DVD. I wish all history, social studies and government teachers would include the movie in their curriculum. I want it shown on Bunko night, too, and anywhere else women gather. I realize this isn't our usual idea of socializing, but we are not voting in the numbers that we should be, and I think a little shock therapy is in order.

It is jarring to watch Woodrow Wilson and his cronies try to persuade a psychiatrist to declare Alice Paul insane so that she could be permanently institutionalized. And it is inspiring to watch the doctor refuse. Alice Paul was strong, he said, and brave. That didn't make her crazy. The Doctor admonished the men: "Courage in women is often mistaken for insanity."

This reminds me of one of my favorite Teresa Heinz Kerry quotes: I look forward to the day when a woman isn't called "opinionated", just smart and informed.

Our lawsuit makes it into a blog

The lawsuit the County Party is waging against the VA, for prohibiting one from registering voters on their site, made it onto a blogger's radar screen.

Unfortunately he doesn't have too much to say about it.

It doesn't end

Florida...what a nightmare.

I can't imagine what it must feel like to be a Democrat, an Independent, or even a Republican with just a modicum of respect for the democratic process these days.

Check this out. Jeb is going to deliver Florida for his brother if it's the last thing he does.

It's all about voter suppression, people

I am being convinces that the entire republican effort this year is geared toward suppressing the vote. Put on a convention so full of vitriol that some number of voters will get turned off of the whole process.

The Felons list in Florida.

The new confusing ballot, also in Florida.

The e-voting confusion, leading to cynicism that your vote won't be counted correctly.

But sometimes it's as good and old fashioned as, say, a poll tax or the like.

Check out this story...again from Florida.

Wait a sec. Who's the Governor of Florida again?

Full text in extended entry:

Voter ID Problems in Florida
Published: September 7, 2004
New York Times

There is no excuse for turning away eligible voters at the polls, but that is what apparently happened in Florida's primary elections last week. Under Florida law, registered voters can vote without showing identification. But election officials at some polling places misstated the law and tried to keep eligible voters from voting. In one county, the official sample ballot got the law wrong. Officials in Florida, and nationwide, must improve their poll workers' training and written materials to ensure that this does not happen in the November election.

Florida's voter-identification law is inartfully written. It says photo identification is required at the polls, but it goes on to give voters without such identification an alternative: signing affidavits swearing to their identities. By that reasoning, Florida voters who show up without identification should be told that they can vote as long as they fill out affidavits. But that did not always happen last week.

In Broward and Miami-Dade Counties, poll watchers from People for the American Way saw voters being turned away after being told about half the law - the photo-identification requirement - but not the other half, the affidavit option. In some cases, said Elliot Mincberg, legal director of People for the American Way, poll workers insisted on identification even when they were shown voting-rights leaflets citing the state election law. Some people may never have cast ballots because they were not informed that they had the option to file affidavits.

The misstatement of the law goes beyond a few bad poll workers. Osceola County's sample ballot, mailed out before last week's election, said "Photo and Signature ID Required at Polls," and it did not tell voters they could in fact vote without identification. Secretary of State Glenda Hood, who should be on the voters' side, instead backs this misleading summary of the law. Osceola County's statement is fine, says Jenny Nash, a spokeswoman for Ms. Hood. She said the affidavit option in the law was merely a "courtesy to the voter."

The misapplication of voter-identification laws is not limited to Florida. In South Dakota, Native Americans without identification were turned away in June, even though the law allowed them to vote by signing affidavits.

This fall, flaws in the enforcement of voter-identification requirements could disenfranchise a large number of voters. Many people do not have photo identification, particularly the elderly, poor people and nondrivers. Others may not have such identification with them when they vote.

Someone who has waited in line for an hour or two, as could be the case in this fall's election, may not have the time or inclination to go home to get identification.

In the weeks leading up to Nov. 2, we will hear many times that all Americans should exercise their right to vote. Election officials have an obligation to do everything they can to ensure that when citizens show up, misapplied voter-identication rules do not prevent them from casting a ballot.

Bush & the 527s

Great quote from an active Democrat I know (so active he sends out various alerts and news items to his list nearly every day!):

"The answer, Mr. President, is not to restrict the use of political free speech, but to condemn its abuse."

So, I hope Kerry does not take Bush's bait and "join him" in condemning all 527s advertising.

I would be willing to consider $$ limits on those groups just like on political campaigns, though.

That way grassroots groups can continue, while groups that are really just a front for a small number of very rich, privileged people or corporate interests would be controlled in some way.

Fundamental Gaps in our Democracy

I've had a couple of items bookmarked for a very long time, meaning to post them here. I fear they are depressing. I hope they are, instead, galvanizing and motivating.

Basically a task force from the American Political Science Association released a major report that confirmed what you may have suspected.

Everyone may have a voice in this democracy, but according to the report: disparities in political participation "ensure that ordinary Americans speak in a whisper while the most advantaged roar."

Even the vaunted internet revolution kicked off by Howard Dean's campaign may still have been primarily reaching the 'haves'. The 'have mores', as Dubya so conveniently dubbed them, are already deeply ensconced in the system. And the 'have nots' continue to be represented by those in the social layers above them, speaking for them.

What can you do? Continue, press on, talk to the people around you. Make sure they're registered to vote. Make sure they understand it is their right and their responsibility. Make sure they understand how one vote does matter.

And perhaps support organizations trying to, as one example, bridge the digital divide between the poor and just about everyone else in this country.

Sources:
6/11/04 EJ Dionne column in the Washington Post
The APSA Report Page

Where is the howling outcry?

Oh, that's right, we're too busy talking about Vietnam.

Meanwhile, the GOP is engaging in classic tactics to disenfranchise voters who, you guessed it, traditionally lean Democratic.

They are really worried about this election, so they're going after African Americans; they're going after Native Americans.

Intimidation, attempts to purge voters, turning people away at the polls unjustly. "It's all happening at the zoo" people.

But as we know, Dubya thinks it would all be a lot easier if this was a dictatorship, right?

Sources:
8/26/04 Washington Post article
8/23/04 Op-Ed by Bob Herbert in NY Times [Reg. required]

Watch What You Say

Remember when Ari Fleischer told we, the American People, that we ought to "watch what you say; watch what you do"?

Well he wasn't kidding folks.

Read me in full-on conspiracy theorist mode in the extended entry:

Remember how it was played for humorous effect in 'Fahrenheit 911' that law enforcement officials had bothered to infiltrate the Fresno peace group?

Well, I don't think it's so funny how the Justice Department continues to support oppression of perfectly legitimate groups who want to exercise their freedom to peacefully assemble.

And their efforts are all focused around the RNC Convention, by the way. (I tend to think they wouldn't mind a little replay of the chaos outside the DNC Convention back in 1968, as it actually turned much of the country off towards Democrats. They do want to protect the RNC Convention at all costs, though, it seems.)

What are they doing? They're questioning and even subpoenaing folks all around the country that are known to be members of group that intend to demonstrate at the Convention. They're asking them about plans for violent protests, trying to get folks to cop to their own violent plans or squeal on someone else's.

They have no evidence to actually arrest anyone or detain anyone, so they are just engaging in intimidation and harassment tactics. The Justice Department claims they have a duty to investigate the potential for violent activities, but several congressmen who asked for an inquiry into their tactics pointed out that "...it's not enough for the F.B.I. to say that there's the potential for criminal activity. That's not the legal threshold, and if that were really the case, they could investigate anybody."

So, under pressure, the FBI has now moved on to say they "expect" violent protests at the Convention, but again have nothing that would allow them to move on anyone or any group.

Sounds like a smokescreen to me.

To me, if people have a real case, they take certain actions. If Michael Moore's film is full of slander? Then somebody, somewhere, would have sued him by now.

If the FBI had credible evidence, they'd be arresting someone on conspiracy charges.

This is just a great way to perpetuate the politics of fear. To convince Middle America that those liberals are at their violent pinko-commie ways again.

Yup, that's us: just a faceless, potentially violent mass of unwashed humanity.

Be afraid; be very afraid.

Oops. Perhaps I should have said that. Who knows if they'll come knocking on my door next?

Sources:
8/16/04 NY Times Article

8/18/04 NY Times Article

8/18/04 Associated Press Article

Don't Be Shocked: I Think This is a Tempest in a Teapot!

So, apparently the Minnesota GOP is providing neighborhood contact information to volunteers in that state and asking those volunteers to try to find out whether certain neighbors are potential Bush supporters or not.

Yes, the volunteers are supposed to identify themselves as such, but it's not like they have some enforceable rules about it.

I can hear people now screaming about invasion about privacy and the like, but there are certain things no one forces you to do: talking politics with a neighbor you don't really know who just calls you out of the blue is one of those things.

But if I believe in freedom of speech (and with my mouth, you know I do) then I believe those Bush supporters have the right to call a neighbor and chat with them about politics. Now, if they keep calling after being told to back off, that's another story. Until that happens, I've got no problems with this.

Am I missing some heinous consequence?

Here's the Washington Post article on it.

I Just Don't Get McCain

You know I'm a flip-flopper myself...when it comes to John McCain.

He stands up for John Kerry on his national security chops: gains my respect

He's pro-life: don't agree with that

He goes on The Daily Show and is nearly scornful of Bush: you go, John!

He plays coy with Kerry then starts stumping for Bush: that's it...I'm done with you John!

Now, he comes out forcefully against a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and calls it basically "Un-Republican."

I'm very confused. Read his statements here.

Marriage on the Front Burner

Seems like the topic of marriage is everywhere these days, and I find it all somewhat confusing.

Today everyone is talking about Barbara Ehrenreich's column in the NY Times. She finds it hypocritical for the Bush Administration to revile the concept of gay marriage while spending some $200 million on marriage education programs for the underprivileged.

But I frankly thinks she is missing the point that should matter. Oh, do I? Yes, I do, and you can read about it in the extended entry:

This time it's NOT about the hypocrisy, stupid. The Bush Administration is being absolutely consistent actually. Homosexual marriage=bad, and heterosexual marriage=good, so good, in fact, that they believe getting and staying married would be more beneficial to poor women than, say child care programs or more funding for food kitchens. I just think they're wrong-headed on both counts, that's all.

Remember this is my particular take on it, but to me these are two very separate issues:

Gay marriage, like choice, is about overzealous government intrusion in the most private parts of our lives. And intrusion on issues where one's opinions and feelings on it are likely determined by particular religious values, more than blanket societal values. By that I mean that an atheist, a Jew, a Christian, a Muslim or a Buddhist may all have roughly the same opinion on whether in this American society it is right or wrong to steal someone's property or abuse a child or kill someone to collect on their life insurance or to cheat shareholders by trading on insider information.

But we do not have such a collective societal opinion on gay marriage. In fact polls show that as the younger generation begins to take over running this country it is almost inevitable that gay marriage will become the norm.

Not only is it a little scary for the government to intrude on private issues where there is so little consensus on what is "right", but it is wasteful for them to expend so much energy intruding on issues that have so little impact on society at large, and certainly no impact that can be quantified. I'm still waiting for one person to articulate how a gay married couple HURTS me or my family or any heterosexual married couple MORE than that couple simply living together?

Bush continues to claim that society has a fundamental interest in protecting the "historical definition of marriage", as recently as yesterday's weekly radio address.

But I can't believe all these people are so damn shortsighted. Historically, men could have multiple wives. It's in the Bible and traditional in many other civilizations. So when you talk about a great historical legacy, I guess you just mean here in America. Oh. Whoops, we didn't let interracial couples marry until very recently. But it was okay to adjust the definiton for that right? Sure, you're not going to get any politician to say that was bad now.

So this whole argument is pure hogwash.

Gay marriage is lastly, and probably most importantly, about civil rights. It is abut fairness. It is about removing the barriers to the pursuit of happiness that we, as Americans, consider our birthright. The anti-gay-marriage folks rely on the subjective and un-quantifiable scare tactics to put across their point of view. But, in some respects, I do too. There is something subjective about the pursuit of happiness, the concept of fairness and equality. These are high ideals.

Now, let me step off my soapbox and look at the issue of providing marriage education to poor people.

This is an issue of funding priorities. If, as Ehrenreich claims, cuts are being made to housing subsidies and other services that help poor couples maintain the more basic needs of life: shelter, food, water, then it's truly ridiculous to spend money on this program and not the others.

If, further, the funding is earmarked for training and education, then perhaps it should be part of a larger training program that also offers childcare education, self-defense education, sex education (God forbid), even job training.

It seems so paternalistic and moralistic to say that this funding is for marriage education, and if no one wants to take it, the money will just go to waste.

I think it is illogical to compare an instance where the government wants to keep certain societal privileges away from segments of society, wants to impose or maintain discrimination, to an instance where the government wants to provide some service to a segment of society.

Both instances can illustrate wrong-headed thinking on the part of the Administration, but for very different reasons.

It's like I like to say about this Administration: they can be incompetent, stupid and liars. it doesn't have to be one or the other.

If it's true? It's scary!

Opinion pieces aren't the same as reporting. They're not objective. They don't try to be balanced. And they often tell stories of personal experiences.

And, here's the thing: those stories can be pretty hard to confirm or deny.

With all of that as a caveat, read this column about what happens to an unassuming would-be writer when he scribbles line of dialog that pops into his head in the margin of his NY Times crossword on a plane.

I might not have happened, but it could easily happen. And that's what is scary.

Bush Seeing the Errors of His Divisive Ways?

Well, no, and don't count on it either.

But there is an interesting tidbit way at the end of this Washington Post article.

The article is about how the two tickets are blasting each other over "values."

What I find most striking, and most unsurprising, is that Kerry/Edwards are blasting Bush over his actions or lack of actions on a number of policy issues, while Bush is simply throwing labels out at them. The old "they're liberal!" thing.

But with the Gay Marriage constitutional amendment vote looming (as is its failure) Bush is perhaps re-thinking some of his harshest rhetoric over that issue. Here's the Bush excerpt I found surprising:

"Bush...made his most gay-supportive statement yet on the issue, although he said he still opposes same-sex marriage. "What they do in the privacy of their house, consenting adults should be able to do," he said. "This is America. It's a free society. But it doesn't mean we have to redefine traditional marriage."

I'm not thinking he's ever conceded we have a free society before, has he :)

Rewriting History, all in 2 days

So, remember Bush and his snubbing of the NAACP? remember it was due to "Scheduling Conflicts". I guess the same kind of "Scheduling Conflicts" he has had the last 4 years?

Remember? I mean, it was only a couple of days ago.

Oh, what? People (led by bloggers I might add) caught wind of it and started spreading it around? What's that you say...it made Dubya look bad?

"Scheduling Conflicts"? What "Scheduling Conflicts"?

He's not going because NAACP leaders have said mean things about him!

Honest to God. That's his new story. My jaw is on the floor. Again, I can't help thinking they think WE are idiots!

The Patriot Act Upheld: The Rules Tossed Aside

This story from the Associated Press demonstrates that Washington Republicans simply don't believe the same old time-honored rules of conduct apply to them anymore.

Voting supposed to be time-limited, and you don't have enough votes? No problem. Extend the time until you can strong-arm the votes you need.

It's not just the lengths the Patriot Act goes to that disturb me. It's the lengths these Bushies will go to get what they want.

Be afraid.

Quote #2: One more, same movie

Buy Viagra, Cialis or Levitra prescription from online pharmacy:

Viagra prescription
Buy Levitra
Buy Cialis

Quote of the Day: Wise Words from a Classic Movie

Someone sent this around n a message board I belong to, and I thought the words were well worth passing on.

This is an excerpt from the movie "Judgment at Nuremburg", and they are the words of a German judge trying to explain how he and his brethren, supposedly there to uphold the rule of law, went along with the ever-more-insidious actions of the Third Reich:

"There was above all, fear. Fear of today, fear of tomorrow, fear of our neighbors. Hitler said to us... 'be proud to be Germans. There are devils among us. Communists....Liberals.....Jews.....Gypsies.! Once the devils will
be destroyed, your miseries will be destroyed. .....What about us who knew
better? We who knew the words were lies and worse than lies? Why did we
sit silent? Why did we participate? Because we loved our country. What difference does it make if racial minorities lose their rights? What difference does it make if political opponents lose their rights? It is only a passing phase we are going through...The country is in danger we were told. "But one day, we looked around and found out that we were in even more terrible danger. The rites swept over our land like a raging, roaring disease. What was going to be a passing phase had become our way of life. I look around at those other judges...the judges ...those I went along with.......and I know well......that I made my life....excrement...because I walked with them."

Reading that, another great quote comes to mind: Those of who forget our history, we are doomed to repeat it.

Not Scared by the Patriot Act Yet?

The more you learn about the Patriot Act the scarier it becomes.

And yet you still hear people say that if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear.

Think again.

Here's a link to a story about an art group that has used common high school biology lab equipment for an art installation and is being investigated by the Joint Terrorism Task Force and subpoenaed before a Grand Jury.

So, when such mistakes and misunderstandings can happen it is simply not in keeping with our nation's principles to allow people to be searched without warrants, apprehended without charges and deprived of further civil liberties.

Much of our legal system is designed to protect the innocent, even if it means some of the guilty get away: hence "innocent until proven guilty" and the concept of "beyond a reasonable doubt."

The Patriot Act is trying to fundamentally change America's legal system and bring it just a little too close to a police state for my taste.

As another reference, here's a column by Richard Cohen on how even the probably guilt guys have rights.

At least so far, that is the American Way.

The Most Casual Form of Racism

Here's a link to a fascinating blog entry from Josh Marshall.

He references an exchange where Judy Woodruff (you know part of that "liberal" media?) basically talks about the impact that black voters have on the Democratic Party. In other words, if there were no black voters, Democrats wouldn't win.

And an excuse the RNC is bandying about for their guy's recent loss in South Dakota (see my earlier blog entry on this good news) is that the Native Americans threw it the Democrat's way. If they hadn't voted, the Republican would have won.

And this is the most disturbing, subtle, casual kind of racism. Because it basically implies that those voters are pretenders to the throne. Implies that their votes are lower quality. Implies that it's a shame, really, that they count as as much as a white vote.

I know, let's remove the white male vote from the equation and see how the Republicans would fare.

Just curious.

Discussion: Constitutional Checks & Balances at Stake

Interesting story this morning in the NY Times about how even some Republican Congresspeople are beginning to balk at Bush's near monarchistic attitude toward disclosure or oversight (my words, not theirs.)

There are several things that seem to be boiling under the surface here:

1. The increasing willingness of some Republicans to break from the stony wall of partisan support that Bush has so far enjoyed, indicates that even in the high stakes world of national politics, some Republicans fear their party is getting away from them, and are willing to speak out.

2. There people who cried "cynicism" or "paranoia" when Democrats complained about Republican oversight of every committee resulting in limited access to the White House and limited debate. Those people are being proved sadly wrong, especially in the House.

3. Something that seems unspoken but a real fear is that Bush's disregard for constitutional checks & balances risks marginalizing Congress and in fact bringing their role into question. How big a step is it from disregarding Congress to disbanding it? Some of the Congresspeople quoted in the article seem to feel if they don't start asserting themselves, the may help obsolete themselves.

All of this, combined with the military's increased dissatisfaction with the way their civilian leadership is running things, make me believe this country is ready to wake up and make a drastic change in course, rather than stay the course.

Link to story is above, or full text of article is in extended entry:

Even Some in G.O.P. Call for More Oversight of Bush
By CARL HULSE
New York Times
Published: May 31, 2004

WASHINGTON, May 30 - Members of Congress have a proud tradition of asking witnesses tough questions at famous inquiries like the Watergate and Iran-contra hearings. Now the Iraqi prison abuse scandal has some lawmakers asking a hard question of themselves: What doesn't Congress know and why doesn't it know it?

The disclosures about the treatment of detainees, coupled with complaints from some quarters about the Bush administration's handling of antiterrorism money, have ignited a debate over whether Congress is keeping a close enough eye on the White House and staying adequately informed on developments in Iraq.

Democrats, not surprisingly, think much more scrutiny is necessary and have been complaining for months that the Republican leadership in Congress is refusing to hold its allies in the administration accountable on a range of subjects. Now even some Republicans say they worry that Congress is abdicating its oversight responsibility.

"I believe our failure to do proper oversight has hurt our country and the administration," said Representative Christopher Shays, a Connecticut Republican who traveled to Iraq to get a view of the situation outside administration control. "Maybe they wouldn't have gotten into some of this trouble had our oversight been better."

The issue burst into the open in recent days as the Senate and House took starkly different approaches to the prison abuse inquiry, with the Senate holding a series of high-profile hearings and the House one public session. House Republican leaders criticized the Senate for grandstanding on the issue, and the House rejected a Democratic push for a broader inquiry.

Frustrated Democratic leaders sent a letter to Speaker J. Dennis Hastert last Monday, demanding that he direct the relevant committees to pursue the abuse issue.

"There does not seem to be an investigative agenda, and a work plan for fulfilling that agenda, in place anywhere in the House," said the letter, signed by the Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi of California; the Democratic whip, Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland; and the caucus chairman, Robert Menendez of New Jersey. "We believe that the House will be derelict in its institutional oversight responsibilities unless this situation changes soon."

Mr. Hastert dismisses the rising criticism of the House's oversight record as a partisan effort to build a political case against the Republican leadership. He said the majority had actively kept abreast of developments in Iraq, though it might not be conducting the "show trials" he said Democrats would prefer.

"In Iraq, we have literally sent scores of members there to take a look and see for themselves what is happening on a bipartisan basis," Mr. Hastert said.

Representative Duncan Hunter, the California Republican who is chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said Congress had given undue attention to the abuse of prisoners. "Maybe we should cancel every piece of Congressional business for the entire year so that the issue at Abu Ghraib can be milked until the election," he said.

To other lawmakers and outside experts, the feud over how far to go in examining the scandal is symptomatic of the deeper question of whether the Republican Congress is being aggressive enough in monitoring the administration when their political fortunes are so closely linked.

"The Republican dominance of Congress and the White House has led to an attitude of 'We can keep it within the fold; it is our team and our team will understand us,' " said Senator Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat who sits on the Armed Services Committee.

Democrats and others say Congress should have looked more closely at the administration's failure to provide full estimates of the cost of the new Medicare drug law and the leak of the identity of a covert C.I.A. worker, among other matters.

"Party has trumped institutional responsibility," said Thomas E. Mann, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "The sense of shared political stakes bridging either end of Pennsylvania Avenue has overwhelmed any sense of institutional responsibility."

Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, a Republican who has made himself a thorn in the side of both Republican and Democratic administrations, says Congress rarely does enough oversight. "And I believe that is whether you have a Republican Congress versus a Republican president or a Democratic Congress versus a Democratic president," Mr. Grassley said. He recalled that Democrats had been all too eager to help him pursue wrongdoing in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and the first George Bush, but that when he kept at it in the Clinton era, "I lost the same allies."

Mr. Grassley pointed out that oversight can be tedious, unglamorous work, and that it sometimes takes years to tease out problems buried deep in the bureaucracy. Mr. Hastert acknowledged that Republicans were slow to acquire the investigatory skills honed by Democrats during their 40-year dominance of the House. Some say demands on the time of lawmakers and lack of experienced staff have also contributed to diminished oversight.

Yet there have been serious efforts by some committees to pursue lines of inquiry over Iraq - particularly in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and its review of the upcoming transition of power, and in the House Government Reform Committee, which explored reconstruction contracts in Iraq.

Even leading Republicans concede privately that the Bush administration resists energetic oversight, an attitude Democrats say is reflected in the administration's occasionally dismissive attitude toward lawmakers of both parties. They point to the allegation in Bob Woodward's book "Plan of Attack" that the administration diverted $700 million in post-Sept. 11 money to secretly begin planning the war with Iraq. In the past, such a charge could have led to a full-blown inquiry.

Congressional Republicans said the White House appeared to have acted within the wide latitude it was given by Congress to handle the money. But the disclosure about the movement of the money, when added to the fact that lawmakers got no advance warning of the scope of the prison abuse before it exploded into the news, seems to have stirred a more assertive attitude in some.

Besides the prospect of more Senate hearings on prison abuse, Republicans in both the House and the Senate joined Democrats in insisting that the additional $25 billion sought by the Bush administration for Iraq be much more tightly controlled than the previous war allocations.

"We really do need to preserve the important role that Congress plays," said Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, as the Armed Services Committee examined the administration's request. "It is our duty."

Discussion: A Living Constitution

Today marks the 50th Anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, a landmark ruling that outlawed "separate but equal" as a constitutionally sound principle, and in this case led to the de-segregation, sometimes by necessary show of force, of our schools.

Stephen Breyer, one of the quiet members of the Supreme Court, wrote a piece on this historic decision, and final 2 paragraphs really struck me (emphasis is mine):

"Above all, Brown's simple affirmation helped us to understand that our Constitution was meant to create a democracy that worked not just on paper but in practice — one that can work only if every citizen understands that the Constitution belongs not to the majority, or to the lawyers, or to the judges, but to us all. Brown helped us to understand that the Constitution is "ours," whoever we may be.

In this way that simple affirmation expresses the belief that many millions of Americans of different races, religions and points of view can come together to create one nation. That is the hope that Thurgood Marshall expressed in his argument to the court in Brown. It is a hope about the Constitution, one Constitution; about the people, one people; and about the nation, one nation. That is the message the court sent forth in Brown 50 years ago today. The message sets a goal: we have made progress; we aspire to more.

These paragraphs seem to be saying something very simple and powerful to the right wing of this nation who decry "activist judges", when those judges dare to seek to keep our Constitution a living document.

Those paragraphs validate the idea that the framers did just that: created a frame. But they could not possibly have foreseen the evolution of our culture and or society, and they were wise enough to know it.

The message, as Breyer says, and the Constitution itself set a goal.

And, sometimes it is the job of our judges to be leading the way.

Brown v. BOE was such a decision. It wasn't met by majority approval in affected states 50 years ago. But it was, nonetheless, the right thing to do.

Recent News: Sometimes you don't WANT to be right

I (along with many ohers) have been sort of riled up about electronic voting, particularly electronic voting relying on machines from Diebold. Diebold, as you may know, is run by an ardent Bush supporter and fundraiser who promised to do what it took to keep Bush in the White house.

Doesn't give ME a warm fuzzy anyway.

And even though it made me sound a bit paranoid, I did start being quite concerned about another fouled-up election. It's not JUST the lack of a paper trail, but also the amazing combination of transparency and opacity of the machines.

Transparent because apparently, according to independent firms that were hired to analyze them, they're incredibly easy to hack.

Opacity because the machines are completely proprietary in nature and Diebold didn't want non-Diebold employees to be able to see the inner workings.

Well, as they say, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're NOT out to get you.

To hear the fate of the Diebold (and other) machines in California, read the extended entry.

Long story short, the all electronic machines have been de-certified for use in California, unless they can manage to comply with a set of rules, ensuring a paper trail among other things. Not only that, the Secretary of State is recommending that Diebold be prosecuted for "fraudulent actions."

Hey, it's not just as bad as you feared...it's worse!

The silver lining in all of this is that it demonstrates that grass roots actions CAN have influence.

Ben Cohen (that would be the Ben from Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream) has a political group called True Majority that focuses on helping people take simple actions. One of their recent causes has been voting credibility. They've facilitated sending messages to California's Secretary of State expressing concern over the use of insecure, and unaccountable voting machines in California.

I received their messages and forwarded them to every Californian I knew who was concerned about fair elections. (Isn't that everyone?)

Even after the investigative panel made their recommendations to Secretary of State Shelley to de-certify Diebold, True Majority facilitated sending him more messages urging him to follow the recommendation.

Thousands of people rose to the occasion and responded.

The result: Shelley is taking a stand, albeit one that should have been taken some time ago.

Read more in these San Jose Mercury articles:

4/30/04: California Bans Touch-Screen Voting

05/01/04: State Curbs Use of e-Vote

Soapbox: Is this America?

Sometimes you read something that really makes you wonder, "aren't we way past this?"

In all the concern over electronic voting machines (and believe me I have a lot of concern) we can't forget that good old-fashioned vote suppression still exists.

Take a look at these incidents from the last two decades:

-Jo Colombe, a Rosebud Sioux tribal council member, said that when she worked as a poll watcher in a recent election she was accused of fraud simply for taking a bathroom break. When she returned, she said, white poll watchers charged her with copying the names of Indians who had not yet voted, and taking them out to Indians waiting in the parking lot.

-In the 1986 Louisiana Senate race, for instance, Republicans began a purge of tens of thousands of voters. An internal party document made clear that the goal was to "keep the black vote down."

-In North Carolina's 1990 Senate race, Jesse Helms supporters mailed 125,000 postcards to predominantly black voting precincts, misleading voters about residency requirements and warning that misstatements to voting officials could mean five years in prison.

-More recently, Republican poll watchers in the 2002 Arkansas Senate election took photos of blacks as they voted, an intimidation tactic that has been used in other parts of the country.

-In last fall's Kentucky governor's race, Republicans announced plans to challenge voters in 59 predominantly black precincts. After the N.A.A.C.P. objected, the program was scaled back.

-And this year, a local Texas prosecutor threatened to arrest students at historically black Prairie View A&M if they tried to vote from their campus addresses, which the law allows them to do. He backed down when he was sued.

-Intimidation of Hispanic voters has often focused on immigration matters. In one case that caused an uproar in California in 1988, Republicans hired uniformed security officers to serve as "poll guards" in Latino precincts in Orange County.

Source for all of the above: 4/18/04 New York Times

And this story didn't even mention the accusations that flew in Florida in 2000...checkpoints near voting locations in black neighborhoods, flyers distributed in those neighborhoods that said voters with outstanding traffic tickets would be arrested at the polls, the erroneous designation of thousands of voters as convicted felons, so they were turned away at the polls.

I read these stories, and I can't believe we haven't been transported back in time to the late 1800's or at worst the 1950's, but to hear of these outrages occurring in my adult life-time. Appalling.

After 2000, it is more important than ever that this year's election is completely above-board and unquestioned.

Write letters to the editor or your Congressperson or California's Secretary of State (the SCC DP site makes it so easy) and let them all know, we will be watching.