February 2006 Archives

"Kids need to know. Kids want to know. It's up to you to tell them...Why Mommy Is A Democrat."

A different kind of children's book.

Um, I kid you not.

(click thumbnail for larger image)

We're away from Louisiana during Mardi Gras this year, so I thought you'd enjoy a reprise of last year's celebration.

Laissez les bon temps roulez!

(Video by Instant Video Generator)

I recently read Bill Moyers' On America and was reminded again why Bush Republicans run from him (in the words of Paul Begala) "like vampires from holy water." Moyers is the real deal: a liberal who's beliefs are grounded in morality, passion, history and the American tradition. In short, Moyers is everything they wish they were, but still a Democrat.

In the chapter entitled The Fight of Our Lives, Moyers discusses a subject close to his heart--the media:

When journalism throws in with power, the first news marched by censors to the guillotine is the news the authorities don't want us to know. The greatest moments in the history of the press came not when journalists made common cause with the state but when they stood fearlessly independent of it.

Yeah, I know -- opponents use this kind of observation to accuse Moyers of wearing a tin-foil hat. But that's their standard canard -- call someone crazy when they get too close to the truth:

Conspiracy is unneccessary when ideology hungers for power and its many adherents swarm of their own accord to the same pot of honey.

Stretching from the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal to the faux news of Rupert Murdoch's empire to the nattering nabobs of know-nothing radio to a legion of think tanks bought and paid for by conglomerates, the religious, partisan, and corporate right has raised a mighty megaphone for sectarian, economic, and plitical forces that aim to transform the egalitarian and democratic ideals embodied in our founding documents.

With no strong opposition party to challenge such triumphalist hegemony, it is left to journalismto be domocracy's best friend.

The conventional wisdom says that "taxes are too complicated." We're told that what we need is a simpler tax system, a fairer tax system, one that enables us to fill out our taxes on a postcard. What we need, in short, is a flat tax.

But the fact is that 75% of taxpayers don't even itemize. In addition to that, many, many, many people (me, you, & them) use super-easy programs like Turbo Tax.

So here's my question: do we really need tax simplification or is that just an excuse to give tax breaks (i.e., "flat tax") to people who don't really need them?

Part II of my question: aren't tax simplification and tax "fair-ification" two mutually exclusive concepts?

I've been reading and listening and thinking a lot about the Dubai Port World takeover of six US ports. I've considered all sides of the debate. And one aspect of the debate is conspicuous by its absence: just exactly how DP World will improve port security.

In other words, what are the benefits allowing them to simply take over ownership of the previous company that held the contracts? Granted, there may be none. Perhaps the main benefit of the deal is that it will be a seamless transfer of ownership and certain interested parties will rake in a ton of dough.

If that's the case, then I'm not impressed.

After all, when was the last time you felt good about port security? We keep hearing about how only one container in twenty is actually inspected to see if the contents match the manifest. Yet, year after year, nothing gets done.

During that time, Democrats have offered many legislative amendments to strengthen homeland security funding in the area of port security only to see their efforts shot down by key Republicans. And now, port security is in the news again. But this time, Republicans are "standing up" to Bush in a way that will make them look bold and principled. But if you examine the facts, you'll see that Senate Republicans have been AWOL on the issue of port security for years.

How many times do I have to say it: don't watch what they say, watch what they do.

From the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee:

• Santorum said: “red flags went off” on port deal but voted against port security six times.
  
• Frist called for delay of Dubai deal but voted against port security six times.
  
• Chafee said deal “should be vetted properly” but voted against port security five times.
  
• Kyl said deal “raises serious questions about national security” but voted against port security six times.
  
• Talent said deal “strikes me as a very dangerous move” but voted against port security five times.
  
• Allen said UAE’s past is a cause for concern but voted against port security four times.
  
• Ensign said he cannot support deal “until all reasonable concerns about security … have been addressed” but voted six times against port security.
  
• Collins and Coleman have “serious concerns” about port deal but each voted against port security five times.
  
• Graham said U.S. should not “outsource major port security;” Graham voted against port security six times.
  
• Grassley is “deeply concerned” about port deal but voted against port security six times.
  
• Shelby is “deeply concerned” about Dubai port deal but has voted at least six times against port security.

Bottom line? We want safe ports and Bush and the Republicans still aren't doing jack about it.

Who knows, maybe I'm wrong.

But don't you think the real Rudy Giuliani would have popped a blood vessel when he heard about the Dubai Port World deal?

Not that groomed, pampered and powdered guy running around now making speeches at $100 thousand a pop. Not that guy running for President. But the real Rudy Giuliani...?

This is a test of the "Scheduled Post" feature of Movable Type.

If this works, I'll be posting some articles on Friday, Feb. 24, in such a way that they'll appear each day next week.

[ Update: It works! ]

P.S. I'll be away from my computer for a while. Try not to shoot anyone in the face while I'm gone.

...and you feel strongly that Congress should have a full and open investigation of the NSA domestic spying scandal, Glenn Greenwald wants you to read this.

Republicans continue to buck the President on the Dubai Port World takeover:

U.S. Rep. Bobby Jindal, R-Kenner, who sits on the House Committee on Homeland Security, said he is already working with Chairman Peter King, R-New York, on legislation to halt the sale. The bill, likely to be introduced later this week, would also require a full investigation of the deal.

Jindal said it's not the fact that a foreign nation is involved in the deal that concerns him, but rather that the nation happens to be one known to be used by terrorists as a staging ground.

"The UAE’s track record has been more mixed, they’ve not been as vigilant as cracking down on logistical and financial support" of terrorist organizations, Jindal said.

P.S. Rep. David Vitter has also spoken out against the deal:

"I'm not making a final decision on the deal," Vitter said. "All I'm saying is I think there are very serious concerns and questions that need to be more fully explored."

From the Baton Rouge Advocate:

Landrieu, who won the 2003 lieutenant governor's race, brings to an already crowded field of candidates his 16 years of experience as a state representative and unmatched name recognition in the city: His father, Moon Landrieu, was mayor from 1970-78; his sister, Mary, is a U.S. senator, former state representative and ex-state treasurer; and his aunt, Phyllis, is president of the Orleans Parish School Board.

[...]

The mayoral primary is April 22, with a runoff -- if necessary -- May 20. Qualifying for the race is March 1-3.

[Mayor Ray] Nagin, who captured a majority of the white vote in the mayor’s election four years ago, said he welcomes the ever-increasing number of white candidates lining up to challenge him.

"Let's get a few more, man," he said.

[...]

The younger Landrieu called Nagin a "good man" and a "good public servant."

"I like him, and you should too," he said. "He did the best he could with what he had, and for that we owe him a debt of gratitude."

I'll tell you what: if Gov. Blanco ever decides to call it quits, Landrieu would be the most viable Democratic candidate.

Here's the deal our CEO President cut with Dubai Port World:

The Bush administration secretly required a company in the United Arab Emirates to cooperate with future U.S. investigations before approving its takeover of operations at six American ports, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. It chose not to impose other, routine restrictions.

As part of the $6.8 billion purchase, state-owned Dubai Ports World agreed to reveal records on demand about "foreign operational direction" of its business at U.S. ports, the documents said. Those records broadly include details about the design, maintenance or operation of ports and equipment.

The administration did not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to court orders. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests. Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries.

OK, here's the thing: on paper, this is probably as good a deal as the US could get, given that no US company does this kind of work, at least not on this scale. So maybe Bush is just being the good "CEO President" he bragged about being.

But the big picture is waaaaaay out of whack. Here's Cunning Realist:

What would you have said if, on September 12, 2001, I told you that five years later Bin Laden would still be free, nuclear terrorism would be a top concern, and a panel of political appointees would approve the takeover of our port operations by a UAE company?

Bottom line: for Democrats, this is NOT a time for nuance. Leave nuance to the Republicans.

P.S. I'll leave it to others to point out what you get when government serves the interests of business instead of the interests of the people.

Kos:

If you are a Republican who criticizes Bush, you are one hell of a courageous mofo. If you are a Democrat who criticizes Bush, well then you are nothing more than a Bush hater.

Cunning Realist:

The deal for the port takeover was cleared by the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). This group meets in secret and is headed by Treasury Secretary John Snow. As I noted in a previous post, DP World purchased part of the U.S. company CSX for over $1 billion in 2004. Before he became Treasury Secretary, John Snow was Chairman and CEO of CSX.

While he had left CSX by the time that deal closed, there is no way Snow should have presided over secret deliberations about any DP World transaction---much less one that involves national security. It's beyond belief that he did not recuse himself from this transaction given the sensitivity of the issues involved.

From TheDetroiter.com, another terrific Detroit-themed blog:

In the "D", "D" doesn't really stand for "Detroit", but "Demolition." Take a look around and you'll notice a great number of buildings marked on the front with a circled "D" in faint chalk. Off to the side, many of these same buildings will also have a noticeable dot, courtesy of our own native son, Tyree Guyton. These dotted buildings have stood for so long that they have become, arguably, the most memorable landmarks of our fair city.

In addition to Tyree Guyton, Detroit has had more than its fair share of artists who have taken notice of this situation and done something about it. Recently, however, we have taken up a particular project that has actually netted results - faster than anyone, especially us, could have anticipated.

The artistic move is simple, cover the front in Tiggeriffic Orange - a color from the Mickey Mouse series, easily purchased from Home Depot. Every board, every door, every window, is caked in Tiggeriffic Orange. We paint the facades of abandoned houses whose most striking feature are their derelict appearance.

(Click to see a larger image.)

Apparently, these little gizmos are for sale again. Wow:

The Digicomp is a plastic mechanical computer from the 1960s. It offered three bits of tabletop computing, back in an age where corded telephones were considered high-tech. The machine arrived in kit form; your first task was to assemble the jumble of tubes, rods, and elastic bands into something that resembles a Jetson's parking garage. Once complete, it's a fantastic hands-on way to teach Boolean algebra and binary numbers.

Looking back on it, it's fun to realize that this little contraption actually was an educational toy -- and apparently it had quite an impact on me.

Would I buy another one? Not sure -- I guess it's probably best to leave well enough alone. But, dang! that was a cool little thing, wasn't it? I'm glad people are recognizing it now.

From the web site:

No one today would claim so reverently, as ESR did in 1963, that Digi-Comp is the "mechanical equivalent of an electronic digital computer" (probably quite a stretch, even back then). And is it still true, or was it ever, that "everything you learn on Digi-Comp can be used on large electronic digital computers"? Probably not. Today, there's no reason a 10-year-old can't sit down and learn HTML or Visual Basic on a microcomputer. And that's fine -- but it's not really what Digi-Comp is about.

What is it about, then? After months of playing (er, testing), we've concluded that Digi-Comp is an ingenious, transparent Logical Gizmo that can teach anyone about binary numbers and Boolean algebra, still fundamental concepts in digital circuitry. In an age when interfaces are all that most kids get to know about computers, when working mechanisms of any kind are getting harder to observe (much less get your hands on), we think Digi-Comp's unique combination of mechanics and logic forges a unique kind of connection between hand and mind. Like many great educational toys, it makes you think. But like almost no other toy we know, it also literally puts you in touch with a way of thinking.

(HT to Cory)

Bush:

I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company," Bush said. "I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, "We'll treat you fairly."

The "Middle Eastern company" is owned by the government of the UAE. Here's are some relevant facts about the government of the United Arab Emirates:

1. The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.
   
2. The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia.
   
3. According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.
   
4. After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden's bank accounts.

Instead of shaking your head, here's what you can do to stop this deal from going through:

1. Contact your Congressmen. I've included the links to the "lookup pages" for both the Senate and the House.

   Find your Congressman
   Find your Senator (upper right corner of page)

   Visit those pages and get the name, phone/fax numbers, and/or email addresses for your Congressman and Senators.

2. Tell them you want them to do whatever is necessary to block the UAE port security deal. Tell them that it is a bad idea to allow a foreign government to have control of our seaports.

3. Forward this post to your friends and urge them to do the same.

(Click the image, watch the video)

Jack Cafferty:

This may be the straw that finally breaks the camel's back, this deal to sell control of six US ports to a company controlled by the United Arab Emirates.

There are now actually Senators and Congressmen and Governors and Mayors telling the White House "you're not gonna do this." And it's about time. No one has said "no" to this administration on anything that matters in a very long time. Well this matters. It matters a lot. If this deal is allowed to go through, we deserve whatever we get.

A country with ties to terrorists will have a presence at six critical doorways to our country. And if anyone thinks that the terrorists, in time, won't figure out how to exploit that, then we're all done.

Nothing's happened yet, mind you, but if our elected representatives don't do everything in their power to stop this thing, each of us should vow to work tirelessly to see that they are removed from public office. We're at a crossroads - which way will we choose?

I moved to Louisiana from Michigan in June of 2004. Since then, I've experienced two hurricanes, an earthquake, a tornado and the re-election of George W. Bush. Hard to say which was the worst.

[pause]

No it's not.

Seriously, living in Baton Rouge is like living in the center of the universe as far as Democratic politics go. I'm reminded of this upon reading a post from Chris Komm at Facing South, a terrific blog about progressive Southern politcs. Chris points to a new Marist Poll:

66% of registered voters nationwide are bothered a great deal or a good amount by the administration's response to Hurricane Katrina. Although Democrats are most critical, 64% of independents and 42% of Republicans are bothered by how the administration handled the disaster.

But here's the interesting thing: the issue goes hand-in-glove with the issue of terrorism. So this becomes a real opportunity for Democrats to seize the initiative in an area where they are thought to be weak.

Follow me on this...

The House Report on Katrina Response recently reported that, after four years of preparation, the US is still not prepared to respond in the aftermath of the kind of cataclysmic destruction wrought by that hurricane:

"If this is what happens when we have advance warning, we shudder to imagine the consequences when we do not. Four and a half years after 9/11, America is still not ready for prime time," the report concluded.

[Scarily, Frances Fragos Townsend, the assistant to the President for Homeland Security, was quoted as saying that "President George W. Bush was fully engaged in preparations to Katrina."]

What does this have to do with terrorism? Plenty --

I know for a fact that FEMA is tasked with emergency response, whether or not the emergency is a man-made disaster or a natural disaster. And believe me when I tell you: I've been to New Orleans and seen the destruction. And if you were ignorant of the cause, there would be no way to tell if it were caused by a hurricane -- or a suitcase nuke. The fact is, the levees broke, the town flooded and over a thousand people were killed. And, four years after 9/11, we were not prepared to deal with it.

Now the polls show that Americans are worried, very worried, about that. And they, we, should be. But what can one person do?

More on that in a moment, but first, let's talk about port security.

As you know, Bush has given final approval for the government of the United Arab Emirates to take over security for the port of New Orleans (along with five other major ports). Here's are some relevant facts about the government of the United Arab Emirates:

1. The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.
   
2. The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia.
   
3. According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.
   
4. After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden's bank accounts.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff made the rounds on the talk shows Sunday, asserting that the administration made certain the company agreed to certain conditions to ensure national security. He said details of those agreements were secret.

During a stop Monday in Birmingham, Ala., Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the administration had a "very extensive process" for reviewing such transactions that "takes into account matters of national security, takes into account concerns about port security."

So let's review:

• Four years after 9/11, we're still unprepared for the aftermath of another disaster emergency.
  
• If anything, we've gotten MORE complacent about homeland security.

In the meantime, here's what you can do:

1. Contact your Congressmen. I've included the links to the "lookup pages" for both the Senate and the House.

   Find your Congressman
   Find your Senator (upper right corner of page)

   Visit those pages and get the name, phone/fax numbers, and/or email addresses for your Congressman and Senators.

2. Tell them you want them to do whatever is necessary to block the UAE port security deal. Tell them that it is a bad idea to allow a foreign government to have control of our seaports.

   And/or...

3. Tell them that you want all the funds released that have been allocated for Gulf Coast rebuilding. It's time to rebuild New Orleans and the surrounding region. If we had been hit by terrorists we would insist on nothing less.

4. Forward this post to your friends and urge them to do the same.

Thanks for reading this far. Please help us get it done now.

A couple of thoughts on Tuesday morning:

1. President Bush is the lamest of ducks and has been since his Social Security destruction-plan flopped last year. So I don't want to waste any breath railing against his hideous inadequacies as President. If you like the guy, you won't listen, and if you already know about his horrific record as CinC then I'm just preaching to the choir.

   We had our shot at keeping Bush out of the Oval Office but he's there for the foreseeable future (see below for more).

   So, what does this mean? It means that the next best thing is to do whatever I can to enable the election of a Democratic Congress.

   • Only then will right-thinking people have a chance of stopping this guy's whacked-out agenda.
     
   • Only then will we have a chance to cut off funding of his Treasury-draining tax-cuts.
     
   • Only then will we have a chance to get to the truth of the matter about the lies told, and the crimes committed, by this White House.
     
   • Only then will we, the people, have a chance of holding these people accountable for what they've done.
     
   • Does that include impeaching the President? Well, the Constitution does give Congress that authority. But it will never happen as long as the Republicans control Congress. So it's imperative that the Democrats take control of at least the House and preferably the Senate as well. Then, and only then, do we have a chance of launching the necessary investigations of high crimes and misdemeanors.
2. So what is the best way to get a Democratic Congress elected? The best way, of course, is to vote for the Democratic candidate for the House (and the Senate, if applicable) and to work to get others to do the same.

3. But there is something else that I, we, can do: we can let Congress and the traditional media know that we won't stand for business as usual.

   So from now on, if I go off on a rant about something outrageous that this Republican-controlled government is doing, I am also going to include the names, phone/fax numbers, and email addresses for those members of Congress, Democrat and Republican, who need to hear that I'm unhappy and what I expect them to do about it.

   And/But I think there are members of the traditional media (network, cable, newspapers, magazines and their assorted advertisers) that also need to hear from me whenever they (i.e., Chris Matthews) say something that is factually inaccurate, intellectually dishonest, and/or parroting Republican talking points. So, where applicable, I'll include their email addresses (or websites organized for this purpose).

   And if, from time to time, that includes participating in advertiser boycotts, then so be it. Shy of getting people to shut off their TVs and/or cancel their subscriptions, it is advertising money that keeps the traditional media alive. The Sinclair Broadcasting advertiser boycott was a good case in point.

It's the very least I can do. And I hope you'll join with me when I ask you to do the same.

New feature: The post footer now includes a listing of the categories with which that post has been tagged.

Click on any of the category links to read posts that are similarly tagged.

New feature: The right and left sidebars use text that is "x-small." What do you think? Is it OK? Or too small? Or so small that you've realized that you need to upgrade your eyeglass prescription?

Possible bug: Is it possible that the comments are not working correctly? Once you've read this, please leave some sort of comment so that I can tell if I have a problem or not. Thanks. If you cannot leave a comment, please send me an email describing the problem you encountered in trying. My email is ara-at-rubyan-dot-com.

P.S. One last thing: I'm turning off the Trackback feature; 99.99% of the trackbacks I get are spam.

Issue #1:

1. What is your reaction upon finding out that Democrats send direct-mail fund-raising letters to lists of Volvo owners?

2. What is your reaction upon finding out that the Republican Party sends direct-mail fund-raising letters to members of the Baptist Church? But what if it turns out that the Republicans were getting their lists from the churches themselves?

Of course, Democrats will argue on the other side: that the tax code explicitly prohibits churches from becoming involved in campaigns and elections. But it's hard for Democrats to stand firm on that position because history has shown that left-wing church activists get prosecuted for violating this ban at least as often as right-wing churches.

Issue #2:

1. What is your reaction upon finding out that the company that controls security at the largest US ports is owned by a foreign corporation?

2. What is your reaction upon finding out that this company was recently taken over by another company that is controlled by the government of the United Arab Emirates?

Sure, you want to give the contracts to "American companies," but given that few US corporations have the ability to provide the kind of security necessary at our largest ports, her bill might be the next best thing.

How moderate is the new Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, Ismail Haniyeh?

Not so much.

Bill Maher interviews Sen. Russ Feingold.

Watch the video -- it's a great shot of adrenaline and straight talk from a Democrat who calls it the way he sees it.

Click the image (left) to watch the video -- it's around 8 minutes long and well worth your time, especially if you think there are no Democrats speaking up against the "Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight," Feingold's apt label for the Bush-Cheney gang.

I spent a few hours over the weekend remodeling the site. I'm almost done. Let me know how you like it.

In a related vein, I wanted to take a moment and observe an anniversary of sorts -- I've been blogging here since January of 2002. Back then, I called the site "Postmodern Politics" and I was running it on Blogger. And, any day now, I'm sure the comments will start working again.

Prior to that, my good friend Sandy and I used Yahoo Groups to document our daily email discussion of what I had naively called "The Campaign of the Century" -- the Presidential election of 2000. I think those emails are still on the Yahoo server somewhere, so when the Smithsonian calls, we'll be able to accomodate their request.

Prior to that, I wrote an email newsletter called "Democratic Issues" during the years after the 1994 midterm elections and leading up to the Presidential election of 1996. Back then, blogs didn't exist, yet somehow we managed to defeat Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole.

And prior to that, well, I guess I've been talking and reading about politics since I turned on a TV and watched the Kennedy-Nixon debates of 1960. I was seven years old and didn't have a computer. Yet.

Not sure what else to say except "Thanks" -- for reading, for commenting and for offering your feedback (positive and negative) over the years.

P.S. If I was having more fun, I'd have to be twins.

IJS.

From Washington's Farewell Address, 1797:

The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them.

If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates.

But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.

The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.

Hey -- maybe our phone calls/faxes/emails made a difference after all!

From the Times:

The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said Friday that he wanted the Bush administration's domestic eavesdropping program brought under the authority of a special intelligence court, a move President Bush has argued is not necessary.

The chairman, Senator Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas, said he had some concerns that the court could not issue warrants quickly enough to keep up with the needs of the eavesdropping program. But he said he would like to see those details worked out.

Mr. Roberts also said he did not believe that exempting the program from the purview of the court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act "would be met with much support" on Capitol Hill. Yet that is exactly the approach the Bush administration is pursuing.

"I think it should come before the FISA court, but I don't know how it works," Mr. Roberts said. "You don't want to have a situation where you have capability that doesn't work well with the FISA court, in terms of speed and agility and hot pursuit. So we have to solve that problem."

For all of you who made the calls, sent the faxes and emails -- thanks. Even if we made only one iota of difference, it was worth it.

Glenn Greenwald:

[In 1978], the Soviet Union was an infinitely stronger, more formidable, more sophisticated enemy with far vaster resources than Al Qaeda could dream of possessing.

And Communists, we were always told, employed their own deadly version of "sleeper cells" by systematically implanting foreign agents and even recruiting American citizens on U.S. soil to work on their behalf, including infiltrating the highest levels of the U.S. Government with their agents and sympathizers.

And yet, in the midst of all of these internal and external threats, the Congress enacted and the President signed into a law a statute [FISA] permitting eavesdropping for foreign intelligence purposes only with judicial oversight.

And more generally, during the four decades during which America fought the "Cold War" -- a war which was always depicted by both parties as posing an existential threat to our country -- no President ever seized, nor did Americans ever bequeath, the power to act contrary to Congressional laws and outside of the parameters of judicial "interference."

To all of you reading this that believe that our country is headed in the wrong direction: I'm looking for (at least) two of you to join me in getting actively involved in changing things.

What do I want you to do? It's simple:

1. On occasion, I want you to each make phone calls, send emails and/or faxes when the timing and the issues are right.

   AND (most importantly...)

2. I want you each to recruit (at least) two committed individuals to do the same for you. And I want THEM each to commit to the same type of recruitment.

It's time for concerned people, people who are committed, to DO SOMETHING to change the dangerous direction that this country is headed in.

Now, if you like the direction this country is going in, simply ignore my request. But those of you believe we're headed in the wrong direction, I'm urging you to get involved. Unless substantial numbers of us stand up and say something, our country will continue to sink into dangerous waters.

I am not asking you to donate, I'm not asking you to get others to donate, I'm not asking you to host a house party or leave home, or talk to strangers --

All I'm asking you to do is to occasionally respond to my requests that you please make some phone calls, send some emails and/or faxes to Congress and/or traditional media outlets (TV, newspapers, magazines). All I'm asking you to do is commit some time to raising your voice and be heard where and when it counts. And find two people of your own to do the same thing, and so forth.

Who wants to be the first two volunteers?

P.S. This post is an example of the kind of activity I'm talking about. Once you decide to be a part of my group, this will be the first activity I want you to get involved in. Read the post. It will only take a few minutes of your time. But if just two of you commit to it, and each of you gets two people who will commit to it, and each of THEM get two people, etc., we can make an impact with relatively little tiime and effort.

Please contact me if you would like to be my first two active volunteers. Thanks.
Respond in the comments or send me an email: ara-at-rubyan-dot-com
But please don't contact me unless you are serious and ready to get involved.

As we've heard, the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee is saying he has worked out an agreement with the White House to change/amend the FISA statute to allow the National Security Agency’s warrantless surveillance program and provide more information about it to Congress.

As Sen. Feingold (a member of the Committee) said:

The Intelligence Committee’s failure today to begin an investigation of the administration’s illegal domestic surveillance program is inexcusable. The Senate Committee charged with conducting oversight of intelligence matters has a responsibility to look more deeply into the President’s illegal secret wiretapping of Americans. The President has broken the law and Congress needs to hold him accountable.

We must insist that the President faithfully execute the existing laws passed by the Legislative branch, including the requirement for Judicial branch oversight of all NSA wiretapping.

Republicans: (site link, voice#, fax#, email)

Pat Roberts, Kansas, Chairman, 202-224-4774, 202-224-3514, email
Orrin G. Hatch, Utah, (202) 224-5251, (202) 224-6331, email
Mike Dewine, Ohio, (202) 224-2315, (202) 224-6519, email
Christopher S. Bond, Missouri, 202-224-5721, 202-224-8149, email
Trent Lott, Mississippi, (202) 224-6253, (202) 224-2262, email
Olympia J. Snowe, Maine, (202) 224-5344, (202) 224-1946, email
Chuck Hagel, Nebraska, (202) 224-4224, (202) 224-5213, email
Saxby Chambliss, Georgia, 202-224-3521, 202-224-0103, email

My guess is that Sen. Snowe, Sen. Hagel, and/or Sen. DeWine are the Republicans that might be most receptive to rejecting any changes or amendments to the FISA statute.

Democrats: (site link, voice#, fax#, email)

John D. Rockefeller IV, West Virginia, Vice Chairman, (202) 224-6472, (202) 224-7665, email
Carl Levin, Michigan, (202) 224-6221, (202) 224-1388, email
Dianne Feinstein, California, (202) 224-3841, (202) 228-3954, email
Ron Wyden, Oregon, (202) 224-5244, no fax?, email
Evan Bayh, Indiana, (202) 224-5623, no fax?, email
Barbara A. Mikulski, Maryland, (202) 224-4654, 202-224-8858, email
Russell D. Feingold, Wisconsin, (202) 224-5323, (202) 224-2725, email

All Democrats must be encouraged to reject any changes or amendments in the FISA statute.
Please call the members of the Committee. Now. Before you forget, before you check your email, before you get distracted.

Before it is too late.

1. Call each Senator's office.
   
2. Express some version of Senator Feingold's message, or something similar of your own.
   
3. Call your own Senators and Congressman as well.
   
4. Forward this to two of your most actively involved friends. Ask them to each make the calls and forward this, in turn, to two of their most actively involved friends.

The Republican Congress is determined to end any possibility of an investigation of Bush's warrantless wiretapping program, but the courts are keeping the issue on the front burner, for now...

From Bloomberg:

A federal judge ordered the U.S. Justice Department to respond to a privacy rights group's request that the agency turn over internal documents on the Bush administration's domestic spying program.

U.S. District Judge Henry Kennedy Jr. of Washington gave the department 20 days to answer the Freedom of Information Act request, filed in December by the Electronic Privacy Information Center. The group sued last month after the Justice Department failed to meet a 20-day deadline imposed by the act.

Meanwhile, the show-dogs on the Senate Intelligence Committee are ready to roll over for their master:

Senate Intelligence Chairman Pat Roberts said Thursday he has worked out an agreement with the White House to change U.S. law regarding the National Security Agency’s warrantless surveillance program and provide more information about it to Congress.

“We are trying to get some movement, and we have a clear indication of that movement,” Roberts, R-Kan., said.

Without offering specifics, Roberts said the agreement with the White House provides “a fix” to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and offers more briefings to the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The issue has never been about Congressional oversight -- the issue has been whether or not Bush was breaking the law and violating the Constitution. Just because the rubber-stamp Congress agrees with the President about changing the law doesn't "fix" anything. Roberts is just passing the buck instead of asserting Congress' authority to make the President follow the law it passed nearly 30 years ago and which every President since then has followed.

I've only had limited exposure to Mark Warner (mostly on paper). And I wasn't exactly bowled over.

But the following piece presents Warner in a different light. And the post is so good that I'm going to apologize in advance for copying-and-pasting the whole thing...

From Reality Bites Back:

How does a pro-choice, pro-government, pro-tax Democrat get elected with an 80% approval rating in the state of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Grover Norquist? How do you counter Republican fear mongering, deception, fear mongering, cronyism and fear mongering? How do you win amidst an ocean of red, riled to a blood-thirsty, mouth-foaming torrent by Rove, Luntz and shotgun Cheney? Last night, I got to meet former Virginia Governor Mark Warner and hear from the man myself. And here's what he had to say...

"Virginia is a southern state." He made that clear as day. `It's not part of New England. It's the state where the Christian Right makes its home. It's 2 to 1 Republican, but there is a way to win.'

His tactic to approaching the Republican base starts with: "I'm a Democrat but, contrary to what you may think..." He paused, indicating that's the way he begins every appeal to a conservative area. He continues `I may not check every box of what you want, but I want to work with you to solve the problems that are important to you.' He mentions jobs, healthcare, education, economic development, and key to this, creating opportunities for `regular Americans' to stay in the community they grew up in by helping those communities compete in new industries of the future. He says he also boldly declares "I will never take away your guns. We need to enforce our existing laws. I'm not going to add a whole bunch of new ones." This, to counter the wall of deception by the NRA's constant "lib'ruls wanna take your guns away" droning.

As you know by now, yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee voted along party lines to REJECT a Resolution of Inquiry requesting that the Attorney General turn over copies of legal opinions and other documents concerning the NSA's warrantless surveillance program. The vote was 21-16 against the resolution.

In other words, Democrats on the Committee wanted Congress to exercise its Constitutional authority to conduct oversight of the Executive Branch but the Republican majority rejected that.

By this action, it seems quite clear once again that this Congress has given up any appearance of being a co-equal branch of government with the Executive.

That said, the other co-equal branch, the SCOTUS, will eventually (and inevitably) be asked to step in and rule on Bush's illegal actions. And regardless of how they rule, lasting damage to the Legislative branch will already have occurred.

How so, you ask?

Simply put, future Presidents will know that one of the three branches has been, for all intents and purposes, neutered. And since the President has the authority to appoint Justices to the Supreme Court, s/he can simply stack the court until they, too, become a rubber stamp for whatever s/he wants to do.

The solution? Divided government -- a Congress of the opposing party that will exercise its Constitutional authority:

1. If necessary, cut off funding for the President's programs.
   
2. If necessary, sidetrack all business related to the President's agenda.
   
3. If necessary, hold investigative oversight hearings (where the witnesses are put under oath).
   
4. If necessary, impeach and convict the President.

Here's what we will take away from the story:

"Dick" Cheney shot a guy in the face, tried to cover it up and didn't apologize for it.

The End.

P.S. It's the same damn template he's used throughout his tenure as Veep: screw up, pretend like it didn't happen, and don't back down. Come to think about it, it's the same damn template Bush has used over and over and over.

No wonder their approval ratings are in the toilet.

If you watch this and you're not tapping your toe within moments, well, you have no pulse.

Here's Xeni's take on it:

In the "MP3s" section of Baidu and Yahoo China, I stumbled on  Taiwanese pop star Jay Chow (aka Zhou Jie Lun)'s  theme song for Fearless (Huo Yuan Jia), the new Jet Li action movie about 19th-century martial arts hero Huo Yuan Jia. Here's one ripped MP3 of the song, here's another -- it's wicked catchy. Sort of hiphop meets backstreetboys meets chinese opera (sung in falsetto by a dude). After I listened about forty times, I found the movie's official site (gah, no US release dates! I'd gladly pay to see it!), and the music video: high, low.

I like the part in the music video where the dude is being such a hard-ass rapper and he punctuates the end of a line with the FAN. Like, "BLAYUMM--how you like me now, with my figgidy-FAN?!" I give Jay-Z like five minutes to rip this off cover this.

I really haven't cared much about the whole Mohammed cartoon flap. One of the main reasons is that both sides (European and Arab intelligensia alike) are guilty of publishing anti-Semetic cartoons on a regular basis and the world community doesn't care about that. In fact, Iran is now sponsoring a contest to actively produce and promote cartoons about the Holocaust.

Whatever.

Now, a group of Israelis announce their own anti-Semitic cartoons contest:

Amitai Sandy, the publisher of Tel-Aviv, Israel-based Dimona Comix, and founder of the contest jokes, “We’ll show the world we can do the best, sharpest, most offensive Jew hating cartoons ever published! No Iranian will beat us on our home turf!”

That would be big news...

...for geeks & junkies.

The first parade of Carnival season rolled by in New Orleans last Saturday night. Laissez les bon temps roulez!

You can see the entire set of pics at Flickr.

...and this time it's someone we know and love.

Details here.

When will the madness end??

(HT to Charles Vestal)

Miss Julie and I were dumbstruck when we heard the news on the radio yesterday that Cheney shot Whittington.

Like most people, my first thought was, "Cheney has finally jumped the shark!"  We were literally speechless. Then we simply couldn't stop laughing.

But when I heard that Whittington had been appointed by Bush to a seat on the Texas Funeral Service Commission, I remembered a story from 1999, during Bush's first campaign for President.

Did Bush lie under oath in funeral home case?

An SCI attorney says the Texas governor talked to him about a state agency investigation, contradicting Bush's affidavit in the case.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

By Robert Bryce and Anthony York

Aug. 9, 1999 | A sworn affidavit by Texas Gov. George W. Bush insisting he had no discussions about a state investigation into a political contributor's funeral home business has been contradicted by the company's own lawyer....

A hearing has been set for Aug. 30 in the Travis County Courthouse in Austin to decide if Bush must testify in the case.

Now this:

Whittington has been a private practice attorney in Austin since 1950 and has long been active in Texas Republican politics. He's been appointed to several state boards, including when then-Gov. George W. Bush named him to the Texas Funeral Service Commission.

I'm just saying.

Imagine you're the Democratic nominee for your local Congressional seat.

You are debating your opponent (who may or may not be the incumbent). S/he is asked to state an opinion on Bush's "domestic wiretapping program." S/he responds by saying that Bush did the right thing and regardless of what the FISA law says, s/he states unequivocally that "unelected judges should not be put in charge of national security."

What is your response?

You can't make this stuff up fast enough:

Vice President Dick Cheney accidentally shot and wounded a companion [Harry Whittington] during a weekend quail hunting trip in Texas, spraying the fellow hunter in the face and chest with shotgun pellets...

The shooting was first reported by the Corpus Christi Caller-Times. The vice president’s office did not disclose the accident until nearly 24 hours after it happened....

Whittington has been a private practice attorney in Austin since 1950 and has long been active in Texas Republican politics. He’s been appointed to several state boards, including when then-Gov. George W. Bush named him to the Texas Funeral Service Commission.

UPDATE:

Here's a screen-cap from ABC News that looks like something from The Onion.

Click the thumbnail, left, to see the whole pic. Go on, it'll make your day.

(HT to Iron City)

I was born a Christian and later chose to become a Jew. I was a liberal pretty much all along and I can say that being a liberal was the hardest thing of all. Oh, not for the reasons you might imagine; but rather for having to endure all the lunkheads who can't figure out how I can be religious AND a lefty at the same time.

Which brings me to one of my favorite authors, Anne Lamott, the novelist and essayist. Miss Julie turned me on to her book Travelling Mercies. Her most recent book is Plan B: Further Thoughts on Faith. She writes eloquently and with great humor about her life before and after finding religion, in her case Christianity. For those of you who have forgotten what it was like being a Christian who actually believes in Jesus' teachings of non-violence and helping the poor, Anne is a good place to start.

Anyway, recently Lamott was a panelist in a discussion about politics and faith. And eventually they got around to the topic of abortion:

...and everyone just lost his or her mind.

Or, at any rate, I did.

Maybe it was the way in which the man couched the question, which was about how we should reconcile our progressive stances on peace and justice with the "murder of a million babies every year in America." The man who asked the question was soft-spoken, neatly and casually dressed.

First Richard, a Franciscan priest, answered that this is indeed a painful issue but that it is not the only "pro-life" issue that progressives — even Catholics — should concern themselves with during elections. There are also the matters of capital punishment and the war in Iraq, and of HIV.

Then Jim, an evangelical, spoke about the need to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, and the need to diffuse abortion as a political issue, by welcoming pro-choice and pro-life supporters to the discussion, with equal respect for their positions. He spoke gently about how "morally ambiguous" the issue is.

I sat there simmering, like a samovar; nice Jesusy me. The moderator turned to me and asked quietly if I would like to respond. I did: I wanted to respond by pushing over our table.

Instead, I shook my head. I love and respect the Franciscan and the evangelical, and agree with them 90-plus percent of the time. So I did not say anything, at first.

Then, when I was asked to answer the next question, I paused, and returned to the topic of abortion. There was a loud buzzing in my head, the voice of reason that says, "You have the right to remain silent," but the voice of my conscience was insistent.

I wanted to express calmly, eloquently, that pro-choice people understand that there are two lives involved in an abortion — one born (the pregnant woman) and one not (the fetus) — but that the born person must be allowed to decide what is right.

Also, I wanted to wave a gun around, to show what a real murder looks like. This tipped me off that I should hold my tongue, until further notice. And I tried.

But then I announced that I needed to speak out on behalf of the many women present in the crowd, including myself, who had had abortions, and the women whose daughters might need one in the not-too-distant future — people who must know that teenage girls will have abortions, whether in clinics or dirty backrooms. Women whose lives had been righted and redeemed by Roe vs. Wade. My answer was met with some applause but mostly a shocked silence.

Pall is a good word.

And it did not feel good to be the cause of that pall. I knew what I was supposed to have said, as a progressive Christian: that it's all very complicated and painful, and that Jim was right in saying that the abortion rate in America is way too high for a caring and compassionate society.

But I did the only thing I could think to do: plunge on, and tell my truth. I said that this is the most intimate decision a woman makes, and she makes it all alone, in her deepest heart of hearts, sometimes with the man by whom she is pregnant, with her dearest friends or with her doctor — but without the personal opinion of say, Tom DeLay or Karl Rove.

I can't figure it out.

On one hand the "terrorist surveillance program" is described as a vital part of winning the war on terror. But on the other hand, it is limited to international calls.

Why?

Aren't there any sleeper cells left in the US? Wouldn't we want to know if terrorists (or their sympathizers) were calling from Dearborn to Buffalo, discussing their next plot?

On one hand Gonzalez says the idea of eavesdropping on domestic calls was rejected because of a fear of public backlash and because the DOJ had not fully analyzed the legal issues. But on the other hand, Gonzalez made it super-clear that the Bush already has (and always had) the constitutional authority to order wiretaps on U.S. citizens and residents without court approval.

Is it possible that widespread domestic wiretapping is already underway and that information is being kept from us?

If so, why?

Bush has already said his most important job is to protect the American people -- that is his whole reason for being President. That said, shouldn't we just conclude that he is listening to all of our phone calls -- for our own good? Why would there be any public outcry about that?

And if so, wouldn't the usual "safeguards" apply? You know what I mean: "If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about."

But shouldn't we be asking if perhaps Bush is spying on his enemies, too?

People can say "No, of course not." But what is there to stop him if he wanted to? Who would even know about it? And if he decided to detain someone as the result of a tapped phone conversation, what rights would that individual have?

History has already shown us that it is possible now to detain an American citizen on American soil, throw him into a military prison indefinitely, refuse to charge him with any crime, refuse to allow him access to a lawyer, and keep him there for several years.

And if that isn't shocking enough, Bush claims that federal courts have no role in even reviewing, let alone limiting or restricting, the Government's detention of American citizens with no due process. And let's not even discuss torture. No.

Bottom line: the only way Bush can be stopped now is if Congress exercises its constitutional powers to cut off his funding, derail his agenda and, if necessary, impeach and convict him. And that will never happen unless the opposition party gains majority control of Congress.

I was mildly surprised to hear Hillary Clinton call the administration on their most successful tactic:

She said a speech by presidential adviser Karl Rove two weeks ago showed the GOP election message is: ''All we've got is fear and we're going to keep playing the fear card."

In that speech, Rove suggested Republicans can prevail in 2006 by showing Democrats had undermined terrorism-fighting efforts by questioning President Bush's authority to allow wiretapping without getting court approval first.

But there's more that Democrats can (should do):

The conventional wisdom says that the voting public fears being killed by terrorists. Similarly, the conventional wisdom says that the individual Democrat fears being defeated in the next election.

It's time for the Democrats to create their own conventional wisdom:

• Yes, battling an enemy that uses terrorism is a challenge. But we've faced worse. The fact is, the odds of being killed by a terrorist are much, much higher than you or I slipping and falling in the bathtub.

• Yes, standing up and telling truth to power seems like a risk until you realize that generic preference polling indicates that the public already favors the Democrats over the Republicans.

Democrats need to finally acknowledge that the mood of the country is more in line with the Democrats' interests, not the Republicans'.

For example, polls indicate that the majority of people believe the Republicans lied about the war and have mishandled the economy, putting the country on the wrong track.

The solution should be simple and intuitive: the Democrats must speak with one voice. If they do this, there is safety in numbers. It's a simple message:

"Until we're in charge, the Congress will be a rubber stamp for an Executive who thinks he should be King. The Republican majority has a 5-year track record that shows what they will do when they're in charge. So if you keep voting like you always did, you'll keep getting what you always got.

"But if you'll put us in charge, we will work hard to uncover the facts behind the past five years of war, scandal, mismanagement. Put us in charge and we'll work hard to hold people accountable for their lies, incompetence and misleadership. Put us in charge and we'll work hard to make the homeland safer and win our allies back again. Put us in charge and we'll work hard to build a future of energy independence. Put us in charge and we'll work hard for universal health care. Put us in charge and we'll work hard to bring the budget back into balance. Put us in charge and we'll work for the country.

"Leave the Republicans in charge and they'll work hard ... for George W. Bush.

"Put us in charge and we'll work hard to defend the Constitution. Leave the Republicans in charge and they'll work hard...to defend George W. Bush."

Individual Democrats are scared of saying the wrong thing. But if all the Democrats hang together and say the right thing -- well, there's safety in numbers. One single Democrat can't stop the President. But a Democratic majority in the House and/or Senate could.

Marty Kaplan slams it home:

Wingnut crybabies are whining that W got dissed at Coretta King's funeral. What did they expect -- praise for his civil rights record? Honor for his warrantless wiretapping? Encomia for widening the gap between rich and poor? Heckofajob's for his post-Katrina promise-keeping?

I can understand why he didn't plan on attending the funeral in the first place; W's kind of African-American event is more like the 2000 Republican convention that nominated him in Philadelphia, where the only black faces were the ones on stage.

Once he did get shamed into coming, is it any wonder that the speakers celebrated what Coretta King's life stood for, and cold-shouldered the Republican wrecking crew that's been trying to destroy what she and her husband worked a lifetime to achieve?

Among other things, it was the wiretapping of MLK Jr. by the FBI that led to the FISA law that George W. Bush has admitted to breaking.

Check that -- the law that Bush is proud to say he has broken.

Republicans love playing the civility card. I wonder where these Emily Posts were when the Pentagon lied about the circumstances of Pat Tillman's death at his funeral. I don't recall them denouncing Pat Robertson -- while the World Trade Center towers were still smoldering -- attributing 9/11 deaths to God's revenge on liberalism. Republicans get all huffy, and invoke Marquess of Queensbury rules, when it suits them, but somehow that's never when they're spreading malicious lies and assassinating their living opponents' characters.

At Caesar's funeral, as Shakespeare tells it, Marc Antony nicely ripped Brutus a new one. Jimmy Carter was no less rhetorically elegant at Coretta King's service.

Why should an elegy be an occasion to turn your back on all you believe, and all that the deceased life's stood for? If they should outlive me, I don't expect that Bill O'Reilly or Ann Coulter would come to my funeral.

But if they or their kind did, I'd hope that at least one of the speakers would have the cojones to call them what they really are. Nicely, of course.

More links:

• Read MLK Jr.'s Eulogy for the Young Victims of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church Bombing, on Sept 18, 1963 in Birmingham, Ala. This was his eulogy for three of the four children killed in the racist attack, Addie Mae Collins, Carol Denise McNair, and Cynthia Diane Wesley. King knew how to speak truth to power.

• Rev. Lowery, criticized by the wingnuts, calls it like he sees it to Tucker Carlson.

• Steve Gilliard's classic rant.

“Her journey was long and only briefly with a hand to hold, but now she leans on everlasting arms. In all her years, Coretta Scott King proved that a person of conviction and strength could also be a beautiful soul.”

Jimmy Carter, speaking at Coretta Scott King's funeral in Atlanta.

Delivering the eulogy fell to Kings’ youngest child, Bernice.

(Click thumbnails for larger images.)

10. Plans to release next threatening videotape in high-definition

9. In the seventies, had a gay fling with the blind sheikh

8. Secretly likes Kosher pickles

7. Middle name: Duane

6. Stole "Death to America" catchphrase from Fran Tarkenton

5. Got cave hooked up with Sirius so he can listen to Howard Stern

4. Knows all the words to the Black Eyed Peas song "My Humps"

3. After Colts loss to Steelers, declared jihad on Mike Vanderjagt

2. Has a bumper sticker that reads, "Don't blame me, I voted for Kerry"

1. The son-of-a-bitch is still alive

---Late Show with David Letterman

(HT to Bill in Portland Maine)

Mardi Gras is just around the corner and Krewe du Vieux will be there:

New Orleans has learned a lot this past year. We’ve learned new meanings for “open house” and “waterfront property”. We’ve learned that there are nine different types of mold and they all smell worse than a Congressional appropriations committee. We’ve learned that sometimes you can’t help but sleep on the wet spot. We’ve learned that FEMA’s just another word for nothing left to lose. And all because the Army Corps of Engineers doesn’t know the London Avenue dike from a Bourbon Street dyke.

...Audience warning: This parade, one of only two to march through the Quarter (the other is the dog parade Barkus), is not for those of tender years or the easily offended. With subkrewes like the Krewe of LEWD and the Mystic Krewe of Spermes . . . well, you get the picture.

(HT to Miss Julie)

• Did we just witness the end of Alberto Gonzalez' career?
  ...and to think: he used to be a future SCOTUS Justice.

• Halliburton to build "immigration detention centers" in US
  That's got to be the creepiest headline of the day.

• This is your brain on Super Bowl ads
  Who won the Super Bowl ads competition? If a good indicator of a successful ad is activity in brain areas concerned with reward and empathy, two winners seem to be the 'I am going to Disney' ad and the Bud 'office' ad.

• Spam blogs, blogs, and tags all on the increase
  Especially prevalent: spam pings or (wait for it) "spings."

• Now, a sitcom about sys admins
  ...from the creators of Father Ted, a sitcom about disgraced priests living on a remote Irish island. Heh.

• Portraits of people and the farm animals they love
  Yep -- just what it says. BTW, here's my favorite one.

• McCain flips out because Obama won't play his game
  I guess "bipartisan" just means working with Joe Lieberman.

• Don't trust anything Sen. Arlen Specter says.
  If he won't put the Attorney General under oath, what good is the hearing?

• If you're a Republican Senator on the Judiciary Committee, Karl Rove has a message for you:
  "Don't screw with the President...or else."

• The future of email
  AOL will deliver your email...for a price. Good or bad?

Digby:

The lesson of Watergate for the chagrined Republicans was that they needed to be more forceful in assuming executive power and they needed to be more sophisticated about their campaign espionage. This is what they've done.

Anybody who even dreams that these guys are not using all their government power to spy on political enemies is being willfully naive. It is what they do. It is the essence of their political style. This is Nixon's Republican party and they have finally achieved a perfect ability to carry out his vision of political governance

To say that Bush spies on Democrats and dissidents is not hyperbole, it is a fact.  Here are six examples of overt spying on political opponents or cases where there is clear evasion on questions about whether his government is doing so:

• Bush Administration uses U.S. Army to spy on war critics.  
  The Bush Administration used top-secret U.S. Army spying capabilities to spy on domestic war critics such as Quakers, Students Against the War, People For the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and Greenpeace. An internal review forced the Pentagon to admit it had "improperly stored" information on potentially thousands of people because there was no "reasonable belief" they had any link to terrorism. (Newsweek, 1/30/06)
  
  
• Bush Administration uses FBI to spy on war critics.  
  The Bush administration is using the FBI to "collect extensive information on the tactics, training and organization of antiwar demonstrators," causing the California Attorney General to declare that Bush Administration policy violates the state constitution prohibition on spying on political and religious groups without evidence of criminal activity. (San Francisco Chronicle, 11/23/03)
  
  
• Bush Administration forced to turn over records revealing FBI is spying on Bush critics.  
  A Freedom of Information Act request revealed the FBI "collected at least 3,500 pages of internal documents in the last several years on a handful of civil rights and antiwar protest groups" that are leading Bush critics "in what the groups charge is an attempt to stifle political opposition to the Bush administration." (New York Times, 7/18/05)
  
  
• Bush Administration uses Pentagon to spy on Bush critics.
  NBC obtained a 400-page Pentagon document outlining the Bush administration's surveillance of war critics.1,500 different events (aka. anti-war protests) in just a 10-month period.  "I think Americans should be concerned that the military, in fact, has reached too far," says NBC News military analyst Bill Arkin. "It means that they're actually collecting information about who's at those protests, the descriptions of vehicles at those protests.On the domestic level, this is unprecedented." (NBC News, 12/14/05)
  
  
• The Bush Administration may have wiretapped a CNN reporter.
  In January, NBC published a transcript in which James Risen, the New York Times reporter who broke the NSA wiretap story, was asked if CNN reporter Christiane Amanpour's phone was wiretapped.  After a surge of interest, NBC deleted that line - saying the transcript was "released prematurely." Amanpour is married to James Rubin, a top Clinton Administration foreign policy strategist and an advisor to John Kerry's presidential campaign. (CNN, 1/6/06)
  
  
• Gen. Michael Hayden refused to answer question about spying on political enemies at National Press Club.  
  At a public appearance, Bush's pointman in the Office of National Intelligence was asked if the NSA was wiretapping Bush's political enemies.  When Hayden dodged the question, the questioner repeated, "No, I asked, are you targeting us and people who politically oppose the Bush government, the Bush administration? Not a fishing net, but are you targeting specifically political opponents of the Bush administration?"  Hayden looked at the questioner, and after a silence called on a different questioner. (Hayden National Press Club remarks, 1/23/06) (video ) (audio )

Bush must prove that these six examples are not part of a larger pattern, but are isolated.  He must prove it, since he circumvented the FISA courts and Gonzales lied to the Senate, and these are the ordinary checks on the system.  Anything less than him proving that he is not using his powers to spy on political opposition and journalists is evidence that his aims are tyrannical and that this controversy has nothing to do with terrorism.  

Click the image (left) to watch.

Senator Leahy:

Let me give you a message, Mr. Attorney General, to you, to the President and to the administration. This is a message that should be unanimous from every member of Congress, no matter what their party or their ideology.

Under our Constitution, Congress is a co-equal branch of government and we make the laws.

If you believe you need new laws, then come and tell us. If Congress agrees, then we'll amend the law. If you do not even attempt to persuade Congress to amend the law then you are required to follow the law as it's written. That is true of the President, just as it is true of me and you and every American.

That is the rule of law. That's the rule on which our nation was founded and that's the rule under which it endures and prospers.

I understood that Gonzales was going to be sworn in. Apparently, Specter decided that he did not want him to be. I think that's a good debate to begin with -- why are Republicans so eager to avoid putting Gonzales under oath ? He's testifying as a fact witness, and his prior statements at issue -- including his false assuarances to Sen. Feingold at his confirmation hearings -- were under oath, so this testimony should be, too....

...Gonzales begins his Opening Statement by quoting Osama bin Laden and Zawahri. We used to quote Madison, Jefferson and Lincoln to decide what the principles of our Government are going to be. Now we quote Al Qaeda. The Administration wants Al Qaeda and its speeches to dictate the type of Government we have. It is the centerpiece of everything they do and say.

...and Samuel Alito is a Justice of the US Supreme Court.

I'm just saying.

Other than that, it was a pretty good show.

Oh, yeah -- and the Steelers beat the Seahawks 21-10.

P.S.

[The National Anthem was sung by] Aaron Neville and Dr. John (in a tribute to hurricane-ravaged New Orleans) with Detroit favorite Aretha Franklin. Neville sang half of the song in his feathery-soft voice, then was never heard from again when Franklin blew the dome’s roof off.

She barely needed a microphone.

Cartoons are published that certain Muslims find offensive. A conflagration erupts. And we're asked to choose up sides -- "Is Islam a peaceful religion or not?"

Sorry, but I can't accept that frame.

But I do have an opinion on this. Here it is:

Let me begin by saying I believe in God. Simply put, I'm what most of you would call a religious (or spiritual) person. It's how I was raised; it's how I've tried to live my life; it's what I've tried to teach my own children.

But there have been enough wars fought in God's name. Enough. Who needs another one? By making this about "Islam," we're also implicitly making this about "Christianity." And, God knows, "Judaism" has been dragged into this too.

You might disagree, but that's what I think.

Now, let me make myself clear: I'm quite familiar with the notion of totalitarianism. I understand that it is the antithesis of freedom and liberty. And to the extent that I, as an American, value the constitutional notion of inalienable rights, I am against any totalitarian entity that seeks to quash my (or anyone else's) human rights.

But the religions I'm familiar with (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) are also, in their own way, the antithesis of freedom and liberty. The Bible, the Torah, the Koran -- they teach that we should follow God's commandments. They teach that we should bend to God's will. Not that it's a bad thing; just the opposite, in fact.

But if we, as Americans, are truly comitted to government of the people, for the people and by the people we must put our Constitution at the highest level in our system of temporal laws.

As Justice O'Connor so famously put it:

At a time when we see around the world the violent consequences of the assumption of religious authority by government, Americans may count themselves fortunate: Our regard for constitutional boundaries has protected us from similar travails, while allowing private religious exercise to flourish. … Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly.

I prefer to keep church and state separate. I prefer to keep church and military separate. And I most certainly prefer to keep church and war separate.

And if I'm the only one who believes that, then that's perfectly fine with me.

Me: "That's a vaguely scary headline."

Miss Julie: "Yeah. Who are these people?"

Me: "I don't know. But it makes me want to throw my cell phone away."

If you already haven't done so, check out Detroit Blog. The blogger has been writing some excellent posts (and snapping some excellent pics) documenting my hometown's rendezvous with Super Bowl XL.

There are a handful of Democratic Senators who regularly "post" at Daily Kos -- Kennedy, Kerry, Obama, and Feingold. I'm not sure they actually write their own posts any more than I think they write their own speeches. But that's less important than the idea that they might be reading the responses. Yeah, I know -- respondents at dKos (same as at any blog) can be pretty wild. But all in all, I think it's a healthy relationship -- party politicians and bloggers -- and one that needs strengthening. The fact is, beltway Democrats have become flaccid and could use a shot of fury and fire now and then.

Here's Feingold yesterday:

I've seen some strange things in my life, but I cannot describe the feeling I had, sitting on the House floor during Tuesday's State of the Union speech, listening to the President assert that his executive power is, basically, absolute, and watching several members of Congress stand up and cheer him on. It was surreal and disrespectful to our system of government and to the oath that as elected officials we have all sworn to uphold. Cheering? Clapping? Applause? All for violating the law?

Try it yourself at Google.com and at Google.cn.

Of course, the results that come back are different, but I was mildly surprised to find that the third URL listed at the Chinese site was about the massacres.

Just when you're totally immersed in whatever it is you're doing in life, you stumble over a whole 'nother universe hiding, right there, in plain sight. It's like God is saying "Hello! I'm busy right now. Take a seat and I'll get with you asap."

This is one of those times:

Ampulex compressa is a wasp that has evolved to tackle roaches, insert a stinger into their brains and disable their escape reflexes. This lets the wasp use the roach's antennae to steer the roach to its lair, where it can lay its egg in it.

The larva grows inside the roach, devouring the organs of its host, for about eight days. It is then ready to weave itself a cocoon--which it makes within the roach as well. After four more weeks, the wasp grows to an adult. It breaks out of its cocoon, and out of the roach as well. Seeing a full-grown wasp crawl out of a roach suddenly makes those Alien movies look pretty derivative.

(HT to Cory)

Damn straight -- throw Karl Rove in jail.

[cue the crickets]

Oh. Sorry. They're talking about the revelation of Bush's warrantless wiretapping program.

Never mind.

Republicans in the House have a new Majority Leader, John Boehner. He has been touted as a reform candidate, but I don't want to hear about it.

In 1995, Boehner handed out campaign checks from the tobacco industry to members on the House floor at a time when lawmakers were considering eliminating a tobacco subsidy.

The End.

UPDATE: "House Republicans [took] a mulligan on the first ballot for Majority Leader [after] the first count showed more votes cast than Republicans present at the Conference meeting."

Bwahahahaha! What a bunch of crooks.

"President Bush is urging all nations to cut off aid to Hamas, including $234 million dollars we were going to send them. In fact, to make sure the money doesn't get there, he's putting FEMA in charge of it."
---Jay Leno

"The Justice Department has subpoenaed Google. They're demanding to see records that will tell them how often people search for porn on the Internet ... First they tap our phones, now they want our Google searches. When did the government turn into our jealous girlfriend?"
---Jimmy Kimmel

"Earlier tonight, President Bush delivered his State of the Union address. The president gave the speech at 9 p.m., which means he had to wear his pajamas under his suit."
---Conan O'Brien

"Yesterday at a press conference President Bush said he had not seen 'Brokeback Mountain.' However, he did express an interest in drilling for oil there"
---David Letterman

"A comet is, of course, frozen bodies of ice and dust formed over 4.6 billion years ago---or created 6,000 years ago, depending on whether or not you're wrong."
---Jon Stewart

(HT to Bill in Portland Maine)

I can tell you this: if it were the NRA, those Senators would be toast.

But let me back up for a moment...

I understand how NARAL can back a pro-choice Republican over his/her Democratic opponent who might be mushy on the issue. Rhode Island Republican Senator Lincoln Chaffee is an exellent example of this approach. Although Chaffee will vote with the Republican majority on just about every other issue, he is expected to be a strong advocate for reproductive freedoms.

NARAL's approach is similar to another single-issue group, the NRA. They will back the candidate who favors the NRA position if s/he is running against one who does not, regardless of party affiliation almost every single time. They will even back a pro-NRA losing candidate as long as the winning candidate favors gun-control. The NRA does this because they are strong advocates for the the issue that defines their very existence. You have to admire that.

But now here's the part that really frosts me:

What I don't understand is how NARAL can stand by and watch a filibuster against a truly hostile Supreme Court nominee fail because pro-choice Senators vote against the filibuster. And that means pro-choicers of either party.

Oh, they voted against confirming Alito the next day, but we all know that vote was totally meaningless. You can block Alito with 41 votes one day. But the next day it takes 51 to reject his nomination. Doesn't it make sense to go for the block? Of course it does -- especially if you are NARAL and you have a substantial war chest and lots of clout across the country.

Here's a list of Senators who voted to end the filibuster one day, and voted against confirming Alito the next.

Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chaffee (R-RI)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Nelson (D-FL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)

Again: they voted against confirming Alito when it no longer mattered. When the outcome hung in the balance, they were AWOL. And so was NARAL.

Bottom line: Judge Alito is hostile to Roe. I have no doubt he will vote against upholding it each and every time it comes before the court. And/But if every pro-choice Senator had voted for the filibuster, we might not have Alito on the court today.

Yes, I know what you're thinking: the only way to guarantee pro-choice judges is to win elections. We need to put a pro-choice President in the Oval Office. We need to put a pro-choice majority in the US Senate. That is, in fact, the NARAL position.

But does that really mean we give up the fight when it is right on our doorstep? How close to forced childbirth do we have to get before we start fighting?

NARAL knows all this. They knew what was at stake. So why didn't they pull out all the stops? Why weren't they in the thick of it? What's all that money for, if not this? When will NARAL start fighting? Are they waiting for the NEXT wingnut nominee?

Like I said above: if this were the NRA, those Senators would be toast. But NARAL? They've apparently given a pass to the likes of Senator Chaffee.

So, here's what I want you to do:

I'm going to ask a favor of you. If you're a member of NARAL and you think I'm right, I want you to please contact the national organization and express your displeasure with their complacent attitude.

NARAL Pro-Choice America
1156 15th Street, NW Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005

Main Number: 202.973.3000
Main Fax: 202.973.3096

can@ProChoiceAmerica.org

You can also contact these major donors who give significant funding to NARAL and let them know there are serious questions about how NARAL is approaching this issue.

The David and Lucile Packard Foundation
300 Second Street
Tel (650) 948-7658
Fax (650) 917-0546
inquiries@packard.org

Michael Finley, President
Turner Foundation, Inc.
133 Luckie Street NW
2nd Floor
Atlanta, GA 30303
Tel: 404-681-9900
Fax: 404-681-0172
info@turnerfoundation.org

Pick up the phone. Send a fax. Send an email. Too much is at stake. You never know when the next Justice will retire or pass away.

Don't wait until it's too late. Do it now.

Thanks.

UPDATE: NARAL's response to another angry consituent.

(HT to Jane Hamsher)

Larry Sabato:

The Republicans hold 28 governorships, and the Democrats 22. Of the 36 governorships up in 2006, the GOP possesses 22 and the Democrats just 14, giving the GOP far more territory to defend. Furthermore, eight Republican governors are not running again, either voluntarily or because of term limits, while only one Democrat (Tom Vilsack of Iowa) is stepping down. As is always the case, much of the party change in statehouses comes in the open seat races with no incumbent.

[T]he Democrats have a better than 50-50 shot in 2006 to gain the four statehouses they need for a gubernatorial majority. The margin for error is such that they may gain just a couple governors, or they could go several seats beyond the minimal majority.

Watch the interview, read the letter.

Watch the trailer for Brokeback to the Future. Hee.

John Edwards probably would like to be elected President in 2008. But he has a tough obstacle to overcome: he was the VP nominee for the Democrats when they lost in 2004 and losers don't often come back to win under those circumstances.

However, another man who faced similar circumstances did win election to the Oval Office. What is his name?

P.S. I can't stop you from googling the answer. But it's only fair to tell you I didn't need to do so myself.

So there.

Tom Toles nails it.

Click here to see the entire cartoon.

Dahlia Lithwick warns us that Bush's signing statements are his blueprint for a system where courts are irrelevant to an Executive seeking absolute power:

These signing statements are dangerous because they repeat and normalize—always using seemingly boilerplate language—claims about the boundless powers of a "unitary executive." By questioning the principle of court review in the McCain statement, Bush again erodes the notion of judicial supremacy—an idea we have lived with since Marbury v. Madison. When he asserts that he—and not the courts—is the final arbiter of his constitutional powers, he is calling for a radical shift in the system of checks and balances.

Associated Press reporters Calvin Woodward and Hope Yen puncture the myths in Bush's SOTU address:

President Bush set energy self-sufficiency goals Tuesday night that would still leave the country vulnerable to unstable oil sources. He also declared he is helping more people get health care, despite a rising number of uninsured.

Whether promoting a plan to "save Social Security" or describing Iraqi security forces as "increasingly capable of defeating the enemy," Bush skipped over some complex realities in his State of the Union speech.

• Energy
  
• Health Care
  
• Social Security
  
• Iraq
  
• Katrina
  
• Homeland Security
  
• Education
  
• Spending

Read the whole thing.

Traditional media's main talking point about the Democrats is that they suck because they let Bush get away with everything.

From John at AmericaBlog:

Ok, check this out.

On Hardball last night, Tim Russert cites this part of the [NBC/WSJ] poll, saying how the American public supports what Bush is doing.

As you may know, since 2002, the Bush administration has been using wiretaps to listen to telephone calls between suspected terrorists in other countries and American citizens in the United States without getting a court order to do so. Do you approve or disapprove of the Bush administration's approach on this issue?

Approve................................................... 51
Disapprove ............................................ 46
Not sure................................................ 3

What Russert didn't bother mentioning was the next question in the poll, showing that when you actually DESCRIBE what the Bush administration is doing, the American public roundly opposes it (it takes a blogger to find out what NBC and Hardball can't):

Do you think that the Bush administration should conduct wiretaps of American citizens who are suspected of having ties to terrorists without a court order, or do you think that the Bush administration should be required to get a court order before conducting these wiretaps?

Should be able to wiretap without court order ......................... 41
Should be required to get a court order before wiretapping .... 53
Depends (VOL).......................................................... 4
Not sure............................................................... 2

Let's just clarify this point. Only 41% of the American people think it's okay for Bush to spy without a search warrant on American citizens who are SUSPECTED OF HAVING TIES TO AL QAEDA. That's an unbelievable low figure considering how the question is framed.

Too bad Russert and Chris Matthews missed the most obvious question in the entire poll.

How concerned are you that the Bush administration's use of these kinds of wiretaps could be misused to violate people's privacy--extremely concerned, quite concerned, not really concerned, or not concerned at all?

Extremely concerned ........................... 31
Quite concerned ................................... 25
Not really concerned............................ 22
Not concerned at all............................. 21
Not sure................................................ 1

Bush approval: 39%

Country on the wrong track: 57%

Prefer Democrat-controlled Congress: 47%
Prefer Republican-controlled Congress: 38%

Top priority over the next year: Bring most of the troops home from Iraq

Top view of the Bush administration: "misguided and harmful agenda" 39%

What role would you like to see Dems play in Congress:

- work in a bipartisan way to pass Bush's legislative priorities: 34%
- provide a balance so Bush and Republicans don't go too far: 58%

No, we didn't watch Bush's speech, opting for re-runs of Sex and the City. Enough said.

David Shuster was kind enough to break it down into terms I can understand:

The most repeated word tonight was "terror." Mr. Bush said the word "terror" or "terrorist" or "terrorism" 19 times. The President repeated the word "freedom" 17 times. Iraq was mentioned 16 times. Iran, which is presenting the United States with a potential crisis over nuclear weapons, was mentioned 6 times.

When it comes to domestic policy, the president mentioned the word "economy" or "economic" 11 times. "Reform" was mentioned 9 times. "Hopeful," a key word that always works well in political speeches, was repeated 9 times. Health care was mentioned twice tonight, though there were three other references to health care related issues. Last year, the President referred to social security 18 times. In 2005, the President's social security proposals went no where. Tonight, in his 2006 state of the union, the President mentioned "social security" 3 times.

Perhaps the most intriguing number that we've found relates to how the speech was divided up... in other words, how much focus was given to each particular presidential priority. The total number of sentences in the speech was 256. Iraq or the Iraq war covered 35 sentences. Iran covered just seven sentences. Keeping americans competitive and creative covered 13 sentences.

UPDATE: I just read that Cindy Sheehan was arrested and removed from the House Gallery in handcuffs last night for wearing a t-shirt that said "2,245 Dead -- How Many More??" Wow -- this woman is everywhere! I just wish she had been able to lean over the handrail and shake hands with Bush -- that would have been priceless.

Seriously, she got arrested and hauled in 'cuffs for wearing a t-shirt? What is this, junior high? Or the Soviet Union?

P.S. She didn't exactly crash the Capitol: she was invited to attend the event by a member of Congress.

P.P.S. Here's Cindy Sheehan's personal account of what happened.