Mike and I are both wiped out from the week (and the cold especially). So we're doing two items from Democracy Now! and that's it for tonight. We're trying to do them in a different manner and I have no idea if we'll succeed at that or not. But please visit Mikey Likes It! because I'm sure he'll have more luck than I do.
Libby Testifies "Superiors" Ordered Leak of Classified Information (Democracy Now!):
New evidence has emerged linking Vice President Dick Cheney to the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame. Investigative journalist Murray Waas has revealed testimony from Lewis "Scooter" Libby -- Cheney's indicted former chief of staff -- before a federal grand jury. Libby testified he had been "authorized" by Cheney and other White House "superiors" to disclose classified information to journalists to defend the Bush administration’s use of prewar intelligence in making the case to invade Iraq. Larry Johnson, a former intelligence official and colleague of Plame's said: "This was not some rogue operation, but was directed at the highest levels, and specifically by Dick Cheney. Libby was definitely a man with a mission, but a man who was given a mission."
Scoots. Is he learning to walk? Is he trying out new strategies to see what will play best?
"Anything I did, I did on Cheney's orders" sounds like one more "strong executive branch" argument to me. I know we're supposed to be excited at the prospect that Scooter will roll over on Cheney but we're talking about a case that's not being heard tomorrow. So what does this really mean if anything?
Ex-CIA Mideast Officer Accuses Bush Admin. Of "Cherry-Picking" Iraq Intel (Democracy Now!):
Meanwhile, the CIA's former national intelligence officer for the Middle East has accused the Bush administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence to justify the Iraq invasion. In a new article in Foreign Affairs, Paul Pillar writes: "It has become clear that official intelligence was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions. Intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made…and the intelligence community's own work was politicized."
What if, this is the new thing, Mike's doing it for the first topic, I'm doing it for this one . . .
What if all the CIA analysts who'd been ignored and shunted aside by the administration held a collective press conference where they came forward with everything they knew? I'm sure Porter Goss would try to retaliate but, if they stuck together, it would be harder to do it to everyone.
It takes more than one whistleblower and, as the case of Sibel Edmunds demonstrates, it takes the press being willing to run with the story. They weren't interested in Sibel's story. Why was that? While beating their chests and rubbing their eyes regarding 9/11, they've never reallly been interested in any story that went beyond what you saw in the footage that was aired on TV.
If 30 or 50 analysts decided to hold a joint press conference, would the media cover it?
Is there a magic number? Does it take a hundred if there is?
C.I. noted last night that between Sunday evening and today, 13 more American military fatalities have occurred in Iraq. 13 sounds like a big number to me but I haven't seen the media discussing this issue.
No peace quote tonight. Instead . . .
"Laugh Note" (Betty, Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man):
Performing the dual roles of confessor and confessee, his own Linda Tripp and Monica Lewinsky, my husband Thomas Friedman found a new way to embarrass himself this week with "No More Mr. Tough Guy."
thomas friedman is a great man
like maria said paz
mikey likes it
democracy now
the common ills
Friday, February 10, 2006
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Friendship and the Bully Boy
Ava called and told me Amy Goodman was going to be on Hardball so I ended up watching Chris Matthews. I can't take Matthews, but it was good to see Goodman.
"Over 10,000 Attend Funeral Service for Coretta Scott King" (Democracy Now!):
In Georgia Tuesday, an estimated 10,000 people filled the pews of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in the Atlanta suburb of Lithonia, for the funeral of civil rights pioneer Coretta Scott King. Former presidents Jimmy Carter, George Herbert Walker Bush, Bill Clinton, and President George W. Bush attended the funeral along with 14 US senators and public figures including Maya Angelou, Oprah Winfrey and Stevie Wonder. King died January 30th at the age of 78 after seeking treatment in Mexico for ovarian cancer. She had just recently suffered a rehabilitating stroke and heart attack. At Tuesday’s service both former President Jimmy Carter and the former head of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Reverend Joseph Lowery, made subtle criticism of President Bush. They cited the war in Iraq, civil liberties transgressions and accused the president of ignoring the plight of the US poor.
Day 8 and no editorial on the life and/or legacy of Coretta Scott King by the New York Times, no op-ed on her life and/or legacy. They did find time to mock Reverend Joseph Lowery today as C.I. pointed out here and here. They found time to act as though Poppy Bush thought of a "funny" when all he did was steal a joke that Lowery told. The paper didn't note that Lowery had made the joke first. They were too busy mocking Lowery. "At Mrs. King's Funeral, a Mix of Elegy and Politics" is the article the New York Times ran. It makes for an interesting case study in bias. It doesn't, however, make for good reporting.
"Report: Rove Threatens GOP Senate Judiciary Members Over Spy Program" (Democracy Now!):
Meanwhile, the conservative publication Insight on the News is reporting White House deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove is threatening any Republican Senate Judiciary members who challenge the White House on the domestic surveillance program. According to Insight, "Sources said the blacklist would mean a halt in any White House political or financial support of senators running for re-election in November." A senior Republican aide told the publication: "It's hardball all the way."
You know how you take on Karl Rove? It's not that hard. You say, "No." You say "no" and you start the Senate investigation into the outing of Valerie Plame that should have been started a long time ago. You tell Pat Roberts it's time for that hearing. Karl Rove's never been more vulnerable and any Republican who lets Rove threaten them at this point deserves their party and to be bossed around by Karl Rove. To think, we thought only the Dems were spineless.
Ava mentioned the post Rebecca wrote last night (I also got an e-mail on it from Joan) and wondered if I'd read it? I did go read it tonight. I'm usually rushing to get offline. Good for the people who can stare at a computer screen for hours each day but if gives me a headache. It was really nice. In terms of myself, I felt Rebecca was very kind and hope that I can live up to what she wrote about me. But Rebecca's every man's dream of beautiful, sexy, gorgeous, you name it. Always has been since I've known her.
I don't doubt that she was self-aware (due to her large breast size) and I think that was probably something important to write. I don't "suffer" from that. I'm average. (I hope I'm average.) In that department, I'm average. I think it can be very easy for us, women, to look at the women in Rebecca's "condition" and think, "They got all the breaks."
I know I was frequently embarrassed when I started developing and I can imagine that it would have been more embarrassing had I developed to the degree that Rebecca did. I think it's good when people share the way she did because it takes us out of our own heads and let's us glimpse inside someone else. If you're my size, you might think, "Oh those lucky women never had a moment's trouble." But what we might envy or wish for from someone else might not be all easy breaks for them.
For the record, I'm comfortable with my size now. I jog four times a week (and wish I ran more) and sports bras are a pain. I'd hate to have to deal with what Rebecca's got. (Really, sports bras irk me. If you know a decent one, as opposed to the ones that make you think you've strapped an Ace bandage around your chest, let me know.) I think that's something that comes with age. In my twenties, I was so focused on what others were seeing when they looked at me and, as I've grown older, I've gotten more comfortable in my own skin.
I enjoyed the post. I always love Rebecca's writing but Joan and Ava had both noted the friendship bond that came through in it and I did as well when I read it. Rebecca's many things, many wonderful things, but what she is most to me is a really great friend. I have no idea how she, C.I. and I have remained friends (Joan's question). I think we were lucky early on because others were falling away (especially after college) and I think we were lucky enough to realize at some point how lucky we were. Then we worked at and it's a really strong bond. It won't break. I really don't see how it could.
Rebecca, as she is when she writes, is very in your face. She's very upfront about what she feels. So there's no baggage left over from the previous week. I have no idea how I am but I can tell you C.I. usually doesn't let anything become an issue (either by ignoring it or by saying, "I'm confused here, we need to talk"). They're very good about addressing their feelings (Rebecca more so and I'd argue she's more in touch with her personal feelings -- that's not an insult) and you know going in that a discussion is about what's going on not an excuse to bail.
C.I.'s more focused on external things (causes, the world) and so I think Rebecca and I sensed long ago that when C.I. brings up a personal issue (very rare), that means this is something major. It may not seem major to one of us, or both of us, but we both know it's rare and have the good sense to shut up and listen so we can hear why it does matter.
I think that with long friendships, you learn things like that. You learn your friends moves and you pay attention. "Moves" not "moods." If we're all talking, here's one move, Rebecca's going to bring up her most important issue first. She's going to dive right in with whatever's most important in her life at that moment. Some people don't do that. They'll work towards it. I always tease her that she must have eaten her vegetables first as a child to get them out of the way early. With C.I. it's going to be near the end of the conversation because C.I.'s not going to want to jump in until everyone's had a chance to discuss what matters to them. I think I'm more the type who brings up an issue in the middle of the conversation and that may be another reason we're all best friends, we mesh nicely. If we were all like Rebecca, it might get hard for us to speak, or, if we were all like C.I., it might be impossible because the end of the conversation would be where all the activity was.
I really do think we're friends to the end at this point and that we've been through everything together. Joan wondered who'd changed the most? That's a judgement call but C.I. and I would both say "Rebecca" and I think she would as well. I feel like I've just gotten dull. Rebecca's really found a new life in the last year and a new outlook. She was shy unless she was angry in the old days. C.I.? Hmm. I think C.I.'s become the old C.I.
Trina and I talk fiction, novels that we enjoy that aren't today's bestsellers. I was telling Trina, when Bully Boy leaves office in 2008, she could talk to C.I. about those things. C.I.'s very well read but with Bully Boy in the oval office, it's been nonstop activity. I've never known C.I. not to be politically concerned, but I have to go back many years to remember this level of activity. I voted for Al Gore (and would again) in 2000 but I wasn't aware of how dangerous Bully Boy was until we invaded Iraq. I felt he'd be inept. I felt his actions in Afghanistan were inept and was offended he was trying to couch his war on feminist stances. (Claiming to be concerned about women. Bombing the hell out of the country didn't help the women, the children or the men.)
But I thought that and the economy were just his inept actions. It was only when he ordered the invasion of Iraq that I really started to feel he was a danger to democracy.
All during the leadup, I was convinced that reason would previal. (I don't watch TV news.) C.I. was warning me and saying they were lying us into war. I thought Bully Boy was lying but I didn't think he'd be able to trick to the nation and the international community. He pulled it off, he accomplished that. Then his ineptitude really kicked in.
But when we invaded, I felt, for the first time, that he wasn't just someone not up to the job, but something far worse. I think his cocky attitude that increased after 9/11 when people were trying to turn him into a hero (most heroes don't hide in childhood classrooms) added to his ineptitude. I think he believes he's above the rule of the law. I think he's quite serious about starting another war (with Iran) and I don't think he has the brains to realize how costly that will be to good will, to America or to Iran. I also think that our Congress has lost the will to check him and that is why he's focused so much on the judiciary. From compiling records of their decisions (Aschroft) to just about everything else, he's gone beyond the usual bluster (and this is true of many in his party) about the media and the opposition in Congress, to a degredation of our judiciary.
I also feel that the media has refused to call him on that which has only fueled his ambition.
Remember, I'm off tomorrow night, no post. Also remember to visit Mikey Likes It! Mike has an interview with Wally tonight, if you need further reason to visit his site (which you shouldn't, but consider it an added bonus).
the daily jot
like maria said paz
mikey likes it
democracy now
the common ills
nsa
fisa
government snooping
government spying
snoopgate
coretta scott king
the third estate sunday review
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
"Over 10,000 Attend Funeral Service for Coretta Scott King" (Democracy Now!):
In Georgia Tuesday, an estimated 10,000 people filled the pews of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in the Atlanta suburb of Lithonia, for the funeral of civil rights pioneer Coretta Scott King. Former presidents Jimmy Carter, George Herbert Walker Bush, Bill Clinton, and President George W. Bush attended the funeral along with 14 US senators and public figures including Maya Angelou, Oprah Winfrey and Stevie Wonder. King died January 30th at the age of 78 after seeking treatment in Mexico for ovarian cancer. She had just recently suffered a rehabilitating stroke and heart attack. At Tuesday’s service both former President Jimmy Carter and the former head of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Reverend Joseph Lowery, made subtle criticism of President Bush. They cited the war in Iraq, civil liberties transgressions and accused the president of ignoring the plight of the US poor.
Day 8 and no editorial on the life and/or legacy of Coretta Scott King by the New York Times, no op-ed on her life and/or legacy. They did find time to mock Reverend Joseph Lowery today as C.I. pointed out here and here. They found time to act as though Poppy Bush thought of a "funny" when all he did was steal a joke that Lowery told. The paper didn't note that Lowery had made the joke first. They were too busy mocking Lowery. "At Mrs. King's Funeral, a Mix of Elegy and Politics" is the article the New York Times ran. It makes for an interesting case study in bias. It doesn't, however, make for good reporting.
"Report: Rove Threatens GOP Senate Judiciary Members Over Spy Program" (Democracy Now!):
Meanwhile, the conservative publication Insight on the News is reporting White House deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove is threatening any Republican Senate Judiciary members who challenge the White House on the domestic surveillance program. According to Insight, "Sources said the blacklist would mean a halt in any White House political or financial support of senators running for re-election in November." A senior Republican aide told the publication: "It's hardball all the way."
You know how you take on Karl Rove? It's not that hard. You say, "No." You say "no" and you start the Senate investigation into the outing of Valerie Plame that should have been started a long time ago. You tell Pat Roberts it's time for that hearing. Karl Rove's never been more vulnerable and any Republican who lets Rove threaten them at this point deserves their party and to be bossed around by Karl Rove. To think, we thought only the Dems were spineless.
Ava mentioned the post Rebecca wrote last night (I also got an e-mail on it from Joan) and wondered if I'd read it? I did go read it tonight. I'm usually rushing to get offline. Good for the people who can stare at a computer screen for hours each day but if gives me a headache. It was really nice. In terms of myself, I felt Rebecca was very kind and hope that I can live up to what she wrote about me. But Rebecca's every man's dream of beautiful, sexy, gorgeous, you name it. Always has been since I've known her.
I don't doubt that she was self-aware (due to her large breast size) and I think that was probably something important to write. I don't "suffer" from that. I'm average. (I hope I'm average.) In that department, I'm average. I think it can be very easy for us, women, to look at the women in Rebecca's "condition" and think, "They got all the breaks."
I know I was frequently embarrassed when I started developing and I can imagine that it would have been more embarrassing had I developed to the degree that Rebecca did. I think it's good when people share the way she did because it takes us out of our own heads and let's us glimpse inside someone else. If you're my size, you might think, "Oh those lucky women never had a moment's trouble." But what we might envy or wish for from someone else might not be all easy breaks for them.
For the record, I'm comfortable with my size now. I jog four times a week (and wish I ran more) and sports bras are a pain. I'd hate to have to deal with what Rebecca's got. (Really, sports bras irk me. If you know a decent one, as opposed to the ones that make you think you've strapped an Ace bandage around your chest, let me know.) I think that's something that comes with age. In my twenties, I was so focused on what others were seeing when they looked at me and, as I've grown older, I've gotten more comfortable in my own skin.
I enjoyed the post. I always love Rebecca's writing but Joan and Ava had both noted the friendship bond that came through in it and I did as well when I read it. Rebecca's many things, many wonderful things, but what she is most to me is a really great friend. I have no idea how she, C.I. and I have remained friends (Joan's question). I think we were lucky early on because others were falling away (especially after college) and I think we were lucky enough to realize at some point how lucky we were. Then we worked at and it's a really strong bond. It won't break. I really don't see how it could.
Rebecca, as she is when she writes, is very in your face. She's very upfront about what she feels. So there's no baggage left over from the previous week. I have no idea how I am but I can tell you C.I. usually doesn't let anything become an issue (either by ignoring it or by saying, "I'm confused here, we need to talk"). They're very good about addressing their feelings (Rebecca more so and I'd argue she's more in touch with her personal feelings -- that's not an insult) and you know going in that a discussion is about what's going on not an excuse to bail.
C.I.'s more focused on external things (causes, the world) and so I think Rebecca and I sensed long ago that when C.I. brings up a personal issue (very rare), that means this is something major. It may not seem major to one of us, or both of us, but we both know it's rare and have the good sense to shut up and listen so we can hear why it does matter.
I think that with long friendships, you learn things like that. You learn your friends moves and you pay attention. "Moves" not "moods." If we're all talking, here's one move, Rebecca's going to bring up her most important issue first. She's going to dive right in with whatever's most important in her life at that moment. Some people don't do that. They'll work towards it. I always tease her that she must have eaten her vegetables first as a child to get them out of the way early. With C.I. it's going to be near the end of the conversation because C.I.'s not going to want to jump in until everyone's had a chance to discuss what matters to them. I think I'm more the type who brings up an issue in the middle of the conversation and that may be another reason we're all best friends, we mesh nicely. If we were all like Rebecca, it might get hard for us to speak, or, if we were all like C.I., it might be impossible because the end of the conversation would be where all the activity was.
I really do think we're friends to the end at this point and that we've been through everything together. Joan wondered who'd changed the most? That's a judgement call but C.I. and I would both say "Rebecca" and I think she would as well. I feel like I've just gotten dull. Rebecca's really found a new life in the last year and a new outlook. She was shy unless she was angry in the old days. C.I.? Hmm. I think C.I.'s become the old C.I.
Trina and I talk fiction, novels that we enjoy that aren't today's bestsellers. I was telling Trina, when Bully Boy leaves office in 2008, she could talk to C.I. about those things. C.I.'s very well read but with Bully Boy in the oval office, it's been nonstop activity. I've never known C.I. not to be politically concerned, but I have to go back many years to remember this level of activity. I voted for Al Gore (and would again) in 2000 but I wasn't aware of how dangerous Bully Boy was until we invaded Iraq. I felt he'd be inept. I felt his actions in Afghanistan were inept and was offended he was trying to couch his war on feminist stances. (Claiming to be concerned about women. Bombing the hell out of the country didn't help the women, the children or the men.)
But I thought that and the economy were just his inept actions. It was only when he ordered the invasion of Iraq that I really started to feel he was a danger to democracy.
All during the leadup, I was convinced that reason would previal. (I don't watch TV news.) C.I. was warning me and saying they were lying us into war. I thought Bully Boy was lying but I didn't think he'd be able to trick to the nation and the international community. He pulled it off, he accomplished that. Then his ineptitude really kicked in.
But when we invaded, I felt, for the first time, that he wasn't just someone not up to the job, but something far worse. I think his cocky attitude that increased after 9/11 when people were trying to turn him into a hero (most heroes don't hide in childhood classrooms) added to his ineptitude. I think he believes he's above the rule of the law. I think he's quite serious about starting another war (with Iran) and I don't think he has the brains to realize how costly that will be to good will, to America or to Iran. I also think that our Congress has lost the will to check him and that is why he's focused so much on the judiciary. From compiling records of their decisions (Aschroft) to just about everything else, he's gone beyond the usual bluster (and this is true of many in his party) about the media and the opposition in Congress, to a degredation of our judiciary.
I also feel that the media has refused to call him on that which has only fueled his ambition.
Remember, I'm off tomorrow night, no post. Also remember to visit Mikey Likes It! Mike has an interview with Wally tonight, if you need further reason to visit his site (which you shouldn't, but consider it an added bonus).
the daily jot
like maria said paz
mikey likes it
democracy now
the common ills
nsa
fisa
government snooping
government spying
snoopgate
coretta scott king
the third estate sunday review
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
"If we are so powerless and unimportant, why are they spying on us?"
Tuesday but it feels like a Thursday. Hope things are better for you and I also hope you will visit Mikey Likes It! to get Mike's commentary.
Bush Proposes Big Increase in Defense Spending, Cuts in Social Programs (Democracy Now!):
In his proposed nearly $2.8 trillion budget President Bush is calling for major increases in defense spending but deep cuts in Medicare and other domestic social programs. Under the proposed budget, defense spending will increase nearly 7 percent to $440 billion. If approved the Pentagon’s budget will become 45 percent larger than when Bush took office five years ago. The military spending is actually far higher because the proposed budget does not include the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. One recent estimate put the cost of the Iraq war at $100,000 every minute. At the same time, the president is proposing to make his tax cuts permanent. This would cost about $1.5 trillion over the next decade. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld discussed the budget on Monday: "The President's budget request for the Department of Defense represents an increase over last year. It reflects what we believe should be the country's national security priorities. Namely to help defend the United States of America and the American people and their interests, to give flexibility to commanders, to prepare for both conventional and unconventional or irregular warfare, and, importantly, to work closely with partner nations to help them develop the capabilities needed to defeat terrorists within their borders and to co-operate with us and other countries with respect to this global threat."
C.I. addressed this. It's about something but it's not about the people's priorities. There's always money for a new toy, gadget, or any other weapon. When they don't work, it's no big thing. We pour more money down the drain for the next one (and sometimes continue to fund the ones that don't work). We're told that it's for "safety" despite the fact that some don't work, never work, and the fact that 9/11 demonstrated there is no 'safety.'
So our cities are in ruins, our education systems struggle, we don't have national healthcare, we've done nothing, as a nation, to address the homeless issue which has only grown over the last two decades. We don't talk about it much now. We're used to it. The Reagan era cuts created a huge influx in the numbers of homeless Americans. We didn't deal with it under Clinton's two terms.
We've grown used to it. If it bothers us, we'll look the other way or complain to a friend about how "those people" are bothering us just by their presence. Mainly, we just ignore it.
At some point, will we ever address the massive military buildup? Tonight, which feels like a Thursday, I don't think we will. I think we're encouraged to be in this cycle and we've bought the hype for so long that we really can't think out of the paradigm that's been imposed.
Jimmy Carter: Warantless Spying is "Disgraceful and Illegal" (Democracy Now!):
A new critic of the domestic spying program has emerged -- former President Jimmy Carter. He described the Bush administration’s decision to go ahead with the warrantless spying as "disgraceful and illegal." Carter said, "No one knows how many innocent Americans have had their privacy violated under this secret act." Carter made the statement in Nevada at an event where his son, Jack, announced he is running for U.S. Senate.
C.I. pointed out that the Times did a "brief" (from Associated Press) on this event. It noted that Jack Carter was running for the Senate but somehow, careful editing, overlooked the fact that at this event Jimmy Carter had spoken out against the domestic spying. It's so interesting what makes it into the paper of record and what doesn't. Of course, the New York Times has done their part, and then some, to make sure we remain in the paradigm of "danger! danger! we must spend on war!" mode. Currently, they can barely go a day without sounding the drum beat for war with Iran.
It's enough to make you sick to your stomach. So let's note courage rewarded which happens so rarely these days. This item is from the middle of last month and C.I. phoned mid-day. Sensing I was down today, C.I. forwarded it. If you've already seen it, it's worth noting again. However, it was new for me. (The award, not Katherine Jahsinski's bravery.)
"Spc Katherine Jashinski awarded anti-war medal of courage" (Not in Our Name):
Not in Our Name awards "Courage to Resist" medal to Katherine Jashinski
WHEREAS Army SPC Katherine Jashinski became the first woman to speak out publicly against participating in the ongoing Iraq War at a press conference on the morning of November 17, 2005 near the gates of Fort Benning, Georgia.
WHEREAS Army SPC Katherine Jashinski has showed great courage in publicly speaking out against war, including the following that she read at a press conference on November 17, 2005: "Now I have come to the point where I am forced to choose between my legal obligation to the Army and my deepest moral values. I want to make it clear that I will not compromise my beliefs for any reason. I have a moral obligation not only to myself but to the world as a whole, and this is more important than any contract."
So good for Jashinski and applause to Not in Our Name for recognizing her bravery.
This item actually goes to a conversation C.I. and I had with a friend not long ago. First, she called me and I was honestly kind of stunned. Then she called C.I. who went into activist mode. The woman had no idea that anyone in the military had resisted the war. She watches C-Span fairly often and CNN too much. C.I. and I both push Democracy Now! to her but when she's online she always ends up playing games (she doesn't have a dish and DN! isn't broadcast in her area). She's an educated woman and it just stunned me to realize how completely corporate media has been successful in limiting the debate. After she got off the phone with C.I., she called me back and said she was told to ask me about Kevin and Monica Benderman. C.I. had gone over a number of individuals with her (she remembered Camilo Mejias story but had forgotten the other ones C.I. had told her about).
So I started from scratch and spoke to her about Kevin Benderman's stand and the retaliation against him. After we got off the phone, she knew people from the service had spoken out and she knew of two names she could cite as examples (Camilo Mejia and Kevin Benderman).
There remains a clampdown on this topic as well as on the topic of those who go AWOL. Why is that? The answer brings us to our end quote tonight which answers that question and also addresses the spying issue.
Reality Quote (from Tom Hayden's "No Peace Movement, No Peace"):
Just ask yourselves one simple question: if we are so powerless and unimportant, why are they spying on us? Why are they keeping so many secrets from us? You spy and keep secrets from people you fear, not people you dismiss. They don’t trust you with information. They are afraid of your potential power.
mikey likes it
the common ills
democracy now
nsa
fisa
government snooping
government spying
snoopgate
like maria said paz
tom hayden
Bush Proposes Big Increase in Defense Spending, Cuts in Social Programs (Democracy Now!):
In his proposed nearly $2.8 trillion budget President Bush is calling for major increases in defense spending but deep cuts in Medicare and other domestic social programs. Under the proposed budget, defense spending will increase nearly 7 percent to $440 billion. If approved the Pentagon’s budget will become 45 percent larger than when Bush took office five years ago. The military spending is actually far higher because the proposed budget does not include the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. One recent estimate put the cost of the Iraq war at $100,000 every minute. At the same time, the president is proposing to make his tax cuts permanent. This would cost about $1.5 trillion over the next decade. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld discussed the budget on Monday: "The President's budget request for the Department of Defense represents an increase over last year. It reflects what we believe should be the country's national security priorities. Namely to help defend the United States of America and the American people and their interests, to give flexibility to commanders, to prepare for both conventional and unconventional or irregular warfare, and, importantly, to work closely with partner nations to help them develop the capabilities needed to defeat terrorists within their borders and to co-operate with us and other countries with respect to this global threat."
C.I. addressed this. It's about something but it's not about the people's priorities. There's always money for a new toy, gadget, or any other weapon. When they don't work, it's no big thing. We pour more money down the drain for the next one (and sometimes continue to fund the ones that don't work). We're told that it's for "safety" despite the fact that some don't work, never work, and the fact that 9/11 demonstrated there is no 'safety.'
So our cities are in ruins, our education systems struggle, we don't have national healthcare, we've done nothing, as a nation, to address the homeless issue which has only grown over the last two decades. We don't talk about it much now. We're used to it. The Reagan era cuts created a huge influx in the numbers of homeless Americans. We didn't deal with it under Clinton's two terms.
We've grown used to it. If it bothers us, we'll look the other way or complain to a friend about how "those people" are bothering us just by their presence. Mainly, we just ignore it.
At some point, will we ever address the massive military buildup? Tonight, which feels like a Thursday, I don't think we will. I think we're encouraged to be in this cycle and we've bought the hype for so long that we really can't think out of the paradigm that's been imposed.
Jimmy Carter: Warantless Spying is "Disgraceful and Illegal" (Democracy Now!):
A new critic of the domestic spying program has emerged -- former President Jimmy Carter. He described the Bush administration’s decision to go ahead with the warrantless spying as "disgraceful and illegal." Carter said, "No one knows how many innocent Americans have had their privacy violated under this secret act." Carter made the statement in Nevada at an event where his son, Jack, announced he is running for U.S. Senate.
C.I. pointed out that the Times did a "brief" (from Associated Press) on this event. It noted that Jack Carter was running for the Senate but somehow, careful editing, overlooked the fact that at this event Jimmy Carter had spoken out against the domestic spying. It's so interesting what makes it into the paper of record and what doesn't. Of course, the New York Times has done their part, and then some, to make sure we remain in the paradigm of "danger! danger! we must spend on war!" mode. Currently, they can barely go a day without sounding the drum beat for war with Iran.
It's enough to make you sick to your stomach. So let's note courage rewarded which happens so rarely these days. This item is from the middle of last month and C.I. phoned mid-day. Sensing I was down today, C.I. forwarded it. If you've already seen it, it's worth noting again. However, it was new for me. (The award, not Katherine Jahsinski's bravery.)
"Spc Katherine Jashinski awarded anti-war medal of courage" (Not in Our Name):
Not in Our Name awards "Courage to Resist" medal to Katherine Jashinski
WHEREAS Army SPC Katherine Jashinski became the first woman to speak out publicly against participating in the ongoing Iraq War at a press conference on the morning of November 17, 2005 near the gates of Fort Benning, Georgia.
WHEREAS Army SPC Katherine Jashinski has showed great courage in publicly speaking out against war, including the following that she read at a press conference on November 17, 2005: "Now I have come to the point where I am forced to choose between my legal obligation to the Army and my deepest moral values. I want to make it clear that I will not compromise my beliefs for any reason. I have a moral obligation not only to myself but to the world as a whole, and this is more important than any contract."
So good for Jashinski and applause to Not in Our Name for recognizing her bravery.
This item actually goes to a conversation C.I. and I had with a friend not long ago. First, she called me and I was honestly kind of stunned. Then she called C.I. who went into activist mode. The woman had no idea that anyone in the military had resisted the war. She watches C-Span fairly often and CNN too much. C.I. and I both push Democracy Now! to her but when she's online she always ends up playing games (she doesn't have a dish and DN! isn't broadcast in her area). She's an educated woman and it just stunned me to realize how completely corporate media has been successful in limiting the debate. After she got off the phone with C.I., she called me back and said she was told to ask me about Kevin and Monica Benderman. C.I. had gone over a number of individuals with her (she remembered Camilo Mejias story but had forgotten the other ones C.I. had told her about).
So I started from scratch and spoke to her about Kevin Benderman's stand and the retaliation against him. After we got off the phone, she knew people from the service had spoken out and she knew of two names she could cite as examples (Camilo Mejia and Kevin Benderman).
There remains a clampdown on this topic as well as on the topic of those who go AWOL. Why is that? The answer brings us to our end quote tonight which answers that question and also addresses the spying issue.
Reality Quote (from Tom Hayden's "No Peace Movement, No Peace"):
Just ask yourselves one simple question: if we are so powerless and unimportant, why are they spying on us? Why are they keeping so many secrets from us? You spy and keep secrets from people you fear, not people you dismiss. They don’t trust you with information. They are afraid of your potential power.
mikey likes it
the common ills
democracy now
nsa
fisa
government snooping
government spying
snoopgate
like maria said paz
tom hayden
Monday, February 06, 2006
"When evil is allowed to compete with good . . ."
Monday greetings. No post on Friday. I did try blogging but Blogger was having technical problems all night and most of Saturday. Remember that I will be taking Thursdays off starting this week. Remember to visit Mikey Likes It! for Mike's take on today's news.
AG Gonzales to Testify Before Senate Over Domestic Spying (Democracy Now!):
On Capitol Hill, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is testifying today before the Senate over the Bush administration's domestic spying program. While Gonzales is expected to claim the Bush administration can legally carry out the warrantless spying, Senate Judiciary Committee Arlen Specter has admitted the administration's legal reasoning does not hold up. He appeared on Tim Russert's program Meet the Press on Sunday. Meanwhile a new article in the Washington Post raises questions over the effectiveness of the domestic spy program.. Intelligence officers who took part in the eavesdropping on thousands of Americans say they dismissed nearly all of them as potential suspects after hearing nothing pertinent to a terrorist threat. According to the Post, fewer than 10 U.S. citizens or residents a year have aroused enough suspicion during warrantless eavesdropping to justify interception of their domestic calls.
I caught bits and pieces of the hearings today a few minutes after a session here and there, basically, and then during lunch. Impressed? No. But I missed Russ Feingold. Mike says he spoke twice and was strong. The only one I heard speaking powerfully was Senator Patrick Leahy.
"Democracy Now: Al Lewis; Senate Hearings (Miss Priss Instant Cuckoo and more)" (C.I., The Common Ills):
So the hearings . . .
Miss Priss Instant Cuckoo should be played by Oliver Platt who would put just the right amount of priss into the performance.
So Arlen Specter stabbed democracy in the back right at the start of the hearings. His spin was so amazing you kept expecting him to come up with some theory on a "magic bullet" . . . Oh wait, he pulled that trick decades ago.
His trick today? Albie Gonzales won't be under oath. Hand on heart, Specter swears that Albie is okay with being under oath, but Specter, like the lead singer of a sixties girl group, just keeps right on singing "Oh No, Not My Baby" and "Don't Say Nothing Bad About My Baby."
You saw Russ Feingold and Patrick Leahy object strongly. And? A vote was called. This is where Miss Priss Instant Cuckoo asked, "What are we voting on?"
You saw Repube Sessions cluck, "It's a question of propriety and good taste."
Leahy fought. He was the first Dem to question and he was on point, he did a wonderful job. And?
Then others spoke.
Ted Kennedy? Is he awake? Herbert Kohl, the Invisible Man? Get real. Dianne Feinstein has her best, white, kid gloves on again.
Let's watch as Dianne Feinstein throws in the towel yet again. Let's note BuzzFlash called her on her inept behavior in the Alito hearings. I'm missing anyone else doing that. (We called her here and in this community.)
DiFi, why do you ask questions? Or why do you ask your meandering questions?
Do you want answers?
If so, why say the following when Albie refuses to answer your questions:
Fair enough, let's move along.
Okay, that's fine.
I just want to ask some others [questions], you don't have to answer if you don't want to.
If that's it, if that's the best you can do, quit wasting everyone's time.
She was useless in the Alito hearings and she's useless so far today.
Why doesn't she get called on this nonsense?
40,000 Pay Tribute to Coretta Scott King (Democracy Now!):
In Georgia, over 40,000 mourners paid their respects to civil rights pioneer Coretta Scott King by filing past her open casket in the state Capitol's rotunda. She became the first woman and the first African-American person to lie in honor there. She died last Monday at the age of 78. Today's Coretta Scott King's body will lie in honor at the original Ebenezer Baptist Church where her late husband, Martin Luther King, once preached.
40,000 people paying tribute to a legendary civil rights leader. But who hasn't paid tribute to her?
"Editorial: Does The New York Times editorial board not know that Coretta Scott King died or do they just not care?" (The Third Estate Sunday Review):
Coretta Scott King died last week. We think most of you heard of her passing. We sure many of you noted it and mourned the loss. But are you aware that The New York Times, the paper of record, hasn't seen fit to write an editorial or op-ed on King's passing? Or that they haven't run one by someone outside that the paper that they commissioned to write on the topic?
Are you aware that in the same week that section of the paper ignored Coretta Scott King as a topic, Gail Collins penned a ten paragraph editorial to a friend of her's who died? It happened.
The friend was a playwright. It's a tragedy she passed away. But it's editorial news how? Because the woman was White or because she was Collins' friend or some comibination of the two?
Sunday's paper contains no editorial or op-ed on Coretta Scott King. This was the fifth day they passed on the chance to salute her.
Now King never wrote a Broadway play but she accomplished plenty. Let's start with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. That's where most people start. She was committed to the struggle for civil rights before she met him and he credited her with inspiring him.
As one of the widows of the sixties (MLK was assassinated), one would think she would receive at least an editorial. Jackie O received much more. Possibly because she was also a First Lady or possibly because she was White. But she got coverage.
Coretta Scott King conducted herself in the wake of her loss with dignity and grace as well. That doesn't rate a mention in The New York Times.
In addition to being there to inspire the dream, she was active in the civil rights struggle while Dr. King was alive and she kept his legacy alive after he was murdered. She also took leadership in the fight against poverty and in opposition to the war in Vietnam. She raised four children and inspired many more, of many, many generations.
In her later years, she could have rested. She could have taken easy positions. But she didn't. She refused to complacent in a world where so much still needed doing. She spoke out against the war in Iraq. She spoke out in favor of gay rights. She wasn't playing it safe.
This legendary woman played many roles in our national history. You'd think that would result in an editorial or op-ed addressing her life and accomplishments.
I also want to note something Betty wrote for her ongoing novel Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man. I always love Betty's chapters (and am delighted to be an occassional minor character in them) but this is one she's happy with. She's never happy with any of them -- but this one she is and if you read it, I think you'll see why. Here's a section of it.
"The Pig Is Racism, The Pig Is The New York Times" (Betty, Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man):
I thought, "Well maybe Gail considers these important topics for editorials?" Then I saw "Oh, Oscar!" about the Oscar nominations. The Oscar nominations? The Times needs to editorialize about Oscar nominations? But has no time for Coretta Scott King?"
Oh, Oscar!"? Oh, Gail.
I was fuming. I was raging. Thomas Friedman was kvetching, "Who the hell knew I married Angela Dickinson!"
"Angela Davis!" I corrected.
"Oh yeah," Thomas Friedman snorted. "One played Police Woman, the other was hunted by the police."
I just stared him until he stopped laughing.
"Um," he said staring at the ground. "Um, it's, see it's funny because it's juxtaposition."
"And funny because a Black woman is the butt of the joke? Or maybe you thinking Blacks should be hunted down?"
Thomas Friedman retreated to his office where, no doubt, he continued surfing online for fake nudes of the male cast from Saved By The Bell.
This morning, Thomas Friedman hands me the paper and tells me I'll be happy with it today.
Knowing the New York Timid too well, I finish my coffee before opening and flipping to the op-eds and editorials. Editorials? Four. None on Coretta Scott King. Opinion pieces? Paul Krugman writes of the "State of Delusion" which does not cover the paper's own delusion that they're somehow inclusive. Thomas Friedman writes about Bully Boy (he's got a poster of Bully Boy in a onesie nailed to the bedroom closet door) and oil in "Will Pigs Fly" (sooner than Lard Butts, Tommy, sooner than Lard Butts). Graphic designer Barbara Blauber does "Op-Art" about judging books by their cover. (Why not judge papers by what they choose to cover?) And not one, but two guest columnists are brought in to write two separate columns on Pope Joseph Ratzinger who, for the record, didn't die.
I guess Coretta Scott King doesn't matter to the paper. I guess her passing doesn't matter. She's known globally at least as well as Mother Teresa was. She dedicated her life to fighting for equality and peace. She was known around the world as a leader and her husband was as well -- her husband who was targeted by the FBI and who was assassinated. She fought for civil rights, for women's rights, for peace. She fought against poverty, against homophobia. On the national stage, she was certainly as graceful as Jackie Kennedy and she never felt the need to draw the veil and retire from public service.
So I found myself wondering, "Exactly what didn't Mrs. King do? What should she have done to have her death noted by the editorial and opinion staff of the New York Times?"
At first, I thought, "Well she should have written a play length version of Designing Women!" But then I remembered how August Wilson's passing was down played.
Then I thought, "She should have befriended Gail Collins!" Because women with unibrows are too often the butt of the jokes. Gail Collins should not be laughed at for her unibrow. There are plenty of other reasons to laugh at Gail Collins, trust me.
Which left only one thing that Coretta Scott King 'forgot' to do: Be born White.
So let's all ask this question of where is the editorial or op-ed devoted to the life of a brave civil rights activist who stood up against war, against poverty . . . An internationally known figure, a beloved figure, and somehow the New York Times can't find the time? Why is that?
Wally's back to blogging at The Daily Jot. Here's one of the two pieces he did today, in full.
"This Just In! Bully Boy Will Attend Coretta Scott King Funeral!" (Wally, The Daily Jot):
BULLY BOY PRESS -- DC.
THIS JUST IN
BULLY BOY WILL ATTEND CORETTA SCOTT KING FUNERAL.
AFTER EARLIER SAYING HE WOULD NOT ATTEND THE WHITE HOUSE HAS REALIZED THE HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE OF CORETTA SCOTT KING.
TUESDAY, BULLY BOY WILL ATTEND THE FUNERAL SERVICE.
SAID BULLY BOY, "I LOVED CORETTA KING. I HAD ALL HER ALBUMS. TAPESTERY ROCKED!"
RELATED: "Editorial: Does The New York Times editorial board not know that Coretta Scott King died or do they just not care?"
Please visit Mikey Likes It! to get Mike's take on today's events.
Back to the hearings, I wish I could tell you that I heard strong fighters when I was able to listen today. I didn't. I heard people playing patty cakes with an issue that goes to heart of why this country was founded.
And quickly, please check out "Silence" and "silence" which are links to Kat and Rebecca's joint post. I'm rushing because there's a Blogger scheduled blackout tonight while they fix the program (which seems to have more bugs after each fix). But I need to note Trina. She has a new entry (remember, she blogs only on Saturdays) entitled "Mashed Potatoes in the kitchen."
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center):
When evil is allowed to compete with good, evil has an emotional populist appeal that wins out unless good men and women stand as a vanguard against abuse.
Hannah Arendt, 20th-century German political philosopher and author
mikey likes it
the common ills
democracy now
coretta scott king
nsa
fisa
government snooping
government spying
snoopgate
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
kats korner
like maria said paz
trinas kitchen
alberto gonzales
dianne feinstein
AG Gonzales to Testify Before Senate Over Domestic Spying (Democracy Now!):
On Capitol Hill, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is testifying today before the Senate over the Bush administration's domestic spying program. While Gonzales is expected to claim the Bush administration can legally carry out the warrantless spying, Senate Judiciary Committee Arlen Specter has admitted the administration's legal reasoning does not hold up. He appeared on Tim Russert's program Meet the Press on Sunday. Meanwhile a new article in the Washington Post raises questions over the effectiveness of the domestic spy program.. Intelligence officers who took part in the eavesdropping on thousands of Americans say they dismissed nearly all of them as potential suspects after hearing nothing pertinent to a terrorist threat. According to the Post, fewer than 10 U.S. citizens or residents a year have aroused enough suspicion during warrantless eavesdropping to justify interception of their domestic calls.
I caught bits and pieces of the hearings today a few minutes after a session here and there, basically, and then during lunch. Impressed? No. But I missed Russ Feingold. Mike says he spoke twice and was strong. The only one I heard speaking powerfully was Senator Patrick Leahy.
"Democracy Now: Al Lewis; Senate Hearings (Miss Priss Instant Cuckoo and more)" (C.I., The Common Ills):
So the hearings . . .
Miss Priss Instant Cuckoo should be played by Oliver Platt who would put just the right amount of priss into the performance.
So Arlen Specter stabbed democracy in the back right at the start of the hearings. His spin was so amazing you kept expecting him to come up with some theory on a "magic bullet" . . . Oh wait, he pulled that trick decades ago.
His trick today? Albie Gonzales won't be under oath. Hand on heart, Specter swears that Albie is okay with being under oath, but Specter, like the lead singer of a sixties girl group, just keeps right on singing "Oh No, Not My Baby" and "Don't Say Nothing Bad About My Baby."
You saw Russ Feingold and Patrick Leahy object strongly. And? A vote was called. This is where Miss Priss Instant Cuckoo asked, "What are we voting on?"
You saw Repube Sessions cluck, "It's a question of propriety and good taste."
Leahy fought. He was the first Dem to question and he was on point, he did a wonderful job. And?
Then others spoke.
Ted Kennedy? Is he awake? Herbert Kohl, the Invisible Man? Get real. Dianne Feinstein has her best, white, kid gloves on again.
Let's watch as Dianne Feinstein throws in the towel yet again. Let's note BuzzFlash called her on her inept behavior in the Alito hearings. I'm missing anyone else doing that. (We called her here and in this community.)
DiFi, why do you ask questions? Or why do you ask your meandering questions?
Do you want answers?
If so, why say the following when Albie refuses to answer your questions:
Fair enough, let's move along.
Okay, that's fine.
I just want to ask some others [questions], you don't have to answer if you don't want to.
If that's it, if that's the best you can do, quit wasting everyone's time.
She was useless in the Alito hearings and she's useless so far today.
Why doesn't she get called on this nonsense?
40,000 Pay Tribute to Coretta Scott King (Democracy Now!):
In Georgia, over 40,000 mourners paid their respects to civil rights pioneer Coretta Scott King by filing past her open casket in the state Capitol's rotunda. She became the first woman and the first African-American person to lie in honor there. She died last Monday at the age of 78. Today's Coretta Scott King's body will lie in honor at the original Ebenezer Baptist Church where her late husband, Martin Luther King, once preached.
40,000 people paying tribute to a legendary civil rights leader. But who hasn't paid tribute to her?
"Editorial: Does The New York Times editorial board not know that Coretta Scott King died or do they just not care?" (The Third Estate Sunday Review):
Coretta Scott King died last week. We think most of you heard of her passing. We sure many of you noted it and mourned the loss. But are you aware that The New York Times, the paper of record, hasn't seen fit to write an editorial or op-ed on King's passing? Or that they haven't run one by someone outside that the paper that they commissioned to write on the topic?
Are you aware that in the same week that section of the paper ignored Coretta Scott King as a topic, Gail Collins penned a ten paragraph editorial to a friend of her's who died? It happened.
The friend was a playwright. It's a tragedy she passed away. But it's editorial news how? Because the woman was White or because she was Collins' friend or some comibination of the two?
Sunday's paper contains no editorial or op-ed on Coretta Scott King. This was the fifth day they passed on the chance to salute her.
Now King never wrote a Broadway play but she accomplished plenty. Let's start with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. That's where most people start. She was committed to the struggle for civil rights before she met him and he credited her with inspiring him.
As one of the widows of the sixties (MLK was assassinated), one would think she would receive at least an editorial. Jackie O received much more. Possibly because she was also a First Lady or possibly because she was White. But she got coverage.
Coretta Scott King conducted herself in the wake of her loss with dignity and grace as well. That doesn't rate a mention in The New York Times.
In addition to being there to inspire the dream, she was active in the civil rights struggle while Dr. King was alive and she kept his legacy alive after he was murdered. She also took leadership in the fight against poverty and in opposition to the war in Vietnam. She raised four children and inspired many more, of many, many generations.
In her later years, she could have rested. She could have taken easy positions. But she didn't. She refused to complacent in a world where so much still needed doing. She spoke out against the war in Iraq. She spoke out in favor of gay rights. She wasn't playing it safe.
This legendary woman played many roles in our national history. You'd think that would result in an editorial or op-ed addressing her life and accomplishments.
I also want to note something Betty wrote for her ongoing novel Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man. I always love Betty's chapters (and am delighted to be an occassional minor character in them) but this is one she's happy with. She's never happy with any of them -- but this one she is and if you read it, I think you'll see why. Here's a section of it.
"The Pig Is Racism, The Pig Is The New York Times" (Betty, Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man):
I thought, "Well maybe Gail considers these important topics for editorials?" Then I saw "Oh, Oscar!" about the Oscar nominations. The Oscar nominations? The Times needs to editorialize about Oscar nominations? But has no time for Coretta Scott King?"
Oh, Oscar!"? Oh, Gail.
I was fuming. I was raging. Thomas Friedman was kvetching, "Who the hell knew I married Angela Dickinson!"
"Angela Davis!" I corrected.
"Oh yeah," Thomas Friedman snorted. "One played Police Woman, the other was hunted by the police."
I just stared him until he stopped laughing.
"Um," he said staring at the ground. "Um, it's, see it's funny because it's juxtaposition."
"And funny because a Black woman is the butt of the joke? Or maybe you thinking Blacks should be hunted down?"
Thomas Friedman retreated to his office where, no doubt, he continued surfing online for fake nudes of the male cast from Saved By The Bell.
This morning, Thomas Friedman hands me the paper and tells me I'll be happy with it today.
Knowing the New York Timid too well, I finish my coffee before opening and flipping to the op-eds and editorials. Editorials? Four. None on Coretta Scott King. Opinion pieces? Paul Krugman writes of the "State of Delusion" which does not cover the paper's own delusion that they're somehow inclusive. Thomas Friedman writes about Bully Boy (he's got a poster of Bully Boy in a onesie nailed to the bedroom closet door) and oil in "Will Pigs Fly" (sooner than Lard Butts, Tommy, sooner than Lard Butts). Graphic designer Barbara Blauber does "Op-Art" about judging books by their cover. (Why not judge papers by what they choose to cover?) And not one, but two guest columnists are brought in to write two separate columns on Pope Joseph Ratzinger who, for the record, didn't die.
I guess Coretta Scott King doesn't matter to the paper. I guess her passing doesn't matter. She's known globally at least as well as Mother Teresa was. She dedicated her life to fighting for equality and peace. She was known around the world as a leader and her husband was as well -- her husband who was targeted by the FBI and who was assassinated. She fought for civil rights, for women's rights, for peace. She fought against poverty, against homophobia. On the national stage, she was certainly as graceful as Jackie Kennedy and she never felt the need to draw the veil and retire from public service.
So I found myself wondering, "Exactly what didn't Mrs. King do? What should she have done to have her death noted by the editorial and opinion staff of the New York Times?"
At first, I thought, "Well she should have written a play length version of Designing Women!" But then I remembered how August Wilson's passing was down played.
Then I thought, "She should have befriended Gail Collins!" Because women with unibrows are too often the butt of the jokes. Gail Collins should not be laughed at for her unibrow. There are plenty of other reasons to laugh at Gail Collins, trust me.
Which left only one thing that Coretta Scott King 'forgot' to do: Be born White.
So let's all ask this question of where is the editorial or op-ed devoted to the life of a brave civil rights activist who stood up against war, against poverty . . . An internationally known figure, a beloved figure, and somehow the New York Times can't find the time? Why is that?
Wally's back to blogging at The Daily Jot. Here's one of the two pieces he did today, in full.
"This Just In! Bully Boy Will Attend Coretta Scott King Funeral!" (Wally, The Daily Jot):
BULLY BOY PRESS -- DC.
THIS JUST IN
BULLY BOY WILL ATTEND CORETTA SCOTT KING FUNERAL.
AFTER EARLIER SAYING HE WOULD NOT ATTEND THE WHITE HOUSE HAS REALIZED THE HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE OF CORETTA SCOTT KING.
TUESDAY, BULLY BOY WILL ATTEND THE FUNERAL SERVICE.
SAID BULLY BOY, "I LOVED CORETTA KING. I HAD ALL HER ALBUMS. TAPESTERY ROCKED!"
RELATED: "Editorial: Does The New York Times editorial board not know that Coretta Scott King died or do they just not care?"
Please visit Mikey Likes It! to get Mike's take on today's events.
Back to the hearings, I wish I could tell you that I heard strong fighters when I was able to listen today. I didn't. I heard people playing patty cakes with an issue that goes to heart of why this country was founded.
And quickly, please check out "Silence" and "silence" which are links to Kat and Rebecca's joint post. I'm rushing because there's a Blogger scheduled blackout tonight while they fix the program (which seems to have more bugs after each fix). But I need to note Trina. She has a new entry (remember, she blogs only on Saturdays) entitled "Mashed Potatoes in the kitchen."
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center):
When evil is allowed to compete with good, evil has an emotional populist appeal that wins out unless good men and women stand as a vanguard against abuse.
Hannah Arendt, 20th-century German political philosopher and author
mikey likes it
the common ills
democracy now
coretta scott king
nsa
fisa
government snooping
government spying
snoopgate
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
kats korner
like maria said paz
trinas kitchen
alberto gonzales
dianne feinstein
Thursday, February 02, 2006
England reaches the 100 troops killed in Iraq milestone
I wrote this at my usual time, but it would not post. Mike thinks Blogger went down because the same thing happened to him. He just called to say he was able to get his post up, so I'll try again. But if you came here at my usual time and thought I was slacking off, I wasn't. The problem was with the Blogger program.
-----
This evening seems rather warm, or is just me? I've got the ceiling fan on and am wondering, "This is winter?" With global warming, I guess it is.
Capitol Police Apologize, Drop Charges Over Sheehan Arrest (Democracy Now!):
One day after Cindy Sheehan was arrested for wearing an anti-war T-shirt to President Bush's State of The Union address, Capitol police have dropped her charges and apologized. Sheehan, whose son Casey died in combat in Iraq in April 2004, was removed from the House gallery Tuesday night after unveiling a T-shirt that read: "2,245 dead and how many more?" -- a reference to the number of US service members killed in Iraq. In a statement, Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer said Sheehan should not have been arrested. President Bush began his speech shortly after she was removed.
Does the apology help? After the embarrassment, the time wasted and the way she was rougly jerked around, the Capitol Police think "I'm sorry" cuts it? It doesn't.
Report: US Far Behind In Reconstructing Iraq Health Clinics (Democracy Now!):
In Iraq, USA Today is reporting the US has failed to open any health clinics in the country -- despite initially promising to open 180 clinics by last December. Iraq’s deputy health minister said the US has completed construction on only four clinics.
Look, we're back to things that don't cut it. In this country, a number of people continue to delude themselves. "They've got water thanks to us!" No, we've destroyed the water. "They've got electricity thanks to us!" No, we took out the power plants and they're still not up and running unless you think two or so hours of electricity a day is sufficient. Now we learn, if we pay attention, that we promised 180 clinics and chose the deadline of December which would be almost three years after we invaded. Despite nearly three years, we didn't even bother to meet our own deadline. Four clinics isn't 180 clinics. In Falluja, we destroyed the health care facilities. There's no excuse for us not to rebuild what we destroyed. But see if the Bully Boy looks like he loses any sleep over it.
If you missed it, England's reached their own milestone (one hundred dead). Whether it's one, two or whatever, it's too many to die in an illegal war that we were lied into. If you missed it, in this country, Bully Boy's going to fund war, war, war forever but he's cutting back on programs that help people (C.I. has a blistering commentary on that).
Not tonight, but starting next week, I'll be back to Thursday nights off. I'll be doing a group on Thursdays. It was going to have to be Tuesday or Thursday because Cedric can't blog on Wednesdays and we sort of have a deal that I grab Wednesdays and he'll grab a day for me. So, announcement, starting next week, no Thursday posts. I'm brief tonight because I want to get my taxes done. I do them myself because if you pay someone and they make a mistake, you're still the one in trouble with the IRS so I always figure may as well do it yourself. (Thanks to my brother who started me down that road years ago and is still available for any and all tax advice.) Be sure to check out Mikey Likes It! to get Mike's thoughts. Also, Democracy Now! is broadcasting from Qatar. I hope you're keeping up with that because Amy Goodman and company have done a wonderful job (and on an indymedia budget!).
democracy now
the common ills
cindy sheehan
mikey likes it
like maria said paz
cedrics big mix
-----
This evening seems rather warm, or is just me? I've got the ceiling fan on and am wondering, "This is winter?" With global warming, I guess it is.
Capitol Police Apologize, Drop Charges Over Sheehan Arrest (Democracy Now!):
One day after Cindy Sheehan was arrested for wearing an anti-war T-shirt to President Bush's State of The Union address, Capitol police have dropped her charges and apologized. Sheehan, whose son Casey died in combat in Iraq in April 2004, was removed from the House gallery Tuesday night after unveiling a T-shirt that read: "2,245 dead and how many more?" -- a reference to the number of US service members killed in Iraq. In a statement, Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer said Sheehan should not have been arrested. President Bush began his speech shortly after she was removed.
Does the apology help? After the embarrassment, the time wasted and the way she was rougly jerked around, the Capitol Police think "I'm sorry" cuts it? It doesn't.
Report: US Far Behind In Reconstructing Iraq Health Clinics (Democracy Now!):
In Iraq, USA Today is reporting the US has failed to open any health clinics in the country -- despite initially promising to open 180 clinics by last December. Iraq’s deputy health minister said the US has completed construction on only four clinics.
Look, we're back to things that don't cut it. In this country, a number of people continue to delude themselves. "They've got water thanks to us!" No, we've destroyed the water. "They've got electricity thanks to us!" No, we took out the power plants and they're still not up and running unless you think two or so hours of electricity a day is sufficient. Now we learn, if we pay attention, that we promised 180 clinics and chose the deadline of December which would be almost three years after we invaded. Despite nearly three years, we didn't even bother to meet our own deadline. Four clinics isn't 180 clinics. In Falluja, we destroyed the health care facilities. There's no excuse for us not to rebuild what we destroyed. But see if the Bully Boy looks like he loses any sleep over it.
If you missed it, England's reached their own milestone (one hundred dead). Whether it's one, two or whatever, it's too many to die in an illegal war that we were lied into. If you missed it, in this country, Bully Boy's going to fund war, war, war forever but he's cutting back on programs that help people (C.I. has a blistering commentary on that).
Not tonight, but starting next week, I'll be back to Thursday nights off. I'll be doing a group on Thursdays. It was going to have to be Tuesday or Thursday because Cedric can't blog on Wednesdays and we sort of have a deal that I grab Wednesdays and he'll grab a day for me. So, announcement, starting next week, no Thursday posts. I'm brief tonight because I want to get my taxes done. I do them myself because if you pay someone and they make a mistake, you're still the one in trouble with the IRS so I always figure may as well do it yourself. (Thanks to my brother who started me down that road years ago and is still available for any and all tax advice.) Be sure to check out Mikey Likes It! to get Mike's thoughts. Also, Democracy Now! is broadcasting from Qatar. I hope you're keeping up with that because Amy Goodman and company have done a wonderful job (and on an indymedia budget!).
democracy now
the common ills
cindy sheehan
mikey likes it
like maria said paz
cedrics big mix
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
"Whatever standard is applied, only review by a court can ensure that the administration does not spy on ordinary citizens, lawyers . . ."
What a week it's been and we're only on hump day. Monday, the Dems in the Senate refused to filibuster. Tuesday some of the cowards voted "no" and looked like eager puppies expecting praise. We learned of the death of Coretta Scott King Tuesday. Alito got sworn in Tuesday. Bully Boy told the usual lies Tuesday night . . . And it's only Wednesday.
Body of Coretta Scott King To Return To Atlanta Today (Democracy Now!):
And the body of Coretta Scott King is expected to return from Mexico today to her family's home in Atlanta. Scott-King -- the widow of Martin Luther King Junior -- died Monday at the age of 78. She had been in Mexico seeking treatment for ovarian cancer. In Georgia, flags at state buildings were flown at half-staff Tuesday while hundreds of people gathered at her husband's tomb to pay tribute. A funeral service is expected later this week.
I enjoyed reading the thoughts of others who were touched by the passing.
"mrs. king" (Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude):
i'd planned to take care of several things today but i just ended up sitting on the sofa and at some point, it was pointed out to me that it was nighfall and that i was sitting in the dark.shortly after that, the phone rang. it had rung all day apparently. i was really out of it. but it was betty and my reaction is nothing compared to her's. coretta scott king was probably betty's greatest hero outside of her own family. by the way, big thank you to betty for blogging here on friday. she did an excellent job.
she was planning to post and had 2 different views on it. 1 was coretta scott king carried on so she should blog. the other was that she wasn't in the mood to be funny. i asked her what she really wanted to do and she said she really felt like crawling under the covers as soon as she got her kids to bed. i think that's what she should do.
[. . .]
'partners in marriage' is the jargon we like to bandy about now days. but the fact is coretta scott king was a partner in mlk's work. she was involved in the fight for equality before she met mlk and she continued to fight after he passed. they both believed in equality and they both fought for it. she continued the work and . . .
what do you say?
classy woman, strong fighter, trail blazer and inspiration. rest peacefully mrs. king.
Rebecca always lays it out. My visitor didn't e-mail so I'll assume he's gone (he's not missed) but he can't take Rebecca's directness. Many of us love her for that strength.
"Coretta Scott King, Halliburton, Bully Boy & gatekeeping" (Mikey Likes It!):
This was very sad news today. People would start to talk about it on campus and just stop. One of my professors said that was because she did carry on MLK's legacy and kept it alive so it's like losing her and also losing a part of him. She was a really strong and brave woman and I think anyone with any sense at all feels the loss today.
I think Mike's professor got to the heart of the matter. She did carry on the legacy and she and Dr. King are so entwined in history and in our minds that the loss is a heavy one. (Whether the New York Times gets that or not.)
Cindy Sheehan Arrested For Wearing Anti-War T-Shirt At Bush’s Address (Democracy Now!):
Moments before President Bush spoke, anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan was arrested and removed from the House gallery. Sheehan, whose son Casey died in combat in Iraq, was accosted by police after taking her seat and unveiling a T-shirt with an anti-war message. Referring to the number of US soldiers killed in Iraq, the shirt read: "2,242 and how many more?" California Democratic Congressmember Lynn Woolsey, who invited Sheehan to the event, said: "It stunned me because I didn't know in America you could be arrested for wearing a T-shirt with a slogan on it. That's especially so in the Capitol and in the House of Representatives, which is the people's House.''
Cindy Sheehan is ejected and arrested for the apparent felony of wearing a t-shirt with possible intent to free speech & message in the second degree. Meanwhile, the war criminal delivers a speech and gets applause. It's not even suprising anymore. It's no different from jailing peace activists while letting someone convicted of the death of an Iraqi walk.
Please make a point to visit Mikey Likes It! to get Mike's take on today's events. Also make a point to read C.I.'s "The Bush Commission Part I."
Instead of a peace quote tonight, we're going to have a reality check.
"CCR's Responses to State of the Union Defenses of the NSA Surveillance Program" (Center for Constitutional Rights):
The administration has offered a number of arguments in defense of its warrantless NSA surveillance program, which CCR is challenging in a pending lawsuit in federal court, Center for Constitutional Rights v. Bush. We expect that the President will offer many of the following arguments to the country in his State of the Union address, and we offer the following responses:
Getting wiretap orders through the FISA Court in national security cases is too slow a process; the NSA Program allows the government to put wiretaps in place more quickly
FISA allows the government to put surveillance in place first, and go to Court for retroactive approval afterwards. The government has up to 72 hours to go to the Court in such emergency situations. The existing process places no limits whatsoever on the speed with which the government can put a wiretap in place.
The administration has claimed that the government needs to take time to carefully review the factual basis for such wiretaps before even using the emergency procedures, lest the Court reject the application after the fact. This concern is disingenuous, because the FISA Court almost never denies wiretap orders-the Court didn't turn down a single wiretap request in the first 23 years of its existence. From 1995 to 2004, the government made 10,617 applications and had only four rejected.
The "probable cause" standard that must be met to issue a FISA wiretap order is too burdensome; the government should be able to proceed under a lesser "reasonable suspicion" standard
FISA does not require probable cause that a surveillance target has participated in a crime; it only requires probable cause that a target is an agent of a foreign political or terrorist organization. Again, this diminished form of "probable cause" has never been a hard standard for the government to meet: from 1995 to 2004, the government made 10,617 applications to the FISA Court and had only four rejected.
More significantly, in June, 2002, Republican Senator Michael DeWine of Ohio introduced a bill (S.2659) that would "modify the standard of proof for issuance of [FISA] orders ... from probable cause to reasonable suspicion." The Justice Department said in a position statement that "the Administration at this time is not prepared to support" the DeWine amendment. The Justice Department refused to support the amendment because it had no evidence that FISA was hindering its efforts to get the warrants it needed, and because it feared that such wiretaps might violate the Fourth Amendment and thus jeopardize any prosecutions based on such tainted evidence.
Whatever standard is applied, only review by a court can ensure that the administration does not spy on ordinary citizens, lawyers, or political opponents of its policies.
The President has said that if details of the Program become public or are passed into law by Congress, "The enemy will think 'Here's what they do-adjust.'"
Terrorists already know the government is trying to listen in on their communications-the hijackers took elaborate precautions against surveillance even before 9/11, when the nation was not yet on permanent alert.
It makes no difference to al Qaeda whether they are being wiretapped with a warrant or without a warrant. That's only important to the people for whom oversight and accountability of government officials matter-the American public.
Congress implicitly authorized this surveillance when it passed the authorization to use force in Afghanistan (the "AUMF")
Congress made slight adjustments to the wiretapping statutes in December 2001 (extending the period for retroactive approval of wiretaps from 24 to 72 hours), just a few weeks after passing the AUMF. Congress would not have needed to do so if it intended to authorize wholesale surveillance with the AUMF.
In his December 19, 2005 Press Briefing, Attorney General Gonzales said the administration thought about asking Congress for approval of changes to the FISA statute to make the NSA program legal, but they did not ask Congress for permission because they thought Congress would not grant it. It is disingenuous for the administration to say on the one hand that Congress implicitly approved the NSA Program while also saying that they thought Congress would not have approved of it explicitly.
The President has said "not one lawmaker asked me to stop" the surveillance program. Why did Congress acquiesce?
It didn't. Only a few Congressional leaders and select committee members were briefed, and, more importantly, they were briefed alone, without their counsel or legislative staffers present. These conditions guaranteed that they would feel constrained from opposing the program. At the same time, by informing legislators in even this threadbare fashion, the administration made it much less likely that those legislators would feel free to criticize the program once its details became public.
We would have caught the hijackers if this program has been in place before 9/11
The NSA knew that 9/11 hijackers Khalid al-Midhair and Nawaf al-Hamzi were in the United States (in San Diego) prior to the attacks because of a legal wiretap it had on an al Qaeda safe house in Yemen. But-as then-NSA head General Hayden admitted-the NSA never bothered to provide the information to law enforcement agencies because it didn't appreciate its significance.
Law enforcement failed to catch the San Diego hijackers because of a failure to communicate and share information between intelligence agencies, not because the wiretapping laws were too strict.
FISA stood in the way of getting a warrant to search "Twentieth Hijacker" Zacharias Moussaoui's laptop before he was arrested (and well before 9/11)
In the first months after 9/11, the administration claimed that FBI agent Colleen Rowley wanted a FISA warrant to search Zacharias Moussaoui's computer, but she could not obtain one because FBI had no evidence to link him to a "recognized terrorist organization."
This was simply not what the law required at the time Rowley sought the warrant: in testimony in a Sept. 24, 2002 Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, FBI officials admitted that they had gotten bad legal advice. They thought they needed to link Moussaoui to a to a designated terrorist organization, but that was wrong under the law then in place: FISA allowed a warrant to issue if Moussaoui was an agent of any group making preparations for terrorism, regardless of whether it was formally designated as a terrorist organization by the State Department.
If al Qaeda is calling you, the government should be able to listen to the call
If the government had any evidence at all to back up such a claim, it could put a wiretap in place and seek FISA Court approval after the fact under the law. What the government is really claiming is the power to put a wiretap in place where there is no evidence at all that a person on the line is a member of al Qaeda.
The program is legal.
This program is unquestionably illegal-Congress has made all electronic surveillance outside the Wiretap Act and FISA a felony.
Many people within the administration felt this program was illegal. It has been widely reported that Deputy Attorney General James Comey refused to sign off on reauthorization of the Program in March 2004, when John Ashcroft was in the hospital, and White House officials were forced to visit Ashcroft in his hospital bed to seek reapproval.
The President has inherent power to conduct warrantless surveillance to gather foreign intelligence.
The federal appellate court cases the administration cites for this principle are all cases decided under the standards applicable before Congress created FISA (United States v. Clay; United States v. Brown; United States v. Butenko; United States v. Buck; and United States v. Truong). So are the historical precedents: Lincoln's telegraph wiretaps during the civil war, or FDR's wiretaps during World War II.
FISA was intended to be comprehensive, covering all electronic surveillance of foreign powers and their agents, and FISA makes all surveillance outside its terms a felony, including the NSA program.
democracy now
cindy sheehan
coretta scott king
center for constitutional rights
bush commission
mikey likes it
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
the common ills
Body of Coretta Scott King To Return To Atlanta Today (Democracy Now!):
And the body of Coretta Scott King is expected to return from Mexico today to her family's home in Atlanta. Scott-King -- the widow of Martin Luther King Junior -- died Monday at the age of 78. She had been in Mexico seeking treatment for ovarian cancer. In Georgia, flags at state buildings were flown at half-staff Tuesday while hundreds of people gathered at her husband's tomb to pay tribute. A funeral service is expected later this week.
I enjoyed reading the thoughts of others who were touched by the passing.
"mrs. king" (Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude):
i'd planned to take care of several things today but i just ended up sitting on the sofa and at some point, it was pointed out to me that it was nighfall and that i was sitting in the dark.shortly after that, the phone rang. it had rung all day apparently. i was really out of it. but it was betty and my reaction is nothing compared to her's. coretta scott king was probably betty's greatest hero outside of her own family. by the way, big thank you to betty for blogging here on friday. she did an excellent job.
she was planning to post and had 2 different views on it. 1 was coretta scott king carried on so she should blog. the other was that she wasn't in the mood to be funny. i asked her what she really wanted to do and she said she really felt like crawling under the covers as soon as she got her kids to bed. i think that's what she should do.
[. . .]
'partners in marriage' is the jargon we like to bandy about now days. but the fact is coretta scott king was a partner in mlk's work. she was involved in the fight for equality before she met mlk and she continued to fight after he passed. they both believed in equality and they both fought for it. she continued the work and . . .
what do you say?
classy woman, strong fighter, trail blazer and inspiration. rest peacefully mrs. king.
Rebecca always lays it out. My visitor didn't e-mail so I'll assume he's gone (he's not missed) but he can't take Rebecca's directness. Many of us love her for that strength.
"Coretta Scott King, Halliburton, Bully Boy & gatekeeping" (Mikey Likes It!):
This was very sad news today. People would start to talk about it on campus and just stop. One of my professors said that was because she did carry on MLK's legacy and kept it alive so it's like losing her and also losing a part of him. She was a really strong and brave woman and I think anyone with any sense at all feels the loss today.
I think Mike's professor got to the heart of the matter. She did carry on the legacy and she and Dr. King are so entwined in history and in our minds that the loss is a heavy one. (Whether the New York Times gets that or not.)
Cindy Sheehan Arrested For Wearing Anti-War T-Shirt At Bush’s Address (Democracy Now!):
Moments before President Bush spoke, anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan was arrested and removed from the House gallery. Sheehan, whose son Casey died in combat in Iraq, was accosted by police after taking her seat and unveiling a T-shirt with an anti-war message. Referring to the number of US soldiers killed in Iraq, the shirt read: "2,242 and how many more?" California Democratic Congressmember Lynn Woolsey, who invited Sheehan to the event, said: "It stunned me because I didn't know in America you could be arrested for wearing a T-shirt with a slogan on it. That's especially so in the Capitol and in the House of Representatives, which is the people's House.''
Cindy Sheehan is ejected and arrested for the apparent felony of wearing a t-shirt with possible intent to free speech & message in the second degree. Meanwhile, the war criminal delivers a speech and gets applause. It's not even suprising anymore. It's no different from jailing peace activists while letting someone convicted of the death of an Iraqi walk.
Please make a point to visit Mikey Likes It! to get Mike's take on today's events. Also make a point to read C.I.'s "The Bush Commission Part I."
Instead of a peace quote tonight, we're going to have a reality check.
"CCR's Responses to State of the Union Defenses of the NSA Surveillance Program" (Center for Constitutional Rights):
The administration has offered a number of arguments in defense of its warrantless NSA surveillance program, which CCR is challenging in a pending lawsuit in federal court, Center for Constitutional Rights v. Bush. We expect that the President will offer many of the following arguments to the country in his State of the Union address, and we offer the following responses:
Getting wiretap orders through the FISA Court in national security cases is too slow a process; the NSA Program allows the government to put wiretaps in place more quickly
FISA allows the government to put surveillance in place first, and go to Court for retroactive approval afterwards. The government has up to 72 hours to go to the Court in such emergency situations. The existing process places no limits whatsoever on the speed with which the government can put a wiretap in place.
The administration has claimed that the government needs to take time to carefully review the factual basis for such wiretaps before even using the emergency procedures, lest the Court reject the application after the fact. This concern is disingenuous, because the FISA Court almost never denies wiretap orders-the Court didn't turn down a single wiretap request in the first 23 years of its existence. From 1995 to 2004, the government made 10,617 applications and had only four rejected.
The "probable cause" standard that must be met to issue a FISA wiretap order is too burdensome; the government should be able to proceed under a lesser "reasonable suspicion" standard
FISA does not require probable cause that a surveillance target has participated in a crime; it only requires probable cause that a target is an agent of a foreign political or terrorist organization. Again, this diminished form of "probable cause" has never been a hard standard for the government to meet: from 1995 to 2004, the government made 10,617 applications to the FISA Court and had only four rejected.
More significantly, in June, 2002, Republican Senator Michael DeWine of Ohio introduced a bill (S.2659) that would "modify the standard of proof for issuance of [FISA] orders ... from probable cause to reasonable suspicion." The Justice Department said in a position statement that "the Administration at this time is not prepared to support" the DeWine amendment. The Justice Department refused to support the amendment because it had no evidence that FISA was hindering its efforts to get the warrants it needed, and because it feared that such wiretaps might violate the Fourth Amendment and thus jeopardize any prosecutions based on such tainted evidence.
Whatever standard is applied, only review by a court can ensure that the administration does not spy on ordinary citizens, lawyers, or political opponents of its policies.
The President has said that if details of the Program become public or are passed into law by Congress, "The enemy will think 'Here's what they do-adjust.'"
Terrorists already know the government is trying to listen in on their communications-the hijackers took elaborate precautions against surveillance even before 9/11, when the nation was not yet on permanent alert.
It makes no difference to al Qaeda whether they are being wiretapped with a warrant or without a warrant. That's only important to the people for whom oversight and accountability of government officials matter-the American public.
Congress implicitly authorized this surveillance when it passed the authorization to use force in Afghanistan (the "AUMF")
Congress made slight adjustments to the wiretapping statutes in December 2001 (extending the period for retroactive approval of wiretaps from 24 to 72 hours), just a few weeks after passing the AUMF. Congress would not have needed to do so if it intended to authorize wholesale surveillance with the AUMF.
In his December 19, 2005 Press Briefing, Attorney General Gonzales said the administration thought about asking Congress for approval of changes to the FISA statute to make the NSA program legal, but they did not ask Congress for permission because they thought Congress would not grant it. It is disingenuous for the administration to say on the one hand that Congress implicitly approved the NSA Program while also saying that they thought Congress would not have approved of it explicitly.
The President has said "not one lawmaker asked me to stop" the surveillance program. Why did Congress acquiesce?
It didn't. Only a few Congressional leaders and select committee members were briefed, and, more importantly, they were briefed alone, without their counsel or legislative staffers present. These conditions guaranteed that they would feel constrained from opposing the program. At the same time, by informing legislators in even this threadbare fashion, the administration made it much less likely that those legislators would feel free to criticize the program once its details became public.
We would have caught the hijackers if this program has been in place before 9/11
The NSA knew that 9/11 hijackers Khalid al-Midhair and Nawaf al-Hamzi were in the United States (in San Diego) prior to the attacks because of a legal wiretap it had on an al Qaeda safe house in Yemen. But-as then-NSA head General Hayden admitted-the NSA never bothered to provide the information to law enforcement agencies because it didn't appreciate its significance.
Law enforcement failed to catch the San Diego hijackers because of a failure to communicate and share information between intelligence agencies, not because the wiretapping laws were too strict.
FISA stood in the way of getting a warrant to search "Twentieth Hijacker" Zacharias Moussaoui's laptop before he was arrested (and well before 9/11)
In the first months after 9/11, the administration claimed that FBI agent Colleen Rowley wanted a FISA warrant to search Zacharias Moussaoui's computer, but she could not obtain one because FBI had no evidence to link him to a "recognized terrorist organization."
This was simply not what the law required at the time Rowley sought the warrant: in testimony in a Sept. 24, 2002 Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, FBI officials admitted that they had gotten bad legal advice. They thought they needed to link Moussaoui to a to a designated terrorist organization, but that was wrong under the law then in place: FISA allowed a warrant to issue if Moussaoui was an agent of any group making preparations for terrorism, regardless of whether it was formally designated as a terrorist organization by the State Department.
If al Qaeda is calling you, the government should be able to listen to the call
If the government had any evidence at all to back up such a claim, it could put a wiretap in place and seek FISA Court approval after the fact under the law. What the government is really claiming is the power to put a wiretap in place where there is no evidence at all that a person on the line is a member of al Qaeda.
The program is legal.
This program is unquestionably illegal-Congress has made all electronic surveillance outside the Wiretap Act and FISA a felony.
Many people within the administration felt this program was illegal. It has been widely reported that Deputy Attorney General James Comey refused to sign off on reauthorization of the Program in March 2004, when John Ashcroft was in the hospital, and White House officials were forced to visit Ashcroft in his hospital bed to seek reapproval.
The President has inherent power to conduct warrantless surveillance to gather foreign intelligence.
The federal appellate court cases the administration cites for this principle are all cases decided under the standards applicable before Congress created FISA (United States v. Clay; United States v. Brown; United States v. Butenko; United States v. Buck; and United States v. Truong). So are the historical precedents: Lincoln's telegraph wiretaps during the civil war, or FDR's wiretaps during World War II.
FISA was intended to be comprehensive, covering all electronic surveillance of foreign powers and their agents, and FISA makes all surveillance outside its terms a felony, including the NSA program.
democracy now
cindy sheehan
coretta scott king
center for constitutional rights
bush commission
mikey likes it
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
the common ills
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
"She was as actively involved and concerned when we met as she is now"
Before we get started with anything else, let me respond to an e-mail. Someone seems to think that I should be bothered by Rebecca's "dear katrina." I'm not bothered by it in the least.
I think Rebecca has a strong argument and I think she wrote it very well. There are serious points, there are laughs, it's a beautiful post.
It doesn't surprise me, not just because Rebecca is gifted with a very unique voice and is always true to it. It also doesn't surprise me because I've known Rebecca for years. That's not something that's hidden. Rebecca, C.I. and I are three best friends who've been best friends forever. But someone who writes "This is my first time visiting your site" seems to think that I'll appreciate his "worries" about Rebecca's post. I don't. I don't care what he thinks.
Rebecca wrote a brilliant post. He said she should be "embarrassed for it." The kid who says "the emperor has no clothes on" has nothing to be embarrassed about. Now the emperor . . .
No one needs to be told "It is off limits to criticize Tim Kaine." Furthermore, they don't need to be told that instead of criticizing a politician, they should write about these four topics (which, by the way, Katrina vanden Heuvel herself hadn't written on that week).
It probably was an "embarrassing" post for someone, but that person isn't Rebecca. Rebecca was true to herself. Her post sounds like her. The same can't be said for the scolding of the left bloggers.
"Nobody owns The Nation"? Nobody owns this community. If anyone did, it would be C.I. who built it up. It certainly wouldn't be someone who has never done a thing for this community. But C.I. refuses ownership. C.I. gives it right back to the members (and gives credit to them as well). So for this community, the scolding went over like a ton of bricks. Maybe it played out differently elsewhere but no one in this community needed to hear the scolding.
There's also a point Rebecca makes that makes the scolding even more worrisome. The issue of abortion isn't touched on in the scolding. But Kaine's one more "I will keep it legal but due to my religious beliefs I am opposed to abortion" types. It's one more step in the process of the DNC stepping away from support for abortion. The scolding didn't touch on that.
Rebecca's was hilarious. The part where she responds to Kaine being a "proponent" of racial justice is classic Rebecca:
but we're supposed to take comfort, according to you, in the fact that he's 'a proponent of racial justice.' a proponet! what a brave stand. if this were the 50s. i don't think that even rates a mention today, quite frankly. that, to me, is akin to writing 'and he believes in oxygen and breathing!' i kind of expect that any elected leader in the democratic party, would support racial justice at this late date.
If someone needs to be embarrassed, it's not Rebecca or, as the e-mailer suggests, C.I. for posting Rebecca's post in full. But if some visitor thinks he's going to come between three of us, go ahead and give it your best shot. This friendship has lasted through everything that anyone could throw at it. We're not going anywhere and our friendship has been tested by better than you, many times over. This is a lifetime friendship.
The e-mailer says that if I will just "admit that Rebecca is wrong" he will be back and "frequently" visit my site. I don't care what he does. I won't lose any sleep if he never visits again. Other people are more recent friends, but I wouldn't turn on Betty or Cedric or anyone to gain "a reader" or to gain many.
You miss an obvious point, e-mailer, we didn't go begging for readers at our sites. If someone from outside disagrees, "Oh well . . ." We speak our truth. Do we disagree? Certainly, read one of the roundtables at The Third Estate Sunday Review sometime. But we are all in this together. No outsider can turn us against one another.
Coretta Scott King, 79, Dies (Democracy Now!):
In Georgia, Coretta Scott King - the widow of Martin Luther King Junior - has died at the age of 79. She had spent her life fighting for civil rights and preserving her late husband's legacy. In April of 1968 she led a march through Memphis just days after Martin Luther King Jr. had been assassinated. Later that year she led the Poor People's March in Washington, D.C. She continued working for equality, peace and economic justice for the remainder of her life, both in the United States and abroad.
Almost a year ago, Brenda noted Coretta Scott King's grace. I think that captures her gift beautifully. Everything she did, she brought grace to it. Both in the sense of doing it with considerable taste and in a spiritual sense. This is the woman who had to face a nation when her husband was assassinated. She inspired then and she continued to inspire. MLK was obviously a strong personality, as any leader has to be, but Coretta Scott King proved she was a strong woman and she personified the legacy.
I could never live up to the standard that she set, but I can take inspiration from it. She truly inspired a nation. There are many fallen leaders who have to wait years for history to revist their legacy. Coretta Scott King's strength and grace prevented that from happening to MLK and don't kid that quite a few would have preferred he be forgotten. I can remember the arguments against a national holiday (Dick Cheney, in fact, was opposed to a national holiday in honor of Dr. King).
She obviously believed in his work and believed in keeping it alive. (Dr. King said she was committed to the struggle before he met her.) History didn't have to rescue Dr. King because Coretta Scott King kept the dream (and the fight) alive. The world is a much better place because she was in it and that's probably the best thing we can say about anyone.
Halliburton Stock Reaches New High (Democracy Now!):
In other business news, the stock value of Halliburton reached a new all-time high on Monday following the report that Halliburton had its most successful year in its 86 year history.
We're back to Dick Cheney again. If Dr. King fought for doing the right thing, Cheney has fought for getting the right price. There's a difference and I'm sure, that in some way or form, it will come back to Cheney in kind.
The Palace Revolt Against Bush (Democracy Now!):
Newsweek has revealed that there have been deep divisions within President Bush's own Justice Department over the legality of the administration's tactics since 9/11. In a major piece titled The Palace Revolt, Newsweek reports a group of conservative attorneys stood up to the hard-liners led by Vice President Cheney over whether the president can assume near unlimited powers in the so-called war on terror. According to Newsweek, these attorneys fought to bring government spying and interrogation methods within the law. Some were so concerned over the legality of the administration's eavesdropping program that they lined up private attorneys in case the program even drew the scrutiny of Congress or prosecutors.
Back to Cheney and joined by the Bully Boy. The bad news keeps coming on this day. That's how it feels anyway. We lose Coretta Scott King, we get Alito on the Court. Haliburton profits and Bully Boy lies. Truth and justice always have to struggle against greed and deceit.
Please visit Mikey Likes It! to get Mike's take on today's events.
MLK Quote on Coretta Scott King:
I must admit -- I wish I could say -- to satisfy my masculine ego, that I led her down this path; but I must say we went down together, because she was as actively involved and concerned when we met as she is now."
democracy now
the common ills
coretta scott king
mikey likes it
like maria said paz
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
the third estate sunday review
katrina vanden heuvel
thomas friedman is a great man
cedrics big mix
I think Rebecca has a strong argument and I think she wrote it very well. There are serious points, there are laughs, it's a beautiful post.
It doesn't surprise me, not just because Rebecca is gifted with a very unique voice and is always true to it. It also doesn't surprise me because I've known Rebecca for years. That's not something that's hidden. Rebecca, C.I. and I are three best friends who've been best friends forever. But someone who writes "This is my first time visiting your site" seems to think that I'll appreciate his "worries" about Rebecca's post. I don't. I don't care what he thinks.
Rebecca wrote a brilliant post. He said she should be "embarrassed for it." The kid who says "the emperor has no clothes on" has nothing to be embarrassed about. Now the emperor . . .
No one needs to be told "It is off limits to criticize Tim Kaine." Furthermore, they don't need to be told that instead of criticizing a politician, they should write about these four topics (which, by the way, Katrina vanden Heuvel herself hadn't written on that week).
It probably was an "embarrassing" post for someone, but that person isn't Rebecca. Rebecca was true to herself. Her post sounds like her. The same can't be said for the scolding of the left bloggers.
"Nobody owns The Nation"? Nobody owns this community. If anyone did, it would be C.I. who built it up. It certainly wouldn't be someone who has never done a thing for this community. But C.I. refuses ownership. C.I. gives it right back to the members (and gives credit to them as well). So for this community, the scolding went over like a ton of bricks. Maybe it played out differently elsewhere but no one in this community needed to hear the scolding.
There's also a point Rebecca makes that makes the scolding even more worrisome. The issue of abortion isn't touched on in the scolding. But Kaine's one more "I will keep it legal but due to my religious beliefs I am opposed to abortion" types. It's one more step in the process of the DNC stepping away from support for abortion. The scolding didn't touch on that.
Rebecca's was hilarious. The part where she responds to Kaine being a "proponent" of racial justice is classic Rebecca:
but we're supposed to take comfort, according to you, in the fact that he's 'a proponent of racial justice.' a proponet! what a brave stand. if this were the 50s. i don't think that even rates a mention today, quite frankly. that, to me, is akin to writing 'and he believes in oxygen and breathing!' i kind of expect that any elected leader in the democratic party, would support racial justice at this late date.
If someone needs to be embarrassed, it's not Rebecca or, as the e-mailer suggests, C.I. for posting Rebecca's post in full. But if some visitor thinks he's going to come between three of us, go ahead and give it your best shot. This friendship has lasted through everything that anyone could throw at it. We're not going anywhere and our friendship has been tested by better than you, many times over. This is a lifetime friendship.
The e-mailer says that if I will just "admit that Rebecca is wrong" he will be back and "frequently" visit my site. I don't care what he does. I won't lose any sleep if he never visits again. Other people are more recent friends, but I wouldn't turn on Betty or Cedric or anyone to gain "a reader" or to gain many.
You miss an obvious point, e-mailer, we didn't go begging for readers at our sites. If someone from outside disagrees, "Oh well . . ." We speak our truth. Do we disagree? Certainly, read one of the roundtables at The Third Estate Sunday Review sometime. But we are all in this together. No outsider can turn us against one another.
Coretta Scott King, 79, Dies (Democracy Now!):
In Georgia, Coretta Scott King - the widow of Martin Luther King Junior - has died at the age of 79. She had spent her life fighting for civil rights and preserving her late husband's legacy. In April of 1968 she led a march through Memphis just days after Martin Luther King Jr. had been assassinated. Later that year she led the Poor People's March in Washington, D.C. She continued working for equality, peace and economic justice for the remainder of her life, both in the United States and abroad.
Almost a year ago, Brenda noted Coretta Scott King's grace. I think that captures her gift beautifully. Everything she did, she brought grace to it. Both in the sense of doing it with considerable taste and in a spiritual sense. This is the woman who had to face a nation when her husband was assassinated. She inspired then and she continued to inspire. MLK was obviously a strong personality, as any leader has to be, but Coretta Scott King proved she was a strong woman and she personified the legacy.
I could never live up to the standard that she set, but I can take inspiration from it. She truly inspired a nation. There are many fallen leaders who have to wait years for history to revist their legacy. Coretta Scott King's strength and grace prevented that from happening to MLK and don't kid that quite a few would have preferred he be forgotten. I can remember the arguments against a national holiday (Dick Cheney, in fact, was opposed to a national holiday in honor of Dr. King).
She obviously believed in his work and believed in keeping it alive. (Dr. King said she was committed to the struggle before he met her.) History didn't have to rescue Dr. King because Coretta Scott King kept the dream (and the fight) alive. The world is a much better place because she was in it and that's probably the best thing we can say about anyone.
Halliburton Stock Reaches New High (Democracy Now!):
In other business news, the stock value of Halliburton reached a new all-time high on Monday following the report that Halliburton had its most successful year in its 86 year history.
We're back to Dick Cheney again. If Dr. King fought for doing the right thing, Cheney has fought for getting the right price. There's a difference and I'm sure, that in some way or form, it will come back to Cheney in kind.
The Palace Revolt Against Bush (Democracy Now!):
Newsweek has revealed that there have been deep divisions within President Bush's own Justice Department over the legality of the administration's tactics since 9/11. In a major piece titled The Palace Revolt, Newsweek reports a group of conservative attorneys stood up to the hard-liners led by Vice President Cheney over whether the president can assume near unlimited powers in the so-called war on terror. According to Newsweek, these attorneys fought to bring government spying and interrogation methods within the law. Some were so concerned over the legality of the administration's eavesdropping program that they lined up private attorneys in case the program even drew the scrutiny of Congress or prosecutors.
Back to Cheney and joined by the Bully Boy. The bad news keeps coming on this day. That's how it feels anyway. We lose Coretta Scott King, we get Alito on the Court. Haliburton profits and Bully Boy lies. Truth and justice always have to struggle against greed and deceit.
Please visit Mikey Likes It! to get Mike's take on today's events.
MLK Quote on Coretta Scott King:
I must admit -- I wish I could say -- to satisfy my masculine ego, that I led her down this path; but I must say we went down together, because she was as actively involved and concerned when we met as she is now."
democracy now
the common ills
coretta scott king
mikey likes it
like maria said paz
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
the third estate sunday review
katrina vanden heuvel
thomas friedman is a great man
cedrics big mix
Monday, January 30, 2006
"Time expended on maintaining false fronts is theft of the soul"
"Silence in the community?" That's an e-mail I just read. Well, C.I. won't write (remember The Common Ills isn't a blog, it's a resource/review) for awhile because of the difference in time zone. I am on the east coast. I'm not silent, I am late blogging. I've been on the phone with Mike and Rebecca.
Veteran Who Spoke Out About War's Psychological Affects Commits Suicide (Democracy Now!):
In Ohio, a 35-year-old veteran of the Iraq war was buried on Saturday - a week after he committed suicide. Army Reservist Douglas Barber was a member of the Iraq Veterans Against the War and had publicly spoken out about the psychological toll war takes on veterans. A month before he died he appeared on Doug Basham's radio show. Barber reportedly spent two years fighting the military to get counseling and for the VA to recognize his disability. Just days before he shot himself, Douglas Barber wrote QUOTE, "We cannot stand the memories and [we] decide death is better. We kill ourselves because we are haunted by seeing children killed and families wiped out." Meanwhile a new report from UPI is estimating 19,000 veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress since 2002. Overall 40,000 veterans from the two wars have exhibited some signs of mental health disorders.
I'm tired of some on the left screeching "Support the troops! Support the troops!" like some doped up parrot. Barber came home and spoke his truth but because it didn't fit into a nice, tidy line, he didn't get support. I don't just mean the issue of mental health care. I've noted that at The Third Estate Sunday Review. (Disclosure, some of my patients are veterans from the Iraq war.) Barber needed help and the system Bully Boy's constructed failed him. However, that's not all that failed him.
In our society, we're still not creating the space for those who have served and now oppose the war to speak out. They can go to groups run by other vets and those are wonderful resources, healing ones. But in terms of the general public, those spaces do not exist. There are many people trying to create those spaces, vets and non-vets, but they aren't getting the groups aren't getting the attention they need (and deserve). I'm writing in circles and deleting so I'll just leave it at that and try to pick up on it at another time.
Peace Activist Teresa Grady Sentenced to 4 Months in Prison (Democracy Now!):
In a update to a story we have been following - peace activist Teresa Grady was sentenced Friday for four months in prisons for spilling her own human blood at a military recruiting station in upstate New York to protest the Iraq war. Grady and her three co-defendants, known as the St. Patricks Four, received prison sentences totaling 20 months. They were all sentenced during the same week that a military jury in Colorado decided not to jail an Army interrogator even though he was found guilty of negligent homicide in the torturing and killing of an Iraqi detainee.
Here's another area where no public space exists. Democracy Now! is doing their part (on this and on the previous topic). Some others are as well, but that's not true of alternative media. There seems to be a reluctance to speak. It's as though some playbook's been handed out that says, "You can say you're opposed to the war but you better follow that up with, 'I support the troops!' and then let the matter die." I think too much time is spent worrying about how others may perceive you and not enough time is spent exploring.
We can't even explore. Last week, a guy writes an op-ed and he's slammed all over the place with the psuedo-left and the so-called left (as well as a few of the genuine left) lining up. What did he write? He started out with "I don't support the troops." Did anyone read beyond that? Did anyone try to understand what his column was about?
I don't know. I know I'm tired tonight and just want to go to bed. But a blanket statement of "I support the troops!" seems to me to be a blank check. "I support Abu Ghraib!" "I support the slaughter in Falluja!" "I support kidnapping the wives of suspect like we're something out of The Godfather!" (Actually, I think many in the mob, as portrayed in movies, usually had too much integerity to target someone's family.) What is it we're supporting? The column that got trashed could have been a wonderful starting point to a deeper conversation about what our values are and what our values aren't.
The space doesn't exist for that either, apparently. That's too bad. That seems to indicate that despite the opposition to the war, there's no end in sight.
War crimes are being committed. The orders are coming from the top. But a signal is emerging and it's "Keep your mouth shut and you won't do much time or any." I don't support the murder of the Iraqi and I don't support the man convicted of murdering the Iraqi walking. It's not "a few bad apples." It's a system that's rotten at the top. But when those at the bottom do things, such as killing, it's less than honest to look the other way or act like it's okay that they walk.
Visit Mike's site for his thoughts at Mikey Likes It!. On the Senate news? "Editorial: Will the Dems Stand Up or Stab Us in the Back? " says it all and with that in mind . . .
Peace Quote:
Time expended on maintaing false fronts is theft of the soul.
Veteran Who Spoke Out About War's Psychological Affects Commits Suicide (Democracy Now!):
In Ohio, a 35-year-old veteran of the Iraq war was buried on Saturday - a week after he committed suicide. Army Reservist Douglas Barber was a member of the Iraq Veterans Against the War and had publicly spoken out about the psychological toll war takes on veterans. A month before he died he appeared on Doug Basham's radio show. Barber reportedly spent two years fighting the military to get counseling and for the VA to recognize his disability. Just days before he shot himself, Douglas Barber wrote QUOTE, "We cannot stand the memories and [we] decide death is better. We kill ourselves because we are haunted by seeing children killed and families wiped out." Meanwhile a new report from UPI is estimating 19,000 veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress since 2002. Overall 40,000 veterans from the two wars have exhibited some signs of mental health disorders.
I'm tired of some on the left screeching "Support the troops! Support the troops!" like some doped up parrot. Barber came home and spoke his truth but because it didn't fit into a nice, tidy line, he didn't get support. I don't just mean the issue of mental health care. I've noted that at The Third Estate Sunday Review. (Disclosure, some of my patients are veterans from the Iraq war.) Barber needed help and the system Bully Boy's constructed failed him. However, that's not all that failed him.
In our society, we're still not creating the space for those who have served and now oppose the war to speak out. They can go to groups run by other vets and those are wonderful resources, healing ones. But in terms of the general public, those spaces do not exist. There are many people trying to create those spaces, vets and non-vets, but they aren't getting the groups aren't getting the attention they need (and deserve). I'm writing in circles and deleting so I'll just leave it at that and try to pick up on it at another time.
Peace Activist Teresa Grady Sentenced to 4 Months in Prison (Democracy Now!):
In a update to a story we have been following - peace activist Teresa Grady was sentenced Friday for four months in prisons for spilling her own human blood at a military recruiting station in upstate New York to protest the Iraq war. Grady and her three co-defendants, known as the St. Patricks Four, received prison sentences totaling 20 months. They were all sentenced during the same week that a military jury in Colorado decided not to jail an Army interrogator even though he was found guilty of negligent homicide in the torturing and killing of an Iraqi detainee.
Here's another area where no public space exists. Democracy Now! is doing their part (on this and on the previous topic). Some others are as well, but that's not true of alternative media. There seems to be a reluctance to speak. It's as though some playbook's been handed out that says, "You can say you're opposed to the war but you better follow that up with, 'I support the troops!' and then let the matter die." I think too much time is spent worrying about how others may perceive you and not enough time is spent exploring.
We can't even explore. Last week, a guy writes an op-ed and he's slammed all over the place with the psuedo-left and the so-called left (as well as a few of the genuine left) lining up. What did he write? He started out with "I don't support the troops." Did anyone read beyond that? Did anyone try to understand what his column was about?
I don't know. I know I'm tired tonight and just want to go to bed. But a blanket statement of "I support the troops!" seems to me to be a blank check. "I support Abu Ghraib!" "I support the slaughter in Falluja!" "I support kidnapping the wives of suspect like we're something out of The Godfather!" (Actually, I think many in the mob, as portrayed in movies, usually had too much integerity to target someone's family.) What is it we're supporting? The column that got trashed could have been a wonderful starting point to a deeper conversation about what our values are and what our values aren't.
The space doesn't exist for that either, apparently. That's too bad. That seems to indicate that despite the opposition to the war, there's no end in sight.
War crimes are being committed. The orders are coming from the top. But a signal is emerging and it's "Keep your mouth shut and you won't do much time or any." I don't support the murder of the Iraqi and I don't support the man convicted of murdering the Iraqi walking. It's not "a few bad apples." It's a system that's rotten at the top. But when those at the bottom do things, such as killing, it's less than honest to look the other way or act like it's okay that they walk.
Visit Mike's site for his thoughts at Mikey Likes It!. On the Senate news? "Editorial: Will the Dems Stand Up or Stab Us in the Back? " says it all and with that in mind . . .
Peace Quote:
Time expended on maintaing false fronts is theft of the soul.
Friday, January 27, 2006
"Peace will come when we work together"
I called senators today. Did you? Do you know what I'm talking about?
Sens. Kerry, Kenneyd To Lead Filibuster Against Alito (Democracy Now!):
On Capital Hill, Democratic Senators John Kerry and Edward Kennedy have announced they’ll attempt a filibuster to block the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito. In response, Republicans said they will force a vote early next week. Kerry said: "Its our right and our responsibility to oppose [Alito] vigorously and to fight against this radical upending of the Supreme Court."
Bill Frist wants to force the vote on Monday. So it's time to get active. We need to be heard on this.
"Group of Senate Democrats Launch Filibuster on Alito" (Feminist Wire):
A group of Democratic Senators, led by Massachusetts Senators Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, has launched a filibuster to block the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) has called for a cloture vote on Monday at 4:30 p.m. to end debate and move to a vote on Alito. To win a cloture vote, Frist has to muster 60 votes in favor of ending debate.
"Millions of people have called and emailed their Senators, urging them to save the Supreme Court for women's rights, civil rights, environment protections, civil liberties, separation of church and state, disability rights, and to stop a Bush power grab. The Democrats have heard this message loud and clear," said Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority. "This filibuster is historically important because it is sending a message to the President -- people will not tolerate his packing of the Supreme Court."
TAKE ACTION Urge your Democratic Senators to filibuster Alito!
GET THE INSIDE SCOOP with The Smeal Report and the New Leif blogs at MsMagazine.com
DONATE Make an emergency contribution to the Feminist Majority’s Save Roe Campaign. We must be a strong voice in this crucial fight to save Roe and the Supreme Court for women’s rights.
Need more help?
"Kerry is filibustering Alito!" (Progressive Democrats of America via The Common Ills):
Call Senators Immediately!
Call the Senators listed below, as well as your own, and tell them:
* a "No" vote is meaningless without a filibuster
* it is cowardly to only fight a fight when assured victory
* the American people need to see the Senate standing up for separation of powers and against the "Unitary Executive" Use these toll free numbers to call the Capitol:
888-355-3588 or 888-818-6641.
If you can't get through, look up the Senator's District Office number in your phone book or here: http://capwiz.com/pdamerica/dbq/officials/?lvl=C
First: Call the three Democrats (Mary Landrieu, Ken Salazar, and Dianne Feinstein) who oppose Alito but also said they oppose a filibuster. We must persuade them that a vote against Alito is meaningless if they don't support a filibuster.
Senator Salazar (D-CO) 202-224-5852
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) 202-224-5824
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) 202-224-3841
Second: Call your own Democratic Senator:
888-355-3588 or 888-818-6641.
* If you can't get through, look up the Senator's District Office number in your phone book or here: http://capwiz.com/pdamerica/dbq/officials/?lvl=C
Third: Unbelievably, three Democrats (Ben Nelson, Tim Johnson and Robert Byrd) support Alito! Tell them to either support filibuster or at least "don't get in the way."
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) 202-224-6551
Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) 202-224-3954
Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD) 202-224-5842
888-355-3588 or 888-818-6641.
If you can't get through, look up the Senator's District Office number in your phone book or here: http://capwiz.com/pdamerica/dbq/officials/?lvl=C
Fourth: Call the "Red State" Democrats:
(Message same as above -- "No" is meaningless)
Tom Carper (DE)
Kent Conrad (ND)
Byron Dorgan (ND)
Blanche Lincoln (AR)
Mark Pryor (AR)
Fifth: Call these "Blue State" and pro-choice Republicans: (Message: A "Unitary Executive" is dangerous to balance of powers--please do not get in the way of a filibuster.)
Lincoln Chafee (RI)
Susan Collins (ME)
Lisa Murkowsky (AK)
Bob Smith (OR)
Olympia Snowe (ME)
Ted Stevens (AK)
For extra credit, call all of the 2008 Presidential candidates who are sitting Senators--Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Russ Feingold, and John Kerry--and tell them to either LEAD THE FILIBUSTER or KISS YOUR SUPPORT GOODBYE.
888-355-3588 or 888-818-6641.
If you can't get through, look up the Senator's District Office number in your phone book or here: http://capwiz.com/pdamerica/dbq/officials/?lvl=C
You can also send that message to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (202-224-2447) and the Democratic National Committee (202-863-8000).
So we've got to be active.
Justice Dept. Argued Against By-Passing FISA in 2002 (Democracy Now!):
In other news, uncovered statements made by the Justice Department appear to contradict several of the Bush administration’s key arguments in defense of its eavesdropping on US citizens without court warrants. In July 2002, the Justice Department told a Senate Committee the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- FISA -- was working well. It said efforts to circumvent FISA would need "serious review." The Justice Department made the statement in an argument against a proposal that would have made it easier to obtain the warrants – something the Bush administration now claims is needed today. The apparent contradiction was first pointed out by Internet blogger Glenn Greenwald, on his weblog Unclaimed Territory.
Step right up, America, round and round the Lie Wheel goes and when it stops, no one knows.
Check out Mikey Likes It! and get Mike's take on today's news.
We need to fight the Alito confirmation. We need to show that we are fighters who will stand up for what we believe in. You want an impeachment? It's not going to happen if the elected Congress doesn't see that we are serious. We need to infuse them with spines and let them know that we expect them to use it.
Peace Quote:
Peace will come when we work together.
Sens. Kerry, Kenneyd To Lead Filibuster Against Alito (Democracy Now!):
On Capital Hill, Democratic Senators John Kerry and Edward Kennedy have announced they’ll attempt a filibuster to block the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito. In response, Republicans said they will force a vote early next week. Kerry said: "Its our right and our responsibility to oppose [Alito] vigorously and to fight against this radical upending of the Supreme Court."
Bill Frist wants to force the vote on Monday. So it's time to get active. We need to be heard on this.
"Group of Senate Democrats Launch Filibuster on Alito" (Feminist Wire):
A group of Democratic Senators, led by Massachusetts Senators Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, has launched a filibuster to block the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) has called for a cloture vote on Monday at 4:30 p.m. to end debate and move to a vote on Alito. To win a cloture vote, Frist has to muster 60 votes in favor of ending debate.
"Millions of people have called and emailed their Senators, urging them to save the Supreme Court for women's rights, civil rights, environment protections, civil liberties, separation of church and state, disability rights, and to stop a Bush power grab. The Democrats have heard this message loud and clear," said Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority. "This filibuster is historically important because it is sending a message to the President -- people will not tolerate his packing of the Supreme Court."
TAKE ACTION Urge your Democratic Senators to filibuster Alito!
GET THE INSIDE SCOOP with The Smeal Report and the New Leif blogs at MsMagazine.com
DONATE Make an emergency contribution to the Feminist Majority’s Save Roe Campaign. We must be a strong voice in this crucial fight to save Roe and the Supreme Court for women’s rights.
Need more help?
"Kerry is filibustering Alito!" (Progressive Democrats of America via The Common Ills):
Call Senators Immediately!
Call the Senators listed below, as well as your own, and tell them:
* a "No" vote is meaningless without a filibuster
* it is cowardly to only fight a fight when assured victory
* the American people need to see the Senate standing up for separation of powers and against the "Unitary Executive" Use these toll free numbers to call the Capitol:
888-355-3588 or 888-818-6641.
If you can't get through, look up the Senator's District Office number in your phone book or here: http://capwiz.com/pdamerica/dbq/officials/?lvl=C
First: Call the three Democrats (Mary Landrieu, Ken Salazar, and Dianne Feinstein) who oppose Alito but also said they oppose a filibuster. We must persuade them that a vote against Alito is meaningless if they don't support a filibuster.
Senator Salazar (D-CO) 202-224-5852
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) 202-224-5824
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) 202-224-3841
Second: Call your own Democratic Senator:
888-355-3588 or 888-818-6641.
* If you can't get through, look up the Senator's District Office number in your phone book or here: http://capwiz.com/pdamerica/dbq/officials/?lvl=C
Third: Unbelievably, three Democrats (Ben Nelson, Tim Johnson and Robert Byrd) support Alito! Tell them to either support filibuster or at least "don't get in the way."
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) 202-224-6551
Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) 202-224-3954
Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD) 202-224-5842
888-355-3588 or 888-818-6641.
If you can't get through, look up the Senator's District Office number in your phone book or here: http://capwiz.com/pdamerica/dbq/officials/?lvl=C
Fourth: Call the "Red State" Democrats:
(Message same as above -- "No" is meaningless)
Tom Carper (DE)
Kent Conrad (ND)
Byron Dorgan (ND)
Blanche Lincoln (AR)
Mark Pryor (AR)
Fifth: Call these "Blue State" and pro-choice Republicans: (Message: A "Unitary Executive" is dangerous to balance of powers--please do not get in the way of a filibuster.)
Lincoln Chafee (RI)
Susan Collins (ME)
Lisa Murkowsky (AK)
Bob Smith (OR)
Olympia Snowe (ME)
Ted Stevens (AK)
For extra credit, call all of the 2008 Presidential candidates who are sitting Senators--Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Russ Feingold, and John Kerry--and tell them to either LEAD THE FILIBUSTER or KISS YOUR SUPPORT GOODBYE.
888-355-3588 or 888-818-6641.
If you can't get through, look up the Senator's District Office number in your phone book or here: http://capwiz.com/pdamerica/dbq/officials/?lvl=C
You can also send that message to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (202-224-2447) and the Democratic National Committee (202-863-8000).
So we've got to be active.
Justice Dept. Argued Against By-Passing FISA in 2002 (Democracy Now!):
In other news, uncovered statements made by the Justice Department appear to contradict several of the Bush administration’s key arguments in defense of its eavesdropping on US citizens without court warrants. In July 2002, the Justice Department told a Senate Committee the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- FISA -- was working well. It said efforts to circumvent FISA would need "serious review." The Justice Department made the statement in an argument against a proposal that would have made it easier to obtain the warrants – something the Bush administration now claims is needed today. The apparent contradiction was first pointed out by Internet blogger Glenn Greenwald, on his weblog Unclaimed Territory.
Step right up, America, round and round the Lie Wheel goes and when it stops, no one knows.
Check out Mikey Likes It! and get Mike's take on today's news.
We need to fight the Alito confirmation. We need to show that we are fighters who will stand up for what we believe in. You want an impeachment? It's not going to happen if the elected Congress doesn't see that we are serious. We need to infuse them with spines and let them know that we expect them to use it.
Peace Quote:
Peace will come when we work together.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
"Nothing could be worse than the fear that one had given up too soon"
Who's my blog twin? Mike so please visit his site Mikey Likes It! for his comments and views.
Report: Gonzales Says Bush Doesn't Need Patriot Act (Democracy Now!):
The Boston Globe is reporting that Bush administration has apparently argued it is free to continue with the broad investigative powers granted by the USA Patriot Act -- even if Congress does not extend the act. The Globe says the argument comes in a footnote in Attorney Alberto Gonzales' 42-page legal memo defending the NSA spy program. According to the Globe, Gonzales wrote Congress already gave President Bush the broad investigative authority when it authorized him to use force against Al Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks. Despite its apparent position, the White House has lobbied intensively for Congress to re-authorize the Patriot Act.
This is so sneaky and underhanded and, as usual, the Bully Boy says one thing and does another. I am so sick of this administration and their lies. They lose and they change the rules. That's been the way they've conducted business since they stole the election in 2000. "State rights! State rights!" they screamed until they went begging to the Supreme Court to stop the recount in a clear opposition to the state rights principle. Are people starting to get worried? They should be. They should be very worried because once again Bully Boy's saying he doesn't need Congress to do whatever he wants. This is a power grab as much as his claim that his spying on American citiziens without a warrant, in clear violation of the Fourth Amendment, is a power grab. People need to wake up and see what's going on.
US Delays Decision on Luis Posada Carriles (Democracy Now!):
This news on the case of detained Cuban exile Luis Posada Carriles -- the US government has announced it will delay a decision on his extradition until April. In September, a U.S. immigration judge ruled Carriles won't be deported to Cuba or Venezuela, where he is wanted for his role in blowing up a Cuban jetliner in 1976 killing 73 people. A US immigration spokesperson said the government has not ruled out deporting Carriles to a third country. Meanwhile, in Cuba Tuesday, hundreds of thousands of Cubans held a rally outside the US interests section in Havana to protest Carriles’ possible release. Venezuela is threatening to cut ties with the United States over its refusal to hand over Carriles.
More "Wake up!" news. Tough talking Bully Boy who 'smites' all terrorits is okay that Carriles, a terrorist who killed at least 73 people, at least, sneaks into the United States and isn't immediately deported. Venezuela wants him to put him on trial. He's a murderer. 73 people, that we know of, are dead because of him. I doubt he killed 73 people and never killed again or had never killed prior. That's not usually the pathology.
We don't need to harbor him in this country. He needs to stand trial for his murders.
"PA: Anti-Choice Democratic Senate Candidate Casey Supports Alito" (Feminist Wire):
Robert Casey, an anti-choice Democrat who is challenging Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) in November, has outraged women's rights supporters by announcing his support for confirming Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.
"It's very disturbing and should worry, I think, Pennsylvania women and civil rights advocates and people concerned about unchecked executive power to wiretap and eavesdrop on Americans," Kate Michelman, former president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, told the Patriot News.
Casey's decision to support Alito shows that women "cannot count on a Senator Casey to protect our liberties," Michelman continued.
On the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Alito was the lone judge who voted to uphold a spousal notification requirement in Pennsylvania's Abortion Control Act, a bill that Casey's father, then-Governor Robert P. Casey, Sr., had signed into law. The case, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, was decided by the Supreme Court in 1992, which overturned Pennsylvania's harsh restrictions on abortion.
GET THE INSIDE SCOOP with The Smeal Report and the New Leif blogs at MsMagazine.com
TAKE ACTION Call your Senators and urge them to oppose Alito
DONATE Make an emergency contribution to the Feminist Majority's Save Roe Campaign. We must be a strong voice in this crucial fight to save Roe and the Supreme Court for women's rights.
Media Resources: Patriot News 1/25/06; Philadelphia Inquirer 1/25/06
What was the Democratic Party thinking when they went with Casey Junior? He's a lousy candidate who falls apart before the home stretch. He also holds repugnant views. If they wanted the seat, shouldn't they have offered a contrast to Rick Santorum?
Penn. is not an anti-choice state. They have a pro-choice senator currently, Arlen Specter. Even with the right-wing attempting to smear him for being pro-choice (and other things) in 2004 and mount a primary challenge, Specter still was re-elected.
This wasn't about "electibility." This was about leadership in the Democratic Party sending a message that they weren't going to take any "guff" from the women-folk. Well don't whine to me when he loses. God forbid he wins, but if he does, don't whine to me when he breaks ranks with the Party in vote after vote. He's sent his message, he will stab the Party in the back before election day even rolls around.
Now, if you're reading this, I'm guessing that you've had some down time and are ready to get back in the fight. You have your action lists in the gina & krista round-robin that went out Tuesday. That's a fight we need to fight and, look around, there's nothing but battles to fight.
(Don't believe it? Read C.I.'s "NYT Loses Will to Cover the NSA story.") If you feel tired or you start to lose focus, it's okay to take time for yourself. Every voice is needed in every fight but you can't fight if you've got no energy left. So take time for yourself and you'll be stronger and ready for the battle. Taking care of yourself is healthy, it's not dropping out or turning your back. We've got a lot of battles to fight and it's important to learn to pace yourself.
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center):
Nothing could be worse than the fear that one had given up too soon, and left one unexpended effort that might have saved the world.
Jane Addams
democracy now
the common ills
feminist wire
samuel alito
supreme court
mikey likes it
like maria said paz
Report: Gonzales Says Bush Doesn't Need Patriot Act (Democracy Now!):
The Boston Globe is reporting that Bush administration has apparently argued it is free to continue with the broad investigative powers granted by the USA Patriot Act -- even if Congress does not extend the act. The Globe says the argument comes in a footnote in Attorney Alberto Gonzales' 42-page legal memo defending the NSA spy program. According to the Globe, Gonzales wrote Congress already gave President Bush the broad investigative authority when it authorized him to use force against Al Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks. Despite its apparent position, the White House has lobbied intensively for Congress to re-authorize the Patriot Act.
This is so sneaky and underhanded and, as usual, the Bully Boy says one thing and does another. I am so sick of this administration and their lies. They lose and they change the rules. That's been the way they've conducted business since they stole the election in 2000. "State rights! State rights!" they screamed until they went begging to the Supreme Court to stop the recount in a clear opposition to the state rights principle. Are people starting to get worried? They should be. They should be very worried because once again Bully Boy's saying he doesn't need Congress to do whatever he wants. This is a power grab as much as his claim that his spying on American citiziens without a warrant, in clear violation of the Fourth Amendment, is a power grab. People need to wake up and see what's going on.
US Delays Decision on Luis Posada Carriles (Democracy Now!):
This news on the case of detained Cuban exile Luis Posada Carriles -- the US government has announced it will delay a decision on his extradition until April. In September, a U.S. immigration judge ruled Carriles won't be deported to Cuba or Venezuela, where he is wanted for his role in blowing up a Cuban jetliner in 1976 killing 73 people. A US immigration spokesperson said the government has not ruled out deporting Carriles to a third country. Meanwhile, in Cuba Tuesday, hundreds of thousands of Cubans held a rally outside the US interests section in Havana to protest Carriles’ possible release. Venezuela is threatening to cut ties with the United States over its refusal to hand over Carriles.
More "Wake up!" news. Tough talking Bully Boy who 'smites' all terrorits is okay that Carriles, a terrorist who killed at least 73 people, at least, sneaks into the United States and isn't immediately deported. Venezuela wants him to put him on trial. He's a murderer. 73 people, that we know of, are dead because of him. I doubt he killed 73 people and never killed again or had never killed prior. That's not usually the pathology.
We don't need to harbor him in this country. He needs to stand trial for his murders.
"PA: Anti-Choice Democratic Senate Candidate Casey Supports Alito" (Feminist Wire):
Robert Casey, an anti-choice Democrat who is challenging Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) in November, has outraged women's rights supporters by announcing his support for confirming Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.
"It's very disturbing and should worry, I think, Pennsylvania women and civil rights advocates and people concerned about unchecked executive power to wiretap and eavesdrop on Americans," Kate Michelman, former president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, told the Patriot News.
Casey's decision to support Alito shows that women "cannot count on a Senator Casey to protect our liberties," Michelman continued.
On the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Alito was the lone judge who voted to uphold a spousal notification requirement in Pennsylvania's Abortion Control Act, a bill that Casey's father, then-Governor Robert P. Casey, Sr., had signed into law. The case, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, was decided by the Supreme Court in 1992, which overturned Pennsylvania's harsh restrictions on abortion.
GET THE INSIDE SCOOP with The Smeal Report and the New Leif blogs at MsMagazine.com
TAKE ACTION Call your Senators and urge them to oppose Alito
DONATE Make an emergency contribution to the Feminist Majority's Save Roe Campaign. We must be a strong voice in this crucial fight to save Roe and the Supreme Court for women's rights.
Media Resources: Patriot News 1/25/06; Philadelphia Inquirer 1/25/06
What was the Democratic Party thinking when they went with Casey Junior? He's a lousy candidate who falls apart before the home stretch. He also holds repugnant views. If they wanted the seat, shouldn't they have offered a contrast to Rick Santorum?
Penn. is not an anti-choice state. They have a pro-choice senator currently, Arlen Specter. Even with the right-wing attempting to smear him for being pro-choice (and other things) in 2004 and mount a primary challenge, Specter still was re-elected.
This wasn't about "electibility." This was about leadership in the Democratic Party sending a message that they weren't going to take any "guff" from the women-folk. Well don't whine to me when he loses. God forbid he wins, but if he does, don't whine to me when he breaks ranks with the Party in vote after vote. He's sent his message, he will stab the Party in the back before election day even rolls around.
Now, if you're reading this, I'm guessing that you've had some down time and are ready to get back in the fight. You have your action lists in the gina & krista round-robin that went out Tuesday. That's a fight we need to fight and, look around, there's nothing but battles to fight.
(Don't believe it? Read C.I.'s "NYT Loses Will to Cover the NSA story.") If you feel tired or you start to lose focus, it's okay to take time for yourself. Every voice is needed in every fight but you can't fight if you've got no energy left. So take time for yourself and you'll be stronger and ready for the battle. Taking care of yourself is healthy, it's not dropping out or turning your back. We've got a lot of battles to fight and it's important to learn to pace yourself.
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center):
Nothing could be worse than the fear that one had given up too soon, and left one unexpended effort that might have saved the world.
Jane Addams
democracy now
the common ills
feminist wire
samuel alito
supreme court
mikey likes it
like maria said paz
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)