Newshoggers.com

What Didn't Happen

By Libby

Krugman puts on his media critic hat today with a good op-ed on the manufactured outrage over Wes Clark's wholly correct statement that McCain's experience as a POW does not qualify him for the presidency and other media manufactured myths. It's a good piece but Paul is a bit more optimistic than me about the future.

Since then, however, both the press and the Obama campaign seem to have recovered some of their balance. Opinion pieces have started to appear pointing out that General Clark didn’t say what he’s accused of saying. Mr. Obama has also declared that General Clark doesn’t owe Mr. McCain an apology for his “inartful” remarks and denies that his own condemnation, in a speech given on Monday, of those who “devalue” military service was aimed at the general.

Furthermore, my sense, though it’s hard to prove, is that the press is feeling a bit ashamed about the way it piled on General Clark. If so, news organizations may think twice before buying into the next fake scandal.

If so, the campaign has just taken a major turn in Mr. Obama’s favor. After all, if this campaign isn’t dominated by faux outrage over fake scandals, it will have to be about things that really did happen, like a failed economic policy and a disastrous war — both of which Mr. McCain promises will continue if he wins.

Right. Tell that to the horrendous Joe Scarborough and the equally despicable Andrea Mitchell. I'm sure we'll be hearing their mea culpas any day now....

Happy Independence Day

By Libby

A safe and happy holiday to all. Don't over imbibe and drive and while you're resting up from the fireworks tomorrow, you might want to keep the celebration going by contacting your Senate sneaks and asking them to honor the occassion, and our Founding Fathers, by upholding the Constitution and protecting the Fourth Amendment.

Dan makes it easy to send them a message and you could pass along some of his suggestions if you find yourself at a loss for words.

And while you're at it, hug your favorite rabblerousers today.

Barack answers FISA critics

By Libby

Obama posted a statement on his website in response to the group there that is organizing in protest of his current position on the FISA capititulation bill. I thought it pretty much stunk. He says he'll "work with" Dodd and Bingaman to strike the telecom immunity, whatever that means, but otherwise he's just repeating the same misguided justifications he's been giving all week.

The Inspectors General report also provides a real mechanism for accountability and should not be discounted. It will allow a close look at past misconduct without hurdles that would exist in federal court because of classification issues. The recent investigation uncovering the illegal politicization of Justice Department hiring sets a strong example of the accountability that can come from a tough and thorough IG report.

And what exactly will come of that? It may well have exposed wrongdoing but it's not accountability. There's no consequence outside of temporary embarrassment and the perps just deny everything and go on their merry malfeasant way to continue to flaunt the law. He also repeats this canard.

The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe -- particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer. Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise. I do so with the firm intention -- once I’m sworn in as President -- to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.

For the love of God, somebody send the man Glenn Greenwald's URL so he can grasp that we know this is not true and so should he. It's difficult to believe he doesn't know he's selling a load of BS. Judging from as far as I got in the comments, the true believers are buying it. But the few netrooters that weighed in that section aren't and note well that he won't lose our vote over it, but he is losing our respect and our enthusiasm. As one commenter put it so succinctly, we don't want a lesser of two evils candidate. We want to be proud to cast our vote for the next president.

I'll give him props for answering his critics directly but he's not making me proud right now. I'm withholding the campaign donation I intended to make from my stimulus check -- which I just received. Looking around the netroots I'm not the only one. I see even Kos is withholding money on the same premise. No one is feeling keen to reward bad behavior.

Another Bush crony resigns suddenly

By Libby

This story barely made a blip on the radar today, but I'm finding this abrupt resignation of a long time Bush crony curious.

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Joe Hagin will be leaving his job this month, according to White House spokesperson Dana Perino. [...]

Hagin, an Ohio native, has been with President Bush since the 2000 campaign. Combined with experience during the first Bush presidency, Hagin has served 14 years in the White House.

Hagin was a behind-the-scenes player, who had a huge role in the post 9/11 reorganization of the U-S government and how terrorist responses would be reformed.

What do make of that dear readers? I don't recall anyone resigning who wasn't either about to be indicted for something or who wasn't suddenly struck by fear of retribution for actively participating in activities they knew were illegal. Considering the vast amount of illegal practices instituted in the aftermath of 9/11, I'm wondering what Mr. Hagin knows, that we don't.

Full frontal assault on FISA capitulation

By Libby

As my favorite pundit in the world, Yogi Berra, once said, "It ain't over till it's over" and the activists are in overdrive this week in organizing the opposition to the impending sellout of the rule of the law in the Senate on FISA. As usual, FDL is leading the charge and today's post consolidates the current actions. They're busier than the shoemaker's elves over there and have invented a new call tool from Blue America that makes it easier than ever to make those phone calls and more importantly to track the results on the feedback. They also conjured up a much needed tool to track public appearances of our Congresslizards while they're at home in our districts and offer some practical actions we can take to focus attention on pending issues.

Meanwhile, at the GOS, McJoan has additional actions that have the potential to greatly impact the debate. My favorite comes from my old pal Ben.

One option for fulfilling your duty as a private citizen is Ben Masel's Operation Read the Bill. Print a copy of the bill, find your Senators while they are home during this recess--the 4th of July recess, no less--and ask them if they've done their duty of reading the bill. Ask them if they know that they're about to redefine the term "WMD" to possibly include many weapons that the U.S. military uses. Ask them if they know they are about to cede even more of their power--the power of protecting us, their constituents, from unlawful surveillance--to the executive.

Finally, in case you missed it, Russ Feingold issued a terrific statement on the FISA mess earlier in the week.

The outpouring of support from you and across the country, in letters and e-mails and phone calls and the blogs has been absolutely fantastic. It really made a difference, as we mounted a challenge this week that almost nobody thought could work. We did stop this thing for now -- it is delayed until after the July 4th weekend.

I teased some of my colleagues...I said, we can celebrate the constitution on July 4th, and when we come back maybe you'll decide not to tear it up....I'm deeply grateful for your support.

As they said at FDL. this is what a real patriot sounds like. One can only hope it goes from his mouth to Obama's ears. It would be really nice to see this kind of bold leadership from our presumptive candidate. In the interim, you know what to do. We may still lose, but we could still win and in any event, it's best to go down fighting.

Update: Dan at Pruning Shears checks into comments to remind us that you can also become a citizen co-sponsor of the Dodd-Feingold Amendment to strip retroactive immunity from pending FISA legislation. I signed onto that a while ago, but if you haven't, it only takes a minute to do so.

FISA finds a friend in the court

By Libby

This is a somewhat comforting turn of events. I've been following this case for a while and if memory serves, this group was targeted by the Bush regime's homeland surveillance team for allegedly funneling money to terrorists. In the course of the discovery process, as it wound it's way through the lower courts, the government inadvertently sent a document proving they had been illegally spying on the charity. When the mistake was discovered, federal agents stormed the charity and their lawyer's offices to retreive the document and any evidence of its existence, going as far as seizing computers. The White House has been trying to kill the case in court ever since but the federal district judge is not buying the government's arguments.

The judge, Vaughn R. Walker, the chief judge for the Northern District of California, made his findings in a ruling on a lawsuit brought by an Oregon charity. The group says it has evidence of an illegal wiretap used against it by the National Security Agency under the secret surveillance program established by President Bush after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The Justice Department has tried for more than two years to kill the lawsuit, saying any surveillance of the charity or other entities was a “state secret” and citing the president’s constitutional power as commander in chief to order wiretaps without a warrant from a court under the agency’s program.

But Judge Walker, who was appointed to the bench by former President George Bush, rejected those central claims in his 56-page ruling. He said the rules for surveillance were clearly established by Congress in 1978 under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires the government to get a warrant from a secret court.

This is especially heartening because the same judge will be presiding over the about 40 civil cases against the telecoms that have been brought by various parties. Of course, if the fiasco of the so-called FISA compromise passes in the Senate, the judge's frame of mind won't mean squat since it will effectively force him to dismiss those cases but still, it's good to know there's at least one sane jurist left in the higher courts who is willing to put the rule of law above political fealty. There may be hope for us yet.

Update: Glenn has the legalese and a much fuller explanation of what's at stake in this vote.

Drivers sacrificing safety for savings

By Libby

As the sticker shock at the gas pump continues to shake up the citizenry's sense of economic security, a new movement called hypermiling is growing. While its aims are noble and should in theory be contributing to safer roads, it appears to having the opposite effect as its practitioners take it to the extreme.

It’s a good idea, of course, to try to save on fuel. The problem comes when people who don’t know what they’re doing seize on what they think are the principles of hypermiling, leading them to adopt dangerous tactics, such as driving too slowly in traffic, tailgating larger vehicles or “drafting” (driving in another vehicle’s slipstream to reduce wind resistance) too closely, rolling through stop signs or making turns without using the brakes.

My first husband wasn't much for driving slowly but he was a early adopter on drafting off ten wheelers on the road all the back to the 1970s. I used to hate to let him drive because it was so terrifying to be staring down the tailpipes of a big rig at 75 or 80 mph. Never seemed worth the trade off to me.

The experts also suggest that you can acheive significant savings by turning off your AC and keeping the windows closed in the car. That doesn't sound worth the trade off either. The savings probably won't mean much if you pass out from heat prostration and go off the road.

McCain tanking in Connecticut

By Libby

Having grown up in Connecticut, I always thought of it as a state with a rather conservative population. That may have changed in the forty years since I've lived there but it's clear that in the present day the Republican brand is mud.

A Quinnipiac University poll released today shows Democrat Barack Obama maintaining his wide lead over Republican John McCain among likely Connecticut voters for president. [...]

"Obama is winning among the demographic groups where he seemed to be having problems when he faced Sen. Clinton: white voters, especially whites with less than a college degree," said Douglas Schwartz, the poll's director.

As for McCain's new BFF, Joe Lieberman is clearly more an albatross than an asset.

Thirty-two percent of voters say they would be less likely to vote for McCain if Lieberman is his running mate, while only 14 percent said that including the Connecticut senator would make them more likely to support McCain.

It's also interesting to note that Clinton wouldn't add any apparent value to Obama's ticket.

Clinton is not as risky a choice for Obama in Connecticut as Lieberman would be for McCain. Twenty-five percent of voters say they would be less likely to vote for Obama with the New York senator on the ticket, while 18 percent were more likely.

Looking at these stats makes Obama's recent embrace of GOP rhetoric all the more puzzling. It could hardly be more apparent that the voters are ready for change and the more Barack shifts toward the Republican/media definition of center, the more he undermines the hope of the electorate that he will be the agent of it.

It was this message that built the momentum that won him the nomination in the first place. He's polling well now, but every step he takes back from the bold ground he staked out in the primaries, is a step towards the status quo that the electorate is rejecting.

Last look at Gen. Clark

By Libby

I posted on this yesterday at the Detroit News but didn't get around to rounding up what appears to be the last of the controversy over Clark's statement on McCain's experience. Clark to his credit didn't back down despite being undercut by the Obama campaign's almost immediate embrace of McCain's unwarranted criticism. It may well be that Clark was encouraged to hold his ground by the outpouring of support from the public, particularly from other war veterans. Steve Audio collected some pertinent reactions from the latter group and also pointed us to a letter of support from VoteVets. I would urge everyone to encourage such courageous truthtelling by signing onto that letter.

Meanwhile, in the midst of their caterwauling about the "horrible insult" to McCain's war record, a McCain surrogate, aptly named Orson Swindle, took the opportunity to issue a actual attack on Clark's own military service.

On a conference call with reporters, Mr. Swindle pointed out that Senator McCain has been endorsed by scores of former military generals, admirals and prisoners of war. “General Clark probably wouldn’t get that much praise from this group,” Mr. Swindle said. “As high ranking as he is, his record in his last command was less than stellar.”

Clark's last command was as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO and as Zenpundit points out in comments to this post, he did receive some criticism during his tenure, but it's telling that Swindle avoids mentioning Clark's service in Vietnam where he commanded a large combat unit in Vietnam and led his men into a successful counteroffensive against a Viet Cong force while he was bleeding from four AK-47 wounds. McCain's supporter Swindle also fails to note that Clark graduated from the military academy at the top of his class while McCain barely made it to graduation at the very bottom of his own.

You can be certain, if Clark was speaking in support of McCain, they would be touting his superior credentials to the high heavens. But even putting all that aside, it's useful to remember that McCain himself repeatedly stated that military service shouldn't be used as a criteria in judging a candidate's fitness for the office of president. I guess the McCain campaign doesn't have to worry about the price of fueling their fleet of vehicles since the "Straight Talk Express" appears to be running on pure hypocrisy.

What conservatism has wrought

By Libby

Since Cernig has already flagged Andrew Bacevich's excellent op-ed this morning, let me send you to Shaun Mullen who has a bullet list of his own showing how the GOP's "Contract with America," designed to combat the 'destructive' influence of the dirty 'effin hippies, worked out for us. Go to the link for the full list, but here's a few of my favorites.

* Tax cuts for the rich at the expense of everyone else, including programs like Head Start that actually work.
* Economic policies the reward Wall Street and punish Main Street.
* Despite 9/11, a flimsy homeland security apparatus and a military that is focused not on defense but projecting American might.
* An energy policy predicated on foreign oil and global warming denial.
* Using their bully pulpit not to lead and inspire but to feign piety, sow fear and wage culture wars.

As for us dirty, 'effin, pot-smoking hippies, they solved that problem by throwing most of us into the now largest prison system in the world. Quite a legacy, but hardly one to be proud of. When I look at these lists I wonder why anyone would be willing to publicly admit they support the Republican party. It's become the antithesis of everything that once defined what made this country great.

Faith based federal funding

By Libby

I gagged on my coffee this morning when I read the initial, and unsurprisingly incorrect AP report on Obama's embrace of the Bush administration's faith-based initiative program, which of course you know was little more than thinly disguised funding for fundie-based quasi-PACs for the GOP . I was relieved to see the opposite was true. While Obama is willing to keep faith based organizations within the federal grant system, his approach is mindful of the separation of church and state.

That's what it will be when I'm President. I'll establish a new Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. The new name will reflect a new commitment. This Council will not just be another name on the White House organization chart - it will be a critical part of my administration. Now, make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don't believe this partnership will endanger that idea - so long as we follow a few basic principles. First, if you get a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can't discriminate against them - or against the people you hire - on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we'll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work. With these principles as a guide, my Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships will strengthen faith-based groups by making sure they know the opportunities open to them to build on their good works.

While many may find any funding of faith-based groups objectionable, Steve Benen reminds us that our government has been funding projects for church programs that address poverty issues for many decades without blurring the separation clause. I see no compelling reason our tax dollars shouldn't be alloted to a program that serves the needy just because it's housed and staffed by members of a particular religious group as long as religious conversion is not a requirement of receiving the aid, nor of obtaining employment in such programs.

Churches often donate their space and their members donate their time to such things as homeless shelters and soup kitchens and churches are subject to the same economic pressures as any secular organization providing the same services. To deny them funding solely because of their religious beliefs would be just as discriminatory as denying funding to a secular organization because of its political position. In this case, I think Obama is right is reaching out to everyone and anyone who is willing to assist in humanitarian programs that fill a vital need of our ever growing numbers of impoverished citizens.

Why McCain's war record matters

By Libby

I agree with Cernig that McCain's war record shouldn't be an issue in this election. Unfortunately, McCain himself has made it one by running as a "war hero" and that refrain has been echoed endlessly in the media narrative. His time in Vietnam is being touted as a credential, an example of his experience, a test he successfully passed that in some way is supposed to better qualify him to lead us in "a time of war." 

Just look at the tag line that his campaign is promoting these days. I've seen this one everywhere. "John McCain is proud of his record of always putting the country first — from his time in the Navy, in Vietnam and through to today." Talk about empty words. What does that even mean?

Today the talking heads on the teevee are in a dither over Gen. Wesley Clark's remark that riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is not a qualification to be president. It's being painted as a 'swift boat' attack but in essence it's a simple statement of fact, not an attack on the quality of his service. Surviving five years in a cage in the jungles of Vietnam, is just not the same as making command decisions on how to prosecute a military conflict yet this is the experience McCain waves around on the campaign trail daily and uses to deflect any criticism of his current stance on military policy.

McCain in having adopted the war hero persona is the one making his military service an issue and I don't really see how we can avoid addressing it. As I said in my Detroit News post this morning, if we're to judge McCain's fitness for office by his military service, then shouldn't it be material that he graduated from the military academy at almost the very bottom of his class and he left the service and went into politics instead, when it became clear that he would never be promoted to admiral because his superiors judged he just didn't have what it takes to be a leader? And if he wasn't fit for a high ranking military command, why on earth should "his record" be used as a credential to prove his fitness for the highest office in our nation? If anything, it proves the opposite.

That's not attacking the quality of his service to our country, as the GOP swiftboaters did to Kerry. It's assessing the value of the credential McCain is using to proclaim his superior life experience, which in fact, in terms of the presidency, is effectively worthless.

Shorter McCain: Trust me

By Libby

This one had me gagging tonight. McCain had the nerve to say Obama's word can't be trusted, unlike his own.

"You know, this election is about trust, and trusting people's word, and unfortunately apparently on several items, Sen. Obama's word cannot be trusted," McCain said in Louisville, Kentucky. The comment came as McCain criticized Obama for reversing positions on public financing and other issues.

And this on the heels of his having told a Latino audience how much he cherished "the contributions of Hispanic-Americans to the culture, economy and security of the country I have served all my adult life." He was pumping up his support of the immigration bill he has reversed on when he's talking to his fundie base.

I'm with Creature on this one. The hypocrisy is astounding. And the author's failure to point out that McCain has taken the reverse position is not only nauseating, it's inexcusably negligent.

And by the way, if you've been wondering why I've slacked off on McCain here, it's because I have a lot of blogs. I've been concentrating my bashing at the Detroit News.

Obama shifts off-center

By Libby

I'm beginning to think I misjudged Obama. His recent swing to a Republican appeasing campaign style is leaving me thinking he's not as savvy as I thought he was. Perhaps he's forgotten that a large number of Clinton supporters defected to him because they were unhappy with Hillary's embrace of GOP style tactics and rhetoric? As usual, Glenn articulates well the problem with his "shift to center."

Beyond its obsolescence, this "move-to-the-center" cliché ignores the extraordinary political climate prevailing in this country, in which more than 8 out of 10 Americans believe the Government is fundamentally on the wrong track and the current President is one of the most unpopular in American history, if not the most unpopular. The very idea that Bush/Cheney policies are the "center," or that one must move towards their approach in order to succeed, ignores the extreme shifts in public opinion generally regarding how our country has been governed over the last seven years.

The most distinctive and potent -- one could even say exciting -- aspect of Obama's campaign had been his aggressive refusal to accept GOP pieties on National Security, his insistence that the GOP would lose -- and should lose -- debates over who is "stronger" and more "patriotic" and who will keep us more safe. The widely-celebrated foreign policy memo written by Obama's adviser, Samantha Power, heaped scorn on Washington's national security "conventional wisdom," emphasizing how weak and vulnerable it has made the U.S. When Obama took that approach, he appeared to be, and in fact was, resolute and unapologetic in defending his own views -- the very attributes that define "strength."

One of the biggest reasons I voted for Obama was because he had energized so many young people and new voters and I believed he would be able to keep them engaged through the general. Glenn is right. The reason he was so appealing to this demo was because he was willing to push back against the false memes. That apparent courage to defy the media narrative and redefine the middle was the embodiment of the "change they could believe in."

People like me will still vote for him, but the more Obama shrinks back from his former boldness and embraces the same old conventions, the more likely it becomes that he will lose the enthusiasm of those new voters. That's not what they signed up for and they may well just keep their wallets in their pockets and sit it out in November.

Shredding the evidence

By Libby

I think I saw this list a while back but it bears repeating. Stolen from Angry Bear who has the source link.

Federal Contracts for Paper Shredding Services FY 2000-2008

Yr. Total $
2000 $452,807
2001 $456,235
2002 $752,799
2003 $1,018,191
2004 $2,329,466
2005 $2,980,375
2006 $3,068,877
2007 $3,463,610
2008 2Q * $1,148,718
*Note: FY 2008 only includes data up to first and part of second quarter.

Taken in context with the ongoing refusal of so many agencies in this administration to turn over their email archives it's not difficult to conclude that no one connected to this administration is particularly worried about being prosecuted for their crimes because they're blithely destroying the evidence in blatant disregard of the law. [via]

Just the fax on FISA

By Libby

Dan reminds us in a longer post that should be read in full that the FISA vote is now set for July 8th and we need to taking advantage of the space to keep pounding at our Congresslizards to do the right thing.

The Senate is of particular concern because the FISA vote is set for July 8th. Tell your reps and Democratic leaders to strip telecom amnesty from it. Emails are fine, phone calls are better, faxes better still because they take up space in Congressional offices, and money is best of all because, well, it’s money. FaxZero allows you to send two free faxes per day, and Senator Obama’s fax number is (202) 228-4260. Feel free to send requests for a belated birthday present to America.

I'm sure you need no further instructions.

Gay pride and peace

By Libby

I've been slacking off all morning, but here's a timely link to live coverage of today's San Francisco gay pride parade which should be starting just about now if I calculated the time change correctly. It wasn't live yet when I checked a few minutes ago, but one assumes it will be soon.

Also, following up on my earlier post about the largest human peace symbol, as you can see in the photo, they assembled almost 6,000 people and it seems likely they will get certified as a world record. Still no YouTube of the event, but Marc A. Catone, who was there in the left branch, promises to send a link as soon as it's up. [Marc by the way may possibly be the biggest remaining Beatles fan in the US.]

'Partriotic' Americans trust in God and Bush

By Libby

Bush's approval rating may be in the tank, but where most might see a compost pile, Bob in Fredericksburg, VA sees fertile ground for a marketing ploy. From his soapbox at Keep America Strong Vote George W. Bush 2008 he tells us "[m]illions of partriotic Americans need to know that we can write in George Bush for president in 2008" and for only $7.99 you too can have a bumper sticker to spread the good word.

Yes, we can vote for George W. Bush in 2008. We have the right to write in the name of our chosen candidate, regardless of whether or not he is officially on the ballot.

We know that George Bush was God's Candidate in 2000. We know that George Bush was God's candidate again in 2004. And George Bush has been God's president for the last 8 years. Trust in God and vote your faith. Keep America safe. Write-in George W. Bush for President in 2008.

He urges the faithful to forget about the worrisome details to "Stay the Course" and stick with God's President. But what about term limits, you may ask? Not a problem.

The important thing to understand about so-called "term limits" is that they are man's law, not God's Law. The God who parted the Red Sea is surely not worried about so-called "term limits". When you vote your faith you let Almighty God take care of the details.

Presidential term limits are not in the Bible. And they were not in our Constitution until added by an activist congress in 1951.

I'm thinking Bob may be a marketing genius. Anybody who is still deluded enough to be supporting Bush at this point is likely to buy an overpriced bumper sticker. If they believe Bush is God's answer, then I suppose it's not much of a stretch to believe God could intervene in the political process to allow their feckless hero to stay in office forever. Maybe he'll call a press conference and descend from the heavens with an executive order on stone tablets overturning the constitution -- or something. [h/t to Jules]

Can we trade him for Joe?

By Libby

One of the more curious phenomena of this election are the party defections on both sides of the fence. The Democratic defectors get most of the attention, but the GOP defectors are much more interesting.

June 27 (Bloomberg) -- Senator Chuck Hagel declined to endorse his party's likely presidential nominee, John McCain, and said he would consider serving as secretary of defense in a Barack Obama administration.

Hagel, who last year considered a White House run as an independent, said he would remain a registered Republican: ``I don't know forever, but right now I'm not considering changing my registration.'' [...]

Hagel said his disagreement with the Bush administration and his view that the Republican Party ``has veered and shifted, and come loose of its moorings'' don't mean he has given up on the party.

The ``Republican Party is bigger than George Bush or Dick Cheney,'' Hagel said. ``I'm an Eisenhower Republican and the party today is not an Eisenhower Republican Party. Will it come back? I don't know.''

I guess this one doesn't quite count as a defection yet, but I would gladly give the GOP Joe Lieberman in trade for Chuck. Hagel is a much better Democrat than Lieberman ever was, or could hope to be. Heck, there's been times during Iraq debates I almost forgot that Hagel wasn't one of us.

House Committee Chairs push for accountability

By Libby

It would have been more helpful if we could have seen this happen two years ago, if not seven, but really, it's never too late to demand accountability and considering that it will probably take years to purge all the incompetent crony appointments made by Bush, Wexler's new bill is bound to come in handy down the line.

The bill, known as the Government Accountability Office Improvement Act of 2008, insists the GAO have access to pertinent documents it is entitled to for conducting investigations. It also reasserts the right of the GAO to challenge any refusal of documents in court, responding to a district court decision that favored the office of Vice President Cheney in withholding energy policy planning documents from the GAO.

In a statement, Rep. Waxman said "GAO needs unfettered access to federal agencies to help Congress identify waste, fraud, and abuse in federal programs. This bill says that federal agencies and the White House can't withhold records that GAO is entitled to review."

It occurs to me that if we were able to uncover the full extent of corruption within the Bush regime, it would probably tie up the courts for decades. That's unlikely to happen but still, it would certainly be satisfying to see even a handful of the worst perps brought to justice in the end.

Big Brother - Eyes in the Sky

By Libby

While we're busy fighting off FISA surveillance the White House has been quietly pursuing an even more disturbing domestic spying program that's said to be capable of taking very high-resolution photographs of buildings, vehicles and people.

A Bush administration program to expand domestic use of Pentagon spy satellites has aroused new concerns in Congress about possible civil-liberties abuses.

On Tuesday, the House Appropriations Committee approved an amendment denying money for the new domestic intelligence operation—cryptically named the "National Applications Office"—until the Homeland Security secretary certifies that any programs undertaken by the center will "comply with all existing laws, including all applicable privacy and civil liberties standards."

Considering the administration's track record, I think we can safely assume that no matter what assurances they give, the chances are great that they will simply ignore the laws and do whatever the hell they want. Certainly, the DHS spokesmouth issues the all too familiar standard Bushspeak.

But Russ Knocke, a Homeland Security spokesman, told Newsweek that fears about the program are unfounded. "We've repeatedly met with Congress to answer questions about the NAO," he said. "As we have said, the purpose of the NAO is not to expand existing legal authorities. Rather, it will allow the government to better and more efficiently prioritize the use of scarce resources in support of major disasters, homeland security efforts and perhaps—in the future—law enforcement. We have also been clear that we would brief Congress before moving to support law enforcement. Efforts to further stall the NAO are misguided and keep us from making the best use of overhead imagery for a number of public safety and security missions."

Just as with every other Fourth Amendment breaching 'security program' this administration has foisted off on us from the Patriot Act onward, they need this to keep us safe from bad people and horrible disasters and the potential to use it to get around longstanding legal safeguards for use in ordinary law enforcement is so remote as to be barely worth mentioning. Just look at all the terrorists they caught under the Patriot Act and that was never used to circumvent the law.... oh wait. And how convenient that unlike that messy FISA datamining operation, existing case law seems to allow aerial surveillance without a warrant. Not that they would dream of using it for such purposes...

It's like watching a child grow up. If you see him every day, you celebrate milestones but you don't really see the incremental changes so much as someone who only sees the kid once a year and is amazed at how much he's grown. And just as you wake up one day and wonder how that darling little tyke suddenly became a surly teenager almost unnoticed, if we allow these programs to stealthily proliferate we'll wake up one day to a full grown police state. By then it will be too late to stop it.

I'm glad to see the funding blocked for now. I would like even more to see some legislation banning the use of the program for ordinary law enforcement, before it gets off the ground. [h/t to our invaluable researcher, Kat]

Breaking - FISA vote back on hold

By Libby

Funny, I was just about to bitch about this stall on the housing bill when I saw the breaking news that the same tactic just bought us another delay on the FISA debacle.

Objections by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) will push back an overhaul of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) until after lawmakers return in July, Democratic leaders said Thursday. Feingold is strongly opposed to language that would likely give telephone companies that participated in warrantless surveillance retroactive immunity from lawsuits.

"It doesn't look like it," Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said of taking up the FISA bill this week. "Sen. Feingold wants additional time and would like to postpone it until after the Fourth of July."

Good for Russ. This isn't the first time I wished he was the one running for president. It's certainly heartening to see that at least one Democrat knows how to play the game by the GOP rules. Although to be fair, I should note that Dodd tried this tactic previously with a hold on the FISA bill way back when but at that time, Reid just ignored him.

I'm not sure what the difference is this time although I'd like to think it's that progressives have finally convinced the Democratic 'leadership' that we aren't as easily fooled by procedural kabuki as they thought we were and we don't forget betrayals -- ever.

Fear Watch

By Libby

This looks like an interesting project. HuffPo, noting that McCain's pretty much got nothing to offer but fear, has started a new page called FearWatch08.

But things are always less scary when the lights are on -- so throughout the campaign HuffPost will be conducting a FearWatch, keeping our eyes peeled for the lowest, most base attempts to scare voters into voting their fears, and collecting them on a FearWatch08 page.

And we'd like your help. So be on the lookout for examples of fear-mongering in speeches, in press releases, in local TV spots, and in direct mail come-ons -- and send any you come across to fearwatch08@huffingtonpost.com so we can add them to our collection.

Sounds like it could be a good resource if it takes off and if nothing else, it would be good to have a catch page for the little items that might not get blogged, or even noticed, otherwise.

Obama fails completely on FISA

By Libby

Considering all the political costs involved, I was willing to give Obama something of a pass on not leading the fight against the FISA capitulation but now he's gone too far in promoting the false narrative to excuse this destruction of the rule of law.

"The bill has changed. So I don't think the security threats have changed, I think the security threats are similar. My view on FISA has always been that the issue of the phone companies per se is not one that overrides the security interests of the American people."

What a steaming crock. This bill has not changed for the better and he specifically promised to support a filibuster. It's beyond insulting that he seeks to justify his walk back on that promise by spewing the same fear mongering talking points the White House has used to justify every constitutional breach of the last seven years. Since I'm late to the party and John Cole and I have been pretty much in sync on this all week, I'll just quote his post.

Before, when he accepted the compromise but promised to fight for removing immunity, it was one thing. This is a total collapse and a rapid abandonment of principle. From a voting perspective, nothing really changes. McCain is for it, Hillary would have been, now Obama is. Obama is still the better of the three on a wider range of issues.

As to whether I like it, no. I could understand the politics of supporting the filibuster and voting for the bill, but I don’t understand or accept getting out in front of this piece of shit and giving us more of the same “You can’t handle the truth.” It is a craven capitulation, and failure to support the filibuster tomorrow really is deciding the politics of fear trump “change.” We all know there are threats- the question is one of constitutionality and the executive Presidency. We are against it.

This was a test, and Obama is failing. It is of little solace that McCain refuse to show up and Clinton would have, too.

Avedon adds another important point.

Obama doesn't understand that the 4th Amendment is national security, and he's prepared to throw it out for some illusory Republican-defined "toughness" because he hasn't got the guts to actually be tough in defense of our country. When it comes to pushing Overton's Window back into some less distorted position, Obama is not your guy. (Yes, you still should vote for the Democratic nominee, but you should put all of your other efforts into doing things like getting people into Congress who will try to keep him in line - and doing things to make them want to keep him from these continuous forays into right-wing territory. You were always going to have to do that, no matter who the nominee was.)

And NTodd puts it into historical context and reminds us that total destruction of the rule of law that served us well for almost two and half centuries is just as devastating when it happens incrementally.

This nation survived an invasion of a superpower in the early 19th century when the country was young and rather defenseless. It survived a civil war that killed more Americans than every other war we've fought. It survived the War to End All Wars. It survived the most destructive conflict this planet has ever seen. It survived the Cold War and all its attendant small wars. And now, when faced with box cutters, we decide that our civil liberties are a burden, that the Constitution is a scrap of paper, that our ideals are quaint?

As Cernig noted earlier, FDL has a list of the 15 Senators who voted against cloture and explains the procedural machinations that will make it possible for the remaining turncoats to appear to vote no on the bill when in fact they already endorsed it with this vote. It appears our only hope is for Reid to keep it off the floor and that may be worth pursuing, though unlikely to succeed. Also, for those who want talking points in order to convey the importance of this issue, for whatever it's worth at this point, Avedon has a good post explaining FISA in simple terms.

Ultimately, we've been had by the Democrats again and we're left in a bad place for November. There is no other viable choice but to vote for Obama no matter how badly he disappoints us. The alternatives are simply too horrible to contemplate. It appears he doesn't care and will be pursuing the 50 plus one percent option in trying to woo over the pee-stained pants crowd to gain the White House. That may work for him, but he pursues it at his peril. The young people and progressives who enthusiastically supported him are not so easily fooled and he will lose more of that enthusiasm every time he sells us out to pander to the so-called center. I know he's lost mine. I'll still vote for him but I'm not going to put the energy into promoting him that I would have, had he only shown some real courage here.

However, we can and should make a point of turning our energies to the down ticket races. We need to oust every one of those 80 imbeciles who find political expedience more important than the health of our republic. The only way we're going to get a change we can believe in, is to change who's running the show. If we manage to unseat enough of them, the rest will take us more seriously in the next fight.

FISA fight still on

By Libby

After the abysmal capitulation in the House, it's looking bleak for a victory on FISA but it appears all the noise we've been making will at least stall it for a little longer. Digby reports:

Senator Reid just informed his colleagues on the Senate floor that, because of all the other bills in the queue (like the housing bill, and the Iraq supplemental), FISA may not get a vote until after the July 4 holiday recess.

It may be that it will even be delayed beyond that into August with all the other pressing matters on the calendar. Read the rest of Digby's post to get a list of the ways our privacy is threatened by our complicit Congresslizards.

Meanwhile, my posting has been off on account of a perfect storm of medical problems, so let me recap a couple of related developments I didn't get to in the last couple of days. Glenn has an excellent post about the ongoing deceit coming out of the House in attempting to paint the "compromise" as some kind of victory for oversight. As always, read the whole thing, but here's a couple of key grafs.

Just as Nancy Pelosi ran to Time to justify her support for the FISA bill, Steny Hoyer yesterday spouted his justifications to The Politico and said this:

In an interview with Politico on Monday, Hoyer called the FISA legislation a "significant victory" for the Democratic Party -- one that neutralized an issue Republicans might have been able to use against Democrats in November while still, in his view, protecting the civil liberties of American citizens.

In other words, Democrats achieved a "significant victory" because -- by giving Republicans everything they demanded -- Republicans are no longer able to criticize Democrats on this issue. What a shrewd strategy: "if we comply with all their demands, then they can't criticize us for anything." That's the Democratic Party's plan for winning, according to Hoyer.

Digby again on Steny Hoyer and the Politico's fluffer of a piece they did the other day.

What a guy. Clearly, those who demand that the party should hew closer to the positions that put it in power should be happy to have such a "masterful" leader who will sell out their most cherished principles in order to make a deal with people who would like to turn the US into a police state.

Do read the whole Politico article, which doesn't bother to spend even one paragraph describing why people were opposed to the bill. For that matter it doesn't bother to tell us why the other side was so adamant that it get passed either. The fact that it wasn't some typical congressional agenda item which might naturally be "horse traded" but rather a matter of fundamental constitutional principle isn't worth mentioning. Even the fact that the whole thing stinks to high heaven of financial corruption gets no mention.

Speaking of that financial corruption here's some numbers on telecom contributions to the Congresslizards that rolled over. They average close to $10,000 each in political payola from telecom lobbyists, with Steny Hoyer coming in at $29,000 and Rahm Emanuel clocking $28,000 prior to the sellout.

Jane has the info on who to harrass. You know what to do.

Dems fail on more than FISA

By Libby

With all the attention focused on FISA in the last couple of days, there's a couple of other matters of some import that received short shrift. For one the testimony of Scott McLellan before the House Judiciary Committee. Emptywheel was there and came home underwhelmed. See the post for the quotes but her summation says it all.

Well there you have it--confirmation of two things we've known all along. Rove is a liar, and Cheney an oil-hungry war-monger. At least we accomplished that much.

And I didn't see much about the rubberstamping of the next round of Iraq funding. Here's the list of those who voted no in the House. You might want to respond appropriately.

My guy is on the list so I'll be sending him a thank you note. I feel lucky that I ended up in one of few, if not only districts in NC with a decent House Rep since I made the move here by necessity more than choice. I wish I could say the same for my useless Senators.

I don't remember where I got these links but probably from Avedon who is celebrating her 23rd wedding anniversary with the fabulous Mr. Sideshow. I'm sure I speak for my fellow Newshoggers in wishing them both a hearty congratulations and wishes for just as many more to come, and then some.

World's largest human peace sign

By Libby

They're going to establish the Guinness World record tomorrow for the largest human peace sign at 3:00pm in Ithaca, NY. They're expecting thousands.

The Ithaca Festival, a 30-year tradition celebrating "our community and the creative artist in each of us," has embraced the idea as part of its "I Am Ithaca" theme for 2008. Trevor Dougherty, a sophomore at Ithaca High School, is organizing the event. Dubbed "Ithaca's YouTuber" by the Ithaca Journal last year, he will also aid in the creation and web syndication of a viral video documenting the event. One of his past videos, a video for peace, has received worldwide attention. You can view it here.

Sounds like a fun event and with no official record haven't been recorded, if you live near Ithaca -- you could help set one. I don't live nearby myself, but I like Trevor's work so I'll be looking forward to the YouTube.

[Post <a href="http://www.newshoggers.com/blog/2008/06/gay-pride-and-p.html">updated here</a>.]

Stages of grief over FISA

By Libby [Updated below]

Tell you the truth, I can never remember exactly what the stages of grief are, but having spent the last 24 hours or so sorting through my reaction to Obama's embrace of this very flawed bill, it kind of feels like a bad breakup of a relationship you thought was sound until the moment your partner dropped the bomb on it. It's not even that I didn't half expect it, the signs were certainly there, but I guess I was just hoping for better.

The buzz of course is ongoing and the response has ranged widely. John Cole reminds us that it's not just about the netroots and my man Capt Fogg ponders whether Obama really did show leadership here, just not the kind of leadership opponents of the bill wanted. I have some sympathy for that view. To the extent that I operate outside of the Blogtopian bubble at the Detroit News, where a large portion of the readership is if not low info, at best only mildly informed on many issues, I've found FISA was a hard sell. Telecom immunity is comprehensible to them but the larger issues of surveillance and the constitutional issues involved just didn't alarm them as I thought it should. The Bush regime propaganda mill has rather successfully sold the need for the program and firmly planted the meme that it prevents terrorism somehow. So while it's true that there is no great constituency clamoring for the FISA program, neither is there as large a constituency as we might think clamoring against it.

McJoan thinks Obama's "support of the remainder of the bill is disappointing, but that would be in large part offset if he can help kill immunity." I'm not sure that's enough to offset his embrace of the whole narrative with me. He basically is reinforcing the false meme that this expanded presidential spying power is necessary for national security. It's simply not and it's destructive in a very deep way to our constitutional rights.

However, if we put in the context of where we started in this fight, which was the horrible bill Congress passed last August, and the subsequent tries to slip in reauthorization of that abomination, we succeeded in delaying the inevitable for a very long time. If Obama does step up to at least prevent telecom immunity from passing, then we're better off than we were when we started. At least we preserved an avenue for accountability that could ultimately lead to abolishing the whole sorry expansion of power when, and if, the true extent of the lawbreaking is revealed.

It's not that I'm not angry about how Obama handled this but I think I'm reaching acceptance. As I said many times before, Obama is not going to save us. He's a professional politican, the same as any other. He may profess loftier goals. Heck he may even believe in them, but in the end he's going to play the game by the current rules until he wins control of the board. Whether he will then change the rules remains to be seen but this isn't the first time he's disappointed me and I feel certain it won't be the last.

So the question becomes, what is the appropriate response? I don't think it's fair to expect him to singlehandedly wrest a better bill out of the Congress. In a rare disagreement with Digby, I don't think he's the presumptive leader of the party just yet and despite his high profile, there are hundreds of votes against his one. On the other hand I think criticism is valid and necessary. It was a horrible cave-in and we should press Obama to take a better stance, but I wonder if it won't be more productive to couch that criticism overall as a Democratic party failure rather than focus it too much on solely on Obama.

An approach Glenn Greewald is certainly taking. The first ad against against Steny Hoyer is a good start.

Update: Dan has the list of yes votes in the House. You know what to do.

Much ado about public financing

By Libby

I've been offline for the better part of the last couple of days so I'm just catching up on the news. Most of it is more than a little depressing but I found the shirt rending over the demise of the public financing system of presidential campaigns rather amusing. The NYT practically accused Obama of single handedly murdering the system.

Glaringly missing in the prevailing narrative was any mention of McCain's ongoing and illegal gaming of the system. For those who haven't been following along TPM has a short video explanation about how McCain pulled a fast one, opting in when his campaign was broke, and then allegedly opting out when he didn't need the money. The problem with the latter is the FEC hasn't authorized the opt-out so McCain may well have been breaking the law for months now and the media offers little more than a collective yawn. Guess they're too busy figuring out ways to spin McSame's ongoing gaffes on policy as 'straight talk' instead of pure cluelessness.

The other prevailing talking point is accusing Obama of reneging on 'his promise' to opt in on public financing. McCain's favorite news outlet Politico publishes what they appear to consider some kind of damning timeline that includes the entry: "Obama again vows to “aggressively pursue” a publicly financed campaign." That's a far cry from signing a blood oath that he would take public campaign funds from the system and really, considering his huge success in amassing a war chest derived largely from small donations from ordinary citizens, isn't he actually keeping that pledge? Effectively, Obama is using public finance in its purest form. He just cut out the middleman, in this case being the government. I'm not seeing how that's such a bad thing.

Besides, does anybody believe there's a politician alive that would opt into a system that restricts their spending if they came up with a more successful model of fundraising as Obama has created? It's not like we've seen restricted spending as a result of the govenment backed system. In the 2000 campaign Bush spent $186 million to win his first term in 2000, while Gore spent $120 million and in 2004 Bush spent a total of $306.3 million while Kerry spent $241.7 million. "These figures do not include spending by the political parties or advocacy groups on the presidential election."

Public financing is a good idea that has so far been rather badly executed. Insofar as it establishes limits on deep pocket contributions, it should be continued but it's got a long way to go before it becomes an effective tool in limiting the influence of special interests on our politicians or their campaigns. If Obama is somehow responsible for its demise in its current form, I don't really see it as great cause for mourning, much less condemnation.

'Crap cannon' on tap for Denver

By Libby

So far, it's a just a rumor but activists planning rallies outside the Democratic convention are concerned that a crowd control weapon commonly known as the 'crap cannon', so named for its rumored ability to loosen the bowels, might be deployed by the police against them. That aspect may be overstated but it is clearly a metabolically disruptive weapon intended to affect large groups of people indiscriminately. Certainly a problem as there will surely be children and elderly people in the crowds and anyone just passing by and not involved in the protests would also be affected.

Cohen, who described Brown Note as a “sonic weapon used to disrupt people’s equilibrium,” cited eyewitness accounts of its use during free-trade agreement protests in Miami in 2003.

“I think these weapons were mostly intended for military use and so their use for dealing with innocent protesters seems highly inappropriate,” he said. “The idea that they might be field testing them on people who are doing nothing more than exercising their first amendment rights is disturbing.”

Even more disturbing is the " 'Active Denial System' or 'ADS,' a ray gun used to send high levels of microwave frequencies that cause a burning sensation the skin." This has been under development for some time now and it's also being rumored it will tested in Denver prior to being approved for use in Iraq.

It begins to sound less like crowd control and more like practice for martial law all the time. One can only hope these rumors are unfounded but with a $50 million federal grant for security, half of which the city intends to spend on equipment, they're obviously going to be on the streets with serious firepower. This purchase hardly made a dent in those funds.

Denver police are stocking up on guns that fire a pepper spray-like substance instead of bullets - a less-lethal weapon used to disperse crowds - in advance of the Democratic National Convention. The department recently ordered 88 Mark IV launchers and projectiles at a cost "in the low six figures," the company that makes the weapons stated in a news release Monday.

So what do you suppose they're buying with the rest of that money? The city refuses to tell for 'security reasons.'  Sound familiar?

One wonders why they're anticipating so much mayhem in the first place. I don't know what groups are planning actions, but we've have dozens of demonstrations in the last four years without any large incidents of mass violence. Our law enforcement system is slowly being transformed from a public protection service into a quasi-military control force being used as a weapon against the citzenry. It's not good.

He doesn't speak for me

By Libby

I was wondering if I was the only one who had never even heard of the Media Bloggers Association that is allegedly negotiating with AP on behalf of bloggers. I'm not. Neither had Teresa, but she's done some digging and tells us at considerable length who the heck they are. Apparently it's mostly one guy, Robert Cox, on an ego trip who has somehow convinced the clueless MSM powerbrokers he's a real player. [via]

Congress funds police corruption program

By Libby

Bill Piper of Drug Policy Alliance brings the bad news. Congress has once again funded one of the worst programs in the war on some drugs.

Congress has rubber stamped (yet again) the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant program, a federal law enforcement grant program that is feeding the war on drugs and fueling racial disparities, police corruption, and civil rights abuses. The U.S. House Judiciary Committee voted unanimously today to renew the controversial but politically popular program. The Senate has already voted to renew the program.

The Bryne Grants should rightly be called a corruption slush fund for prohibitionists. Some of the worse law enforcement corruption scandals have arisen out of projects directly funded by this program, the most famous being the Tulia scandal where 16% of the black people in one small Texas community were jailed for drug violations based solely on the bogus testimony of a single informant. They were finally released four years after the fact, when the informant's deceit was finally proven and the wrongly accused received a small settlement.

Piper doesn't give the monetary amount of the new funding but program throws away hundreds of millions annually and the grants are freely distributed with little to no oversight. Further, there is no statistical evidence that they have been effective in reducing the amount of drugs on the street and much evidence that the task forces have contributed greatly to the overcrowding of our jail with non-violent offenders who are mostly people of color.

The money would be far more effectively spent if they abolished this program and for instance funded drug counselors for public schools instead.

The helicopters come back

By Libby

Long time readers know my history with odd helicopter sightings. For those who don't suffice it to say, in the three and a half years I've lived here in NC, I've had a lot of them, ever since I was visited early on by someone I'm sure was a federal agent of some kind.

It's been a while since I last saw one, but they made up for it today with the five helicopters that flew right over my McPartment early this morning. I just went to the nearby convenience store this afternoon and darn if all five didn't pop up over the tree line again. I didn't think too much of it. It being election season, I'm figuring with that many aircraft together they could have been ferrying some candidate around.

The really odd part was that I went straight home within ten minutes. Moments after I arrived, a single helicopter buzzed straight over my deck, and then circled the perihery of the McCompound for a couple of minutes, still within sight of the deck. Then it came in and circled right over my deck -- twice -- before it flew off. Weird.

Again I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation for this, but since I've been logging the sightings right along, it seems worth mentioning.

A meme is born

By Libby

I couldn't resist. John Cole explains. More here. There's even a new blog devoted to it already.

My other contribution to the meme at The Impolitic. Both covers courtesy of speech bubbler.

FISA sellouts under fire

By Libby

Glenn Greenwald has all the details and is updating regularly but I'll give you the condensed version. The Democratic "leadership" in both houses are about to sell us out to the telecoms with a classic cave-in 'compromise' that effectively gives the White House everything they demanded on the FISA bill.

The Democrats think they have us over a barrel. They know we're going to vote for the Democratic ticket. There is no other choice. But they also think this gives them license to pocket all that lovely money the telecoms have been pouring inside the Beltway and deliver some cute kabuki in lieu of keeping their promise to hold this adminstration accountable.

The script to this delightful sellout show calls for much grand rhetoric about having the courts decide, when in fact it will prevent the court from ruling on the legality of the domestic spying program. The major architects of the sellout bill, will first ensure there are enough votes to pass it and then boldly vote against it themselves. They will then tearfully tell us there was nothing they could do and rush backstage into the waiting arms of the telecom lobbyists, who will no doubt be there to deliver their final sums of payola.

Russ Feingold and Chris Dodd have already issued a joint statement vehemently condemning this "compromise" but they're unlikely to muster enough votes to stop it. It will probably pass. The 'leadership' believes they have nothing to lose.

Glenn has other ideas and is already organizing a broad coalition willing to join in to preserve "basic constitutional liberties against the ongoing erosion by the Beltway establishment." They're assembling as you read this. This is the beginning of what will be a long range campaign to save what's left of our civil rights, but the immediate goal is make chief architect of the sellout, Steny Hoyer, and a handful of the enablers pay a heavy price for betraying us. Details will be announced soon but the first thing they need is money.

For the moment, contributions can be made here. All the money raised will be spent exclusively on ad campaigns aimed at the short-term vulnerabilities of those in Congress responsible for delivering this indescribably tyrannical package of surveillance powers to the President and the accompanying corrupt gift to lawbreaking telecoms.

Even if you can't give money, please spread the word.

Some might call it corporate-miltary corruption

By Libby

Some might call it a crime, but at the Pentagon this is called business as usual. An army official, who recently retired, comes forward with an all too common tale of privatized corruption in military contracting. Unsurprisingly, it involves Pentagon fav, KBR -- a former subsidary of Halliburton. We're not talking pocket change here, even by government standards.

Charles M. Smith oversaw the contracts and reveals today he was removed from his position after refusing to pay substantial undocumented charges from the corporate behemoth.

Army auditors had determined that KBR lacked credible data or records for more than $1 billion in spending, so Mr. Smith refused to sign off on the payments to the company. “They had a gigantic amount of costs they couldn’t justify,” he said in an interview. “Ultimately, the money that was going to KBR was money being taken away from the troops, and I wasn’t going to do that.”

But he was suddenly replaced, he said, and his successors — after taking the unusual step of hiring an outside contractor to consider KBR’s claims — approved most of the payments he had tried to block.

The Army says they had no choice but to cave into KBR's extortion.

Army officials denied that Mr. Smith had been removed because of the dispute, but confirmed that they had reversed his decision, arguing that blocking the payments to KBR would have eroded basic services to troops. They said that KBR had warned that if it was not paid, it would reduce payments to subcontractors, which in turn would cut back on services.

Got that? This patriotic supplier on the privatization gravy train was willing to starve the troops in order to get their blackmail money. Hell, I bet even the mafia has higher moral standards than that. But of course, the administration having been burned by this highway robbery will now find a new contractor to deliver the services, won't they? Nope.

While it was previously reported that the Army had held up large payments to the company and then switched course, Mr. Smith has provided a glimpse of what happened inside the Army during the biggest showdown between the government and KBR. He is giving his account just as the Pentagon has recently awarded KBR part of a 10-year, $150 billion contract in Iraq.

Leaving aside the insanity of continuing to subsidize this privatized corruption, I'm wondering just why the Pentagon is entering into ten year contracts on Iraq when it's not at all clear the next president will be willing to stay that long. Either they know something we don't know about those 'non-permanent' bases, or this is one of the most blatant looting of tax dollars in the history of our country. Probably both. I imagine the buyout provisions should the occupation end in less than ten years is more than generous.

Hilzoy has more on the privatization angle.

Nunn-sense

By Libby

By now you've probably heard that Obama released a list of new hires for the national campaign and most notable was Hillary's former campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle, who will be acting as chief of staff for the as yet unnamed VP candidate. I saw a lot of speculation about what it all means in terms of Hillary's chance at being asked to fill that slot on the ticket. I'm in the camp that thinks this hire pretty much rules that out and judging by the reaction from the Clinton loyalists, who are not happy campers, it would appear we're correct in that assessment.

As regular readers know, I didn't think Obama/Clinton would be a good ticket, so I'm not unhappy to see this development. Otherwise, I haven't had strong feelings about it, until I read Chris Bowers post. Chris makes a pretty good case on why he thinks Sam Nunn is now becoming a serious contender. I hope he's wrong. It would be a disaster as Chris sums up well himself.

Putting a 70-year old, white, southern, corporate dude on the ticket would almost entirely wipe away any notion that Obama is a "change" candidate. Sam Nunn is more status quo than David Broder. He is the least "change" candidate one can find.

I find it difficult to believe Obama wouldn't realize that as well, so I'm reserving my panic. I'm betting on Obama ignoring the speculation, along with the billions of bytes of free advice currently clogging the intertubes and naming someone that no one expected.

Nothing matters without verified voting

By Libby

Via Avedon comes a story about a touchscreen voting machine screwup so convoluted I can barely follow the particulars about what happened but the bottom line is the results of this vote are in no way guaranteed to reflect the will of the voters.

There was probably no nefarious attempt at sabotage here. It appears to be simple human error, but that's the point. The machines are operated by humans who are prone to make errors in programming and mistakes in judgment. And this was just a minor local election but the ramifications for November, when it will really matter, can't be overstated.

No system is perfect and someone can always find a way to commit fraud if they're determined but still, we need a tally that the public will have in confidence in as accurately reflecting their votes. I think paper ballots are our best bet, even if they use an optiscan system to tally. At least there's a hard copy to hand count in the event glitches arise.

I'm thinking now would be better than later to push our legislators into decertifying touchscreens altogether and mandating paper balloting for everyone. Having a publicly accepted vote is more important than a instant tally. Besides, the only people who really care about instant results are political junkies and the media.

The real legacy of liberation

By Libby

I've always thought the most dangerously ignored issue in any military conflict our country has engaged in has been the toxic weaponry that modern technology provided to more efficiently kill 'our enemies.' In Vietnam, it was Agent Orange, whose effects are still being felt in that country today. In contemporary military operations, we have even deadlier weapons of mass destruction at our disposal and as always, the toxins don't discriminate between the innocent and those who truly wish to do us harm.

FALLUJAH, Jun 12 (IPS) - Babies born in Fallujah are showing illnesses and deformities on a scale never seen before, doctors and residents say. The new cases, and the number of deaths among children, have risen after "special weaponry" was used in the two massive bombing campaigns in Fallujah in 2004.

After denying it at first, the Pentagon admitted in November 2005 that white phosphorous, a restricted incendiary weapon, was used a year earlier in Fallujah. In addition, depleted uranium (DU) munitions, which contain low-level radioactive waste, were used heavily in Fallujah. The Pentagon admits to having used 1,200 tonnes of DU in Iraq thus far. [...]

"Many babies were born with major congenital malformations," a paediatric doctor, speaking on condition of anonymity, told IPS. "These infants include many with heart defects, cleft lip or palate, Down's syndrome, and limb defects."

The doctor added, "I can say all kinds of problems related to toxic pollution took place in Fallujah after the November 2004 massacre."

The evidence is all anecdotal since no studies have been conducted and medical records aren't allowed to be released but the numbers suggest this not mere conjecture. Even worse, the weapons don't exempt our own troops from the toxic fallout.

Many doctors believe DU to be the cause of a severe increase in the incidence of cancer in Iraq, as well as among U.S. veterans who served in the 1991 Gulf War and through the current occupation.

Again, there have been few studies and the Pentagon has done its best to suppress and deny what evidence exists that our own troops pay this long range cost that is not visible to the naked eye. But again, the anecdotal evidence is strong.

For myself, I've known veterans of both Vietnam and the first Gulf War, both as friends and as patrons of the VFW where I tended bar for two years. I watched many of them deteriorate before my eyes and attended far too many funerals of once robust men who died untimely deaths from mysterious maladies beyond the drug and alcohol abuse fueled by PTSD.

It's a sorry legacy and when we tally up the cost of war, it seems to me to be very wrong not to include these souls among the war dead, even though they died far from the battlefields and long after the fighting was over.

Internet in danger

By Libby

Internet neutrality is one of those unsexy issues that I've found difficult to interest people in, mainly because they don't seem understand what's at stake when you allow the corporations to set up virtual toll booths on the information highway. I did a long series of posts on it at least a year ago at the Detroit News and encountered a surprising lack of concern, along with active resistance to requiring neutrality by regulation. Our relentless researcher Kat, sends me this link today that perhaps will make the importance of neutrality more apparent to the naysayers.

Some people use the Internet simply to check e-mail and look up phone numbers. Others are online all day, downloading big video and music files.

For years, both kinds of Web surfers have paid the same price for access. But now three of the country’s largest Internet service providers are threatening to clamp down on their most active subscribers by placing monthly limits on their online activity.

Time Warner has already set up a test metering system in one Texas city as a dry run for the concept. Comcast and AT&T are poised to follow in their footsteps.

In that trial, new customers can buy plans with a 5-gigabyte cap, a 20-gigabyte cap or a 40-gigabyte cap. Prices for those plans range from $30 to $50. Above the cap, customers pay $1 a gigabyte. Plans with higher caps come with faster service.

The corporations say average users won't be affected but they define average as someone who "merely send e-mail messages, check movie times and read the news." The stats on what they consider bandwidth hogging are more telling.

Streaming an hour of video on Hulu, which shows programs like “Saturday Night Live,” “Family Guy” and “The Daily Show With Jon Stewart,” consumes about 200 megabytes, or one-fifth of a gigabyte. A higher-quality hour of the same content bought through Apple’s iTunes store can use about 500 megabytes, or half a gigabyte.

A high-definition episode of “Survivor” on CBS.com can use up to a gigabyte, and a DVD-quality movie through Netflix’s new online service can eat up about five gigabytes. One Netflix download alone, in fact, could bring a user to the limit on the cheapest plan in Time Warner’s trial in Beaumont.

Even services like Skype and Vonage that use the Internet to transmit phone calls could help put users over the monthly limits.

Maybe I just travel in different circles than Comcast's average user, but what they call hoggers looks more like average use to me. I'd say this is another bait and switch; like when they promised cable rates would drop if we allowed media consolidation in the first place. Of course, the telecoms deny any nefarious intent.

But the companies imposing the caps say that their actions are only fair. People who use more network capacity should pay more, Time Warner argues. And Comcast says that people who use too much — like those who engage in file-sharing — should be forced to slow down.

Time Warner also frames the issue in financial terms: the broadband infrastructure needs to be improved, it says, and maybe metering could pay for the upgrades.

I love that qualifier maybe. It leaves them free to raise the rates also. And one wonders why they can't pay for their own damn upgrades. Time Warner's fourth quarter profits in 2007 were $1.03bn, while their overall revenue rose by 2% to $12.64bn. In 2004 doubled profits in one quarter. Did they invest any of those profits in necessary upgrades? Why no. Last August, they spent $5 billion buying back their own shares.

We're only talking about a tiered system for usage here, but it's a small step from there to censoring content, which has already happened in numerous instances where critical remarks about Bush have been edited out of live performances. Neither is it a great leap to imagine them eventually charging according to what sites you want to frequent which would seem to be a handy way to track where you go as well, without the bother of breaking the law on datamining.

Clearly, if we don't ensure neutrality by statute, we risk losing what makes the internets so valuable and powerful a tool for citizen activism. Without neutrality we lose the freedom to communicate freely outside of the dictates of the corporate gatekeepers. If we wait until it's lost, it will be too late. See Save the Internet for much more information and how you can help save our last remaining vestige of truly free mass expression.

One vote away from constitutional chaos

By Libby

A great post by JB at Balkinization on the failure of movement conservatism's constitutional revolution. He lays out the legal angles of their plan beautifully.

Following the 9/11 attacks, George W. Bush and his supporters proposed a significant chance in constitutional norms, centered around increased presidential power to fight the war on terror. This vision included (1) a doctrine of preemptive war, (2) new surveillance techniques, including domestic surveillance, (3) a new system of preventive detention, including detention of american citizens without access to courts, (4) the creation of legal black holes like Guantanamo Bay and CIA black sites, (5) use of torture and torture-lite to obtain information, (6) enhanced secrecy and classification policies, and (7) a version of unitary executive theory that claimed that Congress could not constitutionally limit the President when he claimed to act under his powers as Commander-in-Chief. The last idea was also articulated in (8) the expansion of the use of constitutional signing statements, in which the President would state that he would disregard certain features of laws passed by Congress without telling the public any details about the scope or extent of his non-enforcement.

I never understood why more people weren't horrified enough to complain about that last one. It strikes at the heart of the whole system of checks and balances. And I agree that it's going to be a helluva mess to clean up.

Read JB's whole post to see how close we came to seeing it succeed. It still could. We're one SCOTUS vote away from destroying centuries' worth of precedents and progress. At the end of the day, nothing matters more to me than making sure it's not McCain who gets to pick the next justices. It would be a constitutional disaster.

Update: Thanks to Geoff for the link to another must read post on the subject by Scott Horton. The importance of preventing another round of GOP appointed justices really can't be over-emphasized.