Fables of the reconstruction

If You Meet Me on the Road, Kill Me

It was a weird day.

This afternoon I'm riding on the 42 bus out Walnut Street to A.'s house to borrow their car. I'm talking on the phone to my ex from college, S., when a bicyclist riding next to the bus is run down by the car behind him. I watch the whole thing happen, right outside my window. It looked like the car ate the bicycle's back wheel, folded it up and gulped it into its mouth, located under the hood. Then the rider fell as the bike seemed to collapse under him, and he disappeared under the front of the car, too. I was going, "Holy shit, holy shit, holy shit," over and over. I thought I had just watched someone die. Others on the bus were yelling, too, and the driver stopped. We looked back, and the guy was sitting up on the ground, seemingly shaken up but okay.

Finishing my conversation with S., who is studying Buddhism, she was making a point about not being very accomplished at it yet.

"I'm not the buddha," she said.

"Hmmm," I said, "If you're the buddha ..."

"If you're buddhist ... and you know it ..."

"If you're buddhist and you know it, clap your hands." She laughed. Pause. "No," I said, "if you're buddhist and you know it, clap one hand."

She laughed for five minutes.

Low-Hanging Fruit

Ezra Klein of Not Geniuses says in this post that criticizing the selectively-applied "humanitarian" rationalization for the Iraq war "fall[s] deeply into one of those 'the perfect is the enemy of the good' pits...." He uses as a starting point this post from Demosthenes, which asked "if we're attacking countries that brutalize their people, invade other countries, have WMDs and are big regional threats, then shouldn't the U.S. be invading China right now?" Ezra replies using a hypothetical of a passerby intervening in a street mugging - when there is a good chance the intervention will help - and choosing not to intervene in an armed robbery - when there is a good chance intervention won't help and the passerby will get killed in the bargain. From this, Ezra concludes that not intervening in China doesn't cast the Iraq war in a morally dubious light.

From one perspective, Ezra is right. Someone who, in good faith, thought it important to liberate the Iraqi people from Saddam's rule might come to the conclusion that an invasion was justified. (I'll leave aside for the moment that the U.S. doesn't seem to have a clue about how to prevent either someone worse from taking over or for chaos to reign. From an intention standpoint, that's irrelevant.)

In reality, though, the people who initiated this war never acted in good faith. They used the humanitarian rationale selectively, in order to disguise their own ends (and after the WMD rationale turned out to be wholly unsupported by the facts.) This is akin to intervening in one street mugging because you expect the victim to give you a reward and refusing to intervene in another because you expect no such benefit to yourself. That's not morally right, it's amoral hypocrisy.

Liberators

Marine Lieutenant Colonel James B. Seaton III in the liberal Washington Post tells a heartwarmingbreaking tale of American compassion toward the Iraqis:

"Approaching a shot-up car in the opposite lane, we looked beyond an obviously dead man to a second body. My driver thought he saw movement so we stopped and got out. It was a boy of 5 or 6. His eyes were closed and he was dead or dying. I bent over, gently cupping his left cheek and chin with my right hand. ... He was alive. [M]y heart ached at what I was about to do.

Looking at this helpless boy and thinking of my own children, I slowly stood up, leaving my hand on his face until my arm was completely extended and I had to let go in order to fully stand. ...

A short time later a voice came over one of the radios informing me that my surgeon and corpsmen picked up the boy and loaded him in our ambulance. He went north with us. ... Later my surgeon told me that they were unable to save him. ...

The young sailors could not just walk away from this child -- as I had earlier. They could not leave him lying out in the open, alone, for the second time that day. So they buried him. ...

A few days later, I found out and was angry. ... Would his mother ever know? Would she ever find him? How could she -- miles from where he fell beside another man -- his father, perhaps -- tenderly buried in an unmarked grave smaller than the rest."

Let's be clear here. What Seaton doesn't mention is that American forces - perhaps the infantry the artilleryman Seaton was traveling with - most likely killed the boy and his father, who were unarmed civilians. That Seaton touched the boy's face tenderly as he lay dying is nice. That our medical personnel tried to save him is nice. Americans still killed him. Will his mother ever know that? Let's not break our arms patting ourselves on the back for our compassion.

An honest ending paragraph to this story would have been: We're at war, and anything or anyone that gets in our way has to take the consequences. If civilians get killed, tough shit. They should have picked a better country to be born in. As it is, I bet the Post will print a batch of letters talking about how this is an example of what Iraqis love about us.

Diagnosing Deviance

This message is reprinted with the permission of Dr. Peggy Kleinplatz:

Earlier this summer, Dr. Charles Moser and I discovered that a paper we had written entitled "DSM-IV-TR and the Paraphilias: An Argument for Removal" was being attacked by the right. It had been presented by Charles on May 19 at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychiatric Association. Carefully selected parts of that presentation were released without our authorization and out of context. These excerpts and the accompanying commentaries misrepresented us widely, to suggest erroneously that we were in favour of child sexual abuse.

It has been a long summer, as we have attempted to combat these absurd attacks. The publication of the updated article is forthcoming in the Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality. In the interim, those
interested can download a copy of the paper as presented in May from http://home.netcom.com/~docx2/mk.html.

The abstract (summary) is as follows:

Abstract

The DSM-IV-TR (2000) sets its own standards for inclusion of diagnoses and for changes in its text. The Paraphilia section is analyzed from the perspective of how well the DSM meets those standards. The concept of Paraphilias as psychopathology was analyzed and assessed critically to determine if it meets the definition of a mental disorder presented in the DSM; it does not. The Paraphilia diagnostic category was critiqued for logic, consistency, clarity, and whether it constitutes a distinct mental disorder. The DSM presents "facts" to substantiate various points made in the text. The veracity of these "facts" was scrutinized. Little evidence was found in their support. Problems with the tradition of equating particular sexual interests with psychopathology were highlighted. It was concluded that the Paraphilia section is so severely flawed that its removal from the DSM is advocated.

Thanks to all who have been supportive of us during this ordeal.

Sincerely,

Peggy J. Kleinplatz, Ph.D.
Charles Moser, Ph.D., M.D.

Kelly's Pretty Bird

I have absolutely no interest in this page at all; well, except maybe for this:

But it shows me that the internet is certainly not having detrimental effect on the weirdness quotient in American culture. In fact, perhaps the opposite:

"*~*Hi! You're in the world of the dirty $outh playettes~ haha! That would be me & my 'twin' sister Candi ;) No, obviously we're not twins (keepin it real yall) but so many people ask us that and we get a kick out of it so...Anyway my name's *Kelly* & I live in South Carolina. I'm the happy owner of a metallic teal '94 Firebird Formula V8 with ttops. I've owned her for 2 yrs, she's an automatic but I prefer stick. ..."

Defeat the Terrorists by Throwing Bush Out

Michael J. Totten very cutely revives the "objectively pro-Saddam" theme in his post Terrorism and Activism. I have to hand it to the right-wingers - they sure are tenacious with their stupid ideas.

The whole world has turned upside down since 9/11. Now we have conservatives who claim that America needs to take military action for humanitarian reasons. The poor Iraqi people! they exclaim. If we didn't invade, they would still be suffering and dying under Saddam's rule. We have nothing but their interests in mind.

What complete, utter horseshit. The right wing of the West couldn't care less about individuals living in a third-world country. They can barely rouse any interest, much less caring, about people in their own countries. We're supposed to believe they're filled with compassion for the victims of a middle-east tyrant? What a total rationalization. What conservatives are motivated by is fear. Here in America, they fear racial minorities, so they focus on putting them in jail or keeping them poor and stupid through religion and bad schools. Internationally, they fear some terrorist taking away their oil fields. So they feign concern for the people of, say, Iraq. Here, let us help you with that nasty dictator, they say. We'll send our nice men and women of the U.S. marines to liberate you!

9/11 provided a convenient excuse for the powerful to use the resources of the United States to secure their interests. Their strategy is not designed to reduce terrorism - it is designed to maintain control over the resources of the Middle East. In fact, they would like terrorism to remain a threat, because it keeps the public in line and firmly behind their newly-interventionist policy.

Going to war without just cause is terrorism, too. George W. Bush lied to the American people and, as a result, the United States of America invaded Iraq without a good reason. As a result, untold thousands of people died. A dictator was deposed in the process, too, but it is not clear that the new bosses in Iraq will turn out to be much - or any - better than the old bosses. In a just world, Bush and Cheney would be on trial for crimes against peace.

In the meantime, the terrorists who killed 3,000 Americans are still at large. We've alienated most of the world's population. Radicalized religious fanatics flock to the message of hate. The only response offered is to kill more and more - when the enemy are people who would gladly die for their cause.

Totten concludes his post: "Your domestic political opponents are not your enemies. Hamstringing America and defeating the Republican Party is not more important than defeating terrorism." Defeating George Bush and the Republican Party is the only way we're ever going to have an international strategy that will defeat terrorism. One is the prerequisite to the other.

I Am So Smart My Head Hurts

Via TBogg, this from Jeff Danziger:

I wonder how those absentee ballots are going to go this election cycle?

John Ashcroft, Political Liability

Via TalkLeft, this story from yesterday's Washington Post:

"New Harris Poll numbers released this week also show Ashcroft's overall popularity slipping below 50 percent for the first time this year, while the percentage of those who disapprove of his performance has climbed to nearly 40 percent.

....Ashcroft has drawn the left's ire for the reach of the government's war on terrorism; for overruling local prosecutors in death penalty cases; for altering the government's decades-old interpretation of the Second Amendment's right to bear arms; and for overseeing continued raids on facilities that provide marijuana for medical purposes. Now some conservatives, concerned that the war on terrorism has eroded civil liberties, are joining the criticism of Ashcroft's policies for the first time."

I've said before that Ashcroft is mounting this campaign because he's becoming a political liability for Bush. The Post says this:

"Yet it is still unclear whether bashing Ashcroft will be a political winner in 2004. As Ashcroft and his aides point out, most Americans and lawmakers supported the Patriot Act when it was approved in October 2001, and few voters mention it as a top concern when questioned by pollsters. [Gephardt, Kerry, Edwards and Lieberman all voted for the act.] Ashcroft and the White House point to a July 31 Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll showing that 91 percent of registered voters said the act had not affected their civil liberties, while 56 percent said the law is good for the country. Moreover, the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks appear to have changed U.S. attitudes over how much latitude the federal government needs and should be given to fight terrorism, pollsters from both parties said."

This misses a few key points, I think. The anti-Ashcroft campaign is working because people want to hang onto their own rights, not protect terrorists. Without being able to articulate it, I think, the public instinctively believes in the concepts of probable cause and due process. They mistrust how much Ashcroft is relying on fishing expeditions like the ill-fated Total Information Awareness program. Secondly, Howard Dean (and Wesley Clark, if he runs) both have the advantage of not being elected to federal office, so they're not on record as having supported PATRIOT like the others. This will actually drive Democratic base voters to Dean (and/or Clark) and make the anti-Ashcroft position more mainstream.

I volunteer to craft the Dean campaign messages about Ashcroft. It's so fun and easy.

Update: Howard Altman at the Philadelphia City Paper notes that he, and all other print reporters, were banned from interviewing Ashcroft when he gave his speech at the National Constitution Center:

"[The] Secret Service agent ... orders me escorted away from the scene. And this in the only museum dedicated to our national principles. In the city where an irascible weekly newspaper editor helped create a nation with his press. ... [M]ore than anything he said in his brief speech to hundreds of law-enforcement personnel[,] Ashcroft's print ban speaks volumes as he tries to get the country to swallow his load of bile. ...

I will probably never know if anyone at the Justice Department thinks it wrong to bar a journalist from talking to the AG at the National Constitution Center, because my requests for comment went unanswered. Which figures. The Patriot Act allows the feds to listen into calls. It doesn't say anything about returning them."

(Link via This Modern World.)

Media Bias for Fun and Profit

Kevin Drum today:

"Besides, liberal bias is the least of the problems in our major media. Al Franken put it pretty well yesterday:

'There are so many other biases in all the mainstream media: pack mentality. Sensationalism. Sex. Conflict. Getting it cheap. Getting it first instead of getting it right.' To ask whether the establishment press has a liberal bias 'is like asking whether al Qaeda uses too much oil in their hummus.'

This is exactly right. What reporters really want is their byline on the front page above the fold. Everything else is secondary."

Actually, sensationalism is a reactionary conservative need. That's why media of all types - television, print news, magazine, and movies (above all) - reinforce and cater to conservative beliefs. Without those beliefs in place and circulating in the audience's emotional bloodstream, the "shock" of the story, scandal, hook, or plot revelation doesn't work. Repeated exposure to to these ideas results in them becoming the unexamined norm.

What Does a Neoconservative Dream World Look Like?

From the "No Satire Required" Department, the Christian Science Monitor explains:

"What does a neoconservative dream world look like?

Neocons envision a world in which the United States is the unchallenged superpower, immune to threats. They believe that the US has a responsibility to act as a 'benevolent global hegemon.' In this capacity, the US would maintain an empire of sorts by helping to create democratic, economically liberal governments in place of 'failed states' or oppressive regimes they deem threatening to the US or its interests. In the neocon dream world the entire Middle East would be democratized in the belief that this would eliminate a prime breeding ground for terrorists. This approach, they claim, is not only best for the US; it is best for the world. In their view, the world can only achieve peace through strong US leadership backed with credible force, not weak treaties to be disrespected by tyrants.

Any regime that is outwardly hostile to the US and could pose a threat would be confronted aggressively, not 'appeased' or merely contained. The US military would be reconfigured around the world to allow for greater flexibility and quicker deployment to hot spots in the Middle East, as well as Central and Southeast Asia. The US would spend more on defense, particularly for high-tech, precision weaponry that could be used in preemptive strikes. It would work through multilateral institutions such as the United Nations when possible, but must never be constrained from acting in its best interests whenever necessary." (Emphasis supplied.)

(Link via the indispensible Barney Gumble of MWOW^4.)

"There Is No Issue of Credibility Here"

The Associated Press today:

"The United States is no global bully, and disagreement between President Bush and U.S. allies doesn't mean their opinions aren't valued, his top foreign policy adviser says. 'We need allies and need them badly,' national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said in a July 31 interview with ZDF German television. The White House released a transcript of the interview Thursday in Crawford, Texas, where the president has been vacationing. ... Rice said differences of opinion are bound to happen, and that too much should not be read into them when they occur. 'Occasionally, we'll have differences,' she said in the interview. 'But that does not mean that the United States does not value its allies, does not value the opinions of its allies. And it, most especially, does not mean that we don't need allies.'"

From CNN, Novermber 10, 2002:

"'The U.N. can meet and discuss, but we don't need their permission' before taking military action, [White House Chief of Staff Andrew] Card told NBC's 'Meet the Press.'" (Emphasis added.)

From the AP story today:

"'[T]hat Iraq was a threat, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that Iraq had used those weapons of mass destruction on its neighbors and its own people, that Iraq had ambitions in the volatile region of the Middle East and was therefore a danger to international security, these were shared premises of the entire international community,' she said. Rice said there was strong evidence and intelligence in the run-up to the war that Saddam had biological and chemical weapons and could have had a nuclear weapon by the end of the decade. Since then, troops in Iraq have uncovered 'miles of documents' that will help lead to the discovery of Iraqi weapons, she said. 'I have no doubt that that picture will confirm that this was a regime that was a grave threat to international peace and security because of its intent on having the world's worst weapons,' Rice said." (Emphasis added.)

From the October 10, 2002, Times of India:

"A senior aide to Russian President Vladimir Putin has said on the eve of a visit to Moscow by British Prime Minister Tony Blair that so far the international community 'has seen no evidence' that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, The Times daily reported on Thursday." (Emphasis added.)

From today's AP article:

'The case against Iraq was not just an issue of American intelligence," Rice said. 'It was an issue, also, of intelligence services around the world — of U.N. reports that there were large quantities of missing chemical and biological agents, of defectors, including Saddam Hussein's own brother-in-laws, who had left the country and revealed major weapons programs. No, there is no issue of credibility here.'" (Emphasis added.)

From Bloomberg News, via Common Dreams:

"A U.S. Defense Department report in September 2002 found 'no reliable information' proving that Iraq had chemical weapons, even as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was saying the country had amassed stockpiles of the banned arms. 'There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or whether Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities,' a report by the Defense Intelligence Agency said in a summary page obtained by Bloomberg News."

Emphasis added.

Update: Welcome to my reader(s) from Nipr.mil who accessed this post! What would us paranoid types do without all that DARPA funding floating around, huh? Please e-mail me if I fit a profile. Thanks.

Flood the Zone Friday

Not Geniuses: Flood the Zone Friday: Unstable Stewardship

Britney and Madonna and Karl French Freedom Kiss

Via Atrios, a welcome media distraction for the Cheney/Rove gang:

But, what will this do to the argument over same-sex marriage?

Four Moms

Gaily Sheehy, in the New York Observer: "'I can’t look at these timelines anymore,' Lorie confessed to Kristen. 'When you pull it apart, it just doesn’t reconcile with the official storyline.' She hunched down in her husband’s swivel chair and began to tremble, thinking, There’s no way this could be. Somebody is not telling us the whole story." (Via Bad Attitudes Journal.) (Emphasis added.)

Bush/Cheney 2004 Campaign News

Demosthenes at Shadow of the Hegemon has the scoop. The unofficial campaign theme of Bush/Cheney 2004 is "Vote for me or die screaming."

Next Dean Meetup Wednesday September 3

Al Franken's Fans

Chapter 17 of Al Franken's 1996 book, Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot, in its entirety:

I Get Letters

The last time I appeared on C-SPAN I did a call-in show during which I talked about Saturday Night Live and political humor for about a half hour. A few days later, I received this letter:

To the Jew Franken:

I saw you on C-SPAN, and I always knew you were a fag Jew. You fucking faggot. I know you spend all your faggot time on your hands and knees getting fucked in the ass by fellow Jew faggot Barney Frank while you suck off that faggot Gerry Studds.

And I thought to myself, "He could tell all this from one little interview?"

The rest of the book is just as funny.

Equal Time for Democratic Thugs

I bash Republicans for being unprincipled, greedy, amoral, ignorant thugs who don't know how to dress. But let's face it: some Democrats are pretty thuggish themselves. A perfect example is Mayor John Street of Philadelphia and the people around him.

I have to admit up front that I don't like Street personally. He's a little bantam rooster of a man who defining characteristic is arrogance. His son, Sharif, is a lawyer who works at a local law firm and, by reputation, does absolutely nothing to deserve his six-digit salary there. I guess he learned from his dad that political patronage means never having to work.

Street himself has a history of pulling no punches. Literally. When he was President of Philadelphia City Council, he once tried to punch out another Council member during a public meeting. This being Philadelphia, that incident was a plus when he ran for Mayor. During his first campaign, his workers were accused of tearing down the signs of his Republican opponent, Sam Katz. When Katz campaign workers confronted them, they were threatened.

As reported in today's Inky, things are getting ugly again this election, and again it's Street's people who are accused. Again Sam Katz is running against Street, and this time, the Republican is actually trying to make an effort to reach into black neighborhoods rather than rely on the white quasi-racist Northeast blue-collar Philadelphia/ white quasi-racist center city professional vote, like he did last time. So he has an office in north Philly, among other black neighborhoods, and the owner of the building that houses his office there has been getting threats. Yesterday afternoon, the landlord called police and said a Street supporter - a city worker who is also the head of the prison committee of the local NAACP chapter - had been "threatening, harassing, stating that he's going to blow up that building, telling him he's going to hurt him." A couple of hours later, he was accosted by Sharif Street and another man, known as "Tu-tu," who told him, "We're going to take you out." Then last night, someone threw a bottle containing a flammable substance through the office window. It didn't ignite, and apparently was not lit to begin with. However, the building manager didn't think it was a big deal and threw the bottle away.

What to think? Street's people could have been giving the landlord a warning that his building was at risk. Katz's people (or the landlord) could have been seeking some kind of advantage by tossing the bottle and making Street look bad. Or there never was a bottle in the first place. Street's campaign suggested the whole thing was a hoax perpetrated by Katz. I'm ready to believe any of it. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather chew my arm off than pull the lever for a Republican right now. But John Street makes it very, very tempting.

Light Blogging Today

I actually have work to do for a client today. Imagine. Tomorrow, I hope to write about the American Medical Association's report on national health insurance.

Still Number One!

Live From Baghdad

Via Where We're Bound, this from River:

For me, April 9 was a blur of faces distorted with fear, horror and tears. All over Baghdad you could hear shelling, explosions, clashes, fighter planes, the dreaded Apaches and the horrifying tanks heaving down streets and highways. Whether you loved Saddam or hated him, Baghdad tore you to pieces. Baghdad was burning. Baghdad was exploding... Baghdad was falling. April 9 is the American Occupation Day.

When the last American troop pulls out of Baghdad, leaving either the U.N. or Iraqis to clean up the mess, ordinary citizens will line the streets and scream at them, maybe throw some rocks. Not because the Americans deserve it. Not because Saddam was a good guy and they miss him. Not because everything America does is wrong. But because our troops are the ones who invaded, and you always want to kick out the invader. Always.

139 Dead Soldiers in 117 Days

From the AP: "The toll of U.S. troops killed in postwar Iraq surpassed the number killed in major combat on Tuesday, reaching 139 with the death of a soldier in a roadside bombing." Now 277 families have lost sons and daughters to a war we were lied into.

This neglects the reported 6,113 Iraqi civilian deaths and 20,000 injured so far, and the 2,320 Iraqi military personnel killed in the war around Baghdad alone.

Iraq's population is 24,683,313. In terms of civilian casualties alone, the equivalent would be if someone were to invade the United States, and kill 71,905 people and injure 235,254 because they didn't like George W. Bush. No wonder they love us so much.

Fox Surrenders to Al Franken, But First This Whine

Well, the suits at Fox showed more intelligence than I suspected. I thought they would continue the lawsuit against Al Franken, but today they dropped it. Not without a parting shot at Franken, though: "'It's time to return Al Franken to the obscurity that he's normally accustomed to,' Fox News spokeswoman Irena Steffen said."

So classy. They could have salvaged something from this by showing some humor, as Franken has. He implied that he was a "bad satirist" the other day. Instead, they showed what small, bitter, vicious people conservatives are. I guess when your news channel is "without merit, both factually and legally", you can't really admit, can you?

By the way, the book is still number 1!

Thought for the Day

Via MWOW^4:

"Conservatives love their country the way a four year old girl loves her mommy. She's the greatest person in the world. Nobody's smarter. And you can't say anything mean about her or she'll throw a fit and hate you. Where as, Liberals love their country as adults. We can see our nation's faults, yet we still love her. We do what we can to fix them and learn to live with the ones we can't."

What Have We Done?

The blog Baghdad Burning is getting a very wide audience, as it should. Riverbend's writing is harrowingly good. She is a 24 year old woman and tech geek in Baghdad who spent a lot of time abroad as a kid and writes in English extremely well. And what she has to say is incredibly damning about the invasion.

In this post, she talks about a visit to her former employer on the chance that she can get her old job, which she loved, back. But then things turn very sour:

"We paused on the second floor and stopped to talk to one of the former department directors. I asked him when they thought things would be functioning, he wouldn’t look at me. His eyes stayed glued to A.’s face as he told him that females weren’t welcome right now- especially females who ‘couldn’t be protected’. He finally turned to me and told me, in so many words, to go home because ‘they’ refused to be responsible for what might happen to me.

Ok. Fine. Your loss. I turned my back, walked down the stairs and went to find E. and my cousin. Suddenly, the faces didn’t look strange- they were the same faces of before, mostly, but there was a hostility I couldn’t believe. What was I doing here? E. and the cousin were looking grim, I must have been looking broken, because they rushed me out of the first place I had ever worked and to the car. I cried bitterly all the way home- cried for my job, cried for my future and cried for the torn streets, damaged buildings and crumbling people.

I’m one of the lucky ones… I’m not important. I’m not vital. Over a month ago, a prominent electrical engineer (one of the smartest females in the country) named Henna Aziz was assassinated in front of her family- two daughters and her husband. She was threatened by some fundamentalists from Badir’s Army and told to stay at home because she was a woman, she shouldn’t be in charge. She refused- the country needed her expertise to get things functioning- she was brilliant. She would not and could not stay at home. They came to her house one evening: men with machine-guns, broke in and opened fire. She lost her life- she wasn’t the first, she won’t be the last."

Holy shit. This is just so heartbreaking and pointless. If the intelligent, competent people who like the West are being marginalized or murdered by the thugs now jockeying for power, then we are well and truly fucked. And it's one thing to get lied into a war by a bunch of psychotic businessmen; it's another to have that war precipitate the greater repression of a society that we ostensibly liberated.

Heather Mac Donald Wants Me to Spank Her

In today's "liberal" Washington Post, an op-ed entitled In Defense Of the Patriot Act from former liberal Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute:

"It is inconceivable that the court that oversees espionage and counterterrorism investigations will approve a records request made because the FBI doesn't 'like the books' someone reads, or 'because she wrote a letter to the editor that criticized government policy,' as the ACLU claims.

The ACLU also argues that Section 215 violates the Fourth Amendment right to privacy. But like it or not, once you've disclosed information to someone else, the Constitution no longer protects it. This diffuse-it-and-lose-it rule applies to library borrowing and Web surfing as well, however much librarians may claim otherwise. By publicly borrowing library books, patrons forfeit any constitutional protections they may have had in their reading habits.

Another ACLU attack on 215 uses the tactic of ignoring legal precedent. Grand juries investigating a crime have always been able to subpoena the very items covered by 215 -- including library records and Internet logs -- without seeking a warrant or indeed any judicial approval at all. Section 215 merely gives anti-terror investigators the same access to such records as criminal grand juries, with the added protection of judicial oversight."

(Emphasis added.)

All of this obviously cries out for rebuttal, but today is too nice to stay inside blogging. I'll be a picnic with hundreds of my kinky friends all afternoon. You should be doing something equally fun, too.

Update 8/26/03: Added "former liberal" link.

Hiring Saddam's Secret Police

Over at Whiskey Bar, Billmon objects to the U.S. hiring of former Iraqi intelligence agents on the grounds that it may be ineffective and could be counter-productive. "[W]e still don't know for sure if Al Qaeda is behind the recent bombings, or whether the blame should more properly be directed at the very unemployed security thugs the coalition now proposes to rehire. ... [E]ven if some kind of workable security service can patched together from the remains of Saddam's Mukhabaret, it's likely to be thoroughly penetrated almost instantly by agents still working for the old, not the new, boss." Atrios picks up on the objection (link bloggered, scroll to "Mukhabaret's Back"). Commenters have focused on the moral problems in hiring such thugs.

Although I appreciate the moral objection to hiring Saddam's secret policemen, as a policy objection, I think it lacks seriousness. Of course we need to hire them. They're the ones who have been running the intelligence services inside Iraq for the past 30 years. {sarcasm} Contrary to popular belief, the CIA is not infallible and can't just walk in and start running a spy network. {/sarcasm} The U.S. needs such a network in order to protect itself and to have any chance whatsoever of running the country. The moral necessity of having such a spy agency outweighs the distastefulness of hiring thugs.

The U.S. (and others) have done this countless times in other places. The key to doing it successfully is to vet the people you hire so you make sure you're not actually hiring someone else's agent. Presumably, this is being done, and the investigation into whether the terror attack on the U.N. compound is an "inside job" is just the usual post-mortem that you need to do to make sure you haven't missed anything. Both Billmon and Atrios imply that CIA has not been doing a good job of that vetting, but have no evidence for that proposition other than that (1) there was a successful attack and (2) the Iraqis working for the U.N. are being investigated.

Personally, I find it unlikely that the truck bombing is the result of a group of Iraqi double agents working inside the compound. I think it far more likely that the Western civilian U.N. employees themselves have no sense of security, and talked freely of where people's offices are, what the schedule is, where meetings are held, etc. Little pieces of information like that combined with data gathered by agents posing as delivery people and other outside visitors probably was the basis for this attack.

Besides enjoying black & white photographs of half-naked women, I like the innocent quality of "girlie" porn. It has a goofiness that is difficult to find today. It allows for the personality of the participants to come through. Look at the face of the dark-haired women on the right. Maybe I am reading too much into it, but I see her hesitancy to be photographed topless, her ambition to be a model, and the expression of an awkward sexuality. She's someone who possesses something that many people want to control, which gives her a certain power and sense of self-worth, but she's not sure how exactly to deal with it.

"We Prayed to Be Nothing"

Jeffrey Sharlet has had an article in this month's March's Harper's about the organization, known to the initiated as The Family, which holds the annual National Prayer Breakfast. A long list of politicians and other powerful men are members of The Family; some have been inmates of the organization's house in Arlington, Virginia, called Ivanwald. The place is run like a cult:

"We prayed to be 'nothing.' We were there to 'soften our hearts to authority.' We instituted a rule that every man must wipe the toilet bowl after he pisses, not for cleanliness but to crush his 'inner rebel.' Jeff C. did so by abstaining from 'shady' R-rated movies, lest they provoke dreams of women. He was built like a leprechaun, with curly, dark blond hair and freckles and a brilliant smile. The Potomac Point girls brought him cookies; the wives of the Family's older men asked him to visit. One night, when the guys went on a swing-dancing date with the Potomac Pointers, more worldly women flocked to Jeff C., begging to be dipped and twirled. The feeling was not mutual. 'I just don't like girls as much as guys,' he told me one day while we painted a new coat of 'Gettysburg Gray' onto Ivanwald. He was speaking not of sex or of romance but of brotherhood. 'I like'—he paused, his brush suspended midstroke—'competence.'"

It's all there. The religious fanaticism, the misogyny, the self destruction. This is what it means to be a Christian conservative.

Speed Dating for Perverts

Jay Wiseman posted on the SM-Activism list about kinky speed dating. Many of my vanilla friends have tried speed dating, so it only makes sense that kinky people would start using it, too. People of certain BDSM orientations - say, male tops - get to sit and talk with another group of people - say, female bottoms - one-on-one for five minutes at a time. From the site:

"You’ll get a nametag with a number when you enter and a sheet with everyone’s number and a yes/no checkbox next to them. You’ll have five minutes with each member of the complementary orientation to ask all those important questions and decide whether or not you might want to have a longer conversation with them at a later date. No awkward fumbling with email addresses or phone numbers. Just check ‘yes’ or ‘no’ next to their number on your sheet. At the end of the evening, you will have a first impression of everyone. We’ll collect the sheets as you leave. If two people have checked ‘yes’ for each other, we will email you each other’s email addresses sometime within the next 48 hours and then the ball is in your court."

What a great idea. So far, it's only in San Francisco (as far as a I know). But it should spread quickly, given that it's easy to do and doesn't require much of a capital outlay.

What Google Thinks of When It Thinks of Me

I find it hilarious that this blog is the first result on Google for this search.

Judge Denies Fox News Injunction Against Franken

I love these quotes:

"'There are hard cases and there are easy cases,' the judge said. 'This is an easy case. This case is wholly without merit, both factually and legally.'"

"Franken called the ruling a victory for the First Amendment and satirists everywhere — 'even bad satirists.' ... 'In addition to thanking my own lawyers,' Franken said, 'I'd like to thank Fox's lawyers for filing one of the stupidest briefs I've ever seen in my life.'"

"The judge also said the 'Fair and Balanced' trademark itself is weak, considering those words are used so frequently 'in the context of the public marketplace.'"

(Emphasis added.)

Allow me to gloat for just a minute. Ahhhhhhhhhh .... oh, yeah!

Thanks. Now, the case is not over with. The judge simply denied the preliminary injunction, which means Franken can publish. (Buy it here.) And as part of the preliminary injunction analysis, the judge had to determine whether Fox was likely to win on the merits, and the answer is clearly a resounding no. But the judge is also sending an unmistakable message to Fox to settle or withdraw the case, because it's pointless and they might end up totally losing the trademark in the process. But Fox can't back down, because O'Whiney will go batshit and besides, they can't admit they're wrong because they're conservative and hence they're too stupid to know when they're wrong.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ... yes!

Update 8/23/03: Kevin Drum at CalPundit says: "Their suit against Al Franken's use of 'fair and balanced' in the title of his new book is 'without merit, both factually and legally.' Actually, that sort of describes the whole network, doesn't it?"

Update #2 8/23/02: Al's at number 1!

Spinning the Occupation

Josh Marshall interviews Peter Bergen on how the Bush Administration is trying to use the terrorist attack on the UN compound in Baghdad as the reason that we should have invaded Iraq in the first place: "They're yet again trying to bend logic and chronology into a metaphysical pretzel in which the failure of the policy becomes the justification for the policy."

Logic and causality don't need to make sense when it's all a sham anyway. Bush's motive in invading Iraq was to try to intimidate other Middle Eastern countries by having permanent U.S. bases to constitute an overt military threat and a place where the U.S could mount our own or shelter others' covert operations against neighboring regimes like Iran, Syria, Jordan, or even Turkey. The need for secrecy is the only reason we don't want to "share power" with the U.N. Having them there would prevent us from mounting the ploys that were the whole reason for the invasion in the first place. The rationales of "fighting terrorists" by attracting them to our "flypaper" in Iraq is completely bogus and only offered to placate the idiotic public.

Fuck You, Ralph

Atrios points out this TAPPED article:

"The Greens don't play ball. They consider it a point of pride. This is their right. But they shouldn't then take umbrage when the other side doesn't want to play. Indeed, if the Greens had helped elect Al Gore, he likely would have been the greenest president in U.S. history."

The Green Party, having never actually wielded power, doesn't understand that wielding it involves compromise. It is one thing to argue your position. It's quite another thing to declare that there's "not a dime's worth of difference" between Bush and Gore. Yes, there is. One is telling you he doesn't like what you want to do and to go to hell. The other one is telling you that he likes what you want but that it's just not possible, so let's try something else. To treat them as morally equivalent, as the Greens do, is juvenile. So please excuse me if I get a little juvenile in return. Fuck you, Ralph.

Flood the Zone Friday is Here

Welcome to the first Flood the Zone Friday. As conceived by the guys at Not Geniuses, this will be a weekly effort to use the web organizing tools that George W. Bush has provided on his website to spread the facts about his presidency. Today is Fiscal Irresponsibility Friday, and the talking points and how-to are located here. (Link was bloggered at 9:45 a.m. ET, so you may have to click "Main" to see the post.)

Go!

Why Do Conservatives Whine So Much?

It's struck me over the past six months how many times I've read a conservative who wonders, with apparent bewilderment, why liberals all seem so angry at them. Did they just spring fully formed from the forehead of Instahack? Perhaps. They apparently are not aware that for thirty years or more conservatives have been bashing liberals over the head repeatedly, calling us traitors, Communists, degenerates, welfare leeches, and politically correct wimps, and even implying we are physically unattractive. (Okay, some of us are degenerates, but that's not the point.) They're like someone who abuses their spouse for years, and then when they come home one night, drunk and abusive as usual, they get a knife stuck into their pig necks, and the blood is spurting out, life draining, and as their vision is slipping away, they ask, "But ... why, honey?"

My, that's an image, huh?

Anyway, so today Atrios points out that Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter are running scared from being confronted by Joe Conason. Are they panicking, or what? And now I see that Dean Esmay has "decided to take a break from blogging" because people were being mean to him. (You should have seen how his wife reacted to all the criticism - let's just say it shows that Dean's the intelligent one in the marriage.) It turns out that there is also a right-wing whine fest going on between the stupid, evil shrew Venomous Kate and something calling itself Da Goddess, in which said Goddess may have actually called Child Protective Services to crack down on the hateful Kate's offspring. (They let her breed??)

Right wingers tearing each other to shreds, whining for their mommies, and calling the cops on each other. All in all, a mighty satisfying sight. It couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people.

Gary Hart

From Body and Soul:

"When was the last time you heard political leaders discussing poor people or the system of poverty in America? And would that silence have anything to do with the fact that poor people don’t vote -- let alone contribute money? The last national candidate to link the fate of blue and pink collar working people with the plight of the poor was Robert Kennedy, and he is remembered as both a tough politician and saintly hero for doing so.

The subject comes to mind when “leaders” say: “I’m a fiscal conservative but a social liberal.” The only way that shibboleth makes any sense at all is if you define “social” as abortion, gun control, and prayer in schools. But we used to define “social” as the problems of our society -- poverty, hunger, illiteracy, homelessness, joblessness, the lonely aged, and on and on. If you use the word “social” in this sense, the sense in which it traditionally is used, you cannot be “a fiscal conservative and a social liberal” for the very obvious reason that it costs some money to help those in need." -- Gary Hart

Isn't There Supposed to be S&M Here?

I realize that I am sort of veering off course from my mission of delivering a FAIR AND BALANCED review of law, politics, S&M and Philadelphia. Law and politics - yes, lots of that. S&M and Philadelphia, so far, very little. This may mean I have to change missions, but I am going to try focusing on the other two topics for a while.

I'm going to start posting some of my favorite S&M porn in order to show people what I like, entertain those who also like it and possibly provoke some discussion. I realize that what might happen is my bandwidth just gets all chewed up by people looking for the porn. If that happens, I'll reconsider.

I'm a sadist and a Dom. That is, I find it sexually arousing both to hurt people and to bend them to my will. (You could be one without being the other, but I'm not.) The kind of porn I like best is stuff like this (caution: large movie file). It combines raw sexuality with a heapin' helpin' of pain and humiliation on the bottom's part. (Video courtesy of Cockgaggers.)

The Washington Post Gets it Wrong on PATRIOT

The Washington Post today has an editorial on Ashcroft's PATRIOT Act tour: "Much of the criticism of the law has been shrill and ill-informed. It doesn't, as former vice president Al Gore suggested in a recent speech, let federal agents troop 'into every public library in America and secretly monitor what the rest of us are reading.' Such information can be gathered only in cases of national security, and with a warrant."

As I explained in my post yesterday, a PATRIOT Act Section 215 order is not a warrant. A warrant is issued by a court after the judge is satisfied, based on evidence, that there is probable cause. If the judge does not believe the evidence is sufficient, he or she has the power not to issue the warrant. A Section 215 order requires only that the government declare that the investigation if for a national security purpose. After that, the judge must issue the order. And unlike a warrant, Section 215 orders are forever secret, and the person who is served with one may not tell anyone they have been visited by the government or they will be thrown in jail.

As has been the case with alarming frequency recently, the Post is dead wrong.

A Fair and Balanced Recall of Shrub

This is just too, too funny:

"The latest Democratic drive to make sure President Bush serves just one term takes a page from the effort to oust a Democratic governor in California, calling its web site 'bushrecall' and garnering support through petitions.

A new committee called the Fair and Balanced PAC plans to launch its www.bushrecall.org Web site Thursday. The PAC's founders include Joe Lockhart, a press secretary to former President Clinton, and Mike Lux, a Democratic political consultant.
...
Lux said his PAC plans to coordinate its activities with other groups including America Votes, a new coalition of environmental, labor, civil rights, abortion rights and other organizations working together on voter outreach efforts.

The Fair and Balanced PAC's board members include Gloria Totten, executive director of another Democratic-leaning group, the Progressive Majority, and former political director of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League." (Emphasis added.)

Too fucking funny. I am writing them a check now.

Ashcroftian Propaganda

Warning: Long post.

From today's Philadelphia Inquirer: "'It is clear that our attorney general needs to brush up on his understanding of and appreciation for the Constitution and Bill of Rights,' said Larry Frankel, legislative director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania. 'Rather than lecturing a select audience about his dubious achievements, Attorney General Ashcroft should spend a few hours at the Constitution Center educating himself about his obligation to protect our most cherished freedoms.'"

Nice quote. I couldn't have said it better.

Ashcroft has kicked off his "Victory" tour with a new Department of Justice website, Preserving Life & Liberty. (Link via TalkLeft.) The basic idea is that the PATRIOT Act is no big deal and it does important things; it authorizes the investigation of real terrorists and protects innocent Americans; it's very popular and everyone voted for it. Nothing to see here. Move along.

It struck me that the "Life & Liberty" tag is a direct response to the ACLU's "Safe and Free" campaign. One page on the site specifically attacks the ACLU for promoting three "myths" about PATRIOT. Let's analyze this a little more closely, shall we?

"Myth: The ACLU claims that the Patriot Act 'expands terrorism laws to include "domestic terrorism" which could subject political organizations to surveillance, wiretapping, harassment, and criminal action for political advocacy.' They also claim that it includes a 'provision that might allow the actions of peaceful groups that dissent from government policy, such as Greenpeace, to be treated as "domestic terrorism."' (ACLU, February 11, 2003; ACLU fundraising letter, cited by Stuart Taylor in “UnPATRIOTic,” National Journal, August 4, 2003)

Reality: The Patriot Act limits domestic terrorism to conduct that breaks criminal laws, endangering human life. 'Peaceful groups that dissent from government policy' without breaking laws cannot be targeted. Peaceful political discourse and dissent is one of America’s most cherished freedoms, and is not subject to investigation as domestic terrorism. Under the Patriot Act, the definition of 'domestic terrorism' is limited to conduct that (1) violates federal or state criminal law and (2) is dangerous to human life. Therefore, peaceful political organizations engaging in political advocacy will obviously not come under this definition. (Patriot Act, Section 802)."

Look closely at the definition of domestic terrorism again: Conduct "that (1) violates federal or state criminal law and (2) is dangerous to human life." Note that the definition does not require violent intent. Neither does it require that anyone actually be injured, or even that anyone intended the conduct that created the dangerous situation.

Protest groups like National Right to Life, Greenpeace, ACT-UP - you name your favorite group - engage in civil disobedience all the time. 'Civil disobedience' is committing a nonviolent crime - usually, trespass - to demonstrate one's willingness to be jailed as a protest against an unjust law or policy. The civil rights movement was founded on a bedrock of civil disobedience. Such protest is "peaceful", even though it is not lawful. Nevertheless, sometimes people get hurt during demonstrations. A crowd that is passionate about an issue can get out of hand. Or individuals who are unstable might commit acts of violence, even though they have no links to the organizers of the protest. Or an accident occurs. Or the police get out of hand and hurt people without provocation, which is what happened most recently in Philadelphia and other cities around the country during the anti-war protests.

So, almost by definition, civil disobedience is conduct that violates federal or state criminal law and is dangerous to human life. So, next time the NAACP conducts a sit-in that blocks a city street, the authorities can claim that "criminal conduct" created a risk that "is dangerous to human life" because it is possible that an emergency vehicle could not get through. Or someone might get hit by a car that didn't stop for the protesters. As a result, the NAACP can be labeled a "terrorist organization", its assets seized, and anyone who speaks on its behalf, works for them, or sends them a contribution can be charged with "supporting terrorism." Again, substitute an ideological organization that you are sympathetic to, if you don't support the NAACP.

"Myth: The ACLU has claimed that 'Many [people] are unaware that their library habits could become the target of government surveillance. In a free society, such monitoring is odious and unnecessary. . . The secrecy that surrounds section 215 leads us to a society where the ‘thought police’ can target us for what we choose to read or what Websites we visit.' (ACLU, July 22, 2003)

Reality: The Patriot Act specifically protects Americans’ First Amendment rights, and terrorism investigators have no interest in the library habits of ordinary Americans. Historically, terrorists and spies have used libraries to plan and carry out activities that threaten our national security. If terrorists or spies use libraries, we should not allow them to become safe havens for their terrorist or clandestine activities. The Patriot Act ensures that business records — whether from a library or any other business — can be obtained in national security investigations with the permission of a federal judge."

Obviously, business records can be vitally important in an investigation. The objection to Section 215 of PATRIOT is not that the records can be seized, but how they can be seized. And let's be clear, we're not just talking about libraries. Section 215 permits the government to seize your credit card records, your health records (HIIPPA notwithstanding), your ISP records, your insurance records, your school records, your employer's records, your travel records, your bank records, your charitable contribution records, your phone records, and anything else they want on you. Also, Section 215 orders can be incredibly broad fishing expeditions. Nothing prevents the government from getting an order that would require a company - say, Yahoo! or Visa - from turning over all of its records on all of its customers. Worst of all, Section 215 orders are accompanied by a permanent gag order. The company receiving the order can never, ever tell you - or anyone else - that it has received the order. And they have no legal right to resist complying with the order. This makes Section 215 orders totally unlike ordinary grand jury subpoenas, which can both be challenged and eventually are made public.

Continuing the response:

"In national security cases ... the government can now ask a federal court (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court), if needed to aid an investigation, to order production of the same type of records available through grand jury subpoenas. This federal court, however, can issue these orders only after the government demonstrates the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a U.S. person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a U.S. person is not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the First Amendment." (Emphasis added.)

That last sentence is totally misleading. First, it says that if the target of an investigation is not a U.S. person, then the government may apply for a Section 215 order even if the application is based solely on activities protected by the First Amendment. However, the order gives the government access to all records, even those that include information about U.S. persons. Say the government goes to an ISP to get all the e-mails and other records stored there on a non-U.S. citizen that it is targeting because that person has spoken out against a U.S. ally's government. The Section 215 order will get all the e-mails to and from that person, including those from U.S. citizens who were also just exercising their rights of free speech and association. Obviously, the government can game this rule if it wants to find something out about you. It can target all the non-U.S. citizens in an organization - by getting a blanket Section 215 order covering all such people, whether they can name them or not - and so get all the information it wants on you second-hand.

Second, the standard "conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the First Amendment" is extremely low. All that would require is that the government articulate some reason - such as "Greenpeace is a terrorist organization" - and voila, the Section 215 order is not being requested "solely" because of free speech and free association activities.

Finally, what does "demonstrate" to a court mean in this context? Most people assume that a judge might have some ability to say no to the request for the Section 215 order. Nope. Subsections 215(b)(2) and (c)(1) define what happens in these cases: "Each application ... shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified, approving the release of records if the judge finds that the application meets the requirements of this section." (Emphasis added.) Get that? It says that the government "shall specify" - not "shall prove." In other words, the government merely needs to assert that the records are sought for an authorized investigation, and when they do, the judge "shall issue" the order. No discretion. No looking behind the request. No proof needed. It's an order issued by a rubber-stamp judge.

"Myth: The ACLU claims that the Patriot Act provision about delayed notification search warrants 'would allow law enforcement agencies to delay giving notice when they conduct a search. . . . This provision would mark a sea change in the way search warrants are executed in the United States.' (ACLU, October 23, 2001)

Reality: Delayed notification search warrants are a long-existing, crime-fighting tool upheld by courts nationwide for decades in organized crime, drug cases and child pornography. The Patriot Act simply codified the authority law enforcement had already had for decades. This tool is a vital aspect of our strategy of prevention – detecting and incapacitating terrorists before they are able to strike.

In some cases if criminals are tipped off too early to an investigation, they might flee, destroy evidence, intimidate or kill witnesses, cut off contact with associates, or take other action to evade arrest. Therefore, federal courts in narrow circumstances long have allowed law enforcement to delay for a limited time when the subject is told that a judicially-approved search warrant has been executed. This tool can be used only with a court order, in extremely narrow circumstances when immediate notification may result in death or physical harm to an individual, flight from prosecution, evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or serious jeopardy to an investigation. The reasonable delay gives law enforcement time to identify the criminal’s associates, eliminate immediate threats to our communities, and coordinate the arrests of multiple individuals without tipping them off beforehand. In all cases, law enforcement must give notice that property has been searched or seized.

The Supreme Court has held the Fourth Amendment does not require law enforcement to give immediate notice of the execution of a search warrant. The Supreme Court emphasized 'that covert entries are constitutional in some circumstances, at least if they are made pursuant to a warrant.' In fact, the Court stated that an argument to the contrary was 'frivolous.' Dalia v. U.S., 441 U.S. 238 (1979)."

This is actually the only area in which the Justice Department has a point. It is of course true that, in terrorism investigations, that if possible we would prefer that the target not know he or she was being investigated, for all the reasons that DOJ gives. And, in this instance, there is real judicial review. Section 213 of PATRIOT requires that the court must find there is evidence that makes it reasonable to believe that it would be harmful to disclose the fact of the search, requires that no tangible item be seized or electronic communication intercepted, and that notice eventually be given within a reasonable time. On balance, this doesn't strike me to be as much of a threat. Of course, it is an empirical question whether the government is abusing this power, by cowing judges into granting such orders when they are not warranted.

Overall, the "myths" that Ashcroft accuses the ACLU of promoting are actually all things that are true and should be opposed. The expansion of the definition of "domestic terrorism" to include peaceful, non-violent protest and the ability to seize records on everyone without any kind of judicial review is a real threat to everyone's fundamental rights under the Constitution. The spin from Ashcroft is both vicious and obvious.

Update: Corrected typo per comments.

Thanks!

Thanks to skippy the bush kangaroo for the kind mention on Monday, which I just noticed yesterday.

Job, Protest and Blogging

I'm going to the anti-Ashcroft protest at the Constitution Center now and will try to get pictures up from my work computer. Then I want to write about the Cult of Macho thing and about Ashcroft's new website.

Too much!

Update: The Inky has a report on what Ashcroft said. I love this lede: "Attorney General John Ashcroft went on the defensive today over the government's post-9/11 antiterrorism law, saying that without the Patriot Act "America will pay the price in lost liberty." Went on the defensive? The price of overturning an unconstitutional law is lost liberty? Hilarious. As the article notes, only about 50 protesters showed up. The group was led by Ben Waxman and was surrounded by a contingent of park rangers, city cops and Civil Affairs officers. I took a couple of pictures, but they're not really worth it. Although it was disappointing that more people didn't come, it shows how afraid Ashcroft is when (a) they announce the appearance the day before so it's not publicized and (b) they keep the public out.

Flood the Zone Fridays

Ezra Klein and the other geniuses at Not Geniuses have a great idea: Flood the Zone Fridays, brought to you by Karl Rove. It's a concerted effort to take over the very sophisticated astroturf tool provided on the Bush re-election website in order to use it to alert the media to the awful Bush record. Everyone within the sound of my voice should go to the Bush website now and sign up in the action center. Then, on Friday, I will post the talking points and sample letter that Ezra and friends compose, and my loyal readers - both of you - send them along to your local media.

Simple. Brilliant.

The Cult of Macho

Really interesting post on Demagogue which excerpts the August issue of The American Enterprise Online entitled Real Men: They're Back.

I haven't had the chance to read the whole thing, but it looks fascinating. Americans are obsessed with toughness: being tough, looking tough, thought tough. The underlying motive is a fear that "weakness" will lead to failure to compete in the cowboy culture of America. I believe the pursuit of that obsession is the root of everything that is wrong with the country.

I can't wait to read the whole thing. I'll write more tomorrow.

Standing Up to the Right

Yesterday's Salon excerpted the introduction to Joe Conason's Big Lies. His argument runs as follows.

The U.S. is not conservative – it’s just that conservative vitriol, back by big money, dominates the discourse. In fact, most Americans believe strongly in liberal ideas. Liberals stand for the things that have made this country great:

“If your workplace is safe; if your children go to school rather than being forced into labor; if you are paid a living wage, including overtime; if you enjoy a 40-hour week and you are allowed to join a union to protect your rights -- you can thank liberals. If your food is not poisoned and your water is drinkable -- you can thank liberals. If your parents are eligible for Medicare and Social Security, so they can grow old in dignity without bankrupting your family -- you can thank liberals. If our rivers are getting cleaner and our air isn't black with pollution; if our wilderness is protected and our countryside is still green -- you can thank liberals. If people of all races can share the same public facilities; if everyone has the right to vote; if couples fall in love and marry regardless of race; if we have finally begun to transcend a segregated society -- you can thank liberals. Progressive innovations like those and so many others were achieved by long, difficult struggles against entrenched power. What defined conservatism, and conservatives, was their opposition to every one of those advances. The country we know and love today was built by those victories for liberalism -- with the support of the American people.”

When pressed on specific issues, the conservative domination of the debate disappears. Voting patterns show liberals are ahead of or statistically even with conservatives across the country, in spite of a huge conservative money advantage. The right only holds on through propaganda:

“The right prefers to demonize liberals and set up fights with ‘politically correct’ straw men rather than debate with real progressives. ... Stereotypes and caricatures are the most important kind of message delivered by the conservative media. By ‘defining’ and discrediting their opponents, they can substitute invective for argument and images for facts. The technique is unscrupulous and almost foolproof. It's the big lie, repeated and repeated until the truth is obliterated and the lie is legitimated.”

What to do? Fight back hard.

“Comparisons that involve patriotism and morality, for example, are incomplete without examining some unpleasant facts about certain prominent individuals. But conservatives have been making ugly accusations about their adversaries for a long time, without hesitation or regret. If they don't enjoy hearing the truth about themselves for a change, I offer no apologies. They've asked for it many times over.

This book confronts the biggest lies deployed by conservatives against liberals, progressives, and Democrats. Its purpose is not to defend every liberal position or politician. ... It doesn't suggest a conspiracy against liberals, or argue that Democrats haven't brought any of their problems on themselves. And it shouldn't be taken as a blanket indictment of Republicans or conservatives.

That last point is of special importance to me. The spiteful, malignant discourse that became so common during the Clinton era has done lasting damage to democratic participation and civility in our political system. Although as a matter of literary convenience I frequently refer to conservatives and Republicans, I certainly don't believe that every conservative or every Republican is responsible for the offenses discussed in these pages.

Unlike Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter, I also don't believe that my political adversaries are uniformly ‘no good,’ or un-American, or greedy, or bigoted, or stupid. I shouldn't have to say this, but I know from personal experience that generosity, compassion, and wisdom cross all partisan and ideological boundaries. … I would much prefer an atmosphere that encourages friendship rather than hatred among Americans, regardless of ideology and party.

Unfortunately, I don't think there's much chance of that happy outcome until liberals learn to hit back hard. The classic American hero is the underdog who wins respect by fighting back against a bully. Sometimes the bully just limps away to nurse his wounds. Sometimes the bully wises up and mends his ways. Occasionally, the underdog and the bully become best friends.

But the underdog who dares to fight back is always better off.”

Kick. Them. In. The. Teeth. That's the way to win.

(Link via Daily Kos.)

Update: Oh, yeah. Buy the book.

Ashcroft at National Constitution Center on Wednesday morning

Jackboot John will deliver a speech to law enforcement at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, at 9:20 a.m., to defend the PATRIOT Act. It makes my skin crawl that he is giving this speech in the building dedicated to the idea of preserving the Constitution.

The public will not be allowed into the auditorium, but I hope thousands show up to greet the thug. See you there, Atrios.

Correction

It's just two letters off: "An editorial on Saturday misstated the projected federal deficit over the next decade. It is $4 trillion or more, not $4 billion."

That's about $14,035.09 per person in the country, folks. Your money.

Paul Newman Sues for Copycat Infringement

Today's NYTimes reports that Paul Newman Is Still HUD: "In the 1963 film 'HUD,' for which Mr. Newman was nominated for an Academy Award, the ad campaign was based on the slogan, 'Paul Newman is HUD.' Mr. Newman claims that the Department of Housing and Urban Development, called HUD, is a fair and balanced institution and that some of its decency and respectability has unfairly rubbed off on his movie character, diluting the rotten, self-important, free-trade, corrupt conservative image that Mr. Newman worked so hard to project in the film."

Not as funny as Franken, but just as pointed. I re-read the FOX complaint this morning - what a bunch of whining. I think I'll post the thing so everyone can read it. It reads like O'Reilly himself edited it, which would make it that much richer. I can't wait to see his face when the court grants Franken his motion for summary judgment in about a year.

Which Leader Were You in a Past Life?

Okay, these things are definitely passe. (Moreover, it's a too-common delusion that everyone was a "leader" - statistically improbable - in a past life - logically ridiculous.) However, they're fun and I love them.

You were Confucius!

Your life began in 551 B.C. in the Chinese village of Zou. You worked as a teacher until age 35, when you became advisor to the exiled Duke Zhou for a time. Later you became a magistrate and even the Grand Minister of Justice of Lu Province for a time. After a while, you took to wandering with your handful of disciples and unfortunately found that high-ranking nobles in many courts were plotting to have you killed. You continued, however, to speak on morality and honesty until you finally retired and spent your remaining days writing. You died at the age of 72.


Which Leader Were You in a Past Life?
brought to you by Quizilla

Link via the incomparable alicublog