The Common Ills: 2004-12-26

Friday, January 07, 2005

Your comments on how the Ohio vote played out in Congress Thursday

Melanie: "I cried and cried over Senator [Barbara] Boxer's courage and over the weak spines of the other Democrats in the Senate."

Ben: "Where were they? The rest in the Senate? Hiding under their desks? Or maybe globe trotting with John Kerry?"

Erika: "The easiest thing in the world is to slam John Kerry right now. Why should he be there? If the argument is that it will not change the outcome, Kerry's presence would not have helped that argument. I do not blame people who express anger or disgust with Kerry for giving up so quickly after he promised during the campaign that every vote would be counted. But as for him being there, it would have been on Fox, it would have been the focus on Rush. The argument that was raised in the Senate was that 'we are not questioning the outcome of the presidency' and that would be hard to make if Kerry is sitting in the chamber. All eyes and all cameras would have been focused on him and any statement he made would have been the issue. If he'd spoken with Boxer, it would be 'Kerry refuses to face the truth!' and if he was silent the right wing echo chamber would have said, 'Even Kerry doesn't agree with that woman!' So it was best that he stayed out of it. And I'm sure the troops in Iraq appreciated him visiting as they appreciate anyone taking the time to visit them."

Keesha: "I was in high school in 1992 and Hillary Rodham Clinton was almost heroic then. When she wasn't able to move mountains, I noted that she moved hills and that the right wing never stopped attacking her. In November of 2000 she made history as the first former first lady to serve in the Senate. After that stolen presidential election, I took tremendous comfort in the fact that we at least had her in the Senate. There were some votes she made as a senator that I could live with and some that I really supported. But as an African-American woman I will not vote for her in 2008 should she make a run for the presidency. I will not vote her. African-Americans were disenfranchised in Florida in 2000 and in Ohio in 2004. Hillary Clinton should have voted with Barbara Boxer. She didn't. Actions have meaning and when she refused to stand up for African-Americans she fell tremendously in my eyes. There is no comeback from this."

Trevor: "If your last name is not Boxer and you are a senator, what good are you? If anyone wants to redeem themselves they can do it by insisting upon a paper ballot for all votes."

Yazz: "I'm not surprised that the Democrats caved, I'm surprised that one stood up. The party never wanted to make this an issue. They were ready to move on after the election was called. They didn't realize the passion involved on this issue for voters. And I think this will hurt them.
They're now going to have to work twice as hard to find support."

Kara: "You either stand up for democracy or you don't. Today we saw only one person support voters and no one in the Senate support her. It was telling and it was hurtful."

Dominick: "In this month's issue of The Progressive, they quote Grover Norquist saying it will be easy to have bipartisanship in Congress because 'Any farmer can tell you that certain animals run around and are unpleasant, but when they're fixed then they are happy and sedate.' I saw a lot of Democratic senators who'd been fixed and were eager to wag their tails at their GOP masters."

Elaine: "What does it take for them to wake up? Randi [Rhodes] was talking all week about the strength in a united front. If this was somehow news to them, she'd pointed it out. Did they still not understand? Is this how it will be? Each time there's a vote, they'll choose one person to stick their necks out? Or are they waiting to see if this destroys Boxer and if she lives through it, they'll grow some guts on their own? There's no excuse for it. [Ted] Kennedy is never going to lose his seat. That's a reality. It would have cost him nothing to have stood with Boxer. He speaks a great deal about his brothers. I'm having a hard time believing the Bobby Kennedy of 1968 wouldn't be standing right beside Boxer if we were lucky enough to still have him with us."

Trina: "Have you no shame? I'm not speaking to the Republicans. We know they have no shame and no ethics. I'm speaking to the Democrats in Congress who could not show the same guts and bravery that some House members and one Senator did."

Bob: "Sheila Jackson Lee deserves credit for her passion on this issue. She and House members like John Conyers Jr., Maxine Waters, Barbara Lee and Jesse Jackson Jr. are the real leaders in the House. They are the only leaders in the House, the 31 who stood up for democracy and were counted. Let's remember them and support them. The rest of them are the cousin who borrows twenty bucks and then avoids you for a few months hoping you forgot. After that, they're back trying to scam you again. Remember that when the fundraising letters start arriving."

Tammi: "Living in Barbara Lee's district, I can tell you she hasn't forgotten her constituents and she hasn't forgotten what democracy means. She's a true hero. I lost respect for the so-called leadership in the House and for all the senators with the exception of Boxer. Don't show up asking for me to donate if you didn't stand up today [Thursday]."

Clayton: "Randi Rhodes should be where the Democratic Congress members go when they're in doubt or needing a spine transplant. That is one voice of truth and it's shameful they way so many of them behaved. I feel like my child came home saying 'They teased me' and when I asked him if he stood up for himself, he said 'no.' Why should I defend you cowards when you won't even defend yourselves?"

Rob: "Can someone tell Al Franken to shut the hell up? I didn't need to be called a 'conspiracy theorist' because I do not believe that Bush won. I don't think that Laura Flanders or Janeane Garofalo or Randi Rhodes or Mike Malloy need that either. Al, you're a weak willed cry baby. Randi could destroy you with her pinky finger. Which probably means you'll be elected to the Senate in 2006 because you will fit in so well with all the Democrat Senators except for Barbara Boxer."

Joan: "My rep is Major Owens, someone who knows how to fight and when to stand up. I have no idea why the 'fraidy cats' are so eager to to reveal their yellow streak but they were sporting it prominetly."

Trey: "Don't forget Lane Evans! He's my guy and he fights for us!"

CeCe: "Am I the only one thinking Corinne Brown is ready for the Senate? Am I the only one thinking that the Senate ain't ready for her? Get ready coz she's leading and there's no stopping her. They struck her remarks from the record about Bush stealing the election and that didn't silence her. Nothing will. She carries on the legacy of Shirley Chisholm. Remember her name and get ready because she's the real deal and we're all going to be hearing from her."

Erik: "Anyone else notice that one person who wanted to be president in 2004 and ran a brave fight demonstrated that same bravery on the floor of Congress today? I'm talking about Dennis Kucinich. He didn't pull a Kerry and leave the country, he didn't pull a Lieberman and act the doofus. He was there fighting same as every other day he's served. I hope people will remember that next time when someone says he's 'unelectable.' If you'd known of only half the bravery and strength this man has, we would have all been uniting around him this summer and the election would have turned out differently. I want to also note Randi Rhodes who was our candle in the dark showing us the way. She inspired me. Not everyone at Air America did. I think it's really lousy when someone at that network thinks they are being 'reasonable' when they insult their own listeners. I won't name the person, I'll just say it wasn't anyone with a weekend show, it wasn't Mark & Marc, it wasn't Lizz & Rachel, it wasn't Janeane & Sam and it wasn't Malloy. And you know it wasn't Randi because she never backs down. Keep being our candle, Randi, in these dark times we need you so bad."

Dallas: "Redistricting was a nightmare for our state. The only bright spot for me is a personal one. I'm stuck with Kay Bailey Hutchinson and John Cornyn for senators and I was stuck with Pete Sessions for my rep. Redistricting finally gave me a Democratic voice to represent me. And it's a real Democratic voice, a true one: Eddie Bernice Johnson. I was at the redistricting hearings in Dallas and I'll never forget that though she didn't serve on the committee, she showed up, all in white and looking incredible, and stood up. I thought, 'Damn, why can't I have her as a representative?' Now it's been a hideous year and I look for small satisfactions. Having a real voice like Eddie Bernice Johnson as a voice for me in the Congress is no small satisfaction, it's an outright miracle. Seeing her stand and be counted on Thursday made me feel like after years of no representation, I finally have someone fighting for me."

Lonnie: "They said she was over and they said we'd seen the last of her. But she reclaimed her seat and she showed the Bully Boy and his fan club that she will not be hushed and she will not be stilled. Cynthia McKinney is my Congress woman and I say that bursting with pride not just because today [Thursday] she was one of the few standing and being counted but because she does that each and every day."

Julie: "Wonder why Randi [Rhodes] and the Black Caucus get along so well? Because they both believe in fighting and they both refused to be cowed. Boxer deserves our praise as does Conyers and the entire Black Caucus but don't forget Randi or Laura [Flanders] because they were there for us the whole time. It won't be forgotten."

Francisco: "Living in New Mexico, I had no one to stand up for me. Surrounded by cobardes, I hope those of you who are represented by the likes of Boxer, Conyers and Tubbs Jones will allow me to share in your pride for them."

Lynda: "Stephanie Tubbs Jones should be remembered by everyone regardless of where they live. You need to remember that she'll be up for re-election in 2006. It's easy to say 'I'm so proud of her' right now. Try remembering her bravery in 2006 with any money you can spare, even five dollars. People who stood up should be supported when they face re-election."

Gore Vidal is God: "I don't want to hear one person slam Randi [Rhodes] in the coming months. She fought this battle and she fought it hard. She didn't get a lot of support from the rest of the media, including bloggers, and she didn't seem to get a lot of support from her own network. Especially in the early days [,] when people were trying to write her off as a crack
pot [,] it would have been easy for her to back off. But she kept pushing and we might not have made history today if it weren't for her. What's the point of having a liberal radio network if you're just going to back down when the right wing media and the mainstream media says 'Keep it moving, nothing to see here?' Randi showed the power Air America can have. If I just wanted pleasant chatter, I'd listen to NPR. Randi demonstrated the difference Air America can make. Others better follow her example."

Tina: "What does it take to get Democratic leadership enraged? I thought one Florida was more than enough to learn from. But apparently that's not enough. If it weren't for David Cobb and Michael Badnarik would we have even gotten this far? It's a real shame when the party has to look for leadership from outside. That goes for Laura Flanders and Randi Rhodes too. They're not in Congress but they were willing to fight. I thank those four. I am thankful for those four."

Krista: "David Cobb and Michael Badnarik. I got Cobb's first name wrong and I feel so bad about that. But I want to repeat what I said in the 'Year in Review.'"

From the 'Year in Review' [see http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2004/12/common-ills-year-in-review.html]:

Thanks Go To:

David Cobb & Michael Badnarik

Krista: While the Democratic Party was willing to roll over and play dead regarding the Ohio voting issue, I think we should all take a moment to thank David Cobb and Michael Badnarik, presidential nominees of the Green and Libertarian parties. They forced this issue and without them the recounts wouldn't have happened.I'd also like to note the work of Jesse Jackson, John Conyers Jr., Laura Flanders, Randi Rhodes, Common Cause, the Ohio Democratic Party and citizens in Ohio and elsewhere who were outraged by the lack of transperancy. Big media didn't want the recounts, the DNC didn't fight for them, even John Kerry has stood in the shadows. But with the work of these people and the attention they brought to the issue through a variety of forums and demonstrations, we got recounts. The recounts themselves don't inspire my trust but when you consider all the resistance to them, I'll count it as a win that we forced this issue.

???: "Randi Rhodes kept me focused on this issue. And when I was ready to slit my wrists after Congress voted, it was Randi that put me back together. We made history and we can do it again. And we will do it again. I want to also mention my representative Julia Carson because she didn't back down. Today we couldn't get forty votes in the House and we couldn't get two in the Senate. But we will keep fighting until the party realizes that we will be heard."

Bernado: "A lot of people shut their eyes and their mouths today. I will not forget the bravery or the cowardice. And I will not overlook Randi who got me through this hideous day."

Rolondo: "Face it, people like Maxine Waters and Jan Schakowsky gave a damn. The wimps didn't. They better come to realize that if you aren't going to fight for us you aren't going to stay in Congress."

Abhilasha: "I was raised to believe in proverbs such as: 'Help thy brother's boat across, and lo! Thine own has reached the shore.' Where were the Democrats in Congress willing to help Stephanie Tubbs Jones and Barbara Boxer's boats? The ones who were there for them are on the shore now. The ones who were ruled by cowardice remain in murky waters. They may find it hard to navigate those waters by themselves. So be it."

Dona: "If no one thanks Raul Grijalva then let me be the first. I'll also thank Randi Rhodes of Air America because I'm afraid she might be overlooked as well."

[Of 397 e-mails, 221 praised Randi Rhodes. If she's overlooked for her hard work, it's not by The Common Ills community.]

Tori: "You reep what you sow. Crops ain't looking good for the Democratic party right now. The party members got soul and drive, too bad the leaders don't."

Jim: "We are not defeated even if so many of our leaders rolled over on this one. And if they're thinking we're going to take this as a lesson, they don't know how much we intend to bother them with phone calls, faxes, letters and e-mails in the coming months."

Liang: "I choose to see Boxer as a lotus blooming in a furnace. When those around her see that she continues to bloom, they will not fear the heat. Boxer was a test case and she will succeed and inspire others in Congress. The time to shrink has passed, we are all blooming and we will be noticed."

Shawn: "I prefer to be hopeful and remember that history was made today and we will fight harder each time until we get a responsive Congress. I think the success of thirty-one in the House and of Boxer in the Senate will have long lasting effects in future battles. I think this was a learning experience and that even those who could not find their voice today will find it later on. We will help them find it."

[Note the above are excerpts from e-mails that arrived Thursday. 397 e-mailed the site about what they felt. The less than forty quoted above all agreed to be quoted.]

[Note II: My apologies to anyone whose quote I screwed up. Keesha, "feel" has been corrected to "fell." Dominick, "were" has been added to your statement. Clatyon, "of" has been removed. Gore Vidal is God, I added commas to your post to clairfy at Shirley's request. If you want them removed, please e-mail common_ills@yahoo.com.]

"Bush's Drug Videos Broke Law, Accountability Office Decides"; Democracy Now!: Loaded Mouth; BuzzFlash; Ms. Musing and more Alberto's slip

The Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress, said on Thursday that the Bush administration violated federal law by producing and distributing television news segments about the effects of drug use among young people.

The accountability office said the videos "constitute covert propaganda" because the government was not identified as the source of the materials, which were distributed by the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

From John Files' New York Times story (tucked inside the paper on page A11) Bush's Drug Videos Broke Law, Accountability Office Decides which tells us there is some accountability, there's just no "law enforcement powers" to this accountability.

From this morning's Democracy Now!:

Headlines for January 7, 2005

- Nine U.S. Troops Killed in Iraq
- French Journalist Still Missing in Baghdad
- Tsunami: Annan Tours Aceh
- Indonesian Military Beats Acehnese, Bars Journalists
- Mandela Son Dies of AIDS
- Palestinian Candidate Barghouti Detained Again by Israelis
- Neocon Bolton To Quit
- Klansman Arrested in 1964 Murders of Civil Rights Workers

Gonzales Grilled on Role in Torture at Confirmation Hearing

Alberto Gonzales' role in paving the legal groundwork that led to the torture of detainees in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay was the central focus of a Senate hearing yesterday, which is considering his nomination to succeed John Ashcroft as attorney general. Gonzales delivered more than seven hours of testimony, most of it responding to questions from Committee members on his role in setting the stage for the abuse of detainees. We hear excerpts of the hearing and speak with journalist Mark Danner of the New Yorker and author of Torture and Truth: America, Abu Ghraib, and the War on Terror. [includes rush transcript]

History in the Making: Dems Force Debate on Ohio Voting Irregularities

For only the second time in over a century, Congress debated certification of the Electoral College vote. The joint session vote tally was interrupted by Rep. Stephanie Tubbs (D-OH) who, along with other House Democrats, mounted a challenge to Ohio's 20 electoral votes. The challenge was signed by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), forcing the House and Senate to split and have a two-hour debate on voting irregularities. We hear excerpts of Republicans and Democrats in both chambers. [includes rush transcript - partial]

A heads up for web surfing this weekend, Why Are We Back In Iraq will be guest blogging at Loaded Mouth:

I'd also like to announce that I'm guest-blogging at Tas' Loaded Mouth this weekend. I've posted two articles there already, and although I jumped at the chance because I wanted to write about something else (not that I'm tired of writing about this, only that I feel it's important to stay on topic for-the-now HERE since the bigger bloggers don't really give a shit). But wouldn't you know it? Both of my posts on Tas' blog were still about this fraud of an election that nobody thinks they should care about (except us loony tuneheads). (http://whyareweback.blogspot.com/2005/01/why-are-we-back-on-loaded-mouth.html)

For those who've wondered in e-mails, Ms. Musing is back up and one of their posts tackles yesterday's historic moment:

Â“And I do have a senator.Â”

That was Ohio Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones yesterday declaring that Senator Barbara Boxer was joining the protest against OhioÂ’s election results, chiefly to draw attention to voter irregularities and disenfranchisement. (Feminist Majority Foundation has issued an action alert, calling on supporters to thank Boxer for taking a stand and to urge Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to take leadership roles in election reform.)

Watching C-SPAN, the moment came across as urgent and historical, particularly for anyone who remembers how events played out in 2000 -- when every black representative who sought a senatorÂ’s support was rebuffed.

Unfortunately, however, the urgency was short-lived. Armed with talking points titled "Propagandist Michael Moore and Democrats: Separated at birth!", Republicans were dismissive of concerns about voter irregularities. And few Democrats stepped up to show support (my love for my new senator, Barack Obama, continues to grow). (http://www.msmagazine.com/blog/archives/2005/01/aand_i_do_have.html)

Here's an editorial you won't want to miss:

I think it's safe to say, from stitching together news accounts, that the Bush twins don't practice sexual abstinence, aren't teetotalers, and have indulged from time to time in marijuana use -- and that's just what we know.

Dear me, does that make them victims of the liberal press? Or does it just prove that if George and Laura can't get their own daughters to practice their calculated hypocritical political "values" that it is the Bush rhetoric that is out of sync with society?

We ask this rather obvious question because it leads into an important point, one that the right wing has been tossing out like red meat to culturally populist fundamentalist Christian carnivores for years. You know, the guys who read Playboy, watch raunchy FOX television programming, swear in front of their kids, go to Hooters -- and then nod when the preacher discusses how depraved American society has become.

The American press isn't liberal. It is merely secular and modern, which does indeed make it "liberal" to the right wing amen chorus that sings in the GOP gospel pundit and think tank choir. If it's not pre-enlightenment and creationist in its outlook, it's "liberal." (http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/05/01/edi05007.html)

That's the opening of BuzzFlash's latest editorial (remember, they're doing one a day in the lead up to the inauguration). Make time to read it.

And I'll note an editorial (for the second time this week) from the New York Times. A number of you are e-mailing about the duties of the White House counsel Mr. Gonzales Speaks :

Even his vows of allegiance to the rule of law were rather peculiar. He said that as White House counsel, he had represented "only the White House," while as attorney general, he "would have a far broader responsibility: to pursue justice for all the people of our great nation, to see that the laws are enforced in a fair and impartial manner for all Americans." We thought that was also the obligation of the president and his staff.

Hopefully, the New York Times editorial board better illuminates Gonzales' "slip" as we've called it on this site.

Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.

Who knew Alberto Gonzales's secret desire was to toss on a wig and sing Dusty's "Brand New Me?"

On the front page of this morning's New York Times Eric Lichtblau's Gonzales Speaks Against Torture During Hearing documents yesterday's attempt by Alberto Gonzales to perform the old Dusty Springfield song "Brand New Me" to the Senate.

This is my same old coat
And my same old shoes
I was the same old me
With the same old blues

"I don't recall today whether or not I was in agreement with all of the analysis," Mr. Gonzales said. While the administration has since disavowed the memorandum's narrow definition of what constitutes torture, Mr. Gonzales said that at the time he did not "have a disagreement with the conclusions then reached by the department" and that he did not want to politicize the process by dictating what the Justice Department's conclusions should be. "Ultimately it is the responsibility of the department to tell us what the law means," he said.

Then you touched my life
Just by holding my hand
Now I look in the mirror
And see a brand new girl

"Do I regret the abuses at Abu Ghraib?" he asked. "Absolutely. I condemn them. Do I believe that they may have hurt us in winning the hearts and minds of Muslims around the world? Yes, and I do regret that."

I got the same old friends
They got the same old sins
I tell the same old jokes

"This administration does not engage in torture and will not condone torture," Mr. Gonzales said during a daylong hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is considering his nomination to succeed John Ashcroft as attorney general.

Give the same old grins
But now the jokes sound new
And the laughter does too

He said that he was "deeply committed to ensuring that the United States government complies with all of its legal obligations as it fights the war on terror, whether those obligations arise from domestic or international law."

I go to the same old places
See the same old faces

Mr. Gonzales also promised to personally look into recent reports from the Federal Bureau of Investigation about the possible mistreatment of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, and he disclosed that the administration had had preliminary discussions about seeking to amend prisoner protections in the Geneva Conventions.

I was the same old me
With the same old blues

Mr. Gonzales, who is the White House counsel, said he understood that, if confirmed, "I will no longer represent only the White House, I will represent the United States of America and its people."
"I understand the differences between the two roles," he added.

Sorry to rain on his American Idol chances, but Gonzales still doesn't understand. He was never working for the Bully Boy, he was supposed to be working for the people. His role was to maintain the rule of law and to advise the office of the president (regardless of who the president was) in such a manner that the laws of the land were maintained. Gonzales obviously failed at that task.

["Brand New Me" written by Theresa Bell, Jerry Butler, Kenneth Gamble and Leon Huff]

[Note: This post has been corrected. The title is now listed as "Brand New Me" throughout. The first names of three writers has been added to the song credit as well as a fourth writer of the song and was left out. Recommended albums for this song: Marcia recommends Dusty Springfield's The Very Best of Dusty Springfield; I think in addition to Springfield's well known version, Aretha Franklin also has a strong version of it on the album Young, Gifted & Black. On Franklin's album the song is listed as "A Brand New Me" and with three songwriters credited. The Songwriter's Hall of Fame lists four writers and calls it "Brand New Me" so we'll let The Songwriter's Hall of Fame have the last word on this unless someone can track down another source.]

Thursday, January 06, 2005

Senator Barbara Boxer stood up for Democracy

I think this is the first time in my life I ever voted alone in the United States Senate, and I have to tell you, I think it was the right thing to do.

One brave person stood up in the Senate today. Only one. And let's hope no one else in the Senate is dreaming of a presidential run because the 397 e-mails that arrived on this issue are blistering. Unlike Daniel Okrent, I don't have Arthur Bovino or his computer program to count my e-mails for me, I had to do it by hand -- hand count, kind of appropriate considering the issue involved. All praised Senator Barbara Boxer.

This wasn't the Patriot Act where the majority of us were in the dark (including those in Congress who voted for it) over what was going on. This was something closely monitored all over the web. This is something that registered with people.

It was time to stand and be counted and only one senator did.

Presidential aspirants on the Democratic side of the Senate will have to work really hard to wash away this memory.

Randi Rhodes was mentioned in 221 e-mails. All positive. She made many wonderful points (which is why phrases like "Randi told it like it was" and "thank God for Randi" popped up in so many e-mails). [Sorry, Randi Rhodes hosts The Randi Rhodes Show on Air America Radio each afternoon. Obviously, many of you, 221 of you in fact, heard her show today but for anyone who didn't, the web site to listen online or to check to see if there is a station in your area broadcasting her show is http://www.airamericaradio.com/. Her own site is http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/randirhodes/main.php.]

The point that stood out the most to me was when she said that yes, today wasn't all that it could have been but we needed to realize that we moved Congress today, we made them do their job, to be responsive to the people.

Or, as Why Are We In Iraq put it:

But I am proud of all that we've done the last two months. Everyone who took the time to call a senator is a true patriot. It would be really nice if many of you took the time to call Senator Boxer's office again and thank her for her courage.
(http://whyareweback.blogspot.com/2005/01/why-are-we-back-on-loaded-mouth.html)

Senator Boxer was responsive. (The House was so much better on this issue than the Senate and that should be noted. Hopefully, e-mails will come in praising House members tomorrow.)

This was a hard decision, but I feel really good about this decision. . . We cannot keep turning our eyes away from a flawed system particularly as we have people dying in Iraq every day to bring democracy to those people.
(http://new.in-forum.com/ap/index.cfm?page=view&id=D87ETCC02)

A Winding Road:

Today was a day of ups and downs. First, the incredible news that Senator Barbara Boxer had demonstrated the courage so often lacking these days among many of her colleagues and had signed the objection to the certification of Ohio's electoral votes.I'm sure many of you felt the same all too rare sense of pride I felt over this news. We all owe Senator Boxer a huge debt of gratitude for her resolution and courage in coming forward on this matter, for doing the right thing. And we all owe the same debt of gratitude to Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones and all of the other members of the House who worked with her on making this happen.It's also further proof that the progressive movement that we've all felt growing over the past few years is still very much alive and in force. Our voices, our calls, our letters, our signatures on the petitions were a large part of what convinced Senator Boxer to sign on.
. . .
I, political junkie that I can be, watched all of this unfold on CSPAN and CSPAN 2 this afternoon. In the Senate, I watched as Democrat and Democrat came forward and praised Senator Boxer for giving them the chance to discuss this, watched as most of them gave stirring speeches about the need for electoral reform, several of them laying out in detail the problems that had occurred in Ohio.I also watched, though, with a sinking sense of disgust as one after another, in the midst of their praise for Boxer and their listings of the faults of Ohio election and the calls for reform, as they expressed the feeling that they had no question as to the validity of the Ohio electoral vote.My anger and depression grew as the roll call vote was called. One by one, all of the Democrats who cast their votes, with the exception of Senator Boxer, voted against the Objection. This in spite of the evidence that many of them had cited in their own stirring speeches calling for reform.
(http://awindingroad.blogspot.com/2005/01/thank-you-senator-boxer.html)

Interesting Times weighed in on what was needed yesterday:

Some advice to Democratic Senators.
If at least one of your colleagues decides to stand up on Jan. 6th and sign on to Rep. Conyers objection to the Ohio electors than you should demonstrate party unity by all standing with that Senator.
(http://interestingtimes.blogspot.com/2005/01/you-can-get-anything-you-want.html)

And iddybud outlined it very clearly (what was needed and the fact that there was no "risk"):

A formal challenge would not affect the outcome of the election, because both houses of Congress are controlled by Republicans, who promise to certify Mr. Bush as the winner. But it would force lawmakers to abandon the ordinarily polite ritual, which takes place in the House chamber. Instead, the House and Senate would retreat to their own chambers, on opposite sides of the Capitol, for a two-hour debate and a formal vote on the objection.
(http://iddybud.blogspot.com/2005_01_06_iddybud_archive.html#110502364549234439)

Liberal Oasis offers some advice to the reticent Democratic senators:

OK, Senate Dems. Here’s your chance for a little redemption.
Know that some in the liberal grassroots were greatly displeased (granted, not everyone) when you all distanced yourselves from Sen. Boxer’s gutsy challenge to the Ohio electors.
That is not something you should take lightly. You need those folks energized if you are to have a prayer in the low-turnout ‘06 elections.
(http://www.liberaloasis.com/archives/010205.htm#010705)

Jessica at Feministing (http://feministing.com/archives/000791.html) may have put it best:

Two Women I F--king Love
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH).

[Note, that's The Common Ills' edit above.]

It was a roller coaster ride today and the end wasn't pretty. But we did accomplish something: Congress had to respond. I'm not trying to be a cheerleader, just noting a fact. Our voices combined made a difference. Boxer didn't have to step up. Tubbs, Conyers, Waters and the other strong voices in the House could have been left stranded. (And let's not forget the work of individuals l-- Jesse Jackson, to name but one -- and parties -- the Greens and the Libertarians.) As the House was left stranded in 2001.

This is on the record now. It's history. Every battle will not be won. (Boy did we learn that one in November!) But when we speak out collectively, it can make a difference. Today it did. Not what we dreamed of, not the way we hoped. But if we hadn't bothered, would this have been January, 2001 all over again?

I've responded to each e-mail on this topic and I'm sorry to people who will have to wait until tomorrow for responses on other topics. I hope the post below gave someone a needed laugh.
I know we're disappointed. But imagine how much worse it would be if we hadn't spoken out?

We accomplished something. We'll be more determined next time. Maybe the results will be better, maybe they won't. But no one said going up against the Bully Boy would be easy. And if Senator Barbara Boxer could stand alone in the Senate today when it was time to vote, then we can all find the strength and the courage to fight tomorrow and every day after.

Democracy isn't something that you work on today and then you're done for four years. It's a process and we need to make sure our voices are heard. I think everyone not in Congress did a great job. We had leaders in the House and we had one leader in the Senate. We'll work on getting more next time.

Let's end this entry with Senator Boxer's words, a section she used to highlight the bravery of another:

Before I close, I want to thank my colleague from the House, Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones.
Her letter to me asking for my intervention was substantive and compelling.
As I wrote to her, I was particularly moved by her point that it is virtually impossible to get official House consideration of the whole issue of election reform, including these irregularities.
The Congresswoman has tremendous respect in her state of Ohio, which is at the center of this fight.
Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones was a judge for 10 years. She was a prosecutor for 8 years. She was inducted into the Women’s Hall of Fame in 2002.
I am proud to stand with her in filing this objection.
(http://boxer.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=230450)

[Note: "Posts" was meant to be "points." It has been corrected. Note II: font correction and quotation done as well.]

Senator Dumb Butt on Senator Boxer and Hollywood (parody)

Transcription of Senator Dum Butt's remarks:

Uh, my fellow ... elected people. He-he-he. I just want to voice my objections to that woman Boxer. Now I never was too fond of women in sports and boxing's a man's sport so let me just get that into the record. But today, I'm just spitting mad over that Boxer woman. I've been sputtering and spitting and spitting and sputtering and just well everything.

Cause now that Boxer woman pretends to be just like you and me and America, you know? But I stand before you today to say that Boxer woman is not who she appears. No! Let the record show that woman is treasoner or treasonist or whatever you call them people who do the those weird things. I have proof, actual proof, and this includes that lefty rag the New York Times, that that Boxer woman went and seen Michah Moore's Fahrenheit: 9-11. Yes, it is shocking! Shocking!

Shocking! Shock and awe-ing! She's one of them Hollywooders, you see. And being from California, we all should have known it. Should have known it! Hollywood started this conspiracy that there were voting problems. Heck, they put it on Will & Grace and all them other gay shows like that Seven Heaven. Seven Heaven! There is one heaven and only one heaven. But Hollywood wants you to think there are seven! So that you think there are seven gods and all equal: Jesus, . . . Buddah, . . . Allah McGraw and Barbra Streisand! Those seven are not gods. There is only one god, and you know that even though Hollywood tells you different.
Hollywood has seeped into that woman's mind!

America and Americans, you know Hollywood is full of sinners and . . . sinners. Can't trust a one of them. Why if it weren't for Hollywood, that Arnold Schwarzenegger would be just another aged jock with man boobs! But Hollywood, liberal Hollywood, takes a commie like Arn --
Huh?

[aide whispers in Senator Dumb Butt's ear]

Uh . . .

Hollywood, liberal Hollywood, is out to destroy your family! With TV shows that destroy the family! Liberal TV shows from Hollywood like Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire about money grubbing women throwing themselves at a man! Or Temptation Island, a show about cheating!
Or Who's Your Daddy? about a woman that didn't know who her father was! How do you think that happens, huh? Them liberals want to destroy you and your family. And Fox TV is the worst liberal of them all and Rupert Murdoch wasn't even in born in this country, he is a foreig--
Huh?

[aide whispers in Senator Dumb Butt's ear]

Him too?

Uh, Hollywood, liberal Hollywood, Hollyweird, like that sugar britches who makes Richard Simmons seem like John Wayne, Kelsey Grammer! Flouncing around on that Fraiser acting effete and feminine, I tell you it's an abomination! Abom-- Huh?

[aide whispers in Senator Dumb Butt's ear]

Really?

Uh, Hollywood liberals like that foul mouthed Dennis Miller who's not funny. He's filthy.
And his career has gone the way of -- Huh?

[aide whispers in Senator Dumb Butt's ear]

Do we really need him?

[aide whispers in Senator Dumb Butt's ear]

Well, there's . . . Them Hollywood liberals!

Hollywood liberals! Like that woman I see on my TV hawking every product but a bra, Patricia Heaton! She's not even pretty. And what is with that hair color? God didn't make that hair color, so don't be blaming him. What is that color? Purple! Lumbering around, hectoring that husband, hen pecking him like a woman who doesn't know the good book's message, Patricia Heaton is a jeza- What!

[aide whispers in Senator Dumb Butt's ear]

Golly. . . .

Liberal Hollywood destroying you and your family with the . . . the devil music.
Yes, the devil music. Like that Kid Rock who -- Huh?

[aide whispers in Senator Dumb Butt's ear]

There going let him curse like that at the inaugaration?

[aide whispers in Senator Dumb Butt's ear]

Well then what's he going to sing? "I Am the Bullgod!" "Early Mornin' Pimp!" "Wax the Booty!"

[aide whispers in Senator Dumb Butt's ear]

Fine.

Uh, liberal Hollywood which, uh, spits on your traditional values. Like . . . like that woman who made all that pornography with her husband, Bo Derek! Bo? No, B.O! And her lusty movies stink so good America says N.O. to B.O. and --

[aide whispers to Senator Dumb Butt]

Really?

Uh . . . I have proven my point! Hollywood is nothing but commies who want to destroy you and your family and your country! And that Boxer woman is a dupe! She has fallen for those Hollywood conspiracies. Unlike that Boxer woman, I stand for America! The America that's not afraid to bully and be uninformed and don't let no words of reality stop me from staying the course. The America that's not afraid to tell it like it is even if facts don't support us cause we go by the guts!

[Note: Post corrected. Fraiser italicized, "my" changed to "me." As always, thank you Shirley for catching those.]

What happens when you take on the Bully Boy in his own backyard? (Alt Press roundup)

Leon Smith was all but run out of a small Texas town, not so much for what he did as for where and when he did it. After all, hundreds of others across the country did exactly the same thing at about the same time for perhaps similar reasons without noticeable consequences. Even Smith himself was able to commit his deed a second time a short drive down the road without tumult and uproar.

The Lone Star Iconoclast was banned from the Coffee Station over its Kerry endorsement.
‘We yanked the Iconoclast from the store and pulled our ads.’
But Smith’s decision last fall, as editor and publisher of The Lone Star Iconoclast, to endorse Democrat John Kerry for president in George W. Bush’s adopted hometown — on one of the busiest tourist weekends of the year, when Bush and the national media were in town — nearly killed his newspaper (and may well yet), turned Smith’s name to mud among many of his former customers, and made him and his employees bubbas non gratas in Crawford, Texas.
(http://www.fwweekly.com/issues/2005-01-05/feature.asp)

To find out what happens next, read Dan Malone's "Living on Ink and Ether" from the Fort Worth Weekly. (Thanks Billie, for sending this in.)

And now let's turn to the Lone Star Iconoclast:

Like more than a few Americans, fashion designer Julia Gerard, 50, reacted personally to the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001. She wanted revenge to those who committed such an atrocity. Bear no expense. Hunt them. Annihlate them!As a Russian immigrant, however, the daughter of a seventh rabbi-generation butcher who survived five years in one of Hitler’s concentration camps remembered the reason — peace — her father moved their family to the City of Angels, Los Angeles, Calif., from Riga, Latvia, which was once known as “the Paris of the Baltics.”“My father was a visionary. Simply put. He was someone who dreamed about something and then created the dream,” she said. “When he came out of the concentration camps, he had no family left. He just wanted to rebuild his life. He had a few relatives in Los Angeles, and he was always talking about it. As soon as I was born, he worked his way — it took us 10 years to get here. It was very difficult to get out of there.”Instead of hiding her feelings about peace in the U.S., she chose to share them on her clothing in the form of activist Gerald Holtom’s design based on two letters of the international semaphore alphabet superimposed on each other, N and D, which stand for “nuclear disarmdisarmament.” The positive response to her fashion statement grew into her expanding her gallery space to include her first exclusive “Clothing for Peace” Collection. The peace symbol adorns not only every piece of clothing in her new “Increase the Peace” gallery but also merchandise such as wine glasses, candles, jewelry, and furniture. Some of her clientelle includes internationally-reknown entertainers, actors and sports icons: Tina Turner, Elizabeth Taylor, Cheryl Ladd, Sally Kirkland, Chris Evert, Natalie Cole, Gloria Estefan, Bette Midler, and Dave Matthews.

To read Nathan Diebenow's interview with Julia Gerard ("FASHION THREADS PEACEPeace Symbol Making Comeback As Fashion Icon") click here http://www.iconoclast-texas.com/News/s01.htm. (Go ahead and do it, click here http://www.iconoclast-texas.com/News/s01.htm, you're standing with those who stand up for truth and reality.)

Bush's Mystery Bulge
If President Bush's piss-poor performance at the first debate against John Kerry weren't scandalous enough (this cantankerous rube is our president?), post-debate photos of a mysterious bulge beneath W's jacket promised a bona fide brouhaha. But the public never latched onto the bulge, and the story faded away. While it would be easy to dismiss photos that showed a rectangular protrusion between Bush's shoulder blades as so much Photoshop chicanery, Fox News shot and distributed the footage of the debate—and while Fox can't be counted on to report fairly or accurately, you can bet they didn't doctor any photos of their commander in chief. A host of experts went on the record to say Bush was indeed wired and possibly receiving a live feed during the debate from Karl Rove or some other White House puppet master. Dr. Robert M. Nelson, a senior research scientist for NASA and for Caltech's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and an authority on image analysis, told Salon.com that he'd stake his career on the fact that the President was wearing something under his jacket. And after viewing photos from the first two debates, master tailor Frank Shattuck told the New York Daily News there was "definitely" something hidden under Bush's jacket.
Bush's best defense against those trying to make a mountain out of his bulge would have been his debate performance itself. If someone was feeding me information, the president could have said, don't you think I woulda sounded a lot smarter and had some coherent answers? Instead, Bush relied on a much lamer excuse: The president dismissed the bulge as bad tailoring. Right. As a man of wealth and privilege, Bush didn't dash into a Men's Wearhouse and grab his suit and shirt off the rack at a downtown mall. I guarantee it.

That's Stett Holbrook, one of many writers covering "The year in scandals, in titillating 20/20 vision" (http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/12.29.04/scandalous-0453.html)

In Las Vegas City Life, Mike Zigler's "The Art of Compromise" reflects on the choice of Harry Reid for Senate Minority Leader:

So at a time when the obvious Democratic objective should be rebranding and distancing itself from Republicans, who's leading the party as Senate minority leader? Nevada's Harry Reid, one of the most conservative Democratic senators and someone whose positions often coincide with those of his right-wing counterparts.
Reid's against abortion and same-sex marriage, but supports an amendment to ban flag-burning. He downplayed the idea of making a sharp left turn with the party, believing it already holds progressive positions.
(http://www.lvcitylife.com/articles/2005/01/06/cover_story/cover.txt)

Reid flashes true colors on the subject of DNC chair (in the same article):

"I'm not sure Howard Dean is the answer to our problems," Reid said. "What we need is not someone who only speaks to the progressive wing of the party, but all wings of the party."

Mary O'Bryan (Eugene Weekly) weighs in on deaths everywhere in "No More, No Less: We Are What We Allow":

While people are dying in Indonesia, Thailand, Sri Lanka, and India from the Earth shuddering and the ocean heaving, the 45-year-old brother of one of my friends is dying of lymphoma in a Utah neighborhood that was downwind of Nevada atmospheric nuclear tests in the 1950s. He's the fourth person to die of cancer around that age in that neighborhood in recent years. Each day on Earth, approximately 35,000 children under 5 die of malnutrition or starvation. As we speak, men are dying under torture by our government.
How do we hold all this?
The instant mass, community death, caused by no one, evokes mass sympathy and an inspiring mobilization of aid.
The delayed individual adult death, caused by a nuclear arms race, is largely denied.
The daily mass death of sparrow-like children, caused by desperation, greed, and deliberate policies is largely ignored.
The death of a person we never met from purposely administered, hideous pain is accepted for "national security."
I see no way to grieve more for one early death than another. I do not intend to downplay Southeast Asia's current agony. I cannot help placing it alongside the agony of my friend's brother and that of the 35,000 children who starved to death today and that of a mortally beaten prisoner, far from a newspaper's front page.
(http://www.eugeneweekly.com/2005/01/06/views.html#view1)

Shirley Chisholm is remembered in the Baltimore City Paper by Brian Morton:

When your Political Animal was young and innocent, there was a woman from New York who had the stones to call them as she saw them. She helped found the Congressional Black Caucus. She knew enough in a time when many fledgling politicos were just wetting their feet to go and visit George Wallace—the man who ran for president on a ticket of pure divisiveness—in the hospital after he was gunned down in a Laurel shopping center, which set her own people against her. She knew the real political rule has always been: “no permanent enemies, only permanent interests.”
Shirley Chisholm, who died Jan. 1, said she wanted her epitaph to say, “That woman had guts.”
(http://www.citypaper.com/columns/story.asp?id=9513)

and by Becky O'Malley in the Berkeley Daily Planet:

When she launched her campaign in the 1972 election, a group of us who had never met her, almost all women, created an organization to support her in the Michigan primary. We were by and large Democrats who had been working since the early sixties to end housing discrimination and other forms of segregation in the north, and since 1964 to convince our party that supporting the war in Vietnam was a bad idea. Most of us were in our early thirties, with children and other family obligations, and were unwilling or unable to join the cultural revolution that had younger people and those with fewer constraints taking to the streets on a regular basis. We marched in Washington in the springtime with our babies in backpacks, but the rest of the time we slogged away at the hard work of changing voters’ hearts and minds back home.
For us, Shirley Chisholm was the dream candidate, the perfect antidote to the parade of colorless (literally and figuratively) interchangeable white men that the Democratic establishment fronted in every election. After almost a decade of hearing grey and humorless party leaders explain why we needed to support the likes of Lyndon Johnson and Hubert Humphery, her slogan “unbossed and unbought” was music to our ears.
(http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?issue=01-04-05&storyID=20454)

From the New York Observer, Lizzy Ratner's "Ramsey Clark: Why I’m Taking Saddam’s Case:"

"You can’t be sure of how the trial will go," said longtime Manhattan civil-rights attorney Ramsey Clark, wagging a long, slender forefinger. "But you could say that if it’s properly done, it will be the biggest trial of this century."
Mr. Clark was talking about the trial of Saddam Hussein, whom he recently signed on to represent before a special tribunal in Baghdad. For the man who has represented Leonard Peltier, the Harrisburg Seven and the Attica Brothers, but also prosecuted war resisters in the Johnson administration—indeed, for the man who, as a young Marine Corps courier, witnessed the Nuremberg trials after World War II—calling it the "trial of the century" was no small thing.
(http://www.observer.com/pages/frontpage1.asp)

Eugene Weekly continues to spotlight organizations providing tsunami relief on it's home page (http://www.eugeneweekly.com/).

The Austin Chronicle has a round up of "The Top Ten Media Stories" by Dick Ellis. We'll highlight number nine:

9) Lefties Will Survive: The Texas Observer and KOOP Radio celebrated 50- and 10-year milestones, respectively, despite suffering at various points in their history the usual bugaboos of such entities: shoestring budgets and staff infighting. Both provide an alternative to the right wing in a state that desperately needs it, and – despite the very public disagreements we've had with KOOP – we hope both live to at least double their tenures.
(http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2005-01-07/pols_feature3.html)

Matt Taibbi examines Tucker Carlson in "Bow Tie Me Up" (New York Press):

More seriously, Carlson has been known to do things like falsely report that Al Gore decided to go campaigning on the day his sister died, and that Republican speakers were booed and hounded by angry activists at Paul Wellstone's memorial service (they were not). But this is academic. You play a conservative pundit on television long enough, and anyone will be able to find a whole pile of objectionable statements in your past. The real significance of Carlson, as the celebrated exchange with Jon Stewart incoherently hinted at, is not what he says about the right, but what he says about television.
Stewart was right to target Crossfire. The Carlson/Paul Begala "debate" show is not only one of the biggest con games in the informational arena, it's the archetypal blueprint for the larger con game of American politics. In the show, the "left" battles the "right," and the segments are structured in such a way that the commentary is bound to outrage virtually every viewer away from one or the other debate participant. Taking sides, the viewer accepts the black-and-white left-right paradigm and focuses exclusively on the two debaters. As a result, he doesn't ask the important question, which is this: If Tucker Carlson represents the right and Paul Begala represents the left, what is the ideology of the tv studio in which they sit? What's the politics of that dull white table upon which their arms rest? Because the unspoken assumption of the show is that the debate is held in a perfectly neutral medium—and this is a false assumption.
(http://www.nypress.com/18/1/news&columns/taibbi.cfm)

One day in his first year in the U.S., Rubén, now 26, left his apartment at 15th and Bainbridge, where he lived with seven other men, to go to work. With the other men at work too, the house was empty all day.
When Rubén returned that evening everything was missing--the TV, VCR, PlayStation, telephone, stereo, CDs (most of them Mexican), air conditioner, bed covers and clothes. Their collective hidden savings--totaling $11,000--were gone. None of the men spoke much English, or knew where to turn for help. One of the men told his boss, a restaurant owner, who said that because they were illegal, there was nothing he could do. No one contacted the police.
This story's far from unusual. Those in South Philadelphia's Mexican community say they're the victims of countless crimes--muggings, bike thefts, robberies, armed assaults, rapes--that never get reported.
(http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/view.php?id=8728)

So begins "Borderine Realities" by Kate Kilpatrick in Philadelphia Weekly.

Meanwhile, Karyn Quinlan recounts her experience during the Washington recounts (Seattle Weekly):

Early Wednesday, Dec. 8, partisans began lining up for the first day of work. Fittingly for me, a Green, Democrats were obliged to wear green badges. The Republican badges were lavender, which, ironically, is the unofficial color of the gay and lesbian community. For Democrats, the only thing more amusing about this trifling detail was that the irony was totally lost on the Republicans.
Even without badges, it was not hard to tell Democrats from Republicans. Sadly, the Democrats' rainbow coalition was looking rather long in the tooth in contrast to their relatively youthful, white-bread Republican counterparts. Some among us gleefully bandied about the nom de guerre "purple people eaters" to describe our ever-angry Republican cohorts. No doubt, the Republicans had fun at our expense, too. But playful backbiting aside, the Dante's rings I had feared were nowhere in evidence—except maybe in the parking lot. The intense clash of vehicles, bumper stickers, Darwins, and fish was more than a little unnerving.
However, as Democrats and Republicans were paired up to sort ballots into precincts, the atmosphere was convivial, almost giddy. I was lucky enough to be coupled with a funny, and intelligent, young woman I'll call Ellie. Ellie was a recently laid off Web developer. As an outsourced computer professional, I found that we had some common ground. Together we got through the tedious task and even managed to have a good time. Ellie and I agreed that we had had worse jobs. In fact, I was enjoying Ellie's company so much that it barely registered when she joked (I hoped it was a joke) that the oath we had taken was invalid without a Bible to swear on. I made a mental note to keep my cursing to a minimum and to stop using the Lord's name in vain when I made a mistake.
(http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0501/050105_news_recount.php)

In the San Francisco Bay Guardian, Steven T. Jones' "Burning womenThe guys make a lot of noise – but women are increasingly making Burning Man happen" is a worthy read:

At the Commonwealth Club of California Dec. 14, a panel on the "Impact of Counterculture" featured four men – and moderator and journalist Laura Fraser, who took the group to task for giving short shrift to the role women have played in rebellious cultural movements.
After Mondo 2000 founder Ken Goffman, a.k.a. R.U. Sirius, fumbled to explain why so few women appear in his new book, Counterculture Through the Ages, Burning Man founder Larry Harvey took a stab at the topic.
It's true, he said, that men have often led counterculture movements like his through their early transgressive phases, when they argue loudly over the vision, rail against the status quo, and blow things up. But by the time Burning Man moved from Baker Beach to the inhospitable Black Rock Desert a few years into its existence, it was the women who ensured its survival and sustainability.
"Once we got into the desert," Harvey told the crowd, "the women took over."
(http://www.sfbg.com/39/14/news_burningwomen.html)

Also in the San Francisco Bay Guardian is Matthew Hirsch weighing in on the economics of same-sex marriage:

As legal arguments in the same-sex marriage case got underway Dec. 22, City Attorney Dennis Herrera set out to convince the San Francisco Superior Court that discrimination against gays and lesbians affects all of us, not just the narrow interests of those couples wishing to get married. To help make the point, Herrera asked Controller Ed Harrington to examine just how much it costs to restrict marriage in San Francisco as a union between a man and a woman.
Harrington's conclusions were startling, especially because the city is laying off employees and cutting services in an effort to balance the budget. He estimated that a favorable ruling in the same-sex marriage case could boost the city budget anywhere from $15 million to $20 million a year.
Most of the estimated savings would come from having lower public health costs, including visits to city hospitals and health clinics. That's because same-sex couples are much more likely to be uninsured than married couples, according to recent studies by the U.S. Census Bureau and the National Center for Health Statistics. If same-sex couples were allowed to marry, Harrington reasoned, more of them would qualify for spousal health benefits.
The cost of discriminationSame-sex marriage isn't just about civil rights. It's about your money too
(http://www.sfbg.com/39/14/news_gay.html)

Democracy Now!; Gary Webb, Gonzales & Torture; and Alberto Gonzales's little slip

Democracy Now!:

Headlines for January 6, 2005

- Annan Warns of a "Race Against Time" in Tsunami Disaster
- Gitmo Prisoner Alleges He Was Sent to Egypt for Torture
- Medical Journal: US Army Doctors Violated Geneva Conventions
- Ken Blackwell Boasts of "Delivering" Ohio to Bush
- Democrats Contest Electoral Vote Count
- Big Business to Support Conservative Bush Appointees
- WorldComm Directors to Pay Millions
- Calling Mr. Bush: Will Iraq Have Elections

Violence, Confusion, Fear: Problems Mount Surrounding Scheduled Jan 30th Iraqi Elections

As the scheduled Jan. 30 date for elections in Iraq steadily approaches, we speak with California State University professor As'as AbuKhalil about the mounting problems surrounding the vote.

"Free the 6th Amendment, The Right to Counsel": Attorney Lynne Stewart Blasts Gv't. Terror Case Against Her

The defense continues closing arguments in the trial of civil rights lawyer Lynne Stewart. She is accused of conspiring to assist terrorists in a case that is being watched closely by lawyers around the country. She faces up to 45 years in prison. Lynne Stewart joins us in our firehouse studio.

Alberto Gonzales' Role in Torture Memos Like "Mafia Lawyer Whose Job it is to Help the Don Stay Out of Jail"

Senate hearings begin today on the nomination of the White House counsel, Alberto Gonzales, as attorney general. He faces tough questions on the torture of detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and Cuba. We speak with journalist Mark Danner of the New Yorker, author of the new book, Torture and Truth: America, Abu Ghraib, and the War on Terror.

For Martha, we highlight this:

I have a confession to make: I still think Gary Webb had it mostly right.

I think he got the treatment that always comes to those who dare question aloud the bona fides of the establishment: First he got misrepresented--his suggestion that the CIA tolerated the contras' cocaine trading became an allegation that the agency itself was involved in the drug trade. Then he was ridiculed as a conspiracy-monger--joked one commentator, Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post, "Oliver Stone, check your voice mail." In the end, Webb was rendered untouchable.

. . .

But try thinking of it from a black American's point of view. The CIA was tasked with helping the contras, a group President Ronald Reagan had declared the moral equivalent of America's founding fathers. So intent was the Reagan-Bush administration on assuring the survival and success of the contras that it attempted an illegal bargain with the hated mullahs of Iran in order to benefit the Nicaraguans.

Now, you're a CIA agent who must decide whether to blow the whistle on some of your charges for supplementing their budget by trading in cocaine on the side--or just turn your head and not "see" anything. Between the contras, beloved of the president, and some black gangsters in L.A. (we won't talk about the zoned-out, zonked-out end users), who is the more expendable?

I am reminded here of the climactic chapters of Ralph Ellison's "Invisible Man," in which a seething Harlem goes up in flames. It happens not because of anything the protagonist and his cherished "Brotherhood" do. It happens because the leadership of the Brotherhood elects to do nothing, to cease expending any energy at all on Harlem and its problems.

Who is the more expendable? I think Gary Webb had it figured out just right.
That's Don Wycliff, the public editor of The Chicago Tribune, weighing in with "Dangers of Questioning Government Actions" (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-0501060112jan06,0,5603781.column).

I'd recommend you read the piece. (I'd like to post the whole thing and may be pushing fair use guidelines as is, but there's no way I was cutting the Ellison reference and the above does nothing to demonstrate the power of Wycliff's remarks. Please, if you have the time, read "Dangers of Questioning Government Actions.")

Gonzales & Torture:

U.S. authorities in late 2001 forcibly transferred an Australian citizen to Egypt, where, he alleges, he was tortured for six months before being flown to the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, according to court papers made public yesterday in a petition seeking to halt U.S. plans to return him to Egypt. ("Terror Suspect Alleges Torture" by Dana Priest & Dan Eggen, the Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51726-2005Jan5.html ).

("Gonzales Pledges to Preserve Civil Liberties" by William Branigin, the Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52815-2005Jan6.html)

The earliest abuses on record in Iraq apparently came in May 2003. On May 15, two marines in Karbala held a 9-millimeter pistol to the head of a bound detainee while a third took a picture. One marine, according to military records, then poured a glass of water on the detainee's head. In June 2003, according to records, a marine ordered four Iraqi children who had been detained for looting to stand next to a shallow ditch, then fired a pistol in a mock execution.

In August, a marine put a match to a puddle of hand sanitizer that had spilled in front of an Iraqi detainee, igniting a flame that severely burned the detainee's hands. ("Newly Released Reports Show Early Concern on Prison Abuse" by Kate Zernike, the New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/06/politics/06abuse.html?oref=login)

According to the memo obtained through Freedom of Information Act by the American Civil Liberties Union in late November, interrogators at the Guantanamo detention center allegedly chained an inmate in the fetal position for as long as 24 hours, as the man lay in his own feces and pulled out his own hair in distress.

Other FBI agents told their superiors that they had seen "personnel of other agencies," an apparent reference to Department of Defense interrogators, confronting shackled prisoners with growling dogs; exposing them to extreme heat or cold to "soften" them ahead of questioning; and wrapping suspects in Israeli flags and subjecting them to blaring rap music. ("Inquiry Ordered Into Alleged Guantanamo Prisoner Abuse" by Carol J. Williams, the Los Angeles Times, http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-abuse6jan06,1,767259.story?coll=la-headlines-nation ).

An Iraqi civilian testified in Ft. Hood that he and his cousin were forced at gunpoint into the Tigris River and that U.S. soldiers laughed while the two struggled against the current.
Marwan Fadel Hassoun said he struggled to shore and tried to save his 19-year-old cousin by grabbing his hand, but Zaidoun Fadel Hassoun was swept to his death.("Iraqi Testifies in Trial of Amry Sergeant" from Times Wire Reports, Los Angeles Times, http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-briefs6.2jan06,1,7268998.story?coll=la-headlines-nation ).

Yet a key issue in the Gonzales nomination is the role he played in defining or approving a US policy that appeared to condone torture. This week, a dozen retired military officers criticized Gonzales for a series of memos on the treatment of prisoners, including a Jan. 25, 2002, memorandum that argued some of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions are "obsolete" and "quaint" in the context of a "new kind of war" against terror.

It is highly unusual for military officials to take a public position on a civilian appointment. But retired officers say that the impact on the military of memos endorsed by Gonzales is too striking to ignore. "We saw this as posing a huge danger for American service men and women taken into captivity. These briefs under Gonzales could be cited by our enemies to justify torture of our people," says retired Gen. James Cullen, former chief judge of the US Army Court of Criminal Appeals.

He explains in an interview: The Army Field Manual cautions that if readers are in doubt about whether a proposed interrogation technique should be applied, they should ask themselves: If they were taken prisoner, would they want the proposed interrogation measure applied against them? "This very common-sense approach was missed entirely by Mr. Gonzales," says General Cullen. ("Gonzales Likely to be Confirmed as AG, But Faces Sharp Questions" by Gail Russell Chaddock, The Christian Science Monitor, http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0105/p02s01-uspo.html ).

Appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee for his confirmation hearing, Gonzales also said he does not view the Geneva Conventions as either "obsolete" or "quaint" -- words that appear in a 2002 memo he wrote to Bush referring to some of the convention's provisions. ("Gonzales Pledges to Preserve Civil Liberties" by William Branigin, the Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52815-2005Jan6.html ).

Does he mean it? Heck, does he even understand it?

Pay attention to this (from the same article above):

In his opening remarks, Gonzales pledged that if the Senate approves him, "I will no longer represent only the White House; I will represent the United States of America and its people. I understand the difference between the two roles."

Apparently Gonzales didn't realize that the Whie House Legal Counsel (the job he holds now) wasn't some personal trial attorney job. (Not that Gonzales has practiced law much to begin with.) Now he's going to worry about the United States of America???? Now he's going to worry about the citizens????? Uh, news flash Alberto, you were supposed to be representing both all along. That's why when Bush hired an attorney over the outing of Valerie Plame and that attorney wasn't you. Your role as White House Legal Counsel was not to be his personal, private attorney, though some would certainly argue that you acted as such.

Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.

NOW & Senator Barbara Boxer Stands Up for Democracy

Wondering what the Bully Boy's "war" on social security might mean for women?

Privatizing Social Security Will Hurt Women will give you a few answers and it also stresses a very important point:

On the other hand, George Bush is in trouble. He's got a big debt to pay to his friends on Wall Street, and he wants to do it fast so that the next group can belly up to the taxpayer trough. The transition costs aloneÂ—an estimated $2 trillionÂ—are enough to make Halliburton want to expand into yet another area of government "service." Some have called this the "biggest bonanza in mutual fund history," and the financial industry stands to gain as much as $75 billion a year. Where does that money come from? The answer isÂ—you.

They're even talking about some creative accounting to keep that $2 trillion giveaway off of the budget books Â— hide it and hope no one notices. Have they hired the Enron accountants to advise the Social Security Administration?

Senator Barbara Boxer has signed the House's challenge according to Unfiltered. Looking for a link. Rachel Maddow's asking if Boxer will be the only one to stand up?

AP link http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20050106/ap_on_go_co/electoral_vote :

Sen. Barbara Boxer (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., signed a challenge mounted by House Democrats to Ohio's 20 electoral votes, which put Bush over the top. By law, a challenge signed by members of the House and Senate requires both chambers to meet separately for up to two hours to consider it. Lawmakers are allowed to speak for no more than five minutes each.

Hopefully others will join her, but as Lizz Winstead and Rachel Maddow are noting on Unfiltered, Senator Barbara Boxer's stand for democracy and voting rights. We salute her for her strength and for backing up House Democrats when they needed someone to stand by them. Boxer has a backbone. Hopefully other senators will join her, but we thank her.

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.

Strong tsunami coverage by Jane Perlez on the front page

In the makeshift recovery room, Dr. Paul Shumack crouched on the floor cradling the head of Novi, 35, who had already lost her husband and only child to the tsunami, and now her right leg.
The doctor had just amputated it to the buttock. Short of supplies, the surgical team had been forced to use what was described as a handsaw. The hour-long operation drained huge amounts of blood from Mrs. Novi, already weak from asthma. There was no blood for a transfusion. Her fingers were turning white.
"She is dying," said Dr. Shumack, the leader of an emergency surgical team of Australian doctors and nurses. Ten minutes later, still holding her head, he softly pronounced her dead. "We gave her what chance we could."
International health officials have warned of soaring numbers of casualties among survivors of the tsunami 10 days ago, but doctors here say that many of the most seriously injured died even before medical teams arrived here near the center of the devastation.

The above is from Jane Perlez's For Many Tsunami Survivors, Battered Bodies, Grim Choices on the front page of today's New York Times. Yes, all over the world people people are donating (and countries) in record numbers to help the relief efforts and that's a part of the story. But as Elaine e-mailed late last night, "This back patting seemed to almost become the story." Generousity should be noted. It is not, however, the story or the "end of the story." Perlez's strong article brings that point home this morning.

Kate Zernike's Newly Released Reports Show Early Concern on Prison Abuse is a strong article that notes the pattern of abuse that was not isolated, nor the work of a 'few bad apples':

When the Abu Ghraib scandal broke last spring, officials characterized the abuse as the aberrant acts of a small group of low-ranking reservists, limited to a few weeks in late 2003. But thousands of pages in military reports and documents released under the Freedom of Information Act to the American Civil Liberties Union in the past few months have demonstrated that the abuse involved multiple service branches in Afghanistan, Iraq and Cuba, beginning in 2002 and continuing after Congress and the military had begun investigating Abu Ghraib.
Yesterday, in response to some of the documents, the Pentagon said it would investigate F.B.I. reports that military interrogators in Guantánamo abused prisoners by beating them, grabbing their genitals and chaining them to the cold ground.
Questions on the handling of detainees will be central to Senate hearings today on the nomination of the White House counsel, Alberto R. Gonzales, as attorney general and to the court-martial of the accused leader of the Abu Ghraib abuse, which begins Friday in Texas.
An article in today's issue of The New England Journal of Medicine says that military medical personnel violated the Geneva Conventions by helping design coercive interrogation techniques based on detainee medical information. Some doctors told the journal that the military had instructed them not to discuss the deaths that occurred in detention.

Richard W. Stevenson's G.O.P. Divided as Bush Views Social Security focuses on the split between GOP Congress members on how to best alter (ATTACK -- my term) social security:

One group of Republicans is pressing the administration to make the accounts as big as possible, preferably permitting the investment of all or nearly all of the 6.2 percent levy on wages that individuals contribute to Social Security. (Under all proposals, employers would continue to pay an additional 6.2 percent tax on each employee's wages up to a wage cap that this year is $90,000.)
. . .
That approach is viewed warily by many other Republicans. Those Republicans say that diverting money that would otherwise go to pay benefits into the private accounts would lead to a sharp spike in the budget deficit in the short run. They say the approach would also raise what they say is a false expectation that Social Security's problems can be addressed without any painful steps.

I question the inclusion of Gina Kolata's Two Studies Suggest a Protein Has a Big Role in Heart Disease on the front page. That's not a slam against Kolata's writing or an attempt to say health isn't important enough as a topic to make the front page. I question any story that's lead sentence relies on "may," that's based on new studies and that quickly moves to note:

But other heart disease researchers cautioned that more work was needed to prove that CRP directly causes heart disease. And most agreed that because the new studies involved only people with severe heart disease, it remained unknown whether healthy people would benefit from reducing their CRP levels.

Translation, more peer review needed, results may be inconclusive. It's a story, it deserves to be in the paper (and Kolata has written it very well), but an inconclusive "maybe" without a consenus from researchers doesn't belong on the front page (my opinion).

How appropriate: just now on NPR's Morning Edition someone just joked "I'm going to go eat some doughnuts." That's the sort of "discussion" an article like this inspires. (Even with Kolata stressing cautions.) Which is why I question it appearing on the front page.

A worthy front page story, by contrast, is Gretchen Morgenson's 10 Ex-Directors From WorldCom to Pay Millions :

Investors have become increasingly frustrated as company directors and officers escaped financial responsibility for losses incurred as a result of fraud.
Companies whose executives are accused of engaging in fraudulent practices typically pay those executives' legal bills and the fines that can result when regulatory proceedings against them are settled. And directors almost never pay in such settlements because they are covered by insurance.
"New York State has done a great thing for shareholders everywhere," said Greg Taxin, chief executive of Glass Lewis, an institutional investor advisory service in San Francisco. "This may be one of the most important steps toward reinforcing the importance of performing the directorship duties with fidelity toward shareholders. It's going to be very sobering to board members around the country."
The directors' personal payments were a requirement of any deal from the start of the negotiations, according to lawyers involved in the settlement. Given the size of the WorldCom debacle, the investors who brought the case sought to make an example of the directors, lawyers involved in the settlement said.

This is a strong article and one worth reading. It's also more worthy of "discussion" than silly jokes about "doughnuts" and Atkins. I understand NPR was trying to be funny, I do think they took a serious story, treated seriously by Kolata, and oversimplified it in the interest of "fun." I don't see that as a public service.

That said, NPR deserves credit for their interview this morning (Morning Edition) with Republican Congressman Joel Hefley who, at this point, is still the chairmanship of the House Ethics Committee. "It doesn't serve me well to criticize leadership . . . I'm in enough trouble as it is," declared Hefley. What is bothering him? That the much trumpted "return" to the ethics rule isn't really a return. A majority must agree to pursue an ethics investigation or it will just fade away. The coverage and commentary on the "return" hasn't really underscored that.

Also on the front page is Steven Erlanger's As Abbas Runs, Skeptical Militants Wait and See which Kara has e-mailed asking that people weigh in on. (We'll discuss it this evening.)

Wednesday, January 05, 2005

But to achieve the overhaul, the administration must "establish an important premise: the current system is heading toward an iceberg," Wehner said.

Re: quote above, who said what?

Plugging Buzzflash one more time, I found this Yahoo story there.

The success of President Bush (news - web sites)'s push to remake Social Security (news - web sites) depends on convincing the public that the system is "heading for an iceberg," according to a White House strategy e-mail that makes the case for cutting benefits promised for the future.
Calling the effort "one of the most important conservative undertakings of modern times," Karl Rove deputy Peter Wehner says in the e-mail that "the Social Security battle is one we can win." Doing so would advance the idea of limited government and could transform the nation's political landscape, he said.
. . .
The e-mail "shows the strategy is to instill panic," said Rep. Charles Rangel (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., the top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee.
Wehner's e-mail urged cuts in future promised benefits as the best approach to overhaul the system to private investment accounts. Not doing so would cause "short-term economic consequences."
. . .
"This memo shows that some in the Bush administration will resort to the worst kind of scare tactics to undermine Social Security," Rangel said.
Social Security is projected to start paying out more in benefits than it collects in taxes in 2018, according to Social Security trustees. It can pay full promised benefits until 2042. Then, it can cover about 73 percent of promised benefits. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (news - web sites) predicts solvency until 2052.
[From Leigh Strope's Associated Press article "E-Mail Advises Bush on Social Security" (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=542&e=8&u=/ap/social_security).

This January 2, 2005 BuzzFlash Editorial marks the second in 20 consecutive editorials BuzzFlash will be publishing through January 20th

Don't think BuzzFlash has given up harping on the corporate media. It's just that we talk about it so much, we sometimes forget to highlight the role of new communication technology in simplifying the news and flow of information down to the sound bite level.
Indeed, several technological developments over the past years have created a "perfect storm" environment for a media that surfs along the crest of the news, devoid of historical context. Furthermore, home entertainment options, cable news, the Internet, cell phones, and the omnipresent television screen have resulted in the merging of entertainment, celebrity news, sensationalism, and politics into one seamless industry. We are flooded with bursts of information that appear to arrive without any historical context.
[Click the link at the top of the editorial to read more.]

To read others in the series, please see http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/default.htm.

I'm going to highlight the Buzzflash Interviews as well (http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/).
Exploring the archives will allow you to discover interviews with a number of people you mention in e-mails. Gloria Steinem, Gore Vidal, Amy Goodman, Matthew Rothschild, Molly Ivins, Margaret Cho, Rev. Jesse Jackson, Katrina vanden Heuvel, Laura Flanders, John Dean, Ed Garvey, Bill Moyers, Greg Palast, Janeane Garofalo, Arianna Huffington, Randi Rhodes, Naomi Klein, Joe Conason, Jim Hightower, Bernie Sanders and so many more.

In honor of the hard work highlighting Ohio voting that's been done by both Buzzflash and U.S.
Congressman John Conyers, Jr. we'll spotlight this interview from 2001.

Didn't know Buzzflash did interviews? Again, check out the site (it's a permalink but for those not wanting to scroll around the site, www.buzzflash.com).

Must read John Dean column, Jim Haynes As a Stalking Horse In Torturegate: Why President Bush Renominated Him for A Federal Appellate Judgeship :

To understand the nomination of Haynes, it's important to understand some key context. On June 2, 2003, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Patrick Leahy (D -VT), wrote to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, concerned about reports and rumors of prisoner abuse and torture.
On June 25, 2003, in his capacity as Defense Department General Counsel, Haynes responded -- assuring the Senator in an artfully worded letter that the Administration's "policy" was "to comply with all of its legal obligations in its treatment of detainees, and in particular with legal obligations prohibiting torture."
Seeking further specifics, Leahy wrote back to Haynes. But months went by with no response. Meanwhile, on September 29, 2003, Hayes was nominated for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Haynes's confirmation hearing was scheduled for November 19, 2003.
Late at night, on the eve of the hearing, Senator Leahy received a letter -- not from Haynes but a subordinate. "That letter was completely unresponsive to my questions," Senator Leahy said. He also complained that earlier assurances Haynes had given to him and others "were not true." As a result, Senate Democrats tried to put the brakes on Haynes's nomination.

What happened next? Read the column.

Also noteworthy, is Bill Gallagher's latest in The Niagra Falls Reporter:

The president's reaction to the Asian tsunami underscores his insensitivity, isolation and limited understanding of vital demographics in the world that ultimately affect our national interests and security. It also represents a failed opportunity to begin changing how the rest of the world views its richest and most powerful nation.
The administration's reaction to the disaster was befuddled, and its initial offers of aid were embarrassingly inadequate. The episode also points to a rule in the Bush White House. No matter how important an event may be, or how dire the warning is (See: The CIA's Presidential Daily Briefing presented on Aug. 6, 2001, at Bush's Crawford, Texas, ranch entitled, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack within the U.S."), Bush's handlers follow this directive: Nothing disturbs the president when he's on vacation. Other than political fund-raisers, he rarely does anything outside his relaxing routine. Even when he takes a work break at the White House, Bush is meticulously programmed and predictable.
(http://www.niagarafallsreporter.com/gallagher196.html)

And don't miss Baghdad Burning:

The elections are set for the 29th. It's an interesting situation. The different sects and factions just can't seem to agree. Sunni Arabs are going to boycott elections. It's not about religion or fatwas or any of that so much as the principle of holding elections while you are under occupation. People don't really sense that this is the first stepping stone to democracy as western media is implying. Many people sense that this is just the final act of a really bad play. It's the tying of the ribbon on the "democracy parcel" we've been handed. It's being stuck with an occupation government that has been labeled 'legitimate' through elections. We're being bombarded with cute Iraqi commercials of happy Iraqi families preparing to vote. Signs and billboards remind us that the elections are getting closer...Can you just imagine what our history books are going to look like 20 years from now? "The first democratic elections were held in Iraq on January 29, 2005 under the ever-watchful collective eye of the occupation forces, headed by the United States of America. Troops in tanks watched as swarms of warm, fuzzy Iraqis headed for the ballot boxes to select one of the American-approved candidates..."
(http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/)

The Common Ills