Thursday, September 29, 2005

Another Attorney General's Office Nominee Connected to Abu Ghraib

This is an Action Alert from the ACLU:

Tell Your Senators to Stop the Vote Promoting a Top Torture Official

Dear Friends,

Once again, while privates and sergeants get marched off to jail, another top architect of the federal government’s torture policies is about to get a big promotion. Former White House lawyer and current senior Tyco attorney Timothy Flanigan has been nominated by the president to be Deputy Attorney General. His nomination is now before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

As deputy to then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, Flanigan participated in the development of policies that removed protections for torture and abuse of foreign detainees in U.S. custody, paving the way for the abuses at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and elsewhere.

Take Action! Urge your Senators to oppose moving forward on the Flanigan nomination unless Attorney General Gonzalez first appoints an outside special counsel for torture prosecutions.

If the Senate confirms Flanigan, he will be the direct supervisor of ALL federal U.S. Attorneys. With his former boss Alberto Gonzales in the number one spot, the nation's top two law enforcement officials will have both played important roles in the torture and abuse scandal.

To guarantee a fair and comprehensive review of the full extent of the government’s violation of the rule of law, Congress must demand an independent investigation of those decisions and the officials involved before elevating another top torture official to the second highest law enforcement job in the nation.

Click below to take action now by urging your Senators to oppose moving forward on the Flanigan nomination until Attorney General Gonzales appoints an outside independent counsel to investigate and prosecute criminal acts of torture and abuse by the government.



Thank you for your help!

Sincerely,

Caroline Fredrickson
Director
ACLU Washington Legislative Office

Friday, September 23, 2005

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

Right here in Harrisburg, PA, a monumental case is being heard. Starting Monday (September 26, 2005) and slated to last 5 weeks, Kitzmiller v. Dover will decide the legitimacy of our nation's schools. The Dover Area School District wants to add "Intelligent Design" (ID) as an alternative to evolution. ID is merely a cover for religion, contending that life is so complex that someone must have designed the world. To read more about what the experts are saying regarding this "theory," click here:




The ACLU is championing this fight for religious freedom. That's right. Opposing ID curricula is defending religious freedom. It's not really about keeping Christianity out of our schools which, of course, would be a worthy fight considering our country's standard for separating church and state. What this trial is really about is protecting those that may not hold this belief, whether they be Agnostic, atheist, Hindu, or Muslim. ID is taught every Sunday morning in churches and synagogues throughout the nation. If they want equal time in our public schools, they should be willing to teach evolution as an alternative to creationism during Sunday school. Think this will happen? Not a chance.

Thursday, September 15, 2005

CCDC

Hi all,

As most of you know, I volunteer for an organization called the Cumberland County Democratic Committee (CCDC). Below is the link to our website. Please go check it out and pass it on to your friends in the area. The website explains a little about our organization and has some great local links. The site is great if you'd like to know more about politics in our area (i.e. elections, candidates, etc.)

As we all know, to achieve a strong national Democratic party, we must start at a local level.

http://www.cumberlandcountydems.com/

Also, our website is a work-in-progress. If anyone has any suggestions to make it more user-friendly, please don't hesitate to let me know.

Thanks friends,
Sara

Commonwealth Dumb-cus

For those of you that may not know, a group of Republicans calling themselves the Commonwealth Caucus have proposed a plan to get rid of your property taxes. Only problem is, to pay for this, they intend to raise a boat-load of other taxes, namely sales tax. What does this do? It takes money away from the janitor to pay for the building owners' tax break. What is the logic here? No clue. How is this fair? Well, it's not. The Secretary of Revenue along with most state Democrats and a good chunk of state Republicans have said as much. Is this plan just to get a couple of state legislators re-elected? I'm not so sure. It's been hanging around for more than a year. These guys really think that this is possible. They think it's fair and that it's not just to screw a lot of poor people and reward a bunch of rich people. This is yet another example of Republicans believing the poorest among us should fend for themselves. Is this tough love to them? Is it survival of the biggest wallets? Do they really think they're doing a good thing? I guess we'll have to make them answer these questions in November.

Patriot Act Victory

A Message from the ACLU:

We Are Winning In Court: Now Urge Lawmakers to Push for Patriot Reform

Supporters of democracy had a crucial victory last week, when a federal court told the FBI to lift a gag order that limits the Patriot Act debate. If affirmed on appeal, the judge’s ruling would allow our client to speak about the dangerous provisions that allow FBI demands for library and Internet records.

This win in court could not be better timed for our work in Congress. And the momentum is on our side. As a joint “conference committee” prepares to meet on Patriot Act renewal, nearly 100 lawmakers have already joined “Dear Conferee” letters asking their colleagues to support the Senate reforms to the Patriot Act.

While not perfect, the Senate bill is a significant improvement over the proposals in the House version, which would do nothing to fix serious civil liberties threats in the Patriot Act and would actually make the law worse in many respects. You can help right now. Please click below to urge your own senator or representative to sign on to a “Dear Conferee” letter.

We still have a chance to make a difference. Last week, thousands of you organized or attended events to watch the premiere of “Beyond the Patriot Act,” the first episode of the ACLU Freedom Files, the new television series from the ACLU and Robert Greenwald's Brave New Films (the company behind Unconstitutional and Outfoxed).

From Florida to Alaska and California to Massachusetts, hundreds of concerned Americans turned out to watch this ground-breaking program. Even Mississippi, recovering from Katrina, carried on the fight to defend the Constitution.

From a screening in South Carolina, host Heather Parks writes, “Everyone at the meeting either felt violated, or the possibility of being violated. The Patriot Act effectively dilutes and destroys the ‘checks and balances’ written into the Constitution that protect some of the most basic of our freedoms--we are finding that people are really scared and enraged about that.”

At Arizona State University, nearly 40 people gathered for a campus screening. Host Zarinah Nadir says many attendees had never realized the full implications of the Patriot Act. "Many of them were law students--very well informed and very well read--but they were amazed and shocked."

We need you to take action now because whether Congress includes some needed reforms to the Patriot Act this year will be decided in the next few weeks.

Bob Casey '06

A few of us went to a Bob Casey fundraiser at our friend Justin's house last night. For those out-of-staters that may be reading this, Bob Casey (Jr.) is the son of former governor and state legend Robert P. Casey. He's been the Auditor General and he's currently our State Treasurer. In fact, we learned last night that Mr. Casey received the most votes of any state official in history. In any case, the best news is this: HE'S RUNNING AGAINST THE ANTI-CHRIST, MR. RICHARD SANTORUM. That's right, the homosexuality is on par with beastiality guy; the "we need caps on malpractice," but his wife received $500,000 in a malpractice suit guy; the strongest proponent of privatizing social security guy; the "let's fine the people that won't leave New Orleans," guy. Heard of him? But I digress.

Mr. Casey seemed to be very humbled by the early fundraiser. He has a genuine caring for people, not just for those that have the money to give to him, but mostly for those that don't. If you live in PA, get the word out about Bob Casey running against Santorum. Get a buzz going. Get people excited about an alternative to the "extreme and intolerant," Rick Santorum.

I had the pleasure of speaking with him for 30 seconds. Not long, but all he wanted to do was thank me then talk about what I was doing right now. Selfless. Don't get me wrong, I'm not gushing, but I am very excited about the man that will be running against a politician that's about as far to the right as you can be in today's society and still get elected. Wait, there is one man that's worse, but I shouldn't get started on Senator Tom Coburn - (R - OK), who thinks that gays are the gravest threat to our democracy and that abortionists should get the death penalty.

Sorry, I was digressing again. Well, have a happy Thursday...

Quote of the Day...

"I'm double-fisted at the Casey party" -- TW

Wednesday, September 14, 2005

Unfeeling President

Our friend Amanda found this. It's very eye-opening. Be aware, it's a downer, but it should motivate you to make a change:

Doctorow was born in New York City on January 6, 1931. After graduating with honors from Kenyon College in 1952, he did graduate work at Columbia University and served in the U.S. Army. Doctorow was senior editor for New American Library from 1959 to 1964 and then served as editor in chief at Dial Press until 1969. Since then, he has devoted his time to writing and teaching. He holds the Glucksman Chair in American Letters at New York University and over the years has taught at several institutions, including Yale University Drama School, Princeton University, Sarah Lawrence College, and the University of California, Irvine.)

==============================


I fault this president (George W. Bush) for not knowing what death is. He does not suffer the death of our twenty-one year olds who wanted to be what they could be. On the eve of D-day in 1944 General Eisenhower prayed to God for the lives of the young soldiers he knew were going to die. He knew what death was. Even in a justifiable war, a war not of choice but of necessity, a war of survival, the cost was almost more than Eisenhower could bear.

But this president does not know what death is. He hasn't the mind for it. You see him joking with the press, peering under the table for the WMDs he can't seem to find, you see him at rallies strutting up to the stage in shirt sleeves to the roar of the carefully screened crowd,smiling and waving, triumphal, a he-man. He does not mourn. He doesn't understand why he should mourn. He is satisfied during the course of a speech written for him to look solemn for a moment and sake of the brave young Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country.

But you study him, you look into his eyes and know he dissembles an emotion which he does not feel in the depths of his being because he has no capacity for it. He does not feel a personal responsibility for the thousand dead young men and women who wanted be what they could be.

They come to his desk not as youngsters with mothers and fathers or wives and children who will suffer to the end of their days a terribly torn fabric of familial relationships and the inconsolable remembrance of aborted life. They come to his desk as a political liability which is why the press is not permitted to photograph the arrival of their coffins from Iraq.

How then can he mourn? To mourn is to express regret and he regrets nothing. He does not regret that his reason for going to war was, as he knew, unsubstantiated by the facts. He does not regret that his bungled plan for the war's aftermath has made of his mission-accomplished a disaster. He does not regret that rather than controlling terrorism his war in Iraq has licensed it.

So he never mourns for the dead and crippled youngsters who have fought this war of his choice. He wanted to go to war and he did. He had not the mind to perceive the costs of war, or to listen to those who knew those costs. He did not understand that you do not go to war when it is one of the options, but when it is the only option; you go not because you want to but because you have to.

This president knew it would be difficult for Americans not to cheer the overthrow of a foreign dictator. He knew that much. This president and his supporters would seem to have a mind for only one thing --- to take power, to remain in power, and to use that power for the sake of themselves and their friends. A war will do that as well as anything. You become a wartime leader. The country gets behind you. Dissent becomes inappropriate.

And so he does not drop to his knees, he is not contrite, he does not sit in the church with the grieving parents and wives and children. He is the President who does not feel. He does not feel for the families of the dead; he does not feel for the thirty five million of us who live in poverty; he does not feel for the forty percent who cannot afford health insurance; he does not feel for the miners whose lungs are turning black or for the working people he has deprived of the chance to work overtime at time-and-a-half to pay their bills --- it is amazing for how many people in this country this President does not feel.

But he will dissemble feeling. He will say in all sincerity he is relieving the wealthiest one percent of the population of their tax burden for the sake of the rest of us, and that he is polluting the air we breathe for the sake of our economy, and that he is decreasing the safety regulations for coal mines to save the coal miners' jobs, and that he is depriving workers of their time-and-a- half benefits for overtime because this is actually a way to honor them by raising them into the professional class.

And this litany of lies he will versify with reverences for God and the flag and democracy, when just what he and his party are doing to our democracy is choking the life out of it.

But there is one more terribly sad thing about all of this. I remember the millions of people here and around the world who marched against the war. It was extraordinary, that spontaneously aroused oversoul of alarm and protest that transcended national borders. Why did it happen? After all, this was not the only war anyone had ever seen coming. There are little wars all over the world most of the time.

But the cry of protest was the appalled understanding of millions of people that America was ceding its role as the last best hope of mankind. It was their perception that the classic archetype of democracy was morphing into a rogue nation. The greatest democratic republic in history was turning its back on the future, using its extraordinary power and standing not to advance the ideal of a concordance of civilizations but to endorse the kind of tribal combat that originated with the Neanderthals, a people, now extinct, who could imagine ensuring their survival by no other means than pre-emptive war.

The president we get is the country we get. With each president the nation is conformed spiritually. He is the artificer of our malleable national soul. He proposes not only the laws but the kinds of lawlessness that govern our lives and invoke our responses. The people he appoints are cast in his image. The trouble they get into and get us into, is his characteristic trouble.

Finally the media amplify his character into our moral weather report. He becomes the face of our sky, the conditions that prevail: How can we sustain ourselves as the United States of America given the stupid and ineffective warmaking, the constitutionally insensitive lawgiving, and the monarchal economics of this president? He cannot mourn but is a figure of such moral vacancy as to make us mourn for ourselves.

E.L. Doctorow

Tuesday, September 13, 2005

From Amanda Rotondo

This is a post Amanda wanted to make, but her 'puter won't let her post it. That computer must have been made by republicans or something. Don't worry, A-Rot, I edited it for you:

So the other day I was driving through Andover (a rich yet liberal town in MA, where, incidentally, George 1& 2 both went to High School) and saw this bumper sticker that caught my eye because it had a peace sign on it. I was driving and reading and had to read it about 4 times becasue I couldn't understand it. I came to understand that it had something to do with the driver of the car being a chicken farmer and feeling that chickens, with their high protein and relatively inexpensive meat, led to a well fed and comfortable American population which in turn helped facilitate peace. This irked me, because I felt I had to go along way mentally from the actual text of the sticker to draw this conclusion, so that either it was a crappy bumper sticker or I misunderstood. So I Googled the text when I got to work. I was VERY wrong. Here is the bumper sticker in t-shirt form. Read the caption next to the picture. The try not to put your headthrough a wall:

Question...

First off, let me say that I agree with a lot of TW's picks. I don't think I'd put Hillary at number 1, but I think he's a bit more of an idealist than I am. I agree that O'Bama is a great man, I think we'll see some amazing things from him in the next 10 years...plus he's got charisma coming out of every pore. I've always been a Dean-Head. I actually supported Dean in the primaries and was quite upset when he didn't receive the party nomination. I, too, don't necessarily think he's "presidential material" but having him somehow involved in 2008 can only help the party (I mean, look what he did with grassroots campaigning in '04. The Kerry campaign took a few lessons from him).

But I do have an important question (kind of fun) for some of you hardcore dems:

Would you ever vote a republican into office?

Usually people have a pretty strong opinion on this subject, so I'd like your feedback. Now, I know that you're probably thinking of John McCain when I ask this question, but I don't necessarily mean him. It's more of a conceptual question. i.e. Would you ever be able to support a republican presidential candidate? And don't forget to consider all of the aspects of this -- ex: Bush doesn't endorse him/her even though they're republican...They're moderate enough to actually get elected...etc.

Alright, go to it.

Sara

Supreme Court Situation

What can we say about the situation on the Supreme Court: It's desperate.

With Roberts replacing Rhenquist, it's not that much of a change, honestly. It's better than Roberts, a right-wing lawyer, replacing O'Connor, a moderate in favor of Roe v. Wade. What's unsettling is what comes next:

O'Connor could be replaced by our current Attorney General, what-his-face, the Latin fellow. A minority sounds good, whether it's a woman or a racial minority, but there are a handful of minorities that aren't aware that most republicans hate them. Any conservative leanings within whomever replaces O'Connor will tilt the balance of the highest court in the land toward the right. Not a good sign for women, minorities, privacy, voters' rights, science, social programs, etc.

What's even scarier is that there could be one or even TWO more vacancies before Bush leaves office. This could send our country's judiciary backward in time to, say, the prohibition era, slavery, you name it.

Basically, I'm saying "stay alert." Be aware of what's going on with the supreme court. Get political action updates and information from SaveTheCourt.org (http://www.savethecourt.org/). Don't think that Supreme Court Judges are cushy retirement jobs that don't mean much. Without the Supreme Court we'd still have segregated schools and back-alley, illegal abortions.

Top Five Presidential Candidates for '08

I know it's early, but this is sort of a fun first post. Who would you like to see as our presidential candidate for 2008? That rhymes...cool. Anyways, here's a list of my top five. Feel free to tell me I'm stupid or add a list of your own.

1 - Hillary Clinton : I believe this country is ready for a change, and that change could be in the person of the first female president. She has the strength, conviction, and intelligence to get the job done. Not to mention her political savvy and moderate stance (something voters have come to like, lately).

2 - Barak O'Bama : I know, I know. He's too young, he's not completely white, and the voters will never go for him. SO WHAT. He's been a great inspiration to many, and he's just what this country needs. Do I think he'd get our party's nod? No. But would I like to see him be on the campaign trail? Yes.

3 - John Kerry : No one likes to run a loser from a previous election, but Mr. Kerry (as well as Mr. Bush's failings) really motivated a huge base. Voters showed up in record numbers to vote for him. He's also got name recognition. Wouldn't mind seeing him as a VP to Mrs. Rodham-Clinton.

4 - Al Gore : Again with the previous loser, but Albert has been a warrior for the party since his illegitimate demise in 2000. He's become more spirited, and his views and priorities are very attractive. Don't look for him to play second fiddle to another Clinton, though.

5 - The Dean : Howie has been screaming on morning radio shows for the last two years, now. He's definitely got name recognition down. I don't know if he's got the disposition to be a presidential candidate, but he's got to be one of the smartest political minds in our party. He needs to be involved in 2008, even if it's simply contributing to the discussion.