Behold the power of Chiniqua

Well I never expected action so quickly! Thanks Senator Clinton!

fly the Friendly Skies

In time for the holidays, I thought I'd share the letter that I sent to my senators and congressman.
This is an issue that has been bugging me for a while, so I figured it was time to do something about it, no matter how small.

Dear Senator Clinton,
I am writing today to express my concern about the ambiguity of air passenger's rights. I realize that homeland security is a priority, but I am disturbed by the lack of clarity in airport screening procedures.
My first concern involves the questions that airport security personnel may ask, and the passenger’s rights to refuse to answer. Recently I was flying to Italy to visit my boyfriend. After passing through security I was detained on the gangway to the plane and asked a new set of questions. At some point these questions became intrusive and somewhat insulting. The two screeners began by asking me whether I had a job or was a student. When I replied neither, they proceeded to ask me how I was paying for the ticket and where I got my money from. I answered that I had some savings. They insisted on knowing where the savings were from, and whether I had ever worked. They did not seem to believe me that I had paid for my ticket myself if I was not employed, and kept asking how I had afforded a ticket to Europe without a job. After I told them I had inherited some money from my grandmother, they still had me run through my employment history. They were only satisfied when I told them that I had been an investigator for the City of New York.
I understand that they wanted to know whether my ticket was purchased for me by a terrorist group or drug cartel, for example. Aside from the fact that if I was a terrorist I would probably have a better cover story, what bothered me were not the questions themselves but the coercive nature of the questioning and my unclear legal situation. I had then, and have now, no idea whether I was obliged to answer their questions. I have no idea what would happen if I refused to answer their questions. I have no idea what the parameters of what they are legally allowed to ask are. I have no idea whom to speak to if I feel I have been asked overly intrusive questions. I have no idea what my rights are and whether normal search and seizure law applies, or if I give up my Fourth Amendment rights when I buy and airplane ticket.
My second concern involves items prohibited and allowed in carry-on luggage. When I travel, I try to bring only carry-on bags. Because I know that there can be problems, I check the TSA website and even call the airline ahead of time to find out which items are permitted on board. I do not want to bring anything controversial onto an airplane, mind you, but rather a small pink set of (blunt) tweezers and a set of wooden knitting needles. Every time that I have flown recently I have been advised, despite the TSA guidelines, that I could not bring these items in my carry-on luggage.
The heart of this problem seems to be the TSA Prohibited and Permitted List, which states in the introduction, “…the screener may also determine that an item on the permitted chart is dangerous and therefore may not be brought through the security checkpoint.” Essentially this states that the chart is useless, as the screener has ultimate authority to decide to permit or disallow whatever they like. With no hard and fast rules, and no appeals process or higher authority, one’s personal possessions are at the whim of the screener. Furthermore, there is literally no way to plan ahead, since the rules can be changed at any moment. This is not an efficient, reasonable or transparent way to run the system.
Whether it is completely ludicrous to forbid a 2" set of tweezers and a pair of wooden (ok - full disclosure - bamboo) knitting needles attached to a baby blanket is a discussion for another day.
I understand that these are fairly small concerns, and do not claim that any lasting damage has been done to me. It is simply that as a law-abiding citizen and frequent traveller, I am deeply disturbed by the lack of information about one’s rights as an air passenger.
In conjunction with the recent stories about female passengers being intrusively frisked and searched, I feel that it is time for the TSA to become more open and accountable. I urge you to create a security-related passenger’s bill of rights.
Thank you

Feel free to do the same!
And yes, I knit and I am a big dork.

There is another...

This is what I've been saying for a while now - and as much as I like seeing Giuliani twist in the wind, the thought that it's a Rove plot really lessens my enjoyment.
(from The Daily News)

The plot against Rudy
Conservatives continue to feast on Rudy Giuliani's misery.
As Rudy begins to distance himself from the ethically challenged, briefly nominated Homeland Security chief wanna-be Bernard Kerik, some right-wing hardliners claim White House strategist Karl Rove devised the Kerik debacle to hurt Giuliani's presidential chances in '08.
'Rove used Rudy and Kerik to tout Bush as the anti-terrorism candidate,' says one Republican party player. 'But Rudy is too socially liberal for the true-believers. So they let him shoot himself in the foot. Rove knew about Kerik's baggage - and that he could never be confirmed. But he went along with the nomination, betting that the heat would come down on Rudy, which it has.'
A White House spokesman didn't return a call for comment on the conspiracy theory. But other party observers disagree that Bush wasn't damaged by Kerik.
'It may even have hurt the appointment of Alberto Gonzales [for attorney general], as Democratic senators are going to question his vetting process, too,' says a source.
While some think Giuliani could still be a contender in four years, others believe Rove and Bush have one man in mind for the Oval Office: brother Jeb Bush.
'They're saying, 'We own the party now,'' says one source, 'and we're not going to give it away.

You forgot about Jeb, didn't you!

The future's so bright

It'll be so much fun when Chimpy gets to appoint a new Supreme Court judge! Maybe he'll be like Thomas or Scalia! They're soooo cool.

It gets better

Oh god. What a fucking asshole.

From the ACLU via Atrios.

NEW YORK -- A document released for the first time today by the American Civil Liberties Union suggests that President Bush issued an Executive Order authorizing the use of inhumane interrogation methods against detainees in Iraq. Also released by the ACLU today are a slew of other records including a December 2003 FBI e-mail that characterizes methods used by the Defense Department as "torture" and a June 2004 "Urgent Report" to the Director of the FBI that raises concerns that abuse of detainees is being covered up...
...The two-page e-mail that references an Executive Order states that the President directly authorized interrogation techniques including sleep deprivation, stress positions, the use of military dogs, and "sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, etc." The ACLU is urging the White House to confirm or deny the existence of such an order and immediately to release the order if it exists. The FBI e-mail, which was sent in May 2004 from "On Scene Commander--Baghdad" to a handful of senior FBI officials, notes that the FBI has prohibited its agents from employing the techniques that the President is said to have authorized.

Something new to worry about

NJot just problems today, but problems for tomorrow too! A whole new generation of little Osamas! This, from Salon's War room (again).

...the Financial Times today has a story showing how Rumsfeld -- and Bush, too, of course -- has already done more than his part to strengthen anti-Western militants by handing them such a fine training ground: The cauldron of violence and chaos that is Iraq. Saudi officials, the FT reports, are growing concerned about insurgents who went to Iraq for training and military experience, and who are now returning to Saudi Arabia -- and have been found as far away as Western Europe -- now with finely-honed skills they developed fighting the U.S. in Iraq.

A senior European intelligence official told the FT: "The big trend for the coming 20 years will be the Iraqi jihad veterans. They are being seen as the extreme threat for the coming period. One key challenge is to establish who they are and where they are going, in order to make sure that the same mistake is not made as was made with the Arab Afghan veterans who fought against the Soviet Union." This is frightening because of the obvious ramifications for global terrorism; but as Juan Cole discusses today, there are also potential implications for oil and the world economy as jihadists return from Iraq to the Saudi kingdom...

This may be the last straw

From the AP

Dec. 18, 2004  |  ITHACA, N.Y. -- Nearly half of all Americans believe the U.S. government should restrict the civil liberties of Muslim Americans, according to a nationwide poll.
The survey conducted by Cornell University also found that Republicans and people who described themselves as highly religious were more apt to support curtailing Muslims' civil liberties than Democrats or people who are less religious.
Researchers also found that respondents who paid more attention to television news were more likely to fear terrorist attacks and support limiting the rights of Muslim Americans....
...The survey found 44 percent favored at least some restrictions on the civil liberties of Muslim Americans. Forty-eight percent said liberties should not be restricted in any way.
The survey showed that 27 percent of respondents supported requiring all Muslim Americans to register where they lived with the federal government. Twenty-two percent favored racial profiling to identify potential terrorist threats. And 29 percent thought undercover agents should infiltrate Muslim civic and volunteer organizations to keep tabs on their activities and fund-raising...

Azulita says that we must all become constitutional lawyers. I think we must leave, now, because this boat is sinking.

David Brock brings it

Now you might still be a little on the fence about David Brock - but my mind is made up. He kicks ass. Naturally the Al Franken theme song We Will Brock You has a lot to do with my affection (now he's back on the side of the human race!) but I also really like and respect the Media Matters site. Check it out if you haven't before.
But the really fun stuff is here. Brock calls Bill O'Reilly a coward and worse. And better yet, he proves it! Hopefully O'Reilly will sue him or something.

This dovetails into what I think is a really vital issue; the need for a liberal rapid-response network. I wrote a little about it before and it seems so obvious. I'm not sure if it is so obvious that no one mentions it or if I'm on to some sort of big idea here. But if the [insert favorite description of the other side here - mine is Morning Sedition's "christo-fascist death cult"] can shoot out all this info about things they want to boycott, and all these complaints to the FCC and all this crap to control our culture, I'm not sure why we can't also.

Media Matters and MoveOn are doing something like this with all the Stop Sinclair stuff, but that's thinking too small. Why aren't we innundating them with angry emails? Why don't we organize boycotts of O'Reilly Factor advertisers? There are a whole damn lot of us - I'm sure that we could do something. After all, it only took 2 people to cost FOX a bundle for the strippers on Married by America.

And while we're on the damn subject, what I'm outraged by is that no one was fucking married by America. There was no wedding! False advertising!

Going nuclear

I know it's not good form to just take something off the net and copy it, but hell, this is my blog.

From Salon's War Room column - which rules - some scary thoughts about the future of the Senate.

The thing is, these people (you know, those people) are acting like there will be no price to pay for their arrogance, like there's no tomorrow. It's obvious to even the most casual observer that if you get rid of the filibuster, sooner or later it will bite you in the ass because you will not always be the majority party. Unless.

Unless :
a) no more happy democracy for us or
b) end times.

Just a thought. Anyway, here it is:

Bill Frist's "nuclear option"

Though William Rehnquist is slated to swear in President Bush in January, you can probably bet the farm at this point that the ailing 79-year-old chief justice won't stay on the bench much longer. Many expect his departure to usher in an incendiary period of battle over judicial nominations, particularly as emboldened right-wing activists put increasing pressure on President Bush to tap anti-abortion, anti-gay-marriage hard-liners for the job.

According to the Washington Post, the coming battle may have Capitol Hill on the brink of a meltdown -- with Sen. Majority Leader Bill Frist threatening to use the full arsenal at his disposal.

"As speculation mounts that Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist will step down from the Supreme Court soon because of thyroid cancer, Senate Republican leaders are preparing for a showdown to keep Democrats from blocking President Bush's judicial nominations, including a replacement for Rehnquist. Republicans say that Democrats have abused the filibuster by blocking 10 of the president's 229 judicial nominees in his first term -- although confirmation of Bush nominees exceeds in most cases the first-term experience of presidents dating to Ronald Reagan. Describing the filibusters as intolerable, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has hinted he may resort to an unusual parliamentary maneuver, dubbed the 'nuclear option,' to thwart such filibusters.

"'One way or another, the filibuster of judicial nominees must end,' he said in a speech to the Federalist Society last month, labeling the use of filibusters against judicial nominees a 'formula for tyranny by the minority.'"

The "nuclear option" explained:

"At issue is a seldom-used, complicated and highly controversial parliamentary maneuver in which Republicans could seek a ruling from the chamber's presiding officer, presumably Vice President Cheney, that filibusters against judicial nominees are unconstitutional. Under this procedure, it would take only a simple majority or 51 votes to uphold the ruling -- far easier for the 55-member GOP majority to get than the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster or the 67 votes needed to change the rules under normal procedures. It would then take only 51 votes to confirm a nominee, ensuring approval of most if not all of Bush's choices."

The Dems are responding with some brinkmanship of their own:

"If they, for whatever reason, decide to do this, it's not only wrong, they will rue the day they did it, because we will do whatever we can do to strike back. I know procedures around here. And I know that there will still be Senate business conducted. But I will, for lack of a better word, screw things up." -- Sen. Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Use of the nuclear option "would make the Senate look like a banana republic ... and cause us to try to shut it down in every way. Social Security and tax reform need Democratic support. If they use the nuclear option, in all likelihood they would not get Democratic support [for those and other initiatives]." -- Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-NY.

-- Mark Follman

I like my Chile hot and spicy! (not old and rotten)

From today's (Tues. 12/14) New York Times:

"Judge Juan Guzmán Tapia also ordered that General Pinochet, 89, be placed under house arrest and confined to his mansion on the outskirts of Santiago, the Chilean capital. The former dictator's lawyer, Pablo Rodríguez, accused the judge of trampling on the general's human rights and announced that he would appeal the decision. Later Monday, General Pinochet's defense team filed an injunction with the Santiago Court of Appeals, effectively freezing the house arrest until the court rules on it, The Associated Press reported."

First off, this is a great and exciting time for the Chilean people (I imagine) and a victory for justice in its broadest sense. But it's still so completely relative -- look at the above paragraph: a) being on house arrest in a mansion at age 89 is like... i dunno.. being on coffeeshop arrest when you're our age and in Amsterdam. You're gonna be there anyway, and you're probably having a nice time. But the real travesty is b) the assertion that it violates Pinochet's human rights, as if he knows or gives a shit what that might mean, or deserves anything better than what he did to thousands of (or, in the case of the trial, ten) other people. I say when he dies he should be buried in an unmarked hole in the desert, then we can all say he never existed to begin with. It's a great strategy, employed widely under Pinochet's regime, so doesn't it seem appropriate for him?


Note: This sort of feeds into a theme that I hope to write more on later, about how one of the problems with the US electorate is that we take our rights for granted, and we've been lulled into a state of thinking we don't have to fight for them. It's not true all across the board, but when you compare our post-election atmosphere (dejection) with the Ukraine (mass protest), or our sense of governmental accountability (okay, some of us are on the ball on this one, but BushCo runs in the opposite direction of it, and effectively it doesn't exist... and we're still not massively protesting) compared to that of the Chileans (it's been decades since the coup and Operation Condor, but their persistence has not waivered). This country is closer to a dictatorship than it's ever been, so I guess what it comes down to is, how much worse does it have to get before we can all start making it better? Let's gear up for a fight!

Oh yeah! Happy Monday Mr. Pinochet

Guardian Unlimited | World Latest | Judge Indicts Ex-Chilean Dictator Pinochet

The FCC won't let me be

I've been thinking a lot about this whole FCC bullshit. The revelation that 99.8% of the indecency reports have been filed by the Parent's Television Council makes me see red. (Oh - wow - I wasn't even trying to make a pun.) All of this goddamned crap about how we're all riled up about indecency and it's, like, 6 people with computers and a form letter. And these assholes are deciding what I get to see.

So here's the obvious solution: we need to set up our own little system like that. Let's email a thousand damn complaints about the offensive crap that's on TV all the time. Like when Bill O'Freaking Reilly tells jews to go back to Israel if they don't want to be converted. I'm not even Jewish and I'm offended.

So someone (with better web skills, with more time, with a less secretarial job, etc.) should set up a website for us to make fast and easy complaints. Let's complain the hell out of 'em.

Rummy this

CNN.com - Rumsfeld faces thorny questions from troops

At least the troops aren't fooled.

God I hate these people.

Dean's Speech Today

The whole damn thing, because it's worth it. The doctor is in.

Thank you for that introduction. It's a pleasure to be here.
Let me tell you what my plan for this Party is:

We're going to win in Mississippi

...and Alabama

...and Idaho

...and South Carolina.

Four years ago, the President won 49 percent of the vote. The Republican Party treated it like it was a mandate, and we let them get away with it.

Fifty one percent is not a mandate either. And this time we're not going to let them get away with it.

Our challenge today is not to re-hash what has happened, but to look forward, to make the Democratic Party a 50-state party again, and, most importantly, to win.

To win the White House and a majority in Congress, yes. But also to do the real work that will make these victories possible -- to put Democratic ideas and Democratic candidates in every office -- whether it be Secretary of State, supervisor of elections, county commissioner or school board member.

Here in Washington, it seems that after every losing election, there's a consensus reached among decision-makers in the Democratic Party is that the way to win is to be more like Republicans.

I suppose you could call that philosophy: if you didn't beat 'em, join them.

I'm not one for making predictions -- but if we accept that philosophy this time around, another Democrat will be standing here in four years giving this same speech. we cannot win by being "Republican-lite." We've tried it; it doesn't work.

The question is not whether we move left or right. It's not about our direction. What we need to start focusing on... is the destination.

There are some practical elements to the destination.

The destination of the Democratic Party requires that it be financially viable, able to raise money not only from big donors but small contributors, not only through dinners and telephone solicitations and direct mail, but also through the Internet and person-to-person outreach.

The destination of the Democratic Party means making it a party that can communicate with its supporters and with all Americans. Politics is at its best when we create and inspire a sense of community. The tools that were pioneered in my campaign -- like blogs, and meetups, and streaming video -- are just a start. We must use all of the power and potential of technology as part of an aggressive outreach to meet and include voters, to work with the state parties, and to influence media coverage.

The most practical destination is winning elective office. And we must do that at every level of government. The way we will rebuild the Democratic Party is not from consultants down, but from the ground up.

We have some successes to build on. We raised more money than the RNC, and we did so by attracting thousands of new small donors. This is the first time in my memory that the DNC is not coming out of a national campaign in debt. We trained tens of thousands of new activists. We put together the most sophisticated get-out-the-vote operation our Party has ever had. We registered millions of new voters, including a record number of minority and young voters. And we saw those new voters overwhelmingly vote Democrat.

Now we need to build on our successes while transforming the Democratic Party into a grassroots organization that can win in 50 states.

I have seen all the doomsday predictions that the Democratic Party could shrink to become a regional Party. A Party of the Northeast and the Pacific Northwest.

We cannot be a Party that seeks the presidency by running an 18-state campaign. We cannot be a party that cedes a single state, a single District, a single precinct, nor should we cede a single voter.

As many of the candidates supported by my organization Democracy for America showed -- people in places that we've too long ignored are hungry for an alternative; they're hungry for new ideas and new candidates, and they're willing to elect Democrats.

Since we started Dean for America last March, we raised over $5 million, mostly from small donors. That money was given to 748 candidates in 46 states and at every level of government.

We helped a Democratic governor get elected in Montana and a Democratic mayor get elected in Salt Lake County, Utah.

We helped Lori Saldana in San Diego. Lori, a Latina grassroots environmental organizer was outspent in both the primary and the general, won a seat on the state assembly.

We also helped Anita Kelly become the first African-American woman elected to her circuit court in Montgomery Alabama.

Fifteen of the candidates who we helped win last month never ran for elective office before.

And in Texas, a little known candidate who had been written off completely ran the first competitive race against Tom Delay in over a decade.

There are no red states or blue states, just American states. And if we can compete at all levels and in the most conservative parts of the country, we can win ... at any level and anywhere.

People will vote for Democratic candidates in Texas, and Alabama, and Utah if we knock on their door, introduce ourselves, and tell them what we believe.

There is another destination beyond strong finances, outreach, and campaigns.

That destination is a better, stronger, smarter, safer, healthier America.

An America where we don't turn our back on our own people.

That's the America we can only build with conviction.

When some people say we should change direction, in essence they are arguing that our basic or guiding principles can be altered or modified.

They can't.

On issue after issue, we are where the majority of the American people are.

What I want to know is at what point did it become a radical notion to stand up for what we believe?

Over fifty years ago, Harry Truman said, "We are not going to get anywhere by trimming or appeasing. And we don't need to try it."

Yet here we are still making the same mistakes.

Let me tell you something: there's only one thing Republican power brokers want more than for us to lurch to the left -- and that's for us to lurch to the right.

What they fear most is that we may really begin fighting for what we believe -- the fiscally responsible, socially progressive values for which Democrats have always stood and fought.

I'll give this to Republicans. They know the America they want. They want a government so small that, in the words of one prominent Republican, it can be drowned in a bathtub.

They want a government that runs big deficits, but is small enough to fit into your bedroom. They want a government that is of, by, and for their special interest friends.

They want a government that preaches compassion but practices division.

They want wealth rewarded over work.

And they are willing to use any means to get there.

In going from record surpluses to record deficits, the Republican Party has relinquished the mantle of fiscal responsibility.

And now they're talking about borrowing another $2 trillion to take benefits away from our Senior Citizens.

In going from record job creation to record job loss, they have abandoned the mantle of economic responsibility.

In cutting health care, education, and community policing programs... and in failing to invest in America's inner cities, or distressed rural communities... they certainly have no desire to even claim the mantle of social responsibility.

In their refusal to embrace real electoral reform or conduct the business in government in the light of day, they are hardly the model of civic responsibility.

In their willingness to change the rules so that their indicted leaders can stay in power, they have even given up any claim on personal responsibility.

And in starting an international conflict based on misleading information, I believe they have abdicated America's moral responsibility, as well.

There is a Party of fiscal responsibility... economic responsibility.... social responsibility... civic responsibility... personal responsibility... and moral responsibility.

It's the Democratic Party.

We need to be able to say strongly, firmly, and proudly what we believe.

Because we are what we believe.

And we believe every person in America should have access to affordable health care. It is wrong that we remain the only industrialized nation in the world that does not assure health care for all of its citizens.

We believe the path to a better future goes directly through our public schools. I have nothing against private schools, parochial schools and home schooling. Parents with the means and inclination should choose whatever they believe is best for their children. But those choices must never come at the expense of what has been -- and must always be -- the great equalizer in our society -- public education.

We believe that if you put in a lifetime of work, you have earned a retirement of dignity -- not one that is put at risk by your government or unethical business practices.

The first time our nation balanced its budget, it was Andrew Jackson, father of the Democratic Party, who did it. The last time our nation balanced its budget, it was Bill Clinton who did it. I did it every year as Governor. Democrats believe in fiscal responsibility and we're the only ones who have delivered it.

We believe that every single American has a voice and that it should be heard in the halls of power everyday. And it most certainly must be heard on Election Day. Democracies around the world look to us as a model. How can we be worthy of their aspirations when we have done enough to guarantee accurate elections for our own citizens.

We believe in a strong and secure America... And we believe we will be stronger by having a moral foreign policy.

We need to embrace real political reform -- because only real reform will pry government from the grasp of the special interests who have made a mockery of reform and progress for far too long.

The pundits have said that this election was decided on the issue of moral values. I don't believe that. It is a moral value to provide health care. It is a moral value to educate our young people. The sense of community that comes from full participation in our Democracy is a moral value. Honesty is a moral value.

If this election had been decided on moral values, Democrats would have won.

It is time for the Democratic Party to start framing the debate.

We have to learn to punch our way off the ropes.

We have to set the agenda.

We should not hesitate to call for reform -- reform in elections, reform in health care and education, reforms that promote ethical business practices. And, yes, we need to talk about some internal reform in the Democratic Party as well, and I'll be discussing that more specifically in the days ahead.

Reform is the hallmark of a strong Democratic Party.

Those who stand in the way of reform cannot be the focus of our attention for only four months out of every four years.

Reform is a daily battle.

And we must pursue those reforms with conviction -- every day, at all levels, in 50 states.

A little while back, at a fundraiser, a woman came up to me. She identified herself as an evangelical Christian from Texas. I asked her what you are all wondering -- why was she supporting me. She said there were two reasons. The first was that she had a child who had poly-cystic kidney disease, and what that illness made it impossible for their family to get health care.

The second thing she said was, "The other reason we're with you is because evangelical Christians are people of deep conviction, and you're a person of deep conviction. I may not agree with you on everything, but what we want more than anything else from our government is that when something happens to our family or something happens to our country -- it's that the people in office have deep conviction."

We are what we believe. And the American people know it.

And I believe that over the next two... four... ten years...

Election by election...

State by state...

Precinct by precinct...

Door by door...

Vote by vote...

We're going to lift our Party up...

And we're going to take this country back for the people who built it.

Kudos, New York!

The last-minute decisions of the Republican-controlled NY State legislature have us at once exalted and conflicted. A minimum wage hike that was so long overdue, had just been vetoed by Pataki, and seemed like it might never come to pass, has been put into effect. The Rockefeller drug laws, while still in place, have been significantly reduced in their harshness. (Imagine getting a life sentence for drug possession. That's insane. There are 400 such people in the NYS jails now.) This all seems strangely progressive. In fact, my dad confirms that "labor advocates and progressives generally are looking to the states as renewed 'laboratories of innovation' given the stagnation at the federal level."

Which leaves us torn: on the one hand, we want to get the hell out of the country. On the other, we want to stay in the state, keep up the good work, and make even more progress (and elect Spitzer). Where does this leave us? How funny (not ha-ha funny) is it that we the democrats want to run away from federal government and rely as much as possible on our state's discretion? My hope is that this can protect us against the oncoming (and ongoing) assault on our rights, especially women's reproductive rights. Because otherwise we really might have to hightail it outta here.

Of course since some states are passing gay marriage bans and other pet projects of the Bush Admin. into law, not all the states will be countering the federal trends.

And, hey, if it gets real bad and the divide becomes irreconcilable, there's always secession. I know the good people of DC would love a chance to storm the whitehouse with torches and billy clubs. We can make it a REAL War of Northern Agression!

Believe it or not, something good.

Who would have thought something good could happen? But it has. In fact, three good things right here in my home state of New Jawk.

1. Eliot Spitzer, The Man, announced for Governor. He, barring unaccountable (but thankfully not uncountable, since NY still uses good old mechanical lever voting machines) things, whould win it. I don't want to jinx him, but Pataki has been the gov FOREVER and I think most people are over it. Rudy I think seeks higher things, so that leaves Spitzer, who just may be the Real Deal.

2. After decades of struggle (really - decades!) NY State has finally softened (not repealed, but it's a start) the Rockefeller drug laws. These were the horrible set of laws that forced judges to impose mandatory and incredibly harsh sentences on drug offenders. Even if they were first time, and even if they were non-violent. Mandatory sentences are still bad, but finally it's a start. There is still a lot of work to be done, and we shouldn't let this lull us into inaction on the issue, but this is a great thing.

3. And finally, the republican controlled State Senate overruled Pataki and finally RAISED THE MINIMUM WAGE! This is an issue that I actually went out to the 'burbs and knocked on doors with a bunch of hard-partying college students this summer to get passed. The NY State minimum wage was $5.15/hr, the same as the federal minimum. I don't need to tell you that it costs a hell of a lot more to live in NYC than, say Mississippi (which has the same minimum wage). After a monumental organizing effort, much of it by the awsome Working Families Party, and a bitter defeat when Pataki vetoed the bill, we have triumphed. The minimum wage will rise in two steps, ending at, I believe, $7.15/hr in 2007. This is awsome news, not just for the working poor of NY (and the majority of NY's minimum wage workers are adults, not kids at McDonald's) but for anyone who believes int he power of grass-roots organizing.

Feel free to go and celebrate, just so's you rememeber how.

The bad

Naomi Klein, of no logo fame, tells it like it is. We're doing terrible, horrible no good very bad things.

The Ugly

Oh, by the way, we're all gonna die of the avian flu.

you think i'm made a money?! (reply to DNC)

No offense, guys. Chris and everyone else. You know we love you. But
doesn't Kerry have, like, millions in surplus dollars left over that he's
just sitting on? I poured my heart, my hopes and my funds into the
campaign, and I think if you ask the Kerry campaign, you'll find at least
some of the several donations I made to them over the course of several
months. I believe you'll win the recount, and perhaps more
importantly, I support the spirit of the recount as an exercise in true,
transparent democracy, something our farce of a national election sorely lacked.

I sincerely wish you the best of luck.

Thanks,
Elizabeth C.

----- Original Message -----
From: Democratic Party
Date: Wednesday, December 1, 2004 7:10 am
Subject: WA state recount: 42 votes from victory.

>
> DNC Action Alert
> ------------------------------
> Click here to contribute
>
> Dear Elizabeth,
>
> I need your immediate help. You've probably heard about the
> extremely close race for governor here in Washington. Only 42
> votes separate my opponent and me, and thousands of ballots across
> the state haven't been counted.
>
> This is by far the closest race in the history of our state, and
> one of the closest the nation has ever seen. That means we must
> make sure that every single legitimate ballot has been counted --
> and that means a statewide manual recount of every vote.
>
> Washington state law requires the party requesting the recount to
> pay for it, and it will cost at least $750,000. The Democratic
> Party is committed to this recount, but they need your immediate
> donation today to make it happen. Please give today.
>
> https://www.democrats.org/support/wa_recount.html
>
> Let me put this race in a little more perspective. Out of nearly 3
> million votes cast, only 42 votes separate my Republican opponent
> and me. That's a difference of 0.0014 percent. The error for
> voting machines is somewhere between 1 and 2 percent, or 1,000
> times as great as the vote difference.
>
> That means that this race is tied, and anything is possible with a
> manual recount. We must count every vote individually, and we
> can't do it without you.
>
> https://www.democrats.org/support/wa_recount.html
>
> Do not let this election slip through our fingers. We are only 42
> votes away from victory in Washington, and we are confident that
> once all the votes are counted, we will win this race. Please help
> us reach this urgent goal by making a donation today!
>
> https://www.democrats.org/support/wa_recount.html
>
> Sincerely,
> Chris Gregoire
>
>
> ******************************
>
> NOT A SUBSCRIBER?
>
> To sign up for news and action alerts from the Democratic Party:
> http://www.democrats.org/newaccount/newaccount.html

People have the power

(in the Ukraine)

TV is bad

Frank Rich has a great point here, and it's something I've wanted to mention for a while.
Obviously one of the great issues these days is the Fox News, and the fox news effect, and I think it's pretty clear that he who controls (or they who control?) the media control the electorate (ooh - that means you're heading for more trouble, Italian friends!).

But here's my sure-fire way for a cable news network to get great ratings:

Do the opposite.

The genius of fox news is that they (apart from being all blingy and shiny and graphically punchy, if not actually well-designed) went after a market that was feeling underserved. Now without getting into the whole 'is the mainstream media liberal' thing (see Eric Alterman etc.) there were clearly a bunch of folks who felt that they were not getting what they wanted from their news (right wing lies, but I digress). So Fox went right to make money and get market share. And the other networks saw the huge ratings and thought they wanted some of that, so they went right too. But the country is split 50-50 (ish). So Fox moved in and got the red 50%. But if CNN and MSNBC and the networks move right also, they're all just carving up 50% of that pie. So - someone needs the balls to move left. Because 50 goddamned percent of us here need the news too. If CNN went left, and I don't even mean my left, I just mean kinda left, they would pick up the blue 50%, and ratings would go wheeeeee! up.

Hear that, Ted Turner/George Soros?


The Nascar Nightly News: Anchorman Get Your Gun

Ohio!

Annoying, annoying work today - no time to think - but here is someone who is keeping a close eye on the Ohio recount situation. Something's rotten in the state of Denmark

The thing that I've been worrying about now is that even if (and it's a mighty big if) we got recounts, and even if (a bigger if) we won those recounts, Chimpy would still be president. Can you imagine the GOP conceding if the recount went forth and Kerry won? Can you imagine Bush actually leaving the White House in January? Of course not. It's been too long and now they have that damn inevitability thing on their side.

Fuck, who ever thought I'd be saying, "I wish we could be more like the Ukrainians"?