Obsidian Wings points to a particularly despicable piece of proposed legislation. HR 10 is a "homeland security" bill which has, thrown in for good measure, language to codify the cowardly and brutal practice of "extraordinary rendition." What is this "extraordinary rendition," you ask? Good question. Extraordinary rendition is the practice of outsourcing torture. Dennis Hastert, Tom Delay, et al. don't want to get their hands dirty, so they want the government to send detainees to other countries with, let's say, less humanitarian ideals - where people can be tortured for us.

To add insult to injury, HR 10 places the burden of proof on the victim to prove that (s)he is in danger of being tortured. I can't make this stuff up, people.

I missed this the first time around - the bill also says

no court shall have jurisdiction to review the regulations adopted to implement this section

That's right - feel like this law is unconstitutional? Tough luck - they just legislated that no court can review it.

Congressman Edward Markey from Massachusetts proposed this bill to explicity outlaw such torture.

It is vital, seriously, that you call or otherwise contact (a) everyone you know and especially (b) your representative and tell him/her to oppose HR 10 as it is written and support the Mackey bill to outlaw torture.

Below is the language of the bill in question:

108th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 10

To provide for reform of the intelligence community, terrorism prevention and prosecution, border security, and international cooperation and coordination, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

September 24, 2004

Mr. HASTERT (for himself, Mr. DELAY, Mr. BLUNT, Ms. PRYCE of Ohio, Mr. HOEKSTRA, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. YOUNG of Florida, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. HYDE, Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. OXLEY, Mr. DREIER, Mr. COX, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. NUSSLE, Mr. BOEHNER, and Mr. SMITH of New Jersey) introduced the following bill

...

SEC. 3032. EXCEPTION TO RESTRICTION ON REMOVAL FOR TERRORISTS AND CRIMINALS.

(a) Regulations-

(1) REVISION DEADLINE- Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall revise the regulations prescribed by the Secretary to implement the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, done at New York on December 10, 1984.

(2) EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN ALIENS- The revision--

(A) shall exclude from the protection of such regulations aliens described in section 241(b)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3)(B)) (as amended by this title), including rendering such aliens ineligible for withholding or deferral of removal under the Convention; and

(B) shall ensure that the revised regulations operate so as to--

(i) allow for the reopening of determinations made under the regulations before the effective date of the revision; and

(ii) apply to acts and conditions constituting a ground for ineligibility for the protection of such regulations, as revised, regardless of when such acts or conditions occurred.

(3) BURDEN OF PROOF- The revision shall also ensure that the burden of proof is on the applicant for withholding or deferral of removal under the Convention to establish by clear and convincing evidence that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.

(b) Judicial Review- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court shall have jurisdiction to review the regulations adopted to implement this section, and nothing in this section shall be construed as providing any court jurisdiction to consider or review claims raised under the Convention or this section, except as part of the review of a final order of removal pursuant to section 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1252).

SEC. 3033. ADDITIONAL REMOVAL AUTHORITIES.

(a) In General- Section 241(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1231(b)) is amended--

(1) in paragraph (1)--

(A) in each of subparagraphs (A) and (B), by striking the period at the end and inserting `unless, in the opinion of the Secretary of Homeland Security, removing the alien to such country would be prejudicial to the United States.'; and

(B) by amending subparagraph (C) to read as follows:

`(C) ALTERNATIVE COUNTRIES- If the alien is not removed to a country designated in subparagraph (A) or (B), the Secretary of Homeland Security shall remove the alien to--

`(i) the country of which the alien is a citizen, subject, or national, where the alien was born, or where the alien has a residence, unless the country physically prevents the alien from entering the country upon the alien's removal there; or

`(ii) any country whose government will accept the alien into that country.'; and

(2) in paragraph (2)--

(A) by striking `Attorney General' each place such term appears and inserting `Secretary of Homeland Security';

(B) by amending subparagraph (D) to read as follows:

`(D) ALTERNATIVE COUNTRIES- If the alien is not removed to a country designated under subparagraph (A)(i), the Secretary of Homeland Security shall remove the alien to a country of which the alien is a subject, national, or citizen, or where the alien has a residence, unless--

`(i) such country physically prevents the alien from entering the country upon the alien's removal there; or

`(ii) in the opinion of the Secretary of Homeland Security, removing the alien to the country would be prejudicial to the United States.'; and

(C) by amending subparagraph (E)(vii) to read as follows:

`(vii) Any country whose government will accept the alien into that country.'.

(b) Effective Date- The amendments made by subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply to any deportation, exclusion, or removal on or after such date pursuant to any deportation, exclusion, or removal order, regardless of whether such order is administratively final before, on, or after such date.

On 27 February 2004, PBS aired this episode of NOW with Bill Moyers. Part of it has been on my mind a lot lately. Here's an excerpt:

KATHLEEN HUGHES: Lida Rodriguez Taseff is a president of the Greater Miami Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. She says that in preparation for the summit, police officials gave a powerpoint presentation touting the advantages of headquartering the trade group in Miami.

LIDA RODRIGUEZ TASEFF: And if you look through that Power Point presentation, the police is giving the presentation. And they're talking about the FTAA, and what is the FTAA gonna do for the community. And talking about the FTAA in very laudatory terms.

KATHLEEN HUGHES: In their power point slides the police highlight that a new international trade headquarters in Miami could provide Florida up to 89,000 jobs, and $13.5 billion dollars annually in new economic activity. Ambassador Louis Lauredo says he advised the police to be sensitive to those financial issues.

LOUIS LAUREDO: I spent more time at the trainings and talking to the policemen to sensitize them to what was at stake here-- what was at stake for the United States, what was at stake for the people of Florida, for the people of Miami. And to have them sensitized -- not only about the issues that were in this country, 'cause it's just not an event. This is a major diplomatic encounter. That would affect that -- I told them-- their pocketbooks.

KATHLEEN HUGHES: The ACLU's Rodriguez-Taseff says the police were biased.

LIDA RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: When you take the police from their neutral role as neutral enforcers of the law. And turn them into essentially the Chamber of Commerce. Turn them into an entity that had a definite opinion on the substance of the FTAA protests. This essentially turned around the entire debate. And it was no longer about whether or not these people were being peaceful. But it became about whether or not we like their message.

KATHLEEN HUGHES: The ACLU is making the case that the police department viewed the protestors as the enemy, in the sense that the protestors were against the FTAA. And the FTAA was good for Miami.

CHIEF TIMONEY: Absolutely not-- that's not-- that's the AFL-- I mean, that's the ACLU. Stop it. Stop it.

KATHLEEN HUGHES: The AFL-CIO has asked the Justice Department to launch an investigation. Why a federal investigation? Because the feds helped pay for what happened in Miami.

Louis Lauredo says it happened like this. Last fall, Florida governor Jeb Bush and a coalition of the state's business and government officials went to Congress seeking eight and a half million dollars for security at the FTAA summit.

And Congress came through. Remember that 87 billion dollar emergency appropriations bill for the rebuilding of Afghanistan and Iraq? It included eight and a half million dollars for security at the Miami FTAA meeting.

DEFEDE: We spent you know, in a bill designed to provide billions of dollars to bring democracy and ordering stability to Iraq, we were able to funnel off eight and a half million dollars to do just the opposite in Miami.

I thought about this last night as it relates to my post yesterday. When people in the government talk about democracy and freedom, what are they talking about? Are they talking about the rights of citizens to determine their own way of life? Are they talking about our fundamental rights as outlined in the US Constitution - freedom of speech, press, assembly, etc.? Or are they talking about the freedom of capital? Freedom of commerce? What really trumps what - civil rights or economics? I don't know the answer, but I think we might want to start asking the question.

The Bush administration has been touting the upcoming elections in Afghanistan and Iraq as evidence of the success of democratic reforms. But are these elections going to be democratic? Rahul Mahajan points out that there are some serious questions about what's going on behind the scenes in these two nations.

Mahajan points to this Editorial in yesterday's NYT which states:

Yet the six political parties that Washington has promoted all along are not making that [legitimate elections] any easier. These parties, which are rooted among the exiles who left Iraq during the Hussein era and lack broad popular support, are now discussing a plan to run as a single unified ticket rather than competing among themselves on the ballot. That could create essentially a one-party election unless Iraq's fragmented independents manage to organize themselves into an effective new political force. Otherwise, Iraq's first free election may look uncomfortably like the plebiscites choreographed to produce 98 percent majorities for Saddam Hussein.

Mahajan also notes this article in the LA Times which says

Mohammed Mohaqiq says he was getting ready to make his run for the Afghan presidency when U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad dropped by his campaign office and proposed a deal.

...

"He left, and then called my most loyal men, and the most educated people in my party or campaign, to the presidential palace and told them to make me — or request me — to resign the nomination. And he told my men to ask me what I need in return."

Mohaqiq, who is running in the Oct. 9 election, is one of several candidates who maintain that the U.S. ambassador and his aides are pushing behind the scenes to ensure a convincing victory by the pro-American incumbent, President Hamid Karzai. The Americans deny doing so.

"It is not only me," Mohaqiq said. "They have been doing the same thing with all candidates. That is why all people think that not only Khalilzad is like this, but the whole U.S. government is the same. They all want Karzai — and this election is just a show."

The charges were repeated by several other candidates and their senior campaign staff in interviews here. They reflected anger over what many Afghans see as foreign interference that could undermine the shaky foundations of a democracy the U.S. promised to build.

Is the U.S. bribing Afghani politicians not to run against the candidate hand-picked by the U.S. government? Is the U.S. organizing a one-party-system in Iraq so as to ensure that the government is made up only of U.S. backed candidates?

George Bush and the men and women of his administration consistently invoke freedom and democracy as goals of U.S. foreign policy. Before the press accepts these statements at face value, they may want to ask for some definitions. I'm not sure we're all talking about the same thing.

Free The Slaves and Human Rights Center, UC Berkeley have released a new report: Hidden Slaves: Forced Labor in the United States.

Forced labor is a serious and pervasive problem in the United States. At any given time ten thousand or more people work as forced laborers in scores of cities and towns across the country. And it is likely that the actual number is much higher, possibly reaching into the tens of thousands. Because forced labor is hidden, inhumane, widespread, and criminal, sustained and coordinated efforts by U.S. law enforcement, social service providers, and the general public are needed to expose and eradicate this illicit trade.

"It is the impossibility of living by any other means that compels our farm labourers to till the soil whose fruits they will not eat, and our masons to construct buildings in which they will not live. It is want that drags them to those markets where they await masters who will do them the kindness of buying them. It is want that compels them to go down on their knees to the rich man in order to get from him permission to enrich him . . . What effective gain has the suppression of slavery brought him? . . He is free, you say. Ah! That is his misfortune. The slave was precious to his master because of the money he had cost him. But the handicraftsman costs nothing to the rich voluptuary who employs him . . . These men, it is said, have no master - they have one, and the most terrible, the most imperious of masters, that is need. It is this that reduces them to the most cruel dependence."

- Simon Linguet, Théorie des lois civiles, ou Principes fondamentaux de la société, 1767

Zeynep and Juan Cole note the bombing of inner city Baghdad by American warships yesterday. Leaving aside problems related to bombing congested urban areas, who does the military hire to name their operations? "Operation Iron Fist 2"? Give me a break. What are we, a nation of video game addicted 10-year-olds? Wait, don't answer that.

Frank Smyth asks in Foreign Policy in Focus, Who Are the Progressives in Iraq?.

Many criticize the legitimacy of the process by which the Bush administration is hoping to steer Iraq toward national elections next January. The indirect elections took place under war conditions, and the Associated Press reported that mortars exploded near the convention site in Baghdad where delegates gathered. Iraqi delegates also expanded the number of vice-chairs in the national council from two to four. Had they not done so, the results might have been even more troubling for the White House.

In the September balloting, the delegate from the Supreme Assembly for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, Jawad al-Maliki, came in first with 56 votes. This is a Shiite group that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld lambasted as a tool of Iran during the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Another Iraqi even less attractive to Washington, the Secretary General of the Iraqi Communist Party (www.iraqcp.org), Hamid Majid Moussa, came in second with 55 votes. Meanwhile, Rasim al-Awadi, the delegate from the Iraqi National Accord--the group once backed by the CIA and whose leader, Iyad Allawi, who was supported by the Bush administration to become the Iraqi prime minister--came in third with 53 votes. Nasir A`if al-Ani--the delegate from the Iraqi Islamic Party, a Sunni group, sympathetic to the Ba’athist-based, anti-American resistance operating both west and north of Baghdad--came in fourth with 48 votes.

- via Asia Times Online

Cat Stevens was deported from the United States after his name was found on a no-fly list. Some are worried that he was allowed to board a plane in the first place. I think this is an interesting situation, and not as immediately clear as I wish it were.

Arts & Letters Daily has a link in their Nota Bene section to this article in the neoconservative propaganda rag The Weekly Standard. The article defends the deportation of Stevens as such:

Yusuf Islam is already well known for his public endorsement of the death sentence issued by Ayatollah Khomeini against Salman Rushdie in February 1989. "Salman Rushdie, indeed any writer who abuses the prophet or indeed any prophet under Islamic law, the sentence for that is actually death," he said at the time. In addition, he has been barred from entering Israel because of alleged financial aid given to terrorist groups.

Is the singer a terrorist himself? Probably not. Is he an active sympathizer of terrorist groups? Perhaps not as much as he was in the past.

But Yusuf Islam is most certainly a fundamentalist Muslim, whose views are radical enough to set him at odds with the great majority of the world's Islamic adherents, and they are no better expressed than in his comments on his own field of expression: music. (emphasis mine)

So it's not that we have to worry about Stevens's actions. We don't think he's going to commit any acts that would endanger America or Americans. But he has expressed ideas that are stupid.

This is an interesting critera for deportation. What other ideas should bar one from entering the country? Can we see a list of these ideas? Should we deport Fascists? Neo-Nazis? What about anti-government fundamentalist Christians?

Personally, I think Juan Cole best expresses my feelings on the matter so far: It's probably pretty silly to deport Cat Stevens, but it's really hard to have any sympathy for the guy.

So, should Cat Stevens have been deported? If we had reasonable evidence that he presented an actual threat to security - sure. But if we have decided to start banning odious ideas from the United States of America, we've got a lot of cleaning up to do. We might start by deporting those who want to outlaw ideas.

I was opposed to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Once it was said and done, though, I was heard to say that I didn't think we should just pull out and walk away - we had destroyed a nation and we had a moral obligation to repair it. I wasn't really comfortable with my position, but I wanted to be realistic, pragmatic. Looks like maybe I was wrong.

The New Zealand Herald reports that

The Bush administration has asked Congress to shift US$3.5 billion of funds earmarked for Iraqi reconstruction into short-term spending.

The aim is to bolster security and help oil production, ahead of the elections which, despite the continuing violence, the White House insists will take place next January.

Zeynep has more at Under the Same Sun

This headline caught my eye this morning:

Cops seek man linked to Bush threats

The versions of the story that I found suggest that this man, Lawrence Ward, is believed to be armed and dangerous. He had in his house written threats, if I understand correctly, against both Bush and Kerry; apparently, he also made verbal threats against Bush's and Kerry's lives. The Secret Service seems to consider him a legitimate threat to the President and is actively pursuing him.

A couple of things struck me about the news reports regarding this situation. First of all, Mr. Ward is referred to as "a man"; he is not referred to as "a terrorist." I think this is interesting since he allegedly wants to kill the President for political purposes. Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d) defines "terrorism" as follows:

The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

If we accept the U.S. government's definition of terrorism, wouldn't Mr. Ward be considered an alleged terrorist? What makes us use that label for, say, Yasser Hamdi or Jose Padilla, but not Lawrence Ward?

This is not to say that Mr. Ward is or should be labeled a terrorist. I'm just curious about what determines the label of "terrorist" as opposed to "man."

CBS News and Dan Rather have been reeling in the flames of public disgrace lately. And, really, for good reason: we should be able to rely on prominent media outlets to thoroughly investigate the backgrounds of their sources, the reliability of documents, and their so-called "facts." Many on the right have been calling for Rather's resignation - how can we continue to trust a man who has so betrayed our good faith? I think this is a legitimate question.

I think we should look at the case against CBS and Dan Rather with real scrutiny. I think we should decide whether or not we want to continue to listen to, to trust, to provide a platform for those on whom we rely for information un-tainted by political motivation and manipulation. For, what if we allow this transgression to go unchecked?

What will we do when the stakes are raised? What if next time it's not sloppy reporting about 30 year old National Guard memos? What if next time the President of the United States and the National Security Adviser and the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense - what if people of their rank and authority use forged documents and untrustworthy sources to frighten the public; to fabricate a threat to national security; as evidence of a need to send our men and women to war? What then?

Bob Jensen has a new column on ZNet in which he takes a critical look at several things that have been bothering me about the recent Vietnam War revisionism vis-a-vis the Presidential campaigns.

Ah, the arts.

Last night we went to The Elephant Room and saw Beto y Los Fairlanes - great Latin jazz and swing. Really, the next time these guys play, you should go see them. You can go with me, as I'll definitely be making a return trip.

This afternoon I went to Arthouse at Jones Center and saw the Comic Release! exhibit. Amazing. Really, a great show. Original work by Daniel Clowes, Chris Ware, Los Bros Hernandez, Jessica Abel, Takashi Murakami, and too many more to name. I even got to feel like I know something about art by helping correct a mislabeled Joe Sacco piece! Seriously, you need to go see this show.

Also, I highly recommend that you stop by Women and Their Work. There is a lot of amazing art there right now. I seriously considered going deep into debt in order to take some home. It's that good.

Salon has an interesting article about Iraq. I was particularly taken by the following:

In retrospect, what is most striking about the entire set of events in Fallujah is the vertiginous postmodern sheen that it takes on at times. When one excavates the history of the battle, it quickly becomes apparent that all the major policy decisions were driven not by events on the ground but instead by the raw power of the images the battle produced: Americans being dragged through the streets, wailing Iraqi mothers returning to shattered homes, American Spectre gunships strafing neighborhoods -- pixilated nightscope views almost Gothic in tone, no perception so definite that it might not be interpreted as its opposite.

One thing can be said for sure: Never before has media coverage of events so dominated the entirety of the military process; never before has the raw power of the burning images so trumped the seasoned opinions of professionals on the ground.

"I do not think that it is possible to say that one thing is of the order of 'liberation' and another is of the order of 'oppression.' There are a certain number of things that one can say with some certainty about a concentration camp to the effect that it is not an instrument of liberation, but one should still take into account - and this is not generally acknowledged - that, aside from torture and execution, which preclude any resistance, no matter how terrifying a system may be, there always remain the possibilities of resistance, disobedience, and oppositional groupings.

"On the other hand, I do not think there is anything that is functionally - by its very nature - absolutely liberating. Liberty is a practice."

- Michel Foucault

What I got out of today's readings:

Hating America by Fareed Zakaria.

Sure, other countries don't like some US policies (things like invasions, installing, training, and supplying brutal dictators, opposing indigenous democratic movements, exploiting environmental resources, manipulating the economy, etc.) but really what it comes down to is that those people are just jealous because we're so powerful.

Orientalism: 25 Years Later by Edward Said.

Zakaria is an idiot.

First of all, Jacob points out a really interesting post about techno-orientalism.

Second, though I've been purposefully avoiding the news lately, I have managed to find out that someone said George Bush snorted cocaine at Camp David and someone else may have forged some documents about Bush's National Guard service in the late 1960's. I'm glad there's not a war going on, otherwise we might not get the chance to talk about the important issues.

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports that the legal aid system in Texas is in a state of crisis.

"Legal problems are overwhelming the poor, and without additional support it is going to create an even greater problem," said Jesse Gaines, head of Legal Aid of NorthWest Texas. "There clearly is not equal access to justice for all residents of Texas."

I help out at one of the local legal aid clinics sometimes - getting people signed in, taking notes, explaining forms to people. If you have ever sat down with someone who doesn't realize that they have been sued and had a default judgement against them because they could not read the notices they received, did not understand what was going on, and did not know how to find affordable (free) legal help, you know that access to the justice system is a very real problem for some people.

There should not be a financial barrier to entry for justice in the United States. If the courts are only open to those who can afford them, then there is no justice.

Wow, Tom Delay is one class act.

For more, read this.

Whatever Susan DuQuesnay is getting paid, it's not enough.

You have the right to an attorney. But what happens when we put such a low priority on public defense that no one is willing to do it? We can look to Massachusetts to find out:

With hourly pay rates for representing indigent alleged criminals the lowest in the country, Massachusetts has been flirting with an indigent-defense disaster for some time. But with lawyers in several counties refusing to take on additional criminal cases, the state's assigned-counsel system is officially in crisis. And although underfunding is always an issue in indigent-defense systems, it is rarely the only problem. The real issue is the kind of indigent-defense system Massachusetts is buying—not how much they pay for it. The focus on pay rates is an unfortunate side effect of leaving the defense of the poor to languish as a low priority. The way the Massachusetts crisis came about, and the narrow terms of the current debate, should be a cautionary tale for policy-makers across the country—many of whom will soon be confronting similar questions.

I write letters...

Editor:

I am not a judge or attorney, merely a private citizen of modest intelligence. So, after reading Mr. Reynolds's thoughts on Judge Lake's opinion, as well as that of the Chronicle editorial, regarding the display of a bible at the Harris County Civil Court, I am left puzzled by his argument.

Mr. Reynolds assures us that the bible at the courthouse is "very unnoticeable," so I fail to see how it's imminent removal should be noticed by anyone. Reynolds also contends that "to see it, you have to look for it." Perhaps, then, the bible would be better kept somewhere that one might look for it. Say, a church?

Mr. Reynolds ends his column by suggesting that because "A recent poll by Channel 2 reported that 80 percent of the citizens of this community wished the Bible to remain," that the court should leave the bible where it is. This, I think, is a fabulous idea - I hope Mr. Reynolds will fight to replace all reasoned deliberation with unscientific polls conducted by local television stations.

in response to this op-ed in the Houston Chronicle.

The Texas Supreme Court today issued a decision in the case of New Times Inc. v. Isaacks.

In November 1999, a 13-year-old seventh grader in Texas was assigned to write a scary story for Halloween. He did so, and received a perfect score. The principal of the school read the story, deemed the story to contain "terroristic threats" (shooting of a teacher and students), and notified juvenile authorities who detained the child for five days at the order of a judge while the District Attorney decided whether or not to prosecute.

The Dallas Observer ran a satirical article mocking the situation and the individuals involved. The judge and the DA, both of whom were targets of the satire (and apparently take themselves very seriously), sued for libel.

This is a decision I recommend taking the time to read. Not only is it reassuring that levity still has a place in public discourse, but "the reasonable reader" will be treated to quite a chuckle, as well.

via how appealing

Just a reminder:

US troops are still dying in Iraq.

US troops are still dying in Afghanistan.

May God have mercy on them and bring comfort to their families.

William Saletan calls out Cheney and Miller for their terrible performance during the GOP Convention last night.

Tonight the Republicans had a chance to explain why they shouldn't be fired for these apparent screw-ups. Here's what Cheney said about the economic situation: "People are returning to work. Mortgage rates are low, and home ownership in this country is at an all-time high. The Bush tax cuts are working." But mortgage rates were low before Bush took office. Home ownership was already at an all-time high. And more than a million more people had jobs than have them today.

"In Iraq, we dealt with a gathering threat," Cheney said. What about the urgent, nukes-any-day threat to the United States that supposedly warranted our expense of so much blood and treasure? Cheney was silent.

"A senator can be wrong for 20 years without consequence to the nation," said Cheney. "But a president always casts the deciding vote." What America needs in this time of peril, he argued, is "a president we can count on to get it right."

You can't make the case against Bush more plainly than that.

Also, if you didn't see it last night (I didn't), head on over to MSNBC* and watch Zell Miller act like a certifiable lunatic - really, he comes across as barking mad. Not only did he say he'd like to "duel" with Chris Matthews, he said he wanted to fist-fight him. Mr. Miller, please meet your new partner, Mr. Zero Credibility.



* scroll down to the entry at 9:56 PM, 1 September. Click on the image to stream the video.

Molly Ivins has an unsettling column today.

We have already lost more American soldiers (488) in Iraq in 239 days of this year than we did in 287 days last year (482), when there was a war on and before our mission was accomplished.

...

The Department of Justice has asked the Government Printing Office “to instruct depository libraries to destroy five publications the department has deemed ‘not appropriate for external use.’ Of the five publications, two are texts of federal laws. They are to be removed from libraries and destroyed, making their content available only to those with access to a law office or law library,” according to the American Library Association. All the documents concern either federal civil or criminal forfeiture procedure, including to how to reclaim items that have been confiscated by the government during an investigation.

First Ben Barnes says that he helped George W. Bush evade military service during the Vietnam War draft.

Now another Bush family friend, Linda Allison, says her late husband further helped - at the request of Bush, Sr. - to keep the W. out of trouble and harms way:

In the spring of 1972, George HW Bush phoned his friend and asked a favour: Could Allison find a place on the Senate campaign he was managing in Alabama for his troublesome eldest son, the 25-year-old George W Bush?

"The impression I had was that Georgie was raising a lot of hell in Houston, getting in trouble and embarrassing the family, and they just really wanted to get him out of Houston and under Jimmy's wing," Allison's widow, Linda, told me. "And Jimmy said, 'Sure.' He was so loyal."

This made me smile this morning. (via volokh). It's the kind of thing that I think would be really fun, if only I believed it would work.

Earlier today, I walked across campus to drop off something in another building. I passed through the West Mall on my way and stumbled upon an interesting scene. The Young Conservatives of Texas had set up an information table and large display for "Conservative Coming Out Day*." About fifteen feet across from them was a group of tables set up by a couple of liberal student groups. Members of both groups were yelling at each other across the walkway.

Heels were dug in, minds were firmly set, and talking points were honed and memorized. Lame put-downs were exchanged and passers by lowered their heads and quickened their pace. Outside the Student Union, a man tuned his guitar and said into a PA, "You know what? Don't vote! Who cares?" And thus a microcosm of American political discourse was realized.




* I'm always amazed that conservatives can control the White House, the Legislature, many of the courts, the state capital, the state legislature, the state judiciary, have influential think tanks, magazines, newspapers, talk radio, and television stations - and still they act like they're some sort of oppressed political minority. Talk about a persecution complex.

In case you were unaware, the Governor of California is a clown :

The former body builder and actor urged optimism about the economy and in a self-mocking quip that delighted delegates, added: "To those critics who are so pessimistic about our economy, I say: 'Don't be economic girlie men!'"

A couple of years ago, at the beginning of the invasion of Iraq, there was, online, a photograph of me and some friends at an anti-war protest in downtown Austin. I received an e-mail, prompted by that photograph, from a former Marine (is one ever really a "former" Marine?) In his e-mail he asked me what I had ever done for my country. Well, that's not really a fair question, I think, because I believe that it presupposes a certain array of acceptable answers. I could be wrong, but I don't think what he meant was, "have you ever offered your time as a volunteer; do you regularly vote; do you pay taxes?" What have I done for my country? Some important things, I like to think - more than some, less than others. I do believe that I am a good citizen. I hope to, over the course of my life, do much, much more.

Perhaps, though, the question at hand would be fair if I were, say, President of the United States of America. What kind of record of public service do we expect from the Chief Executive of the nation? William Saletan looks at what exactly one President has done for his country.

Watching the attacks on Kerry and the glorification of Bush reminds me of something Dole said in his speech to the Republican convention eight years ago. It was "demeaning to the nation," Dole argued, to be governed by people "who never grew up, never did anything real, never sacrificed, never suffered and never learned."