Dear god in heaven.
The Bush administration is supporting a provision in the House leadership's intelligence reform bill that would allow U.S. authorities to deport certain foreigners to countries where they are likely to be tortured or abused, an action prohibited by the international laws against torture the United States signed 20 years ago.
The provision, part of the massive bill introduced Friday by House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), would apply to non-U.S. citizens who are suspected of having links to terrorist organizations but have not been tried on or convicted of any charges. Democrats tried to strike the provision in a daylong House Judiciary Committee meeting, but it survived on a party-line vote.
The provision, human rights advocates said, contradicts pledges President Bush made after the Abu Ghraib prisoner-abuse scandal erupted this spring that the United States would stand behind the U.N. Convention Against Torture. Hastert spokesman John Feehery said the Justice Department "really wants and supports" the provision.
Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo said, "We can't comment on any specific provision, but we support those provisions that will better secure our borders and protect the American people from terrorists."
So let me get this straight-ish: the people involved would not necessarily have been even charged with a crime. The only condition for such "extraordinary rendition" (as it is called) to torture-friendly countries is (a) being a foreign national -- and, apparently, not necessarily a foreign national of the country in which one is being rendered ... er, pardon, to which one is being rended, and (b) being arrested for ... something. Anything.
When did Congress lose what little is left of its collective mind? It would be really helpful to know this.
Actually, what it would be really helpful to know is what this provision is meant to distract us from. According to more normal US law, international treaties, once signed and ratified, have the force of US law. We have signed and ratified the treaties against torture. Approximately ten seconds after this law passed, and once Ashcroft and his star chamber decided to rend someone from this country, their lawyers would take this into court (although finding someone with standing will be ... problematic, given that most of the people to whom this applies are being held in secret), it would be declared unconstitutional and unconscionable, there'd be a few years of appeals in which the Star Chamber would be enjoined from rending anyone, and then even this Supreme Court -- and maybe even Scalia -- would produce an opinion saying, in more legalistic terms, "Are you fucking INSANE? What the hell are you yahoos thinking?" And Congress has to know this; it's full of former lawyers, after all.
So what on earth are they hiding? What else is in that massive omnibus bill that they don't want us looking at?
Or have they really and truly gone mad?
Posted by iain at 12:38 AM
My, my. Will wonders never cease.
A federal district court judge today struck down a provision of the USA Patriot Act that allows the FBI to issue secret administrative subpoenas to Internet service providers and others without judicial review.
Judge Victor Marrero of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled in the case of John Doe et al v. John Ashcroft et al that the government does not have the authority to cloak the national security letters it issues to seek electronic information in perpetual secrecy without judicial review.
Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo said, "We are reviewing the ruling." The American Civil Liberties Union, which represented the anonymous Doe, cited the decision as "a stunning victory against John Ashcroft's Justice Department."
Marrero stayed the execution of his order barring the FBI from issuing national security letters for 90 days or until the government appeals.
ACLU vs Ashcroft (Actual Ruling: very slow loading and quite large 122-page PDF file at the ACLU web site)
It will be fascinating to see what comes of this. Ashcroft's Star Chamber will appeal, of course; they've go no reason not to, and every reason to try to get this ruling off the books. One can but hope that federal courts up the line will agree that this is an unconstitutional restraint and continue to strike that part of the law.
Of course, with Congress poised to pass PATRIOT Act: The Sequel, it's likely that the various plaintiffs in PATRIOT Act cases everywhere will have to go through everything all over again.
One wonders what Congress and Ashcroft are so afraid of that they feel that they need to destroy the Constitution they are charged to uphold.
Posted by iain at 05:22 PM
A rural Washington state library is actually challenging a PATRIOT Act subpoena.
The attorney for the Whatcom County Rural Library District revealed a memorandum in support of a motion to quash a subpoena filed on July 9 requiring the disclosure of the names and addresses of people who borrowed the book, "Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America" on Sept. 27 at Village Books in Fairhaven. The attorney, Deborra Garrett, said the subpoena infringed on the constitutional rights of those who borrowed the book by Yossef Bodansky.
According to Garrett's memorandum to the U.S. District Court in Seattle, a library patron contacted Bellingham FBI agent James Powers in June regarding a handwritten note in the margins of the book from the Deming branch of the library. The note stated: "If the things I'm doing is considered a crime, then let history be a witness that I am a criminal. Hostility toward America is a religious duty and we hope to be rewarded by God."
Powers contacted the library district after receiving this information, and requested further information on the book, which an unnamed library employee denied, according to the memorandum. The employee told Powers to contact Garrett, who told him the library's policy is to not release information regarding the books people borrow without a subpoena. "Fortunately, our library has a very strong training program ... insuring that the staff have a deep understanding of what the expectations of the library are regarding confidentiality," library district director Joan Airoldi said.
After searching the Internet for postings containing key phrases from the note, Garrett found a quote on the Time magazine education Web site by Osama bin Laden in a 1998 interview almost identical to the writing in the book and wrote to Powers informing him of her research. Powers still hand-delivered the subpoena requiring the library district to disclose the requested information on June 18.
Garrett said the subpoena should be quashed because the Constitution protects the information the FBI requested. Furthermore, Washington state's revised disclosure laws prohibit any release of library records that could disclose the identities of those who check out or buy books.
Sadly, Washington state's disclosure laws are likely irrelevant in this case; when federal and state law conflict on a given issue, federal law generally supercedes state law.
A small illustration of the draconian complexities of the PATRIOT Act:
Fighting the subpoena in court? Entirely legal. Huzzah!
Revealing the fact that you were served a subpoena which you are now fighting in the first place? Tsk, tsk, tsk. You have now violated the PATRIOT Act! Do not pass go, head directly to jail. (Although there are probably one or two issues with arresting the plaintiff's lawyer in such a situation. Then again, Ashcroft's Star Chamber has shown little care about the dreadfully bad public relations such actions cause.)
One might note as well that, unless sealed by the court, such proceedings are in fact a matter of public record. Said proceedings have not yet been sealed, as I understand it. Thus, the fact that one is contesting the subpoena is perforce now public. I'm guessing that the U.S. District Court in Seattle is now itself technically in violation of the PATRIOT Act.
I do hope that Whatcom County Rural Library District wins its case. It would be a good thing to have at least substantial portions of the Constitutional Evisceration Act of 2001 stricken as unconstitutional, and this case might be a good vehicle for doing so.
Posted by iain at 08:40 PM
The Republican Party acknowledged yesterday sending mass mailings to residents of two states warning that "liberals" seek to ban the Bible. It said the mailings were part of its effort to mobilize religious voters for President Bush. The mailings include images of the Bible labeled "banned" and of a gay marriage proposal labeled "allowed." A mailing to Arkansas residents warns: "This will be Arkansas if you don't vote." A similar mailing was sent to West Virginians.
A liberal religious group, the Interfaith Alliance, circulated a copy of the Arkansas mailing to reporters yesterday to publicize it. "What they are doing is despicable,'' said Don Parker, a spokesman for the alliance. "They are playing on people's fears and emotions."
In an e-mail message, Christine Iverson, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, confirmed that the party had sent the mailings. "When the Massachusetts Supreme Court sanctioned same-sex marriage and people in other states realized they could be compelled to recognize those laws, same-sex marriage became an issue,'' Ms. Iverson said. "These same activist judges also want to remove the words 'under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance."
The mailing is the latest evidence of the emphasis Republicans are putting on motivating conservative Christian voters to vote this fall. But as the appeals become public, they also risk alienating moderate and swing voters....
Bid Dropped To Remove Protections For Gay Workers
by Paul Johnson
365Gay.com Newscenter
Washington Bureau Chief
Posted: September 24, 2004 5:01pm ET
(Washington) Three days after 365Gay.com was first to report that the Bush Administration was trying to remove protections for gay and lesbian workers from civil service labor contracts the effort has been abandoned. The Social Security Administration Friday said it will no longer attempt to remove sexual orientation from the Administration’s non-discrimination policy.
Bush-appointed SSA administrators had proposed to rollback gay and lesbian rights by striking protection based on sexual orientation from their contract with union workers, an act which would have allowed discrimination, including job termination, based solely on sexual orientation. (story)
The abrupt change came after the SSA was swamped with protests from angry gays and a denouncement from the Democratic National Committee.
The decision was made by Jo Anne Barnhart, head of the SSA....
Gay GOP Group Backs Bush
by Doreen Brandt
365Gay.com Newscenter
Washington Bureau
Posted: September 22, 2004 5:01 pm ET
(Washington) A small black gay Republican group Wednesday announced its endorsement of President Bush. The Abe Lincoln Black Republican Caucus delivered a letter supporting Bush's re-election to Republican National Committee Headquarters. The move puts the Dallas-based group at odds with the much larger Log Cabin Republicans, which has refused to support the President because of his stand on same-sex marriage.
"Our voices are never heard, yet we exist and are growing in numbers," said Don Sneed a co-founder of the Abe Lincoln Black Republican Caucus. "We think that the 'Republican Tent' is inclusive and there is room for differences, but one does not pick up their marbles and go home if there are a few points of disagreement," stated Anthony Falls, Republican Precinct Chairman -- Dallas and the ALBRC National Spokesperson....
You have to wonder what on earth could be going through the collective mind of the Abe Lincoln Republicans to do something so profoundly against their own interests as ... well, being Republican at all, frankly, but also supporting this president. The Republican Party is demonstrating, repeatedly and enthusiastically, that they do NOT have a big tent. It's not even big enough for all the people who want to call themselves Republicans, let alone the entire country. And they are perfectly happy to resort to using scare tactics to try to persuade people to vote for them. To say that Democrats (er, that is, "liberals") would ban the Bible is not only a vile calumny, it's patently absurd on its face. It also speaks volumes about what the Republican leadership assumes about the intelligence of their membership that they would dare perpetrate this sort of idiocy.
And you would think that the Abe Lincoln Republicans would notice that they are, by indirection and inference, being used as the RNC bogeymen. Even allowing that the Abe Lincolners are not, themselves, Democrats (well, duh), they are gay, and therefore in that category of people that the RNC is pointing at and saying, "Cooties! They have political cooties! OK, their money and their votes are fine, but aside from that, they have icky political cooties! Stay away from them!"
(And, really, how on earth can the ALBRC not be in favor of gay marriage? It would be perfectly understandable if their position was that there are more important issues on the table right now than gay marriage, which there certainly are. But to say, The ALBRC does not support marriage for gays, yet we do support and call for recognition of domestic partnerships" ... what sort of self-hating nonsense is that?
Little is known about the Caucus. It calls itself "a civic group of young Black gay, bisexual and 'down lo' males.
Oh.
"Down lo'" males.
THAT sort of self-hating nonsense.
(One wonders about the spectacular internal contradiction of being a member of a group that proudly declares its sexual orientation and simultaneously proudly declares that some of the members are still in the closet. I'm also guessing that black Republican lesbians -- presumably there are some -- have better sense than to affiliate themselves with this group; seriously, a group of this type of theoretically national scope really ought not to be all males. That's just pecular ... OK, it's one more peculiar thing about this decidedly peculiar group.)
Posted by iain at 01:22 AM
Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama said Friday that his Christian beliefs dictate that marriage should be between a man and a woman, although he supports civil unions that give legal rights to gay and lesbian couples.
Republican candidate Alan Keyes accused Obama of trying to have it both ways on the issue. "I think what we are seeing on this issue is deceit,'' said Keyes, who has made his opposition to gay marriage a cornerstone of his campaign. "He is deceiving the voters.''
Throughout the campaign, Obama has said that he opposes gay marriage but is in favor of civil unions. During a taping of WBBM-AM's "At Issue,'' he was asked his personal views on gay marriage. "I'm a Christian, and so although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman,'' Obama said. But the Democratic state senator added that he does not understand people who say gay marriage somehow threatens the sanctity of marriage as an institution.
Here's the thing.
In this terribly obnoxious campaign, sometimes, it seems like this is the best we're going to get. Aside from openly gay politicians, and a few people in safe liberal seats (of which there are precious few), very few national politicians will be willing to go on record supporting gay marriage.
Obama said decisions on gay marriage should be left to the states, and he opposes a constitutional amendment barring the act.
Rick Garcia, political director for the gay rights group Equality Illinois, said it is disturbing that Obama gives such nuanced responses when he's far enough ahead in the polls that he could take a stand for gay marriage.
Of course, taking a stand for gay marriage would presume that he supports such, and he's already said, quite clearly, that he doesn't. Since he feels the issue should be left to the states, he'd probably vote against a constitutional amendment, but that's about as far as that goes.
Posted by iain at 11:01 PM
Hmm.
You know, the loon has a point. Of a sort.
BLOOMINGTON -- Political polls are "phony" and should not just be disregarded, but banned, Republican U.S. Senate candidate Alan Keyes argued Monday. "They (polls) are manipulative and degrading and damaging to our political system, and they should not be allowed when it comes to the actual time frame in which people are making up their minds," Keyes said during a meeting with The Pantagraph's editorial board.
His comments came in response to questions about a Pantagraph/St. Louis Post-Dispatch poll published Monday showing him trailing Democrat Barack Obama 68 percent to 23 percent. The survey, released 43 days before the election, indicates many Illinoisans may be troubled by the fact that the conservative former presidential candidate is from Maryland and that he has locked horns with some members of his own party over his conservative beliefs.
Here's the thing: I actually agree with him that polls should be banned. Perhaps in the post-convention period, no polling should be published, and no exit polls should be allowed. They do give the impression that a race may be decided long before it actually is.
That said ... polls or no polls, the man has been coming off as a barking loon. The words out of his very own mouth are contributing to the fact that people just don't want to vote for him; the fact that he's from out-of-state is, at this point, just the lagniappe.
The problem with Illinois Republicans at the moment is that they just don't know what to do with themselves. Essentially, the party as a whole is comparatively centrist. (Compared to, say, Kansas, which has a dominant Republican party that is pretty much Keyes-loony from top to bottom.) However, they've been getting pounded for more than five years now by the licenses-for-bribes scandal, in which the federal government has charged former governor George Ryan with racketeering, of all things. And people around Ryan keep getting charged and convicted and rolling over on the guy, so that the scandal is never far from people's minds. Then you get the Jack Ryan scandal, which was nice and juicy and terribly sordid (although at least he didn't do anything against the law). Additionally, the conservative movement is powerful in the party hierarchy, if not particularly in the party itself. Thus, you wind up with people who think, "Hey, let's pull in Alan Keyes! He's black, which neutralizes that issue; and he's incredibly conservative!" They didn't count on the fact that he was, in fact, so conservative that he would alienate the party hierarchy itself, never mind rank-and-file Republicans. And the radical right would never have touched him, conservative or not.
If nothing else, this particular fiasco may hobble the conservative wing of the Illinois GOP for some time to come.
Posted by iain at 10:46 AM
How very ... odd.
Cal/OSHA said Thursday it had fined two Los Angeles-area adult film companies $30,560 each for allegedly allowing actors to perform unprotected sex, the first time the state agency has taken regulatory action against the porn industry. The citations against Evasive Angles and TTB Productions, which share the same Van Nuys address, come six months after an HIV outbreak involving four actors prompted a temporary shutdown of adult film production in Southern California. In the wake of the shutdown, Cal/OSHA officials said they would begin investigating the industry to determine whether it complied with state health and worker safety laws. The companies received citations for violating the state's blood borne pathogen standard, a regulation that requires employers to protect workers exposed to blood or bodily fluids on the job.
So, despite the fact that there is currently no law whatsoever on the California books specifically regulating the porn industry, they can apparently be cited for violating other rules. What an interestingly convenient loophole. If that's the case, why didn't Cal/OSHA run around citing people with wild abandon when the HIV outbreak, such as it was, first occurred? Aside from the publicity, nothing whatsoever has changed since then. One California legislator has threatened to introduce regulations, but has not yet done so. In fact, given the staggering pace of lack of change, they could always have done this, once bloodborne pathogen regulations in general were in force.
There is, of course, the issue that the people in the industry who have contact with said pathogens are, for the most part, independent contractors (truer by far of the men than the women, as it turns out). They sign one contract to work on one video, get paid whatever small amount most of them get paid, and then they're off to the next shoot for the next company, and then the next, and so on. The video company's responsibility to an independent contractor is quite a bit lower. To be sure, most video companies also have what they call "exclusive contract players", who are not allowed to film for other companies without the exclusive company's permission (if ever), and those people will be considerably more problematic.
I must admit, two passages in the article just made me snicker. First, there was this:
It is a widely held belief among producers that showing condom use in their films would hurt profits because the customers do not want to see safe sex.
Because, of course, you straight people are such delicate passion flowers that the presence of a condom will make you RUN! Run for the hills screaming! Oh, the horror! (Wicked Pictures and Vivid, meanwhile, the two companies which have required condoms on set since the last great HIV in Porn scare, would seem to be evidence that it's possible to survive condoms.)
And then there was this:
Cal/OSHA has posted a page on the state government website, http://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/adultfilmindustry.html , that instructs porn companies that they need to have an exposure control plan as well as worker safety training. Protective equipment, the site suggests, can include condoms, dental dams, gloves and eye protection.
Now. I can go along with the condoms. I can even, more or less, get behind the idea of dental dams. But ... gloves? Eye protection? Some sort of general protection is necessary, certainly, but it's sex, not welding, for heaven's sake. (Although taking this to it's logical extreme could make for some interesting scenarios. "Now, Muffy, make sure to use the condoms ... and the dental dams, yes ... OK, now it's time for the finale, so get into your wetsuit. Don't forget the boots!")
Posted by iain at 10:31 AM
You'd think it was 1964 and not 2004, wouldn't you?
Federal agents and city police Monday studied fire damage at the Black Oak home hit by arsonists during the weekend, hoping to find more information about the suspects.
But Pam Pazera, executive director of Northwest Indiana Habitat for Humanity, said no matter what the legal outcome, she expects justice. "There is no need to feel anger against the people who did this, they need our prayers a lot more. They will have to answer to God for this," Pazera said Monday.
Habitat's latest project, a home at 2441 Calhoun St., was set on fire before dawn Saturday, just as the agency was set to obtain an occupancy permit for the Ferguson family.
The Fergusons are black, but the Black Oak neighborhood is predominantly white. During the four-month construction period, someone spray-painted "KKK" on a Habitat for Humanity sign on the lot. Based on that incident and other information, FBI Supervisory Senior Resident Agent Charles Porucznik said the fire is being reviewed as a possible civil-rights violation for discrimination in housing.
Not that I necessarily object, but I always thought that civil rights violations in housing were ... well, civil counts. Landlords refusing to rent to minorities, realtors discriminating against women who want to buy, that sort of thing.
In any event, one can see that for poor and minorities trying to leave segregated neighborhoods, sometimes, it just isn't as simple as, "We have a voucher/house for you, so just go get a place."
Posted by iain at 12:02 AM
You know, in an odd way, and almost precisely in reverse in one key aspect, the Illinois Senate race is a microcosm of the presidential campaign. The reverse aspect is that it's pretty certain who's going to win. Absent a major brain seizure or a sudden case of death, Obama is going to win in the closest thing to a walkover this state has ever seen. However, exactly like the presidential race, everyone including the candidates is focused on anything but the actual issues. For example, the issues of import to Illinois that have been covered by the candidates recently are ... um ... wait, there's something, I know there is ... well, you take my point.
And it turns out that this is Keyes' strategy?
Declaring that his campaign strategy is dependent on controversy, Republican U.S. Senate candidate Alan Keyes told the state's top GOP donors at a recent closed-door meeting that he plans to make "inflammatory" comments "every day, every week" until the election, according to several sources at the session.
The sources said Keyes explained that his campaign has been unfolding according to plan and likened it to a war in which lighting the "match" of controversy was needed to ignite grass-roots voters. "This is a war we're in," one source recounted Keyes as saying. "The way you win wars is that you start fires that will consume the enemy."
Keyes' comments came during a 40-minute address to about 20 leading Republican fundraisers and donors Thursday at the posh Chicago Club. The sources asked not to be identified to prevent additional pre-election controversy within an already divided GOP. At the session, the sources said, Keyes denied that he has engaged in name-calling in his campaign. But he likened Democratic opponent Barack Obama to a "terrorist" because Obama, a state senator, voted against a legislative proposal pushed by abortion foes, sources said.
Mounting a non-traditional campaign based heavily on theologically based moral teachings, Keyes predicted he could lock up one-quarter of the black vote by stressing his belief that Jesus would not vote for Obama based on the Democrat's support for abortion rights, the sources said. [...] The remarks attributed to Keyes indicate there may be no end to a series of controversial statements he has made since members of the Republican State Central Committee tapped him in early August to replace Jack Ryan as the GOP Senate candidate on the Nov. 2 ballot.
With Keyes trailing far behind Obama in cash and in public opinion polls, the Republican contender's strategy indicates he will continue to seek free media attention fed off controversy. The game plan belies the belief of some conservatives who have contended Keyes, a former talk show host from Maryland, has been maneuvered by the media into making controversial remarks...
So he thinks he can get a quarter of the black vote by saying that he knows what Jesus would do. Maybe it's just that all the black evangelicals I'm related to and the others that I know are terribly terribly liberal ... well, no, they're not, actually. But most of them find it somewhat offensive that he thinks he can speak for Jesus in this manner (even if they kind of agree with him on the abortion issue, up to that point). And given this particular statement to the GOP board, they're likely to find the sentiment even more offensive and cynical.
Even if it were true -- and I don't believe it is -- then what? He's so profoundly alienated most of the GOP that the 25% he's talking about would likely be all the votes he gets. The GOP brought him in to help others on the ticket -- it wouldn't help other races to have both a decided presidential race in this state and a senate walkover/no-candidate -- but at this point, he's likely doing real damage to GOP chances in any other close statewide race. Given both a decided presidential race in this state, and a decided senate race with a revolting candidate, a lot of GOP voters may just decide to stay home.
And the sad thing is, if the GOP had just decided to stick with Ryan, his divorce thing would have blown over. Oh, he had no chance to win after all that, of course, but he'd certainly have done much better. If nothing else, the bedrock arch-conservatives to whom they thought Alan Keyes would appeal might have actually voted for Ryan, simply because they loathed the idea of Obama representing the state. Now, those people aren't likely to vote for anyone.
Posted by iain at 11:33 PM
Gee, I'm so surprised. No, really, just terribly terribly shocked. Don't I look shocked?
Apartments affordable to families using subsidized vouchers exist in nearly every Chicago neighborhood and suburb, yet those families are heavily concentrated in poor, racially segregated areas, according to a first-of-its-kind study being released today. Discrimination and bureaucratic problems are largely to blame, the report says.
In 68 of Chicago's 77 neighborhoods, more than 50 percent of the two-bedroom or larger apartments should have been affordable to families with a Housing Choice Voucher, the study found, based on 2000 data. [...] 64 percent of the 56,000 voucher holders in the six-county region live in areas where more than 10 percent of residents are poor, 2003 data indicate. More than 75 percent of the black families using vouchers live in areas that are more than 30 percent black. The pattern includes families relocating out of demolished Chicago Housing Authority buildings.
"The economics don't explain this trend away," said John Lukehart of the Leadership Council on Metropolitan Open Communities. His group and others in the Chicago Area Fair Housing Alliance commissioned the study, with analysis by University of Illinois at Chicago researchers.
Lukehart knows some families choose to live in segregated areas but says other factors are at play.
The report blames discrimination, a lack of affordable housing in areas with high job growth, and housing authorities for failing to help more families find apartments in better-off neighborhoods. It also says slow apartment inspections and other administrative problems deter landlords.
The plain fact is, justified or not (and, mostly, it's not), people coming out of public housing have the sort of reputation that make landlords reluctant to rent to them.
THAT said, it's also not surprising that many choose to live in what seem to be segregated areas. How many people want to go live in neighborhoods where they absolutely know that the people don't want them there? It's not easy, it's not comfortable, and most people don't want the aggravation. And, as noted, the bureaucracy moves with the speed of a wounded turtle through molasses when it comes to giving people the money it owes them; given any experience with the system, what sane landlord would want to repeat it?
And all this, of course, is on top of the fact that the plans the city made to deal with people coming from the demolished public housing units were simply grossly inadequate.
Posted by iain at 05:46 PM
Egad! Congress grows a spine! (And during election season, too. Imagine that.)
In a sharp rebuke of a new administration policy, the House moved Thursday to block the Labor Department from carrying out overtime rules that critics argued could deprive millions of workers of their overtime pay.
The 223-193 vote in favor of blocking the rules defied the White House. A threatened veto applied to veto a massive spending bill, now on the House floor, if it contains any language tampering with the rules that took effect Aug. 23.
"This is one step in the legislative process. We are continuing to work with the Congress,'' said Trent Duffy, a spokesman for President Bush.
Democrats, united against the rules, were joined by 22 Republicans in voting for the amendment to a $142.5 billion health and education spending bill.
The vote was Bush's second election-season defeat in Congress in two days. On Wednesday the Senate disregarded a White House veto threat and voted to prohibit Bush from giving federal immigration jobs to private workers.
One wonders what Congress will do if Bush does as promised and vetoes the spending bill. They don't have enough votes to override the veto. That said, most people are opposed to the overtime rules. Can the president afford the appearance of being against ordinary workers at the current time, or is it more important for him to placate his backers?
We shall see, I suppose.
Posted by iain at 05:50 PM
Just when you think that it's utterly impossible for Keyes to find yet another corner of the Republican party to alienate, somehow, he does it.
Republican U.S. Senate candidate Alan Keyes declared Tuesday that Jesus, if he were able to vote in Illinois this year, would oppose Democrat Barack Obama because of votes Obama has cast in the state Senate against anti-abortion legislation. "Christ would not vote for Barack Obama because Barack Obama has voted to behave in a way that it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved," Keyes said.
The comments were the latest in a series of controversial remarks made by Keyes, a conservative former talk show host and presidential candidate imported from Maryland by the state GOP after primary winner Jack Ryan dropped out of the race. Keyes made his remarks in a news conference that he called to focus attention on a Downstate campaign speech Obama gave recently in which, according to a Carbondale newspaper, he said he didn't want to just beat the Republican in November but give him "a spanking."
"The reason I do is because he exemplifies the kind of scorched earth, slash and burn negative campaign that has become the custom in Washington, and it is the reason why we can't get anything done," Obama said, according to the Southern Illinoisan of Carbondale.
Keyes said Obama's use of the term "spanking" could evoke strong images of black adults being treated like children in the eras of slavery and Jim Crow. He declined to say whether he thought that was Obama's intent, but added, "I think it's possible that Barack Obama meant many things."
Beat him, whip him, show him that you care ... wait, I'm mocking the wrong candidate.
More seriously (well ...slightly), these days, it's difficult for Obama to get press on his own merits, but then, given the type of press that Keyes is getting, Obama may not mind all that much. The GOP was, at one time, trying to paint Obama as too extremely liberal for Illinois, but since Keyes came on the scene, they've pretty much given up trying. He's alienated the national and local party leadership, the moderates are literally hiding from him (I'd have given money to have seen Judy Barr Topinka hiding behind a potted plant to avoid him), and now he's coming out with statements that are likely to make the religious conservatives think, "Um ... ok, ew." (Mind, most of the religious conservatives in Illinois were not likely to have voted for him anyway. However, now they have an excuse aside from the obvious.) At the rate he's going, the man may well set record lows for votes in a senatorial election.
Granted, as the man says, "People understand this: whatever the cost in terms of the reaction, I'm going to stand for the truth as I understand it," and after two failed presidential campaigns and two failed senatorial campaigns in Maryland, the Illinois GOP Politburo should have known what they were getting. And most assuredly, they went in knowing that they were likely backing a loser; they just wanted a loser who would pull attention to himself in a way that less assertive candidates might not.
Somehow, though, I'm pretty sure that this was not precisely the type of attention they were wanting.
Posted by iain at 02:59 PM
National Board Announces Log Cabin Will Focus on Supporting Inclusive Republican Candidates for U.S. House and Senate
(Washington, DC) -- Log Cabin Republicans are withholding their endorsement from President Bush for 2004. "Log Cabin's National Board has voted to withhold a Presidential endorsement and shift our financial and political resources to defeating the radical right and supporting inclusive Republican candidates for the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives," said Log Cabin Board Chairman William Brownson of Ohio. The Log Cabin Board of Directors voted 22 to 2 not to endorse the President's re-election.
So let me get this straight-ish.
They're going to use their resources to defeat the radical right.
Which is to say, conservative Republicans. And happens, in their view, to include the current president, our Glorious Shrub.
But they are theoretically Republicans. Working for the defeat of candidates of their own party in what would be a nonprimary situation.
They ought to be terribly welcome at all Republican functions, pot lucks, national conventions and the like, after an announcement like that, wouldn't you think?
Don't get me wrong; I certainly think it's high time they woke up and smelled that particular stench emanating from their party of choice. (I also think they ought to reform themselves into an independent advocacy group -- a more conservative version of the Human Rights Campaign, so to speak -- so that they don't screw themselves over like this again, but that's just me.) But they do seem to have announced things in a way that makes certain that they're going to be complete pariahs within their party, not just the rabid "you're with us or you're agin' us" segments.
Posted by iain at 02:13 PM
The European Space Agency's chief scientist has said that there should be a Noah's Ark on the Moon, in case the Earth is destroyed by an asteroid or nuclear holocaust.
Speaking exclusively to BBC News at the British Association Science Festival, Dr Bernard Foing said that the ark should be a repository for the DNA of every single species of plant and animal. Dr Foing is head of Europe's Moon missions, so his thoughts on matters lunar should be taken seriously.
But ... what, precisely would this ark do on the moon? It's not as if any of the creatures on this planet could survive there. (Including us, for that matter.) Assuming that, after some major catastrophe that the Earth's biosphere was eventually reinhabitable, it would almost certainly take decades, generations, before you could get the creatures back down. And how, in a society that's no longer around, do you sustain sufficient technology to repopulate the earth with enough animals and plants? How do you even pick the right ones?
Really, quite the remarkable proposal.
Posted by iain at 10:54 AM
Scotsman.com News - Sudan - UN's damning verdict: Sudan failed to halt killing (Scotsman.co.uk, registration may be required)
GETHIN CHAMBERLAIN
DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENT
Thu 2 Sep 2004
SUDAN has failed to protect its citizens from armed militias, the United Nations Security Council has decided in a surprisingly damning report on the Khartoum regime. It demands that an international force be sent to the African state to guarantee the safety of people in Darfur and end a catastrophe which has seen tens of thousands killed.
Three days after the deadline ran out for the Sudanese government to disarm the Janjaweed militia it used to drive more than 1.3 million people from their homes in Darfur, the Security Council will today be asked to decide what should now happen to force the regime to comply with the will of the international community.
Referring to the demands of the 30 July Security Council resolution, Kofi Annan's report says: "Stopping attacks against civilians and ensuring their protection is the responsibility of the government of Sudan. The government has not met this obligation fully, despite the commitments it has made. Attacks against civilians are continuing and the vast majority of armed militias has not been disarmed. Similarly, no concrete steps have been taken to bring to justice, or even identify, any of the militia leaders or the perpetrators of these attacks, allowing the violations of human rights and the basic laws of war to continue in a climate of impunity."
The report - which was compiled by Mr Annan's special envoy to Sudan, Jan Pronk - accuses Sudanese forces of taking part in attacks after the Security Council passed its resolution, and it paints a picture of a region whose people live in daily fear of fresh attack.
Janjaweed rape and pillage continues despite UN warning (Scotsman)
GETHIN CHAMBERLAIN
Thu 2 Sep 2004
ATTACKS against civilians continued throughout August despite a United Nations resolution calling on the government of Sudan to disarm the Janjaweed militia and bring its leaders to justice.
Last week the Washington office of Human Rights Watch told The Scotsman that it had evidence of a catalogue of incidents which had taken place after the UN resolution, including rapes, attacks on villages and the involvement of government troops.
Monitors from the African Union are investigating reports that Sudanese helicopter gunships bombed the village of Um Hashab last Thursday. [...] Sudanese police sent to Darfur to protect civilians have been accused of raping women in the camps. Mr Annan’s report says that reports of rape, sexual violence and exploitation remain a major concern. Eight aid workers went missing on Saturday afternoon after driving to Tongragra village, 53 miles south of El-Fasher, to register displaced people and assess conditions in the area.
UN workers launched a land and air search for the missing workers - three from the UN World Food Programme and five from the Sudanese Red Crescent - who disappeared in rebel-controlled territory. An aid worker was shot on Monday when a vehicle was targeted by a lone gunman despite being clearly marked as belonging to the ACT/Caritas agencies. The worker was part of a team delivering medical supplies to refugees in Mershing. The worker, who has not been named, is in a stable condition. Aid agencies have now been advised not to travel on the road until security checks can be conducted.
Nigeria-Sudan: Fresh Rebel Demands Delay Signing of Humanitarian Agreement (UN IRIN)
ABUJA, 2 Sep 2004 (IRIN) - The signing of an agreement to improve the humanitarian situation in Sudan's troubled Darfur region at peace talks in the Nigerian capital Abuja was stalled on Thursday after rebel delegates tabled fresh demands. The agreement, worked out by mediators during 10 days of talks, would have cleared the way for unhindered humanitarian assistance to over one million people displaced from their homes in Darfur by fighting between two rebel groups, Khartoum's security forces and the pro-government Janjawid militia.
However, Ahmed Tugod, a spokesman for the two rebel groups, the Sudan Liberation Army and the Justice and Equality Movement, said they would not sign the agreement on humanitarian assistance until "issues of security" were settled. "Basically we're calling for Darfur to be declared a no-fly zone for all military aircraft, we're calling for the disarmament and disbandment of the Janjawid, we're asking for an independent body to investigate their crimes," Tugod told reporters.
The rebels also object to proposals to restrict their fighters to specified cantonment sites unless government troops in Darfur are similarly confined to barracks. "We're not going to commit ourselves to any agreement that is going to canton us in a specific area, which will enable the military to bombard us in a minute," Tugod said.
Frankly, the situation sounds utterly hopeless. The government of Sudan is not only not interested in dealing with the situation, its personnel are actively engaged in committing more atrocities. And whatever you think of the rebels -- aside from the people caught in the middle, there don't seem to be any good guys in this mess, and quite a few sincerely evil ones -- given the government's previous behavior in these matters, their refusal to put themselves all in one place isn't entirely unreasonable, given that the government seems to like bombing any concentrations of people it can find. The only Sudanese truly interested in peace are the ones being robbed and raped, and they don't have any power to enforce anything at all.
It will be interesting to see what happens next. Certainly the countries surrounding Sudan will be demanding some sort of action. The Organization for African Unity is going to need to figure out some way to provide sufficient forces for security without making Sudan feel threatened -- and that ought to be quite the effort. The US most certainly cannot, probably will not, and given our standing in that region of the world these days, probably should not provide forces for this, and OAU has been notably reluctant, for some reason, to get involved in this at all.
Posted by iain at 06:51 PM
In February 2003, astronomers involved in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) pointed the massive radio telescope in Arecibo, Puerto Rico, at around 200 sections of the sky.
The same telescope had previously detected unexplained radio signals at least twice from each of these regions, and the astronomers were trying to reconfirm the findings. The team has now finished analysing the data, and all the signals seem to have disappeared. Except one, which has got stronger.
This radio signal, now seen on three separate occasions, is an enigma. It could be generated by a previously unknown astronomical phenomenon. Or it could be something much more mundane, maybe an artefact of the telescope itself.
But it also happens to be the best candidate yet for a contact by intelligent aliens in the nearly six-year history of the SETI@home project, which uses programs running as screensavers on millions of personal computers worldwide to sift through signals picked up by the Arecibo telescope....
Of course, now the question is, assuming that is intelligent life out there generating those radio signals, are they pointing their own radiotelescopes at the heavens, coming across an insignificant yellow star in the lower section of one of the spiral arms of the galaxy, and thinking, "Who are those dreadfully loud beings out there? Really, good neighbors should manage their signal levels better than that."
Posted by iain at 05:00 PM
OK, let's take a f'rinstance here.
Let's say, for instance, that you're a carpetbagging opportunist from out of state. Let's say that in order to get anywhere, you need the sincere and public support of your national political organization, which has already pretty much written off your state as going to the other party in the upcoming presidential and senate elections. Let's also say that you need the state organization and its apparatchiks to come out and support you in public, and all the heavy hitters have been notably reluctant to do so. Let's say, furthermore, that what little press coverage you can get, beyond the initial flurry, has been fairly relentlessly in the, "Wow, what a nutjob" vein. You'd think that perhaps -- just perhaps -- you should suck up to the leaders of the national party, asking for both financial and public support of all sorts, right? You might also consider sucking up to the leadership in the state party, asking for the same sorts of support. That's what normal people would do in this situation. (Of course, all the normal people in the GOP declined most emphatically to put themselves in this situation, but never mind that.)
You would think that insulting the family members of your party leaders might be a bit beyond the pale if you were in such a tenuous situation, wouldn't you? Well, of course you would, if you were your average person with a bit of common sense.
Thankfully for punditry everywhere, Alan Keyes' common sense seems to have decided to take a wee vacation. (Probably back in Maryland.)
Illinois Republican Senate candidate Alan Keyes labeled homosexuality "selfish hedonism" and said Vice President Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter is a sinner.
The former talk show host who has made two unsuccessful runs for the White House made the comments Monday night in an interview with Sirius OutQ, a satellite radio station that provides programming aimed at gays and lesbians. After saying homosexuality is "selfish hedonism," Keyes was asked if that made Mary Cheney "a selfish hedonist." "Of course she is," Keyes replied. "That goes by definition."
Liz Cheney, Mary's sister, refused to comment Wednesday during an interview on CNN. "I guess I'm surprised, frankly, that you would even repeat the quote, and I'm not going to dignify it with a comment," she told the interviewer.
Wait, it gets even better:
Madison Square Garden, home of many prizefights and hockey brawls, seems a fitting venue for Alan Keyes to be meeting his fellow Republicans. The candidate for U.S. Senate has miffed many members of the Illinois delegation by spending more time on national talk shows than schmoozing with them. He has been prickly with the media, chastising reporters for asking "inappropriate" questions. As the Republican National Convention focused on unity Tuesday, Keyes lashed out at the vice president's gay daughter.
And it was only the second day of the convention.
Keyes' first comments about Mary Cheney came during an interview Monday night on Sirius OutQ, a New York-based satellite station that provides 24-hour gay and lesbian programming. After Keyes told the hosts that homosexuality is "selfish hedonism," he was asked whether Mary Cheney is a "selfish hedonist." "Of course she is," Keyes replied. "That goes by definition. Of course she is."
On Tuesday, Keyes defended his remarks, adding that if his daughter were a lesbian, he would tell her she was committing a sin and should pray about it.[...] Two hosts with Sirius OutQ spoke with Keyes for four minutes Monday night in a nearby hallway. Their conversation centered on Keyes' opposition to gay marriage. Keyes said family is defined by having children. "If we embrace homosexuality as a proper basis for marriage, we are saying that it's possible to have a marriage state that in principle excludes procreation and is based simply on the premise of selfish hedonism," Keyes told hosts Michelangelo Signorile and Corey Johnson.
It was at this point that the hosts asked Keyes their question about Mary Cheney, which Keyes answered.
An interviewer then said: "I don't think Dick Cheney would like to hear that about his daughter."
Replied Keyes: "Dick Cheney may or many not like to hear the truth, but it can be spoken."
When asked Tuesday evening to explain his statements about Mary Cheney, Keyes did not back down. "I have said that if you are actively engaging in homosexual relations, those relations are about selfish hedonism," Keyes said. "If my daughter were a lesbian, I'd look at her and say, `That is a relationship that is based on selfish hedonism.' I would also tell my daughter that it's a sin, and she needs to pray to the Lord God to help her to deal with that sin."
THAT is a defense?
I can just imagine the scene back in the ol' Illinois GOP Politburo headquarters. People all sitting around a table, heads in hands, murmuring, "What were we thinking? What were we thinking?"
At this point, it pretty much doesn't matter if Keyes shreds Obama in the upcoming debates, whenever and wherever they may be. (And I'm pretty sure he won't.) The rate he's going, he's going to alienate even the hard-core Republicans so much that they're not going to vote for anyone at all in the Senate race.
Posted by iain at 03:46 PM
