Blogswarm - Online Political News Magazine

Sign the petition.

To: Senator _________ & the Senate Judiciary Committee

We, the undersigned, are dedicated to ensuring that those placed in positions to enforce or interpret the laws of the United States are willing and able to uphold both the integrity of their offices and the integrity of our Constitution.

For the reasons stated below, we believe Alberto Gonzales is unfit to be United State Attorney General. Please visit us at www.donotconfirm.com to read more.

Alberto Gonzalez:

---As White House counsel, wrote a memo in which he claimed that the Bush Administration had the right to waive anti-torture law and international treaties providing protections to prisoners’ of war. In his work in this regard, Gonzalez referred to the Geneva Convention as “quaint.” It has been widely speculated that this advice to the White House played a significant role in the lead up to the Abu Ghraib prison scandal;

---As a private attorney, was a corporate law partner at Vinson & Elkins in Texas who profited greatly from his ties to both Enron and Haliburton. These associations call into question Gonzalez’s ability to appropriately police corporate malfeasance;

---is fiercely loyal to George W. Bush which calls into question his ability to properly handle a number of on-going investigations into the current White House. Chief among these investigations is the unresolved felony committed when a yet to be identified government official leaked the identity of undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame in retaliation for her husband’s critique of the Administration’s reasons for going to war in Iraq;

---As legal counsel to then Texas Governor George W. Bush, prepared fifty-seven confidential death-penalty memoranda for Bush’s review, repeatedly failing to apprise Bush of some of the most significant facts and controversies in those cases. For examples, in the case of Terry Washington, Gonzalez failed to mention in his memo that Washington was severely mentally retarded and that he had been regularly beaten with whips, water hoses, extension cords, wire hangers, and fan belts as a child. A few years after Washington’s execution, the Supreme Court held that the execution of the mentally retarded was cruel and unusually punishment prohibited under the Constitution.

We demand accountability from those wishing to serve this country. Until we can be satisified that he will execute his duties responsibly and accountably, we the undersigned, your constituents and citizens of the United States of America, cannot support Alberto Gonzales for this appointment.

Respectfully,
The Undersigned

Sign the petition.

Open Source Versus Bottom Up

Micah Sifry has an interesting article in The Nation on the rise of 'Open Source' politics. Open source is an important concept, but it is not a new one. Open source is the idea of a Federalized system based on iteratively altered precedent applied to software development. You have a set of malleable rules that anyone can follow, and then a community to which one contributes whatever one produces under those rules. Then there's a community mediated process for determining whether what one produces is valuable, fixes bugs, addresses a problem, etc, and and if your contribution does, it is applied across the whole system.

For example, when the Supreme Court puts out a new legal doctrine, that filters across the legal landscape without anyone being told to incorporate it into one's thinking. It's just that legal analysis has a set of norms that are flexible yet roughly determinative of how new concepts and resources are applied to the legal system. That's open source.

Anyway, I have to read the whole article again to fully expound on what Micah says. I'm a bit skeptical of the whole notion of 'emergence' and 'bottom-up' democracy. My sense is that the dividing line is not between populism (bottom-up) and autocracy (top-down), but that those are two sides of the same coin. The line is between large mass bottom-up or top-down organizations and small community based groups that can create small civil societies and negotiate and overlap with one another. Kind of like a court system.

Anyway, much to think about. I like Micah's focus on the young (Jason Fink does good work on this blog on youth in voting). They came our way. Go us! Seriously, though, I always knew it. The young are smarter than their elders, because the notion of open source is intuitive to those who grow up in a society where traditional top-heavy authority structures are cracking. So if you lean Democratic, then you're young at heart.

Mon Nov 15th, 2004 at 09:15:29 PST

Justice Through Music, which strongly supports the democratic principles of transparency and honesty in the electoral process, is offering at least a $100,000 reward to any person or persons who provide conclusive and verifiable evidence that the results of the 2004 presidential election were not correctly tabulated because of one or more of the following reasons: 1) hacking into the voting machines; 2) software or coding problems with voting or tabulating machines; 3) multiple counting by machines or humans, 4) improperly implanted codes in voting machines; 5) tampering with voting machines, voting cards or final tabulation numbers; 6) officials or machines not counting all the votes or adding votes; 7) official influence which changed vote totals, or 8) other problems with vote tabulation not noted here. All information and evidence should be submitted to reward@jtmp.org . Questions should be submitted to questions@jtmp.org .

CNN's Novak, on the DNC chair: "I think Tom Vilsack is the logical choice. I think he's going to get it. Friends of Vilsack's say that he was very worried about Howard Dean getting a head of steam and becoming chairman, which would be an absolute disaster for the Democrats. So I wouldn't be surprised to see Vilsack get it and get it quite easily"

Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT), on Dean: "To rebuild this party, we need somebody who's more in the center, and more of a bridge-builder. I don't have any particular choice for that, myself. It's a job that's going to be a tough job. But, with all respect, Howard Dean is not the right man to lead the Democratic Party now."

More Lieberman: "I think Tom Vilsack would be a better choice, if he's willing to do it. He's a moderate. He's from the heartland. He's credible, I think, to all sections of the Democratic Party. And he'd be one that I think really could take the party forward"

The DNC chair race "could be the skirmish that reveals whether the party will try to resurrect itself by turning to the center or by stoking" the anti-Pres. Bush anger of its left. 2 leading contenders "are emerging." Howard Dean is "being urged to run by liberal activists convinced he is the best chance for channeling the bas'es ire into a national message," but the more centrist group believes Dean "is the last person the party needs." Vilsack was calling labor leaders and others last week, "asking them to hold off backing Dean ... as Vilsack decides whether to make a bid" (Tumulty, Time, 11/22 issue).

Kerry is not behind Shaheen right now, he's behind Vilsack (not that he wouldn't turn to her if Vilsack dropped out). As I stated earlier, it's mostly a "Stop Dean" movement that Kerry is leading the charge on from behind the scenes. And yes, Kerry does have that $45M leftover from the campaign that he's not ready to handover to the DNC at this time-- why not?

From everyone I've talked to inside the Dean campaign, he's ready to take the chair at the DNC. He's just got to get the votes. It's obvious that the "anyone but Dean" movement has no vision of it's own, other than stopping the grassroots from actually taking control of the party. We need to re-invigorate the local level with power that has a say, and take away power from the vested interests (mostly their own) inside DC.

I mean, disaster compared to what? Being shut out from all levers of government? From the White House, Supreme Court, House, Senate, majority of governorships and majority of state legislatures?

How about the disaster of three straight losing election cycles? That's not a freakin' disaster?

Dean means reform. Simon Rosenberg means reform. There are probably other dark horse candidates out there who would mean reform.

And that's what we need. Reform, not status quo. The status quo is untenable. I'm tired of losing, and that's the only thing the current gang has delivered.

But the establishment is gearing up to fight the challenge from outside. Note the language they are using -- we need "centrists", not "liberals" backed by (crazy) "activists". It's a negative campaign that would make Karl Rove proud, designed to scare DNC members into the safe vote (Harkin), rather than the scary vote (Dean).

Nevermind it's all bullshit. Dean was a darling of the DLC as governor, until his reform-minded rhetoric threatened the DLC's own parochial interests. Simon Rosenberg, another candidate receiving a great deal of early support from the 'activist' community and younger party donors, is an avowed centrist, former Lieberman protege. His New Democrat Network splintered off from the DLC.

However, NDN has moved beyond ideology, to building a party infrastructure that can compete against the Republican Noise Machine. Partisanship first, narrow ideological spats deemphasized. For a DLC and "centrist" Democratic community that is still fighting the battles of 1992, this is heresy.

So don't be fooled by this "centrist" versus "liberal" scare tactics you'll hear from Lieberman and other party "leaders". It's scare tactics. The real battle is not ideological. It's between those who would rather keep the current system intact, regardless of its flaws, and those who want to scrap the darn thing and rebuild a stronger, more vibrant party.

In the rush, [AP photographer] Hussein left behind his camera lens and a satellite telephone for transmitting his images. His lens, marked with the distinctive AP logo, was discovered two days later by U.S. Marines next to a dead man's body in a house in Jolan.

AP colleagues in the Baghdad bureau, who by then had not heard from Hussein in 48 hours, became even more worried.

Hussein moved from house to house -- dodging gunfire -- and reached the river.

"I decided to swim ... but I changed my mind after seeing U.S. helicopters firing on and killing people who tried to cross the river."

He watched horrified as a family of five was shot dead as they tried to cross. Then, he "helped bury a man by the river bank, with my own hands."

"I kept walking along the river for two hours and I could still see some U.S. snipers ready to shoot anyone who might swim. I quit the idea of crossing the river and walked for about five hours through orchards."

There aren't too many states in the union redder than Montana. George Bush won the state by more than 20 points in November. The state legislature and governorship in the capital, Helena, have been in GOP hands for 16 years. Sparsely-populated Montana is represented by only one congressman, the far-right Rep. Denny Rehberg, and by two senators, an ultra-conservative Republican (Conrad Burns) and a conservative Democrat (Max Baucus) who often votes with the Republicans. The state's electoral votes are conceded so automatically to the GOP that neither party's candidate campaigns there. Culturally, with the exception of a few rich Hollywood types who weekend in places like Big Sky, the state could hardly be further from the metro-cosmopolitan culture of the coasts. To give but one example, Montana has the highest percentage of hunters of any state in the union.

But in November, a Democrat, Brian Schweitzer, won the state's race for governor. Schweitzer not only won, but he also won decisively, beating his opponent Bob Brown, the Republican secretary of state and a two-decade fixture in Montana politics, by a solid four points. His victory was so resounding and provided down-ballot party members such strong coattails that Montana Democrats took the state senate and four of five statewide offices.

1. They offered a great candidate in Schweitzer.

2. He ran as an outsider, a reform candidate, battling against two decades of one-party Republican rule.

3. He wooed small businesses by targetting big box retailers like Wal Mart who are laying waste to downtowns everywhere.

4. He appealed to environmental sensibilities of hunters and fishermen.

Like I've said a million times before, the NRA has won the gun control battle. And being an issue that never resonated with me, I say good riddance. Gun control can and should remain a local issue.

But more interestingly is the increased merger between environmental concerns and the hunter/fishermen community. I've already written that environmental issues can deliver the West to the Democrats, but not in the "traditional" environmental frame. Spotted Owls won't win us any elections. But pristine hunting and fishing areas will.

Sirota is right -- most of these persuadable voters in the west would hang themselves rather than be labeled "environmentalists" -- a large failing in the part of the environmental movement's ability to properly frame itself. But hunters, fishermen, ranchers and other such outdoorsmen in the west and across the country are natural allies of the environmental movement.

The GOP will be unable to wedge on the gun issue much longer. It's dead at the national level. Now if we can continue to make Montana-style inroads into the sportsmen community, we can help turn that swath of red across the rockies into a happy purple.

Vilsack seeks to protect homestate caucuses
by kos
Sun Nov 14th, 2004 at 22:21:11 PST

The secret is out.

Gov. Tom Vilsack is considering a bid to become the next chairman of Democratic National Committee, in part to protect Iowa's leadoff precinct caucuses, a spokesman said Wednesday.

"The governor is interested in preserving the Iowa caucuses," spokesman Matt Paul said [...]

He said Vilsack could help protect Iowa's first-in-the-nation caucuses from other states hoping to usurp that position.

Democrats typically approve the next round of presidential primaries and caucuses during their nominating convention, but this year appointed a commission to study the calendar.

Vilsack is status quo with a (parochial) twist. The rationale for his candidacy is predicated, in large part, on protecting his home state's unwarranted status in the primaries.

We deserve a chairman who will whip up the DNC into fighting shape, who will focus 100 percent of his or her energies whiping the party into fighting form and help reverse our losing streak without being distracted with homestate concerns. We deserve reform, not conflicts of interest.

If you are interested in sending a message, these two names seem promising:

Stephen Gleason, Vilsack's Chief of Staff
Dusky Terry, Vilsack's Senior adviser

As for the DNC commission "studying" the primary calendar, I am intrigued. Anyone know anything about it?

Iran heading towards conflict

The risk of a confrontation between Iran and the international community is set to escalate as it becomes likely that the Islamic Republic will soon possess its own nuclear weapon. JID's nuclear expert reviews the evidence and warns of a hardening attitude in Washington.

Back in September 2004, the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) reported that Iran was intending to convert 37 tonnes of milled uranium oxide ('yellowcake') into uranium hexafluoride, the 'feed' material for centrifuges that gets made into highly enriched uranium (HEU). This is viewed to be too small a quantity for a civilian programme but would provide enough material for around five nuclear weapons.

In undertaking the yellowcake conversion, Iran is going further in breaching the arrangement it made with the EU in October 2003 when it announced that it would suspend enrichment activities, shortly after which it decided to resume assembling centrifuges. Amid calls by the US to refer Iran to the UN Security Council, the EU member states have opted to allow Iran a final opportunity to come to a negotiated solution before supporting Washington's demands for tough sanctions.

The IAEA's resolution called on Iran to suspend all enrichment-related activities immediately and reconsider its decision to construct a heavy-water research reactor at Arak. Tehran has insisted that the Arak reactor would be used solely for research and the production of radioisotopes for medical and industrial purposes. Experts point out that such a reactor would also provide the means to produce plutonium without the need to enrich uranium.

In June 2004, Iran cut the IAEA seals on its existing centrifuge components and began assembling centrifuges from existing component stock. Other outstanding issues involve the origin of uranium contamination found at various locations; the completeness of Iran's declaration about the acquisition of advanced P2 gas centrifuges; establishing that undeclared enrichment has not taken place at other locations and confirming that no undeclared HEU has already been imported.

Sun Nov 14th, 2004 at 11:59:01 PST

[From the Diaries - MB]

This is not freaking believable.  When I first saw an article about purges in the intelligence community, I (naively) thought it was a purge of those responsible for intelligence failures.  My mistake.  The story which follows is not unique, only we are used to hearing about it after military coups in countries whose names many of us are not entirely sure how to pronounce.  But this is happening right here.

I am not one easily given to hyperbole, and I have avoided words like "junta" in the past, but does this sound like the behavior of a democratically elected leader of a free nation?

EDIT: (The direct source is here)

WASHINGTON -- The White House has ordered the new CIA director, Porter Goss, to purge the agency of officers believed to have been disloyal to President George W. Bush or of leaking damaging information to the media about the conduct of the Iraq war and the hunt for Osama bin Laden, according to knowledgeable sources.

"The agency is being purged on instructions from the White House," said a former senior CIA official who maintains close ties to both the agency and to the White House. "Goss was given instructions ... to get rid of those soft leakers and liberal Democrats. The CIA is looked on by the White House as a hotbed of liberals and people who have been obstructing the president's agenda."

Purging the intelligence community of those disloyal to the president?  Purging liberal Democrats?

Scared yet?  You should be.

Bush likes to operate in secret.  Information is the enemy.  Write your senator.  Write your congressmen.  Write all your newspapers.  If Bush is intent on behaving this way, do not let him do it in the dark.