Mark Kirk and the Do Nothing Congress

Mark Kirk considers himself a proud member of the 109th Congress and creator of the suburban strategy, but this is the first Congress to completely abdicated it's power and authority over important national and international issues to the executive branch being content to vote on little and talk about issues that our state legislatures and municipal governments are fully comptent to handle.

Here's a bit of what Kirk and this hobbled congress have failed to accomplish before the break:

No increase in the minimum wage. H.R. 2429 is still hanging out there with no vote. Here is what sponsor George Miller (D-CA) had to say on Wednesday of this past week (Kirk has nothing to say about increasing the minimum wage):

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, for 10 years the Republicans have kept hardworking Americans away from an increase in the minimum wage. Over 7 million people who get up in the morning every day and go to work, all day long, all week long, all month long and all year long, and at the end of that year they end up in poverty. At the end of that year they end up with the inability to provide for their families.

For 10 years, the Republicans have fought an increase in the minimum wage. For 10 years the Republicans have made it official policy of this country that people who get up and go to work every day will end up in poverty. It is a poverty wage. And the Republicans are proud of it. The majority leader boasts that he has fought this his entire public life, and yet these people are stuck at 1950 wages.

But what is not stuck at 1950 is the price of groceries, the price of gasoline to go to work, the price of housing, and the price of health care. There is no relief for these hardworking Americans. There is no relief for their families because the Republicans refuse to entertain a clean vote on the minimum wage. A clean vote, so 7 million Americans could start to have an increase in their yearly take-home pay. That is what the Republicans refuse.

There is 72 hours left in this session. The Republicans can decide to do the decent thing, to provide a minimum wage increase for hardworking Americans. But the Republicans won't do that because they are not a party of decency. They have chosen to put these people into poverty and to keep them in poverty year after year after year. Yet they have chosen to have eight pay raises for Members of Congress at the same time they have chosen to keep hardworking Americans in poverty.

That's what the Republicans promise hardworking Americans, you end up in poverty.

Nothing was accomplished on H.R. 2429 the rest of the week.

While the Bush cabal made tough talking speeches on the 5th anniversary of 9/11, Kirk's congress failed to take action on the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Instead they resolved to mourn, sympathize, honor heros (but not help them through the medical crisis their service on 9/11 brought to the), express gratitude and never forget. Here's some of what Nancy Pelosi has to say about what the republicans in congress did not do:

Two years ago, the bipartisan and independent 9/11 Commission concluded that the American people were failed by their government on 9/11. To prevent future similar failures, the Commission made 41 recommendations. Last December, the same independent commission issued a report card on the implementation of those recommendations. Sixteen of the grades awarded were either D's or F's, and others were incompletes. In May of this year, the commissioners reviewed the record on implementation once again. Their conclusion on the poor grades: no progress....

Isn't it hard to believe and to know that five years after 9/11, we still do not have real-time, that means immediate, communication among police, fire, and other first responders. We paid a price for this during Hurricane Katrina. Five years later we still do not have the screening at our ports that we should have. We are at 5 percent; we should be at 100 percent of screening. That is possible; it is affordable and it is technologically available to us. Five years after 9/11, we still do not have our borders secure. We have not mandated, because this Congress and Administration refuses to do so, the private sector to protect our nuclear and chemical power plants.

The list goes on of shortcomings. The 9/11 Commission said we should increase the pace of reform at the FBI. There are so many things that are lacking in what we are doing to protect the American people. The biggest threat to the security and safety of the American people is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the unsafeguarded radioactive material that is out there. For about $10 billion, about a month of the cost of the war in Iraq, we could buy up all of the known radioactive material that is out there that could fall into the hands of terrorists. It's a lot of money, but it's a small price to pay for the safety of the American people. And yet, for reasons that are hard to explain to anyone, we have refused over and over again to pass legislation that would appropriate the resources to do that.

also nothing on:

*a viable energy policy that reduces carbon dioxide emissions, prevents oil company price gouging, and works toward making our country less dependent on foreign oil;

*adequate funding for the VA which is now about $3 billion in debt;

*meaningful lobbying reform; and

*renewal of of tax benefits for college tuition, retirement savings, teacher's school supplies, and state sales.

What did they do? They rubber stamped Bush's save himself insurance policy on detainees and took the US out of the world community by rejecting the protections of the Geneva Conventions and wiped out the ancient remedy of habeas corpus.

What did Kirk do? Well, he worked on a so-called anti-child-predator law which is really just a misnamed censorship law, and well, you got to hand it to Mark. When he does something, he goes directly to the source. Mark Foley of inappropriate emails to minors fame is in his suburban caucus. Apparently, house leadership knew all about it too.

Sierra Club Does Not Endorse Mark Kirk for 2006

Although his website still sports that goofy picture of him staring meaningfully into a test tube at the beach, Mark Kirk is not being endorsed by the Sierra Club for the 2006 election. He was long ago reduced in rating by the League of Conservation Voters to 39%. Do you think Kirk wonders why Sierra and LCV have dropped him?

Hmmmm.

Maybe it has something to do with the revelation that he worked as a "contrarian" for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, seeking to deny global warming.

Maybe it was his votes to enrich the energy industry at the expense of the environment using Hurricane Katrina as an excuse (H.R. 3893).

Maybe it was that vote to sell off massive amounts of public land to mining claim holders in order to fund a mishandled foreign war based on lies and maintain tax cuts designed to concentrate wealth in the richest 1% also supported by Kirk,(H.R. 4241) even removing requirements that the land for sale contain a "discovery of a valuable mineral deposit" and allowing mining interests to sell off to developments rather than mining. Here is a good summary of the public land provision of that budget law.

Maybe that picture on his website with the fake look of concern and study on his face annoyed them too.

Thomas Jefferson or Bush/Cheney/Kirk, You Decide

Here is what Thomas Jefferson said about habeas corpus:

Why suspend the habeas corpus in insurrections and rebellions? The parties who may be arrested may be charged instantly with a well defined crime; of course, the judge will remand them. If the public safety requires that the government should have a man imprisoned on less probable testimony in those than in other emergencies, let him be taken and tried, retaken and retried, while the necessity continues, only giving him redress against the government for damages. Examine the history of England. See how few of the cases of the suspension of the habeas corpus law have been worthy of that suspension. They have been either real treasons, wherein the parties might as well have been charged at once, or sham plots, where it was shameful they should ever have been suspected. Yet for the few cases wherein the suspension of the habeas corpus has done real good, that operation is now become habitual and the minds of the nation almost prepared to live under its constant suspension. --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788.

It's official...

...we can call him Mark "Torture Boy" Kirk as Mark Kirk joined the throngs of congressman who believe that their ability to campaign as "tough on terrorism" without really being tough on terrorism is more important than the country and its position in the world. They debated this enormous turn of American politics and government for a mere 2 hours.

This new law is the poster child for why Americans need to learn to read laws and make the time and effort to keep up on what their congressmen are doing. Maybe we also need to elect congressmen who will actually read the bills before voting on them rather than just rushing to get something passed which is pretty much all we get from this congress. Here are some parts of Kirk's anti-American torture bill you should know about:

§ 948c. Persons subject to military commissions. Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.

§948d. Jurisdiction of military commissions. (a) JURISDICTION.--A military commission under this chapter shall have jurisdiction to try any offense made punishable by this chapter or the law of war when committed by an alien unlawful enemy combatant before, on, or after September 11, 2001.

Jurisdiction is the concept of determining the types of cases and types of parties on which a particular court can hear cases and make decisions.

(b) LAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANTS. Military commissions under this chapter shall not have jurisdiction over lawful enemy combatants. Lawful enemy combatants who violate the law of war are subject to chapter 47 of this title. Courts-martial established under that chapter shall have jurisdiction to try a lawful enemy combatant for any offense made punishable under this chapter.

(c) DETERMINATION OF UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT STATUS DISPOSITIVE. A finding, whether before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is dispositive for purposes of jurisdiction for trial by military commission under this chapter.

Bush was correct. He is the decider. He gets to decide who is and who is not an unlawful enemy combatant in his new court. I think they used to call similar courts throughout the history of the world "kangaroo courts" and we used to look down on other countries that had them.

Below are some provisions relating to habeas corpus (and remember if Bush decides you are an unlawful enemy combatant, some of this will apply to you) and some of the provisions on the inability to invoke the Geneva Conventions:

§ 950j. Finality or proceedings, findings, and sentences. (b) PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER SOLE BASIS FOR REVIEW OF MILITARY COMMISSION PROCEDURES AND ACTIONS.—Except as otherwise provided in this chapter and notwithstanding any other provision of law (including section 2241 of title 28 or any other habeas corpus provision), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever, including any action pending on or filed after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission under this chapter, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions under this chapter.

SEC. 5. TREATY OBLIGATIONS NOT ESTABLISHING GROUNDS FOR CERTAIN CLAIMS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—No person may invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto in any habeas corpus or other civil action or proceeding to which the United States, or a current or former officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States.

SEC. 7. HABEAS CORPUS MATTERS. (e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.

Below is the George W. Bush and Dick Cheney personal protection insurance policy by which they have convinced our congress to sell out our country to protect their personal safety from prosecution for war crimes:

(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 5 (10 U.S.C. 801 note), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien who is or was detained by the United States and has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.

Botton line for Kirk is that he is willing to help Bush create his cynical world of war and torture for fun and profit because Kirk thinks it will help him sell the Israel destruction scenerio over and over again every 2 years for his re-election campaigns. He's correct, in a way, because making the world a far more dangerous place and creating greater hatred for the US and for Israel around the world is likely to create situations that help him maintain the fear and mistrust he uses to prey upon us for votes.

It's time to stand against the unending war on a global battlefield view that pushes us to stand idly by and watch this cabal destroy our country and take away the freedoms, opportunity, justice and hope that made it vibrant and strong. It is time to show Mark "Torture Boy" Kirk the door and hand him his hat. Good Bye and Good Riddance.

Fear Itself

This is for the man standing outside the Adams Street Metra Station exit yesterday morning holding up a sign on which was written the famous FDR quote:

"the only thing we have to fear is fear itself"

Below is the FDR speech from his March 4, 1933 Inaugural Address in its entirety. We should all think about it in comparison to what our current leaders lie about and what they tell us to do: fear and hate. We should also remember that FDR successfully saw our country through a worldwide depression and world war. What have Bush and Kirk been successful at lately other than getting themselves re-elected based on fear and hate?

Today, I have to say goodbye to someone and help an old friend through an illness. I'll be back tomorrow.

Here's the FDR speech:

I am certain that my fellow Americans expect that on my induction into the Presidency I will address them with a candor and a decision which the present situation of our people impel. This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.
In such a spirit on my part and on yours we face our common difficulties. They concern, thank God, only material things. Values have shrunken to fantastic levels; taxes have risen; our ability to pay has fallen; government of all kinds is faced by serious curtailment of income; the means of exchange are frozen in the currents of trade; the withered leaves of industrial enterprise lie on every side; farmers find no markets for their produce; the savings of many years in thousands of families are gone.
More important, a host of unemployed citizens face the grim problem of existence, and an equally great number toil with little return. Only a foolish optimist can deny the dark realities of the moment.
Yet our distress comes from no failure of substance. We are stricken by no plague of locusts. Compared with the perils which our forefathers conquered because they believed and were not afraid, we have still much to be thankful for. Nature still offers her bounty and human efforts have multiplied it. Plenty is at our doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply. Primarily this is because the rulers of the exchange of mankind’s goods have failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.
True they have tried, but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence. They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish.
The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.
Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort. The joy and moral stimulation of work no longer must be forgotten in the mad chase of evanescent profits. These dark days will be worth all they cost us if they teach us that our true destiny is not to be ministered unto but to minister to ourselves and to our fellow men.
Recognition of the falsity of material wealth as the standard of success goes hand in hand with the abandonment of the false belief that public office and high political position are to be valued only by the standards of pride of place and personal profit; and there must be an end to a conduct in banking and in business which too often has given to a sacred trust the likeness of callous and selfish wrongdoing. Small wonder that confidence languishes, for it thrives only on honesty, on honor, on the sacredness of obligations, on faithful protection, on unselfish performance; without them it cannot live.
Restoration calls, however, not for changes in ethics alone. This Nation asks for action, and action now.
Our greatest primary task is to put people to work. This is no unsolvable problem if we face it wisely and courageously. It can be accomplished in part by direct recruiting by the Government itself, treating the task as we would treat the emergency of a war, but at the same time, through this employment, accomplishing greatly needed projects to stimulate and reorganize the use of our natural resources.
Hand in hand with this we must frankly recognize the overbalance of population in our industrial centers and, by engaging on a national scale in a redistribution, endeavor to provide a better use of the land for those best fitted for the land. The task can be helped by definite efforts to raise the values of agricultural products and with this the power to purchase the output of our cities. It can be helped by preventing realistically the tragedy of the growing loss through foreclosure of our small homes and our farms. It can be helped by insistence that the Federal, State, and local governments act forthwith on the demand that their cost be drastically reduced. It can be helped by the unifying of relief activities which today are often scattered, uneconomical, and unequal. It can be helped by national planning for and supervision of all forms of transportation and of communications and other utilities which have a definitely public character. There are many ways in which it can be helped, but it can never be helped merely by talking about it. We must act and act quickly.
Finally, in our progress toward a resumption of work we require two safeguards against a return of the evils of the old order; there must be a strict supervision of all banking and credits and investments; there must be an end to speculation with other people’s money, and there must be provision for an adequate but sound currency.
There are the lines of attack. I shall presently urge upon a new Congress in special session detailed measures for their fulfillment, and I shall seek the immediate assistance of the several States.
Through this program of action we address ourselves to putting our own national house in order and making income balance outgo. Our international trade relations, though vastly important, are in point of time and necessity secondary to the establishment of a sound national economy. I favor as a practical policy the putting of first things first. I shall spare no effort to restore world trade by international economic readjustment, but the emergency at home cannot wait on that accomplishment.
The basic thought that guides these specific means of national recovery is not narrowly nationalistic. It is the insistence, as a first consideration, upon the interdependence of the various elements in all parts of the United States—a recognition of the old and permanently important manifestation of the American spirit of the pioneer. It is the way to recovery. It is the immediate way. It is the strongest assurance that the recovery will endure.
In the field of world policy I would dedicate this Nation to the policy of the good neighbor—the neighbor who resolutely respects himself and, because he does so, respects the rights of others—the neighbor who respects his obligations and respects the sanctity of his agreements in and with a world of neighbors.
If I read the temper of our people correctly, we now realize as we have never realized before our interdependence on each other; that we can not merely take but we must give as well; that if we are to go forward, we must move as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline, because without such discipline no progress is made, no leadership becomes effective. We are, I know, ready and willing to submit our lives and property to such discipline, because it makes possible a leadership which aims at a larger good. This I propose to offer, pledging that the larger purposes will bind upon us all as a sacred obligation with a unity of duty hitherto evoked only in time of armed strife.
With this pledge taken, I assume unhesitatingly the leadership of this great army of our people dedicated to a disciplined attack upon our common problems.
Action in this image and to this end is feasible under the form of government which we have inherited from our ancestors. Our Constitution is so simple and practical that it is possible always to meet extraordinary needs by changes in emphasis and arrangement without loss of essential form. That is why our constitutional system has proved itself the most superbly enduring political mechanism the modern world has produced. It has met every stress of vast expansion of territory, of foreign wars, of bitter internal strife, of world relations.
It is to be hoped that the normal balance of executive and legislative authority may be wholly adequate to meet the unprecedented task before us. But it may be that an unprecedented demand and need for undelayed action may call for temporary departure from that normal balance of public procedure.
I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures that a stricken nation in the midst of a stricken world may require. These measures, or such other measures as the Congress may build out of its experience and wisdom, I shall seek, within my constitutional authority, to bring to speedy adoption.
But in the event that the Congress shall fail to take one of these two courses, and in the event that the national emergency is still critical, I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me. I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis—broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.
For the trust reposed in me I will return the courage and the devotion that befit the time. I can do no less.
We face the arduous days that lie before us in the warm courage of the national unity; with the clear consciousness of seeking old and precious moral values; with the clean satisfaction that comes from the stern performance of duty by old and young alike. We aim at the assurance of a rounded and permanent national life.
We do not distrust the future of essential democracy. The people of the United States have not failed. In their need they have registered a mandate that they want direct, vigorous action. They have asked for discipline and direction under leadership. They have made me the present instrument of their wishes. In the spirit of the gift I take it.
In this dedication of a Nation we humbly ask the blessing of God. May He protect each and every one of us. May He guide me in the days to come.
Source: Franklin D. Roosevelt, Inaugural Address, March 4, 1933, as published in Samuel Rosenman, ed., The Public Papers of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Volume Two: The Year of Crisis, 1933 (New York: Random House, 1938), 11–16.

The Cost Of The Iraq War Is Of No Concern To The Mad Scientist, But It Sure Scared Me In An Elevator (and everyone else in that elevator too)

Everybody's talking about Bill on Fox. The best description, of course, comes from Olbermann. Many are talking about the NIE concluding that the Iraq War has increased the terrorism threat.

What's on mind is something I first saw Monday afternoon on elevator news in the elevator of my building at work and then again at the LA Times site. Apparently, the billions and billions spent on the Iraq War already is not near enough.

The Army's top officer withheld a required 2008 budget plan from Pentagon leaders last month after protesting to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that the service could not maintain its current level of activity in Iraq plus its other global commitments without billions in additional funding

The decision by Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army's chief of staff, is believed to be unprecedented and signals a widespread belief within the Army that in the absence of significant troop withdrawals from Iraq, funding assumptions must be completely reworked, say current and former Pentagon officials....

According to a senior Army official involved in budget talks, Schoomaker is now seeking $138.8 billion in 2008, nearly $25 billion above budget limits originally set by Rumsfeld. The Army's budget this year is $98.2 billion, making Schoomaker's request a 41% increase over current levels

I find that scary considering that we already have a budget deficit of over $8,490,755,999,999 (it's one of those numbers that moves up so fast, it's hard to get it typed in before it changes). It's also scary as just one of those seriously important things that this administration has no problem lying about.

The Center for American Progress has a chart of Iraq fact and Bush Administration fiction here. Click on Part 4 for the lies involving the cost and paying for the war. The initial claim was "in the range of $50 billion to $60 billion .” Other countries and Iraqi oil were to pay for most of the war, but they forgot to get and keep allies and as for the oil who knows any more. Last we heard, oil output was no where near what was promised and it seems Iraq did not get to share in the oil company feeding frenzy from the high prices of this past spring and summer. Then, get a load of this bill of goods we are now being sold: " Iraq's best chance to boost its languishing oil output is by working with major international companies under production-sharing agreements, Iraq's deputy prime minister said on Sunday." What in the world were we paying all those no-bid contractor's for? Oh yeah.

Speaking of lies about Iraq, Mother Jones has an interesting Lie Line of Iraq. Search the word "cost" (without the quotes).

So, where is Mark Kirk in all this? He seems pretty unconcerned about Iraq as it is not even among the issues listed on his website. What's on his site instead of a serious discussion of his positions regarding the biggest issue facing this country? A picture of Mark Kirk seriously studying a test tube on a beach like he's some sort of mad scientist---with no credentials in environmental science, of course--and pretending he never worked as a "contrarian" for a company seeking to deny the existence of global warming. If it wasn't so very sad, the picture of Kirk looking intently, but really blankly, at a test tube for a posed photo, would actually be funny.

Anyway, if Iraq and its human and monetary costs are not important enough to Kirk to discuss on his site or in any public appearances around the district, at least we can see his views through his votes that they have to post (for now, at least). Kirk always votes for the Bush budgets. He has also voted against an Iraq War impact report (see explanation of this rejected amendment here) and against an investigation of the spending in the so-called Iraq reconstruction (see explanation of the Tierney Amendment #2 at Progressive Punch by searching for Mark Kirk and clicking on War with Iraq and finding Roll Call 72 H.R. 1268).

Kirk claims, or allows the WSJ to claim without correcting them, and posts thereport on his site, that he: "Strengthened accountability of government contracting by authoring an amendment to Supplemental Appropriations for Reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan to tighten rules that govern government contracts in Iraq." Although he is loath to give a citation to anything he claims lest you actually read it, what he is referring to is H.Amdt. 411 to H.R. 3289, an amendment to strike a provision of the original 2004 emergency appropriation act that would have allowed a 7 day delayed reporting to Congress of “no-bid” contracts. In 2005, by rejecting the Tierney Amendment, Kirk voted to allow the contract situation in Iraq, a known problem, to go without investigation.

A seven day reporting requirement on Iraq spending was all the mad scientist had for his constituents. An investigation of anything done by the Bush administration was out of the question.

Warrantless Wiretaps/Martial Law Coming Up For Vote

H.R. 5825 is basically a re-write of FISA. It authorizes warrantless surveillance of all international calls and e-mails made by US citizens and US companies without any evidence (much less probably cause) that they are conspiring with al Qaeda or other foreign terrorist organizations. Whether or not a cal is international is based on the "reasonable belief" of the NSA. The bill also pre-approves suspension of the 4th Amendment by allowing warrantless searches of homes and businesses whenever U.S. territory (that could be a remote base or even an American business abroad) is attacked. The Bill of Rights Defense Committee has characterized this last provision as "in effect allows foreign terrorists to decide when fundamental constitutional rights are to be suspended." That means, if he hasn't gotten the wrong end of some unpealed fruit, Osama decides (and Bush promised us he was the decider).

An amendment introduced by Congressman Dan Lungren would give the executive branch judicial like the ability to issue a court order or subpoena against telecoms to require them to provide customers records to the government agencies without warrants. A similar provision has been added to S. 2453, Arlen Specter's so-called compromise.

All these compromises, are...well...compromising us. We are now talking about suspending the Constitution. If you don't think this is extreme or if you think we need this for protection, you must have flunked civics class back in the fourth grade.

I would say contact Mark Kirk and ask him to vote against H.R. 5825, but he'll vote for anything involving Bush's war on terror, including spying on Americans because, well, he knows better than all of us about terror and all that WMD in Iraq he knew was there. Kirk probably wasn't paying a bit of attention to civics class back in the fourth grade either.

On my mind

1. Has someone ruined Rove's October surprise by pointing out that bin Laden might be dead of typhoid? Was the news itself the October surprise? republicans opining on townhall.com felt that bin Laden's death was to be the big announcement on September 6th, but that they stopped Bush from mentioning it because there was not enough evidence. If true, is death by typhoid enough for voters to conclude Bush did the job, or was it a bad oyster?

2. Anyone see Joe Heller's political cartoon in the Tribune on Saturday with the two space aliens flying over earth? They are in their flying saucer seeing all the war and destruction down on earth and one tells the other that the earthlings are trying to prove which religion is more peaceful. It's not up on his site yet, but will probably be there tomorrow.

3. Are they changing the dictionary definition of "sellout" to include a picture of John McCain? From Slate:

WSJ's quote from Sen. John McCain is typical: "We're all winners because we've been able to come to an agreement through a process of negotiations and consensus." But the details—not to mention crowing from the White House—indicate that the administration is walking off with a major victory while allowing the Senate to save face. And by focusing solely on the provisions over which the two sides disagreed, the major papers overlook potentially troubling areas of GOP agreement....

But the New York Times explains that while the Bush administration agreed not to reinterpret the Geneva Conventions, an international treaty, the senators agreed that the War Crimes Act, a domestic law, should define what constitutes "grave breaches" of the conventions. As for less serious violations of the conventions ("those lying between cruelty and minor abuse," as the Post puts it), the senators agreed Bush should be given the authority to judge the conventions' "meaning and application." (He will have to publish his interpretation, but details remain sketchy.) In short, the deal seems to be redefinition once removed, and the Post indicates that may have been all the McCain side wanted from the beginning. The "biggest hurdle" in negotiations, the paper reports, "was convincing administration officials that lawmakers would never accept language that allowed Bush to appear to be reinterpreting the Geneva Conventions" [emphasis added]. Certainly presidential counselor Dan Bartlett views the "compromise" as one of perception only: "We proposed a more direct approach to bringing clarification. This one is more of the scenic route, but it gets us there," he says in the pages of the NYT.

From Jurist:

Congressional adoption of the recent “compromise” between three Republican Senators (McCain, Warner, and Graham) and President Bush does not provide proper legal guidance to U.S. interrogators and adherence merely to its standards would place the United States in violation of common Article 3 and other provisions of the 1949 Geneva Conventions (such as Articles 1, 146-147 of the Geneva Civilian Convention), not to mention similar provisions in several other international treaties and instruments and customary international law. Those who would authorize, abet, or implement the “compromise” language in violation of common Article 3 (for example, CIA or U.S. military personnel) would be subject to criminal and civil sanctions outside the United States in any foreign forum and in certain international courts. No Act of Congress would change this result. As those involved in the “dirty war” interrogation tactics in Argentina and Chile have learned, even comforting legislative limits and domestic immunity can change....

In particular, contrary to international precedent, the draft attempts to add limiting words such as “intended to inflict,” “severe,” and “serious” to a definition of cruel or inhuman treatment. Instead of a prohibition of “mutilation,” the draft seeks to limit one form of mutilation to “permanently disabling.” The draft also attempts to limit “serious physical pain or suffering” by excluding “cuts, abrasions, or bruises” not amounting to “a burn or physical disfigurement” and excluding serious pain or suffering not involving “significant loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty,” or “extreme” physical pain, or “a substantial risk of death.” Thus, the draft does not cover all forms of serious injury to body or health, mutilation, and cruel treatment. There is no attention in the draft to Geneva prohibitions of “humiliating” treatment and there is only one portion of the draft that addresses “degrading” treatment – and it does so in a manner that also fails to provide adequate legal guidance to U.S. interrogators, since it attempts to limit its coverage of “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment” to merely that prohibited by three domestic U.S. constitutional amendments. As noted, the Committee on Torture has rejected such an attempt. Moreover, there is no such attempted reservation to the Geneva Conventions and, if there had been, such a putative reservation would also be void ab initio as a matter of law. Constitutional amendments simply do not cover all cruel, inhuman, degrading, and humiliating treatment proscribed under the laws of war and human rights law. Moreover, constitutional amendments do not even reach all private perpetrators, whereas the laws of war and human rights law can reach private perpetrators (as affirmed in several U.S. cases). Using a void putative amendment to one treaty in an attempt to limit the reach of several others would be outrageous and would not provide adequate guidance to those involved in interrogation.

For several reasons, Senator McCain is correct that this is not about al Qaeda, this is about America.

4. If Lindsey Graham cannot serve in Congress and as a judge on a Court of Criminal Appeals, how can Mark "I'm in a position to know that there are WMD in Iraq" Kirk serve in Naval Intelligence and in Congress. The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces quoted the Incompatibility Clause of the Constitution providing that “no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office." I'm not an expert in these matters. Maybe Kirk can explain it to me.

5. In yet another one of his campaign mailings, Kirk was touting his co-sponsorhip of H.R.3762 and H.R. 4774 to prove his effectiveness in Congress, but both of them are hopelessly lost in comittee, H.R. 3762 for over a year now. Doesn't he think we are smart enough to figure out that it doesn't matter if he puts his name as co-sponsor of a bill that will never even make it to the floor due to the leadership for which he votes and works?

6. Kirk's party is taking out after Social Security again. Here too.

7. If you missed this bit by Harry Reid and Dick Durbin, it's well worth the click.

8. How would you like it if some rich and powerful leader of a foreign country decided to use your country to attract a bunch of terrorists and fight it out in some great struggle of the century? Since Bush is talking about bringing democracy to Iraq, did anyone ask the Iraqis how they felt about it before Bush did it?

9. Quote of the week from commenter WCG in the Lincoln Nebraska Journal Star (scroll down): "We'll be a long, long time getting over the Bush presidency."

New Year Message from Rabbi Michael Lerner

This may not be a holy season for you, but for those of us who observe it, tonight, Friday night Sept. 22nd, is the commencement of ten days of deep reflection on our own lives, who we have been, and who we wish to be. And also a time for deep reflection on our society, religious institutions, politics, economics, and culture. On our web site at www.tikkun.org we have a copy of the workbook we put into Tikkun magazine as a way of helping direct our attention at some of the central issues that each of us needs to face (and I’m sure you can add more—in fact, if you have ideas for how to revise this for next year, please send them to me).

In the Jewish tradition, we say that the "book of life" is open from now till the end of Yom Kippur on Monday night, October 2nd. In that book of life our fate for the next year gets written and then at the end of Yom Kippur it is sealed. In Tikkun, we’ve transformed that imagery into a deep spiritual truth: we are taking a ten day period to examine what changes are needed in our lives, and how seriously we will take the (full year) process of making those changes. By condensing the period of heightened attention to ten days, we are making sure that we have a time when these issues are totally “front burner” in our consciousness. If we haven’t been able to make any progress in self-awareness and steps toward change in those ten days, then in a certain sense our fate is sealed: we will continue to receive the karmic consequences of being the way that we are at the current moment, and to the extent that we want that to change, this ten day period becomes a spiritual retreat and intensive short-term psychotherapy to work out what we need to be. This is not just an intellectual trip—it’s a real focus on our emotional lives and our spiritual lives as well as our societal lives.

You don’t have to be Jewish, of course, to use these days in that way.

And you also don’t have to be Jewish to be part of the course that I’m teaching in Berkeley and San Francisco the weekend of October 13-15: An Introduction to a Judaism of Love. It’s my take on Judaism and how its insights might be of value to everyone (not just Jews). I’d particularly recommend it to Christians and Muslims who think about theological issues, to people who are spiritual seekers of some sort, and to Jews who never heard a version of Judaism that made sense to them. So even if this doesn’t particularly appeal to you, I am almost certain you know someone who would be excited enough about this to want to come out here to do it. To register: www.BeytTikkun.org.

I want to bless you that this coming year be a year of deep personal fulfillment for you, a year of health, a year of love, a year in which you become much more of who you are when you are the fullest embodiment of the God or spiritual energy or loving power of the universe. And I want to bless all of us that in this year we see some major movement toward societal sanity, environmental responsibility, peace and non-violence, social justice, human rights and a flourishing of hope overcoming fear.

Love and blessings, and as we say in the Jewish world, shana tova u’metuka, a good and sweet year.

Michael

Rabbi Michael Lerner

When is Compromise Just Capitulation?

When republicans see their power at risk.

"Senators Snatch Defeat From Jaws of Victory: US to be First Nation to Authorize Violations of Geneva," Georgetown University law professor Marty Lederman writes of the so-called "compromise" between Senators McCain/Graham/Warner and President Bush.

Says Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU's Washington legislative office:

"The proposal would make the core protections of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions irrelevant and unenforceable. It deliberately provides a 'get out of jail free card' to the administration's top torture officials, and backdates that card nine years.

"Also under the proposal, the president would have the authority to declare what is - and what is not - a grave breach of the War Crimes Act, making the president his own judge and jury. This provision would give him unilateral authority to declare certain torture and abuse legal and sound. In a telling move, during a call with reporters today, National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley would not even answer a question about whether waterboarding would be permitted under the agreement.

"The agreement would also violate time-honored American due process standards by permitting the use of evidence coerced through cruel and abusive treatment. We urge lawmakers to stand firm in their commitment to American values and reject this charade of a compromise."

I can't help thinking we are entering into a very troubled time and we'll be sorely sorry for our lack of caring more about people than racism, power and money which is the hallmark of republican power and Kirk's time in office.

Has Mark Kirk Held Down Gas Prices or Held Up Corporate Profits

Mark's taking credit again in his campaign emails...this time for lower gas prices.

I'm skeptical, but OK, I'll bite. Just wondering though. If Mark Kirk is so very powerful that he controls gas prices, why did he let them get so high and why have they only come down right before an election?

Anyway, one of the bills for which he takes credit is the 'Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act', H.R. 5254 and sure enough, Kirk voted Aye. The bill was commonly noted as a giveaway to the oil and gas industry.

Here's what Congresswoman Schakowsky had to say on the House Floor when it was the subject of debate:

The oil industry is responsible for limiting refinery capacity. During the 1990s, the American Petroleum Institute encouraged the oil industry to limit refining capacity in order to boost profits. The industry followed instructions, closing 176 refineries since 1980 and failing to fully utilize available capacity. According to the Washington Post, between September 2004 and 2005, refineries marked up their prices 255% while gasoline retailers only marked up their prices by 5 percent. The five largest oil companies, many of which own refineries, reported record profits of $110 billion in 2005. Exxon Mobil reported the largest annual profit of an American company in history.

Environmental regulations are not standing in the way of new refineries being opened. The CEOs of Shell and ConocoPhillips have testified that no federal or state regulations had prevented them from siting new refineries. Only one energy company, Arizona Clean Fuels, has filed a permit to open a new refinery in over twenty years. When Arizona Clean Fuels was granted that permit, the company never actually opened the refinery. Its inability to find investors, not environmental regulations, prevented the company from opening a refinery.

After Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, refinery outages caused a supply shock that was in part responsible for a rise in gasoline prices. The Democrats, under the leadership of Representatives Dingell, Stupak and Boucher, proposed the creation of a strategic refinery reserve which would ensure that the U.S. had an adequate supply of refined product in case of national emergency. Republicans have repeatedly rejected Democrats’ efforts to create that reserve, which would put the interests of consumers before the profits of the oil industry. Republicans have also rejected an attempt by ranking member Dingell and Energy and Commerce Democrats to make this legislation bi-partisan.

This bill is another giveaway to the oil and gas industry that could impose refineries on communities throughout the country. It requires President Bush to designate three closed military bases as sites for new refineries, waiving local and state regulations and giving communities little input in the process. It allows Secretary Rumsfeld to sell or transfer the land to an oil company at no cost. Congress should know by now that billions of dollars in giveaways to the oil and gas industry has only led to record profits and record energy prices.

This bill again demonstrates the misplaced priorities of this Republican Congress. While my constituents are paying $2.96 for a gallon of regular gas in Chicago, we are considering legislation that would do nothing to bring down gasoline prices. Nothing in this legislation forces oil companies to utilize all of their available refining capacity, nor does it protect our supply in the case of a national emergency. This bill will lead to higher profits in the boardroom and more pain at the pump.

Earthjustice, a non-profit public interest law firm specializing in environmental issues, points out that the process set in the bill would "short-circuit environmental reviews of proposed new refineries." The Earthjustice attorneys also said of the bill:

H.R. 5254 seeks to lessen the burden for an industry that is recording record profits at the expense of average Americans. While prices at the pump have soared in recent years, in 2004, U.S. oil refiners earned 40.8 cents per gallon of gas refined -- an 80% increase in just five years. Meanwhile, the bill proposes taxpayer subsidies for federal refinery authorizations. Why should taxpayers shoulder the burden for big oil to build new refineries when we are already paying at the pump?

So, while the oil and gas companies could be thankful to Kirk for his support for their profits, I'll take a pass and take a wait and see approach to gas prices. Let's see where they are after November 7th.

Mark Kirk's America Shows In His Votes

Recent Kirk votes:

A poll tax

and

A 700-mile fence along one-third of the U.S.-Mexico border.

The poll tax took on life as the Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006 othewise known as the "We Get It, You Mean National ID Act". NYU professor and Tenth District friend, Mark Crispin Miller says of the bill:

Contrary to its title, the bill will undermine the integrity of our electoral process by imposing unnecessary barriers to full participation in federal elections. The bill's requirements of proof of citizenship and photo identification as a prerequisite to voting may appear innocuous, but in reality they will disenfranchise seniors, minority voters, low income voters, students and young voters, and voters with disabilities. In addition, the implementation of H.R. 4844 places a huge burden on state governments.

This bill was designed in March of this year, and held until the last moment, to be rammed through Congress just in time for the November elections. In fact, the bill was specifically written to take effect before November 7, 2006!

Proponents of photo identification provisions at the polls and proof of citizenship when registering to vote claim that these draconian constraints are necessary to guard against identity fraud at the nation's polling places. But there is no credible evidence that voter impersonation or non-citizen voting is anything but an anomaly. As the United States District Court found in Common Cause v. Billups (when considering a Georgia law requiring ID at the polls), photo identification requirements amount to an unconstitutional poll tax and burden the fundamental right to vote of eligible American citizens.

Apparently, to Mark Kirk, election integrity has nothing to do with a paper trail or other safeguards from hacking electronic votes. No, it has to do with supressing the vote by keeping poor minorities from voting by requiring them to purchase an ID, an effective national ID requirement. Of course, Kirk has no interest in passing any requirements for paper ballots.

Brad Friedman of The Brad Blog, a leading national vote integrity blog, wants to prevent disenfranchisement and says:

Given this year's primary election meltdowns and train wrecks that we've been reporting since March 7th of this year, in which electronic voting machines have failed to start up and housands of American voters have been turned away from the polls when they came to vote, but couldn't…

Given the fact that one such meltdown occurred last Tuesday in Maryland, where many of the DC media and politicos live…

Given VelvetRevolution's new Princeton Diebold Virus Hack report demonstrating conclusively that electronic voting machines may be hacked in a minute's time resulting in flipped elections without a trace left behind…

Giving that American democracy and the right to vote in that democracy ought to be a beacon to the world…

It is NOW time for Emergency Paper Ballot Legislation to be brought and passed immediately by both houses of the U.S. Congress, in order to at least mitigate the coming train wreck this November 7th.

Call it the Let America Vote Act (LAVA) of 2006…Let democracy flow!

The fence? It's the answer to the ongoing republican party quandry: bigots/corporations/bigots/corporations...

I can't tell if the bigots or the corporations won this one and I think that was the intent. It certainly avoids a decision on Comprehensive Immigration Reform before the November elections.

The big winner, I guess, is the fence company, but the bill failed to fund the building of the fence. Maybe they'll get the kids worshipping Bush's portrait at Jesus Camp to build it out of macaroni.

An impediment to voting and a fence... Mark Kirk's idea of America, Land of the Free... Home of the... Well, that's a different story.

America's Coming Legal System, Trial By Ordeal

I cannot even imagine why, in the 21st century, we find ourselves in concurrent arguments over habeas corpus and torture. It reminds me of something I learned in Legal History. They called it Trial by Ordeal:

They used to take an accused prisoner and throw her in a lake or river. If the suspect floated, that meant she (they usually did this to women) was eschewed from the water because of impurity or guilt. The suspect was judged and executed all in the same action, a great time and monetary savings for the Dark Age courts.

If the person was innocent, she would sink, accepted by the water. Oh well, at least she was innocent at death.

Are we going to be arguing the acceptability of trial by ordeal by the 2010s?

Questions

To their credit Colin Powell, John McCain and now even George P. Shultz, secretary of state under President Reagan, are speaking out about preserving US observance of the Geneva Conventions as written and undisputed for over 50 years and often interpreted despite what Bush is saying (see question 10). They get that isolating ourselves from the rest of the world, and on the wrong side of the law, is a bad idea for the world and for our own future.

What I don't understand is why these very same people, and our US Congressman from the Illinois Tenth for that matter, are so willing to let go of our own internal protections and freedoms, the First and Fourth Amendments, habeus corpus, privacy, without a fight, without a word of dissent or even a question?

Click on the title link to learn about the Geneva Conventions.

The Choice? It's Between Strengthening The Terrorists Or Strengthen Ourselves

First, republicans told us our choice was between "stay the course" or "cut and run" as if there really was ever a call by the opposition to do that.

Recently, the ad campaign was switched to new slogan. "Win by adapting" or "cut and run". If you see the tape of Ken Mehlman introducing the new "win by adapting" advertising campaign, it looks like he doesn't believe it either. Win by adapting? Sounds at lot more like their insistance that we adapt our 230+ year body of law to their lust and selfish need for ultimate and unending power.

"Win by adapting" may just mean "we win because you adapt to our new form of government." They seem to be going for that new two line easy to read and memorize constitution:
We win every election.
You always agree with us.

OR

Maybe agreement doesn't matter because: "It is unacceptable to think."

The choice as I see it has nothing to do with cut and run, and we should not even consider adapting to anything by destroying the system of government that has served us very well for generations for the benefit of their wealth and power.

The real choice is between strengthening terrorists as the republicans seem to want to do through their actions and the results therefrom, or weakening them and strengthening ourselves, as both Democrats and reason require.

Bush and his cabal knew they were going to need a tremendous boogie man to convince Americans to give up their constitutional rights and stop questioning corruption in government, war profiteering and at the ballot box. September 11th came along and they were presented with al Queda. They jumped on that opportunity to use a combination of fearmongering and tough talk to convince Americans to accept changes in our government and way of life that we would have never otherwise considered and were never before asked to consider in times of great national crisis when we were fortunate enough to have had better leaders.

The Bush gang was able to politically scare congressional opponents into the Patriot Act with its roving wiretaps, secret warrants, snooping in business, hospital and library records. Then, they scared the rest of the country into accepting it. They didn't even bother to scare or otherwise convince us when it came to secret NSA spying. They just seized the power and used the excuses when they got caught. Now, they are working to further destroy our credibility in the international community by causing us to reject the well accepted protections of the Geneva Conventions. So far, the only ones who have been weakened by all of this are us, and its showed during Hurricane Katrina and shows in the budget deficit with our huge debt being sold to foreign countries and it shows in the UN where Bolton has been an abject failure. And all that additional security and protection they promised us? Are you kidding? They can't even keep a wacko gunman out of the Capitol Building.

While Bush rule has forced us to adapt by weakening our freedoms, our economic strength and our ability to deal with real national and international problems, terrorist have moved upward and onward. Leaving Afghanistan before al Queda's pals in the Taliban were fully removed gave them the chance to regroup and retake power. Osama bin Laden? He was lost for good at Tora Bora because Bush and his cronies did not have the will to pursue him, and is now, apparently, living the life in Pakistan. Lack of troops and equipment in Iraq, lack of promised rebuilding of the destroyed Iraqi infrastructure while taxpayer dollars were flowing and disappearing in that country to contractors for who knows what work, the lack of a strategy for the aftermath of the taking of Baghdad, and the inability to change a failing strategy due to nothing more than sheer stubbornness or foolishness, or perhaps intent, has allowed al Queda to move into Iraq, a country in which they had no presence to begin with. Now, they seem to have taken control of the large western province of western Iraq, Anbar.

In addition to al Queda, we have Iran arguing to the international community that they have a right to pursue nuclear weapons because of our behaviour. Increasingly western leaning Iranians have now found themselves moving closer to their hatemongering leader. The axis of evil can now point to us for references to torture and other prisoner mistreatment and for references to nuclear proliferation. For his latest move, Bush is, literally, spitting mad to alter our compliance with the Geneva Conventions and put our troops at risk and risk turning the world into a free for all at war.

So, here is where Bush has left us with his boogie man. Al Queda still has a foothold in Afghanistan along with its Taliban buddies. Al Queda now has a foothold in Iraq where it had no presence or influence before. Our military has suffered from unnecessary losses in Iraq and in recruiting so now they are willing to take even neo-nazi skinheads to make up for the losses. Now, verbal sparring with the Pope is escallating into violence, al Queda, once a minor influence in the Islamic world, taking the lead in calls for multinational jihad and getting huge amounts of press for doing so.

Bush needed a strong, scary boogie man to push Americans away from their democracy to totalitarianism and he made one. All the tough talk, "dead or alive" "bring it on", was not for the benefit of terrorists. It was for our benefit. The changes he now wants are also for our benefit, creating an even more dangerous world so he can grab even more power through our fear.

The choice is clear. We can continue to strengthen terrorists or we can chose to work to weaken them and strengthen ourselves.

What Does It Take To Get Mark Kirk's Attention?

I have recently read two accounts of what it takes to get Mark Kirk's attention on an issue.

First, as many of you have seen right here on the blog, Autismom has sought Kirk's support for the Combating Autism Act. He wouldn't even acknowledge her concern. Then, Kirk suddenly signed on to it. Here is part of Autismom's account (the account can be read in its entirety here):

The original bill contained language that directs the NIH to conduct research regarding the environmental causes of autism, specifically the role of any vaccines. The latest version of the bill substantially deviates, however, from the consensus bill in critical areas. This deviation from the proposed legislation that removes key provisions from the legislation and contains new provisions that have aroused serious concern, has prompted the withdrawl of support from the bill from various national autism organizations.

Basically, they've made it so they don't have to look at vaccines or the mercury based preservative thimerosal as a contributing factor. As I have written in past posts, the evidence linking thimerosal to autism is overwhelming. Thimerosal was developed by Eli Lilly in the early part of the 20th century before FDA regulations were in place, and underwent no credible safety testing.

Then, I saw a letter to the editor in the Deerfield Review from a mom whos kids are allergic to peanuts. You'll remember Kirk went to an event a couple of weeks ago for that cause at Everett School in Lake Forest. The mom, Stephanie A. Victor described how she tried to get Mark Kirk's attention to issues affecting children for 4 years and could never get a meeting. She said, "He has never been available to hear from prominent non-profit leaders and his local constituents on these issues."

So, we finally know the formula for getting Mark Kirk's attention. Pick a very local issue, remove key provisions and certainly anything that threatens the profitmaking of any industry that contributes heavily to Kirk or other republicans, and do it just weeks before an election in which he is challenged by a far better candidate.

OR

You can just go ahead and elect that far better candidate, Dan Seals.

It's Tough Out There For The Family Farmers And That Is Bad For All Of Us

I was in England in 2001 at the time of the big foot and mouth disease outbreak. Here's some information about that:

The epidemic saw 2,000 cases of the disease in farms in most of the British countryside. Around seven million sheep and cattle were culled in an eventually successful attempt to halt the disease. Cumbria was the worst affected area of the country, with 843 cases. This damaged the popularity of the Lake District as a tourist destination. By the time the disease was halted by October 2001, the crisis was estimated to have cost Britain £8bn ($15bn), and had dominated much of the 2001 UK media coverage prior to 11th September.

I was in both Cumbria and the Lake District at that time and the locals were very scared and very mad at the EU farming practices they blamed for the calamity. It was thought that the EU Common Agricultural Policy which encouraged overproduction through subsidies, disallowed vaccination and allowed the practice of feeding restaurant and industrial waste material to pigs caused or made worse the outbreak and called for more farmer control over their family farms. You are read the report completed for Parliament here.

While in the UK, I learned that family farms both here and the UK have little control over farming practices which are both legally and economically tied to government policy.

Here in the US, we have farm subsidies that are based on yields or acreage that favor corporate farming that is concerned only with its the bottom line. Many family farmers believe there should be subsidy caps to encourage family and both safe and ecological farming practices rather than rewarding large agriculture corporations. Also, trade agreements like CAFTA (for which Mark Kirk voted) push down prices and drive out family farmers.

Mark Kirk's answer for family farms was to eliminate the estate tax. However, the estate tax never affected the vast majority of family farmers. Kirk also voted against recommitment of an agriculture bill instructing the committee to cap subsidies at a lower amount and divert the extra money from to conservation, nutrition, rural development, and renewable energy programs. The idea of the recommitment was to encourage subsidies for conservation and good practices, not just increased production. The 2002 Farm Bill was passed as it was by the republican congress and left family farmers concerned about concentration and competition. The Institute for Food and Development Policy called the bill "agribusiness welfare" and further stated:

Overall, the new bill fails the nation's family farmers, consumers, taxpayers, and environment. It robs the poor to pay the rich. It further destabilizes family farmers and rural communities around the world. And it fails to strengthen food security.

So, the Kirk commenters on this blog got it right for once. Farming issues in this country have been adversely affected by Mark Kirk's lousy votes. Think about Kirk's CAFTA and agriculture votes next time you have to turn down that rare steak, avoid spinach or lettuce or sprouts and can't make that recipe calling for raw eggs.

We might not farm all that much in the Illinois Tenth anymore, but we all eat.

Ode to Bagged Spinach

You could put it in salads
Sandwiches as well.
You could coat it with mayonnaise
Dipped with chips it was swell.

Chopped with mushrooms in pasta
Or on pizza was nice.
From the oven we would eat it
Slice after slice.

I liked it with poached eggs
And in omelets with cheese.
I liked it much better
Than pearl onions with peas.

Any good farmer knows
In cow poop bacteria grows.
Keep the cows over here
And the vegetables there.
Or we'll stop buying your products
On this we do swear.

Steve: "I bring ye good news"

Good news from our friend Ohio Steve:

Pew Poll: Democrats Hold Solid Lead: (50-39% Dem - Bush 37%)
As the congressional midterm campaign begins in earnest, the mood of the electorate is sharply drawn. Voters are disappointed with Congress and disapproving of President Bush. Anti-incumbent sentiment, while a bit lower than a few months ago, is far more extensive than in the previous two midterms and remains close to 1994 levels. Moreover, there are indications that voters are viewing the election through the prism of national issues and concerns. Many more voters see their vote as being against the president than at a comparable point in 1994, and a solid majority says party control of Congress will be a factor in their voting decision. More http://www.democraticunderground.com/
Democrats Have Advantage On Party Ratings, Affiliation, and Issues
The favorable environment for the Democratic Party heading into this fall's midterm elections is underscored by the results from several questions included in Gallup's annual Governance poll. Americans continue to hold a net positive view of the Democratic Party while their view of the Republican Party is on balance negative. More http://www.democraticunderground.com/
Big September Leads: (Dem Lead In Generic Congressional Ballot Jumps: 53 to 41%)
Gallup's latest update on the generic Congressional ballot, from a Sept 7-10 2006 poll, finds Democrats with a 53% to 41% advantage over Republicans. For most of the year, Democrats have enjoyed about a 10-percentage point advantage on this measure, though in the two prior polls the lead was less than that. More http://www.democraticunderground.com/

They got that right

The Bush administration has proclaimed that those who disagree with them are confused. I'll admit it. They finally got it right. I'm confused:

I'm confused when republicans consider it a victory when allowed to reduce the freedoms and rights of Americans.

I'm confused when republicans consider it a victory when allowed to continue a failed policy in Iraq.

I'm confused when republicans consider it a victory when allowed to reduce the number of American children who go to college.

I'm confused when republicans consider it a victory when allowed to weaken our military.

I'm confused when republicans consider it a victory when allowed to increase our national debt and sell our country to foreign countries.

I'm confused when republicans consider it a victory when allowed to ignore the melting of the arctic ice and permafrost.

I'm confused when republicans consider it a victory when allowed to free corporations from regulation that protects the health and safety of Americans.

I'm confused when republicans consider it a victory when allowed to damage our reputation with other countries.

I'm confused when republicans consider it a victory when alllowed to end our tradition of a policy to promote nuclear non-proliferation.

I'm confused when republicans consider it a victory when allowed to pay enormous corporate subsidies and refuse a single mother food stamps and her children health care.

I'm confused when republicans consider it a victory when they scare Americans into giving up their rights for protection, but fail to actually protect them.

I'm confused when republicans consider it a victory when an old and beloved American city falls to a natural disaster.

I'm confused when republicans consider it a victory to be allowed to start another war based on lies.

I'm confused that we can send a man to the moon, but we cannot safely bag spinach.

I'm confused that the big tough republicans have replaced their tough rhetoric that Democrats and unpatriotic and siding with the terrorists for the touchy feely softy rhetoric that we are confused. OK, I'm not so confused about this one. It probably polled better.

I don't understand why republicans do not want all or at least most Americans to succeed. I do not understand why republicans want to move wealth to such a small group of people and end the most successful run of a middle class in human history and do not understand why their corporations do not consider paying their workers and customers a living wage a good thing so more people can afford to buy their products. I do not understand why republicans want to turn a blind eye to poverty and lack of access to healthcare. I do not understand why republicans want to put our soldiers in the middle of a civil war and not equip them properly and not provide them with a winning strategy. I do not understand why republicans want to change our 230+ year old form of government and replace it with the exact nightmare our leaders throughout our history fought against.

Yup. I'm confused. I thought we all wanted to uplift each other and uplift our entire country. I'm confused. Can you blame me?

Comments are back

Let's do the district and each other proud.

Where do you want to live?

Walking around the Illinois Tenth, you can see that we live in a pretty nice place: tree lined streets, manicured lawns, nice houses, modern schools, parks, soccer fields galore, good libraries (except maybe in some parts of Vernon Hills). All in all it's a pretty nice place for which many of your have worked for many years.

Why then, when we have folks here who would collapse of a conniption if their neighbor did not mow their lawn for a week, do we accept a congressman who supports and votes for a set of priorities that could eventually turn the place into some sort of pre-Mother Teresa Calcutta?

Why do I say that? Because the republican agenda for which Kirk votes and gathers votes for as assistant majority whip is taking us in that direction and with all due respect to Calcutta, it was known for an extreme disparity between rich and poor and little recourse for the folks on the poor side of the equation.

That's what they are going for, a large economic disparity and lack of recourse.

I talk about disparity first. It is the republican agenda to move wealth to a very small number of already very wealthy people. That is one of the reasons Kirk votes for tax cuts for the wealthy and to end estate tax which is a redistribution of wealth sort of tax that affects only the extremely wealthy, but adds a lot to our federal coffers. Even if you come out ahead on the disparity scale, look at it this way, how fun could it be to be Paris Hilton if there is no one who can afford to share the fun with you? Do you think Paris wants to hang around with someone too poor for the houses, the trips, the cars, the clothes, the clubs. Heck no! That's no fun.

When our neighborhoods die from a lack of people with the salaries and job security to afford the purchase price of and upkeep on the houses, how fun is it for the neighbors who remain? Ask folks in the former thriving downtowns of small town America. Forget the lawn, how would you like to see your neighbors house foreclosed, empty...eventually boarded up? I suspect not too much. Think I'm nuts. Take a look at this and this.

When your neighbors children cannot afford an education, how will you feel when they are unemployed and hanging around? How will you feel when they hang out with the children you are trying to protect and educate? When Barack Obama said, "If there is a child on the south side of Chicago who can’t read, that matters to me, even if it’s not my child." He meant it not only altruistically, but also selfishly and realistically. It does diminish us all when our communities are diminished.

Then there is the issue of recourse or the coming lack thereof as set damage caps on lawsuit awards, relaxed and unenforced (due to lack of funding) anti-pollution laws, diminished employment laws, labor laws, and health and safety laws. When government and corporations can act at- will, untouched by regulation and law, what you get is pollution, unsafe products, an unsafe and insecure job market, crumbling antiquated infrastructure, and eventually disasters like the infamous Bohpal chemical spill that killed and injured hundreds and the Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster that also killed and injured people with the effects lingering to this day. Remember my friend Nora?

I simply cannot understand the attraction of the republican agenda for America. They want to turn our nice place into a polluted, unsafe, unattractive, sickly, poverty stricken trash heap.

Teach Your Child Government Censorship Act and Censorship Right Here In The Tenth

With the help of several television specials that aired over the past few months with a seemingly unending stream of men caught in the act knocking on doors just like yours to find young children home alone and a false confession in a decade old crime, Mark Kirk has been playing on the fears of parents with his Deleting Online Predators Act. OK, to be specific, not really HIS Deleting Online Predators Act because they just don't give him something if they really want it to pass. It was introduced by republican Rep. Michael G. Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania. However, Kirk touts it as one of his major accomplishments.

The idea of the bill is "to require public schools and libraries to block access to social networking sites and other communication tools as a condition for receiving certain government funding." The law would block, not only children, but adults from using IM, blogs, wikis, discussion forums, and many other sites. This law goes way beyond kids using MySpace blocking adults who need to use library computers from completing online research, college distance learning, and using community forums.

republicans who, like Kirk, are against helping families with working parents find safe affordable afterschool care or day care so their children are not on their own for hours after school or all day during the summer, and for distributing wealth to the richest 1% of Americans causing there to be so many families with two working parents, can justify all of it by providing free... censorship. As an added bonus, they get to bludgeon their opponents with labels of anti-family and pro-evil sexual predator. However, there are some courageous souls willing to take the risk of republican echo chamber wrath to speak sense and truth. This just isn't a very good idea and there are better ways to protect children. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has started an action to explain the law and its shortcomings and ask folks to call their senators and ask them to oppose the bill.

EFF reports two separate congressional studies that conclude that the most effective way to keep kids safe online is education (see here and here) and to surveys that show education is actually working and the rate of sexual solicitation is actually going down. EFF argues that simply blocking sites and nothing more impedes efforts to cut down on predators through education. The COPA Commission recommends education as an effective means of protecting children, recommending the use of blocking technology as a consumer choice supporting family and responsible adult (not government) decisions. In their recommendations, they said of government that it should encourage, not mandate, the use of technology and added :

No particular technology or method provides a perfect solution, but when used in conjunction with education, acceptable use policies and adult supervision, many technologies can provide improved safety from inadvertent access from harmful to minors materials.

One statement in The National Academies report struck me as particularly significant:

Most children's media use--including time on the computer and online--does not involve parental supervision. Many children have radios, CD players, a television, and even a computer in their rooms. As a result, many parents are not in a position to monitor their children's media activity, nor can they readily provide any feedback or support for children's online activities.

In school, children's use of the computer can be supervised or at least monitored by an adult who is present. At home, these kids are on their own. Where are their parents? Likely at work. Check out this report by the Afterschool Alliance:

Average work hours per adult increased 7.9% between 1960 and 1998. But while the work day has grown longer, the school day has not.... more than 14 million K-12 youth spend some portion of the afterschool hours taking care of themselves, while only 6.5 million K-12 youth participate in afterschool programs.... While overall 25% of our nation’s K-12 children (14.3 million) care for themselves after school, in households where both parents or the single parent hold jobs, the percentage is even greater. In these households, 31% of K-12 children (11.5 million) take care of themselves in the afternoons.

The Afterschool Alliance concluded that helping parents find safe, affordable after school care is key:

Until we make afterschool programs available to every family that needs them, we will continue to see too many of our children fall victim to crime, gangs, substance abuse, teen pregnancy, and other problems that can affect them for a lifetime. Just as importantly, we miss out on valuable opportunities to help children connect with caring adults, develop skills and healthy habits, and benefit from the academic supports that quality afterschool programs provide.

The Deleting Online Predators Act may be good election year rhetoric and may help get us or, at least, future generations used to the government censorship that this government so sorely desires, but it's not likely to prote