Oh Great

On top of everything else, now we being told we have to leave the Earth...the ultimate in homelessness.

Don't make us see what we have done

Click on the title link and read the article and ask youself this: If you're not willing to see and take responsiblity for the consequences, could it be that perhaps you shouldn't have done what you did to bring about the consequences in the first place.

According to the article, folks in LaFayette, California don't want to look at a memorial showing crosses for the troops killed in Iraq. Maybe they should have joined the peace marches, maybe they should have written to their representatives, maybe they should have written to the newspapers protesting our invasion and consequent dismantling of civilization in the cradle of civilization, maybe they should have voted Bush and the republican congress out in 2004. Not having done that, they and no one in the US should get to say: no, we don't want to see the consequences of our governments actions.

Maybe all of us should see that every day and see what is really going on in Iraq, not the pundits arguing over the words "civil war" and Bush saying everything is just great.

In LaFayette, they are calling it "painful" and a "travesty" and they are right and that is exactly why they and the rest of Americans should look at the cost of the Iraq War in human loss and suffering every day.

Humanitarian Law Project v. US Treasury et. al.

I got a look at the court order in the case described in the earlier post, the one where the federal court in Los Angeles said that parts of Executive Order 13224 are unconstitutional. The case was filed by the Humanitarian Law Project on behalf of 5 organizations and 2 US Citizens seeking to provide aid to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (Kurds in Turkey) and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (from Sri Lanka, a country affected by the large tsunami of 2004) Maybe these are not the most sympathetic organizations to the average American, but don't comment complaining about them because this isn't really about them, it's about the rights of the American people to speech and association and to be free of presidential tyranny.

The type of aid sought to be provided was described by the court:

1. training in human rights advocacy, peacemaking negotiations and legal assistance in setting up institutions for providing humanitarian aid and in negotiating a peace agreement;
2. engineering services and technological support to help rebuild the infrastructure
in tsunami-afflicted areas; and
3. psychiatric counseling for survivors of the tsunami.

Why can't these organizations provide the aid described above? The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act as amended by the Patriot act and Executive Order 13224, signed September 23, 2001, so quickly after the September 11 attacks, you wonder how they got ready so quickly, don't you?

This particular court order deals with Executive Order 13224 which was made under the President's authority under 1977 amendments to the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917 which requires an “unusual and extraordinary threat” coming at least in part from outside of the US. TWEA is really about the President's authority to investigate transactions and block them during investigation. EO 13224 designated 27 organizations and individuals as Specially Designated Global Terrorists and authorized certain executive branch agencies to make further designations.

The order stems from motions from both sides for summary judgment and defendants motion to dismiss. I'm not going to discuss all the procedural stuff, but it contains a pretty good description of the constitutional vagueness standards.

The Humanitarian Law Projects legal theories were that EO 13244 is unconstitutional for vagueness on the banned conduct, the definition of "specially designated terrorist group", the ban on association and the President's designation authority itself. The plaintiffs claimed basically that they could not be sure what they could or cound not do and that the president had unlimited latitude to make determinations of who was a terrorist group and who was associated with a terrorist group. There was also a First Amendment argument on the freedom of association clause and a Fifth Amendment argument that EO 13244 contained no procedural safeguards for determining who was entitled to a license to engage in the otherwise prohibited activity.

The government used the old standing argument.

The Court ruled that the activities prohibited were not vague on their face or as applied and the government conceded that the ban on “services” could not prohibit independent activity or advocacy. The Court also ruled, citing 31 C.F.R. § 594.310, that the term “specially designated terrorist group” is specifically defined well enough in the regulations and limited by the described national emergency. It also ruled that the designation criteria for the delegated designations (those delegated to executive branch agencies) are adequate because there is a required procedure for making the determination and the agencies have to make specific findings before making a designation, a finding that the person or organization "has committed, or poses a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism that “threaten the security of United States nationals or national security, foreign policy, or [the]economy of the United States", or that the designee is "owned or controlled by" another designated organization that it has assisted in, has sponsored, or has provided “financial, material, or technological support for, or financial or other services to or in support of,” acts of terrorism or other designees.

Sounds like HLP lost doesn't it? Well, not entirely. The President's own designation of the 27 groups and individuals and retained power to make further designations was ruled unconstitutional. No procedures or required findings applicable to the delegated powers were applied to the President. He could, apparently, designate anyone he wanted under any procedure or none at all.

On the claim that the prohibition on being otherwise associated with a designated terrorist group was also struck down as unconstitutional as vague because it was open to subjective interpretation and under the First Amendment. The government did not even challenge the First Amendment argument, choosing to rely only on standing which argument the Court rejected. As for the First Amendment, the Court stated:

It is axiomatic that the Constitution forbids punishing a person for mere association. “[T]he First Amendment protects a citizen's right to associate with a political organization; even if that association includes ties with groups that advocate illegal conduct or engage in illegal acts, the power of the Government to penalize association is narrowly circumscribed.”

“ [G]uilt by association alone’. . . is an impermissible basis upon which to deny First Amendment rights.”

Rather, the government must “establish [the individual's] knowing affiliation with an organization possessing unlawful aims and goals, and a specific intent to further those illegal aims.”

Therefore, “the critical line for First Amendment purposes must be drawn between advocacy, which is entitled to full protection, and action, which is not.”(citations omitted so I don't bore you with citations--you can find them in the case by clicking on the title link)

The court gave the government its standing arugment on the licensing issue.

The ruling was devoid of any great and moving defense of our Constitution, but has beauty in its simplicity in its findings that there must be limits on the President's authority to designation someone a terrorist to apply the aid ban and that guilt by association still does not fly in the USA. These are properly not complex or flowery notions, but basic concepts of our consent to be governed.

The requirement of limits on the Presidents power to designate anyone as anything should be applied to the Military Commissions Act as well one would think.

Breaking...Consensus in Iraq Study Group

The news on Iraq has been pretty scary all evening with the collapse of Bush's summit with Maliki, the walkout of part of the Iraqi government, and movement of troops from areas already deemed lost to insurgents or terrorists to Baghdad.

Now, the Iraq Study group has reached a consensus. From what I can tell from a constantly interrupted report on CNN, there is a recommendation to draw down troops, but not to set a timetable.

Those Pesky Federal Judges

That goddamned piece of paper was once again thrown in the face of would be king, George W. Bush as a federal court in Los Angeles ruled that his executive order of Sept. 23, 2001 allowing his arbitrary designation of groups as "specially designated global terrorists" was unconstitutional because it provided no standard by which to judge. They are referring to Executive Order 13224 which allows the President and other specified executive branch departments to designate terrorist organizations and prohibit all association with them, even humanitarian work.

Dan Eggen of the Washington Post describes the court's opinion:

In her ruling, Collins said the order is unconstitutional because there is "no apparent limit" on presidential authority to designate groups or individuals as terrorists. In addition, the judge ruled, language banning those "otherwise associated" with such groups is "unconstitutionally vague on its face." Collins rejected a number of other claims by the plaintiffs, however, including that the order's definition of a terrorist group is too vague.

More on this later.

Life and Death for Sale

It has become apparent that America has become far more about capitalism than democracy and that when the word democracy is used by many of our current leaders, it really means capitalism. Bush talks about spreading democracy in Iraq, but the only thing I've noticed being spread around Iraq, other than weapons and sewage, are corporate profits. Mark Kirk spends most of his time in Congress worrying, not about us, but about China and all the business we can do there and the Chinese can bring here. Kirk understands that capitalism is spreading in China, but he does not care that democracy is not.

From the outsourcing of food, water and supplies for our troops in Iraq and the reconstruction effort that allowed corporations to make huge profits and provide substandard products and few results, to the deregulation of the energy industry that left Californians at the mercy of Enron, to the deregulation of the media that eliminated our fourth estate and watchdog of our government, we are spreading an intense form of capitalism not seen since Teddy Roosevelt of all people suggested to the robber barons that it was time to reign it in because he worried its intensity would be its eventual downfall. In its most energetic form as we are seeing it now, this capitalism sometimes seems to be overtaking not only our democracy, but our common sense.

One area where capitalism has been stronger than both our democratic spirit and our common sense has been health care. Americans are bombarded by information bought and paid for by the insurance and medical industries that anything other than our own system of extreme haves, extreme have nots and those in the middle who are squeezed for every cent is "socialized medicine"..."socialized" meaning Karl Marx, Soviet Union, bad bad bad...Harry and Louise say stay away bad. Truth is that there are many forms of health care plans we can chose for this country that do not amount to socialism and that can cover the have nots and reduce the squeeze in the middle while allowing the extreme haves to stay extremely fortunate.

Here's an honest look at the oft-dismissed-by-Americans Candian system from the point of view of an uninsured American living in Canada. The primary idea in Canada is that doctors run their own practices and do not work for the state. The insurer is the state and that is broken down into the provinces, so the program is not one gargantuan, national bureaucracy. The Canadian system covers only the major expenses like hospital stays, ambulences, tests and doctor's bills, but not the smaller stuff for which most families get supplemental insurance. The supplemental insurance is the kicker. So many people who have relatively decent health care in the US because they still have their jobs are afraid of a single payer plan, but they miss the point of supplemental insurance. If the single payer plan is not good enough for you and you have the money, you can buy supplemental insurance and get premium coverage and the capitalist system gets the last word.

Another benefit, the blogger talks about is the quality and efficiency of care. Mark Kirk got a lot of campaign dollars from the insurance and medical industries to spread the word that single payer coverage would exacerbate the decline in the number of doctors that we already have under our current system, but the American in Canada observes:

Nor do Canadian docs spend half their days on the phone cajoling insurance company bean counters into doing the right thing by their patients. (When is one of those people going to be sued for practicing medicine without a license?) All the invoices go to one place; and the vast majority are simply paid -- quietly, quickly, and without hassle. There is no runaround. There are no fights. Appointments aren't interrupted by vexing phone calls. Care is seldom denied (because everybody knows the rules). They put the bills through online, get their checks on time, see their patients on schedule, and go home in time for dinner.

One unsurprising side effect of all this is that the doctors I see here tend to be more focused, more relaxed, more generous with their time, more up-to-date in their specialties, and overall much less distracted from the real work of doctoring. You don't really realize how much stress the American doctor-insurer fights put on the day-to-day quality of care until you see doctors who don't operate under that stress, because they never have to fight those battles at all. They seem to enjoy their jobs.

When it first came up this past May under republican domination, this did not seem possible, but now with the change of fortunes, it's time to take a second look at the The United States National Health Insurance Act, H.R. 676. The Act establishes a publicly financed, but private system that extends Medicare to the general public (as was originally intended when Medicare was created). The plan is more extensive than the Canadian system in that it seeks to cover primary care, in-patient care, outpatient care, emergency care, prescription drugs, durable medical equipment, long term care, mental health services, dentistry, eye care, chiropractic, and substance abuse treatment with no co-pays and no deductibles. Patients chose their own providers including doctors, hospitals andclinics. Private insurers cannot duplicate the coverage, but can provide coverage for medically unnecessary, elective treatment. Basically, its a not-for-profit health care system.

Funding is to come from a 3.3% payroll tax, a 5% health tax on the top 5% of income earners, another small tax on stock and bond transfers, closing corporate tax loop-holes, and repealing the Bush tax cut.

Dennis Kucinich is one of the congressmen who introduced the bill and he believes that health care is "a basic right in a democratic society." It's also just common sense as American employers are finding it hard to compete against companies in countries like Canada that provide basic health care, so they don't have to. It's common sense that Americans who can afford premium service can still buy it and companies that provide it can still do so at a profit without leaving the rest of us either uncovered or in financial straights paying for coverage. It's also common sense because we simply cannot leave 46 million Americans with no health care at all. That is bad for our public health in general and a safety issue the safety folks in power never seem to want to talk about.

Those who profit from the current system are going to continue their scare tactics that the system will be inefficient and cause folks to wait until they die for service, but the experience in Canada does not bear that out. Maybe its time to give extreme capitalism a small vacation on the issue of health care and take H.R. 676 seriously.

Does everything in this country, even life and death. always have to be for sale?

Kirk or Spitzer

Mark Kirk is one of the congressmen working to weaken the Sarbanes-Oxley corporate accounting and accountability rules passed after the Enron and Worldcom scandals that left thousands of Americans, poorer, 401K-less and jobless. He thinks its too hard on companies to comply.

Enter Elliot Spitzer, NYS Attorney General and Gov.-elect. Spitzer has spent much of his career keeping New York companies honest. He debunks the Kirk argument in the article you can find at the title link.

The argument that we are failing in competitiveness because of regulations is incomplete,” Mr Spitzer said. “We’re failing in competitiveness because of failed business models and the lack of smart investment in technology. General Motors is not failing because of regulations but because it hasn’t produced good products.

Mr Spitzer said critics who warned that aggressive enforcement hurts competitiveness were ignoring recent history. “The sectors that bore the brunt of my cases are performing extremely well,” he said. “They are more competitive because they understand the importance of ethics.”

If its Spitzer or Kirk to believe, I'd go with Spitzer because he's been out there in the trenches of enforcement while Kirk's only been in the trenches of corporate campaign fundraising.

Is that all you blighters can do?

UPDATE: Newt Gingrich wants us to "reexamine" free speech under the theory it will prevent terrorism. He is concerned we might actually lose a US city. Couple of things here. First, we already lost a US City, New Orleans, and not because of terrorists as defined by republicans (liberal bloggers), but because of his party's negligence and malfeasance. Second, hard to say we have much free speech any more as news organizations prevent reporters from reporting what they are seeing on the ground and now, only when things are really bad, are they allowed to, sparingly, tell the truth.

What worries me is that even after everything they have put us through over the past 6 years including war and the effects of rampant thievery and cronyism, and even after most of the country, if not the IL Tenth, eschewed republican tyrannical rule, some people still think they should give up their constitutionally guaranteed freedoms for a cheap promise of protection. Gingrich wants to run for president in 2008. Do you think people will actually vote to continue to dismantle everything for which this country stands?

****************************************************

Words! Words! I'm so sick of words!
I get words all day through;
First from him, now from you!
Is that all you blighters can do?~~Eliza Dolittle (Ok, really Alan J. Lerner, My Fair Lady, 1956)

MSNBC and NBC have decided the Iraq War is a Civil War. The LA Times apparently slipped it in some time prior. While these news organizations are a cut above the rest of the mainstream media, I'm not all that impressed. It is what it is and it has been so for a long time now. I called it a civil war in January and no one is giving me a Pulitzer Prize.

It may be a civil war on the NBC frequency, but CBS and the mouse are still playing it safe using the government-approved Bushspeak description "a new turn in sectarian violence kinda, sorta, in a way" or some such nonsense. CBS is downright aghast (or more likely embarrassed) that NBC may have had a "Cronkite Moment" because Cronkite worked at CBS and they are still too cowed by money and power to meet his standard. The mouse is apparently waiting for Dopey to tell Goofy that it's a civil war, describe exactly what a civil war is and why that does not necessarily require Scarlett O'Hara to say fiddle-de-dee (oh, that's another right wing owned denial based television corporation, sorry).

CNN won't be outdone. They aren't calling it a civil war, but they got Jimmy Carter to do it for them on Larry King and they got reporter John Roberts to call it an "absolute mess" and bemoan "sanitized" media coverage as he described the situation on the ground to Washington Post reporter Howard Kurtz. A university chum of mine from India reported the mess on the ground in Iraq to me and other friends years ago as she described what she was seeing on Indian satellite television while most Americans were busy watching happy talk and Gray's Anatomy. She grew up in Iraq before the Saddam years, saw her old grade school in rubble and wondered what happened to the children. Does she get an Emmy for beating Roberts to the punch?

Another friend added a wrinkle this afternoon when I ran into him at lunchtime. He said what bothers him these days is that the world is watching Americans spending lots of money on Christmas gifts in news reports of black Friday and such knowing that we caused the inferno in Iraq. (My mom added that they are also watching us fight over Tickle Me Elmos and XBoxes like they matter.) What must the world think of us? I asked the question of another friend later in the day and she said they must think we are toddlers, consuming a lot, demanding a lot, breaking everything we touch, selfish and, well, how toddlers are. I thought she had a point, but the difference, of course, is that toddlers are young children still learning about the world and their place in it and our leaders are supposed to be experts on that particular topic.

While the highly paid, highly recognized members of the mainstream media alternately pat themselves on the back and bemoan their timidity to the worst presidency in the modern age, I see that I have some pretty smart friends and relatives.

...and our congressman... he hasn't made it past "stay the course", but of course, he has access to the intelligence and knows better than the rest of us. He gets the award for most consecutive years clutching fake intelligence while under the bed.

An old diet for a new world

On Friday, the USDA approved Liberty Link, a genetically-engineered rice variety created to survive the Liberty herbicide. What is controversial about the approval is that many believe it was made more as a reaction to trade difficulties with Europe and Japan after the illegal rice was found in exports than to real testing and safety determination. The Union of Concerned Scientists cautions that the approval rewards the manufacturer for its possible negligence and makes sure that questions about how the rice came to the food chain will remain unanswered.

The USDA now says the rice is safe, but with rampant cronyism in federal agencies under the Bush administration, how are we to know for sure and even if there are no short term effects, we have no idea what is in store for us in the long term.

Proponents of genetically modified crops counter that they are beneficial to farmers and consumers. Genetic modification can increase farm productivity, cut down on the need for insecticides and create new medicines. However, food shortages are usually not caused by a lack of available food, but the lack of political will to get it to the needy, and consumer rejection of the genetically modified products have hurt farmers who have invested in it. Environmentalist David Suzuki has said:

So, genetic modification poses unknown risks to ecosystems and human health. The benefits to many farmers are not being realized. There are no clear benefits to consumers who, when asked, don't seem to want the products anyway, and GM crops won't solve world food shortages. Then what is the point of investing so much energy, money and other resources in this technology? Profit. Biotechnology companies have spent billions of dollars on researching these new life forms and they want to see that investment returned, with interest.

I think the problem with genetically modified food is that it is being foisted on farmers and consumers with little study and no long term study by agri-corporations motivated only by profit. The 2007 farm bill should address the issue of genetically modified crops including the review of 2005 legislation that allowed livestock meant for the organic market to feed on genetically modified grains. One problem, however, is that the large international producers have most of the clout. What can consumers do?

Some consumer advocates are calling for a new American food culture including eating locally and creating relationships between local communities and food producers. Eating locally means chosing foods without the middleman processor from an area of about 100 miles from where you live. Here is a website that describes the 100 mile diet. Here's a website that finds local producers and groceries that specialize in local organic foods.

Benefits of the 100 mile diet touted include reducing cost of transportation, eliminating middlemen that decrease the profit margin of small, local farmers, improved quality through ripening standards fit for a local market, increased shelf life, increased food variety by supporting independent growers and processors rather than the few largest manufacturers, and contribution to the local economy. Supporting local small farmers in this way can also have the ultimate benefit of giving them market share and thereby leverage to fight against legislation and executive regulation that benefits only the large food conglomerates.

I can hear it now, you're about to comment on this post that you think I've gone nuts! You don't have the time or energy to find food grown within 100 miles of the northern suburbs of Chicago, if there even is any at all. I would actually agree with the latter statement as I am one of the worst processed and convenience food culprits there is and wonder where, in the frozen tundra of a Chicago winter, a person can find enough food for a 100 mile diet. Winter is probably not the ideal time to start a project like this and big cities are not the ideal spot either. However, we do have resources. There is a CSA (Community Supported Agriculture) program as close as Grayslake and we do have Whole Foods (not perfect, but they at least try). Here is another Chicago resource called The Slow Food Guide to Chicago.

One easy way to make a start is to favor in-season foods over those foods that have to make it here from the tropics. In the late fall and early winter, we have: apples, beets, cabbage, carrots, garlic, kale, herbs, leeks, onions, parsnips, potatoes, rutabagas, salad greens, shallots, spinach, turnips and winter squash (some winter squash was just recalled, wasn't it?). Rachael Ray has all sorts of kale recipes (however, kale is not my favorite).

Well, it's a thought and the in-season winter foods do amount to a fairly good soup and salad. It might be time to knock off the frozen dinners and orange macaroni and cheese anyway. If we are not willing to make personal changes, we'll get no better than what we demand from food industries and the only way to make a demand that matters to them at all is to direct our buying dollars.

Let me know if you have tried a 100 mile or in-season food diet and how it's going.

Is Cheap Food Cheap?

Have a nice Thanksgiving? We did in my family and considered ourselves lucky because we didn't find out, after eating, that our turkey was recalled. That's not to say we haven't had our fair share of food incidents, one of those maddening times when you are getting dinner together and notice that one of the food items you just bought is no good, the fish smells bad, the bagged salad feels sort of slimy, or the can looks just dented enough that you are unsure. Well, I had one of those last night and I ended up ordering a pizza and it came all soggy and sort of cold. I know people who are still looking cross-eyed at fresh spinach.

As Americans, we think we have the cheapest, best quality food in the world, but it turns out we really don't. In the quest for speed and low prices, we have hurt our food supply and it's not all that cheap when you really take a look. We are told that we have the "most affordable food supply in the world at less than 11 percent of income", however that is compared to our income which is higher than most of the rest of the world, so we are in fact spending more, not less than the rest of the world. As it turns out, we are not paying for the food itself so much as for the convenience of buying out of season food and food that is already prepared, along with its packaging and marketing.

We are also paying for quantity over quality. American cows are being fed steroids to increase meat production and profits, a practice that is banned in Europe. Farmed fish are touted as a source of fish less exposed to mercury, however, they are often fed antibiotics because they are subject to bacteria from sewage as well aspesticides and fungicides. The David Suzuki Foundation reports that farming carnavore fish such as salmon is actually decreasing net available protein because the farmed salmon are fed other fish. It takes "from two to five kilos of wild fish to grow one kilo of salmon."

Similar wastefullness in found in other types of farming. Highly subsidized corporately farmed corn is not enjoyed as fresh corn on American tables, but is mostly turned into cheap fats, sweeteners, and the animal feed that brings us the cheap meat used in the fast food industry. Farmers of fresh fruits and vegetables get fewer subsidies.

The farmers are not fairing better with the new farming techniques either:

For years, U.S. farmers and ranchers have been told that the latest chemical and technological advances--hormones, pesticides, genetically modified crops, concentrated animal feeding operations--would increase their income. Instead, farmers and ranchers are steadily being driven off the land. Nine out of ten hog farmers have left the business since 1979. Those who remain are essentially employees of big processors like Smithfield Foods. Poultry growers have lost their independence in much the same way, investing large amounts of their own capital while obeying the directives of Tyson Foods. This concentration has been exacerbated by the lax enforcement of antitrust laws. In 1970, the top four meatpacking companies controlled 21 percent of the beef market. Today they control nearly 85 percent. The industry is more concentrated than it was in 1906, when Upton Sinclair attacked the unchecked power of the beef trust in The Jungle.

US agriculture policy has historically concentrated on relying on free markets, increasing quantity and protecting farming conglomerates by rewarding quantity producers with more subsidies. Problem with that is that there is no free market in food any more than there is a free market on energy and demand has little to do with supply. We dump food on the international market and hurt farmers around the world. Food safety policy seems to have centered around slapping a label on everything while continuing to subsidize corporate farmers over local, family owned farms. We don't see much of anything happening to improve food safety at the retail level.

Work on the 2007 Farm Bill is already under way and since the bill is being written, as most bills are these days, mostly by lobbyists, it's hard to imagine it will be much different than we have seen in the past. However, there is a lobby newly entered into this debate with a little different interest, the lobby for the fast food industry that wants to end farm subsidy programs for reasons all their own. They want to insure free markets for their internation procurement.

The issues are complex and interests diverse, from the farm subsidy proponents to the free market proponents to the environmentalists to the family farm organizations. It's all very confusing and it's hard to say which group is advocating what and what is good or bad. One thing is for sure, however, the incoming Democratic congress needs to look beyond the corporate lobbies and toward our food future and see that bigger is not better and cheap food can be very expensive.

Bygones are not bygones on Iraq because nothing is by and nothing is gone

First, thanks to my readers who sent the kind words on Thanksgiving. We keep plugging away here because it's worth it to call for better government.

I wanted to further discuss my previous request that folks ask Mark Kirk for a townhall meeting on Iraq. I got a few responses that I thought were worthy of discussion. Some agreed, some agreed but added that Kirk will never go for it and others yet said he didn't have to go for it because he was reelected. One reader suggested the Mark actually face the families of those killed and those who returned maimed. I don't think he has the courage for that.

I think the reelection requires us to continue to ask him to talk to us. If the district reelected him, he has a duty to represent all its people. So far, Kirk has never answered the questions about why he said he knew more than anyone else in the district that there were WMD in Iraq and why the reconstruction plan was paid for but never implemented. You'll remember in his 2002 debate with Democratic candidate Hank Perritt, he used his military background and supposed extra insider information to nonplus Prof. Perritt who, as a private citizen, was in no position to dispute him. In the months leading up to the invasion and just afterward, Kirk also responded to several letters from constituents in a paternalistic "I know better than you" way. I know I received such a response as did many of my friends.

You'll also remember that he continued to sell the war after it became apparent that there were no WMD stating that we were going to have a Marshall Plan for Iraq. What we got for our Iraq Marshall Plan was a whole lot of nothing. The contractors, of course, got a whole lot of money, but lost a whole lot of workers because the "attack and hope for the best" strategy of the Bush administration supported by Mark Kirk was never able to provide a safe enough environment to work.

So, Kirk is apparently forgiven by those who cared more about their dreaded "death tax", and reelected by a small margin. He still owes the district an explanation and his ear because everything we said would happen happened in bushels and nothing he said would happen happened at all. There is also the question of whether the chaos that now exists in Iraq was actually part of the strategy, what they were going for because they simply did not care about those it would adversely affect. That is a question that really needs to be answered because it still affects what is happening there, and here.

Time to listen to the district on Iraq, Mark. Time to hold a townhall meeting with the general public, not just a few chosen friends.

Time for the district to call upon Mark Kirk to represent it.

Something to be Thankful For

The sweet potatos are in the oven. The Democat is seated in front of the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade on TV with a bowl of Turkey and Giblets Feast licking her chops like crazy after only a couple of licks. (Psssst Macy's, a flying Scooby Doo or Olive Oyl down Michigan Avenue would go a long way to improving your image in Chicago). All the green bean casserole fixings are out on the kitchen table. I have my annual Thanksgiving head cold. So, Thanksgiving day is going pretty much as usual.

This morning I woke up thinking about leadership as yesterday marked the 43d anniversary of the assassination of JFK. Kennedy showed the nation leadership in his vision, his inspiration of the then youth of American to public service, his doable plan to get us to space, and his spirit and good humor. We are severely lacking of leadership in the country now. We have leaders willing to lie to get and keep power, who have no vision for anything but enriching their corporate campaign contributors. Thankfully, for the mostpart, the nation woke up and chose leadership over cronyism, pandering, and downright lying. Virginia voters decided that you're not a leader when you try to rile up a crowd using a young man who happens to be a minority as the butt of a joke. Pennslyvania voters decided you're not a leader when you manipulate people with religion. Florida voters decided that you're not a leader when you continue to lie about a war.

Sadly in the Illinois Tenth, we have no leadership coming from our US congressional office. I saw more than a glimmer of leadership from Dan Seals which is why I supported his candidacy. Mark Kirk showed racism; Dan Seals chose unity. Mark Kirk chose to lie about petty accomplishments; Dan Seals chose truth and a larger vision. Mark Kirk chose fear and hate; Dan Seals got in trouble for it, but chose peace. Yup, Dan Seals would have been the better choice and I'm still sad for his election loss and puzzled why some in the district have a problem with a vision for peace.

Fortunately for Illinois, however, we have a new leader emerging, one who has vision, a real doable plans for fixing the almost impossible situation in Iraq, and one who sparks unity even though his very being represents one of the most divisive issues in this country. You know our emerging leader is Barack Obama. Obama has all the qualities of a leader, values, vision, character, knowledge and skills. He also has a beautiful speaking style and the ability to write a moving speech to share his vision. Yesterday, I gave you one line from Obama's speech to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs this past Monday. Read the rest here or watch it here.

This Thanksgiving, I'm thankful for Dan Seals and Barack Obama. Democat's thankful for Turkey and Giblets Feast, the rare November sunbeam and that the Thanksgiving Day crowd is going to be at grandma's and not at her house. She can nap in peace.

That policy-by-slogan will no longer pass as an acceptable form of debate in this country.~~Barack Obama, November 19, 2006

I could not agree more with the above statement made by Sen. Obama Monday before the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. I've been thinking about that all week, ever since I heard the latest: "Go Big, Go Long or Go Home"

The media has grabbed onto that slogan because they are not careful enough, don't want to spend the money and/or don't think the American public is smart enough to embrace the complexities of a real Iraq strategy. Our leaders aren't saying much of anything having gone home or on holiday for the Thanksgiving weekend. Seems sometimes like the retired generals are working more on Iraq strategy than the ones at the Pentagon and even they don't seem to get beyond pointing out the mistakes of the administration and flaws in other points of view.

I think it's time over due for Mr. "Thoughtful and Independent Leadership" to come home (OK, not home because he probably doesn't really live here anyway, but at least come to the district that he is supposed to represent) and have a real live in-person townhall meeting on Iraq. Mark Kirk owes it to the district to discuss the complexities of the situation and the options. He owes it to the district to listen to us and take our message back to Washington.

Call or write Mark Kirk and ask him to meet with the district on this very important and very difficult topic of Iraq. I'm not calling for this as part of any organization or campaign. It's just me, pissed off in front of my computer with Democat on my lap and I think that if local communities like ours just sit back and do nothing but let the slogans fly, we'll get nothing more than the same from our government.

Here's the email.

Here's the Washington Office: Washington, DC Office1717 Longworth HOB Washington, D.C. 20515 Phone: 202-225-4835 Fax: 202-225-0837

Here's the Northbrook Office: Northbrook Office707 Skokie Boulevard, Suite 350Northbrook, IL 60062 Phone: 847-940-0202 Fax: 847-940-7143

Here's the Waukegan Office: Waukegan Office20 South Martin Luther King Dr.Waukegan, IL 60085 Phone: 847-662-0101 Fax: 847-662-7519

A Holiday Week Skit: Its a Wonderful Administration and the Wrong Holiday

Cheney: George, George, where are you?
W: Wimper
Cheney: Oh, George, no need to hide behind the drapes. Everything is ok.
Rove: Did you find him?
Cheney: He's right here, Karl, in the Oval Office behind the drapes. With a glass in his hand.... now George.
W: Leave me alone, it's only juice.
Rove: Let's smell....
W: No!
Cheney: oh, Leave him alone, Karl. It's been a tough couple of weeks for him.
W: You (sniff) told me everyone was going to like me...(sniff)... I could play golf...and...play on my ranch...you said it would be easy.... Now everone is mad at me... all of daddy's friends...uncle Ron's friends... They hate meeeeee....
Cheney: Oh, don't be silly, George. Everything is going to be OK. No need for tears.
W: But.... (sniff)
Rove: Don't worry Georgie boy, you only have 2 years left then you can go back to your ranch...or the one you bought in Paraguay.
W: You said a lot of important leaders retire to Paraguay.... Didn't you uncle Karl.
Cheney: There is nothing to feel bad about, George, and it's too early to talk about retiring. You're doing just fine and we're right on schedule. We transformed the nation and most of the people in it have no idea.
Rove: Cheney's right, George you're actually pretty successful. Sure, we lost Congress, but...
Condi (walking in): YOU lost Congress, Karl.
Rove: WE lost Congress, but...it doesn't matter. Congress has no real power any more anyway. They gave up most of the important stuff to us. We get to decide when to go to war and with what resources and which contractors...the ones who contribute, of course. We get to decide what is torture and what is not. We get to decide who is an enemy combatant and can be dragged away and locked up forever without a trial or even that one silly phone call we used to give... American citizens too. Soon, we'll get to decide who gets nuclear technology and materials even if they do not obey the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. We made a deal no previous administration would have had the nerve to make with one of our few allies in the region and even the newly emboldened Congress knows they can't get us out of it no matter how bad it is. So, we get to control the nukes, George. That is exciting.
Cheney: Not to mention what we've accomplished nationally. We created a payola system for right wing religious organizations so they have financial incentives to support our leadership. So, they are a little mad at us now. They'll get over it and they'll never consistently vote Democratic because we can always bait them with hatred of gays and women's rights. We also pulled oversight power away from the legislature, so our executive agencies packed with our friends in industry can do just about anything they want and there are no hearings or other legislative oversight. We took the power to interpret laws away from the judiciary with your signing statements.
W: You mean all those speeches I had to memorize with all that legal gobble-dee-goop meant something uncle Cheney?!
Cheney: Sure they did George. They may have meant nothing to you, but you were telling the executive agencies enforcing the laws how to enforce them. No need to worry about how the judiciary will interpret them. That, and some well placed violence and threats of violence against federal judges, did the trick.
W: That's all?
Cheney: Why no, George. We accomplished a lot more that that! We brought government support where it should be, not with the people, but with our corporate friends. We stopped environmental enforcement and gutted the environmental laws. We are on the way to limiting the laws created to require corporations to tell the truth in their literature to potential investors. No one who matters cares about or even remembers Enron anymore.
W: Kenny Boy died, didn't he.
Rove: Ehm...Let's change the subject.
Rumsfeld (walking in): And few are the wiser. Most Americans can't understand the complexities of our accomplishments, George. All they know how to do is criticize great men like Churchill and, well, me.
Cheney: They critize, but for the mostpart, they cannot do much about any of it.
W: But they elected the Democrats to Congress?! The gays didn't get us votes this time.
Cheney: But George, the power base we created is still pretty strong. We have the press on our side because they are scared, they will be forced back to into regulation without us, they pretty much buy into our talking points. They've classified Pelosi as damaged goods and she hasn't even become the Speaker yet! They aren't even talking about Trent Lott becoming minority whip after resigning in disgrace after making racist comments. We have the healthcare, insurance, and energy industries on our side because they don't want to invest in new technologies or other news ways of doing things that might reduce their profits and influence. The money, media and power is still with us.
Rove: And the best... things in Iraq are such a mess and the situation so grave that the Democrats may actually call for a draft. We got to create the virtually consequence-less war while Americans worked free overtime for no extra pay or benefits and shopped, and now the Democrats are going to have to clean up the mess.
Cheney: And what are they saying about us? They're saying we meant well and tried to bring democracy to Iraq. They are calling us idealists and calling our foreign policy was "value-based".
Rove: Sure was... the value of money, that is. hee hee
Rumsfeld: I'm a brilliant military leader. Just misunderstood.
Cheney: And we helped people too. We helped all the corporate CEOs get their hands on more money and power than they ever dreamed of. We helped the racists stay racist and not feel guilty about it. We helped the religious hypocrites who get to keep holy rolling on while they are sexually out of control in their own lives.
Rove: See George, you really had a wonderful administration. Each crony's life touches so many other lives, when he isn't around, he leaves an awful hole.
Condi: Wrong holiday, Karl you turkey. I'm out of here. Sure I was neck deep in the Iraq war, but now I get to distance myself at State and politically live to see another day.
Rove: ...and make the rest of our free trade dreams come true and for that I am truly thankful. See Condi, every day is a holiday when you are a republican. The Democrats will be bogged down with Iraq and won't even seek impeachment for real high crimes and misdemeanors, even though we had no problem impeaching for a silly affair and will do it again when we need to take power back.
Condi: Always have to have the last word, huh Karl?
Rove: I think I will at that.

The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades

I study nuclear science
I love my classes
I got a crazy teacher, he wears dark glasses
Things are going great, and they're only getting better
I'm doing all right, getting good grades
The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades ~~Timbuk 3, 1989

On Friday, the republican lame duck Senate, together with lots of Democrats, threw away 30+ years of sucessful nuclear nonproliferation by passing the United States and India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act of 2006. That's the bill that will allow Bush to waive portions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to allow exports of certain nuclear technology to India, a country that has never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Even though the Senate version of the bill bars transfers of technology that aids nuclear weapons production and requires the President to certify that India is "fully and actively" participating in efforts to contain Iran's nuclear program before U.S.-India nuclear cooperation could proceed, Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association called the Senate bill a "great mistake for security and non-proliferation policy."

Before the vote, the The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation sent the Senators a letter signed by 14 former ambassadors, military leaders and international legislators, including former Vietnam era Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara and Lt. General Robert Gard Jr. (US Army, Ret.) who spoke to the Tenth District on the topic of Iraq earlier this year. The letter can be found here and expresses concerns that " [c]arving out an exception for India would significantly undermine the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which for thirty-five years has kept the number of nuclear weapon states under ten, rather than dozens as predicted in the 1960s. Another of their concerns is that the change "would enable India to expand its nuclear weapons production significantly beyond its current production level by freeing up India’s limited uranium resources for its military program."

Senator Feingold introduced an amendment to require that the waivers do nothing to assist, encourage, or induce India to manufacture or acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, but that was rejected as was Senator Boxer's proposed amendment requiring that the waiver authority be contingent "upon a certification that India has agreed to suspend military-to-military cooperation with Iran, including training exercises, until such time as Iran is no longer designated as a state sponsor of terrorism." (See CR S11085-11086).

During debate, Feingold made these remarks:

The primary consideration for us in the U.S. Senate as we debate this bill should be this: will this legislation make the citizens of the United States more secure or less? As we consider this fundamental shift in the international nonproliferation regime, we must make sure that we have adequate protections in place to guard against the further spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology.

The threat of nuclear weapons to the United States and the spread of nuclear weapons and nuclear material are among the gravest dangers that our country faces. It is crucial to our national security that the nuclear non-proliferation framework remains strong. I want to make sure that the United States, as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, is working to strengthen the international treaties and regimes that have been designed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. A world with more nuclear weapons is, simply put, a more dangerous world.

Senator Boxer joined in Feingold's concerns:

India did not sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, instead choosing to develop nuclear weapons outside of the NPT regime. India developed a nuclear weapon in 1974 using a research reactor and materials provided by Canada and the United States of America in the 1950s. India had pledged to use the reactor only for peaceful purposes, but it failed to keep that promise. So by giving India a special deal to both possess nuclear weapons and receive civil nuclear assistance, it will be harder to convince nonnuclear weapons states to keep their commitment to forgo nuclear weapons.

The timing could not be worse. Right now, the international community is trying to convince one nonnuclear member of the NPT, Iran, to cease uranium enrichment because the IAEA cannot verify that its program is for peaceful purposes. We are also trying to roll back North Korea's nuclear program and convince them to rejoin the NPT.

India is becoming a recognized de facto nuclear power, but it is not required to take on any of the commitments made by the five recognized nuclear powers.

She went on to describe how selling India nuclear material for peaceful purposes only frees up their own nuclear material for weapons, so the limitation is really meaningless.

The pro-passage response was that India has nuclear weapons and intends to keep them. Other supporters cited the friendly relationship with India and the desire to do business with them.

Our own Senator Obama rose in favor of the bill with concerns with potential nonproliferation consequences.

Senator Kennedy quoted General Brent Scowcroft who cautioned about the divisiveness of the measure and risk on basing nuclear contracts on trust of current friendships: "I am concerned about a trend that we see reflected in the United States-India nuclear deal where we try to address proliferation risks by assessing the character of regimes and governments. Such an approach also opens up divisions among the world's nuclear powers, with each making a list of "friends" who can be trusted with nuclear technology and `foes' who are dangerous risks." Kennedy added:

It will embolden Iran to flout the will of the international community. There could not be a worse moment to give India the green light to build weapons with the blessing of the United States and the international community. The Iranians see a clear double standard. As Iran's national security adviser said in March, "The United States is imposing a contradictory theory of dual standards: though our NPT membership entitles us to access to nuclear science and technology, it claims that we will never have that right, whereas it cooperates with India, which does have the bomb but is not an NPT member." The Iranians will undoubtedly use the double standard of India in Iran's efforts to break the will of the international community to achieve its nuclear aims.

Kennedy also voiced concerns about the bills requirements that we trust that the administration to handle the details of all nuclear sale negotiations:

President Bush is asking us to trust him that the risks of this agreement will not materialize and that additional benefits will follow--especially that India will cease fissile material production as a result of a new treaty.

But with so many details unresolved and much up in the air, I see a vote for this legislation, which will permanently change U.S. law, as giving the administration a blank check in concluding the negotiations with India on a nuclear cooperation agreement and with the terms of safeguard agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency and revisions to the Nuclear Suppliers Group's guidelines.

Nuclear nonproliferation is too important to our national security to take unnecessary risks. We should wait until the whole package has been negotiated and until we have better answers to the questions I have raised about the implications of this agreement before we take this step; for once we take the step of carving up the international nonproliferation regime, it is no easy matter to return if we find out we have erred. This genie cannot be put back in the bottle.

Yup, this is just another Bush and Co. "trust us" bill and from their prior performance, trust is not something they have earned.

The Senate really blew it and it's very unlikely the house will be any smarter. Our leaders keep saying they are making us safer, but they are really just making the weapons industry more profitable and sadly, few are paying attention.

Read the full text of the Senate debate here.

Greg Giroux of NYT recognizes our efforts

Most valiant effort: Democrat Dan Seals of Illinois’ 10th District. It was a tall order for corporate marketing director Seals, little known when the campaign began, to take on Republican Rep. Mark Steven Kirk, a popular GOP moderate seeking a fourth term in the politically competitive 10th District anchored in suburbs north of Chicago. But Seals took a respectable 47 percent of the vote to Kirk’s 53 percent, suggesting potential for a bright future in politics if he so chooses.

This Duty is Demanded

I hope you enjoy this guest blog by Marianne that includes the transcript of an incredible speech given by Tom McMenamin:

Over 50 people gathered together in Highland Park’s Free Speech Park on a cold, cloudy Veteran’s Day this year to dedicate a new exhibit that mourns the death of our Bill of Rights, Habeas Corpus, & the Geneva Convention. The exhibit is sponsored by the North Shore Women for Peace, a local organization that is 50 years strong in living their motto: “Working for peace, justice & a healthy planet.”

The weather was indicative of the moods & mixed emotions shared by many that day. The short bursts of sunlight through the overcast clouds mirrored the hope we have for our country & our world, as a result of the mid-term elections. The cold & clouds reminded us that we are still a country that is in the midst of an unjust war, a country whose soldiers are dying & being wounded daily, a country that bears responsibility for the death & destruction of Iraq & its citizens. We’re a country that is damaged from 6 years of misguided foreign policy & attacks on our Constitution and civil liberties. We have many wounds to heal among ourselves & with others in the world.

Vicki Bailyn, a key member of the North Shore Women for Peace, was cautiously optimistic that we will now have “fresh eyes” in our government. Her warning of “Be careful what’s happening to America” was one of encouragement & hope that people will now step forward & raise their voices because there’s a chance of getting Congress’s attention. Vicki also said, “It isn’t just the war, which is a key issue & will be until our soldiers are home, taken care of, and working. It’s justice. No justice, no peace.”

Tom McMenamin, a business attorney & concerned citizen of Highland Park who has one brother in Afghanistan and one brother in Kuwait, was the invited guest speaker. With the fanfare of the final few bars of our national anthem played on the trumpet as an introduction, Tom delivered this powerful speech:

I would like to thank North Shore Women for Peace for assembling this exhibit in the Free Speech Park in Highland Park’s downtown. As all can see, the exhibit consists of three tombstones representing the current attacks on Habeas Corpus, our Bill of Rights and the Geneva Convention.

I would also like to thank North Shore Women for Peace for organizing today’s event and for inviting me to speak.

But as I told these valiant and gusty women when they extended their invitation—and as I warn you now—I am not a great constitutional scholar, I am not an internationally known human rights advocate, I am not a hotshot criminal defense lawyer. I am just a business lawyer and, like many of you, a resident of Highland Park. But I accepted the invitation today because I am a concerned US citizen. And I am here today at the indirect urging of the President of the largest legal professional group in the world, the American Bar Association (“ABA”).

In his last two letters to the more than 1,000,000 ABA members before stepping down this summer, the ABA President, Michael Greco, reviewed the current attacks by political forces in this country on the independence of the legal profession and our judiciary, as well as on our core legal rights and principles. He referred to recently enacted federal bankruptcy laws that limit or burden the role of lawyers in representing debtors. He wrote of the attacks by political extremists against our independent judiciary under the guise of the myth of “judicial activism”. He mentioned the attempts by religious conservatives to limit the jurisdiction of courts over certain matters. He described the attempts by the Administration to undercut long-standing American judicial principles.

The ABA President called these attacks “direct assaults on our justice system and our democracy” and he urged “all Americans, particularly lawyers, to oppose this insidious trend with every ounce of our might.”

This morning, as part of our November 11th Veteran Days’ activities, our town dedicated across the street a beautiful new memorial, honoring our fellow Highland Park citizens who died protecting our beloved country. It is not just the conduct of these men and women that we honor and respect with our memorial. It is also the freedom and liberty that they defended.

During the wars of the 20th Century, millions of common folk soldiers from totalitarian countries fought bravely and died. And yet the deeds of these soldiers were on behalf of murderous, repressive, dictatorial regimes.

In contrast, those whom we honor with our new Highland Park memorial shine so brilliantly in our collective memory not just for their courage and sacrifice but because their deeds are further illuminated by the bright liberty and freedom that they defended.

The men and women listed on our memorial fought and died for our Constitution, our history of judicial independence, our Bill of Rights, including the right of Habeas Corpus—that is, the right to demand of the government why any individual is being held. Habeas Corpus is our first civil right going back to 1215 and it is our greatest protection against the government arbitrarily holding someone.

The death of a brave Italian soldier during World War II reflects only on the bravery of such soldier. But the death of an American soldier reflects not just on the courage and sacrifice of such American but also on all of the beauty and humanity of American rights and political traditions that such soldier protected.

Our Highland Park residents listed on our new memorial protected our liberties from external threats. But it is up to all of us, it is up to all Americans, all U.S. citizens, to defend our liberties from internal threats. It is for all of us here today to protect our freedoms, our enshrined rights, so that our cherished fellow Americans serving today in our military never fight except for America’s most precious, most glorious principles and liberties. For there is no guaranty that, if we do not maintain vigilance internally, if we do not always fight to preserve our liberties—well there is no guaranty that America will not lose them. There is no Divine rule that says America will never lose them. Other countries have.

Earlier this year, the Chicago Bar Association held a series of programs regarding the 1946 Neuremberg Trials of Nazi leaders. One comment stunned me. When Hitler came to power, one out of every six lawyers in Germany was Jewish. For me, as a lawyer, it is horribly shocking to realize that the majority of the professional German bar—individuals trained to respect laws and the rule of law—quietly permitted one out of every six of their fellow lawyers to be exiled, imprisoned, killed. In just a few years, the German courts yielded to the Nazi thugs, offering no resistance as Jews, political opponents, artists, homosexuals disappeared. Hitler got rid of habeas corpus. No hearings. No inquiries. No independent judicial review of actions by the government. Nazi Germany shows how a civilized country can lose its values, and eventually itself.

America has also strayed in the past from its core legal principles. Let me tell you the story of the name partner of my law firm in Chicago.

In 1929, a young American, Tom Masuda, graduated from law school. During the Depression, he slowly built a small practice in Seattle, representing members of his minority community and, eventually, a number of Japanese corporations importing into the United States.

As so often happens, when a society is attacked as America was on December 7, 1941, it becomes fearful and the majority can look suspiciously and fearfully at the minority.

Two days after the attack on Pearl Harbor, Tom was arrested. Because habeas corpus had not been suspended, the government was forced to bring formal charges against Tom in a court of law. He was charged with treason. There was no evidence, however, of any treasonous conduct. The only facts that the government had against Tom was that he was a lawyer active in the community and that he had been representing Japanese corporations on commercial transactions prior to World War II. But from the government’s perspective, Tom’s main crime was that, although a U.S. citizen born in the United States, Tom was of Japanese descent.

One of Tom’s law school classmates tried to deliver to the court funds in order to get Tom out on bail. This classmate was arrested.

After a full trial in which one of Tom’s classmates was the prosecutor, Tom was acquitted, only to be released from the court house and sent directly to the State Fair Grounds where his wife, Kay, awaited him. Tom and Kay were part of the 125,000 American citizens of Japanese descent who were forced into crude camps in the western states, where they lived behind barbed wire for two-to-four years, some of them in converted horse sheds.

Tom was eventually allowed to leave the camp ---- but only on the basis that he move his home, his wife and his law practice to the Midwest. Tom and Kay moved to Chicago and Tom restarted from scratch his law practice, which grew into the law firm where I now work, Masuda, Funai, Eifert & Mitchell. Thomas Masuda and his wife, Kay, were the most gracious, generous, decent Americans that one could imagine, living full lives into their late 80’s and early 90’s, active in civic and charitable organizations and giving away the bulk of their estate--more than a million dollars--to charities.

As Tom’s experience demonstrates, our country has strayed in the past and it is straying again today. Under the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that President Bush signed last month, Tom could have been declared an unlawful enemy combatant. He could have been charged as a person who materially supports hostilities because he had given charity to a Japanese-American service community charity or because he had opposed the early efforts of the federal government to lock up all Americans of Japanese descent.

Under the Military Commissions Act, my wife, a British subject and permanent resident of the United States, could be declared an alien, unlawful enemy combatant because she has opposed the war in Iraq or contributed money to the Quakers who have been monitored by the federal government for their work for peace. Grabbed by the authorities, my wife could be held and the government would not be required to present her before a court of law. There would be no review of the reasons for her detention, or the location of her detention or the evidence supporting her detention.

And under the Military Commissions Act, the President or his designee has sole authority to decide what is cruel, degrading, inhuman treatment to be used against an alien unlawful enemy combatant. The President or his designee can unilaterally reinterpret Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.

Some of you may think that I am exaggerating. But it is important to realize some of the disturbing developments in our country over the past 5 years—developments so contrary to our core American beliefs.

-- An honored West Point graduate, a captain and chaplain in the Army—a U.S. citizen---was thrown into solitary confinement for more than 60 days, without access to counsel, and charged with aiding the enemy because he complained about the treatment of the detainees at Guantanamo. Eventually, under public pressure, the Army was forced to grant him an honorable discharge.

-- A U.S. citizen was arrested in Illinois and held without a court hearing for two years, charged with being an enemy combatant.

-- Our government has indirectly acknowledged kidnapping and secretly detaining individuals, offering them for torture in other countries.

-- In South Dakota, political extremists, angry with judicial decisions upholding fundamental rights, proposed a state constitutional amendment (known as “JAIL for Judges”) that would have allowed litigants to sue judges on allegations that they deliberately disregarded material facts.

-- After four years of incarceration, more than 400 detainees at Guantanamo have still not had a hearing to determine why they are being held.

-- Ten years ago, in the Balkan conflict, our government complained loudly and appropriately regarding the abuse and torture of one of our downed pilots. Amnesty International stood with us. Today, our President and our outgoing Congressional leaders have openly discussed what limited forms of torture are permitted. Today, Amnesty International condemns us.

Many of our political leaders proudly profess their Christian faith and declare their belief in Jesus Christ, himself a victim of torture. And yet these same political leaders appear to have no scruples in abandoning our country’s 200-year-old tradition, started during our Revolutionary War, of not torturing the enemy. Fully aware of the Bible’s lengthy description of the horrible abuse of Jesus Christ, they have no problem radically reinterpreting the Geneva Convention so as to permit horrific abuse.

And so, here we are on this cold, gray November day, gathered around these symbolic graves, just a bunch of citizens, just regular people with children and parents and friends, with jobs and mortgages. We are just common Americans. But we have the formidable task to preserve our liberties from political extremists, protect our rights in spite of our fears, honor our judicial and constitutional traditions in spite of harassment and sneers, and defend our freedoms from internal threats.

This responsibility has been bestowed on us by the wise founders of our wonderful country; this calling has been placed on us by our forefathers and mothers; this duty is demanded from us by each of our Highland Park residents whom we remembered this morning; this sacred obligation is owed by us to all of our troops and their families serving our country today. And because of those Americans who have gone before us, and those Americans serving today in our military, and because of our love for our children and future Americans, we are not allowed to fail in our duty. Because of our love of our country, we cannot fail in our responsibility.

Thomas Paul McMenamin

(The foregoing represents Tom's personal views and should not be attributed to his law firm.)

To the Voting Record--Steny Hoyer on Iraq

What do I think of Hoyer as majority leader? I went straight to the voting record and started with Iraq:

Hoyer voted in favor of the initial Iraq war authorization, the bill that Mark Kirk advocated on the house floor with bad information for which he was never held accountable. Wonder if Hoyer was pissed off at being given bad information by his collegue Mr. Kirk? Hoyer also voted against the Lee Amendment urging Bush to work through the United Nations on Iraq WMD. The idea of the Lee Amendment was to make sure we had international support for any war we might later get ourselves into in Iraq. Turns out it was a bad move to ignore the international community on Iraq. I could have told them that at the time and I am sure many of my readers could have too. It wasn't rocket science, but no one asked me or you, particularly our congressman.

To his credit, Hoyer voted for the Spratt amendment to H.J. Res. 114 that would have required the Bush to obtain congressional approval for the invasion of Iraq if a United Nations resolution authorizing force was not obtained. Hoyer also voted against a procedural bill bringing the 2003 budget resolution to the floor because that bill gave the administration flexibility (unconstitutionally without congressional approval or oversight) and he voted to require congressional approval for spending on military construction projects. You can guess that the unconstitutional transfer of fiscal power from the legislative branch to the executive branch was A-OK with Kirk.

Steny Steny Steny...This one I just don't get: Hoyer voted against investigation the lies told by the administration to start the Iraq War.

Hoyer voted for the Obey Amendment to the Fiscal 2004 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan that would have transferred $3.6 billion in Iraq reconstruction funds into quality of life enhancements for U.S. military personnel and additional health benefits to reservists and full-time soldiers by extending coverage under the military health care plan from sixty days to one-hundred and eighty days upon return from combat duty. Mark Kirk said he supported the troops, but voted against it. He must have one of those yellow ribbons on his expensive foreign sports car. He also voted to provide military reservists access to the same health insurance, TRICARE, provided to U.S. military active-duty members, but he ended up voting for the $441.6 billion to slog on in Iraq and Afghanistan without a real plan for either.

More recently, Hoyer voted against the 2006 budget resolution that financially enabled more blundering in Iraq. He also voted to recommit a supplemental appropriations bill (H.R. 1268) that sent another $80 billion down the Iraq hole, but then he turned around and voted to send the money down the hole anyway. He voted against an amendment requiring Bush to make a plan for eventual withdrawal and then for another $49.1 billion billion down the hole. To his credit, Hoyer voted to try to contain war profiteering by voting for the Waxman Amendment to H.R. 4939 which would have amended that spending bill to disallow award of a contract to any contractor "if the Defense Contract Audit Agency has determined that more than $100,000,000 of the contractor's costs for contracts involving work in Iraq under one or more Army contracts were unreasonable."

Hoyer is a mixed bag on Iraq leaning toward the not so hot on enabling the disfunctional administration non-plan for Iraq. However, Hoyer does understand the Constitution and supports the troops in trying to provide them resources, health benefits, but not enough to take them out of that terrible situation.

More on Hoyer later.

A real treat for tomorrow, stay tuned.

Congrats to Pelosi

The mainstream (right wing) media is trying hard to take it away from her, but major kudos go to Rep. Pelosi for making history as the first woman Speaker of the House. About time a woman got the post. I saw hundreds of dedicated women working in the last campaign and from my little corner of the district, it looks like the women are really taking the lead in Tenth District politics. If Dan doesn't run again in 2008, I think we need a woman to run for the IL Tenth spot and no, I don't mean me.

Time to End the Private War in Iraq

The bipartisan Iraq Study Group continues to study and the generals take to the airwaves arguing various futures for Iraq. Some say get out in four to six months because the only way to force the Iraqi government to stand up is to stand down. Others like Gen. Zinni (ret.) say our exit will lead to outright civil war if one is not already in progress. Blair argued for greater involvement of Iran and Syria. McCain said the escalate (seemed to me to be reminicent of Nixon in 1968), but CentCom commander Gen. John Abizaid said all the divisional commanders said it wouldn't help and we all wondered where they'd find the troops to begin with. Others say our exit will lead to outright civil war if one is not already in progress.

One discussion that I am very disappointed that I am not hearing is the one we must have about the failure of oursourcing a war to connected corporations on no bid no accountability contracts. No matter what folks think of the war, they cannot be happy with the situation on the ground and much of that situation was caused by the decision to outsource much of the war and reconstruction effort to no bid connected contractors. Troops enlisted to perform certain tasks and trained for those tasks by the greatest military in the world found that they were reduced to lesser and more dangerous duties in favor of contractors working for exponentially more pay. That hurt morale and the ability to keep good soldiers. In the documentary Iraq for Sale, we learned that contractors have unnecessarily risked and lost some of the lives of our troops and their own employees and we have all seen the reports connecting the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison to various interrogation contractors. The use of contractors has led to serious legal quandries as by executive order contractors were relieved of legal responsibilities and accountability for their actions under US laws and operate in a failed state unable to hold them accountable on its own. Contractors have also been accused of providing inadequate and even outright faulty products and services while our legislators sat silent. Reconstruction already paid for remained incomplete.

The only step in the correct direction on private contractors in Iraq has been the effort to extend the shelf life of the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction.

It's time to end the private war in Iraq so we can figure out how to best end our military presence.

Get out the cellophane tape! We have to repair the Constitution. Start with restoration of habeas corpus because our legal system started with it.

With the Democrats back in Congress in January, it will be time to expect, no demand, bills to repair the damage 12 years of republican rule has done to our Constitution. Number one on the list should be restoration of habeas corpus trashed in the Military Commissions Act.

Habeas corpus is one of the oldest rights conceived in our legal system dating back to at least 1215 with the signing of the Magna Carta and likely before. Here's the modern English translation of the clause in the Magna Carta that is the origin of habeas corpus:

39. No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.

It's the basic right of a prisoner to challenge the legality of his detention and a necessary part of an internationally respected legal system, but you'll remember that this necessary right was removed for enemy combatants in Bush's Military Commissions Act and the kicker was that under §948d(c), Bush was the decider on who in fact was deemed an enemy combatant, so it could apply to anyone out of his favor. That enemy combatant who lost his habeas corpus right did not have to be some guy from Afghanistan with a bomb strapped to his belt. It could be grandpa, mom, Aunt Betty, cousin Frank or YOU at a political meeting or anti-war protest.

The good news is that that Sen. Patrick Leahy is working on legislation to restore habeas corpus.

republican pundits hear restoration of habeas corpus and cry that Democrats are weak on terror, but that is rubbish intended to rile up their base and I'd suspect that all but the most unthinking diehards are buying it anymore. The failed Iraq sideshow in the War on Terror and successful British investigation that actually stopped a terrorist plot show that terrorism is a matter for investigation and law enforcement. Even the administration is starting to admit it.

Habeas corpus is not antithetical to fighting terrorism, but a basic human right necessary for prosecutions respected worldwide. Solid, internationally respected prosecutions of terrorists will slow down terrorism far more than destabilizing a country in order to attract terrorists to it and rendering some unfortunate Iraqi green grocer to a circa cold war gulag in eastern Europe or dragging a couple of misplaced British teenagers to Gitmo for torture. The latter was the Bush neo-con plan and it only increased terrorism by attracting folks to it who probably would never have gone that way without intense anger over the injustice.

By preventing just, respected prosecutions of terrorists, republicans proved they were the ones weak on terror. Time to weaken the terrorists by bringing them to justice before the world. Thing is, there is no justice without... justice, so it's only logical that we must restore habeas corpus to end terrorism.

If you killed the trees to make the paper, you might as well read the bill

I think it's pretty well known in our environmentally aware district that Bush, his unitary executive-style cadre of lobbyist cronies and his republican cabal in Congress were systematically dismantling our environmental protections. Mother Jones recently reported that the rest of the country may have been oblivious as industry leaders were moved to positions in the Department of Agriculture, the Department of the Interior, the US Forest Service and Environmental Protection Agency changing their direction from protecting the environment to protecting industry from environmental laws. They cite a few examples. Here are a couple:

MARK REY Undersecretary for Natural Resources and Environment, Department of Agriculture

Then: One of the nation's foremost timber lobbyists, Rey spent twenty years working for timber industry organizations such as the National Forest Products Association, the American Paper Institute, and the American Forest Resources Alliance. He also served as a Vice President of the American Forest and Paper Association, a leading advocate of logging in national forests....

Now: As the administration's top forestry official, Rey has been a key force behind two administration measures benefiting timber companies -- the "Healthy Forests" initiative to accelerate logging in wildfire-prone areas, and the decision to grant exemptions to the ban on logging in roadless areas of national forests. Both would allow loggers to cut bigger trees in areas such as the Tongass National Forest and the Giant Sequoia National Monument. "Put simply," Rey has said, "We should start with the premise that a policy cannot be good for the environment if it is bad for people."

He just doesn't mention which people he's talking about.

MARIANNE L. HORINKO Acting Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency

Then: Before joining the EPA, Horinko was president of the environmental consulting firm Clay Associates, where she represented industry clients regulated by the EPA.

Now: Prior to taking over as acting administrator, Horinko was Assistant Administrator for the EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. In that capacity, she oversaw the Superfund program, which shrunk dramatically under her leadership. This year, the administration has added only 10 new sites to the list of Superfund cleanup projects, delaying work on 10 others. In explaining the decision, Horinko noted that the agency had to consider economic development benefits, as well as health risks.

Back in 2003, Mother Jones published a summary of the gutting of our environmental laws and enforcement mechanisms. The article describes how budget cuts, fewer fines and criminal prosecutions let industry run rampant and how the administration (I'll add: aided by the do-nothing congress) "opened millions of acres of wilderness-including some of the nation's most environmentally sensitive public lands-to logging, mining, and oil and gas drilling." The article goes on to describe instances of increased strip mining in Appalachia, the drilling of 66,000 coalbed methane gas wells in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming and Montana, and emissions from coal-fired power plants that fail to comply with 30 year old standards.

A recent article in the UK's Independent, describes 'out of control' growth in worldwide carbon emissions. Here are some details:

Data on carbon dioxide emissions shows that the global growth rate was 3.2