Monday, March 27, 2006

Sent in by a blog reader



Future American lawyers to be proud of.

Alberto Gonzales spoke before law students at Georgetown Law School today, justifying illegal, unauthorized surveillance of US citizens, but during the course of his speech the students in class did something pretty ballsy and brave. They got up from their seats and turned their backs to him.

To make matters worse for Gonzales, additional students came into the room, wearing black cowls and carrying a simple banner, written on a sheet.

Fortunately for him, it was a brief speech... followed by a panel discussion that basically ripped his argument in half.

And, as one of the people on the panel said,

"When you're a law student, they tell you that if you can't argue the law, argue the facts. They also tell you if you can't argue the facts, argue the law. If you can't argue either, apparently, the solution is to go on a public relations offensive and make it a political issue... to say over and over again "it's lawful", and to think that the American people will somehow come to believe this if we say it often enough.

In light of this, I'm proud of the very civil civil disobedience that was shown here today."


- David Cole, Georgetown University Law Professor

It was a good day for dissent.

Monday, March 20, 2006

Concern over Carl Levin/Lindsey Graham amendment

The New York Times published an editorial on 3/20/06 about "court-stripping--the attempt by another branch of government to prevent the court from deciding a particular issue.......A critical test of judicial independence will come this month, when the Supreme Court hears arguments in a case that has become a focus of Mr. Bush's imperial vision of the presidency."
An amendment introduced by Levin and Graham had the effect of allowing the Bush administration to further frustrate "unlawful enemy combatants" from due process.
Times article

A legal synopsis of the consequenses can be found at
Jurist article

I am surprised that Carl Levin would have been a part of this, and would be very interested in hearing from others. I assume that this was not the intention of the amendment, since both Levin and Graham seem unlikely participants in such an idea.
I've written Levin to see if there is an explanation of why this is happening.

Here is what is happening.....and indeed Levin's bill is being misinterpreted by the Bush administration, against the objections of its sponsers
Levin News Release

Thursday, March 16, 2006

An excellent article on why taxes are good.

What I Can't Buy With My Tax Break is an article written by Lynn Jondahl, Executive Director, Michigan Prospect for Renewed Citizenship

http://www.michiganprospect.org/the_michigan_prospect/2006/08/about_the_michi.html

There is a curious notion being peddled by political orators these days - that tax cuts are necessary to let people rather than government decide how they spend their (invariably "hard-earned") money. Just trust the people, not government, they say, to spend their own money wisely.

That notion might be relevant if we were talking about, say, vegetables. I could use my own money to buy my own mix of carrots, peas and broccoli or I could send my money off to government in Lansing or Washington to let some (invariably "pointyheaded") bureaucrat decide what vegetable I eat at each meal. The choice here would be obvious. I can decide better than anyone else, including, alas, my wife who likes brussels sprouts, just what vegetables I want to eat for dinner. Even the best intentioned, least-biased people in Washington cannot do better. And if we were ever to have a President prejudiced against one of my favorite vegetables like broccoli, for example, the results could even be worse.

The difficulty is that there are many other important things in life that I cannot buy for myself more efficiently than government can provide them for me. If I feel threatened by Saddam Hussain or some other aggressive dictator, I cannot go out and buy a cruise missile or an aircraft carrier to keep him under check. If the streets in our neighborhood seem unsafe, I might be able to hire my own private security service to protect our house, but we can't afford the services of one whole guard. We rely on our local government to use some of our tax dollars to provide police protection for our neighborhood as a whole. So, if government expenditures are cut in order to cut my taxes the result may actually be making me a lot less safe. Broccoli I can buy at a store, but safety is something I largely buy with my tax payments.

There are lot of other things I need to buy as a taxpayer beyond the traditional fields of national defense and public safety. I can't buy good roads for myself. I can't afford my own weather satellites to warn me of an impending storm or, even more important, to warn the farmer who grows my food in time to enable him to protect a crop or his cattle.

My father died from stomach cancer, and I'm eager for the federal government to provide the level of support for cancer research that is needed to fight that disease. Sure, using my after-tax dollars I can donate $50 to the American Cancer Society, but that will buy no more than $50 of research. When we as a nation decide to tackle this problem, then my $50 is joined with similar dollars from a hundred fifty million other taxpayers. Together we can fund billions of dollars of research against one of the great health scourges. That's not evil government, that's just common sense.

Our health depends in part on the cleanliness of the air we breathe, but I don't know how to buy clean air for myself. I can't do a "citizen's arrest" every time I see a smokestack belching black smoke. In fact, I can't even see all the pollution in the atmosphere. But as a voter and taxpayer I can join with others in the state and nation to support strong standards for clean air and energetic enforcement of those standards. During the last 30 years I have been pleased with how much cleaner our environment has become because we have together spent billions of dollars cleaning it up.

I spend a lot of time in my car, and one of the things that makes such time more tolerable, even pleasurable sometimes is National Public Radio. I can contribute some money each year to my local station, WKAR, but that only adds a few dollars to the cause. If the Congress and the legislature were to cut off all support for public radio, there is no way that I could come up with enough of my own money to replace it. Some people have suggested subscribing to cable, and that might help for television, though the programs still aren't as good as the best on public television. Cable radio would be helpful only if I never drove my car out of the driveway.

I also care about the overall condition of this country. Growing numbers of people living in poverty wastes lives. Like most Americans, I strongly believe in programs that assist unemployed adults with a chance to return to the workplace and that provide their children an opportunity for a good education all the way through college. If we cut student loans to provide a tax cut for me, I may have a few more dollars to spend on myself, but I will live in a harsher, crueler, more divided and less stable society.

Supporting government services isn't always a question of just helping yourself and your immediate family. My wife and I have each had one of our aging parents living with us for a while, and we became personally familiar with the experience many Americans have with elderly family members and the immense benefit from public programs such as Medicare and Medicaid payments made by the state and federal governments. We have no children of our own, but we eagerly pay taxes for the education that will do so much for our neighbors' children and for our many nieces and nephews.

It always is fair and smart to ask whether we have the right balance between private goods that we can buy for ourselves and public goods that only government can provide efficiently. If some political orator wants to describe a tax cut and lay it alongside a list of the government programs and services that would be cut or eliminated to pay for the tax cut, then I'm certainly willing to take a look. But don't try to entice me with a tax cut now and tell me much later how I'll be paying for it in terms of lost services and benefits. And don't tell me it's just a simple issue of letting me decide for myself how I want to spend my own money.

Posted on 09 January 1997 Michigan Prospect

Monday, March 13, 2006

State and Local Playbook from the Democratic Leadership Council

Take a look at this extremely useful site. Described as:

A "menu" of effective, field-tested New Democrat policy proposals from which you can model initiatives in your own states, cities and communities.
Each topic discusses practical ideas that can translate into local political actions.
I hope readers will look over this site, and propose ways that we might together implement ideas from this "playbook".

State and Local Playbook

Lack of women in leadership and news roles

The White House Project is dedicated to showing the under-representation of women in leadership and opinion-forming roles. See their website at

White House Project

Besides an opportunity to vote for your choice of 8 promising women for president to be printed in Parade Magazine, there is another page devoted to the lack of women on political talk shows.
As Democrats dedicated to diversity and equality of opportunity, this site points up some obvious problems.
Here in Benzie we should celebrate our women who run for office, and consider the importance of a greater voice for women in our own community. Take a look at this site, and give some feedback on what you think of this issue.

Sunday, March 12, 2006

Democrats endorse adding earlier primaries and caucuses

The New York Times reported today that Democrats endorse the idea of more early primaries to "add more racial, ethnic, regional, and economic diversity to the process of choosing a Democratic nominee." Iowa and New Hampshire have little diversity in their populations. Back-to-back wins in these primaries give a boost to early nominees before large, diverse states add their voices to the process. This plan would allow up to two states to hold caucuses between Iowa and New Hampshire, before the rest of the states choose candidates beginning Feb 5. John Kerry's early wins in 2004 propelled him into the lead, giving him a psychological advantage, before a better cross-section of votes showed their preferences. He may have had the lead anyway, but I agree with the Democratic National Committee's Rules and Bylaws Committee, that their plan would better serve Democrats nationwide. Only New Hampshire voted against the idea. Our own Carl Levin endorsed the idea. See another take at
Washington Post article
for more info.
(Not sure how long this link will be available.)

Saturday, March 11, 2006

Some MI political blogs that might be worth your time, and spur discussion:

What topics would you like to discuss?