This is a great idea

John Aravosis suggests that if you appreciate what Harry Reid did yesterday in FINALLY demanding some accountability from the Administration, and demanding that the majority party in the Senate exercise its oversight responsibility, send a gift -- flowers, food gifts, cookies. Donations are great, but gifts are a tangible way of showing that we're out here and we're watching.

Send to:

The Honorable Harry Reid
c/o Friends For Harry Reid
422 C St., NE
Washington, DC 20002

If you send anything, have them note on the card that you read about it here and at Americablog.

Harry Reid steps up to the plate

Wow. Give 'em hell Harry has put the Senate into a closed session, causing Bill Frist to have the vapors.

We've seen glimmers of balls before; let's see if this particular pair hangs around for a while:

Statement by Senator Reid
Troops and Security First

This past weekend, we witnessed the indictment of the I. Lewis Libby, the Vice President’s Chief of Staff and a senior Advisor to President Bush. Libby is the first sitting White House staffer to be indicted in 135 years. This indictment raises very serious charges. It asserts this Administration engaged in actions that both harmed our national security and are morally repugnant.

The decision to place U.S. soldiers in harm’s way is the most significant responsibility the Constitution invests in the Congress. The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really about: how the Administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions.

As a result of its improper conduct, a cloud now hangs over this Administration. This cloud is further darkened by the Administration’s mistakes in prisoner abuse scandal, Hurricane Katrina, and the cronyism and corruption in numerous agencies.

And, unfortunately, it must be said that a cloud also hangs over this Republican-controlled Congress for its unwillingness to hold this Republican Administration accountable for its misdeeds on all of these issues.

Let’s take a look back at how we got here with respect to Iraq Mr. President. The record will show that within hours of the terrorist attacks on 9/11, senior officials in this Administration recognized these attacks could be used as a pretext to invade Iraq.

The record will also show that in the months and years after 9/11, the Administration engaged in a pattern of manipulation of the facts and retribution against anyone who got in its way as it made the case for attacking Iraq.

There are numerous examples of how the Administration misstated and manipulated the facts as it made the case for war. Administration statements on Saddam’s alleged nuclear weapons capabilities and ties with Al Qaeda represent the best examples of how it consistently and repeatedly manipulated the facts.

The American people were warned time and again by the President, the Vice President, and the current Secretary of State about Saddam’s nuclear weapons capabilities. The Vice President said Iraq “has reconstituted its nuclear weapons.” Playing upon the fears of Americans after September 11, these officials and others raised the specter that, left unchecked, Saddam could soon attack America with nuclear weapons.

Obviously we know now their nuclear claims were wholly inaccurate. But more troubling is the fact that a lot of intelligence experts were telling the Administration then that its claims about Saddam’s nuclear capabilities were false.
The situation was very similar with respect to Saddam’s links to Al Qaeda. The Vice President told the American people, “We know he’s out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know he has a longstanding relationship with various terrorist groups including the Al Qaeda organization.”

The Administration’s assertions on this score have been totally discredited. But again, the Administration went ahead with these assertions in spite of the fact that the government’s top experts did not agree with these claims.

What has been the response of this Republican-controlled Congress to the Administration’s manipulation of intelligence that led to this protracted war in Iraq? Basically nothing. Did the Republican-controlled Congress carry out its constitutional obligations to conduct oversight? No. Did it support our troops and their families by providing them the answers to many important questions? No. Did it even attempt to force this Administration to answer the most basic questions about its behavior? No.

Unfortunately the unwillingness of the Republican-controlled Congress to exercise its oversight responsibilities is not limited to just Iraq. We see it with respect to the prisoner abuse scandal. We see it with respect to Katrina. And we see it with respect to the cronyism and corruption that permeates this Administration.

Time and time again, this Republican-controlled Congress has consistently chosen to put its political interests ahead of our national security. They have repeatedly chosen to protect the Republican Administration rather than get to the bottom of what happened and why.

There is also another disturbing pattern here, namely about how the Administration responded to those who challenged its assertions. Time and again this Administration has actively sought to attack and undercut those who dared to raise questions about its preferred course.

For example, when General Shinseki indicated several hundred thousand troops would be needed in Iraq, his military career came to an end. When then OMB Director Larry Lindsay suggested the cost of this war would approach $200 billion, his career in the Administration came to an end. When U.N. Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix challenged conclusions about Saddam’s WMD capabilities, the Administration pulled out his inspectors. When Nobel Prize winner and IAEA head Mohammed el-Baridei raised questions about the Administration’s claims of Saddam’s nuclear capabilities, the Administration attempted to remove him from his post. When Joe Wilson stated that there was no attempt by Saddam to acquire uranium from Niger, the Administration launched a vicious and coordinated campaign to demean and discredit him, going so far as to expose the fact that his wife worked as a CIA agent.

Given this Administration’s pattern of squashing those who challenge its misstatements, what has been the response of this Republican-controlled Congress? Again, absolutely nothing. And with their inactions, they provide political cover for this Administration at the same time they keep the truth from our troops who continue to make large sacrifices in Iraq.

This behavior is unacceptable. The toll in Iraq is as staggering as it is solemn. More than 2,000 Americans have lost their lives. Over 90 Americans have paid the ultimate sacrifice this month alone – the fourth deadliest month since the war began. More than 15,000 have been wounded. More than 150,000 remain in harm’s way. Enormous sacrifices have been and continue to be made.

The troops and the American people have a right to expect answers and accountability worthy of that sacrifice. For example, 40 Senate Democrats wrote a substantive and detailed letter to the President asking four basic questions about the Administration’s Iraq policy and received a four sentence answer in response. These Senators and the American people deserve better.

They also deserve a searching and comprehensive investigation about how the Bush Administration brought this country to war. Key questions that need to be answered include:

o How did the Bush Administration assemble its case for war against Iraq?
o Who did Bush Administration officials listen to and who did they ignore?
o How did senior Administration officials manipulate or manufacture intelligence presented to the Congress and the American people?
o What was the role of the White House Iraq Group or WHIG, a group of senior White House officials tasked with marketing the war and taking down its critics?
o How did the Administration coordinate its efforts to attack individuals who dared to challenge the Administration’s assertions?
o Why has the Administration failed to provide Congress with the documents that will shed light on their misconduct and misstatements?

Unfortunately the Senate committee that should be taking the lead in providing these answers is not. Despite the fact that the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee publicly committed to examine many of these questions more than 1 and ½ years ago, he has chosen not to keep this commitment. Despite the fact that he restated that commitment earlier this year on national television, he has still done nothing.

At this point, we can only conclude he will continue to put politics ahead of our national security. If he does anything at this point, I suspect he will play political games by producing an analysis that fails to answer any of these important questions. Instead, if history is any guide, this analysis will attempt to disperse and deflect blame away from the Administration.

We demand that the Intelligence Committee and other committees in this body with jurisdiction over these matters carry out a full and complete investigation immediately as called for by Democrats in the committee’s annual intelligence authorization report. Our troops and the American people have sacrificed too much. It is time this Republican-controlled Congress put the interests of the American people ahead of their own political interests.

Of course, conservatives think that treason is perfectly OK if it's for political gain, and the net result is continued Republican power. Fuck national security, fuck the Constitution. It's all about implementing theocracy, right?

(hat tip for Reid's statement: Americablog)

The Betrayal of Marc Maron

Apologies to Scott at Poetic Leanings for treading on his turf, and to Ernest L. Thayer, author of Casey at the Bat:

The outlook wasn't brilliant for progressives on that day,
The score stood 266/252 with just Ohio left to play.

And then when people left the polls and gave up their place in line,
And others had theirs taken away when they just ran out of time.

The listeners woke up the next day in a state of deep despair.
Each and every one of us rending garments and pulling hair.

They thought, "if only Maron can manage to get us somehow psyched,
We just might be able to get out of bed this morning, with Maron at the mike."

So upon the stricken multitude, grim melancholy sat;
for it seemed not even Marc Maron would be able to get us off the mat.

But right out of the gate at 6 AM, Marc Maron started in.
To try to somehow convince us that now the real work could begin.

There was ease in Maron's manner as he stepped into his place,
although we knew that our grief was also etched in his face.

And when, responding to the need, he started with a joke,
no stranger listening that day could take the time to mope. [ouch]

Ten thousand and more ears were listening as he exhorted progressives to war.
against the very Republicans with whom he then proceeded to wipe the floor.

And while the wingnuts grabbed their money in a characteristically tight grip,
defiance could be heard in Maron's voice, a sneer curled Maron's lip.

Marc, Mark, Dan, and Brendan were heroes that day as they helped us muddle through,
with dark humor, ranting, and even some jokes about poo.

Since then the show has only grown, with fans both far and near
And those who saw the live shows wanted to buy the whole staff a beer.

But then a management change occurred and we were all afraid.
Because when a new suit comes aboard, bad changes are often made.

And so it was with Danny G, who decided he didn't like Marc,
perhaps worrying that Marc was just too "Jewy" to play outside Rego Park.

Marc hinted of late that something was wrong, that he was on borrowed time.
And I am having a hell of a time making this damn thing rhyme.

In recent days he's broken the rule and told us of his plight,
It seems Morning Sedition hasn't achieved sufficient might.

Danny Goldberg doesn't care about the web and podcasts too,
He only looks at broadcast numbers, and when he did he'd rue.

For even though the show is growing, he said, it's not growing fast enough,
And Maron is such a pain in the ass, is he really worth his stuff?

But still we hoped, the snarky and the brave; the intrepid invisible crew
who relied on Morning Sedition every day in order to get us through,

That by some miracle Danny G. would see the light.
And give Marc Maron that contract that we all know would be right.

We all sent mail and faxed and called and nagged and begged and pleaded.
But Danny G thinks he knows just what was needed.

And that is a network just so bland as to not offend,
And so this means that Marc and Morning Sedition is coming to an end.

Oh, somewhere in this favored land the sun is shining bright.
The band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light.
And, somewhere men are laughing, and people now have what they lacked,

But there is no joy in Progressive America,
Marc Maron has been sacked.

A good article on Marc Maron, his contributions to AAR, how absolutely fucking stupid Danny Goldberg is to let him go, and how you can perhaps help keep the unheralded jewel in the Air America Radio crown on the air, can be found at the WFMU blog.

Macchiato, Sydney

Daily specialPorchetta, mushrooms, fetta and capsicumA one-hour lunchtime rendezvous is always a tricky endeavour. Although Sydney isn't as spread out as, say London or New York, finding a convenient classy venue for foodie friends is an onerous task indeed.Inevitably we end up at Macchiato on the corner of Pitt and Liverpool Streets. It's central, snazzy and service is snappy. It's also

Macchiato, Sydney

Daily specialPorchetta, mushrooms, fetta and capsicumA one-hour lunchtime rendezvous is always a tricky endeavour. Although Sydney isn't as spread out as, say London or New York, finding a convenient classy venue for foodie friends is an onerous task indeed.Inevitably we end up at Macchiato on the corner of Pitt and Liverpool Streets. It's central, snazzy and service is snappy. It's also

Alito and spousal notification

Yesterday I tried, without success, to find Samuel Alito's original dissent in Planned Parenthood of SE Pennsylvania vs. Casey. Today, the New York Times, in an article about the case, provides some excerpts which show just how cynical Alito's dissent was (emphases mine):

Judge Alito's two colleagues, Judges Walter K. Stapleton and Collins J. Seitz, surmised that Justice O'Connor, casting the controlling vote on the Supreme Court, would find this provision unconstitutional.

They noted that most women seeking abortions were unmarried, and thus unaffected by the provision, and that among married women, most chose to involve their husbands in the abortion decision. But for those married women who feared the consequences of telling their husbands, the two judges said, the burden was indeed severe and failed to meet the test.

Judge Alito disagreed. The number of women who would be adversely affected by the provision, admittedly small, was unknown, he said, and the evidence of likely impact was insufficient to provide for striking down a new law on its face, before its impact could be tested and demonstrated. "I cannot believe that a state statute may be held facially unconstitutional simply because one expert testifies that in her opinion the provision would harm a completely unknown number of women," he wrote.

Judge Alito's dissenting opinion went on to note that "needless to say, the plight of any women, no matter how few, who may suffer physical abuse or other harm as a result of this provision is a matter of grave concern." But the Pennsylvania legislature took that concern into account, he said, in writing into the law an exception for a woman who "has reason to believe that notification is likely to result in the infliction of bodily injury upon her." Further, he said, the law would be "difficult to enforce and easy to evade," because it required no proof beyond a woman's word that she had notified her husband.

This is astounding. On the one hand, he claims that a law cannot be held unconstitutional because the number of women harmed is unknown; but yet he supports a law the benefits of which are also unknown. If he wants quantitative proof, then let him trot out guys who wanted their wives to be incubators for them against their will and show how they were damaged.

Then it gets worse, because he essentially says "Ah, fuck it -- the law is difficult to enforce, so what's the harm in having it?"

And this is a brilliant legal mind?

Alito's dissent all but admits that the purpose of the statute -- and his support for it -- is based solely on the idea that it's perfectly OK to fuck with women's heads if it gets them to think twice about having an abortion.

Now, I've never had an abortion, but I have had those months in which I've bargained with God to please send my period and I'll never do X again...even though I've been a scrupulous user of contraception. The idea that abortion is a decision women make lightly is just utter bullshit. Yes, there are a few women who have had multiple abortions who ought to take better control over their own efforts to prevent conception. But if Alito and the other members of the Christofascist Zombie Brigade are going to say that a law such as the spousal notification law in Pennsylvania isn't a big deal because it only affects a few women, then why is it so important to include in the first place?

All of your daughters belong to us

Unintentionally hilarious photo of the week:


"If this guy is confirmed, I'm taking the girl. Got it?"


Note how the family of the nominee who thinks women are owned by their husbands is posed under a photo of randy ol' Bill Clinton, and Bill's hand appears to be on Alito's daughter's shoulder.

Hat tip: Lakshmi Chaudhry)