We are so screwed, Part whatever

The debate over the debt ceiling has revealed one very important point which has received little notice.

The GOPpers, as is well understood, are demanding "deficit reduction" be connected to any moves to raise the debt ceiling, essentially holding the economy hostage in the effort to enforce draconian budget cuts attacking the environment, education, aid to the poor, and the other usual targets of right-wing malevolence. "Screw the poor or the economy gets it!" is the message.

Well, as part of that, the GOPper leadership in the House brought up a "clean" bill - one that raised the debt ceiling without including budget cuts. The thing is, no one and I mean no one thought it had the slightest chance of passing, not with the GOPpers expected to vote unanimously against it and especially not with it being brought to the floor under a suspension of the rules, a procedure that means it required a two-thirds vote to pass and allowed for no amendments.

It was, in short, a thoroughly bogus vote, pure political theater. House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer urged Dems to vote "no" or "present" to deny the measure any legitimacy and a majority of Dems did just that.

So what's my problem? It's this: In explaining his push for a vote against the resolution, Hoyer said

I'm going to advise my members that they should not subject themselves to the demagoguery that would surely follow [a "yes" vote].

That is, Hoyer said

he did not “intend to advise that my members subject themselves to a political 30 second ad.”

In other words, his push for a "no" vote was based on pure political cowardice, on a craven capitulation to merely the possibility of a right-wing attack ad. He was, that is, advising the Dems to vote against what they supposedly believe in out of some weepy and wobbly-kneed fear that someone might say something mean about them a year from now.

It seems to me that someone could have stood in the well of the House and said "I'm voting yes because that's what's right and that's what should be done and if you want to try to come after me with some attack ad because I wanted to protect the country from an economic implosion from the nation defaulting on its debts and wanted to do it without taking a meat ax to programs for the middle class and the poor, that I was more concerned with the benefit of the people of this country than with the advance of a narrow, selfish ideology like yours - well, you go right ahead. In fact, I dare you."

Someone could have said that. But of course no one did.

You do not get rid of bullies by appeasing them. That is common knowledge everywhere except, it seems, the higher reaches of the Democratic Party. Instead, we are treated to another episode of the Democrats, the ones we are supposed to want more of, being afraid of going after what they claim to believe in. And then saying that somehow proves that we should support them.

Yep, we are so screwed.

Dance 'til you drop

Updated I'm sure you're heard about this; the video has gone viral, but there is a point I haven't seen raised and I just wanted to drop it in.

In April 2008, something less than 20 young people staged a flash mob at the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, DC. You know what flash mobs are: A group of separate individuals at some pre-arranged time and place suddenly all start doing the same thing for some agreed period of time and then just go on about their business. Usually they last just a couple of minutes.

In this case, it involved people dancing to music played through their headphones.

Park police demanded that they stop and leave. They arrested 18; one woman fought the charges in court. She lost; recently the US Court of Appeals for DC upheld the conviction and the law.

Last Saturday a small group went to dance at the Memorial in protest of the upheld ban. Police told at least one person - and maybe only that one person - that anyone who danced would be arrested without warning.

And they did just that. Police arrested anyone who even looked like they were dancing. In fact, the first arrest on the video is of a couple who - quite literally - were holding each other and just swaying a little while standing in one place. Protesters were punched, screamed at, in one case body-slammed - and these dangerous criminals, when arrested, were handcuffed behind their backs. Afterwards, the cops actually closed the site for a time.

Here's the thing I wanted to add, the thing that got me most about this whole mess: The decision upholding the original arrest and conviction justified the law on the necessity to maintain "an atmosphere of reverence" at the site and referring to a requirement for a "tranquil and contemplative mood" there.

Okay, first forget the fact that on a typical day during much of the year, the site is often filled with screaming schoolchildren and just consider the site and who it's about.

"An atmosphere of reverence?" What is this, a church? Some kind of shrine? A place where people go to mumble prayers and light candles? This for a thoroughgoing deist, a man who wrote "And the day will come, when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His Father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva, in the brain of Jupiter?" How weird is that?

Even more: A "tranquil and contemplative mood?" Are they joking? Have we forgotten who this is a memorial to? (Of course we have - we're supposed to.) Thomas Jefferson, let's drag back to mind, was a traitor to what was then the lawful government of the land, that of Great Britain. Thomas Jefferson was a violent revolutionary who said "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" and "The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all."

Dancing supposed to be affront to memory of that sort of man? Really?

Hopefully Unnecessary Footnote: Yes, I do know about the less savory parts of what makes up Thomas Jefferson. Doesn't change the point here a single whit.

Updated because I'm often a step behind: On Saturday, a larger group of about 200 came to the Memorial to protest the law. Faced with

dozens of people [who] shimmied, shook and even funky-walked,

Park Police stood by for about 10 minutes before slowly moving people out and shutting down the site for a time. There were no arrests.

Footnote to the Update: Writing in the Washington Post on June 2, Petula Dvorak recalls the eerily similar story of how people were arrested for flying kites at the Washington Monument in 1970.

Possible new rule

One of my most popular posts (measured in terms of hits) is the one on "The Rules," my list of tactics right-wingers employ to avoid actual, factual debates on issues and how they prefer obfuscation to investigation.

I always note that the list is subject to change, to refinement, to additions or (hypothetically, although I've never had cause to make any) subtractions.

Well, although it's not part of the "official" list, at least not yet, I have a candidate for a new rule:

Recently, Michael J. Astrue, commissioner of the Social Security Administration, declared his desire to investigate the children’s Supplemental Security Income program. This was created in 1972 and now serves about 1.2 million low-income children who suffer from severe physical, behavioral, learning, and/or mental disabilities.

Well, based solely on anecdotal evidence, Astrue, a Reagan-Bush graduate, is convinced that low-income parents are coaching their children on how to qualify for benefits, including how to induce doctors to put them on psychotropic medications on the idea that those on such meds are more likely to be accepted for assistance (although they aren't). Astrue declared he has a “strong suspicion” that many children deemed troubled are not, that they are, as a Nixon official referred to Food Stamp (now called SNAP) recipients some years ago, "cheats, chislers, and rip-off artists." Because, as we all know, that's what all poor people are.

Here's the thing: Astrue insists that those who disagree with him on this, those who quite accurately point out that his "evidence" is nothing more than idle speculation and urban myths, are "old-line left-wingers" with "a '60s mentality."

So there it is, potential Rule #18: Blame "the '60s."

Of course, one instance doesn't justify a rule, but consider that in May, the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York released its own study that linked child abuse by priests to "popular" culture - including feminism and growing acceptance of homosexuality, drugs, premarital sex, and divorce. And the Catholic Church itself, the institution that knew about its pedophile priests and not only kept quiet about them but actively shielded them quite literally for decades, has insisted that it was all because of "the '60s," that golly gee whiz with all that going on, the priests, the real victims here, just couldn't help themselves.

Children supposedly unnecessarily put on psychotropic drugs to rip off the government. Pedophile priests. Obviously, all the fault of "the '60s." Yup.

A couple more thoughts on a previous post

A quick followup to the post about the Ed Schultz affair and the difference between how the left and the right and how people or movements that can be associated with the left or the right are treated differently by media.

As I noted, for years, the right slammed the left with little equivalent response. Since at least the time of Barry Goldwater and maybe even before, the right has adopted a "take no prisoners" approach to political debate.

Yet throughout that time, right up until rather recently, the left was expected to be unfailingly polite, to be understanding, cooperative, gentile, to "see things from the other side's point of view," to respond to the assaults with little more than "tut, tut" or at worst "tsk, tsk." We were supposed to feel obligated to prove we were "better than that."

And as a direct result we got rolled over and over again. And you can be damn well assured that his was just the way the right wanted it, just the way they liked it.

Well, at some point during the reign of George Bush the Lesser, a lot of folks on the left half of the US political spectrum just got fed up. I suspect a good part of the reason was the impeachment of, in fact the overall treatment of, Bill Clinton. I mean, after all: Bill "End welfare as we know it, NAFTA, WTO, DOMA, the list goes on" Clinton? Even he gets excoriated? For some, that was the last straw.

So the left, the overall left, started hitting back and giving as good as it got. As I recall, some even said "the gloves are off" in so many words.

And all of a sudden all kinds of media and much of the political establishment are getting the vapors, fanning themselves madly and bemoaning how "uncivil," how "coarse," our political discourse has become. All of a sudden they are looking for the fainting couch because they need to lie down.

When it was the right attacking the left, that same media and political establishment, for the most part in fact all but exclusively, just didn't care. But when the left started to hit back, all of a sudden, it was a crisis.

It's just another way that the inherent bias in favor of the right shows up in our media and our politics. Because if there is anything that is unacceptable to that establishment, it's for the left - the real left - to play the game by the very rules the right set down.

Is not sauce for the gander

Another area where the general anti-left bias of the corporate media can be seen is in health care.

During the debate over the big "health care reform" - otherwise known as "health care deform" and "health insurance industry" - bill, there were numerous public opinion polls asking people if there were for or against the bill or sometimes more narrowly-defined parts of it.

The numbers varied somewhat depending on at just what point they were taken and who did the polling and how the question was phrased, but overall, as a general overview, opinion appeared to be roughly split. It really wasn't until rather late in the game, around September, when pollsters started asking people who said they were against the bill why they were. To what I expect was their surprise - although frankly not to mine - they found that a significant portion of opponents, equal to about 15 to sometimes nearly 20 percent of total respondents, were against it because it didn't go far enough. It didn't make enough changes. It wasn't hard enough on the health insurance industry.

As anyone who was around here during that time knows, I was among that 15-20 percent. I was against the bill because I maintained (and I still maintain) that it will do more to retard future gains than to advance them; it will do more to hinder further reforms than to help them; it will stand as a new, even bigger, roadblock than before on the path to where we need to go: truly universal access to adequate health care.

I'm not going to re-argue that here beyond saying I have felt no cause to take back anything I said here or here. My point right now is how those voices, those voices arguing for better, were ignored by the media throughout the entire debate; they were shut out, virtually silenced except for the occasional columnist sneering about how some people believe in "magic ponies."

Those voices are still being ignored even now: On May 10, Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Jim McDermott held a press conference to announce the introduction of the American Health Security Act of 2011, a single-payer health care bill, in the Senate and House. They were joined by representatives of the AFL-CIO, the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, and National Nurses United, the country's largest union of registered nurses.

Did you hear about this? Did you know about this bill? Of course not! Not unless you closely follow the issue or keep up with certain lefty news outlets. No national newspaper, no TV news, no cable news, covered it. It got one very quick mention on CNN because the editor of The Nation was being interviewed and she was able to stick in a single phrase about it. That was it.

But meanwhile, Paul Ryan's "We have to destroy Medicare in order to save it" bill is headline news day after day - because since it came from the right, it must be given serious attention and extensive, respectful coverage even though it is transparently thoroughgoing crap that proposes to replace Medicare with inflation-limited vouchers to buy private insurance on the individual private market.

That actually relates - shifting gears somewhat - to a complaint about the health care deform bill: the individual mandate. In this case, though, it's not any of the "It's unconstitutional!" stuff; it's about the fact that, lacking any sort of government-issued insurance (i.e., some "public option"), people would be stuck with insurance they couldn't use.

I put it this way: I first wondered how many of the 30 million "newly insured" people the program was supposed to create actually didn't have insurance by choice, that they figured they were young enough or healthy enough that what they saved by not having a premium to pay was worth the risk - that is, they had access to health care, they just didn't have health insurance. But, I said,

[a] more significant question is how many of those 30 million people could get insurance now, for example through high-risk pools, but don't because that would just leave them paying premiums for insurance they couldn't use because the deductibles are so high - that is, leave them with crap and worse off than they were before? And how many of those newly-insured people will wind up in just that situation? How many of that 30 million will be people who, having been forced to buy insurance, find themselves with low-cost, high-deductible policies that still leave them without access to health care because even as they can afford the premiums, they can't afford the deductibles?

As it turns out, that sort of thing is already happening.

Other than those people on Medicare or Medicaid, the most common way for people to have health insurance here is still through their employer. In recent years, many employers have gone to cheaper plans, with reduced benefits, higher deductibles, and increased co-payments. The rapidity of the change has been dramatic: In 2008, just 5% of covered workers had a deductible of at least $2,000. Just two years later, in 2010, the figure had doubled to about 10%. Some report deductibles of $4,000 or more.

As a result, even people with health insurance are cutting back on medical care. They are putting off visits to the doctor. They are postponing important tests like colonoscopies and mammograms. They are delaying any non-emergency treatment. They are dropping plans for knee or hip replacements.

They are avoiding seeing specialists, sometimes because they can't afford the cost of gas to get there. One man admitted he'd delayed going to the dermatologist despite a family history of skin cancer. People are even avoiding getting routine yearly blood tests because they can't bear the cost and the insurance won't cover it.

The simple fact is, preventable illnesses and death will increase, do increase, when people are discouraged from getting medical and health care. The double whammy people are facing of higher costs and shrinking coverage is doing precisely that: This "cost-sharing," as the corporate apologists like to describe it, will kill people.

This is happening at the same time that the nation’s major private health insurers are seeing a third consecutive year of record profits, profits that are exceeding expected earnings by as much as 30 percent. Their reserve coffers are flush with profits and shareholders have been rewarded with new dividends.

In spite of that, these same companies continue to press for higher premiums, often for double-digit increases. For example, Regence BlueCross BlueShield, Oregon's largest private insurer, has filed for a 22% hike for individual policies.

Why? What's the justification for continued increases in a time of record profits and lower utilization? Well, they whine, they need protection against any future increase in demand.

That is, they need protection - but the people who need and by right deserve access to health care do not. That is the corporate way, that is what we are expected to accept, that is what Robert Laszewski, a former health insurance executive and now a consultant, says may be "the new normal.”

They need protection but we don't; they deserve to be protected but we don't. Sorry, Mr. Laszewski: It may be the norm, but it ain't new.

Sauce for the goose and all that

Okay, I know you've heard about the brouhaha about Ed Schultz but for those of you who have just emerged from coma, here's the deal:

On his syndicated radio talk show on May 24, Schultz called reactionary wacko Laura Ingraham a "right-wing slut." Actually, he did it twice within a couple of sentences; the second time it was "talk slut."

The following afternoon, May 25, he was suspended without pay for a week from his four-times-a-week TV show on MSNBC. That same evening he issued a lengthy and by all accounts sincere apology.

Now, right at the top, let's be clear that what he said was wrong. Sexist, cruel, and wrong. (He himself called it "vile.") I do think the punishment was rather extreme since MSNBC has no connection with, oversight of, or responsibility for his radio show, but be that as it may, he did deserve to be slapped down in some way.

However, what this really raises for me is how it demonstrates the terrible, gross, massive, mind-boggling, truth-distorting hypocrisy in our mainstream media in the way voices of the left and voices of the right are treated.

This was a single instance, a single case, on Schultz's part and he apologized and got punished immediately. Compare that to the years, the decades, of vituperation and villification that the left has experienced at the hands of right-wing talk radio with little more than an occasional BFD shrug from that same mainstream media.

You want a specific comparison? Here's one: On August 15, 2005, Glenn Beck called Cindy Sheehan a "slut" on his nationally syndicated radio program. A few days later, he followed up by insisting he hadn't called her a "slut" - even though he had - but rather a "pimp," as if that was better. So he called her a slut and a pimp, lied about the first, and apologized for neither.

What was his punishment? A short time later, he was given a one hour TV show on CNN.

It's been this way from the start. On right-wing talk radio, "liberals" - which in their terms means the entire left half of the American political spectrum - should be “mowed down" or "rounded up" or "wiped out."

We've been called tyrants, Nazis, traitors, vermin, foreign rodents, un-American, terrorist-lovers, America-haters. We've been accused quite literally of wanting to kill ten percent of the U.S. population in order to "gain control." We've been accused of "staging riots" to advance our "radical agenda." Right-wingers have been urged to "shoot to kill."

Remember that Islamic community center to be built in lower Manhattan? At least two right-wing talkers have said it should be built precisely so that someone can "blow it to smithereens."

And of course there was Bill O'Reilley, the man with the perfect initials, who referred to Dr. George Tiller by some form of "Tiller the baby killer" on at least 28 separate occasions on his show, in addition to accusing Tiller of "Nazi stuff."

This sort of stuff can be found up and down the dial every day in every part of the country. What is the reaction? What price gets paid? In the vast majority of cases, there is none at all. No firings. No suspensions. No slap-downs. In fact, often enough the result is a reward in the form of a new contract.

But let someone somewhere, anywhere, on the left do it even once, let an Ed Schultz do it? Bam! A wall falls on them.

And this is no longer limited to radio and TV talking heads preaching reactionary garbage. This threatening rhetoric, this violent rhetoric, this eliminationist rhetoric has penetrated deeply into the most mainstream parts of the conservative political establishment.

Who could forget, for example, Sharron Angle preaching how if the right doesn't get what it wants by voting, there are "Second Amendment remedies?" Or Sarah Palin tweeting "Don’t Retreat, Instead – RELOAD!” Or Michele Bachmann referring to being in Washington DC as being behind "enemy lines?"

The point here, though, is these are not isolated examples. This has become common currency among GOPper members of Congress and candidates for Congress.

Two candidates, Ron Kirkland and Randy Smith, joked about beating or killing gay troops. Rep. Todd Akin wanted to "dump socialists - where they belong in the river." Rep. Paul Broun told an "Open Carry" rally (one for people who want to be able to carry loaded weapons everywhere they go) that "We must declare war against Socialism, and you are the people to do that." Candidate Brad Goehring opened his campaign by noting it was opening day of hunting season and declared he wished he could issue hunting permits for liberals with no limits on the take because "we desperately need to thin the herd."

Rep. Gregg Harper is a member of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus. When asked what the group does, he said "We hunt liberal, tree-hugging Democrats, although it does seem like a waste of good ammunition." Rep. Steve King declared "Let's beat that other side to a pulp. Let's take them out, let's chase them down." At a campaign appearance at a gun show, candidate Robert Lowry's target was a silhouette of a human figure with the initials "DWS" next to the head. His opponent in the race was Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz. And Allen West described the goal: "You've got to make the fellow scared to come out of his house."

This is what now passes for routine political discourse on the right. Denunciation, lies, and threats of physical violence intended to intimidate, to silence, to make us be afraid to come out of our houses.

What's more, it's not just words. The number of incidents of right-wing violence avowedly against the left is lengthy and getting longer. Just as a start, trying googling any of these names: Eric Rudolph. Scott Roeder. James Von Brunn. Byron Williams. The Hutaree Militia. Daniel Cowart. Paul Schlesselman. Richard Poplawski. Jim Adkisson.

I know you know all about the "underwear bomber." Extensive, massive news coverage. Do you recall the guy who shot up a Holocaust museum? Do you remember the guy who killed several people at a Unitarian Church because "all liberals should be killed?" What about the guy killed in a shootout with police who, it turned out, was on his way to murder people at the ACLU and the Tides Foundation?

And who ever heard of, much less remembers, William Krar?

But let's get back where I started: the media and the differing treatment of voices of the left and right and of those associated in the media with the left and the right.

On January 17 in Spokane, Washington, city workers found a bomb that was set to go off along the route of a Martin Luther King Day parade. The bomb, placed on a park bench where the blast would be directed toward marchers, contained shrapnel dipped in rat poison (an anti-coagulent, i.e., something that prevents blood from clotting and thus makes bleeding much worse). According to one FBI official, the bomb was "a viable device that was very lethal.” Another called it "the worst device, and most intentional device, I’ve ever seen" in the US.

In March, a white supremacist with links to neo-Nazi National Alliance named Kevin Harpham was arrested.

Okay, compare and contrast. On May 1, 2010, a poorly-made bomb was found in Times Square in New York City. It contained some Fourth of July firecrackers and some nonexplosive fertilizer. It was a dud - it smoked some, but it didn’t explode and very likely could not have.

The person arrested was a Muslim-American named Faisal Shahzad, who was reportedly outraged by civilian deaths from US airstrikes in Pakistan.

In the 10 weeks following the Times Square story, reports FAIR, it got 49 mentions on broadcast network evening news. In the 10 weeks following the Spokane bomb, that one got three. ABC World News didn’t mention the Spokane bomb a single time.

The dud got 16 times as much play as the real bomb; the smoke and fizz was regarded as 16 times more important that "the worst device I've ever seen" bomb. The difference? The dud was planted by a Muslim, the real one by a neo-Nazi white supremacist.

In fact, a November 2010 FBI sting operation in Portland, Oregon which involved a fake bomb provided by government agents in order to ensnare some hapless Somali-born Muslim teenager who had talked (but never done anything about) jihad, got nine mentions on network TV news. That's three times the coverage that a real neo-Nazi bomb did.

But, y'see, neo-Nazis are of the right. So that's not important.

Footnote: I feel obliged to add before closing that Laura Ingraham is no shrinking violet, nor is she a slouch in the nasty department. As a commenter at a right-wing site noted as an example,

She once inserted loud baby crying sounds (and some music) into audio footage of someone's heartfelt explanation of how different health care could have prolonged his dad's life.

Mocking someone mourning their dead father? Unaccept- oh wait, she's a right-winger? Never mind.

It really should be called the TRAITOR Act

Well, the expiring provisions of the grossly-misnamed PATRIOT Act have been renewed for another four years. The bill to do so was rammed through both houses of Congress after an agreement among the leaders of both parties of both houses to get the bill passed "with as little debate as possible."

That because, as Glenn Greenwald pointed out,

we wouldn't want to have any messy, unpleasant democratic debates over "the expanded power the law gives to the government."

The three provisions, actually two from the TRAITOR Act and one from FISA, were these:

1. Allow for roving wiretaps. Instead of wiretapping a particular phone or surveilling a particular email account, you in essence wiretap the person, following them from phone to phone and account to account. The big risk here is that officials often are not certain of the identity of the person and what phones/accounts they use, so they could easily wind up going after people who have done nothing wrong, are not suspected of having done anything wrong, and may have no connection to the actual target beyond, perhaps, a similar email address.

2. Warrants requiring the production of "any tangible thing" - any record, any whatever - deemed to be "relevant" to an intelligence or terrorism investigation. There is no requirement that the target of the warrant be suspected of any wrongdoing, only that they are in some way connected to the suspect. What's more, the materials demanded are "presumptively relevant" under the law - which means, in essence, the judge facing a request for such a warrant can't reject it. It can be modified, but there appears no way to reject it outright (which appears to make the whole "warrant" business a sham).

3. The so-called "lone wolf" provision. Traditionally, to be subject to surveillance you had to have some connection to some foreign group, power, or government. Not any more, although it's kind of hard to see how you can be involved in "international" terrorism in that case.

Facing a deadline of last Friday before the provisions expired, the fear-mongers pulled out all the stops:

FBI Director Robert Mueller and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper warned of "serious national security consequences" if there was not an immediate renewal of all three provisions.

Diane Feinstein declared that opponents wanted to strip away provision "necessary to protect the United States."

And Senate Majority Leader Harry Reek blustered that "we would be giving terrorists the opportunity to plot attacks against our country, undetected," adding that opponents were "threatening to take away the best tools we have for stopping them."

In other words, the message was Pass it now! Pass it now! Otherwise you're leaving us NAKED AGAINST THE TERRORISTS! OMG! OMG! OMG!

At the same time, soothing words were spread around by the feds, who insisted that law enforcement had used the three provisions “sparingly.” Roving wiretaps were issued only about 20 times a year, the warrants for business records less than 40 times a year on average, and the "lone wolf" authority had never been used.

Exactly how the nation will instantly go down in flames if powers used "sparingly" - or not at all - are not renewed was, of course, unexplained. As was why we are supposed to believe without question official claims that there has been no "improper use" of the powers when the DOJ's own Inspector General found just last fall that the FBI had been improperly spying on political activists.

There are two footnotes to this, one being that there are some different legal interpretations of just how extensive the government's authority is under these domestic spying statutes. What's the government's own interpretation of the extent of its powers? We don't know: It's classified. That's right: The Obama administration, the one with the candidate who denounced some of these same provisions only to embrace them when he got his hands on the levers of power, the one that pledged the most transparent administration ever, won't even tell us just how extensive it thinks its powers to spy on us are.

The other footnote is that the bill was not signed by Barack Obama, who was out of the country. It was signed by autopen. Yes, it's quite legal when done at the president's direction - but having it signed by a machine just seems both symbolic and appropriate.

What is so rare as a day in June?

I mentioned a bit back that I've started doing a weekly half-hour show on local cable outlet TV. I've been doing it for seven weeks now and it's part - part - of the reason why I haven't been posting as much as I should or want to: It really does take some time to put together a half-hour of material every week, especially when I can't assume (as I can with the blog) that people viewing have a certain degree of political awareness; lacking that assumption means the necessity of sometimes giving much more explanation of the subject at hand.

And what's more, the time I take can't be 25 minutes or 35 minutes, it has to be 30 minutes (with, admittedly, a little wiggle room on the short side).

Anyway, I figured a way to both get some posts up here and to give a sense of what the show is like, I could post about the stuff I talked about this current week. Because of scheduling (taping is on Tuesday for a Thursday-Wednesday week, during which the show is on several times), the material might be a little dated, but even so, it might be worthwhile.

So that's what the next three posts are. Oh, and I have to mention that because these posts are taken from my notes for the show, they won't have all the links that would be in a normal blog post here.

Oh, crap

Just crap.

The northern Sudanese army has seized a strategic town [called Abyei] along Sudan’s contested north-south border in a serious military escalation that has the potential of igniting an all-out civil war, Western officials said on Sunday. ...

The southern part of Sudan is gearing up to declare independence in July and both northern and southern Sudan claim Abyei, making it one of the most combustible issues between the two sides. The Abyei area produces a small amount of oil but more than that, it has become a potent, emotional symbol for both northern and southern Sudanese. It has been called Sudan’s Jerusalem because of the difficulties of resolving its status.

A column of tanks from the north have seized the town. The southern forces have not said how they will respond, but they have tens of thousands of heavily-armed troops.

The clash follows weeks of attacks by both sides in areas around the town, which has a mixed history: Culturally and ethnically southern, it has been administratively northern for decades and lies on a route that northern nomads use to bring their herds to watering holes.

After a bloody 20-year civil war that saw two million dead and four million refugeed, a peace agreement was reached in 2005 which involved a six-year period of autonomy for the south followed by a plebiscite on independence there. When the vote took place in January, over 95% voted for independence.

Now this. The thought that a peace, an agreement, that what has been so painfully established could all fall apart this close to some kind of closure is almost too much to think about.

Still, there have been stumbles and clashes on this path before. And at one time, simply making that 2005 agreement looked like a miracle. I can only hope that the Sudanese, both of the Muslim north and the Christian-animist south, have one more miracle in them.

Everything you need to know in one headline

In this case, it's about US policy regarding Israel and the Palestinians:

Netanyahu 'Went In Worried, Came Out Encouraged' After White House Meeting, Official Says

There ya go.

And on a related point, what was all that crap about Obama making a reference to "1967 borders?" There was nothing new in what he said, not a phrase, not a word.

So then he goes out and gives a speech that says in essence "Hey, I only said what the US has been saying for how long? What the hey?" And all the Obamabots fall all over themselves in rapturous joy.

For one example, Josh Marshall called it "a proud day for Obama."

For another, at Firedoglake, David Dayen expressed how "happy" he was that

Obama could have taken the easy and familiar way out, and capitulated to those who dishonestly seized upon his words. He chose not to do so.

I'm sorry, but what?

We're supposed to be impressed that Obama bravely, heroically, stood by what has been the inadequate US policy for decades? (In fact, when the US started talking about "agreed swaps," that was a surrender because it legitimized Israeli settlements in the West Bank, which as recently as Bush I we were noting were illegal under international law.)

We're supposed to be grateful and happy, even surprised, because Obama didn't "capitulate" to "dishonesty?"

This is what passes for good news these days?

We are so screwed.

A little more bad news: this, too

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reek and House Speaker John Boner have agreed on a plan to ram through a four-year extension of expiring provisions of the grossly-misnamed Patriot Act, which should be called the Traitor Act for its effects on privacy and civil liberties.

The idea is to pass the extension with as little debate as possible to avoid a protracted and familiar argument over the expanded power the law gives to the government.

Yes, indeed, as Glenn Greenwald says,

we wouldn't want to have any messy, unpleasant democratic debates over "the expanded power the law gives to the government."

That would be uncouth. Not at all in keeping with our serious bipartisan "Whatever you say, Mr. Prez" seriousness. And the fact that in February, Harry Reid promised a full week of debate on the renewal? Ancient history, dude! Get over it!

Under the deal, two sections of the so-called USA Patriot Act and a third provision from a related intelligence law would be extended, without any changes, until June 1, 2015.

Failing that renewal, they would expire on Friday. This would mark the second time, the first being just over a year ago, that the provisions have been extended without changes with the approval of President Barack Obama - even though Senator Barack Obama had spoken and voted against them.

One of the three provisions at issue, the one not from the Traitor Act itself, has to do with so-called "lone wolves." Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, doing electronic surveillance on a person involved them being an agent of a foreign government or group. This provision eliminated that requirement - which means that a FISA warrant, both more wide-reaching and in practice even easier to get than a warrant in a criminal investigation, could be directed against any individual foreigner, even if they have no connection to any foreign government or group. This is to be extended even though the White House admitted in March that the provision has not been used a single time in the nearly 10 years it has been in force, which certainly should call its necessity into question.

One of the two Traitor Act provisions involved provides for roving wiretaps, where it is not the phone that is tapped, but, if you will, the person. This allows in practice for "John Doe" warrants where the identity of the person is unknown and agents

can get a warrant that doesn't specify a facility, or a phone number or an account. It doesn't actually name the target. It might describe the target as a username on the Web. ...

[U]nder the Patriot Act, too much discretion is ceded to the investigator. They might say, there's probable cause to think KSM9@yahoo should be under surveillance. But without even knowing who that person is, the investigator gets to decide what other accounts and online identities to wiretap without going back to the court and explaining why there's probable cause that these other accounts are terror-related.

The other Traitor Act provision is Section 215, relating to "tangible things."

It allows investigators to get an order from the FISA court permitting them to compel the production of any tangible thing that is relevant to an investigation.

What's a "tangible thing?" It's anything. Pretty much literally. It's any record or anything else, any actual "thing," that is connected to a suspect in an intelligence investigation or someone in contact with them, even if that other person is not suspected of any wrongdoing whatsoever. What's more, under the law any such thing is considered to be "presumptively relevant," which means that the judge cannot deny such a request, which of course makes the whole "warrant" business an utter sham.

Both those latter provisions, the ones relating to "lone wolves" and "tangible things," have seen serious abuses.

That is what is thought worthy by our Congressional leaders from both parties to be renewed "with at little debate as possible."

Reid formally unveiled the agreement by filing a cloture petition Thursday afternoon that will force a vote on Monday to bring the legislation to the Senate floor on Monday. Assuming the Senate passes the legislation extending the Patriot Act provisions, the House would vote shortly afterwards....

There is some opposition in both Houses but quite frankly I do not expect it will be enough, especially in the face of arguments like Eric Holder's that the killing of Osama bin Laden could produce retaliation so we need these powers more than ever. In other words, when bin Laden was alive, we needed them because he was alive; now that he's dead, we need them even more because he's dead. And you know damn well most of Congress will go "Yeah, sure, that makes sense."

Why the fuck don't they just have a bonfire of copies of the Constitution and be done with it?

A little more bad news: so is this

In a previous post on Libya and PHC's* seizure of more and more power to use the military as he sees fit regardless of Congressional authorization (or the lack of it), I made one mistake: He did in fact cite a supposed basis for his authority to act.

Unfortunately for him and for truth, that basis was the War Powers Act. That law, adopted in 1973, does authorize the president to engage in military action without prior Congressional approval - but only in the case of, quoting the Act and with appropriate emphasis, "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." None of which, it should be easily agreed even by the most sychophantic of Obama sycophants, applied to Libya. The argument was a lie. A flat-out, power-seeking lie.

Even so, it is what he cited. Which should have meant he'd have to live with it. But the Act has another provision: That authorization is only good for 60 days, after which, again quoting the Act and with emphasis added, if Congressional approval has not been obtained, "the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces" involved. The only exception is for an additional 30-day window to allow for safe withdrawal of forces - obviously unnecessary in this case.

That 60-day limit came on went on Friday with no authorization, no request for authorization - and with barely a peep from Congress.

Indeed, as if to show just how powerless Congress has become - or, more exactly, has made itself with its craven political cowardice - in what strikes me as a deliberate slap, either late on Friday or on Saturday, it's not clear to me which, but in either event after the deadline had passed, the White House sent a letter to Congress, endorsing a resolution of support already kicking around the Senate. That is, the O-crowd, having proved they could and would ignore the deadline, allowed as how, sure, they would graciously accept an endorsement:

I wish to express my support[, PHC's letter said,] for the bipartisan resolution drafted by Senators Kerry, McCain, Levin, Feinstein, Graham, and Lieberman, which would confirm that the Congress supports the U.S. mission in Libya....

Congressional action in support of the mission would underline the U.S. commitment ...[and]... would demonstrate a unity of purpose among the political branches....

Note and note well: In that carefully-phrased letter no doubt run past a battery of lawyers, there is no hint that such authorization is needed. Only that it would "demonstrate a unity of purpose." It's not even called "authorization," but "engagement, consultation, and support."

True to what Hillary Clinton told a briefing for members of the House back on March 30, the White House intends to simply ignore any attempts by Congress to exercise its Constitutional authority - more exactly and correctly, its Constitutional responsibility. And they are making no secret of it. On the 60th day of the mission,

Pentagon and military officials said the United States’ participation in the Libyan mission was going forward unchanged. That includes the intermittent use of armed Predator drones to fire missiles at Libyan government forces, as happened on Thursday and Friday, they said.

Nor are they making a secret of their contempt for Congressional authority, as

[a]dministration officials offered no theory for why continuing the air war in Libya in the absence of Congressional authorization and beyond the deadline would be lawful.

There is a little bit of Congressional grumbling; on Wednesday, six GOPper senators sent a letter to PHC asking if he intended to comply with the War Powers Act, and Rep. Brad Sherman charged that Obama was trying to "bring democracy to Libya while shredding the Constitution of the United States." The ever-reliable Dennis Kucinich has promised to push for a resolution calling for an end to the mission. However, Sen. Dick Lugar, senior GOPper on the Foreign Relations Committee, has said that any such resolution would die in the Senate. And with Harry Reid in no hurry to address the issue and Carl Levin saying he thinks no authorization is needed in the first place, the chances that the little grumbling will be anything more than a little grumbling are, well, "dim" is too bright a description.

And what of the leadership of the House, so brave, so bold, when it comes to spitting on the poor and defending the honor of the sainted rich?

Michael Steel, spokesman for Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), provided the more typical response from congressional leaders regarding Friday’s deadline. Asked if Boehner thinks the White House needs congressional approval to continue U.S. operations in Libya, Steel responded with one sentence.

“The House,” he said, “is not in session this week.”

And so they slink away in their contemptible capitulation, their abhorrent abdication of their duty, as we cross another line into even more centralized authority.

Footnote: The White House also gave another, totally different, rationalization for why this was all on the up-and-up: Presidents have the power, they claimed, to order forces into "limited" military engagements on their own if they decide it is in the national interest.

If anyone is aware of an "I can do it if I think it's a good idea" exception (which sounds suspiciously like "if the president does it, then it's not illegal") in either the War Powers Act or the Constitution, let's hear about it.

Footnote Again: "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." - candidate for president Barack Obama, December 20, 2007

*PHC = President Hopey-Changey

A little bad news: this is coming too

The ACLU has discovered a little-noticed, largely undiscussed, and extremely dangerous provision inserted into the National Defense Authorization Act as it was being marked up by the House Armed Services Committee last week.

The provision, Section 1034 of the act, would quite literally commit the US to what amounts to endless war all over the world and empower the president (that is, this and every future president) to use US military forces virtually anywhere in the world at virtually any time - including, potentially, within the US itself and against US citizens - without the need for any further authorization.

The NDAA provides authorization for spending money on the military and other "security" related areas; as such, it is what's called a "must-pass" bill - because of course (of course) no one wants the military to not have buckets - hell, truck-fulls - hell, freight trains-full - of money to spend. Which is why the section, inserted quite literally during a midnight markup session by committee chairman Buck McKeon, with no hearings and virtually no debate even within the committee, is so ominous: No one, or at least far too few, will vote against the bill because of this one provision.

What does the provision do?

Under the guise of a “reaffirmation” of authority, Section 1034 of the Chairman’s mark for the NDAA would give the President unchecked authority--and if the section constitutes a declared “war,” possibly the unchecked duty--to use military force worldwide against or within any country in which terrorism suspects reside. ...

The President would be able to use this authority--or might be required to use this authority--regardless of whether there has been any harm to United States citizens, or any attack on the United States or any imminent threat of any attack. There is not even any requirement of any threat whatsoever to the national security of the United States.

Note again: It is unchecked authority "to use military force worldwide against or within any country in which terrorism suspects reside." Not even "operate," but merely "reside." There is no requirement there be an attack or a threat of an attack on the US or its citizens; indeed, there need be no threat at all. The only requirement is that "terrorism suspects" are present.

Such attacks do not need the cooperation or even passive approval of the host government and there is no geographical limit. What's more, there are no objectives given, making it difficult at best to determine just when and how this authorization would expire.

I am not exaggerating: This is a proposal for a conscious, deliberate abdication of Congressional responsibility and authority which would place all legal control over the US military in the hands of a single person who - considering the difficulty presented by finding a nation where there are no "terrorism suspects" present - would be authorized to use that military essentially at any time, in any place, in any way, to any extent, for any length of time they choose. And it may well pass.

So much for my burst of hope.

A little good news: it's coming

I keep saying it - it's coming. It will come.

Full marriage equality will come, full legal equality for LGBT people will come. A time will come when overt bigotry will be no more acceptable here than overt racism is now.

A majority of Americans say in a new poll that same-sex marriage should be legalized, marking the first time for such support since Gallup began tracking the issue in 2004.

Support for gay marriage jumped nine percentage points to 53%, largely due to an increase from independents and Democrats, the Gallup survey showed. ...

The new Gallup Poll showed 69% of Democrats and 59% of independents now support same-sex marriage, both double-digit increases from last year's survey. Nearly 3 in 10 Republicans, or 28%, support gay marriage -- the same showing as last year.

(The necessary adjective "overt" in connection with bigotry, especially considering all the dog-whistling going on with the die-hard birthers, is also why I said full "legal" equality rather than full equality. But don't harsh my buzz.)

Of course, there's still crap like the "don't say gay" bill that has passed the Tennessee Senate - which provoked this brilliant rejoinder from George Takei (Thanks, Daisy!) - but even those are starting to feel like desperate attempts to hold back the tide. Meanwhile, there are more and more occasions like this one from February, where a high school in Minnesota tried to prevent a lesbian couple who were both elected to a "royalty court" for a school pep rally from entering together - only to back down in the face of a suit and then witness the student body cheering as the couple entered.

As Martin Luther King was fond of saying, paraphrasing the early-19th century minister and abolitionist Theodore Parker, "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice." Sometimes the arc is hard to perceive - Parker himself said "My eye reaches but little ways. I cannot calculate the curve." - but, damn it all and despite all my fears and pessimism and
failing hope, it is there.

A little good news: awakening from a coma

Finally, some folks are wising up. Finally, some people are realizing that when it comes to political and social power, words alone won't cut it and even criticism, unconnected to action, is unavailing.

AFL-CIO chief Richard Trumka, who heads of one of the nation's most powerful labor unions, today[, Friday,] called current state and federal budget proposals a "despicable canvass of cruelty" and warned of consequences for politicians who even indirectly support them.

"It doesn't matter if candidates and parties are controlling the wrecking ball or simply standing aside," said Trumka in an address at the National Press Club. "The outcome is the same either way."

I have for I don't know how many years been saying is that there comes a point where even what is supposedly "pretty good" is simply not good enough - and when the best you offer people is the hope that with you things might get worse more slowly than they otherwise might, when your best argument is "god forbid" the "other side" should win an election, that is not good enough.

"If leaders aren't blocking the wrecking ball and advancing working families' interests, working people will not support them. This is where our focus will be - now, in 2012, and beyond," [Trumka] said.

The message, clearly aimed at the O crowd and the rest of the Dimcrats, came down to "If you're not there for us, we won't be there for you." Damn well about - in fact, past - time. Now we just have to see if it's more than words.

Eugene V. Debs famously said "I'd rather vote for what I want and not get it than vote for what I don't want and get it." Let's hope that labor has at long last absorbed that wisdom.

Just sayin'

A lot of the current thinking on both the pro-freedom and the anti-freedom sides of the abortion debate is that the current Supreme Court may be of a mind to overturn Roe v. Wade - certainly, "the Roberts court" has shown a great willingness to overturn precedent when it suited the ideological agenda of its most reactionary members, despite the lying professions of great love for stare decisis they made during their confirmation hearings.

So the anti-freedom forces in a number of states have been pushing for harsher and harsher restrictions on a woman's freedom to choose. Scott Lemieux, writing at The American Prospect earlier this month, reported that

[f]rom January to March, state legislatures passed 15 laws restricting abortion rights and introduced more than 900 others.

The anti-freedom thinking is that those who support the right to choose will either swallow the new rules - thus limiting abortion rights - or challenge them, opening a legal path leading ultimately to the Supreme Court.

A recent example that illustrates how far this has gone comes from South Dakota. A new anti-freedom bill, signed into law on March 22 and to go into effect July 1, requires a personal consultation between the woman and the doctor who is actually to perform the procedure followed by a 72-hour waiting period and the requirement that the woman "receive counseling" from a "pregnancy help center," which are sham outfits whose goal is to talk women out of abortions.

Beyond the obvious burdens placed particularly on poor women by these rules, the absolutely creepy condescencion oozing out of the bill's supporters is nauseating:

For example, Governor Dennis Daugaard said that "I hope that women who are considering an abortion will use this three-day period to make good choices," which is generally the kind of language a parent uses to address a child they think is behaving foolishly. I expect we're pretty clear on what Gov. Dog's-arse thinks is a "good choice."

Meanwhile, Rep. Roger Hunt, main sponsor of the law, says that "Women need to just be reminded of the fact there is a natural, legal relationship between them and their child." Now it's not even an "unborn child," it's a "child." I mean, "unborn child" is asinine enough on its face: There is no such thing as an "unborn child." If it's not born, it's not a child. Or is a caterpillar an "unborn butterfly," a tadpole an "unborn frog," and an egg an "unborn chicken?" But this is beyond absurd.

And oh yes, women must be "reminded" of their "relationship" with "their child." Women, the poor dears, just don't understaaaand about relaaaationships. We have to remiiiind them.

And by the way, as of early this month, not a single one of these "pregnancy help centers," including ones that pushed for the bill, have registered to provide the legally-required counseling. Is this because they think the bill won't go into effect due to a court challenge - or do they think it's a means to prevent any abortions by preventing anyone from fulfilling the requirements?

Anyway, one of the reasons I brought this up was because I wanted the chance to say this:

I've always hoped that when one of these putrid things such as the South Dakota bill is introduced, someone in the legislature of whatever state it is would rise and say:

I want to propose a friendly amendment. As my colleague wishes only to insure that women make fully informed decisions[, as is invariably the claim], I'm sure they will happily incorporate this amendment into their bill.

My amendment does two things: One, it replaces every occasion of the incorrect term "unborn baby" or "unborn child" with the medically- and scientifically-correct "fetus." This includes any statement any physician or other provider is required by this law to present or say to the patient.

And two, it requires that in addition to the information presented to the woman about her fetus, she also be fully informed at the same time as to the emotional, physical, and financial risks of pregnancy, childbirth, and parenting.

In fact, let's go the whole way: Let's require that every physician be required to fully inform every female patient of child-bearing years of the relative risks of pregnancy, childbirth, and parenting on the one hand and abortion on the other.

Again, as my colleague insists that the true purpose of this bill is to enable fully-informed decisions, I'm sure there will be no objection to this amendment.

It would be fun to watch the reaction - especially as I'm quite sure the anti-freedom forces know that the physical risks of pregnancy and childbirth clearly exceed those related to abortions.

Footnote: South Dakota is also that state that in February actually considered a bill that could have made the murder of abortion providers "justifiable homicide."

Footnote to the preceding

You know what is the saddest thing about the Indiana Supreme Court finding that "modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence" means you can't resist illegal police entry to your home?

They may be right. From the New York Times:

The police do not need a warrant to enter a home if they smell burning marijuana, knock loudly, announce themselves and hear what they think is the sound of evidence being destroyed, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday in an 8-to-1 decision. ...

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the majority, said police officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches by kicking down a door after the occupants of an apartment react to hearing that officers are there by seeming to destroy evidence.

What happened was that some police in Lexington, Kentucky, saw a drug deal in a parking lot and went into an apartment complex looking for a suspect. They pounded on the door of the wrong apartment and heard what they claimed were sounds making them think that evidence was being destroyed.

They kicked the door in and found marijuana and cocaine but not the original suspect, who was in a different apartment. ...

The Kentucky Supreme Court suppressed the evidence, saying that any risk of drugs being destroyed was the result of the decision by the police to knock and announce themselves rather than obtain a warrant.

"Warrant?" replied SCOTUS. "What is this 'warrant' thing of which you speak?" On Monday, the Court ruled that

police had acted lawfully and that was all that mattered. The defendant, Hollis D. King, had choices other than destroying evidence, Justice Alito wrote.

He could have chosen not to respond to the knocking in any fashion, Justice Alito wrote. Or he could have come to the door and declined to let the officers enter without a warrant.

“Occupants who choose not to stand on their constitutional rights but instead elect to attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame,” Justice Alito wrote.

Now, the police said they went to that apartment because they smelled burning marijuana. Are we supposed to accept that if King had opened the door and said "You can't come in" that the police, in the face of an even stronger smell of marijuana (assuming their original claim to be true), would simply say, "Oh, okay," and leave?

Or that if they at that point had said they had "probable cause" to enter, Alito would have disagreed?

Or that if someone had gone to get a warrant while cops remained just outside the door, that if in that time they "heard sounds" that made them think "evidence was being destroyed" and the broke down the door, Alito would have disapproved?

Are you joking?

Besides, what constitutes a sound that gives rise to a fear of evidence being destroyed? Of that, Jon Walker at Just Say Now, who tipped me to this news, makes this observation:

The flushing of a toilet, running of a faucet, opening of a plastic bag, ripping of paper, turning on of a stove burner, or even the sound of foot steps if the officer can claim he “believed” the suspect was moving toward a fireplace (which may or may not exist) are all sounds the police use to say they had the suspicion that evidence might be destroyed. I can also assure that almost anytime the police start loudly knocking at the door late at night they are going to hear some noises they could label as reasonable suspicion.

To see how inane this decision is, consider this part of it:

“Where, as here, the police did not create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment,” [Alito] wrote, “warrantless entry to prevent the destruction of evidence is reasonable and thus allowed.”

In other words, the fact that the police did not threaten to forcibly enter illegally made it legal for them to forcibly enter.

The only dissenter, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, nailed it:

“The court today arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement in drug cases,” Justice Ginsburg wrote. “In lieu of presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate, police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, never mind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant.” ...

“How ‘secure’ do our homes remain if police, armed with no warrant, can pound on doors at will and, on hearing sounds indicative of things moving, forcibly enter and search for evidence of unlawful activity?” she asked.

Indeed.

Footnote: One other thing to point out here is that all these sorts of decisions inevitably, invariably, rely on one assumption: Police always tell the truth and never falsify their reports or their descriptions of events.

I got this bridge, y'see, and it's at a really great price....

The coming darkness

Okay, this is from several days ago but I haven't seen it get much attention and it really does boggle the mind and really really does deserve notice. It's from this past Thursday, when the Indianapolis Star reported this:

People have no right to resist if police officers illegally enter their home, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled in a decision that overturns centuries of common law.

That's right: The state supreme court of Indiana has ruled that if police illegally force their way into your home, you have no right to resist. You must stand aside and allow them to do it.

Say what?

There must have been some good reason, there must have been. So what was the reasoning, what was the powerful, overwhelming logic that drove the court to "overturn centuries of common law?" Well, here's one part (and hold on for the second part; it's even better):

The court argued that "allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved." Note that it doesn't say that the way to avoid "unnecessarily escalat[ing] the level of violence" is for the cops to follow the law, to follow the rules, no no no; rather, it is for you to passively submit when they break the law and ignore the rules.

And what's your recourse? Sue the cops, says the court.

Seriously?

Yeah, seriously. That's the remedy.

In what higher dimension?

So if cops illegally force their way into your home your only recourse is to sue them - assuming you can even bear the costs involved in pursuing such a suit and by some combination of miracles you have both a judge who isn't going to dismiss on a "good faith" defense (the "Gee, I thought I could" defense) and a jury that won't be swayed by "Do you want your police to be second-guessing themselves when they're out there every day, risking their lives, to protect you and your children from the criminals, rapists, and terrorists? Well, do you?" That's your recourse.

Yeah, I'm sure that will be a real deterrent.

Oh, but there's still the second part, and yes, it's even better:

"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," [Justice Steven] David said.

Leave aside the creepy notion that it can be legitimate "public policy" to ignore your rights and get to the meat. Because, yup, you got it: According to the Indiana Supreme Court, our "modern" legal understanding of the Fourth Amendment says you have no right to resist an "unlawful police entry" into your home.

You have no right to resist illegal actions by police. You have no right to resist abusive state power. Oh, you have a "right" to "protest" after the fact, provided, again, that you have the considerable sums of money required to file such a protest - but no right to resist. Instead, our "modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence" says, you must submit.

And even if you have the fortuitous combination of finances, judge, and jury necessary to make you whole, what of all the others who don't? Power given to the state is power given over all, over everyone. Recourse for the one is recourse just for the one and for no one else. And that is exactly what the court has established here.

This is very bad - especially as state supreme courts often look to decisions of other state supreme courts for guidance. Yes, this is very bad.

Footnote Eins: It was a big week for the Indy Supremes. Two days before that decision, that is, last Tuesday, the court ruled that cops serving a warrant may enter a home without knocking if they decide circumstances justify it. Previously, they needed a judge's permission; they needed, that is, a so-called "no-knock" warrant.

Now, they don't and they can decide for themselves without any oversight. Which means that now, in Indiana, this would be fine.

I remember back in the I'm pretty sure it was the Nixon administration when "no-knock" warrants were first discussed - and the whole idea was regarded as controversial. Now, it's just another day at the office - or, rather, the police station.

Footnote Zwei: The only hopeful sign in this was that comments at the IndyStar site about the article were all but universally negative and often harshly so.

Another post mortem, B

This time, take a moment to remember how right after 9/11 Osama bin Laden was, in our minds, world public enemy #1.

Then remember how when the Shrub gang couldn't find him he got downplayed. Downplayed so much that Bush himself once said he didn't know where bin Laden was and didn't much care.

Remember how bin Laden was "in hiding," "on the run," "living the life of a fugitive." Remember how he was "out of the loop," how he'd been reduced to a figurehead, how it was now Ayman al-Zawahiri who was the real mastermind. Remember how it was pointed out that bin Laden was so isolated that the compound where he was found had no internet or landline phone connections and how they wouldn't use cellphones because they'd learned how the location could be traced - so his only connection to the outside world was a single trusted courier.

After remembering all that, notice that now that they got bin Laden that suddenly he is again being portrayed as having been a major, a central, even the central figure in anything and everything that had the name al-Qaeda pasted on it right up to the day he was killed.

Though hunted and in hiding, Osama bin Laden remained the driving force behind every recent al-Qaida terror plot, U.S. officials say, citing his private journal and other documents recovered in last week's raid. ...

His personal, handwritten journal and his massive collection of computer files show he helped plan every recent major al-Qaida threat the U.S. is aware of, including plots in Europe last year that had travelers and embassies on high alert, two officials said.

So he's gone from figurehead to head figure, from out of the loop to CEO, in the space of a few days. Why? Because it's good PR, that's why. Because now that he's been caught, it's politically useful to maximize his influence and control, thus making his death that much more of a victory.

All these reports are bullcrap. How can I be so sure that bin Laden was, in fact, a figurehead, a respected "father figure," rather than having any operational control? One good reason is that buried in the 13th graph of that same story is something that flatly contradicts the lede:

Officials have not yet seen any indication that bin Laden had the ability to coordinate timing of attacks across the various al-Qaida affiliates in Pakistan, Yemen, Algeria, Iraq and Somalia, and it is also unclear from bin Laden's documents how much the affiliate groups relied on his guidance. The Yemen group, for instance, has embraced the smaller-scale attacks that bin Laden's writings indicate he regarded as unsuccessful. The Yemen branch had already surpassed his central operation as al-Qaida's leading fundraising, propaganda and operational arm.

So he couldn't coordinate anything, it's "unclear" how much others relied on his advice (some of which was outright rejected), and another branch had already become bigger and more influential.

How that translates into Osama bin Laden being "the driving force" behind every recent al-Qaeda plan is rather hard to understand. But the point is, we're not supposed to think it through that far.

Meanwhile, CIA drone strikes into Pakistan continue.

Another post mortem, A

Two final (at least for now) observations on the death of Osama bin Laden.

First, here, is that the attack on the compound where bin Laden was holed up was repeatedly described as a “firefight.” For example, White House press secretary Jay Carney said ""There were many people who were armed in the compound. There was a firefight." He also told reporters that the commandos were "met with a great deal of resistance."

An unnamed senior defense official claimed that "For most of the period there, there was a firefight." And CIA Director Leon Panetta said "It was a firefight going up that compound."

Of bin Laden himself, White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan said "He was engaged in a firefight with those that entered the area of the house he was in." Brennan also claimed that bin Laden was “hiding behind women who were put in front of him as a shield."

Um, yeah. Except none of that was true. It came out not long after that the attackers met far less resistance than the administration originally claimed. In fact, only one man even fired a gun at them. He was quickly killed, after which the SEALs swept the two houses in the compound, in the course of which they killed three more people, none of who, it appears, were armed.

That's not counting bin Laden himself, who also was unarmed.

What's more, it developed he was not “hiding” behind anyone; what happened is that when the SEALs entered the room where bin Laden was, a woman - probably one of his wives - rushed them. At one point the story was they shot her in calf; later it was said they said grabbed her because they were afraid she might be wearing a suicide vest.

Bin Laden, again, was unarmed. So why was he shot twice? Because, we were told, even though he was unarmed, he "resisted." He was shot in first in the chest and then in the face because he "resisted." But how did he "resist," especially how did he continue to "resist" after being shot the first time? At first, the White House wouldn't say.

But then it came out that the "capture contingencies" involved in the operation

related to a possibility thought to be highly unlikely: a humble and abject surrender, in which the al Qaeda founder would put his hands up, raise a white flag and beg not to be shot.

So simply failing to "beg not to be shot," is "resistance."

Clearly, that didn't sound good. So there was a lot of shifting of shuffling. Leon Panetta said bin Laden made "some threatening moves that were made that clearly represented a clear threat to our guys. And that's the reason they fired." But wouldn't say just what those "moves" were.

That wasn't so good, either, So then it became that the commandos feared he was reaching for a nearby weapon. Later it became he “lunged” for a weapon. Which still left the issue of how he continued to "resist" (or reach or lunge) after being shot in the chest at close range.

Somewhere around this time Jay Carney said he would no longer provide details of the operation.

Gee, I wonder why.