Weekly reminder

As of July 4, at least 5,715 people had been killed by gunfire in the US since Newtown, at least 61 of them in Massachusetts.

Something to note here, as I will on occasion: The phrase "at least" is important and purposeful, as is the choice of "been killed by" rather than "died as the result of." These are deaths reported in the news media as gathered by Slate and @GunDeaths.

Suicides by gun are rarely reported. The result is that a figure based on CDC estimates, which include suicides, would be 17,086 in the US who have died at the end of a gun since Newtown.

Traditional July 4th post the second

The other thing I like to post every Fourth. It's something I wrote about a trip to a fireworks display on July 4, 1969.

 The 4th of July and Other Downs

The Day dawns again and it's time to love freedom. All the fascists come out to play and long hair and peace are decidedly un-American. Keep muttering things like "My country, right or wrong" and "America, love it or leave it" and you're really in. Middle-class America is out in force to celebrate liberty. Don't look now, but there's a knife in your back. A car goes by covered with flags, streamers, bunting, decals, and assorted other paraphernalia vital to your well-equipped American. Off we go to a fireworks show whose rockets sounded just like mortar fire. (Everything about the Fourth is so appropriate.) A motorcycle cop chomps away on something or other and glares at us with hatred that should have melted his shades as he leans on his bike and tries to figure a way to bust us. Red, white, and blue are the colors of the day, but be careful you don't have more red than blue or you might get lynched in the name of freedom. (You can have as much blue as you want, but the whiter you are, the better off you'll be.) Don't look now, but all the flagpoles look like spears. All in honor of the 36,000 brave boys who've given their lives to bring freedom, truth, beauty, and President Thieu to the South Vietnamese. Three cheers for Richard Nixon and six for J. Edgar Hoover, and better dead than red. The officially sanctioned day of national paranoia has come again, and all is right with the Pentagon.

I've noted with amusement was how the relative meanings of "red" (which at the time, kiddies, meant Communist) and "blue" have shifted over the years.

Traditional July 4th post the first

I have three posts I traditionally put up every July 4th (although I seem to have missed last year for some reason). The first is the text of the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, which I'm going to skip this year because you can find it at the beginning of the post immediately below this one.

The second is this one, which is the text of a leaflet I wrote for distribution on July 4, 1975. After quoting the second paragraph of the Declaration, the flyer read:

These words should form the backdrop against which the Bicentennial should be seen. Our 200th birthday as a nation should not be a time for celebrating the status quo or for patting ourselves on the back in an orgy of national self-congratulation, but rather a time to reexamine and rediscover the truly revolutionary heritage which America has.

Even more than that, it should be a time to rededicate ourselves to the ideals of the Declaration, to recognize that it is, as the Declaration says, our right and duty to resist dramatically increasing government control of our lives. It is our duty to resist the CIA and FBI when they try to probe every secret of our lives; it is our duty to resist attempts to muzzle, restrict, intimidate, and otherwise restrain both freedom of speech and of the press. It is our duty to resist a militarist US foreign policy that destroys the life and liberty of people in other lands and a militarist US federal budget that proposes to increase spending on weapons by 30% while human needs go unmet. It is our duty to resist government policies that favor big business at the expense of the general public, while inflation and unemployment run rampant. It is our duty to resist a government that seems no longer (if indeed it ever was) interested in and dedicated to securing the "safety and happiness" of the populace.

We do not believe in violence, but we do believe in revolution - nonviolent revolution. And we believe that we are fully within the revolutionary heritage of America when we say we believe it is our duty to demand our rights and our duty to use nonviolence to make any changes necessary to secure those rights, for ourselves and for all others.

In the 38 years since I wrote that, I have been both encouraged and discouraged, hopeful and despairing. It has felt like some version of A Tale of Two Cities: So much has changed and so little has changed, so much has been done and so little has been done. (For one thing, if you're too young to remember it, look up the Church Committee and think about the NSA.)

Sometimes it seems that the only comfort is that the only reason things aren't worse than they are is because of the struggles there have been both during those 38 years and before. So even where we have - as we have more than often enough - fallen short, we can at least say those struggles were not in vain: No genuine effort for justice ever is, no matter the outcome.

And those struggles can be nothing but invigorated when we maintain a day-to-day awareness of, and base the only legitimate patriotism on, our revolutionary heritage.

Footnote 1: The date for the flyer is not a typo; the official Bicentennial Year ran from July 4, 1975 to July 4, 1976.

Footnote 2: UShistory.org has some interesting background on the Declaration of Independence, including earlier drafts. Some of the changes are revealing - such as one long passage denouncing the English slave trade that was deleted.

Left Side of the Aisle #115 - Part 6

Thoughts for the Fourth

This show will be seen in the week including the Fourth of July. I hope you enjoyed your Fourth, I hope you got to see some fireworks or watch a parade or have a barbecue or a picnic or just loll in your yard or chill on your couch with a cool drink. The Fourth is a time for fun and I hope you had your share.

It's also, of course, traditionally a day of patriotism, of celebrating our nation and our heritage. So let me start by reminding you just what it is we are supposed to be celebrating, what heritage we are supposed to be honoring.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

That is the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, which was adopted on July 4, 1776, which is why July 4 is the holiday.

Which means the Fourth is about celebrating a history of revolution, celebrating the right and duty of people to resist oppression. That history, that principle, should form the basis of our patriotism. So the Fourth is also an appropriate time to talk about patriotism, so that's what I'm going to do. I'll note at the top that a fair amount of what I'm going to say today I said before here, just five weeks ago. I don't care; it bears repeating.

I never used to think of myself as patriotic; I never used to think about it much one way or the other. I actually started thinking about what patriotism is - thinking of principles, beliefs, and so on, thinking of it in that context - during the presidential campaign of 2008. Barack Obama made a speech defending his own patriotism, in the course of which he went out of his way to attack the antiwar activists and the counterculture of the 1960s. Bluntly put, he was defending his patriotism by attacking that of others - including mine.

Sadly, too many people, especially among politicians, follow suit, making patriotism a matter of political or social gain rather than substance, a matter of ostentatious display, of flag pins and the Star Spangled Banner and swirling music and fluttering flags. Next time you see a political debate, amuse yourself by noting how many of the men are dressed in red, white, and blue: red tie, white shirt, blue suit.

I say that patriotism measured in terms of wearing flag pins, of having your hand over your heart during the national anthem, and the like is worthless, dangerous, and shallow. It is a hollow "patriotism," a shell that prefers form to substance and too easily, as we too often have seen over the last years, slides from "patriotism" into jingoism, as even now people who, had they done the equivalent against the British government in 1776, we would be hailing in our school history textbooks as heroes, are instead being labeled as traitors and yes I am thinking of Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning, among others.

Before I go any further, don't anyone bother claiming I said wearing a flag pin or whatever is "hollow." I said no such thing. I said that a patriotism measured in those terms is hollow. And it is.

So here is my understanding of patriotism:

Some years ago I read the comment about patriotism that "it is natural to have an abiding affection for the land of one's birth." I completely agree with that. But going beyond that, I say being a US patriot means being dedicated to the ideals on which the country was supposed to have been founded and which, at its best moments, it strives to uphold in as full a measure as we can manage: Ideals such as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," as the right to rebellion against oppression, as "promoting the general welfare," as political freedoms, as representative government "of, by, and for the people" - the ideal of, to sum up in a single phrase from the Preamble to the Constitution, an intent to "establish justice," a justice I say must include the economic and the social as well as the political if it is to have real meaning.

Patriotism, that is, lies in the devotion to the ideals, not in any symbolic outward expression of it.

I do not wear a flag pin. I do not put my hand over my heart during the national anthem (which, I'll note in passing, I was taught as a child was something that some folks did but was not required). I do not sing along with the national anthem. In fact - and I know this will provide ammo for some and lead others to say I undermine my argument, but I don't care, it's the truth - I don't even stand up for the national anthem. Because patriotism does not lie in symbols or gestures.

Further, patriotism does not lie in support for or opposition to any particular party or policy except insofar as that support or opposition is an expression of that internal commitment to those ideals.

We are supposed to be a free people. Which means that an opponent of the Iraq war who was angered by the Executive branch's usurpation of power is much more patriotic than a war supporter who kept referring to the president as "the commander-in-chief" as if we were all soldiers expected to obey orders rather than citizens with the obligation held by any free people to "question authority."

We are supposed to be a daring people. We applaud ourselves for how we "dared" to cross the oceans, how we "dared" to cross the plains and prairies, how we "dared" to step out into space. Which means that an opponent of NSA spying is more patriotic, is more in keeping with what we tell ourselves about our heritage, than those who applaud the stripping away of our privacy and our rights as they cower in fear of a dark and vaguely-defined "other."

So I'm not patriotic as the term has unhappily come to be understood by too many: no flag pins, no singing of the national anthem, none of that. But if patriotism can be understood as embracing the ideals of our nation, as striving to hold this country to the highest of those ideals instead of the lowest of its prejudices, if it can be understood as committing to a notion of what the US, of what we as a people, can be and have at times approached being, then I submit that I am as patriotic as they come. And I have neither patience with nor tolerance for those who would make patriotism a matter of gestures and decorations rather than conviction.

Even many professional grouches (like me) are actually unregenerate romantics whose sharp words are honed on the inexplicable, indefensible, yet utterly unshakable conviction that things not only should be but can be better than they are.

Some years ago, I wrote to a friend that "our strongest, surest beliefs are those we don't even know we have until we find them within us." That is, our deepest, most abiding beliefs and commitments are not born consciously of careful philosophical argumentation and reasoned analysis but grow naturally from our root moral and ethical convictions. That argumentation, those analyses, can give form to those convictions, they can provide them with substance and weight and direction, but they do not drive them - rather, they are driven by them.

So despite my tendency to argue my points rationally with facts and figures and references - one of my favorite quotes is "passion and substance are not mutually exclusive" - still it's important for me to drop away on occasion from "here's the data, here's the logic, here's the conclusion" to the fundamental, baseline, radical place where I can say, simply, "I believe."

I believe that life is our highest good and advancing life is our highest ideal. I believe whatever advances life, improves life, is an expression of our humanity, that self-awareness, that capacity for love, that reach for hope that separates us from the other animals of the Earth. I believe that which opposes life, which advances hunger, oppression, and violence, are a rejection of that quality, a rejection of our humanity. I believe that to be human is to reach for life, for our potential. And I believe that is patriotic.

I believe in family, a broad, deep sense of family, of family as based on commitment, not on ceremonies, as based on ties the heart, not on ties of the blood. I believe we must reach beyond the personal to the public; beyond self to others; beyond us and them to we; beyond the individual to the community. And I believe that is patriotic.

I believe we have social obligations, moral commitments to a type of extended family that includes strangers, people who we'll never see, never meet, never have any contact with, but with who we share a mutual obligation, a mutual moral duty, a community extending even to the community of humanity. And I believe that is patriotic.

I believe we must ultimately reject the right of so few to have so much when so many have so little, reject the power of so few to control so much when so many control so little. I believe in the right of every human being to a decent life free of hunger, fear, and oppression and I believe in the duty of every member of society to strive to guarantee that right to all others. I believe that while we should have no desire to place a ceiling over anyone’s aspirations, we should desire to put a floor under everyone’s needs. And I believe that is patriotic.

I believe, ultimately, in justice: not in perfection or idealized utopias, but in human justice, one that rejects ascendancy of bombs over bread, of private greed over public good, of profits over people. A justice that centers on the preciousness of life. A justice that embraces the economic, the social, and the political. And finally, I believe in the indivisibility of that justice: It must be justice for “them” as well as for “us,” for enemy as for friend, or it’s not justice at all but mere favoritism. And I believe that all of that is patriotic.

I may sound like a philosopher, but what I’m interested in is change: not slogans, not philosophies, but getting-the-job-done type change. We have to be factual, practical, in our programs. As the Italian pacifist Danilo Dolci said, “Faith does not move mountains. Work, exacting work, moves mountains.”

But when I say “practical,” I don’t mean it in the sense of the liberals and the so-called progressives, those people who lower their sights, harden their hearts, darken their vision, and then congratulate themselves on their “realism.” You know the saying “I dream dreams of things that never were and ask Why not?” What we have to do is dream dreams of things that never were and ask “How?” How? What are the practical steps we can take right now, today? We have to approach the world with steel in our eyes.

But we can’t let the steel in our eyes cloud the dream. We have to hold to the vision of what we as a people, what we as a nation, can do, what we can be, and not settle, as so many do, for the mere hope that it will get no worse or even less, that it just get worse more slowly. Achieving wide-ranging justice will not be easy, cheap, or convenient - but it is possible and after all is said and done it is simply the right thing to do. And fighting that fight, that fight to “establish justice,” is the very essence of what it means to be patriotic.

I have tried to be a steely-eyed dreamer with varying degrees of success; usually it was a little long on the steel and a little short on the dream, a position that makes unnecessary compromise a little too easy and risk a little too - well, risky.

I've come to a point in my life when I've begun to slow down. I haven't spent as much time on the streets as I did in earlier years - nor as much as I'd like to - and my energy level simply isn't what it was. I find it harder to keep my spirits up and many discouraged days I don't regret that I won't live to experience the world I see coming at such times.

And yet in spite of that, maybe even because of that, recently I have begun to look more the the dream than the steel. So despite it all, despite all logic, despite a mountain of evidence, and without any good reason, I still believe that things must be, can be, better than they are, that it is possible. I just do. And will. I will continue to be a patriot.

Sources:
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2008/01/i-believe.html
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2008/02/and-its-not-even-fourth-of-july.html

Left Side of the Aisle #115 - Part 5

Clown Award: Pennsylvania state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe

Now for our other regular weekly feature, the Clown Award, given as always for acts of meritorious stupidity.

This week, the winner of the big red nose is Pennsylvania state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe.

Last Thursday, state Rep. Brian Sims of Philadelphia, the first openly gay member of the Pennsylvania legislature, attempted to take the floor to talk about the Supreme Court's decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act. Instead, several other legislators used a procedural maneuver of objecting to keep him from speaking and then did the same to two others who tried to speak in Sims' support.

Only one of those lawmakers would admit to raising an objection, that being Daryl Metcalfe.

"I did not believe," he said, "that as a member of that body that I should allow someone to make comments such as he was preparing to make that ultimately were just open rebellion against what the word of God has said, what God has said, and just open rebellion against God's law."

In other words, you say just what the Bible says or you don't get to talk.

Metcalfe is from Butler, Pennsylvania, named for Maj. Gen. William Butler, who was killed at the 1791 Battle of the Wabash, also known as St. Clair's defeat, which stands as the worst defeat ever inflicted on the US Army by Native American fighters. All of which seems appropriate since Metcalfe's brain also appears to have died a couple of hundred years ago.

Daryl Metcalfe is a clown.

Footnote: On Thursday, Sims and Rep. Steve McCarter have announced their intention to introduce a measure to allow same-sex marriage in Pennsylvania.

Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/27/brian-sims-doma_n_3513741.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/component/flexicontent/item/56656-rep-sims-blocked-from-addressing-doma-ruling-in-pa-house?linktype=hp_impact

Left Side of the Aisle #115 - Part 4

Hero Award: Texas state Rep. Wendy Davis

On Tuesday evening, June 25, Wendy Davis, a Texas state senator from Fort Worth, strode onto the floor of the Texas Senate and started talking. And talking. And talking. She talked for more than 11 hours without a break.

Texas GOPpers were trying to use a special session of the legislature to push through legislation that would dramatically limit access to abortion in the state, cutting the number of clinics from 42 to 5 and banning abortions after 20 weeks in direct violation of Roe v. Wade. So Wendy Davis said she was going to filibuster the bill and run out the clock on the legislative session, which ended at midnight on Wednesday morning.

So she got up and she talked. The filibuster rules in Texas are strict. She couldn't be off-topic. And she talked. She couldn't take a bathroom break. And she talked. She couldn't eat or drink. And she talked. She couldn't even lean on anything, not even her own desk. And she talked.

Finally, shortly before the midnight deadline, the GOPpers in the state Senate came up with the three points of order necessary to force her to yield the floor. But supporters used up another hour in their own parliamentary maneuvers, arguing against the GOPpers points of order. Finally, with about 15 minutes to spare, it looked like the reactionaries would get their way.

And that's when it happened: The hundreds of supporters who had gathered in the galleries erupted in shouts and chants of "Shame! Shame!" The were so loud, so insistent, that when Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst shouted into the microphone, trying to call the final votes, nobody seemed to hear him. State police grabbed, shoved, and pulled people out of the galleries.

By the time order was restored and the right-wingers had passed the bill by a vote of 19-10, the official time stamp read 12:03 AM: too late. The bill had been killed by Wendy Davis, some parliamentary work, and what immediately became known as "a people's filibuster."

Sadly, it won't stay dead long: Gov. Rick "Oops" Perry has already said he is going to call another special session to ram through his twisted notion of "protecting life." But at least now the reactionaries know it won't happen without a fight. And as the symbol of that fight, Wendy Davis is a hero.

Sources:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/texas-state-senator-wendy-davis-filibusters-her-way-to-democratic-stardom/2013/06/26/aace267c-de85-11e2-b2d4-ea6d8f477a01_story.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/28/wendy-davis-abortion-filibuster_n_3516524.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/30/wendy-davis-abortion-rights-texas_n_3525474.html?ref=topbar
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/rick-perry-special-session_n_3505786.html
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/26/wendy_davis_feminist_super_hero/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/26/5-moments-from-wendy-davis-epic-filibuster.html

Left Side of the Aisle #115 - Part 3

Outrage of the Week: White House ranks BigPharma over world health

Now for one of our regular weekly features, the Outrage of the Week.

The Obama administration has finally decided to take on the pharmaceutical industry.

The generic pharmaceutical industry.

In India.

The White House and members of Congress are pressuring India to change its patent laws for the benefit of US drug companies.

Public health experts say that inexpensive drugs from India are essential to providing life-saving treatments around the world for a number of conditions and diseases. I'll give you three examples:

- About 98 percent of the drugs purchased by the international AIDS relief program begun under George Bush's administration are generics from India. They cost $1 a day, or $365 a year. The non-generic form, produced by Pfizer, costs about $10,000 per person per year, close to 30 times as much.

- Last year, India permitted a generic manufacturer to produce a cheaper version of a cancer drug patented by Bayer. Bayer was charging $5,000 a month for the drug, while only servicing about 2 percent of the population that needed it. The generic version cost $157 a month, so Bayer's version cost 32 times more.

- More recently, Novartis tried to extend its patent in India on a leukemia drug called Gleevec just by making a pill version of the same medication. In January, India's Supreme Court said no, that's not a legitimate innovation. Gleevec costs upwards of $75,000 a year in the US. In India, where the annual per capita income is about $1,400, Novartis was charging about $31,000 a year for the medication. The generic version costs around $2,100, about 1/15 as much.

The bottom line is that low-cost generics from India have dramatically lowered medical costs in developing countries. But by that very same fact they have also cut into the profits of Pfizer and Bayer and Novartis and other US and European drug companies. And we can't have that!

What's more, they have a deep fear that other nations might get ideas, that other nations may follow India's example, something industry supporters actually call "contagion," as if it was a sickness, which I suppose to them, it is.

And given the choice between providing succor for the poor and sick around the world and succor for giant corporations in the industrialized West, there simply is no competition.

So we've had the US Patent and Trademark Office and the Office of the US Trade Representative pressuring the Indian government on its patent standards and Secretary of State John Kerry taking a trip to India where, a department PR flack said, Kerry "discussed a number of economic and trade issues with Indian officials, including ongoing issues in the pharmaceutical sector."

Last week, a bipartisan group of 170 House lawmakers sent a letter to Kerry and Barack Obama grousing about India's patent system, followed by a House hearing on June 27 that spent most of its time soaking up the whining of one Roy Waldron, the Chief Intellectual Property Officer of Pfizer and happily nodding away as he bizarrely claimed that imposing US-style intellectual property policies on India - that is, essentially giving monopoly control of India's medication supply to Euro-American drug companies - would, and yes he said this, help develop a more robust and innovative medical system there. 

All this despite the fact that according to Nirupama Rao, India's ambassador to the United States, more than 85 per cent of all the patents granted in India for pharmaceutical inventions between 2005 and 2011 were owned by foreign companies. But that, apparently, is not enough.

Two weeks ago, I told you how the big pharmaceutical corporations have become notorious for manipulating the patent laws to keep their greedy hands in our pockets. Patents on drugs usually last for 20 years but BigPharma has often succeeded in getting patents renewed by claiming a "new use" for an existing drug (thus extending the monopoly) or in getting a secondary patent for drug based on nothing more than a minor reformulation or a change in delivery, say from an injection to a pill. The practice is known as "evergreening," and is opposed by the World Health Organization precisely because of it's impact on the availability of medicine to the poor of the world.

The blunt fact is, people around the world are dying unnecessarily because of BigPhama's greed, greed embraced, endorsed, and urged by Congress and Obama. And that cannot be anything but a gross moral outrage.

Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/28/obama-generic-drugs_n_3513011.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/06/25/breakingviews-india-pharma-idINDEE95O05X20130625?type=economicNews
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-06-26/india/40205638_1_nirupama-rao-senate-india-caucus-indian-ambassador
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2013/06/left-side-of-aisle-113-part-3.html

Left Side of the Aisle #115 - Part 2

Update #2: Salinas v. Texas

Something else I told you about two weeks ago, something that has received scant media attention, was a Supreme Court decision in the case of Salinas v. Texas, in which a man named Genovevo Salinas was convicted of murder based in part on prosecutors arguing that his not answering some police questions before he was arrested indicated he was guilty.

The Supreme Court, in a truly creep-you-out ruling marked by circular logic, said that because Salinas had not yet been arrested, there was no need to read him his Miranda rights and because he did not positively state he was invoking his right to silence, a right of which the Miranda warning was designed to inform him, he had no constitutional protection against his silence being used against him.

In other words, unless you out loud say you are invoking your right to silence, you don't have one. Put another way, you can't be silent if you don't speak - and what you don't say can be used against you.

Well, it turns out that the decision, while largely ignored by the media, it's getting attention - and, happily, criticism - in legal circles.

For one example, Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of First Amendment law at the University of California, Irvine School of Law, said that “Constitutional protections should not be just for those who have legal training and know what they need to say to the police to invoke their rights. Salinas was penalized for exercising his constitutional right to remain silent in the face of police questioning. This should not be tolerated under the Fifth Amendment.”

He's not the only one saying that and hopefully, there will be a lot more of that sort of thing, enough to spread the word so people know about it and enough to deter cops and prosecutors from taking advantage of this new gouged-out hole in your Constitutional rights. In the meantime, if a cop asks you pretty much anything, say "I am invoking my rights under the Fifth Amendment to remain silent" and then shut up.

Sources:
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/30/scotus_no_right_to_remain_silence_unless_you_speak_up_partner/?source=newsletter
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/chemerinsky_silence_is_not_golden_supreme_court_says/
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/06/salinas_v_texas_right_to_remain_silent_supreme_court_right_to_remain_silent.html
http://www.volokh.com/2013/06/17/do-you-have-a-right-to-remain-silent-thoughts-on-the-sleeper-criminal-procedure-case-of-the-term-salinas-v-texas/

Left Side of the Aisle #115 - Part 1

Update #1: IRS "scandal" evaporates

You heard it here first, folks. Remember the IRS scandal? How the IRS improperly singled out Tea Party groups for extra scrutiny as part of a political vendetta against conservatives? Seven weeks ago I told you that was a phony so-called "scandal." Six weeks ago I told you that for all the fuss and fuming, the only group to lose its tax-exempt status was a liberal group.

Well, the whole business has now evaporated. For one, it turns out that it wasn't only groups with something like “Tea Party” in their name that got targeted for scrutiny. There were a lot of other flags, including words like “Progressive” and “Occupy” and "Israel" and "open source software" and no, that last one is not a joke.

And for another, it emerges that the entire reason the Treasury inspector general to highlight scrutiny of conservative groups, but not liberal groups, is that the creepy-crawly chair of the House Oversight Committee, Darrell Isajerk, told the inspector general “to narrowly focus on Tea Party organizations.”

The whole "scandal" was a fake, a fraud, a set-up, a lie. And I have no compunction about saying I told you so.

Sources:
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2013/05/left-side-of-aisle-109-part-7.html
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2013/05/left-side-of-aisle-108-part-6.html
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/24/this_pretty_much_kills_the_irs_scandal/
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/24/irs_chief_tea_party_wasnt_the_only_group_inappropriately_targeted_ap/
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/25/why_is_the_irs_targeting_free_software/?source=newsletter
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/27/issas_irs_scandal_quietly_crumbles/?source=newsletter
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/307813-irs-ig-says-audit-limited-to-tea-party-groups

Left Side of the Aisle #115

Left Side of the Aisle
for the week of July 4 - 10, 2013

This week:
Update #1: IRS "scandal" evaporates
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2013/05/left-side-of-aisle-109-part-7.html
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2013/05/left-side-of-aisle-108-part-6.html
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/24/this_pretty_much_kills_the_irs_scandal/
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/24/irs_chief_tea_party_wasnt_the_only_group_inappropriately_targeted_ap/
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/25/why_is_the_irs_targeting_free_software/?source=newsletter
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/27/issas_irs_scandal_quietly_crumbles/?source=newsletter
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/307813-irs-ig-says-audit-limited-to-tea-party-groups

Update #2: Salinas v. Texas
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/30/scotus_no_right_to_remain_silence_unless_you_speak_up_partner/
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/chemerinsky_silence_is_not_golden_supreme_court_says/
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/06/salinas_v_texas_right_to_remain_silent_supreme_court_right_to_remain_silent.html
http://www.volokh.com/2013/06/17/do-you-have-a-right-to-remain-silent-thoughts-on-the-sleeper-criminal-procedure-case-of-the-term-salinas-v-texas/

Outrage of the Week: White House ranks BigPharma over world health
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/28/obama-generic-drugs_n_3513011.html
http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/06/25/breakingviews-india-pharma-idINDEE95O05X20130625?type=economicNews
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-06-26/india/40205638_1_nirupama-rao-senate-india-caucus-indian-ambassador
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2013/06/left-side-of-aisle-113-part-3.html

Hero Award: Texas state Rep. Wendy Davis
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/texas-state-senator-wendy-davis-filibusters-her-way-to-democratic-stardom/2013/06/26/aace267c-de85-11e2-b2d4-ea6d8f477a01_story.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/28/wendy-davis-abortion-filibuster_n_3516524.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/30/wendy-davis-abortion-rights-texas_n_3525474.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/rick-perry-special-session_n_3505786.html
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/26/wendy_davis_feminist_super_hero/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/26/5-moments-from-wendy-davis-epic-filibuster.html

Clown Award: Pennsylvania state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/27/brian-sims-doma_n_3513741.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/component/flexicontent/item/56656-rep-sims-blocked-from-addressing-doma-ruling-in-pa-house?linktype=hp_impact

Thoughts for the Fourth
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2008/01/i-believe.html
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2008/02/and-its-not-even-fourth-of-july.html

Weekly reminder

As of June 26, at least 5,443 people had been killed by gunfire in the US since Newtown, at least 57 of them in Massachusetts.

Left Side of the Aisle #114 - Part 5

Clown Award: Clarence Thomas

And since we're still talking about the Supreme Court, I might as well make it a clean sweep. This is our other regular feature, the Clown Award, given for acts of meritorious stupidity. This week, the recipient of the big red nose goes to that ever faithful source of "What?" - Justice Clarence Thomas.

The case here involves a somewhat technical legal point about the proper interpretation of a previous Court decision regarding affirmative action in college admissions. By a 7-1 vote in a decision announced on Monday, June 24, the Supreme Court told an appeals court that it misinterpreted the justices' precedent when reviewing the policies of the University of Texas at Austin. The majority reiterated that affirmative action is constitutional means to further states' compelling interest in fostering a diverse student body, but said the Appeals Court had not looked closely enough at the school's race-conscious admissions program.

The decision is a sad one because it means such programs must be subjected to "strict scrutiny," meaning, in essence, that to defend such a program the school must be able to show that it is absolutely necessary to achieve diversity on campus, that there is no "race neutral" means of achieving the goal. Which is, as I think is obvious, a very high standard to meet. It's another cut in the death by 1,000 cuts to which affirmative action is being subjected.

Okay, but what about Thomas?

Well, y'see, Clarence is against affirmative action altogether. He wrote his own concurring opinion saying what he has said before: He would not only do away with the school's admissions program, he would do away with all affirmative actions programs of all sorts,everywhere. This despite the fact that Thomas is himself an affirmative action baby. In fact, he did it consciously: He acknowledged in his autobiography that when he applied to Yale Law School, he asked that his race be taken into account.

But that's not why he gets the big red nose, not quite. He also said that when he graduated from Yale, he couldn't find a job. He went on job interviews with "one high-priced lawyer" after another and got treated dismissively; they even, he wrote, "unsubtly suggested that they doubted I was as smart as my grades indicated."

And why, according to Clarence Thomas, did this happen? Because Yale had an affirmative action program. That's why these "high-priced lawyers" wouldn't believe the evidence of his grades. Because Yale had an affirmative action program.

Now frankly, I can think of a much more obvious reason why these "high-priced lawyers" at a time less than 10 years after the passage of the Voting Rights Act might have thought this black guy was not smart enough for their exalted company - but not Clarence Thomas. Oh, no, not him.

Clarence Thomas, a man so stuck in his ideology that in the case at hand he compared the University of Texas's admissions program to "slaveholders and segregationists," a man so stuck in his ideology that he insisted that getting into college via an affirmative action program is worse - worse for that student - than not getting into college at all, is a man so stuck in his ideology that he was incapable of recognizing racism when it walked up and smacked him in the face. Clarence Thomas is a clown.

Sources:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-345_l5gm.pdf
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/24/supreme-court-affirmative-action-decision_n_3345534.html?ref=topbar
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/24/clarence-thomas-affirmative-action_n_3491433.html
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3667079&page=1#.UcqhCZywUbR

Left Side of the Aisle #114 - Part 4

SCOTUS makes it harder for employees to sue for discrimination and retaliation

That SCOTUS decision I just talked about was not the only - I started to say lamebrain decision but that's wrong; as I said before, these people know exactly what they're doing - was not the only destructive decision that the filthy five pushed through. The day before, on Monday, they handed down two corporate boot-licking decisions that make it harder for employees to sue businesses for discrimination and retaliation.

First, they said that in order to be considered a supervisor in a discrimination lawsuit, that person must be able to hire and fire someone - which essentially leave employees no recourse against a management that fails to deal, or at least fails to deal effectively, with harassment or discrimination against employees by lower-level managers.

The court then decided to limit how juries can decide retaliation lawsuits, saying victims must prove employers would not have taken action against them but for their intention to retaliate. That is, if, for example, as in the case at hand, you leave your job after complaining about harassment only to be denied a promised job with a new employer after your old employer blackballs you, you have to prove that the only reason the old employer did that was to retaliate against you for your complaints, that they would not have done it but for an intent to retaliate. The desire to retaliate can't be part of the reason, it's got to be the driving cause without which the blackballing could not have happened.

What do you think are the chances of anyone ever being able to prove that?

The minority was disturbed enough that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who wrote both dissents, took the unusual step of reading them from the bench as Sam Alito rolled his eyes and shook his head. Ginsburg slammed, quoting, "the court's disregard for the realities of the workplace" and, in another unusual step, directly called on Congress to pass legislation to overturn the decision, as it did in the case of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which effectively overturned a Supreme Court decision that had strictly limited workers' ability to file lawsuits over pay inequity.

These, by the way, were just two of a long list of pro-corporate decisions SCOTUS has handed down this term. One way of measuring the pro-corporate tilt - although "tilt" considerably understates it - the pro-corporate tilt of the Court is used by the Constitutional Accountability Center, which tracks in which cases the US Chamber of Commerce submits an amicus, or friend of the court, brief and how it does. This year, the Chamber came out on the winning side in 14 of 17 cases.

Like I said before, the filthy five know exactly what they are doing. And it's all about power to the powerful.

Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/24/supreme-court-vance_n_3490285.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/24/samuel-alito-rolls-eyes_n_3492704.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/supreme-court-chamber-of-commerce_n_3497779.html?ref=topbar

Left Side of the Aisle #114 - Part 3

Outrage of the Week: SCOTUS guts Voting Rights Act

You know what this is. You know what it's about. It's the Outrage of the Week and how could it have been anything else? Most of the time I like to use this time to bring up something of which you're less likely to be aware, something that hasn't gotten the coverage it should. This time, however, it's something that's been all over the news but is so morally outrageous and ethically repugnant that there is no way I could not address it.

On Tuesday, June 25, a day that will live in its own sort of infamy, the Supreme Court announced its decision in the case of Shelby County v. Holder and effectively gutted enforcement of central provisions of the Voting Rights Act. It did so on the spurious grounds that, quoting, “things have changed dramatically” since the Voting Rights Act was enacted in 1965.

In other words, the Supreme Court - or, more precisely, the reactionary flakes making up the by-now traditional 5-4 majority - has decided that when it comes to voting, racism, racial discrimination, it just isn't a problem any more. Nope. All fixed, all gone.

At issue were Sections 4 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 5 is the part of the law that requires districts with a history of racial discrimination in voting to have any changes in their voting laws approved either by the Justice Department or a special federal court. Section 4 contains the formula for deciding what jurisdictions are subject to Section 5. Most, but not all, of those jurisdictions, which included several whole states and part of some others, were in the South. There were nine states covered, one of which was Alaska. But there were sections of California, Michigan, and New York - among other places - covered as well.

The troglodyte majority of the Court let Section 5 stand but declared that Section 4 is unconstitutional. That is, the Court said the federal government could require areas with a history of discrimination to preclear changes in their voting laws - but left the government with no way to say that any area had such a history - so there's no one, no jurisdictions, to which the law could be applied. They let the law stand but stripped out any means of enforcing it.

This is insane. In the words of civil rights hero and longtime congressman John Lewis, the Court has "put a dagger in the heart of the Voting Rights Act."

The opinion was written by John Roberts, whose picture is used to illustrate the word "smug" in the dictionary.

He wrote, quoting, “Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions. There is no doubt that these improvements are in large part because of the Voting Rights Act. The Act has proved immensely successful at redressing racial discrimination and integrating the voting process."

In reaching that conclusion, that racial discrimination in voting has been "redressed," the majority looked at only two things: rates of voter registration and rates of voter turnout. The majority quite literally ignored the racial, ethnic, and class impacts of modern voter suppression means, such as voter ID laws, racial gerrymandering, and reducing voting hours. When Congress renewed the Voting Rights Act in 2006, it did so by overwhelming bipartisan majorities - in fact, it was passed unanimously in the Senate before being signed by George Bush. At the time, Congress produced what was called a mountain of evidence about the continuing need for the Act and the continuing justification for Section 4.

In fact, writing for the minority, Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that "the record for the 2006 reauthorization makes abundantly clear [that] second-generation barriers to minority voting rights have emerged in the covered jurisdictions as attempted substitutes for the first-generation barriers that originally triggered preclearance in those jurisdictions." That is, while the barriers to voting were different, the same areas were still erecting them.

None of that evidence figured in the majority's decision.

So go back to Roberts' statement, that the very improvements which the majority claims renders the formula used in Section 4 as obsolete are largely due to the Voting Rights Act. Think about that: The majority is saying that the very improvements that make the law "obsolete" are due to the law. This is exactly, precisely, like saying that "Since we put a traffic light at that intersection, there have been a lot fewer accidents there. So the fact that there are fewer accidents there now proves that we no longer need the light."

Or maybe you'd prefer Ginsburg's version; she said the majority's reasoning was "like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet."

This decision is insane, it is twisted. It ignores - deliberately ignores, deliberately because it must have been because it's too obvious to have been overlooked - the reality on the ground; ignores even how the Act is still being (or, now, has been) used. Just some recent examples:

- In 2011, Florida attempted to cut early voting hours, but a DOJ objection under Section 5 forced the state into a compromise - and even with that compromise, Florida and scandalously long voter lines became synonymous.

- Just last summer, a Texas redistricting plan was knocked down under Section 5 after a federal court found that, quoting, "the plan was enacted with discriminatory intent” and was designed to protect white incumbents while targeting minority incumbents. The court said that there was "more evidence of discriminatory intent than we have space, or need, to address here.”

- Later that same week, Texas was blocked under Section 5 from implementing a photo ID law by a federal court that found that the law "imposes strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor, and racial minorities in Texas are disproportionately likely to live in poverty." It was bad enough that Texas's own data said the law would have a disproportionate impact on Hispanics.

- Earlier this year, the DOJ forced South Carolina to accept a very broad interpretation of a provision in a new voter ID law that provides an exception to the requirement that voters have an ID if they provide a reason for not having one.

- A voter photo ID law had been on hold in North Carolina for fear it would run afoul of Section 5. Now there's nothing to prevent it proceeding. Mississippi is doing the same

That's not the only immediate impact of this putrid decision. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has already announced that the state's voter ID law, the one with “strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor," the one where even the state's own data said it's discriminatory, is going into effect "immediately" and the redistricting maps, the ones with the "discriminatory intent" to protect white incmbents and target minority ones, is following right behind.

The bigots and bozos of the right will tell you "Calm down. Racial and ethnic discrimination in voting is still against the law. Don't get so emotional."

Well, first, racism and bigotry is not something I'm prepared to be unemotional about. But more directly, yeah, sure, it's still illegal. So after the discrimination, after you are prevented from voting, after you're subjected to 8-hour lines to vote, after Texas gerrymanders its minority officials out of office, after the damage has been done, after your rights have been taken away, after that, then you can undertake a years and years long, expensive, draining legal fight with all the burden of proof on you even as your vote and your representation continues to be taken from you the whole time that's going on. That's your answer?

Oh, but wait, but wait! There's another answer! The filthy five, the malevolent majority, also said that Congress could just come up with a different formula for Section 4. The fact that when Congress renewed the Act in 2006 it found the old formula still valid, again, did not even come up in the majority's decision. Beyond that: What do you think are the chances of Congress any time in the forseeable future, any time in the next century, agreeing on a new formula to determine where an historical pattern of discrimination exists?

And do you think for one minute, for one second, that the filthy five don't know that? That they are unaware of the long-term effects of their ruling, that they are unaware of the potential flood of bigoted laws to which they have opened the gates, the stranglehold they have put on means to guarantee racial and ethnic justice in voting?

If you do think that, you're a damn fool. As John Lewis said, they stuck a dagger in the heart of the Voting Rights Act. And they knew exactly what they were doing.

At some point, at some point, after more pain, after more discrimination, after more denials of rights, after more years of struggle that should not have been necessary, at some point, if justice ever does arrive, this decision will be as embarrassing to us as Plessy v. Ferguson and Dred Scott are now.

This decision is, as I said at the top, morally outrageous and ethically repugnant and the filthy five injustices who voted for it - John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, Clarance Thomas, and Anthony Kennedy - are despicable.

Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/voting-rights-act-supreme-court_n_3429810.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/john-lewis-voting-rights-act_n_3496783.html
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/06/ruth-bader-ginsburg-voting-rights-act-dissent.php
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/02/27/3257775/florida-advocates-say-2012-proved.html
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/mississippi-moving-ahead-with-voter-id-too
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/federal_court_gops_texas_redistricting.php
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/voter_id_texas_ruling.php
http://www.thestate.com/2013/06/25/2834557/changes-in-sc-voting-laws-no-longer.html
http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/06/25/2988513/nc-senator-voter-id-bill-moving.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/texas-voter-id-law_n_3497724.html?ref=topbar
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/06/on-voting-rights-a-decision-as-lamentable-as-plessy-or-dred-scott/276455/
http://quotesonslavery.org/2010/06/21/i-will-be-as-harsh-as-truth-and-as-uncompromising-as-justice/

Left Side of the Aisle #114 - Part 2

Good news: "Pray away the gay" ministry apologizes, shuts down

From there, a quick shot of related good news, news that shows that sometimes - just sometimes, but yes, people can surprise you.

For nearly nearly forty years, a large Christian ministry called Exodus International has been claiming to offer a "cure" for homosexuality.

On June 18, Exodus released a statement apologizing to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community for years of harsh and hurtful judgment, both by the organization and from the Christian Church as a whole. The next day, the group's board of directors announced the ministry is shutting down.

Alan Chambers, president of Exodus, said “Exodus is an institution in the conservative Christian world, but we’ve ceased to be a living, breathing organism. For quite some time we’ve been imprisoned in a worldview that’s neither honoring toward our fellow human beings, nor biblical."

So it's good riddance to this outpost of "pray away the gay" and to Alan Chambers, I say that I'm not among those who would have been targets of your ministry, so it's not for me to accept your apology, but it does seem sincere so I hope those to who it's directed, can.

Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/exodus-international-shuts-down_n_3470911.html
http://exodusinternational.org/2013/06/i-am-sorry/

Left Side of the Aisle #114 - Part 1

SCOTUS smacks down DOMA, leaves PropHate in the dust

To paraphrase Gabriel Heater, ah, there's good news this afternoon. Or whenever you're watching this.

The Supreme Court watchers got it right: The Court has struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA. DOMA was the bill that denied marriage-related federal benefits to same-sex couples even if they were legally married in their state. Now, those couples have access to those benefits. The decision does not expand same-sex marriage, it does not increase the number of same-sex couples who can be legally married, but it is a very real step toward same-sex marriage justice.

Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, wrote that the law "violates basic due process and equal protection principles" and that "no legitimate purpose" could justify its effect, which, he said, was "to disparage and to injure those whom the state, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."

What's more, the Supreme Court watchers got it right both ways: The Court punted on California's Proposition 8, saying the people filing the suit lacked standing to bring it after the state government very pointedly declined to appeal the decision of the Appeals Court that struck the provision down. The result of the Supreme Court's decision is to leave the Appeals Court ruling in place.

The Appeals Court had stayed the effect of its ruling until the Supreme Court ruled on the appeal. Now it has and the Appeals Court is expected to lift the stay very soon. Gov. Jerry Brown has said county clerks must be ready to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

These decisions were, to put it simply, as good as anyone could have rationally hoped for. We could dream of SCOTUS using the Prop8 case to strike down all such provisions in all states, but it was precisely that: a dream. Nice to imagine, but not realistic.

As a footnote, Justice Antonin Scalia read parts of his dissent about the DOMA decision from the bench. He described the majority ruling as "a lecture on how superior the majority's moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is." To which my answer is "uh, yeah."

He also said the court should have deferred to Congress's wishes. Remember that. It becomes important later.

Of course this doesn't mean it's over, not by a long shot. Even before the decisions were announced, the bigots and bozos were pledging themselves to the preservation of their prejudice, even throwing around words like "revolution" and "civil war."

In a letter released last Thursday, more than 200 conservative activists vowed to ignore any ruling in favor of same-sex couples, claiming marriage - which of course they insist means one man and one woman, how could it be anything else because "the Bible says" even though the Bible actually says it could be a lot of different things including polygamy - claiming marriage is defined by "Natural Moral Law" and what's more, the Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to say otherwise, nyah, nyah.

The letter ends with a clear threat that conservatives will refuse to comply with any court ruling in support of marriage equality, although it's not clear just what that could involve or what the group intended to do if the Court ruled that way, which of course it now has.

One possibility could be some TV appearances, which could be at least part of the point, since the signers are mostly anti-LGBT Christian conservatives, many of whom have fallen from prominence in recent years and likely miss the attention.

Sources:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324520904578553500028771488.html
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/06/26/supreme-court-rulings-applauded-by-gays/2459279/
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/26/us-usa-court-gaymarriage-idUSBRE95P06W20130626
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/perkins-if-scotus-legalizes-gay-marriage-it-could-lead-revolution
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/staver-supreme-court-could-spark-second-revolution-and-civil-war-over-marriage-equalityhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/22/conservatives-defy-marriage-equality-supreme-court_n_3482958.html
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/06/21/2193521/preemptive-strike-conservatives-vow-to-defy-supreme-court-if-it-rules-in-favor-of-marriage-equality/
http://www.lc.org/media/9980/attachments/pr_ltr_marriage_solidarity_statement_062013.pdf

Left Side of the Aisle #114

Left Side of the Aisle
for the week of June 27 - July 3, 2013

This week:
SCOTUS smacks down DOMA, leaves PropHate in the dust
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324520904578553500028771488.html
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/06/26/supreme-court-rulings-applauded-by-gays/2459279/
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/26/us-usa-court-gaymarriage-idUSBRE95P06W20130626

Good news: "Pray away the gay" ministry apologizes, shuts down
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/exodus-international-shuts-down_n_3470911.html
http://exodusinternational.org/2013/06/i-am-sorry/

Outrage of the Week: SCOTUS guts Voting Rights Act
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/voting-rights-act-supreme-court_n_3429810.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/john-lewis-voting-rights-act_n_3496783.html
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/06/ruth-bader-ginsburg-voting-rights-act-dissent.php
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/02/27/3257775/florida-advocates-say-2012-proved.html
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/mississippi-moving-ahead-with-voter-id-too
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/federal_court_gops_texas_redistricting.php
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/voter_id_texas_ruling.php
http://www.thestate.com/2013/06/25/2834557/changes-in-sc-voting-laws-no-longer.html
http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/06/25/2988513/nc-senator-voter-id-bill-moving.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/texas-voter-id-law_n_3497724.html?ref=topbar
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/06/on-voting-rights-a-decision-as-lamentable-as-plessy-or-dred-scott/276455/
http://quotesonslavery.org/2010/06/21/i-will-be-as-harsh-as-truth-and-as-uncompromising-as-justice/

SCOTUS makes it harder for employees to sue for discrimination and retaliation
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/24/supreme-court-vance_n_3490285.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/24/samuel-alito-rolls-eyes_n_3492704.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/supreme-court-chamber-of-commerce_n_3497779.html?ref=topbar

Clown Award: Clarence Thomas
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-345_l5gm.pdf
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/24/supreme-court-affirmative-action-decision_n_3345534.html?ref=topbar
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/24/clarence-thomas-affirmative-action_n_3491433.html
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3667079&page=1#.UcqhCZywUbR

Weekly reminder

As of June 18, at least 5,192 people had been killed by gunfire in the US since Newtown, at least 55 of them in Massachusetts.

Left Side of the Aisle #113 - Part 10

More on NSA spying: significance of leaks can be measured by ferocity of the response

So Edward Snowden was responsible for the information about the massive phone surveillance, the sweeping up of data about millions of phone calls a day and will everyone please stop with the crap that they only know what number called what number, not the name on the account? Don't be an idiot: In almost every case, if you know the number, you know the name.

Haven't you heard of reverse look-up phone books? I tried it last night: I put my phone number into a search engine and it came up with my name and address. I tried it with my ex-wife, it worked for her. I tried with my brother and his kids and it worked with them, too. They know who you are.

But getting back to the leak directly, this is indeed one of the most significant leaks, especially when combined with the revelations about PRISM and other programs of massive government surveillance. How do we know how significant it was? By the ferocity of the reaction.

Rep. Peter King said not only Snowden and whoever leaked the info about PRISM should be prosecuted, but the reporters should be as well.

Attorney General Eric Holder says national security has been damaged.

Sen. Lindsey Graham said “I hope we follow Mr. Snowden to the ends of the earth to bring him to justice,” verbally connecting him to the way we used to talk about Osama bin Laden.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said that the disclosures risk “long-lasting and irreversible harm to our ability to identify the threats facing our nation.”

Other were, let's just say, more blunt.

House Speaker John Boehner called Edward Snowden a "traitor." Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson called the leak "an act of treason," as did, in the same words, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

Remember, these are all people who knew about this and could have done something about it but didn't do a damn thing.

But at the same time as these rantings, we have some among the punditry yawning loudly and dismissing the whole thing as yesterday's news. Time's Joe Klein argued that "we pretty much knew everything that has 'broken' in the past week." Walter Pincus took the same tack in the Washington Post, citing a couple of articles from 2006 to 2012 which covered the same general ground as the current revelations.

Which is true enough, although those articles, significantly, lacked the documentation the current round has. Pincus could even have gone back a bit further, to 2004.

But then what does that mean? Is all this ho-hum, BFD material? Or is it gross treason, a threat to our very existence as a nation? It's neither. Those are just two different ways of dodging the issue of the government asserting the right to poke, pry, and prod into every part of our lives.

Another way to know how significant this is, is how the number of "terrorist plots" from which we have supposedly been saved keeps growing. First was two, but when news media started throwing cold water on those cases, the number grew to "dozens." It's now more than 50 plots in 20 different countries, that have been supposedly foiled, the total getting the Joe McCarthy "I have in my hand" treatment.

But Senators Ron Wyden and Mark Udall, who have tried repeatedly to raise the alarm on this, declared in a joint statement that “We have not yet seen any evidence showing that the NSA’s dragnet collection of Americans’ phone records has produced any uniquely valuable intelligence. All of the plots that were mentioned appear to have been identified using other collection methods.”

In other words, all of them, up to and including President Hopey-Changey himself, who declare that this sweeping surveillance is "a critical tool in protecting the nation" are lying through their teeth. And don't you forget it, not for one second.

Sources:
http://fair.org/take-action/media-advisories/pundits-vs-edward-snowden/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/11/peter-king-reporters-prosecuted_n_3424541.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/12/peter-king-glenn-greenwald_n_3430048.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/14/eric-holder-nsa_n_3442244.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/08/nsa-leaks-investigation_n_3409590.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/11/john-boehner-edward-snowden_n_3420635.html
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/304635-nsa-leak-is-treason-says-sen-feinstein
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/12/nsa-director-terrorist-attacks_n_3430043.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/15/nsa-terrorist-surveillance_n_3448090.html
http://www.mediaite.com/online/sens-wyden-udall-we-have-seen-no-evidence-nsa-surveillance-has-prevented-dozens-of-terrorist-events/
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/white-house-spying-on-us-citizens-critical-tool-for-fighting-terror/

Left Side of the Aisle #113 -Part 9

Hero Award: Edward Snowden

I said last week I was going to talk more about the NSA spying, and I am, but I'm going to start by giving out a Hero Award, given as the occasion arises to someone who just does the right thing, whether big or small.

This week, as you might have guessed, the award goes to Edward Snowden, a 29-year-old former technical assistant for the CIA and former employee of the defense contractor Booz-Allen-Hamilton. He is, as I expect you know, the individual responsible for one of the most significant leaks in US political history.

In a note accompanying the first set of documents he provided to the Guardian, a leading newspaper in the UK, he wrote: "I understand that I will be made to suffer for my actions," but "I will be satisfied if the federation of secret law, unequal pardon and irresistible executive powers that rule the world that I love are revealed even for an instant."

In a subsequent interview with the paper, he said does not fear the consequences of going public, only that doing so will distract attention from the issues raised by his disclosures. "I know the media likes to personalize political debates, and I know the government will demonize me." Both of which have come true in recent days as pundits delight in pop psychology speculation and government flacks try desperately to change the subject from the leaks to the leaker.

As for Snowden, he said "I feel satisfied that this was all worth it. I have no regrets."

The words of a hero.

Sources:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance