Power to the Pundits

2011 in Mixtapes!

2012-01-12T22:22:00.000-08:00

As the prophecies foretold, I made some mixtapes to celebrate the end of 2011! The mixtapes are thematic, with one containing "Pop, Rock, and World" and one for "Electronica & Dance". They contain only songs from 2011. The playlists are zipped, and contain .xml files that can be loaded into iTunes to preserve the playlist order (yes, I put a lot of neurotic work into the playlist order and flow!). To do that, first add the songs to iTunes. Then, click File->Library->Import Playlist and then select the .xml file within the downloaded playlist. It's super-easy =).

Enjoy!

"Pop, Rock, and World" Playlist:

Basement Jaxx & Metropole Orkest - Red Alert
TV On The Radio - Second Song
Metric - Black Sheep
Florence + the Machine - What The Water Gave Me
Aloe Blacc - I Need A Dollar
Adele - Set Fire To The Rain
Miike Snow - Devil's Work
Elbow - Lippy Kids
The Roots - One Time (feat. Phonte & Dice Raw)
M83 - Midnight City
LMFAO - Party Rock Anthem (Ft. Lauren Bennett & GoonRock)
Paul Simon - So Beautiful or So What
Friendly Fires - Blue Cassette
Glee Cast - Rumour Has It / Someone Like You (Glee Cast Version)
Lupe Fiasco - The Show Goes On
Basement Jaxx & Metropole Orkest - Good Luck
Rihanna ft. Wiley and Calvin Harris - We Found Love (Remix)
Emeli Sandé - Heaven
Toddla T - Take It Back (Feat. Shola Ama & J2K)
Jay-Z & Kanye West - Lift Off (feat. Beyonce)
Lady Gaga - You And I (Official Radio Edit)
St. Vincent - Surgeon
The Lonely Island - Jack Sparrow (feat. Michael Bolton)
Chase & Status - Blind Faith (Ft. Liam Bailey)
Breakbot feat. Ruckazoid - Fantasy
The Black Keys - Lonely Boy
Foo Fighters - Walk
Ry Cooder - No Banker Left Behind
Florence + the Machine - Leave My Body

"Electronica & Dance" Playlist:

Soulwax - Machine
ZZT - Partys Over Los Angeles (Paul Chambers Remix)
Breakbot - Shades Of Black
Justice - Helix
Daft Punk - End Of Line (Boys Noize Remix)
Shinichi Osawa & Paul Chambers - SINGAPORE MADNESS
David Guetta - Glasgow
Mumbai Science - Lotus
Cassius - I <3 U So (Skream Remix)
Nicolas Jaar - Sunflower
Switch - I Still Love You (feat. Andrea Martin)
SebastiAn - Embody
Lykke Li - Sadness Is A Blessing (Gold Panda Remix)
The 2 Bears - Bear Hug
Chase & Status - Flashing Lights (Radio Edit)
Nero - Guilt (Radio Edit)
The Glitch Mob - We Can Make The World Stop
Adele - Rolling In The Deep (Villa Remix)
Avicii - Levels (Radio Edit)
SebastiAn ft. Mayer Hawthorne - Love In Motion (Skrillex's Funkt-Out Remix)
Siriusmo - Signal
Deadmau5 - Raise Your Weapon (Madeon Radio Edit)
Loops Of Fury - I Need (Original Mix)
Jack Beats feat. John B - All Night (Original Mix)
Major Lazer - Original Don
ZZT - Zzafrika (Gesaffelstein Remix)
Swedish House Mafia Vs Knife Party - Antidote (Instrumental Mix)
Digitalism - Blitz
Joe Goddard - Gabriel (feat. Valentina)

I hope you have as much fun listening to these as I had making them!

"Should The Times Be a Truth Vigilante?" or How The New York Times is Emblematic of Our Pathetic News Media

2012-01-12T21:14:00.000-08:00

On the exact anniversary of Congress passing authorization for force in Iraq, the New York Times public editor seriously asks whether "New York Times news reporters should challenge “facts” that are asserted by newsmakers they write about."

This is a sad reflection not only on the NYT but almost all of the news industry which follows the same milquetoast model. It is not good enough to echo a right wing talking point and a left wing talking point and declare that the truth must inevitably lie in the middle. That is the kind of laziness and cowardice that allowed falsehoods like the Bush administration's Iraq WMD claims to go unchallenged. It is not journalism.

http://t.co/iB38FDHB

Facism in America

2011-12-09T01:17:00.000-08:00

http://www.eclectablog.com/2011/12/emergency-manager-near-for-inkster-with.html

So, according to the Republican party, we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan in order to "bring them freedom and democracy." So why is that here in the US , that same party is arguing that democracy must be removed in order to save working class and black Americans from themselves. In Michigan, Republican governor Rick Snyder has instituted an "emergency manager" law that allows him to replace all local elected officials with "emergency managers" who rule their cities as unchecked tyrants.

Detroit would be the 7th city to have its elected government replaced by a state-appointed dictator. And with it, over 50% of African Americans in Michigan would be stripped right to an elected local government. The fight for democracy is on - it's just closer to home than some of us expected.

The Wealthy are "Job Creators"? Please.

2011-12-04T21:12:00.000-08:00

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/12/04/381510/upton-cant-explain-tax-cuts-jobs/

To follow up on yesterday's "John Boehner says tax cuts for the middle class are chicken shit" post, here is GOP supercommittee member Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) admitting that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy didn't create jobs. Even as Senate Republicans filibustered a plan to extend the wildly popular (even among Republicans!) payroll tax cut this week, claiming that it "hasn't created jobs," they are doubling down on their narrative that the wealthy can't be taxed because it will "kill jobs."

When Rep. Upton was asked on Bloomberg News why more jobs were created in the higher tax Clinton years than the lower tax Bush years, he couldn't answer. Indeed, the years of greatest job growth in the US since 1950 have all had top marginal tax rates (i.e. taxes on all income made beyond the first $250,000) of 70 percent or higher. The idea that lower taxes on the wealthy means higher job growth is intellectually bankrupt, plain and simple.

Why Do Young Voters Love Ron Paul?

2011-12-01T21:48:00.000-08:00

http://www.salon.com/2011/11/28/why_young_voters_love_ron_paul/singleton/

Why do young conservatives love Ron Paul? It's not. as many conservative intellectuals dismissively purport, because he supports Marijuana legalization or because college kids "naively" cling to his brand of conservatism. It's because they agree with Rep. Paul that our imperialist foreign policy is making America less safe.

It's a real shame that Paul's popular foreign policy positions "are either ignored or mocked by a political and media culture that is ideologically invested in marginalizing them."

Mitt Romney - Change We Can Believe In?

2011-12-01T09:47:00.000-08:00

For your viewing pleasure, here's a slightly younger Mitt Romney doing retail campaigning and boasting about not being a "career politician." Romney's "outsider" label is still something he's trying to use to sell his candidacy. What's the problem with this narrative? This clip is from 1994.

Whose Banks? Our Banks.

2011-11-30T16:08:00.000-08:00

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2011/11/yes-the-us-government-ought-to-own-the-banks-now.html

"When you don't take equity...you aren't acting as a good agent for your principals, the taxpayers."

By all rights, the American people should own the major banks right now. We were lenders of last resort, and the government's decision not to secure equity for US taxpayers was an abject failure to represent our financial interests.

We were compelled by the crisis to act as a lender of last resort. But by all rights should have been able to take over the banks, clean house, restructure, and ensure the banks didn't make a profit off of their own avarice and incompetence. Instead, the government participated in the worst kind of crony capitalism by rescuing the banks and then letting their executives profit from tanking the economy

The Battle we Won (?) for Women

2011-11-30T15:56:00.000-08:00

"White House says Obama considering rolling back mandatory insurance coverage of contraception"

Well, that's just awesome. So we're going to surrender a battle we've already won? Ladies and gents, the Democratic party.

Gingrich - the GOP Savior?

2011-11-29T23:12:00.000-08:00

Many on the right and the left agree that Newt Gingrich has too much personal and political baggage to be the Republican nominee. The difference? The Left points to Gingrich's sexism, hypocrisy, and avarice. The Right is upset that he supported "compassion" for immigrants and that he has sat next to Nancy Pelosi in the past.

From the party of "family values" and self-proclaimed moral superiority, it is amazing that serial adulterer and blatant moral hypocrite Newt Gingrich leads in the polls.

http://www.salon.com/2011/11/29/two_definitions_of_newt_gingrichs_baggage/singleton/

The Fed's Secret Loans - Exposed

2011-11-28T21:23:00.000-08:00

After more than two years of fighting to keep the specifics of the biggest bailout in US history under wraps, the details of the Feds secret loans to the big banks have finally come to light. In the words of the Bloomberg report,

"A fresh narrative of the financial crisis of 2007 to 2009 emerges from 29,000 pages of Fed documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act and central bank records of more than 21,000 transactions. While Fed officials say that almost all of the loans were repaid and there have been no losses, details suggest taxpayers paid a price beyond dollars as the secret funding helped preserve a broken status quo and enabled the biggest banks to grow even bigger. "

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/secret-fed-loans-undisclosed-to-congress-gave-banks-13-billion-in-income.html

Hermain Cain's Apologists Seek to Discredit Women

2011-11-09T14:06:00.000-08:00

Apologists for Herman Cain are not only dismissing the claims of the women who have come forward alleging sexual harassment and assault, but dismissing the idea of sexual harassment altogether. Herman Cain's defenders are not claiming that they don't know what happened (i.e. "he said, she said"). They are instead claiming they know exactly what happened: nothing.

Their rationale? Women are "humorless," "irrational," "hysterical," "money-grubbing," "attention-seeking tramps." As Dahlia Lithwick notes in her great new article Herman Cain’s Conservative Defenders Are Going Totally Overboard, this is not just an effort to silence Cain's accusers. It is an effort to silence and discredit victims of sexual harassment and assault everywhere.

Shock and Awe Comes to America

2011-03-12T18:42:00.000-08:00

Shock doctrine 101:

Step 1: Put the economy into a "crisis" or "state of emergency" (George W. Bush, Rick Snyder, Scott Walker, etc.). It doesn't have to be a real crisis, you just have to claim there is one.

Step 2: Claim unprecedented executive powers "confront" the crisis YOU created/fabricated.

Step 3: Use those powers to privatize anything you can get your hands on. Massively deregulate corporations and cut their taxes. Bust unions and attack the public sector. This sets up the perfect conditions for another crisis.

Step 4: Repeat as needed until pesky middle class removed.

The "shock and awe" used to bring the free market to Afghanistan and Iraq has come to the USA. This is disaster capitalism at its worst. This is a war on people who have to work for a living, and it's about time we fought back.

The War on Women

2011-02-16T00:53:00.000-08:00

Republicans want to simultaneously end all federal funding of contraception providers and criminalize abortion. Can't they just come out and say that they think bundles of cells are worth more than living, breathing women already? It's a war on women, nothing more, and nothing less.

For more information, see this story from TPMDC discussing the pro-choice fight against the Republican efforts. Also check this great post at Shakesville shellacking Republicans for their hypocrisy on the sanctity of human life.

Weekend Stories!

2010-09-27T00:01:00.000-07:00

I thought I'd share a couple of stories that caught my eye this weekend.

1. http://lat.ms/alfJIW In this story, the LA Times reports on a US Army return to massive combat training in lieu of counterinsurgency. To quote from the piece:

"Writing recently in Foreign Affairs magazine, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said, "The United States is unlikely to repeat a mission on the scale of those in Afghanistan or Iraq anytime soon — that is, forced regime change followed by nation building under fire." Instead, U.S. forces will probably be called on to help other countries' armies defend themselves, particularly against terrorist attacks but also against conventional armies"

Seems to me to be a pretty big snub of the Bush-era nation building strategy evident in their post-invasion operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

2. http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/25/local/la-me-gays-military-20100925 . This article discusses a district court's recent overturning of the discharge of Maj. Margaret Whit under DADT. Interestingly, the case was remanded to the District Court by the 9th District Court of Appeals after they said that the judge had to look at whether Whit individually endangered her unit and the army's cohesion and security interests. Judge Leighton found she did not. Alarmingly, the Obama administration argues that the ruling overturning DADT should only apply to Maj. Whit. This seems backwards from a history legal jurisprudence perspective (e.g. Brown vs. Board of Education)

Obama Administration Attacks Court Ruling Striking Down DADT

2010-09-24T14:27:00.000-07:00

What. The. Hell. Isn't this the man claiming to be "fierce advocate" of gay rights?!

http://www.openleft.com/diary/20284/fierce-advocate-stirkes-again-once-again-gay-rights-targeted-not-defended

To quote the Open Left piece:

"the Log Cabin Republicans brought suit on behalf of their members in the military. So now the Obama DOJ is arguing that they're the only ones who could possibly be affected. Meaning, by analogy, that Brown v. Board of Education should only have desegregated those children who were plaintiffs in the suits combined under Brown."

If the Obama DOJ had its way, the USA would still have segregated schools.

State Secrets Upheld in Jeppesen Ruling, Will be Appealed to SCOTUS

2010-09-09T11:33:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, the ACLU's team that was challenging a post-9/11 US program that flew terrorism suspects to secret prisons, suffered a major legal setback. Jeppesen, a Boeing subsidiary was contracted out by the CIA to conduct said flights. The ruling, which was handed down by the 9th district Court of Appeals, was divided 6-5 and narrowly upheld the state secrets doctrine used by the Bush Administration and now defended by the Obama DOJ. The case will undoubtedly be appealed to the SCOTUS, which in all likelihood will uphold the appeals' court's ruling.

In light of the recent developments Jeppesen case, I thought I'd share a couple of relevant links. In this first video from a panel hosted by the American Constitution Scoiety (ACS), Ben Wizner, the ACLU's attorney in the Jeppesen case, discusses state secrets and national security. This is back from 2008, but the points Wizner makes are the same as the ACLU made in Jeppesen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJpcq6VO7N4

Here are two other great clips of Wizner on MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#29129616 - This one starts a little silly with a reenactment of a 9th circuit ruling on Jeppesen from 2009, but quickly gets serious as Wizner joins Maddow to discuss state secrets, national security and the details of the Jeppesen case. This clip is the only one I could find where Wizner specifically discusses Jeppesen.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#31378360 - This clip has Wizner discussing the Bush Administration's state secrets doctrine. Wizner additionally provides proof of the use of State Secrets for political purposes.

Ben Wizner also came and spoke at Oxy in October 2009 about Jeppesen, the history of the state secrets doctrine, and ACLU involvement with other torture cases. I took extensive notes on the lecture/Q&A and posted them on my blog here: http://powertothepundits.blogspot.com/search/label/Ben%20Wizner

Sharron Angle, Pinochetista

2010-08-13T14:26:00.000-07:00

I'm back from Chile, and decided to resume blogging. Thanks to my many loyal readers, AKA the people that stumble across this blog by mistake. I appreciate you anyways =).

Check THIS gem out: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/13/sharron-angle-on-privatiz_n_681726.html

Sharron Angle, the GOP candidate for Senator in Nevada and a self-identified tea-partier is also a PINOCHETISTA. This woman believes that victims of rape or incest should turn "lemons into lemonade" instead of getting an abortion (which she would like to make illegal). She wants "2nd amendment remedies" for Harry Reid ...should she lose (AKA shoot him). She also thinks that unemployment benefits are spoiling Americans. This woman is a nut job, and THE Republican national party backed candidate for US Senate from Nevada.

Harry Reid must be jumping for joy.

My Presentation to the Torture Class

2009-12-11T22:41:00.000-08:00

Warning: High Emotional Content.

There were many subjects I considered discussing for my presentation. I considered showing media clips, or discussing the arc of my blog (thanks to those of you that followed by the way). Ultimately what I decided to discuss however is disability. If you’ll allow me, I’d like to begin with a personal story and then tie it in to the course and the creation of the other.

This may seem like a strange topic considering that I personally am not disabled. Disability, however, has shaped my life. When I was five, my father was in a wheel chair for a year when he had a cancerous back tumor removed. The chemotherapy he had following the removal caused a rare condition to occur wherein the nerves in his legs no longer correctly transmit motor information, severely limiting their use to this day. When I was nine my mother’s auto-immune condition, Sjögren’s Syndrome (which is akin to Lupus or Coeliac disease), drastically worsened. To this day she is constantly nauseous, suffers from daily migraines, is severely limited physically and is only active for 8 hours a day. Today, as they have been for most of my childhood, my parents are severely physically disabled. In other words, I grew up in a disabled household.

My parents’ disabilities affected me directly in many ways. More important in defining who I am today though is how their disabilities affected them. Unlike my younger brother, I still have strong memories of when my parents were able-bodied. My mother in particular was an incredibly dedicated worker, administrating family planning clinics for Contra Costa County, pulling long hours and still finding time to spend with my brother and me. Even when a drunk driver ran her down while she was on a bike, crushing one of her spinal disks, she persevered. When her Sjögren’s Syndrome flared up, everything changed. My mother’s seemingly unstoppable lifelong effort to succeed in the workplace and in the community was crushed within the course of a year. Her work was not all that changed. My mother to this day cannot do lengthy social engagements or even meet with friends outside our house without great physical cost. As a result of this, most of her long-term friendships buckled and collapsed, and many in her family alienated. My mother’s Sjögren’s Syndrome will be with her as long as she lives, and its many burdens along with it.

Despite the amount of suffering my mother endures and the loss of her career, there is an additional layer of unnecessary suffering that greatly compounds her hardships. American society has, to put it mildly, a disturbing view of physical disability. For those who we acknowledge as “legitimately” disabled we have developed limited accommodations but by and large have not committed ourselves to bringing about true equal opportunity. One look at Occidental’s campus will tell you that the school simply wasn’t designed and largely hasn’t been updated to accommodate the basic needs of the physically disabled. Sure there are methods whereby the wheelchair-bound and those with reduced mobility can get into Johnson and Fowler, but can you imagine trying to get into Weingart? Or trying to get food at the Marketplace? Or live for that matter in any of the dorms? Despite its debatable “bet intentions”, Oxy operates out a standard playbook for American social thought: human beings when “normal” are physically “well”, and that additional “accommodations” are desirable but not urgent. I’ll return to this standard of normalcy and wellness in a minute.

To go back to the subject of my mother, she is not one of those I described above. Though her disability is crippling and prevents her from engaging in most activities the “well” (myself included) enjoy, it is not immediately visible to the eye like a wheelchair or a limp would be. Without a physical reminder of her disability, the social construction of “wellness as normalcy” comes to the surface in an ugly fashion. Again and again I see my mother’s friends, peers, acquaintances and even her own family question whether she was “really sick”. Some say it outright, calling her a “hypochondriac”, and inventing/perpetuating her own maladies. Others are, or grow to be more subtle, asking over and over again why my mother wasn’t investing “enough” time in their relationship, or why she couldn’t pick up their kids from school, or why she couldn’t just “overcome” and “be stronger than her sickness” for just one event that they wanted her to do. No matter how many times my mother explains her condition, and indeed demonstrates how limiting it is in her daily life, few truly believe her. With no job and very few friends and family that acknowledge the nature of her life, my mother has no choice but just to live.

This denial of illness and elevation of ability-based normalcy is from my life experience rooted in fear. As my mother’s friends and family look her in the eye and tell her she can overcome her illness if she sets her mind to it they are afraid. Afraid that when they look at her, what looks back is their own mortality. Afraid that the strength they see within her would not be in them were they as ill as she. Western culture is profoundly afraid of death and even more so, I’d argue, loss of our faculties. A post-enlightenment worldview has given the West an obsession with rational observation and our supposed ability to control our own lives. What is more American than the idea that anyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps? If someone is not satisfied with their life, shouldn’t they just try harder? If you’ve gotten to where you are in life through hard work, isn’t it insulting when someone says that they are stuck by their circumstances?

This brings me back to our coursework and the discourse of torture. In the very beginning of the course, Elaine Scarry made the claim that the pain of others is fundamentally inaccessible. As we progressed through the course, we saw this view reflected again and again in Western metaphysics. Only in some of our most recently examined theorists, like Levinas and Derrida have we seen an attempt to break this tradition and de-alienate the suffering of the other. These more recent challenges to the traditional framework are just that however: challenges to an accepted reality. This standard conception of identity and the human experience as internal and isolated still governs our society today.

For the tortured and the disabled alike, there is a narrative of conflict between rational self-control and pain. The tortured, when the act is committed, are as we discussed “reduced to animals” and “rendered sub-human” by their loss of self (as Scarry puts it) and inability to overcome their pain through rational thought. When I read this at the beginning of the semester, I wondered how this fundamentally differs from the pain of the unwell or disabled.

While for one the pain is externally inflicted and the other the pain is internal, there is a parallel inherent in the two groups of people in the Western tradition. Neither group has control over their pain, nor can exert the rational faculty that defines humanity in Western metaphysics to stop it. For these two groups that should elicit the most sympathy from us, sympathy is impossible (Scarry). Ingrained in our thinking is the fundamental internalization of the pain of the “other” and their own obligation as humans to overcome their adversity through rationality and re-establishment of a “well” self. As Du Bois put it, the torturee is just “a body”. Asad says that torture in the ascetic tradition releases the soul from the body. Like the tortured, the disabled are reduced to the limitations of their body and hence have a damaged “self” from their inability to exert rational control.

In perhaps an even more frightening manner, this Western metaphysical tradition compounds with American exceptionalism, the American dream, and the neo-liberal tradition. Ingrained in this tradition, as I mentioned earlier is the expectation that everyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps and be a productive member of society. External barriers in this tradition are non-existent: the expectation is that whether you succeed or not depends on whether you have the willpower and personal drive to achieve what is offered to everyone equally. The tortured and the disabled are similarly demoted in the eyes of society by their inability to fulfill their Hobbesian social contract. The torture have allegedly already exited said contract for their alleged crimes, and the disabled face an inherent barrier that prevents them from contributing as “productive” members of human society. By “refusing” to use their rational control to fulfill their contract with society, both groups have failed to live up to the supposedly barrier-less American dream.

I know that significantly more biopolitical analysis is needed here, and that this is only an initial exploration, but it was important to me to share with you how this class has made me reflect on my own life and the lives around me. Thank you.

David Adler: The Q + A

2009-12-10T23:44:00.000-08:00

After David Adler's Dec. 3rd lecture to Oxy's "American Presidency", which I blogged about last week, he had a Q+A session. I also got the chance to ask him several questions that focused more directly on torture and the constitution.

Here are some of the questions I asked and the responses I received from Prof. Adler. Because I did not have a recording device, I will be paraphrasing Prof. Adler's responses:

Q: In the last several months, the Obama administration has seen the resignation of several high profile officials who were involved with Guantanamo and Torture policy. The list includes such high profile individuals as Greg Craig (White House Counsel), Phil Carter (Detainee affairs policy appointee), and David Ogden (Deputy Attorney General). Do you think that this massive turnover in torture policymakers is indicative of a disagreement on torture in the Obama administration?

A: Adler does believe there is significant disagreement w/in the Obama admin. He believes that there is a significant push-pull between the Obama administration's desire to follow his campaign promises and Constitutional principles and political pressure from the military and party power brokers not to tackle the issue of torture. He believes Obama will eventually close Guantanamo Bay.

Q: Congress recently wrote legislation allowing the Defense Secretary to withhold photos of US-committed torture during the Bush years. The Supreme Court used this legislation as the basis to advise the 2nd District Court of Appealsto reconsider siding with the ACLU's FOIA suit. Is it unusual for the Supreme Court to rely on congressional legislation to make its legal decisions? Also, what effect does this have on the breadth and power of FOIA.

A: Adler replied that no, it's not unusual for the Court to use congressional legislation rather than just the Constitution and legal precedent. He also asserted that FOIA lost a massive amount of clout under the Bush administration, and he's hopeful that it will return to its previous prominence with the Obama administration's promises for open government.

Q: Why can Obama increase troop levels? Isn't that congress' role?

A: Adler agreed with me that this should be congress' call to make. Because of congress' ceding of war powers to the Presidency and the executive's role as the sole organ of foreign policy has resulted in the movement of war powers from the legislature to the executive.

Q: As a potential US Senate candidate and a Constitutional scholar, I have to ask you abut the institution of the Senate itself. Considering the filibuster fiasco and other undemocratic elements (e.g. unequal representation of states) of the Senate, do you think fundamental changes nead to be made to the institution?

A: Adler believes that while the filibuster may have been useful during the civil rights era, it no longer serves a valid purpose. He would advocate the filibusters' elimination if elected. He doesn't believe that the Senate needs to be eradicated in the name of democracy.

And 3 questions from the class:

Q: If not Iraq, what will it take to get the American public to embrace a Constitutional culture?

A: Adler responded that he didn't know, but re-emphasized education.

Q: Is Obama surging in Afghanistan due to political pressure.

A: Adler has immense respect for Obama's character and thinks he makes extremely deliberative decisions that are not motivated by concerns for his legacy. Though he doesn't agree with the Afghanistan surge, he thinks that Obama is doing what he perceives to be the best and most rational course of action within a very poor set of circumstances.

Q: If you run for Senate, will you devote precious campaign time and resources to making a return to constitutional governance a major campaign cornerstone?

A: Adler reasserted that it will be a top priority for him both on the campaign trail and off.

Thanks a million to Professor Adler for answering so many of my questions and giving his time to our class! I wish him the best of luck, and know he will make an excellent Senator from the great state of Idaho.

David Adler: The Constitutional Presidency, Obama and Torture

2009-12-04T23:06:00.001-08:00

On Thursday December 3rd, Oxy's American Presidency class was visited by decorated constitutional scholar David Adler. David Adler is an expert on the American presidency and constitutional law and is a professor at Idaho State University. He is also actively considering running against Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID) in 2014. Imagine that, someone in congress who is an expert on the constitution.

A selection of some of the points he made in his talk about presidential power:

Power abhors a vacuum. Congress relinquishes its powers and the president usurps them . The courts have failed to rein in the unconstitutional expansion of presidential power. In other words, congress has willingly abdicated responsibility to its constitutional role. This runs directly contrary to the Supreme Court's 1819 ruling in McCulloch v. Maryland which mandated that congress alone fulfill its constitutional rule.

Since the Korean War, all presidents have claimed unilateral power to go to war. The only exceptions have been Eisenhower and (though with some debate) Obama. To return to a constitutional presidency, we would have to return to a pre-Johnson style of presidential role.

The standard remedies to the excesses of presidential power are at best infeasible. Obama or any other president is unlikely to actually relinquish their own power. If they were to do so, they would be labled as "feminine" and "weak. The Supreme Court is also unlikely to reestablish a constitutional presidency, as indicated by its frequent decisions to hold up presidential power in foreign policy (e.g. United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp.). Congress, the institutional body that would seem to be the most interested in reaquiring their own constitutional power, is also unlikely to be the agent that effects this change. Primarily obsessed with their own reelection prospects, many congressmen view taking on the president on matters of foreign policy to be political suicide.

The standard arguments about why the president should be the "sole organ" of foreign policy are bunk. He/she doesn't necessarily have more foreign policy knowledge than members of congress. The main reason the president might have a higher level of knowledge of current foreign policy information is because congress has structured the flow of information such that it flows through the executive before going to congress (if ever). Congress in the early days of the nation passed a law requiring that the executive branch had to share all of its knowledge with congress. This was passed with the support of Madison, Washington, and even Hamilton, perhaps the biggest founding supporter of executive power. In short, congress' lack of foreign policy clout is because it has artificially and unconstitutionally transfered that responsibility to the presidency.

The solution to all this? Adler identifies the 3 C's: Constitutional culture, Constitutional consciousness, and Constitutional conscience. Adler believes that ultimately Americans must be educated from the ground up and reminded what a society without rule of constitutional law looks like. Once we've been educated enough to have a culture that prioritizes constitutional values, Adler argues we will have the consciousness to monitor government actions for excessive exercises of power and have the conscience to speak out against said abuses.

I had the opportunity after the lecture to ask Prof. Adler several questions about presidential power and torture 1-on-1. Stay tuned for a summary of that session as well as my own analysis and reflection!

Supreme Court Rejects Appeals Court Ruling Ordering Release of Torture Photos

2009-11-30T16:16:00.000-08:00

There is another frustrating setback in the torture photos saga that started on May 13th when the Obama administration reversed its decision to release a substantial number of new Abu Ghraib photos to the public. As reported today by the New York Times, the Supreme Court nullified the 2008 ruling by the Manhattan Second Circuit Court of Appeals that ordered the photos be released to the public. The Supreme Court has today kicked the ruling back to the Appeals Court, asking, as the Times put it, that it "give 'further consideration' to the issue in light of a Congressional action authorizing the Defense Department to keep the pictures from the public."

As a constitutional law dork, I have to ask why the Supreme Court would pay any heed to Congressional legislation in its rulings. Supreme Court cases deal by definition with matters of strictly constitutional law. If our system of checks and balances is to be believed, as articulated in Marbury v. Madison, it is the within the purview of the Court to curb Congressional action, not vice versa. The Court since its inception was meant to stand as an antimajoritarian counterweight to the executive and legislative branches. It is the Supreme Court's most basic duty in this case to authoritatively decide whether or not it is constitutional to withhold the torture photos as so-called "state secrets". If the Court is unwilling to fulfill its basic constitutional obligation to decide cases on the basis of constitutional law alone in this case, it should have not granted cert. to the case. Rather than subvert their own constitutional role, the Supreme Court could have simply let the Appeals Court ruling stand.

Sadly, the constitution sadly doesn't seem to be the center of this debate. My fingers are crossed that the hard work of the ACLU and their allies will be sufficient enough to convince the Appeals Court once again that the constitution still matters. Maybe then will we get the photos, and with them another step towards truth, justice, and accountability.

ACLU FOIA Request Reveals Even More Bush Administration Involvement in Torture

2009-11-26T22:33:00.000-08:00

In a press release issued today, the ACLU announced that it has obtained an index of important new CIA documents through a FOIA request. This documents in this index mostly relate to the CIA's 2005 destruction of videotapes that showed vicious torture at CIA black sites. The reason we only have an index rather than the actual documents themselves is, you guessed it, national security. One more example of so-called "state secrets" used as an excuse to cover the administration's butt.

To quote the ACLU's press release:

The chronology outlined in this new index supplies further evidence that the CIA destroyed the videotapes in order to prevent the public from learning the full scope of the CIA’s torture program, and further evidence that the Bush White House was on notice that the CIA intended to destroy the tapes" said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project. "We continue to believe that the CIA’s destruction of the tapes constituted contempt of court, and we intend to press that case over the next few weeks

Listed in the index released last week are a November 8, 2005 cable from a CIA field office to CIA headquarters requesting permission to destroy the 92 tapes and a November 9, 2005 cable confirming their destruction. The precise date of destruction confirms that the tapes were destroyed immediately after the Washington Post reported the existence of the CIA black sites and the New York Times reported that the CIA Inspector General had questioned the legality of the agency’s torture program.

The index also lists the earliest known record of White House participation in discussions about destroying the tapes – an e-mail dated February 22, 2003 revealing that CIA officials met with Bush administration officials to discuss how the agency should respond to a letter from Representative Jane Harman (D-CA) advising the agency not to destroy the tapes. While it was known previously that the White House participated in discussions about the disposition of the tapes, this is the earliest record to date of any such discussions.

I suppose at this point that new knowledge about the complicity and guilt of the Bush administration in the CIA's torture program is not surprising. As much as George Tenet and the Bush Administration attempted to pass the buck to one another, they are both guilty for the human rights atrocities committed at CIA black sites.

Indeed the transparency of the "state secrets" lie is even more apparent now. As Ben Wizner pointed out in his Oxy Q+A session, Secrecy and abuse are cyclical: State secrecy sets the stage for torture. Torture creates the need for state secrecy, etc. etc. Here the political nature of the "state secrets" claim is more transparent than ever: the tapes were destroyed in response to the Washington Post's discovery of them and the CIA Inspector General's questioning of the program's legality. Rather than serve a national security interest, the "state secrets" defense being used now to withhold the documents regarding the videotapes is blatantly political. The political fallout of documents proving that the Bush Administration's explicitly authorized the destruction of the tapes in response to the very real possibility that they could be held accountable for them would be immense. The CIA knows it, Obama knows it, and congress knows it.

With evidence as damning as this, it's not hard to see why Republican congressmen have tried so hard to block torture accountability. The extremely limited evidence is damning enough without the no-doubt gruesome details of the documents themselves.

Lawrence O'Donnell and the Denial of Impact

2009-11-18T21:54:00.000-08:00

Last night, MSNBC contributor and political analyst Lawrence O'Donnell came and spoke to our torture class. here at Oxy Most of the material he covered was basic media studies knowledge: the media has a significant liberal bias, the 24-hour news cycle, investigative journalism is in decline and traditional news media sources are dying off. There were a couple interesting points. First, that Dick Cheney was trying to receive some kind of national support for torture by making it a partisan issue. In part he succeeded, as evidenced by the many Republican torture apologists in congress. Second, he did acknowledge that giving a platform to Cheney and other torture apologists for the sake of back-and-forth talk show confrontation does legitimize their position. This knee-jerk impulse to find two sides to every issue does create a serious moral quandary for the media by lending legitimacy to defenders of the most heinous crimes against humanity.

Though Mr. O'Donnell did a fantastic job of avoiding saying anything substantive or newsworthy, I did take umbrage at his assertion that media contributors like him don't make a significant impact in public perception of issues. While it is true that viewership for news shows has declined dramatically, televised media as a whole still plays an important role in establishing the national rhetoric surrounding political issues. Mr. O'Donnell complained both about the decline of investigative journalism and the rise of sensationalist media outlets, I wish he'd discussed the effect of their intersection. As has been widely studied in the discipline of media analysis, the decrease in editorial filtering and independent investigative journalism has created a media echo chamber of sorts. In this echo chamber, news stories and particularly soundbite-worthy statements ricochet around the various mass media outlets with little restraint. Mr. O'Donnell argues that his presence on a cable news outlet like MSNBC is fundamentally inconsequential because the viewers watching shows on cable networks "already have their minds made up". Be that as it may, outlets like MSNBC and FOX allow for the introduction of stories and frames into the newscycle that would not otherwise appear in mainstream media.

As exciting as it was to have Mr. O'Donnell join us here at Oxy, I was disappointed that he believed so strongly in the futility of his occupation. I sincerely hope that Mr. O'Donnell uses his powerful position to speak truth to power and establish progressive media narratives. Only in doing so can we counter the pervasive conservative torture apologism narrative that rears its ugly head in nearly every discussion of torture in the media.

Return to the Rule of Law?

2009-11-13T22:44:00.000-08:00

Breaking News: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and 4 other men accused of involvement in the 9/11 attacks will finally be put on trial in NYC. Unfortunately, it was also announced that 5 other men will face military commissions. Regardless, though this is specifically being politically framed as bringing the 9/11 perpetrators to justice, it is a massive step in favor of law and order. President Obama is finally fulfilling President Bush's promise to bring the accused 9/11 conspirators to justice. This is a huge political risk for President Obama. If successful, the trials will make him a man of justice, and if plagued by complications from US-committed torture could be a major political albatross.

The GOP of course, is outraged. Surprise, surprise. Some pretty crazy things are being said by individuals such as Sen. Jeff Sessions and Sen. John McCain, but the crown jewel of crazy goes to former NYC Rudy Giuliani, who said on Fox that "We think they're criminals! These are soldiers in a war against us; and the rules of war should apply." Apparently the new chapter in Republican revisionist history is that we have treated these men as "prisoners of war" and should continue to do so. If they're POWs, the Geneva Conventions apply. Are you and the Republican party willing to accept that Mr. Giuliani? The hypocrisy of these men is astounding, as they flood the media with the message that these accused terrorists are POWs and hence can't be tried in civilian court. A reminder to Mr. Giuliani, Sens. McCain and Sessions and their ilk: it was you who supported the declassification of these men as POWs and the creation of the "Geneva Convention-immune" classification of "enemy combatant". You cannot call them POWs again out of convenience after 8 years of illegal detention, torture and Geneva Convention violations. That is revisionist history and blatantly deceptive.

Additionally, the Republicans seem to be arguing that the US courts are incapable of dealing with terrorism cases. As Rachel Maddow pointed out tonight, this is an absurd proposition. We've imprisoned Charles Manson, the "blind sheik", the "unabomber", the "shoe bomber" and even another 9/11 conspirator through the federal courts. This, as Maddow points out, is sheer cowardice.

I would go further than Maddow does though and outline the political implications of these proceedings for Republicans. I believe that the Republicans do have legitimate reasons to be afraid, though not for the safety of the American people. Rather, the Republicans are all too aware that these trials for the first time will allow the Guantanomo detainees to testify in a real American court about the torture they were subjected to at the hands of the US. No longer will the culpability of the Bush White House's torture program be shielded by a censor and thick glass, as Wizner described it as being in the Gitmo military tribunals. If the details of detainees gruesome torture at the hands of US operatives becomes public, Republicans could be forced to answer for the Bush administration's actions. I'd be panicking if I were them too.

For this blog, the timing of this decision couldn't be better. In my recent posts on Ben Wizner's talks, I quoted him as saying that "[state] secrecy is the source of rot". If AG Holder is serious about these prosecutions, and the accused 9/11 conspirators are only the first of many to face constitutional justice, our long national nightmare of secret torture may finally come to an end. That end is still a long way off, but today marks a historic first step. Friday night is when the most contentious policies are always announced (nobody listens to the news Friday night. Except me.), but this story will hopefully dominate the news for a long time.

Further Viewing:

On the decision to put the 5 men on trial and Republican outrage:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

On the challenges facing the court and a possible referendum on the Bush torture policy:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Ben Wizner pt. 3: Q+A Session (Oct. 23)

2009-11-08T01:49:00.000-08:00

In the Oct. 23rd conversation our class on torture had with ACLU attorney Ben Wizner, we discussed in greater detail and specificity the legal issues regarding torture. We covered a large range of topics, but with an emphasis on state secrets and the classification of the so-called "enemy combatant". Here are some of the gems of knowledge Wizner shared with us:

On State Secrets:

In relation to torture: "secrecy is the source of rot".

Secrecy and abuse are cyclical: State secrecy sets the stage for torture. Torture creates the need for state secrecy. Etc. etc.

Though there are legitimate state secrets (e.g. military technology in wartime), secrecy must be balanced with the need for an open government of and for the people. State secrets have been abused since their very inception, as evidenced by the pentagon papers. The pentagon papers were held secret on the grounds of national security when ultimately it was revealed that they were kept secret because they were a political liability. Governments have an irresestible temptation to use state secrets for political ends, and this is where the courts must intervene.

On FOIA:

Between 2000-2006, FOIA was the only oversight of the Presidency. The Republican controlled congress did not perform it's constitutional duty.

On the Gitmo Military Tribunals:

"Secret people, secret laws, secret proceedings". Enemy combatants, being tried under "state secrets protected" secret laws, and the few human rights representatives present could only watch through a soundproof screen. Indeed, they had a censor at the ready to bleep out anything a detainee could say regarding his treatment in Gitmo.

The tribunals, according to Wizner, were "not about keeping information from terrorists, but about keeping information from the American people.

The purpose of the courtroom was to prevent testimony about torture from leaving it. The detainees were allowed to talk about martyrdom and other purported evils of the US, and indeed even call for direct assaults on the nation. But when they talked about their treatment in Gitmo, they were censored. In other words, they were allowed to call for assaults on the US, but it was far more important that evidence of US torture be kept secret.

On the So-Called "War on Terror":

Bush: the "War on Terror" is not a normal war. Enemy combatants are not normal enemies. There are no rules for enemy combatants beyond what we make up. Even individuals acquitted by the Bush-created tribunals remained enemy combatants.

Where Bush argues no laws apply to enemy combatants, as they are a new class of enemy, Wizner argues that they have additional protections. They are both private citizens and enemy fighters. Both criminal laws and rules of combat (e.g. Geneva Conventions) apply.

Question and Answer:

Wizner opposes a truth commission. Such a commission assumes we all agree that torture occurred. As congressional Republicans exemplify, we do not.

The rule of law is diminished by the 24-hour news cycle. He-said she-said partisan standoffs always assume two sides to any issue. In other words, the mass media legitimizes fringe believers in the usefulness of torture.

Wizner hopes that congress will pass legislation defining, and hopefully limiting, the breadth of executive "state secrets".

This is the final installment in the Wizner Talks! Here are the earlier installments: Part 1 and Part 2 .

Ben Wizner pt. 2: Q+A Session (Oct. 22)

2009-11-04T02:00:00.000-08:00

In his question and answer session to his Oct. 22 lecture, Ben Wizner addressed much of the audience's lingering confusion surrounding the US' torture program. Here are a few of the points Wizner made:

President George W. Bush used "state secrets privilege" in an unprecedented manner. Rather than use the provision to withhold individual pieces of evidence at the case-be-case discretion of the judge, Bush used the provision to throw out torture cases before they even got to court. Rather than have to prove the "secret" nature of the individual evidence, the Bush admin. claimed blanket overriding secrecy and denied constitutional due process to the US' torture victims. This practice still continues successfully today in the Obama administration.

Wizner wholeheartedly denounced Obama's decision to keep many torture photos secret- photos he'd previously promised to release. Obama's argument, no doubt inspired by the generals and his military advisers, was that the release of the photos would jeopardize American soldiers. The underlying rationale, as Wizner pointed out, was the idea that the more international outrage the photos' release would cause, the greater the need to keep them secret. To quote Wizner, this is an "ass-backwards legal philosophy". State secrets should not be applied simply because the relevant material is more outrageous. The law doesn't protect things more when they are more repulsive.

Wizner is a strong advocate for targeting the publishers and commissioners of the OLC memos in particular because it will be extremely difficult to prosecute others involved. The DOJ would have an extremely difficult time prosecuting "lower-downs" who followed the DOJ's own directives during the Bush years. Conversely, it could be extremely difficult to prove culpability among high level Bush cabinet officials unless it can be proven that they specifically commissioned the memos. Targeting the authors and commissioners is perhaps the most effective path towards legally repudiating torture.

The media was another topic Wizner addressed in the Q+A. Wizner criticized the confrontational punditocracy that takes place on most mass media today. Every issue, he rightly argues, is oppositionalized, with one pundit arguing one position, and another pundit the other. Wizner contends that it is outrageous that media outlets give extremist wingnuts like Dick Cheney de facto equal legitimacy in the rhetoric of torture by giving their outspoken perspective equal airtime.

Wizner expressed extreme doubt that members of congress would be held accountable for their actions/inaction regarding torture. At the same time, he didn't close the door on future legal action should new evidence of congressional misconduct arise

Check back later this week for the third and final installment in the Wizner talks, where I discuss his intimate meeting with my Torture class!

See part 1 of the Wizner talks here.

Did The CIA Lie to Nancy Pelosi?

2009-10-28T11:34:00.000-07:00

According to a report yesterday from The Hill, Nancy Pelosi's claim that she and other congressmen/women were mislead on multiple occasions by the CIA could be bolstered by an ongoing House Intelligence Committee investigation. The investigation was spurred by the new CIA Director Leon Panetta's admission that several CIA officials didn't notify congress about a program to assassinate al Qaeda leaders. Nancy Pelosi has been under constant assault from Republicans since she made the claim in May that: "We were told explicitly that waterboarding was not being used... They [the CIA] misled us all the time".

Now, House Intelligence subcommittee Chairwoman Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) is saying that the Panetta admission is just one of five instances of a critical breakdown in communications between the CIA and congress. Said Schakowsy:

There have been many instances where we’ve come to a committee hearing, after having read in the paper of something that should have been notified to us, where it’s followed up my mea culpas by the intelligence community... And examples where the committee actually has been lied to.

Apparently, the instances of omission, misleading and outright lying to congress are not limited to torture techniques. Of further interest is that Dick Cheney apparently ordered the CIA not to notify congress about the al Queda assassination program and potentially other programs.

Conspiracy to deceive congress is criminal. I hope that serious investigation into the CIA and Dick Cheney comes of this, though I'm not holding my breath. Expect more from this fascinating story as the House Intelligence subcommittee's investigation continues. In the meantime, enjoy this lovely clip of "Fox and Friends" getting the story on Nancy Pelosi's May assertion really, really wrong:

Got to love the torture apologia coming out of the guest's mouth. "We were all scared after 9/11" is the worst excuse out there. And then he defends Bush's torture record by asserting that Bush won in a "relative landslide" in 2004 (Reminder: these were the election results. Not impressive for an incumbent.). I suppose any electoral victory could be called a landslide in comparison to the 2000 election, but that's just intellectually dishonest. Then again, it's "Fox & Friends"

Torture Apologia Chart

2009-10-27T08:05:00.000-07:00

Thanks to Vagabond Scholar for this awesome flowchart on torture apologia. This ties in well with my post on Ben Wizner's lecture which discussed the mutually exclusive frameworks used by the Bush administration to characterize torture.

Ben Wizner pt. 1: The Lecture (Oct. 22)

2009-10-26T21:30:00.000-07:00

On October 22nd and 23rd, we here at Occidental College were lucky enough to have ACLU attorney Ben Wizner come speak. Ben Wizner joined the ACLU directly before the September 11th attacks, and has been working largely on cases regarding torture and Guantanamo bay since the beginning of the so-called "war on terror". I will be splitting up my summary and analysis of the two talks into three posts, one for his Oct. 22nd lecture, one for his Oct. 22nd Q+A session, and one for his Oct. 23rd conversation with the Torture class.

On the 22nd, I came to the lecture hall expecting minimal turnout. From my experience as an RA, I know that anything less than an all-out advertising blitz usually results in low turnout. Thankfully, this was not the case. The hall was packed, and I was glad to know all the questions for Mr. Wizner would not be my own.

The beginning of Mr. Wizner's lecture was spent alternating between reading John Yoo's infamous "you would like" torture memo and reading the Red Cross testimony of Abu Zubaydah. Wizner provided a striking contrast between all of the forms of torture Yoo authorized in the memo with the actual memories and suffering endured by Abu Zubaydah. Part of what was truly horrifying about hearing the two pieces together was realizing how sterile and deceptive Yoo's methodical descriptions of the techniques he authorized were in comparison to the deeds that were actually committed.

To quote John Yoo's 2002 memo, "You would like to place Zubaydah in a cramped confinement box with an insect. You have informed us that he appears to have a fear of insects... As we understand it, you plan to inform Zubaydah that you are going to place a stinging insect into the box, but you will actually place a harmless insect in the box, such as a caterpillar. If you do so, to ensure you are outside the predicate death requirement, you must inform him that the insects will not have a sting that would produce death or severe pain. If, however, you were to place the insect in the box without informing him that you are doing so, you should not affirmatively lead him to believe that any insect is present which has a sting that could produce severe pain or suffering or even cause his death...". The fact that this extremely Orwellian authorization failed in any way to capture the horrors of Zubaydah's experience is testament to the true nature of the memos. The torture endured by Zubaydah, by insects among other things, was far worse than even the disturbing "guidelines" established in the memo.

Wizner noted that Yoo's and the other torture memos were not truly legitimate legal opinons for the supposedly impartial White House Office of Legal Counsel, but rather a defense against later retribution. Arguing that the Bush administration knew the illegality of its actions, Wizner said the memos were "an effort to protect [the administration] from prosecution, from universally recognized war crimes". Wizner used the example of the "golden shield" provided by the OLC: if individuals were following OLC guidelines for legality and constitutionality, they would be extremely difficult to prosecute. These secret laws, guidelines and legal opinions not only gave authorization for the military to use torture, but first and foremost provided protection for administration and military officials from prosecution. For this reason, Wizner argues it is critical to directly challenge the memo authors, like Yoo and Bibey, and those who commissioned them in the Bush administration.

One of the problems Wizner said was most troublesome is how there has been no debate surrounding torture, only narratives. By discovering our torture program in a piecemeal fashion, Wizner argued that the Bush administration was able to frame torture as an acceptable national security necessity. There were two competing and mutually exclusive narratives said Wizner, a "bad apples" frame in which America does not torture but a few "bad apples" do, and the "ticking time bomb" narrative wherein torture is a necessity. As Wizner pointed out, these two frames are abusrdly opposed: one articulates torture as a moral wrong used only by a few moral degenerates (as the Bush administration characterized the Guantanamo Bay torture), while the other argues that torture is both morally correct and necessary for national security. These two narratives existed at the same time, and unfortunately never caused a media debate or public outrage.

In conclusion, Wizner said that the only way to "look forward" (in Obama's words) is by addressing the omnipresent specter of our recent past. For Wizner, the only way to restore the United States' reputation is if we actively uphold our international treaties and conventions surrounding torture. This means, in other words, not attempting to avoid prosecutions of Bush administration officials out fear that it will grind Washington politics to a halt. Wizner argued that it was this exclusion of certain politicians from legal retribution politicizes the legal system.

I couldn't agree more: not prosecuting obvious war crimes ruins our international credibility, makes us hypocrites on issues of morality, allows other countries to use us an excuse to torture, and establishes that political power can put you outside the reach of the law. Nothing could be more antithetical to what I perceive to be the promise of the United states. Moving on means facing our collective demons and showing to the world that we can be its moral compass. That is true leadership. After the Bush years, that would be change I can believe in.

FOIA Limited Once Again

2009-10-21T17:19:00.000-07:00

It appears unfortunately that the DOD can now exempt torture testimony from FOIA requests. The testimonies that Gitmo inmates gave before the military tribunals is being guarded on the grounds that it protects “intelligence sources and methods” and might aid enemy "propaganda". I, like the ACLU, call BS on that one. The most important eyewitnesses of the US torture program, the torturees themselves, are still being censored by the DOD and the CIA.

Congressional leaders agree to try Gitmo detainees in US

2009-10-08T12:57:00.000-07:00

For the first time since Guantanamo Bay's establishment as a detainment facility by George W. Bush in 2002, congressional leaders have agreeed to try the detained in the United States. This is a landmark decision that is a dramatic reversal of the unconstitutional system of military tribunals currently being implemented in Guantanamo Bay. This is not to say that this "compromise", as the NY Times calls it, is not highly problematic.

I have several questions I'd like to ask about the agreement in question:

1. Does this mean the prisoners will be granted habeus corpus rights? Can they go to trial in the US when we haven't even informed of their alleged crime?

2. The article states: "In addition, it was not clear whether the compromise would permit detainees to be brought to the United States for indefinite detention. An undetermined number of detainees are deemed too dangerous to release but cannot be put on trial because there is insufficient evidence against them". Is there the possibility that we will suspend habeus corpus on US soil? The entire Bush "legal argument", as articulated and ultimately rejected in Boumediene v. Bush, was that the constitution's 4th amendment protections don't apply on foreign soil. This appears to leave open the possibility that we will simply continue to detain prisoners whom we don't have sufficient evidence to convict. Does this compromise intend to only send suspected "dangerous" inmates to trial if we are sure of conviction? Last time I checked, that's not how the criminal justice system works.

3. Why would the agreement "forbid the Obama administration from releasing detainees in the United States"? If they are found innocent in the criminal justice system, aren't we obligated to release them? Where do we send them? To their home countries to face persecution and suspicion (or in the case of the Chinese Uighurs, death)? This seems to follow the same fear-inspired logic that caused congress to forbid Gitmo detainees from being held in US maximum security prisons. Nobody has ever escaped from a maximum security prison. Not the Unabomber, not Charles Manson,and certainly no terrorists. If our system of laws deems these detainees guilty, why can they not be held in our extremely effective high-security prisons? If they are innocent, what right have we not to release them immediately?

September Torture News Round-Up

2009-10-04T21:44:00.000-07:00

1. Legal News: Spanish Court asking US DOJ for info on Bush-era Torture Practices: The Spanish Court, which announced its intent to investigate Bush administration officials on their role in the US torture program, is now officially requesting new information from the Holder DOJ.Though many cry foul at the Spanish investigating the US, the "Audiencia Nacional", or Spanish National Security Court maintains jurisdiction because Spanish citizens were some of the victims of the torture program. How the Holder DOJ responds is anybody's guess (mine is they won't), but this is the story to watch as an indicator of international legal momentum on the US torture program.

On a more frustrating domestic note, GOP senators have pulled out of the inquiry into the CIA torture plan. Apparently they are so outraged by Holder's decision to investigate the torture program that they refuse to take part in the Senate's effort to investigate the torture program. Huh?

2. Bagram News: The US has issued new guidelines granting significantly more rights to prisoners being held at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. Each detainee is being assigned one military official who will gather witnesses and evidence. They still don't get Geneva rights, lawyers or habeus corpus, but it's a step in the right direction.

3. Gitmo News: Some huge news on the Gitmo front. Apparently the January deadline that Obama set for closing Gitmo in the beginning of his presidency is no longer hard. Obama says he's committed to closing the prison, but that more time will be needed to process all the cases. According to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, the deadline was good politics but "it's going to be tough" to meet the January deadline. As much of a blow as this is to those of us who think that the time to close Guantanamo for Obama was when he took office, he's at least releasing 75 of the 223 prisoners still in Gitmo. Though the prisoners still are being denied their basic rights, it's a relief to see that steps are being taken towards their release.

In Case You Still Thought Torture Worked

2009-09-21T22:00:00.000-07:00

Though I believe that the most important debate surrounding the US torture program is the moral one, the fact remains that torture simply doesn't work. The Scientific American reports today that yet another study has come out proving that torture is counterproductive to the acquisition of meaningful information.

To quote the Scientific American article:

Proponents claim that waterboarding's effective because prisoners will tell the truth to make the interrogation stop. But O’Mara says that’s not supported by scientific evidence. Harsh interrogation doesn’t motivate prisoners to tell the truth. It motivates them to talk. Because while they’re talking they’re not being waterboarded. But that doesn’t mean that what they say is true.

What’s more, prolonged extreme stress impairs memory retrieval. American Special Ops soldiers have been shown to have trouble recalling things they’d learned before being subjected to food- or sleep-deprivation as part of their training. That’s because stress hormones can compromise brain activity, especially in regions involved in memory.

The real bombshell here is that torture in not merely inneffective but that it actually impairs memory. Despite this and many, many, concurring studies, we still get lots of opinion makers leaving us such intellectual treatises as this beauty of an editorial. Remind me exactly why torture is worth the damage to our moral fiber and international reputation?

You can read the Scientific American article or listen to a podcast of it here.

UPDATE:

Rachel Maddow covers the story in the first half of this segment:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Obama Admin. contends that Bagram Detainees have no rights

2009-09-16T01:20:00.000-07:00

Even as the Obama administration makes platitudes about closing Guantanamo and ending the US torture program, the DOJ filed a brief on September 14th asserting that, unlike Guantanamo detainees, prisoners in Afghanistan's Bagram air base have no rights whatsoever. Nada, zip.

The briefing appears to depend on a very narrow reading of the US Supreme Court ruling in Boumediene v. Bush which firmly established habeas corpus rights for Guantanamo detainees. The ACLU says in their statement that the DOJ has missed the entire point of the Boumediene ruling, and that it obviously upheld judicial review in all cases of detention.

This filing on the part of the Obama administration is deeply disappointing. What good is phasing out Guantanamo if, as the ACLU purports, the federal government can just send the detainees to Bagram instead, where they will have even less rights. Though the Obama administration is starting to give Bagram prisoners avenues to challenge their detentions, the prisoners' lack of habeas corpus rights is morally reprehensible.

For further reading see this ABC News Blog article.

The Ali Soufan Testimonial and the Truth About The Effectifeveness of Torture

2009-09-09T15:00:00.000-07:00

This video of former FBI Interrogator Ali Soufan's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee should be required viewing for understanding the torture debate:

Ali Soufan makes two key points:

1. Key information was gleaned from Abu Zubaydah using professional and unquestionably legal FBI techniques. Once torture began, no more useful information was received.

2. The "smoking gun" argument is bogus. Torture (and especially sleep deprivation) takes time. Soufan received untarnished information from Zubaydah in the first hour using his techniques.

With this testimonial, the vast majority of the torture apologist / Dick Cheney argument is dismantled. No smoking gun can wait 180 hours for a sleep deprivation stage. The argument that torture's immorality was overshadowed by its effectiveness is shattered when its use directly caused the end of the information flow.

None of these facts can stop Cheney's fact-free media circuit, but with any luck he will begin to be challenged for his irreverence for the facts of torture's proven ineffectiveness.

Spain is Prosecuting the Bush Torture Lawyers!

2009-09-09T03:03:00.000-07:00

Spain is going to go ahead with its exhaustive prosecution of the Bush lawyers (including Alberto Gonzales!) who constructed the argument for torture:

Spain to proceed with torture prosecution of Bush lawyers: Report

While this is unlikely to have the sway that Holder's special investigator will have in what actually happens to these men, this investigation will actually examine the legality of the entire program. The Holder investigation will only look at instances where interrogators overstepped the already outrageous bounds of the Bibey and Yoo memos.

Torture Focus

2009-09-02T22:51:00.001-07:00

This semester I will be refocusing this blog on the torture debate in the United States. The largest reason why I am doing this is my upcoming Religious Studies course, "Religion and Politics". I plan to look specifically at Cheney, the "Bush Legacy Contract", and of course how the Obama administration defines the torture debate for themselves.

These are exciting times for the fate of human dignity, so please stay tuned!

Best,
Isaac

Obama DOJ Supports DOMA

2009-06-13T21:25:00.000-07:00

This is so disgusting it's hard to even rant about:

http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama-justice-department-defends-doma.html

What a kick in the gut. The Obama administration has pulled the rug out from under the LGBT community. Rick Warren. Then no action on Don't Ask Don't Tell. Now his DOJ defends DOMA with the fervor of Pat Robertson. The administration claims it has to defend DOMA (bullshit), but do they have to compare gay marriage to incest and child molestation? He even went so far as to outright say that Loving v. Virginia which overturned anti-miscegenation laws has nothing to do with gay marriage and should be no defense for us.

Obama described himself in his campaign as a "fierce advocate" of gay rights. His administration's actions reveal instead pure bigotry. Even if Obama didn't mean what his DOJ said to the court (impossible for such a tightly controlled machine like the Obama administration), these words will provide strong ammunition against Obama if he ever does take a stand.

Awful, unconscionable, and absolute betrayal. Shame on you President Obama and your Department of Justice.

Matthew Shepard Act Passes in House

2009-05-01T15:47:00.000-07:00

The Matthew Shepard Act, which would extend federal protection to LGBT victims of violence under a hate-crimes passed in the House yesterday by a 249-175 vote. This is a landmark bill that hopefully will help make sure that perpetrators of hate crimes like the men who killed Matthew Shepard in 1998. It's times like these that I'm glad that there's a 78-seat Democratic party advantage in the House. Hopefully the more problematic (and undemocratic) will pull through and rally behind the Matthew Shepard act for what it is: the next major step in civil rights.

With a bill that does nothing but protect individuals from hate-crimes based on avictim’s race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability, one might wonder what those 175 representatives objected to. The answer, according to a Fox News story is that social conservatives feel that the Matthew Shepard Act chills free speech. Really? Last time I checked, tying a 21 year old boy to fence, pistol whipping him, torturing him, crushing his brain stem and leaving him to die in rural Laramie isn't free speech. Hate-crimes bills aren't designed to quash dissenting ideas, they seek to protect individuals from violent offenses based on their identity. Shame on you House Republicans. This is beyond political, its inhuman.

The far-right position that protecting people like Matthew Shepard is a bad idead isn't even as crazy as the Republican response gets. We expect more out of the party of Michelle Bachmann and Glenn Beck, right? An article in the Huffington Post shares the delifghtful opinion of North Carolina congresswoman Virginia Foxx that Matthew Shepard's death was all a hoax. In her alternate reality, Matthew Shepard was merely the victim of a robbery, and his death as a victim of a hate-crime was invented to further the liberal agenda and impose "oppresive" bills that protect the innocent like the Matthw Shepard Act. Though Foxx later apologized for using the word "hoax", Shepard's mother Judy wasn't exactly mollified saying: "It's apologizing for semantics, not her ignorance". Tell it like it is Judy!

In response to the passage of the Matthew Shepard Bill in the House, the always awesome Rachel Maddow had Judy Shepard on to discuss the new bill. The interview is absolutely brilliant and very moving. Check it out:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Rachel Maddow's impassioned defense of hate-crimes legislation from the segment is also perhaps the best I've ever heard:

"MADDOW: The concept behind this kind of legislation is often misconstrued but here's the deal as I understand it. The idea is that the federal Justice Department can get involved in a case to help local authorities or even to take the lead on a case if need be, in prosecuting individual serious violet crimes and murders in which the victim was selected on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, disability - the idea that crimes like that are intended not only to hurt or murder an individual, but to terrorize an entire community, and so there is a national interest in ensuring that those crimes are solved and prosecuted, particularly if local law enforcement doesn't want to because they are blinkered by the same prejudice that led to the crime in the first place."

Hate-crimes bills aren't about political corectness: this is protecting real people's lives and real endangered commmunities.

How I'm voting and Why on the California Special Election's Propositions

2009-04-21T01:04:00.001-07:00

My recommendation for how to vote in the California special election this May is simple: NO on everything!!!

Proposition 1A: State Budget – NO

Though 1A adds 5-year taxes, it will also make permanent the many crippling budget cuts CA is making in the recession and impose a tight spending cap. We can’t afford to have our budget hobbled again. NO

Proposition 1B: Public Education Funding - NO

Only works if 1A passes. Can’t we do this through the Democratic state legislature instead of taking 1A’s poison pill? NO

Proposition 1C: California State Lottery - NO

The lottery ceases to go towards education and we borrow 5 billion dollars against future revenues. Why would we do this again? NO

Proposition 1D: Transfer of Child Development Funds - NO

This one sneakily masquerades as benefits for CA’s children. Not so! It allows funds being put towards services for young children to be spent elsewhere. NO

Proposition 1E: Transfer of Mental Health Funds – NO

Uses funds dedicated to mental health towards the state deficit. NO NO NO NO!

Proposition 1F: Pay Raises for State Officials - NO

Though I sympathize, this breaks the underlying progressive principle of wage increases mirroring cost of living. Under this prop. State legislators and constitutional offices can’t get pay raises in a deficit. This Proposition attempts to blame the pay of our legislators rather than their actions, and is a distraction from the real problems facing CA. NO

CA May Special Election Voter Resources

2009-04-19T12:38:00.000-07:00

After 20 minutes of research, it seems pretty simple. Vote NO on everything =)!

For some reasons why see:

League of Women Voters Non-partisan Voter Guide

Wellstone Club Progressive Voter Guide

Alameda County Green Party Voter Guide

Cute Leopards

2009-04-09T07:30:00.000-07:00

We won a rare legislative victory in Vermont. Though the issue is on the agenda in many state legislatures, I expect most victories to follow the Iowa model of court action. To sum up the last couple days in civil rights history, some pictures:

"Zhang Jie and Zhongni, two of only 100 endangered North China leopards in capitvity" via the BBC =). More pictures of them at http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/E7fdpa-H1OL/Animals+Of+Hamburg+Zoo/MZ_5mXw4UXO .

Awwwwww!

Is gay marriage here to stay in Iowa?

2009-04-08T14:09:00.000-07:00

Over at Fivethirtyeight.com, everyone's favorite nerd Nate Silver has a fantastic article up on the future of gay marriage. Using his fantastic regression model based off of electoral history of anti gay marriage citizen initiatives and the population of evangelical Christians in each state, Silver projects the year in which puplic opinion will shift enough that each state will vote down a ban on gay marriage. By his theory, such a ban would fail in 2010 in California and fail in 2013 in Iowa barring any major public opinion shifts. If the Iowa state legislature moves against the ruling right away, it could be on the ballot potentially by 2012, in which Silver predicts that it would pass. The sunny side of this though is that the Iowa state legislature isn't exactly raring to go on this one. One possible reason? Having gay marriage on the table in an election would dramatically shift Iowa's caucus landscape for the 2012 elections to the right, something the Democratic controlled legislature would love to avoid. With any luck, the legislature won't move against the court's ruling, and the marriage rights of Iowa's LGBT population will be there for good.

Iowa and Gay Marriage

2009-04-06T13:56:00.000-07:00

As most of you probably know already, On April 3, 2009, in Varnum v. Brien, the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously affirmed that banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, overturning a statewide "Defense of Marriage Act" in 1998. This ruling is a momentous occasion and a great victory for the LGBT rights movement. Additonally though, this terriffic ruling is a reminder of the clout of the courts. While LGBT rights have been undermined again and again in state legislatures and in citizen initiatives/propositions, the courts remain our staunchest ally within the government. Though it may take more than a decade, with a strong grassroots movement we can shift public opinion and bring about equality for all.

Floods and Homophobia

2009-03-27T14:38:00.001-07:00

I'd like to start by bringing your attention to the terrible floods currently threatening Fargo, ND and parts of Minnesota. Picture the Iowa floods except the rivers have ice floes the size of cars on them.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Now how does this relate to the gays you might ask. It would take someone of extraordinarily poor ethics and particularly lax journalistic standards to be able to relate the two wouldn't it? Enter Rush Limbaugh. Only Limbaugh could use the tragic Red River flooding in North Dakota to make some "dike" jokes. I kid you not. What's really frustrating is that Rush is taking such obvious advantage of a national tragedy to be a partisan hack. This is the epitome of heartless unpatriotic behavior. Shame on you Mr. Limbaugh.

The New Media and the Decline of the Newspapers

2009-03-07T02:51:00.000-08:00

Rachel Maddow has an amazing segment on the collapse of the newspaper industry. It addresses the threat of new media and the failure of the old media's online business model. The future of investigative journalism is at stake! Check it out!

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

CA Supreme Court hearings on Prop. 8 This Thursday!

2009-03-03T01:30:00.000-08:00

The wonderful Emma Ruby Sachs has an awesome article up on HuffPo summarizing how the trial will proceed on Thursday. The convoluted California constitutional law at work in this case is fascinating. Definitely check it out!

You can watch the proceedings at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/prop8viewing.htm this Thursday! History in the making folks!

Los Angeles County Voting Guide March 3rd

2009-03-03T00:57:00.000-08:00

Today, March 3rd, there are city, school and local measures and candidates that are up for deciding! Everyone I've talked to has no idea who 90% of the people on the ballot are. Turnout in these kind of elections is abysmal, so I thought I'd do a good deed and put out an LA County Voting Guide for today's elections! Full disclosure: I live in Alameda county. I hope some of you will vote my way by proxy =).

A -Yes
B - Yes
C - Yes
D- Yes
E - NO

Mayor - "Zuma dogg"
Attorney - Noel Weiss
Controller - Wendy Greuel
Trustee 2 - Reddock
Trustee 4 - Candaele
Trustee 6 - Pearlman
Trustee 7 - Santiago

Thanks to the Courage Campaign's excellent voter guide for information on the ballot measures.

All of the candidates (even "Zuma Dogg") were closely evaluated by me, myself and I with help from the candidate directory @ Smart Voter and the candidates' web sites.

And remember: GO OUT AND VOTE!!!!

"Ailing GOP risks Losing a Generation" ?

2009-02-28T23:28:00.000-08:00

The New York Times makes the argument that the GOP is quite capable of losing a generation with shifting political identification, much as Democrats lost a generation with Reagan. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/weekinreview/01connelly.html?_r=1&hp

Also, these classy folks are the backbone of the conservative movement in the US. Fabulous:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

And because I can't resist cute tiger cub videos:http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=6964589

Two Paths for Recovery

2009-02-20T13:38:00.000-08:00

Totally unrelated to LGBT rights, but nevertheless interesting: a fantastic article on the US's two options for economic stimulus from Associated Press business writer Yuri Kageyama from Tokyo and AP writer Karl Ritter from Stockholm. The two options are the Swedish historical model and the Japanese one. The beginning of the article begins by saying:

"Sweden moved quickly, nationalizing two banks and setting up an asset management company to take over bad debt. In contrast, Japan waited seven years before getting serious about bailing out its banks. The result: a "lost decade" of economic stagnation _ a fate the U.S. president says America must avoid."

Certainly a must read, especially among the growing calls to nationalize the United States' own "zombie" banks.

Check the article out at CBS News!

Wanda Sykes at the White House!

2009-02-18T14:12:00.001-08:00

Wanda Sykes, the hilarious and now out of the closet comadian is going to be personally in charge of roasting Obama at the May 9th White House Correspondents' Dinner. Why is this so exciting? Well for one thing, the Obama team is doing this knowing full well that Sykes will roast the crap out of Obama for his anti-gay marriage stance and Rick Warren controversy. To get a preview of the fabulous Sykes doing her thing, check out this Leno clip:

The Obama team can't easily make amends for Rick Warren, but this is awesome! This major televised event could have had nearly any comedian, but the Obama team deliberately reached out to the LGBTQI community on this one! Could this be a subtle show of support for the community from the Obama administration? Let's hope it's a sign of positive things to come!

For more great Wanda Sykes LGBTQI media check out Prince Gomolvilas' excellent post at "The Bilerico Project"

I'll leave you with this awesome speech from Wanda at the Las Vegas "No on 8" rally! Moving stuff:

Thanks to Prince Gomolvilas at Bamboo Nation for the media links.

"The Gays" have taken Iceland!

2009-02-04T12:30:00.000-08:00

And Colbert has something to say about it!

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

It Could Be Worse - Iceland

Colbert Report Full Episodes
Paul McCartney Appearance

Funny Political Videos
More Funny Videos

It is absolutely unacceptable that the international Gay conspiracy has taken advantage of Iceland's newly acquired bankruptcy to lead an insurrection and send one of their own to the top! The new lesbian PM Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir is now the world's first openly gay head of government in the history of the world. How dare the selfish Gays take advantage of the suffering Icelanders to get one of their own democratically elected! The nerve!

Proof that gay relationships normal an argument against them?

2009-02-03T17:21:00.000-08:00

The AP article is titled "Julie, Hillary Goodridge To Divorce, Couple Led Gay Marriage Fight In Massachusetts". The article says that:

"BOSTON — A lesbian couple who led the fight for gay marriage in Massachusetts has filed for divorce. Julie and Hillary Goodridge were among seven gay couples who filed a lawsuit that led to a court ruling making Massachusetts the first state to legalize same-sex marriages in 2004. The couple became the public face of the debate in the state and married the first day same-sex marriages became legal."

Though the reporting is fairly straightforward, its incredibly odd to see this as national news. The biggest forum it had achieved before the AP today was local LGBT newspaper. What then is the impetus for making a story out of these womens' relationship? It feels to me that the implication and tone of this article implies that the divorce of these two women is somehow indicative of the unsustainability of gay marriages. Shouldn't it show that gay marriages are normal and have the same problems that straight ones do? This certainly qualifies at the most as passive conservative bias, both in story tone and the fact that the AP decided to make it a national news story in the first place, but the AP has been known to have a noticeable conservative bias before.

Talk me down here folks!

O'Reilly: "We don't report rumours"

2009-01-28T11:20:00.000-08:00

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Bill O'Reilly Doesn't Report Rumors

Colbert Report Full Episodes
Colbert Report Tickets

Paul McCartney Appearance
More Funny Videos

Hilarious video of Stephen Colbert mocking Bill O'Reilly's coverage of the NY senate seat. Amazingly unprofessional.

Rick Warren and the Inauguration Controversy

2009-01-26T12:30:00.000-08:00

On the actual day of the inauguration, most people who watched didn't come away thinking about the two preachers who opened and closed the ceremonies. Of Pastor Rick Warren, some remember how creepy it was when he mispronounced Sasha and Malia's names. Some will remember Rev. Joseph Lowery, a civil rights activist, and his humorous benediction that called for justice for all races in rhyme: "we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around...". What many missed though was the outrage that the selection of Rick Warren as invocation speaker sparked in the LGBT. President Obama, as I mentioned in my previous post, made multiple statements affirming his commitment to equal rights for LGBT individuals despite his opposition to gay marriage. Saddleback Church's notoriously anti-gay Rick Warren is an anti-choice preacher who was strong proponent of California's prop. 8 and he has repeatedly equated gay relationships with pedophilia, incest and adultery on video, as seen below.

Anderson Cooper had 3 CNN correspondents on his show Anderson Cooper 360 to debate the issue. One of the three, Hillary Rosen probably best capture the outrage felt at the Obama team's decision to have Rick Warren speak:

The decision was not just politically opportunistic: it was also homophobic. After already suffering the crushing defeat of Prop. 8's passage, the last thing the LGBT community needed was another high profile slap to the face. It was The Rachel Maddow Show's resident pop culturist Kent Jones who had the best quote of the night though:

"Apparently in his invocation Warren is going to be asking God not only to bless America, but also to make it a lot less gay.".

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

That's the change America voted for, huh? Needless to say, this incident has caused a fair amount of suspicion and bad blood between the LGBT community and the Obama administration right off the bat. The move was designed to bring Obama political capital; perhaps to give him a "Sister Souljah moment" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sister_Souljah_moment) of sorts. The only way to keep Obama from throwing the LGBT community under the bus for cheap political capital in the future is to generate such a public outcry that it no longer benefits him to do so. Despite our collective hope, the LGBT community will have to be ever-vigilant under the new Obama administration. Once we've forced the Obama administration to respect us as they would any other group, maybe then the LGBT community can achieve its long yearned for progress.

LGBT Rights, Gay Marriage and Obama

2009-01-25T14:35:00.000-08:00

For the class I'm taking this semester, Politics 101, we have been asked to pick a specific area of public policy to focus on in our blogs. For me I'm going to pick gay rights. This is an issue close to my heart for personal reasons and because I was involved in the failed "No on 8" campaign here in California.

A common mistake made by many political observers is the conflation of LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) rights with gay marriage. To merge these two concepts is fallacious, ignorant, and lazy. For most of the gay community and almost every gay rights activist, gay marriage is a long-term goal that is secondary to the more pressing problems of legal discrimination, workplace discrimination and homophobia in the media. That being said, the media and political discourse have made gay marriage the big scary proxy issue that stands in for any and all enfranchisement of LGBT individuals. As such it will be unavoidable as a chief topic of interest in this blog. Whenever the Obama administration, Congressional leaders or media pundits talk about gay marriage, they are speaking too about the larger concept of LGBT equality.

With the massive Republican defeat in all levels of government this election cycle and hence the reduced clout of social conservatives, there would appear to be hope for LGBT rights activists. President Obama stated in an open letter to LGBT Americans in February that:

I talked about the need to fight homophobia when I announced my candidacy for President, and I have been talking about LGBT equality to a number of groups during this campaign – from local LGBT activists to rural farmers to parishioners at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, where Dr. Martin Luther King once preached. Just as important, I have been listening to what all Americans have to say. I will never compromise on my commitment to equal rights for all LGBT Americans. But neither will I close my ears to the voices of those who still need to be convinced. That is the work we must do to move forward together. (http://www.proudparenting.com/node/1321)

Needless to say, there is ample reason to feel that LGBT rights will see great progress in the Obama administration. The Bush presidency certainly didn't set the bar very high. In 2004 President Bush called for an anti-gay marriage amendment stating:

"Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." (February 24, 2004, http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_W._Bush)

The tides of civil rights are changing. I hope as many LGBT activists do that a new administration means more federal action for LGBT civil rights not against them. The hope is tempered by political reality. Nobody believes that LGBT rights are near the top of President Obama's agenda right now. With constant pressure from LGBT activists and the LGBT community though, I believe that the promises of "full equality in their [LGBT] family and adoption laws" (http://www.proudparenting.com/node/1321) that President Obama promised in his campaign could be realized within his first time. With momentum on our side, the movement for LGBT equality just might come to the White House.

DeMint and the Freedom Fighters

2009-01-23T12:56:00.000-08:00

I don't know if these extremists could sound more like Big Brother if they tried. I mean what's next, loyalty oaths?

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Video Courtesy of the "Rachel Maddow Show", 1-22-09.

You'd think that the far right reactionaries in the Republican party would attempt to remain relevant by toning down their rhetoric. Former President (!) GW Bush was only to happy to use the divisive us vs. them rhetoric that Sen. DeMint so classily wields in this video. Maybe he didn't get the memo, but that's not such a good way to become relevant in the Obama administration. As Obama himself reminded Senate Republicans: he won. There's a reason for that.

America is not crying out for more Reactionary faux-patriotic rhetoric: we voted that out of office. The man who championed and put in the spotlight the "freedom fighter" McCarthyist rhetoric left office three days ago with a 22% approval rating, the lowest ever excepting Nixon. Let the long slide into irrelevavence continue for Demint and his ilk. The reasonable Republicans will moderate themselves for the new administration and shifting public opinion. Demint and his fellow "freedom fighters" are in for a rude awakening.

New Blog Location!

2009-01-17T21:33:00.000-08:00

To anyone who might read this, I'm reviving this blog under the new title "Power to the Pundits". The new blog will be at http://powertothepundits.blogspot.com/. The old URL now redirects to this new blog! It has all of the old posts contained here and is designed to be my long-term blog. I'll put my political musings and whatever else I have an opinion on up. But don't worry-- it'll be self-pity free! I hope to see you around here!

Much love,
Isaac

It's Finally Over

2008-11-06T00:02:00.000-08:00

Dear Readers,

I'm glad I was wrong. I've said earlier in this blog that Ohio would not play nearly a large role in 2008 as it has in the past. About that... Ohio was the turning point on election night. No McCain electoral victory map did not include Ohio. As soon as the state was called, a scream went up at Occidental's election watching party. Anyone who knew anything about politics knew that Ohio had just decided the election for Obama. Of course Virginia was the one to actually place the crown on Obama's head, but Ohio once again stepped up to the plate of history. I'll remember last night for a long time.

The night was bittersweet. Prop. 8 succeeded in California. It was a campaign I had worked long and hard on, and it broke my heart to see it pass. So today, I have been torn between my exultation over Obama's landslide and the crushing defeat of civil rights in California. Hope won the day in the US, but hatred and bigotry won in California.

Part of what's nuts is that the election isn't over yet! Norm Coleman (R) and Al Franken (D) are heading for a nail-biting recount in Minnesota. And unless the few ballots left to be counted in Georgia change anything, Saxby Chambliss (R-i) will be heading into a December runoff against challenger Jim Maritn (D). Unlike Minnesota, this is a whole new election, so the campaigning and flow of resources will be unprecedented. I would not be surprised to see Obama stump heavily for Martin. Just a few hours, The Oregonian called the Oregon Senate seat for Jeff Merkley (D), bringing the Democrats to 57 seats in the Senate. In Alaska the outcome is still too close to call, but the consensus seems to be that a narrow win for 8-term incumbent and convicted felon Ted Stevens. Crazy.

It's been a fun ride, and it's not over yet! This blog will be updated less frequently with the election behind us, but please check in every once in a while! I doubt I can stay quiet for long!

Best,
Isaac

Final Thoughts

2008-11-04T11:33:00.000-08:00

Today I gut up at 5:30 to work the polls for the "No on Prop. 8" campaign. Responses at are Pasadena voting location were overwhelmingly positive. We even convinced a good chunk of people! It was great. And the Yes On 8 people were not on their game between 6-11am. We were at the Braille Club, and not a single Yes on 8 volunteer. I'm hopeful! Can we change the dialog on race and sexuality in one night? I hope so!

In other news, see my CA proposition voting guide @ http://thebuckeye20.blogspot.com/2008/10/california-propositions-my-endorsements.html . And NO ON 8!!!

I also think that Ohio will go to Obama. I predict 353 electors to Obama and 185 to McCain. Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina and Florida are all close enough to change that in a big hurry though. It's going to be an exciting night!

VOTE!!!!!

State of the Race: Ohio Polling

2008-11-01T21:42:00.000-07:00

It's been too long since I've dedicated a post to this blog's main topic: the Ohio vote. Ohio was in 2000 and 2004 a major decider in the national election. It was close both times and would have changed the outcome had it gone to the Democrats. Because of the massive national poll movement towards Obama though and his unconventional electoral strategy, Ohio is much less of a hinge this time around: Obama can win without it. Indeed, venerable poll analyst Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com has Obama winning 78% of his election scenarios with the pre-assumtion of Ohio being in McCain's column. Sorry buckeyes: you're probably not the deciders this time.

If Ohio was so important in 2000 and especially 2004, why is it less so this time? The answer lies in Obama's groundbreaking fundraising and "50-state strategy". Obama has been investing heavily in alternate electoral strategies. And with his coffers he can afford to do so. Even if McCain gets back the 2004 Bush states with small Obama leads currently (North Carolina, Florida, Indiana, North Dakota), McCain would still need to win Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Nevada to win. That's a tall order. So take solace buckeyes: if you give an Obama an early win on election night, you could still "select" our next president!

This graph from Pollster shows the trendlines for the Ohio polls. Interestingly the projected 7-point or so gap between Obama and McCain is right on par with the national polling numbers. I guess that speaks to Ohio's reputation as a bellwether. Considering how crappy McCain's endgame strategy on the ground appears to be, the Republicans will need a voter disenfranchisement system even better than 2004's. And now Ohio's Secretary of State is a Democrat. That'll make things harder. Without even that being topped, McCain needs a big external surprise in the next 3 days. Barring that, we'll be calling him President Obama.

But most of all? Remember to VOTE!!!

My Volunteer Experience

2008-10-31T02:03:00.000-07:00

Tonight I went to the No On Prop. 8 campaign campaign office. To say it was crowded is an understatement. We called volunteers who'd agreed to work all kinds of hours on election day. From 6:30 am to 8:30pm on Nov. 4th we'll be working the polls, informing voters and dispelling the myths perpetrated by the hate-filled Yes On 8 campaign.

We had so many volunteers that we contacted all the volunteers in our list in the course of 20 minutes. With 2 hours to go iin our volunteer shifts we gathered up all the signs in the office. We didn't have quite enough, so we made our own too. We marched out into the streets, and staked out a 4-way intersection. We screamed and hollered, and I learned enough No On 8 slogans to last a lifetime. My theater years paid off: I lead many chants and was always the loudest voice at the rally. It was truly empowering. Here's a small sampling of the slogans:

"Vote no!/ Vote no!/ Vote no, Prop. 8 has got to go!"

"No on 8!/ no on hate!/ we do not discriminate!"

CALL: "What do we want?!"
RESPONSE: "Equal rights!"
CALL: "How do we get it?!"
RESPONSE: "No on 8!"

I had an amazing personal experience too. I was reminded about why I wanted to do politics. We were out tonight fighting for our civil rights. We have the power to shape a generation. We shouted at every car that passed, and asked every pedestrian to vote no. With a few exceptions, almost everybody said they would and smiled at us. One man though said nothing. He just smiled and showed us his ring. For me this will be the image that sticks with me as I go to the polls to fight for equality. I know what I'm fighting for. And I know what we stand to lose.

The time to take a stand is now! Visit www.noonprop8.com for more info on fighting for equal rights for all. And most of all, VOTE!!!

The California Propositions: My Endorsements

2008-10-27T00:52:00.000-07:00

Since I live in California, and most of my readers are voting in California, I thought I'd share how I voted on the propositions, with a little explanation.

Prop 1A: YES. As flawed as this proposition is, now is the time to finally start high speed rail in California.

Prop 2: YES. Humane conditions for farm animals should be a given. This proposition finally makes it a reality.

Prop 3: NO. As much as I respect the children's hospitals, the hospital haven't used the $ we gave them last time! Plus, these are private institutions with absurdly overpaid executives. Why is the state paying for them exactly?

Prop 4: NO, NO, NO! This is the 3rd time this has been on the CA ballot! It is essential that women of all ages can have safe abortions! Abortions are not a pleasant thing- nobody claims as much. Forcing parental notification however would only result in more illegal abortions and more unwanted births. Let's kill this monstrosity one more time!

Prop 5: YES. Rehab over prisons for non-violent offenders. This is just the kind of thing that California's bloated prison system needs.

Prop 6: NO! This is a sleazy "anti-gang" initiative, that's really just a "more people in prison" initiative. Send it down!

Prop 7: NO ENDORSEMENT (though I voted yes). There is much wrong with this proposition. It punishes microenergy producers in an unfortunate way. Despite of this however it would effect a move towards clean and renewable energy. I have very mixed feelings about this one, so follow your gut.

Prop 8: NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!!!!!! California is poised to uphold equal marriage rights for all. California could once again be the vanguard in civil rights for an entire nation. We can reverse the legal gay-bashing tide and take the USA into the future. Or if we vote yes, we can suffer for a generation. The time is now! Vote NO!

Prop 9: NO. "Vicitim's Rights". I call BS. Like Prop. 6, this is Prison Guard's Union double-speak. Victim's Rights means harder to defend suspects. And what does that mean? More inmates for our enormous prison system!

Prop. 10: NO. This energy proposition is much, much worse than 7. It is a thinly veiled payoff to natural gas interests. Natural gas is not clean energy. We need to move forward, not sideways.

Prop 11: NO. Redistricting. Yes gerrymandering is bad. No this is not the solution. This method is biased heavily towards Republicans and Independents and takes power away from our elected officials. No way.

Prop 12: YES. This is a renewal of our 12-year running bond for home-purchasing loans for vets. And even better? Since they're loans, the vets will pay for it over time. What's not to like?

In summary:

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!!!! on 4 and 8!

NO on 3, 6, 9, 10 and 11.

YES on 1A, 2, 5 and 12.

EH on 7

Remember, get out and vote! Don't let a perceived Obama landslide stop you! These propositions will dramatically affect our lives! So please, even if you don't care abotu the national election, stand up for women and same-sex couples on Nov. 4!

McCain in Flames

2008-10-26T23:56:00.000-07:00

I was struck when sifting through the news by how many signs of a
failing candidate that McCain is showing.

His party is rebelling.

He can't make conservative pundits stay in line.

And his campaign is having massive infighting. They are calling Palin a
rogue, and get this, a /diva/. One adviser said: ""She is a diva. She
takes no advice from anyone," the McCain source said. "She does not have
any relationships of trust with any of us, her family or anyone else."

Partisanship aside, McCain has lost control of his image. His party, the
media and his campaign team are all beyond his control. By political science
standards, McCain is a failing candidate.

Fascinating Articles

2008-10-25T16:02:00.000-07:00

Nate Silver has a fascinating New York Post article up on McCain's long shot chance for electoral success. It's incredibly unlikely, but probably McCain's only path to victory at this point.

In other news, Oliver North (yes that Ollie North) manages to compare Obama to Hitler, Kim Jong Il, Napoleon, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, and Robert Mugabe in the course of 2 pages. It's absurd, offensive and really, really typical of Oliie "Iran-Contra" North. This man can't seem to stay out of politics, even after his failed senate bid. Ironically, this article is called Messiah Defecit Disorder

Also, Dick Morris is still a dick

Quotes du Jour

2008-10-20T01:12:00.000-07:00

Rove, WSJ: “This task, while not impossible, will be difficult,” Rove wrote. “If Mr. McCain succeeds, he will have engineered the most impressive and improbable political comeback since Harry Truman in 1948. But having to reach back more than a half-century for inspiration is not the place campaign managers want to be now.”

Republican analyst Torie Clarke, who once worked as McCain’s Senate press secretary and who appeared with Donaldson, had this advice for her former boss: “He has to ask himself some very tough questions, because one way or the other, this is the final chapter in his political career. And how does he want to write that final chapter? … Does he want to do anything in an effort to win, or does he want to go out the way he likes to think of himself — as a public servant?”

(Source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14660_Page2.html)

The Freak Show is Nervous...

2008-10-17T21:43:00.000-07:00

Our lovely buddies in the "news" media, aka the Freak Show are nervous about election night. And not in a way that anyone else in America. The Freak Show is nervous about their dramatic election night extravaganza will be cut short by an Obama landslide! With the polls shifting dramatically in Obama's favor and McCain's prospects looking worse and worse, there's a good chance that the election will be over before voting results from the West start coming in.

As is usual, the colls will close on the east coast several hours before their west coast counterparts. In 2004, the media had a feeding frenzy with 2 extremely close races, each coming down to one Swing State. The electoral map this time though, barring a national crisis, is looking a little different:

If Obama starts the night with North Carolina, Virginia and Pennsylvania, McCain is screwed. McCain has no reasnoable electoral strategy w/o Virginia, let alone North Carolina. McCain is playing major league defense right now. His electoral strategy appears to be a replication of Bush's 2004 map. He's been campaigning and spending heavily in Virgiia, North Carolina, Indiana and West Virginia, states he can't afford to worry about on the electoral map. In order to win McCain needs to be able to focus all his energy on traditional Swing States like Florida, Nevada, Missouri, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and especially Ohio. To reitirate, McCain is done without winning Florida, Virginia, North Carolina and Ohio:

><a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/electoral-college/'>Electoral College Prediction Map</a> - Predict the winner of the general election. Use the map to experiment with winning combinations of states. Save your prediction and send it to friends.

In this example, McCain loses Virginia, which has less electoral votes than Ohio and Virginia which I here hypothetically give to McCain. What can he move from this map into the GOP column? Maybe the 2004 Bush states? He's thrown Iowa under the Straight Talk Express with his continued slamming of ethanol subsidies (which I kind of agree with him on), putting it all but out of reach. New Mexico similarly doesn't look like much of a contest this year. He would need to flip both or Pennsylvania to offset his Virginia loss. And if he loses Florida or Ohio right off the bat? Forget it.

So why does this have the media running scared? Simple. Its a huge conundrum for them. If the race ends early, do they call it for Obama? There are two significant downsides to doing so. 1. It hurts ratings. Doing so would force them to talk about something else substantive like the congressional elections. Wouldn't that be awful. 2. Their declaration could affect voter turnout. If the media declares it in the bag for Obama while its still daytime in the West, voter turnout could go down. Why vote if the election is already "over". States like Missouri, Nevada and Colorado could potentially be won by McCain because Obama voters are already celebrating. This would be a real shame, and deter from a truly representative electoral result.

So what are the media bigwigs going to do? Senior Vice President of CBS news Paul Friedman said: "We could say something like, ‘Given the number of electoral votes Obama already has, and given what we know about the voting so far in various states where the polls have not closed, it is going to be very hard for John McCain to win.’ I would sincerely hope that kind of language would not discourage people out West from voting.” Sam Feist, CNN's Political Director said "A night of early surprises would be a gift for John King's "Magic Wall" of computerized maps. Feist said: "If we know early in the evening that Barack Obama wins a critical state such as Virginia or Florida, we'll have a conversation about what John McCain would have to pull out of his hat now," such as Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Mexico, Colorado or Nevada". This is why we love CNN. John Kind just goes crazy with that newfangled thing. I miss the whiteboard.

On MSNBC, the diagnosis is not good for McCain. Joe Scarborough said on “Morning Joe”: “When it becomes obvious that one candidate’s going to lose, usually members of that party start jumping, like rats from a ship. You’re starting to hear from Republicans that are really afraid McCain’s going to lose, Democrats may [reach] 60 in the Senate, and this is going to be a historic rout.” That's not exactly a glowing prediction for McCain's Nov. 3 chances. I can't wait to see the media freak-out then.

(Thanks to Mark Halperin at The Page for directing me to the Politico article)

What the debates could have been

2008-10-17T16:46:00.000-07:00

Why couldn't the debates have been like this:

Seriously! EVERYONE would watch! Alright Democrats, time to nominate Batman in 2016! The Republicans have the Penguin down.

The Daily Show Hits Fox Where It Hurts

2008-10-11T01:39:00.000-07:00

Remember America: we report, you decide. Or, to put it in the words of a certain Minnesota senate candidate: "They Distort, We Deride".

The Buckeye Bellwether?

2008-10-11T00:47:00.000-07:00

With the polarization of the electorate, one of the most significant ramifications has been a shift in presidential campaigns to focusing on a few select swing states. The days when Reagan and FDR had landslide electoral college victories appear to be behind us. Even Obama, who's doing very well in the swing states (www.pollster.com) and is currently projected to pick up at least 320 electoral votes in November, has no real shot at winning "red" states like Arkansas, Tennessee or Louisiana.(all of which were won by Bill Clinton in 1992). As such, states such as Ohio are getting a disproportionate of campaign attention.

With states like Missouri, Pennsylvania, Florida and of course Ohio liable to be won by either party in a given election, we've seen the advent of bellwether states. The basic idea behind a bellwether state is that the candidate that wins that state will go on to win the election. From a more scientific viewpoint, bellwether states are indicative of which way the other swing states are likely to vote. Ohio is viewed as one of the top bellwether states: it has only voted for a non-winning candidate twice since 1896 (once in 1944, and 1960). Since 1964, Ohio has always voted for the winning candidate. Following this logic, many pundits and strategists assume that if a candidate can win a bellwether state, they'll win the election. As such, most candidates have focused an inordinate amount of energy in the "bellwethers".

There are two glaring problems with this "bellwether" strategy though. 1st, the list of "true" bellwether states shrinks each election. One good example is that Kentucky and Tennessee are classic swing states, and yet are likely to vote against Obama in what looks to be a landslide electoral victory. Ultimately this bellwether obsession turns into media and campaign super-hype. With Kentucky not considered a swing state this year, the campaigns are both pouring absurd amounts of resources into Ohio and ignoring the neighboring state. With fewer and fewer states that "matter", the electoral process is diluted for the vast majority of opinions. If you don't live in a swing state your vote won't make a huge difference in the Presidential Vote. Kentucky citizens drive to Ohio to caucus, even when scores of undecided voters are present at home.

The second major fallacy of the bellwether states is that their designation is really reverse engineering. The view is that somehow these states' results will predict the election. In reality, it is not that these states are somehow special- it is a quirk of our antiquated electoral college that causes an undue focus on large states with divided demographics. In the case of Ohio too, 8 native sons have been elected to the presidency. This no doubt affected the vote in Ohio. Ohio's power as one of the most powerful swing states often allows it to make a huge difference in who is ultimately chosen as president, not vice versa. In short, the view of cause-and-effect is inherently flawed. Sure only 2 presidents have won without Ohio, but its hard without 20 swing votes.

Obama Landslide Map- Updated

2008-10-10T22:30:00.000-07:00

><a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/electoral-college/'>Electoral College Prediction Map</a> - Predict the winner of the general election. Use the map to experiment with winning combinations of states. Save your prediction and send it to friends.

The current economic crisis has changed the electoral map. A lot. Notice how a continued strong shift to Obama has put West Virginia, Indiana and Omaha into play. Craziness.

Sarah Palin: Leader of the Free World

2008-10-01T01:07:00.000-07:00

Even typing that post title makes me shudder. It's a horrifying thought, isn't it? And part of the horror is the unique plausibility of it all. Despite the trends going against him right now, McCain could still feasibly win the election. Statistically, McCain has a 1 in 4 chance of dying in office. Sure he has "good genes", but those are not great odds. If you include the chances of serious disability that would inhibit ability to function as president, the odds get closer to 1-in-3 for McCain.

What does all this mean? Well, all things considered, the odds aren't all that bad for McCain. A 25% chance of death isn't too bad. But what it does mean is that Sarah Palin is under increased scrutiny as a candidate for the Vice Presidency. McCain is the oldest major party candidate in history, and the voters know it. If McCain were to die in office, the woefully unprepared Sarah Palin would take his place. Voters know this, and as such Palin is campaigning really for a position in limbo between the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. This makes her shortcomings even more apparent. If Palin screws up the Thursday debate royally, it could seriously endanger the ticket.

For a political junkie this universal lack of confidence in the readiness of Sarah Palin opens the door for crazy possibilities. What about a 269-269 electoral vote (e.g. Obama gets Kerry states plus Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado minus New Hampshire)?

><a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/electoral-college/'>Electoral College Prediction Map</a> - Predict the winner of the general election. Use the map to experiment with winning combinations of states. Save your prediction and send it to friends.

In this case, the election gets tossed to congress. Some say that an election tie would favor Obama. I would tend to agree largely because the 12th amendment gives each state delegation one vote (i.e. one for Wyoming, one for California), and the in the incoming House Democrats will in all likelihood have a majority in a plurality of the delegations. Imagine though that McCain won the popular vote by a large margin (i.e. had strong 2nd place showings in the pacific and northeast and great GOTV in safe red states). In this case, House delegations from strong McCain states w/ a majority Democrat delegation (i.e. Arkansas, Tennessee, South Dakota, North Dakota, West Virginia, etc.) might be "forced" by public opinion to support McCain.

If the House does pick McCain in such a scenario, who's to say the majority Democrat senate has to pick Palin? Considering her plummeting favorability ratings, terrible interviews and glaring unreadiness, the Senate could easily select the obviously ready, willing and able Joe Biden. Imagine living in a pre-12th amendment world where the President and Vice President are voted for independently on the November ballot. Now imagine a McCain-Biden administration. Now imagine the also theoretically possible reverse: an Obama-Palin administration. No, stop laughing. Think about it. It's the longest of long shots, but hell if it isn't a fascinating possibility.

To see what kind of monkey wrench Biden or Palin could possibly throw into their own campaigns, tune in on Thursday to the Vice Presidential debates. Trust me, it's going to be fun. That much I guarantee.

Biden quitting? BS alert!

2008-09-26T00:11:00.000-07:00

According to "Daily Mail", internet buzz now counts as "news":

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1061791/Could-Clinton-come-Internet-buzzes-rumours-Biden-replaced-Hillary-Obamas-running-mate.html

I cannot believe that a month and half before the election that the media could still report on an Obama-Clinton ticket. How desperate are they?! I know that the primaries were more exciting than the general, but drop it! Clinton will NOT be the veep! Get over yourselves. This is really a low point for the media. These Obama-Clinton beating-a-dead-horse stories didn't deserve the sunlight a month ago. They certainly don't now.

My Election Predictions as of Now

2008-09-20T21:14:00.000-07:00

In the political blogosphere, one of the most popular games is "color in the electoral map". Maybe the coloring lets us go back to our childhoods, I don't know. Never mind that we haven't had a single debate yet, or that the polls' likely voter statistics are fantasy more than anything else: everyone loves to guess using information that will be all but irrelevant come election day!

Before the Republican convention (which more importantly was the latter), we were only getting 3-7 national/state polls for day. And then began the deluge. As of 2:30 Pacific Time, we already have 16 polls reported for today. Last Thursday there were 29 polls reported. This is getting kind of silly. Though the polls do give the pundits and political nerds something to talk about, their only practical use is to indicate to the campaigns where they should allocate their resources. A good example: Arkansas, which could have been competitive considering its blue history during the Clinton years is quite a safe state for McCain. Obama isn't allocating serious resources there. On the other hand, the polls have shown Virginia, Montana, Indiana and North Carolina to be possible Obama pickups, even though they're not standard democratic targets.

Regardless of the polls' relative unimportance outside of talking points and state-by-state resource allocation, I'm going to join the crowd and put up a couple pretty maps. Unlike most blogs though, my maps will not all be solely based on poll data. I'll use my personal crystal ball to present a couple of the scenarios:

&amp;amp;lt;p&amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;lt;strong&amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;lt;a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/electoral-college/'&amp;amp;gt;Electoral College Prediction Map&amp;amp;lt;/a&amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;lt;/strong&amp;amp;gt; - Predict the winner of the general election. Use the map to experiment with winning combinations of states. Save your prediction and send it to friends.&amp;amp;lt;/p&amp;amp;gt;

This is the map if you take the state-by-state poll averages and assume that whichever candidate leads them will win the state come November. Studies have shown that most voters make up their minds by Labor Day, so this is entirely plausible. Considering recent poll movement though, this projection is shaky at best.

*****

><a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/electoral-college/'>Electoral College Prediction Map</a> - Predict the winner of the general election. Use the map to experiment with winning combinations of states. Save your prediction and send it to friends.

This is what a complete Obama blowout would probably look like. Obama's ground game is certainly a lot stronger than McCain's, whcih is good news for the democrats in terms of GoTV. Additionally, the polls haven't really been talking to cell phone-only voters, a decidedly younger, and hence more Obama-friendly crowd. If high turnout and increasing anti-republican sentiment come together, this outcome is feasible.

*****

&amp;amp;lt;p&amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;lt;strong&amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;lt;a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/electoral-college/'&amp;amp;gt;Electoral College Prediction Map&amp;amp;lt;/a&amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;lt;/strong&amp;amp;gt; - Predict the winner of the general election. Use the map to experiment with winning combinations of states. Save your prediction and send it to friends.&amp;amp;lt;/p&amp;amp;gt;

In fairness, this is probably what a McCain blowout looks like. Maybe if Palin saves Desmond Tutu from a rampaging Moose? Seriously though, this is possible if the numbers shift about 5 points across the board to McCain.

*****

&amp;amp;lt;p&amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;lt;strong&amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;lt;a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/electoral-college/'&amp;amp;gt;Electoral College Prediction Map&amp;amp;lt;/a&amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;lt;/strong&amp;amp;gt; - Predict the winner of the general election. Use the map to experiment with winning combinations of states. Save your prediction and send it to friends.&amp;amp;lt;/p&amp;amp;gt;

This is currently my own crystal ball prediction. Nevada and Virginia were the only democratic wins from Nate Silver's (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/) awesome predictions that didn't make it over here. I think Obama's union appeal will win the day in Ohio, but my gut tells me that many Virginia Republicans will return to the fold following the debates. Maybe a little poll booth racism/Bradley effect in there too. Even though Obama can win through Iowa/New Mexico/ Colorado + every Kerry state, I really do think Ohio will be a major decider once again. My money says that Ohio will once again side with history and select our next President.

*****

Regardless, this is all rather pointless, considering that the debates and media super-saturation really haven't happened yet. As a politics dork though, I can hardly resist.

Post Recovery: Tasteless Hunting Ad

2008-09-20T20:30:00.000-07:00

After feeling really guilty for losing Jacquie and Ally's no doubt eloquent replies to a fairly tasteless ad, I've spent a good amount of time digging up the ad again. Here it is:

WARNING: Tastelessness, gross, misleading

For reasons mentioned in the previous post, I like what it brings to the table. It's still not a great ad though. I'm going to see if I can either of your comments. I feel like I may have printed out Ally's essay-length response to the original post... if I can find it, I'll type it up and re-post it in the comments. Sorry Jacquie, I don't think I have yours...

Note to self: don't clean out drafts before backing up entries. of course I'd delete the post that got the most entries. ::face-palm::

Apology and Explanation

2008-09-20T19:49:00.000-07:00

I accidentally deleted a post that I believe had comments. I was in the midst of deleting old drafts. I believe the post contained an ad done by a 527 about arctic hunting and Sarah Palin. My apologies to anyone who may have posted.

Honestly, I'd rather not repost the video because in retrospect it was a little bit over the top and tasteless. I'll even admit that it dipped into "unfair" at points. Now that I think about it, I think I'd probably retract the support I gave it in my previous post as well. I would like to talk about the greater themes a little bit though.

In reality though, the main reason that I liked it is because it reminded people that environmental preservation is one of the main causes of our time. Without significant action, we will lose lots of endangered species, including tigers, sea otters, polar bears, my home state's California Condor and countless others. It saddens me on many levels to see environmental preservation so far off the table in our national dialog.

And sure, the issue has come up briefly before. But honestly, at this point, any mention of the environment is outside of the media echo chamber. The media has demonstrated no desire to talk about the environment. When was the last time the media paid serious attention to our planet's rapidly collapsing ecosystem? I'm not just talking about global warming. I'm sorry if said previous post offended, but I was simply relieved to see a public appeal made once again on environmental grounds. When all is said and done, human beings are likely to be the species least affected by this presidential election. Regardless of the ad's effectiveness, I'm glad that there will be some reminder in the mainstream of what another 4 years of Republicans in the White House would do to the environment. The world simply can't afford it.

EDIT: Since Jacquie, Prince and Ally are the only people actively following the blog, I assume the apologies should go to you. Sorry!

Wow this is stupid

2008-09-20T19:40:00.000-07:00

And this folks is why I don't watch/read CNN:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/19/biden-in-hot-water-with-some-ohioans/

Really? Really? How desperate are you guys?

A Palin McCain Administration?

2008-09-18T17:46:00.000-07:00

A Freudian slip? For fundamentalist conservatives surely, a Palin-McCain ticket would be a cause for rejoicing.

Ohio Students- Register Absentee with ease!

2008-09-17T03:08:00.000-07:00

In Ohio, where John Kerry lost by only about 100,000 votes in 2004, every single ballot will make a huge difference come November. Among college students, I've seen a large and somewhat confused number either re-registering in California or lapsing into political apathy. What do these statements have to do with one another? Well, the non-partisan website, http://www.longdistancevoter.org/ , offers an easy way to register absentee from out-of-state. It takes only a few minutes, is exceedingly clear, and most of all is convenient as they come. Give it a shot swing-state residents, and wield the disproportionate clout your home residency grants! Live a little!

For specifically Ohio Students living out-of-state: http://www.longdistancevoter.org/ohio

For any student living out-of-state: http://www.longdistancevoter.org/

Registration for Ohio residents must be postmarked by Oct. 6, one month before the election. Not too much of a rush, but don't forget about it either.

And to round things off with inspirational quote: "if you don't vote the outcome is your fault". Feel verrrrry guilty. Or don't. The point is: vote. There's no excuse.

Reality check?

2008-09-14T23:30:00.000-07:00

Another amusing high point of the McCain spin machine. Enjoy:

Courtesy of "Balloon Juice", http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=11305

The Candidates on Taxes

2008-09-13T17:52:00.000-07:00

To cut through the McCain camps deceptive attacks on Obama wanting to raise taxes on the middle class, here's a fabulous no-nonsense graphic from the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html):

What exactly are those extra 19$ going to do for America's poor Senator? And will giving an average of 270,000$ back to the uber-rich save our country? We've had enough trickle-down reaganomics these last 8 years to smell the stench of cronyism. McCain doesn't have a solution for the middle class: he has a payout for those like him, with multiple houses, multi-million dollar incomes and little motivation to spend. Obama's tax plan will put real money into the hands of those most likely to spend it: America's lower and middle class, who need this relief to get by.

Hypocrisy In Action: Bridge Edition

2008-09-10T13:14:00.000-07:00

Wow, can you say hypocrisy? This is McCain addressing voters in MN following the major August 2007 Bridge Collapse. I wonder why the McCain camp is so touchy about that bridge...

Courtesy of The Daily Kos

Great Obama Interview on Countdown

2008-09-09T00:08:00.000-07:00

This is a terrific interview from Monday. Olbermann and Obama both knocked it out of the park. Check it out:

The Electoral College and Us

2008-09-09T00:05:00.000-07:00

Having my fate disproportionately in the hands of my relatives just because they live in a "Battleground State" is nothing short of infuriating. But such is the Electoral College. An outdated artifact of the 18th century, the Electoral College has not ever seen the light of day in other democracies. The entire system is based off of an inherent distrust of the voting electorate, and originally allowed an aristocratic check on the will of the people (the land-owning white males that is). Sadly though, it is a system so entrenched that despite repeated attempts, it has failed to get the boot. There is no shortage of viable alternatives, be the instant-runoff voting or direct elections. Sadly, short of a dramatically ridiculous election result, the system is unlikely to see serious reform.

The system has a few saving graces fortunately. It does force candidates to visit voters in small states. Also, for the most part, the Electoral College has merely exaggerated the popular vote. There are four major exceptions however:

-In 1824, Andrew Jackson won both the popular and the electoral votes, but did not secure a majority against his three rivals. Congress convened and named John Quincy Adams, who got about 45,000 fewer votes, the next president.

- In 1876, southern Democrat Samuel J. Tilden lost the Electoral College to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes after some extremely shady political maneuvers by the Republican Party. Tilden had roughly 300,000 more votes that Hayes.

- In 1880, Republican Benjamin Harrison quashed Democrat Grover Cleveland 233 electoral votes to 168 in the presidential election. Cleveland received over 100,000 more votes that Harrison.

- In 2000, Al Gore lost the Electoral College by 5 points to George W. Bush. Gore had over 500,000 votes more nationwide. According to the Bush administration, this was a "mandate" to lead. Retroactive recounts in Florida asserted that Gore should have taken the state and the presidency.

Despite these 4 major hiccoughs, the Electoral College lives on. Also consider that if Kerry had squeaked ahead in Ohio in 2004, he’d have won the presidency with more than a million votes less than Bush. You'd think that given Bush's current rock-bottom ratings and the 2000 election that put him into office, Americans would be clamoring for an end to the system. Sadly, we have short attention spans.

Working within the Electoral College forces candidates to spend a disproportionate amount of time in "Battleground States", states who could feasibly give their electoral votes to either candidate. As such, areas with large populations do not necessarily get much attention. California, Texas and New York have been all but ignored in the last several election cycles. In 2008, states like Montana, Indiana, Missouri, New Hampshire and the Dakotas will probably get far more campaign coverage than California, Texas and New York combined. As such, many in the so-called non-swing states have very little incentive to come out and vote on Election Day. Of first world democracies, we have one of the worst vote turnouts.

If your state is sure to go one way or another, does your vote matter? Sadly, the answer is most often no, and my vote means nothing compared to those of my relatives in Columbus, OH. This is not to say I should withdraw and become cynical. Instead, this is a call to action, to not only vote, but to fight for election reform by whatever means necessary. As an American, my voice should be heard just as loud as my cousin's in Columbus, or my retired step-uncle in Florida. Now is the time for change!

Introduction Post

2008-09-08T21:31:00.000-07:00

Nobody is going to deny that Ohio is going to be a battleground state come November. The state's highly coveted 20 electoral votes are likely to be the key to victory for either Barack Obama or John McCain. In every poll since the termination of the obscenely long democratic primaries, the two candidates have been neck-and-neck. Indeed, for the obsessive poll-watchers of the world, Ohio has been a veritable roller coaster of data. By all appearances, the state's polling data "flips" practically every other week! Needless to say, Ohio has been incredibly overexposed to the candidates and their media, and has been the focus of massive campaign spending on the part of both parties.

Now for a little self-introduction. My name is Isaac Hale. I'm a sophomore at Occidental College in Los Angeles Califonia, and currently doing this blog as part of a class on Campaigns and Elections. Good timing for the course, no? Honestly though, I'm very excited personally to be writing this blog. The election is something I obsess over constantly. And I believe that this contest in 2008 will determine the direction this country for generations to come.

In my not so humble opinion, I believe that the USA is hovering on a precipice: do we reclaim our honor, dignity and decency as a people, or walk down the road of fear and tyranny, the ultimate result of the abuse of executive powers. Much like another great empire, Rome, the USA has begun to sacrifice individual freedoms and rights for the sake of fear and executive control. Unlike the Roman people though, we as Americans are faced with a choice by means of the vote. Do we become a tyrannical dictatorship, devoid of the checks and balances the founders intended, or do we return said powers and regain our national integrity? The choice is ours, and I cannot imagine a more exciting time to live in.

As you may have noticed, this blog will definitely have a progressive tilt. I am a progressive. And proud of it. This election personally affects me and my future on many levels, as a student, a gay man and an activist. But this blog is not primarily about the fate of America. It is about the role of Ohio in the upcoming presidential election. This too though, is personal. Much of my extended family lives in Ohio. The sociocultural divide between my family there and my family here in California is immense. I am nearly certain that my evangelical cousins will turn out for Sarah Palin (never mind the old dude on the ticket with her), and that some of my less politically inclined relatives will vote Republican as their spouses and communities do.

I hope very much that this blog will be read by those who don't care for politics or assume that the outcome is predetermined one way or another. This election will affect our lives more than we can possibly know, and as Ohio clearly highlights, the outcome is far from certain.