Dear Hunter

A much smarter blogger, with a finer pen and mind offers a brief review of Joe Bageant's recently-released book, Deer Hunting With Jesus: Dispatches from America's Class War.

Will Divide certainly deserves to be listened to and offers an essay on Joe with which I take nearly no exception. Nearly none. The ever slight essay I'm offering to bore you with here began as a response on his blog to his column. It expanded and became nothing I'd want to sully his page with. So, first and foremost, go read Will's piece -- you'll need that for context, then . . . .

Being the first generation out of Hell’s Kitchen, let me offer my middle class, third gen immigrant, and, while educated, much less well-read perspective . . . .

I don’t think Joe's critique of the Democratic Party is merely that it has not been paying attention to small-town Southern whites. I think it begins at their class view. Joe takes on the Dems, and blames them for not even trying to understand the underclass. The losses that the Dems have suffered are, in his view, their penalty for scoffing at these people and caricaturing them as uneducated, violent, and intolerant, and therefore marginal in the political process. This “Westchester Democrat” world-view led the party of the working class (so-called) to misapprehend, and dismiss, for example, the attachment in these communities to religion and guns.

In the 1960's pulpits drove voters to the Democratic Party. Since at least the 80's, the Dems have ceded the church crowd to the Repugs. It is probably fair to say that the process began with neglect and, by the time that the evangelicals had put together the “Moral Majority”, it became “inevitable”.

Similarly with guns – Joe reminds us that Hubert Humphrey understood the gun issue. Joe doesn’t go into it, but, along with Humphrey, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson all opposed gun control legislation. I think it is fair comment that Joe doesn’t offer an explanation on how the Democrats could have avoided the NRA turn to the right. But he strongly suggests that they could have avoided some of the animosity of gun owners if they had spent their time since the 80s trying to accept that there was some not insubstantial validity to the perspective of the other side. (Al Gore would have won in 2000 if he had taken his home state. His loss there can be credited to the last-month tactics of the gun lobby in that state.)

Most people would agree with what Will says about assault weapons. The problem for the Democrats has been that they ignored the sensitivities of the (mostly-Southern) gun owners, treating their love of their firearms as the dismissible result of being violent, stupid and intolerant. By the time that the NRA got its political machine churning it, once again, became an inevitability. It is not that the Democrats actually moved to take away the deer rifles; it is that when they crinkle their noses at gun ownership, in their knowing-better condescension, they might as well have. If they are surprised that the reaction has been “if you’re not gonna listen to me, you got nuthin to say to me”, then that’s only more fodder for the NRA.

I’m not sure that what Joe meant to describe was an ascendant culture – or perhaps in a sense he does. It is clear that, in his world view, these people are not only NOT going away, they are growing.

For Joe, what is in decay is the American myth of the middle class. We are, those non-upper class amongst us, but "two shits from the outhouse". The class war, he reminds us, is over and “we” didn’t win. I think he does lay blame here at the political parties – both of them. The "social landscape . . . dying from hatred, self-loathing, ignorance, bad diet, violence and apathy", as Will puts it, is not the small, poor, Southern town. I think Joe’s message is that is precisely what is waiting at the base of the precipice on which the bulk of American society wavers.

The solution, he makes plain, is two fold. But, it might as well not be offered as neither party has the will nor courage for implementation. An all out war against the inevitable decline he portends would require universal, free, quality education and health care for every breathing soul.

Joe makes argument for education as the antidote for religious extremism (arguably, for religion itself), education as a means for the poor, working man to get why a vote for any Republican is an act of self-flagellation, and on and on. Even a modest goal of eliminating functional illiteracy would move mountains – would have a debilitating effect on the Repugs success in the use of distilled language to obscure facts and intent.

Education, it is clear, also makes us liberal – not Democrats, necessarily – but citizens devoted to ideals of personal liberty – it is what breaks down the walls of intolerance which does pervade small, poor, uneducated communities.

Similarly, universal, free, health care eliminates slavery -- it frees the mind and body to work towards other, more productive ends. It will help rescue the economy and restore the middle class. I forget the numbers, but something approaching three-quarters of the personal bankruptcies in this country are precipitated by sudden, crushing health care costs (and, of course, in order to ensure that the losers of the class war stay lost, we’ve allowed them to make filing for personal bankruptcy infinitely more difficult).

It is through the dual tools of education and health care that the “redneck culture’ he describes can be ‘transformed’– precisely “ by seeing it through what is a terminal illness, to something decent and true beyond”. And, more than that, move the rest of us back from the edge.

To me, that’s one hell of a solution.

Summary only...

Whoda Thunk it?

You Are Oscar the Grouch

Grumpy and grouchy, you aren't just pessimistic. You revel in your pessimism. You are usually feeling: Unhappy. Unless it's rainy outside, and even then you know the foul weather won't last. You are famous for: Being mean yet loveable. And you hate the loveable part. How you life your life: As a slob. But it's not repelling as many people as you'd like!

The Sesame Street Personality Quiz

h/t to Phillybits

Summary only...

Another Fatal Exit

I just purchased the DVD release of "The Passenger" about a month or so ago -- Nicholson does the commentary track.

From the NYTimes:

Michelangelo Antonioni, the Italian director whose chilly canticles of alienation were cornerstones of international filmmaking in the 1960s, inspiring intense measures of admiration, denunciation and confusion, died on Monday at his home in Rome, Italian news media reported today. He was 94. He died on the same day as Ingmar Bergman, the Swedish filmmaker who died at his home in Sweden earlier Monday.

Photo Credit: Associated Press (1975) via The New York Times

Summary only...

Fire up a colortini

May 12, 1936 - July 29, 2007

Summary only...

Sunday's Child

July 14, 1918 - July 30, 2007

Photo Credit: AP (1968)

Summary only...

The Hazleton Ordinance Smackdown -- High Lights of the Low Lifes

The United States District Court in Scranton has issued an over 200-page opinion, granting a permanent injunction against enforcement of the anti-Hispanic Ordinance parlayed into 15-minutes of infamy by Hazleton Mayor Lou "Hispanics The Source of All Crime, My Ass The Source of All Truth" Barletta.

We've been reviewing the Federal Smackdown and offer here some of the high lights of the Court's findings. We learn, not surprisingly, that the Hazleton goon squad (which earned the support and admiration of the Ku Klux Klan) was heavy handed in dealing with Latino and Hispanic residents, and somewhat less than direct and forthright in dealing with the Court. Most of all, we see again that NEPA works hard to justify its reputation, kids. The Court takes us through many stories of official, police, and mob intimidation of people in Hazleton based solely on what they look like. Of course, it is their fault -- they had the bad grace to be Hispanic in Hazleton.

The Barletta Klan first tired to get the plaintiffs tossed -- telling the Court that they didn't have "standing". "Standing" is the right to complaint about someone in Court. Not every person is entitled to right every wrong -- there has to be a legally-recognized harm suffered by the plaintiff as the result of a violation of some kind of legal duty owned by the defendant to the plaintiff.

A landlord plaintiff complained that, since the Barletta Bigots enacted their anti-Hispanic ordinance, requiring tenants to get a permit to rent a room, and drafting landlords as virtual law-enforcement agents, he couldn't rent his property. The Court had no problem rejecting the goon squad's argument that the landlord was "merely" complaining about not being able to do business with "illegal aliens".

We disagree with the defendant that these injuries cannot be recognized by the law because they constitute a complaint about an inability to rent to illegal immigrants. The plaintiffs testified that they were unaware of the immigration status of their renters. No evidence, therefore, indicates that the renters they lost were illegal immigrants. Such tenants may have been legal residents who did not desire to live in a town that appeared (to them) to seek to exclude Spanish-speaking residents. Such tenants may also have concluded that they did not want to register with the town and provide private information to the City as a condition of residing there. Perhaps they found the fees required for a permit onerous. In any case, we will not assume that the renters plaintiff lost were necessarily illegal immigrants.

Not content with driving landlords into bankruptcy by merely passing ordinances, apparently the Barletta Bigots enlisted the heavy hands of the Hazleton police to harass legal business people who had the poor manners to be Hispanic or Latino. One couple testified about how the police would park across from their restaurant, apparently and very effectively scaring away all business from people who had the poor judgment not to want to be harassed simply because of the color of their skins or lilt of their accent.

The Lechugas originally came from Mexico and had lived in Hazleton for 16 years. Legal permanent residents, they opened a store featuring Mexican-sourced food products. They weren't getting rich, but they were getting by -- until Barletta decided that Hispanics must be the source of all crime. After the anti-Hispanic ordinance was passed, their grocery business began to dry up and they ended up shuttering the place earlier this year.

Before the ordinaces passed, the couple also opened a restaurant featuring Mexican dishes. It did a good business -- until they and their customers were harassed by the Hazleton police:

A police car was often parked across the street from the restaurant, and after a police officer paid a visit, “people began to comment that the police [were] there to take the clients away when they came to eat.” This made potential customers feel “intimidated, and that is the reason why we lost our business.”

They closed the restaurant. Nice touch, Lou. You and your goons managed to eliminate two healthy businesses from your town. (The Lechugas had the class not to seek monetary damages from the City for their lost business. As a result, the Court dismissed them as plaintiffs after first deciding that they had standing and could have sought money, if financial compensation were their goal.)

The Court related many similar stories of legal residents and business owners who suffered losses or had to shut down previously-successful businesses because of the actions of Barletta's Bigots. The testimony elicited at the trial and highlighted by the Court showed how the governmental attack on a minority group created an atmosphere of hate in the NEPA burgh:

"They had people that were in fear because the police were stopping them on the sidewalks or stopping them on the driveway and asking for documentation just because of their looks. We have businessowners saying, we have bricks through our [windows], and we can’t identify who [threw the brick], but obviously it was because of the environment where we are living, where people think that it is okay to show that Latinos are not welcome here. There was all kind of fear, and what is going to happen with our sons. Should we still send them to school? What is going to happen to our church? Should we still go to our church?"

Way to go, Mayor.

Ah, but what of the illegals themselves? The goon squad wanted the Court to toss their claims out -- "They're illegal! They're illegal!" shouted the defendants. "So?" says the Court? Granting the Barletta Bigots a brief civics lesson, the Court ruled that due process applies to every person in our Country -- not just the ones that Barletta are comfortable with:

These plaintiffs claim that the rental registration requirements and harboring provisions of IIRA violate their rights under federal law and the United States Constitution, including their right to privacy. We find that the anonymous plaintiffs have standing to challenge Hazleton’s ordinances. They have suffered concrete and particularized injuries which are actual or imminent. These plaintiffs have either been forced from the property which they had rented or had been told by their landlords that they would have to be evicted due to the ordinances. . . . Similarly, plaintiffs would suffer an injury to their privacy rights if forced to turn over
private information in order to gain a rental permit. Such an injury is imminent, as plaintiffs intend to remain in Hazleton and would be required to obey the ordinance if it is enforced.

. . . . We reject defendant’s argument that these plaintiffs lack standing because they do not have authorization to reside in the United States . . . . First, the defendant appears to argue that because plaintiffs would be denied residency permits under the Hazleton ordinance they lack authorization to reside anywhere in the United States. . . . The tautology of this argument is likewise apparent: defendant contends that plaintiff would not be able to obtain a residency permit in the city and therefore cannot complain about being required to do so.

This argument appears to be a species of argument often heard in recent discussions of the national immigration issue: because illegal aliens broke the law to enter this country, they should not have any legal recourse when rights due them under the federal constitution or federal law are violated. We cannot say clearly enough that persons who enter this country without legal authorization are not stripped immediately of all their rights because of this single illegal act.

Fundamental to the American legal tradition is the notion that those accused of and convicted of crimes possess fundamental rights which are not abrogated simply because of such person’s alleged behavior. . . .The contemporary concern with and opprobrium towards undocumented aliens does not lead us to the conclusion that those who violate the laws to enter the United States can be subject without protest to any procedure or legislation, no matter how violative of the rights to which those persons would normally be entitled as persons in the United States. Our legal system is designed to provide rights and exact justice simultaneously.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no State may “deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. CONST. amend. XIV § 1. (emphasis added). . . . .

The anonymous plaintiffs are persons, and they seek to vindicate rights guaranteed them under the federal constitution. They have standing to sue in this court.

That last bit gives me chills. It says to the plaintiffs and, as important, to the world what the bigots like Barletta and the incompetent criminals like the Despicable Cretin and his Grey Eminence deny – that America values liberty and honors every man by providing a justice system intended to protect those liberties – even putative criminals, even non-citizens.

Even those “illegal aliens” – Even “they have standing to sue in THIS court.”

So desperate were the Barletta Bigots to avoid anyone looking into the merits of what they tried to do, the Court devoted over half its discussion to the standing and procedural issues. When finally it was able to address the merits of the legality of the loony ordinance (which the recently-departed Rick Santorum apparently had a hand in), the City of Creeps faired no better:

Whatever frustrations officials of the City of Hazleton may feel about the current state of federal immigration enforcement, the nature of the political system in the United States prohibits the City from enacting ordinances that disrupt a carefully drawn federal statutory scheme.

Even if federal law did not conflict with Hazleton’s measures, the City could not enact an ordinance that violates rights the Constitution guarantees to every person in the United States, whether legal resident or not. The genius of our constitution is that it provides rights even to those who evoke the least sympathy from the general public. In that way, all in this nation can be confident of equal justice under its laws. Hazleton, in its zeal to control the presence of a group deemed undesirable, violated the rights of such people, as well as others within the community.

Since the United States Constitution protects even the disfavored, the ordinances cannot be enforced.



Elsewhere:

Wilkes-Barre Citizen's Voice: Hazleton illegal immigration ordinance struck down
Allentown Morning Call: Appeals next in Hazleton case
Jurist: Federal judge strikes down Pennsylvania city illegal immigration laws
Scran'en Times-Tribune: Hazleton immigration ordinance ruled unconstitutional
Philly.Com: Judge strikes down Hazleton's illegal immigrant law
Hazleton Standardless Speaker: JUDGE STRIKES DOWN HAZLETON ORDINANCE
NewsMax: Judge Voids Anti-Illegal Immigrant Law in Pennsylvania
WaPo: Pa. Judge Blocks City's Ordinances Against Illegal Immigration
USA Today: PA Immigration law voided
NYT: Judge Voids Tough Anti-Immigration Law

Summary only...

Hazleton Illegal Immigrant Ordinance -- ILLEGAL! Federal Court Strikes it Down.

Decision here. More to come.

Summary only...

NYC Police Allegedly Brutalize Brutality Lawyer Trying to Stop Police Brutality

Can you say "ironic"?

The New York City police department, once headed by Rudy friend, Bernie Kerik, is now being run by the same guy who trampled the civil rights of protesters during the 2004 Repug Convention in New York City and created his "own little Guantanamo on the Hudson" to detain the protesters.

Considering the leadership of those two, it isn't surprising the the NYC police feel entirely at ease in beating the crap out of a prone, handcuffed black man in full view, and then wailing on a civil rights lawyer who objects.

Welcome to the New Order.

From a June 25, 2007 New York Newsday account:

"City and state officials are denouncing the arrests of a civil rights attorney and his wife after the couple intervened when, they said, police beat a handcuffed teen in central Brooklyn. Protesters returned to a police station yesterday to rally against the arrests and alleged brutality.

"Michael Warren, who once represented Tupac Shakur and the teens charged in the Central Park jogger case, and his wife, Evelyn, said a police supervisor also beat them Thursday after kicking the subdued teen during his arrest on suspicion of car theft.

"'They tackled him to the ground,' Warren told reporters yesterday at a news conference outside City Hall. 'They handcuffed him right away. He was not a threat.'

"The couple said that six officers beat the teen "like a rag doll." A sergeant turned on the couple when they stopped their car to ask police what they were doing, Warren said. He then arrested the couple."

Warren told the media that when he and his wife (who is also an attorney) were told to return to their car, they did. The police attacked Warren, they both say (and the police have not denied this), after Warren began -- from inside his car -- taking down the license plate numbers of the police vehicles on the scene.

You can barely make out the bruise on Warren's face, and the swelling of his wife's face, on this video. One NYC Council member has called for an investigation, and for the arrest of the officer who arrested Warren and his wife.

(Of course, the "liberally-biased" NYTimes apparently never covered the story.)

Also last month, New York's finest rounded up hundreds of the "usual suspects" at the annual Puerto Rico Day parade in New York on charges of -- get this -- illegal assembly (they were at a parade). City officials said they were gang members, but civil rights protesters accused the cops of being heavy handed and using racial profiling at the event.

Summary only...

A Guy Can Dream

I found this fantasy image of Rove on The Field Negro.

Summary only...

Reaching Back

It was definitely a weekend evening, probably in January. Well, perhaps it was mid-week, and it could have been February. But it was definitely night, or late afternoon.

Well, it was 1978, of that I am certain. The remaining cloudiness is explained by the decade in which our little tale plays out. (Settle in, kids. When I qualify my extraneous parentheticals with incidental rumination, it's going to be a rambler.)

Back in the day, before Ticketron (as the behemoth Ticket Master was known in its infancy) was a monopoly, concert tickets were distributed in a variety of, what might today be considered, unusual ways.

On the planet Ohio, tickets for certain venues were often sold through AAA offices. Reliable information on precise on-sale dates and times was not always easy to find. But that night, we found ourselves in the company of a young woman from Columbus O. who, wouldn't you know, was employed at the AAA there.

Now THAT bit of news was pretty exciting to your then-young and full of promise correspondent, because it had just been learnt that the tickets to an April 1978 performance by the Grateful Dead, at the Vets Memorial in Col. O. were to be brokered through, yup, AAA.

Our young friend was able to supply us with the precise on-sale date and time. Not only that, your salivating reporter learned that, because it was expected that most tiks would be sold in the Columbus area (Zero State having something approaching six-figures in attendance), the information about the ticket sales was not being generally distributed outside the capital city.

Further inquiry brought out that, notwithstanding the limited disclosures, one could mosey into a small town AAA office at just the right time and, if armed with the internal phone number of the ticket sales people in Columbus, have the local AAA folk order up a heapin' helpin' of those dearly sought G.D. passes. Likely without any wait in line.

Soon, your then long-haired, heavily bearded, sandaled correspondent had the requisite phone number carefully secure in his wallet, together with the start time for ticket sales. But first, where to score the bucks needed . . . . Holding some kind of official position in a certain social organization, one populated heavily with aficionados of a certain Band Beyond Description, we approached the treasurer of the organization and convinced that fiduciary that his peeps would appreciate the opportunity to score some primo tickets to the concert.

So it was that, on a cold Saturday morning in Febhruary, 1978, Yours T. arrived at the AAA office on the public square in a sleepy little rural O. townlet, clutching several hundred of other peeps monies.

Plopping down at a desk commanded by a blue-haired, paisley-dressed matron, and we asked for several dozen tickets to the Grateful Dead concert. Laughter at the never-before heard band, as did some desperate pleading to (quickly now) call the number I gave her to verify the ticket availability. Which she did, reporting that there were several thousand Columbus residents on line outside the office she called, all looking for the same tickets. My dozens were immediately reserved.

So it came to pass that, on April 19, 1978, caravans of like-minded peeps poured south and invaded Vets Memorial, to discover that we occupied pretty much the second through fifth and 7th rows, center, of that fine hall.

What ensued remains, in my admittedly fuzzy and sometimes skewered memories of those days, probably the best of all the many, many, many dozens of Dead shows enjoyed before and after.

Today, back to the Now, in 2007, this morning's mail stunningly brought forth a full, 3-CD set of that show, burned by one of my compatriots that night, and sua sponte delivered by him to half a dozen or so of us in attendance all those decades ago.

The recorded memory lives up to the remembrance entirely. The band started off the long evening with a rousing Bertha. During which the two aisles filled with twirling, dancing, and dazed Heads.

It wasn't beyond notice of the hardworking band that security was desperately trying to usher all back to their seats. To more than some of us, it seemed that the band extended Bertha even longer than usu. Then, as the tune was winding down, and just as the last of the dancing fans had finally been encouraged to begin a return to the seats, a mischievous Bobby appeared to give the signal and the boys suddenly jumped into a powerful Good Lovin'.

This, predictably, brought hundreds of the recently seated streaming back down the aisles -- to the exasperation of security and the apparent delight of the chuckling band.

And the night had only just begun.

Good Lovin' gave way to Friend of the Devil, itself turned into an amazing Passenger, then Candyman, Cassidy, Peggy-O, Me & My Uncle -> Big River and Deal rounded out the first set.

Following a well-deserved break, the boys, and Donna Jean, returned refreshed. Opening the second set with Sampson & Deliah, the journey took us through It Must Have Been the Roses, Estimated Prophet -> He's Gone ->Drums & Space -> The Other One -> Wharf Rat -> Around & Around. The encore included the GD's first ever performance of Werewolves of London followed by the evening-capping We Bid You Good Night. [UPDATE: One of my confederates who attended this show swears that my recollection of We Bid You Good Night was hallucinatory. I'll take his word for it. He does confirm the initial stage rush, an extended ending to Bertha whilst security cleared the asiles, followed upon by a joyful Good Lovin' downbeat perfectly (and to all appearances, intentionally) timed to renew the rush just as the last twirler was taking a seat.]

It was a night to be remembered. The Dead were at the top of their act and, your amazed and altered witness is convinced, they fed and fed off the great vibes generated by such a large concentration of friends at their feet.

Listening now to Jerry wailing through Must Have Been the Roses, he's not gone, all those decades haven't passed, and all those friends are not long since seen and spread far. Strange how no one comes round anymore . . . .

There's nothing like a Grateful Dead concert, kids. Nothing.

Summary only...

Let Them Speak

The latest "live mic" controversy involving Edwards and Hillary laked any shock or surprise in this little corner of the internets. After spending nearly a half century of sentience favoring, or at least not objecting to the two-party system, it is (finally) clear to me that it is broke. And the little unscripted plotting that we recently overheard is only more evidence.

The Democratic Party -- the rank and file, the real members of the party -- not the Hillary O. Edwards "Democratic Leadership", need to listen to people like Dodd and Richardson and Kucinich, and even that crazy old guy at the end of the stage. And then they need to demand that Hillary O. Edwards start incorporating some of their messages. (Let's face it, kids, your Democratic Candidate isn't going to be short, old, or fat.) But we need those short, old and fat guys to help move the party leaders close to the main street Democrats, the real party.

Nancy Pelosi wants to keep God in the pledge and Cheney out of the Dock . . . . the Schumer/Reid Dems believe that they have to bed down with the likes of Chris Carney, Jack Murtha, James Webb, the Clintons, and, god help us, Bobby Casey, Jr. Spare me . . . .

What ever happened to liberal America? You know, the main street folk who believed that personal liberty was a core concept -- the devout Christian who was as irritated as the devout Atheist when they tried to bring religion into government or government into church? The beer quaffing hard-hats who believed that one of Government's prime responsibilities was the safety net for the unfortunate, and that it needed to stay the fuck out of everyone's bedroom -- even those queers over in the next neighborhood?

We need a new flavor. A party that will stand up for the working man and stand up to America, Incorporated. A party that will toss out the Democrats owned by the corporations and quickly as they would the Republicans. A party that will admit that there remain but two classes in America, the rich and the rest of us, and will actually have an agenda to do something about it.

Class warfare? Hell, yeah.

But first we need to see that the war fueled with Voodoo Economics, Clinton Prosperity, and Bush Patronage, has already been won by the rich Republicans and the rich Democrats.

Too bad these guys never got it going. But someday, sooner than later, someone will get it right.

In the meantime, I don't want Hillary O. Edwards limiting the flavors.

Summary only...

Tancredo Shows Up

Seemed like a no-brainer . . . . but Tom Tancredo was the only repug candidate to show up for the Presidential Forum at the annual convention of this nation's oldest (and largest) civil rights organization.

He kept it quiet -- not issuing any press release, not putting his appearance on his web site in advance, and (sniff, sniff) not responding to the emails of your truly about whether he would show up. A few days ago, when we initially ran the story, he would only say "maybe yes, maybe no".

But he did and was greeted warmly.

From the Detroit Free Press coverage today:

Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo was the only Republican candidate for president to show up at the forum.

Tancredo took the stage at the closing session of the group's national convention to a standing ovation. He was flanked by lecterns with placards for nine other GOP candidates -- all no-shows.

"Do you think we should wait a few minutes for the other guys to show up?" Tancredo asked. "Do they know something I don't know? The fact is, I know something they don't know."

Yeah, he does -- people of color also have the right to vote now. Someone needs to let the rest of the repugs know that. THey appear to have written off the non-white vote.

Summary only...

Living Outside the Bubble

Joe Bageant radio interview and online interview.








(Photo Credit: Sean Gallagher)

Summary only...

RUN!!! He Looks -- Gasp -- Middle-Eastern!

This morning CNN had their red BREAKING NEWS banners all up and their anchors all breathless with yet another terror attack averted. They even had Chertoff take time off from searching for applicants to fill all those vacant positions, to come, live on the air at an ungodly early hour, to congratulate the airlines employee who alerted the captain to a suspicious passenger in time to have the LA to London flight diverted to NYC where the world was saved yet another horrid headline.

But now, search in vain to find the story on their web site.

What was "suspicious"? Well, the passenger, oh the horror, looked Middle Eastern.

Welcome to the new order.

Seems that some stewardess on the flight had recognized a Middle-Eastern-looking passenger from an employee shuttle bus earlier that day. Since, apparently, the airlines doesn't employ such questionable folk, and there he was, with a paid ticket in his own name and everything, sitting there looking for all the world like a passenger about to visit London, well, now THAT'S cause enough for alarm if I ever heard one.

After an hour or so of sounding the alert, CNN learned that the guy was, after all, just what he looked like -- an airlines employee on vacation. So, now that that's cleared up, here comes Chertoff to praise the stewardess for alertly noticing something suspicious. "That's what we all should do", Chertoff told the bobbleheads on CNN.

And this just in, Walmart has unisex brown shirts on sale this morning . . . . .

Summary only...

Threat to Internet Radio Still Looming

A couple of months ago, we talked about the threat to Internet Radio posed by the then-recent decision of the Copyright Royalty Board to impose huge, retroactive, increases on royalties paid by internet-based broadcasters.

Under the new scheme (which some think is yet another attempt to ensure that all media outlets remain under the control of corporate America), a tiny net-based operation averaging 100 listeners would have to pay over $15,000 a year in royalties. Those of you running blogs with 100 regular readers -- do your AdSense checks produce the over $1,000 a month necessary to make such a payment? No, of course they don't. But if you were a net broadcaster, that's what you'd have to pay for 100 listeners.

The newly-imposed rates amount to a 300 to 1200-fold increase for net broadcasters -- and are several times higher than what Satellite radio stations pay.

There's a bill pending in Congress to correct the situation. (A like bill was also introduced in the Senate.) The "Internet Radio Equality Act" would reduce the royalties paid by net broadcasters to the same rates as those paid by Sirius and XM Radio. This is a bipartisan effort -- House co-sponsors include a couple of dozen Republicans and, on the Senate side, John Kerry and Sam Brownback are among the co-sponsors.

Of the over 125 Representative co-sponsoring the bill, five are from Pennsylvania: Robert Brady (D, PA-1), Chaka Fattah (D, PA-2), Patrick Murphy (D, PA-8), Bill Shuster (R, PA-9), and Allyson Schwartz (D, PA-13).

If you live in one of the other 14 districts, please contact your Representative today and ask them to co-sponsor HR-2060. The new rates are set to go in effect on July 15 -- so your immediate action would be appreciated by music fans, and independent artists, everywhere around the world.

More information on the bill, and contact information for PA Representatives, after the jump.

Source: Radio and Internet Newsletter, 4/26/07

The Internet Radio Equality Act (H.R. 2060 in the House, S. 1353 in the Senate) was introduced by Representative Jay Inslee (D-WA) and now has 125+ cosponsors in the House and growing. This act, has five major provisions:

* Nullifies the recent decision of the CRB judges

* Changes the royalty rate-setting standard that applies to Internet radio royalty arbitrations in the future so that it is the same standard that applies to satellite radio royalty arbitrations -- the 801(b)(1) standard that balances the needs of copyright owners, copyright users, and the public (rather than "willing buyer / willing seller").

* Instructs future CRBs that the minimum annual royalty per service may be set no higher than $500.

* Establishes a "transitional" royalty rate, until the 2011-15 CRB hearing is held, of either .33 cents per listener hour, or 7.5% of annual revenues, as selected by the provider for that year. Those rates would be applied retroactively to January 1, 2006. (The logic behind this rate, incidentally, is an attempt to match the royalty rate that satellite radio pays for this royalty -- thus the name of the bill.)

* Expands the Copyright Act's Section 118 musical work license for noncommercial webcasters to enable noncomms to also perform sound recordings over Internet radio at royalty rates designed for noncommercial entities, and sets an transition royalty at 150% of the royalty amount paid by each webcaster in 2004.

* For future CRBs (e.g., 2011-15), adds three new reports in the CRB process: The Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information will submit a report to the CRB judges on the industry impact in terms of competitiveness of the judges' proposed rates; at the same time, the FCC will submit a report to the CRB judges on the effects of the judges' proposed rates on localism, diversity of programming, and competitive barriers to entry; and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting will submit a report to Congress and the CRB judges on the effect of the the judges' proposed rates on their licencees.

Now that this act has been introduced, the call to action is specific and direct: Call and ask your Representative to "cosponsor the Internet Radio Equality Act."

Here's a list of the PA Representatives (followed by the DC phone and fax numbers) who have not yet co-sponsored the bill (click here to e-mail your Representative):

Phil English (R - 03)
P:202-225-5406 Fax:202-225-3103

Jason Altmire (D - 04)
P:202-225-2565 Fax:202-226-2274

John E. Peterson (R - 05)
P:202-225-5121 Fax:202-225-5796

Jim Gerlach (R - 06)
P:202-225-4315 Fax:202-225-8440

Joe Sestak (D - 07)
P:202-225-2011 Fax:202-226-0280

Christopher Carney (D - 10)
P:202-225-3731 Fax:202-225-9594

Paul E. Kanjorski (D - 11)
P:202-225-6511 Fax:202-225-0764

John P. Murtha (D - 12)
P:202-225-2065 Fax:202-225-5709

Michael F. Doyle (D - 14)
P:202-225-2135 Fax:202-225-3084

Charles W. Dent (R - 15)
P:202-225-6411 Fax:202-226-0778

Joseph R. Pitts (R - 16)
P:202-225-2411 Fax:202-225-2013

Tim Holden (D - 17)
P:202-225-5546 Fax:202-226-0996

Tim Murphy (R - 18)
P:202-225-2301 Fax:202-225-1844

Todd R. Platts (R - 19)
P:202-225-5836 Fax:202-226-1000

Summary only...

Color Blinded

No repug candidates will be on the stage for the NAACP Annual Convention Presidential Forum this Thursday morning.

Rudy says he can't make it because he has to be in Michigan that night (the convention is in Detroit), Romney says he'll find a scheduling conflict (he's got no events planned for that day, but told the NAACP that he's got something else to do), McCain said that, well, he didn't say anything, and Huckabee -- he announced a month ago that, son of a gun, that happens to be the same date that he'll be in Iowa.

The repugs are following in the tradition established by the Despicable Cretin, who was a no show at the NAACP conventions. After the D.C. pulled in a mere 11% of the African-American vote in 2004, his IRS launched an investigation aimed at stripping the organization of its exempt status.

Detroit political consultant Coit Cook Ford had it right when he said that the no-shows reflected the repug preference to "appeal to white conservative voters who are hostile to immigration and affirmative action than to Hispanics and African Americans."

Summary only...

Tu Quoque? Too Cute.

Unable to defend the Despicable Cretin's pardon of His Grey Eminence's henchman, the Sliver -- repugs still supporting the crime family in the White House -- opt instead for (here's a surprise) misdirection. Within hours of the act, the repugs had crafted their non-response to the expected outrage -- Bill Clinton.

O. Them repugs is a clever gang. But maybe a mite too clever -- they want to force the Dems to defend the Clinton pardons as a quid pro quo for looking into the Libby pardon.

But there are serious problems with the Sliver's Defend-by-Deflection strategy: 1. In 2001, many Dems (like Henry Waxman, Chuck Schumer, and Barney Frank) were vocal in their disapproval of Clinton's last-minute pardon spree (and Democrats defending the former President were difficult to locate); 2. The repug strategy reminds us that, unlike the Despicable Cretin, Clinton waived executive privilege and encouraged his advisers to testify candidly; and 3. Whether Bush acted properly is unaffected by whether Clinton did.

The pardon power is Constitutional and Congress has no role in the process (a matter specifically debated in 1787). But, it is entirely appropriate that Congress look at whether there was improper motivation at work in the pardon issuance. Did, as it appears to many, the Despicable Cretin save Scooter from parking his ass in jail for a single day in order to prevent Libby from offering the Prosecution a last-minute recollection as a bargaining chip? Today, Adam Liptak, lawyer cum reporter for the New York Times, offers a front-page examination of the Bush pardon history which provides some objective indication of the answer which seems mighty obvious from this corner.

Divining motive is not something done by looking into the eyes to read a soul -- as our Despicable Cretin should have learned by now. Absent a confession, it needs to be inferred from the circumstances. Beyond those most obvious here -- that our D.C. ignored existing policy and procedure in making the decision to protect Libby, that Libby didn't qualify for the save, that Libby was literally on the eve of moving into a new home, that the pardon was granted without the usual consultation with the Department of Justice, that a Libby change of heart, or improved memory, would have been embarrassing, at least, or dangerous, at more, for the Grey Eminence -- the relevant evidence would be a review of how the D.C.'s actions might have departed from the D.C.'s prior conduct and statements on the issue -- when he wasn't involved in what some see as an attempt to obstruct justice by protecting an underling potentially capable of implicating the D.C. himself.

And that's just what Liptak undertook. His report offers a careful review of Bush's pardon (and, okay, commutation) record from his years as Governor of Texas, as well as Bush's own writings and statements on the subject. As President, we learn that Bush has granted only 1 out of every 1,000 commutation requests made through the Office of the Pardon Attorney.

We learn that, until the Scooter problem, the D.C. refused to consider such applications absent affirmative answers to two questions: 1. Is there considerable doubt about the guilt of the applicant? and 2. Has the applicant exhausted all legal appeals? We know this because the D.C. hisself wrote in his 1999 memoir, "A Charge to Keep":

“In every case . . . . I would ask: Is there any doubt about this individual’s guilt or innocence? And, have the courts had ample opportunity to review all the legal issues in this case?”

The 2008 edition will no doubt have an asterisk. Bush, and just about everyone else, harbor's no delusion about Libby's guilt and the D.C. hisself pretermitted the first appeal on the commuted sentence. Liptak spoke with a Texas lawyer and professor familiar with Bush's gubernatorial record on such things. The prevailing view, we learn, is that the Libby decision represented not only a change, but a radical departure in Bush's documented, long-standing approach to the clemency power:

"As governor, Bush essentially viewed the clemency power as limited to cases of demonstrable actual innocence," said Jordan M. Steiker, a law professor at the University of Texas . . . ., "The exercise of the commutation power in Libby . . . represents a dramatic shift from his attitude toward clemency in Texas, and it is entirely inconsistent with his longstanding, very limited approach."

Congress has justifiably asked the D.C. to explain this "dramatic shift" and decisions which is "entirely inconsistent with his longstanding, very limited approach." Those factors examined by the Liptak report, together with the departure from precedent, combined with the D.C.'s failure to follow Bill Clinton's example and to, instead, take the Presidential equivalent of the fifth (as he most certainly will do), should tell us all we need to know about whether the motive was legitimate or dishonorable.

Update: John Conyers later this am, from The Hill-- "House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) urged President Bush Sunday to waive executive privilege and let his lawyers testify in Congress on the commutation of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s prison sentence.

“We’re asking him to waive executive privilege and allow his pardon lawyers or other experts, whom it appears he did not consult, explain this in a little more detail,” Conyers said. The lawmaker has scheduled a committee hearing for Wednesday to look into presidential powers with regard to pardons and commuting sentences.

With regard to Libby, Conyers said on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” that “the suspicion was that if Mr. Libby went to prison, he might further implicate other people in the White House.

“This is why we’ve written the president, inviting him to do what President Clinton did, and namely to bring forward any of his pardon lawyers or anyone that can put a clear light on this and put this kind of feeling, that is fairly general, to rest,” he added."

Summary only...

Tagged

PSoTD & vox populi each tagged me with the same meme, back during one of my mental hiati from this joint.

I'm late getting to it, but getting to it I am.

I'm called on to post eight "random" facts about myself. Well, it is a little hard to force the "random" part, but here goes:

1. I've attended about 100 Grateful Dead Shows, including eight consecutive in NYC.
2. I've seen at least one production of every Shakespeare play.
3. On 9/11/01, I was about one-third the way through a then somewhat-newish biography of Che. Without intending to, I didn't resume reading it until two years later, at which time I also realized that I had read no fiction in that two years.
4. I rent 5 or 6 movies a week.
5. I've lost 60 pounds and ten inches around the waist since 2004, mostly by walking 20-30 miles a week.
6. I can mix more drinks, and better, now, then when I was a bartender in the '70s.
7. I have an "issue" with height, but am thinking about skydiving.
8. In the last few years, I have taught myself to touch type (as a journalist, I did 70+ wpm hunting & pecking), took up golf, and began teaching myself to play guitar.

I am supposed to pass this burden on to eight others. Given the extreme passing of time since the original meme, and that I don't have that many friends, I'll pass on the passing.

Summary only...

Arrogance

Late yesterday afternoon, together with a handful of other mostly out of shape middle-aged men (and one very young, very much in shape, woman), I went off to the local park for my weekly humiliation ritual. Denying my groaning body, I spent two hours in the sun and shade waiving at ground balls three feet beyond my range (meaning four feet from my position), and wondering why I can't make my limbs do what I command.

On the way home, the re-mastered "Compliments" CD (with bonus material) helped me recall a time when a softball game didn't mean soothing angry body parts for the next few days. I noticed that my Treo flashed arriving emails, including yet more "action alerts". I ignored them. Home. I put in the recently-purchased "Freedom Writers" ($5 @ Wegman's) and eased into bed. Next thing I knew, it was time to get up and survey the damage done to these old bones and whatever muscle lay beneath the layers. Waiting for the water to boil for the French press, I called up the Times on the Treo and learned what all the action alert beeps were about.

This is what I would have said on the Libby pardon if I could have put it as well. Indignant, angry, befuddled and not surprised. The rules don't apply to this crew, as your sore and bruised correspondent babbled on about in these pages last month.

This Despicable Cretin selected the 231st anniversary of the day on which this Nation declared itself free from the bonds of a tyrant (distantly related to this Despicable Cretin) with no regard for the law, to free Scooter Libby.

Fittingly, he could do so only by ignoring the rule of law, by shucking the carefully-arranged procedures and policies governing the exercise of executive clemency.

Over time, the Department of Justice has carefully put together workable guidelines for considering requests for commutation. They strongly discourage even accepting applications from people who dispute their conviction or who are appealing their case: "Requests for commutation generally are not accepted unless and until a person has begun serving that sentence. Nor are commutation requests generally accepted from persons who are presently challenging their convictions or sentences through appeal or other court proceeding."

Commutation is very rare, and the guidelines recognize that: "Generally, commutation of sentence is an extraordinary remedy that is rarely granted."

The Department of Justice guidelines point out that the rationale for granting a commutation of a sentence is usually pretty limited, and the only one arguably applicable to Scooter would appear to be "undue severity" of the sentence. But, under the guidelines, one doesn't even reach that point until Scooter admits his offense, shows remorse, and has served a portion of the sentence.

The guidelines, keep in mind, are just that -- they collect the well established principles followed over much of the last couple of hundred years. Having somewhat more force are the regulations governing clemency.

And they provide, among other things, that Scooter should have been forced to drop his appeals before applying for executive clemency: "No petition for commutation of sentence, including remission of fine, should be filed if other forms of judicial or administrative relief are available, except upon a showing of exceptional circumstances."

But, this is a White House which has acted from the start as if the rules don't apply to them.

Summary only...

Happy Birthday America -- Today Marks the 231st Year of Independence

That's correct, folks. For those of you not history majors (or my children, who had to listen to the story every year for the last 20+) -- Congress did NOT declare the colonies free and independent states on July 4, 1776. The resolution declaring independence was adopted without dissent on July 2, 1776. (The vote was 12-0, New York abstained, courteously, whilst awaiting instructions.)

Richard Lee and John Adams arrived at the Continental Congress prepared to argue for independence, fully aware that those sentiments may not be entirely embraced by the gathering.

In early June, Lee proposed a resolution severing colonial ties to the British: "Resolved: That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved." Adams seconded it.

Debate on the Resolution revealed a majority in favor, but a significant number of the colonies yet unsure or lacking appropriate instructions on independence. Congress was adjourned to allow time for the representatives to obtain instructions from their colonies and for lobbying.

In the meantime, anticipating adoption of the Lee resolution, a committee was conscripted to draft the argument for independence and the justification for what was, clearly, a treasonous and seditious act. In short, they were assigned to draft the Nation's first talking points memo.

Appointed were John Adams, Roger Sherman, Benjamin Franklin, Robert Livingston, and Thomas Jefferson. Franklin, concerned that Adams was a little too much the aggressive litigator, suggested that Jefferson put together a draft. The committee unanimously appointed Jefferson the scrivener. He produced a rough draft but first met with Adams and Franklin for their input. They made some changes to the document before it was sent to the committee, which approved it without further change.

Congress reconvened on July 1, 1776 and the Lee Resolution was adopted July 2, 1776.

It is thus on the Second of July, 1776 that the Colonies Declared themselves Free and Independent States. Adams famously wrote home how the date would be celebrated through history with picnics and fireworks:

The Second Day of July 1776 will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America. . . . It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires, and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.

Immediately after adopting the Lee resolution and declaring independence from England, the Congress took up the Committee report. They reviewed, debated, and revised it in sessions on July 2, 3 and 4th. On the morning of the 4th, they adopted the Declaration of Independence.

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

It was sent to the printer the following day and the first signatures were affixed in August, 1776, when most member of Congress were present to sign the document. But the last signature would not be affixed for over five years.

So, you all go off and enjoy the Fourth. I'll be raising my glass(es) to Jefferson, Lee, Adams, Franklin and the rest of the gang today. (All this and more at the National Archives.)

(Dear reader with the long memory, you have heard this before and, if we are both around, will hear it again next July 2. You see, my children, who suffered a similar repetitve fate, are no longer at the breakfast table. It is not the same, but you'll do . . . .)

Summary only...