Riba Rambles:
Musings of a Mental Magpie

Posted by Lis Riba at 5:25 PM

[O]f the $100 million so far dispensed to faith-based charities by the Bush administration, not one dollar has gone to a Jewish or Muslim organization.

Posted by Lis Riba at 2:56 PM

HaikuJaguar has been conducting Balance Card readings today (until 4pm EST!), so I decided to request a reflection for the coming weeks:

You have good messages to consider then, for your two cards for the next two weeks are Peace and the eternal Wheel.

What these things mean to you, imagine them and cherish them. They are good symbols, symbols of the goodness of the Universe and its eternal faith. :)

Considering how agitated and pessimistic I feel after researching and writing my previous post (I know it was long, but there was so much more I could've said that I left out), that sounds rather reassuring.

Posted by Lis Riba at 2:25 PM

From the first day of this campaign I have talked about the goal of a responsibility era for America. And even before that, it was one of my priorities as governor. For too long our culture has sent this message: if it feels good, do it. And if you've got a problem, just go ahead and blame somebody else. Each of us must understand that's not right. Each of us must understand that we're responsible for the decisions and choices we make in life.

-- George W. Bush, October 2000     

You've probably heard by now about the 60 Minutes II story about mistreatment of Iraqi POWs. But notice this aspect:

According to the Army's own investigation, that's what was happening. The Army found that interrogators asked reservists working in the prison to prepare the Iraqi detainees, physically and mentally, for questioning.
What, if any actions, are being taken against the interrogators?<snip> [S]o far, none of the interrogators at Abu Ghraib are facing criminal charges. In fact, a number of them are civilians, and military law doesn't apply to them.

After I started writing this post, Atrios shared this excerpt from the Guardian:

A military report into the Abu Ghraib case - parts of which were made available to the Guardian - makes it clear that private contractors were supervising interrogations in the prison, which was notorious for torture and executions under Saddam Hussein.
One civilian contractor was accused of raping a young, male prisoner but has not been charged because military law has no jurisdiction over him.

And Amnesty International says this isn't an isolated incident.

So who is in charge? In a recent Slate article, Phil Carter investigated, and couldn't find a definitive answer:

[W]hile the Justice Department has jurisdiction to prosecute military contractors for actions overseas under a 2000 law, it may decline to do so as a result of limited resources and the fact that there is no U.S. attorney's office (yet) established in Iraq to govern U.S. civilian activities there.
The legal murkiness helps shield the contractors from effective discipline. The Coalition Provisional Authority has decreed that contractors and other foreign personnel will not be subject to Iraqi criminal processes. Yet, there's also no clear mandate for American jurisdiction.

Earlier this week, a lawyer for the Justice Department assured the Supreme Court that a U.S. president doesn't need restrictions against torture, because we would never do something like that...

New York Times:

JUSTICE GINSBURG: But if the law is what the executive says it is, whatever is necessary and appropriate in the executive's judgment, as the resolution you gave us that Congress passed, it leads you up to the executive, unchecked by the judiciary. So what is it that would be a check against torture?
CLEMENT: Well, first of all there are treaty obligations

CNN:

GINSBURG: Suppose the executive says mild torture we think will help get this information. It's not a soldier who does something against the Code of Military Justice, but it's an executive command. Some systems do that to get information.
CLEMENT: Well, our executive doesn't.
GINSBURG: What's constraining? That's the point. Is it just up to the good will of the executive? Is there any judicial check?
CLEMENT: This is a situation where there is jurisdiction in the habeas courts. So if necessary, they remain open.

Too late!

The case of Maher Arar didn't get much coverage in the United States, but he was a Canadian citizen whom American officials arrested and sent abroad to a Syrian prison, where he was tortured. [State Department reports have known for a long time that Syria makes widespread use of torture in detentions, and yet we handed him over anyway.] Now we seem to be outsourcing our torture to private contractors. In both cases, it keeps the government's hands superficially clean, but this is not the America I grew up believing in.

I just hope the Justices are following the news and realize that these are precisely the reasons why we need checks and balances on the executive branch.

Speaking of private military companies, members of the armed forces serving alongside these contractors have complained about being endangered by their conduct:

"[T]here are people running around with guns now who are just cowboys. We always conceal our weapons, but these guys think they're in a Hollywood film."

-- the British leader of one security team in southern Baghdad, Source

Locals often mistake the guards for special forces or CIA personnel, which makes active-duty military troops a bit edgy. "Those Blackwater guys," says an intelligence officer in Iraq, "they drive around wearing Oakley sunglasses and pointing their guns out of car windows. They have pointed their guns at me, and it pissed me off. Imagine what a guy in Fallujah thinks."

-- Source

And a Mother Jones article on PMCs noted:

     Because they operate with little oversight, using contractors also enables the military to skirt troop limits imposed by Congress and to carry out clandestine operations without committing U.S. troops or attracting public attention. "Private military corporations become a way to distance themselves and create what we used to call 'plausible deniability,'" says Daniel Nelson, a former professor of civil-military relations at the Defense Department's Marshall European Center for Security Studies. "It's disastrous for democracy."
<snip>
     When the companies do screw up, however, their status as private entities often shields them -- and the government -- from public scrutiny. <snip> Soldiers who disobey orders or violate standards of conduct can be court-martialed and incarcerated; their supervisors can be reassigned or forced to retire. Private companies, by contrast, are able to operate in almost complete secrecy, with little accountability to civilian or military authorities.

And the article provides examples from Yugoslavia, Africa and South America, so this isn't just speculation on what might happen in Iraq -- it's already happened.

Since 2000, I've heard on the fringes of American news media, stories about human rights abuses committed by our own government.

Do we want to live under an administration that tortures POWs? An administration that imprisons an American citizen for over two years without charging him with a crime or allowing him to see even an attorney? An administration that extradites an innocent man where he will be tortured? An administration that has committed a laundry-list of repeated violations of the Geneva Conventions?

Individual soldiers have been charged in some cases, but these atrocities couldn't happen to such an extent without sanction from above. So where is the leadership? Where are the leaders of our country? What happened to "the buck stops here" and being responsible for one's decisions and choices?

These actions are all being done in our names. If we allow them to continue with impunity, we will be held responsible.

Only one of the candidates^* running for president has taken a stand against war crimes committed by fellow Americans, even when it would have been easier and less controversial to remain quiet. The other continues to take actions that permit war crimes to take place, and blames underlings when they are revealed.

Our nation's leaders are responsible to confront problems, not pass them on to others. And to lead this nation to a responsibility era, a president himself must be responsible.

George W. Bush

Each of us must understand that we're responsible for the decisions and choices we make in life.

George W. Bush, October 2000

Knowing all this, which one of these men do you choose to represent us for the next four years?

[See also these posts by Rivka and Jeanne, which initially inspired my outrage last night.]

Posted by Lis Riba at 9:05 AM

Dick Cheney, as reported in this morning's Washington Post

"I end up spending a lot of time watching Fox News, because they're more accurate in my experience, in those events that I'm personally involved in, than many of the other outlets."

Last October, the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) released a report (PDF) demonstrating that those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions. Among those who primarily watched Fox, greater attention to news modestly increased the likelihood of misperceptions.

So, Cheney gets most of his news from Fox, which is more demonstrably inaccurate than other news sources.

And we already know that the President Bush insulates himself from news coverage and gets his information from briefings from staffers who follow the news themselves. Oy!

[Cheney comment via Suburban Guerrilla]

Posted by Lis Riba at 8:15 AM

Elissa Ely's columns in the Globe are usually so good; she's a psychiatrist and they manage to capture with sensitivity the humanity of people normally stigmatized by society. I suppose it's only logical that if she can show such understanding for the fringe elements, that she'd get mainstream folks completely wrong. Here's the opening of her latest column:

I think the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatry is all wrong. Traditional diagnoses are about pathology. What if instead they described strengths? What if they identified needs that could then be met?

For instance, a delicate soul who cannot tolerate stimulation might carry a diagnosis of "Should-Have-Been-a-Librarian."

No. That's just so utterly... no.

I suppose a note to letter@globe.com is in order for later today...

Posted by Lis Riba at 11:05 PM

You've probably already heard this, but just in case:

• Friday night on ABC, Ted Koppel's Nightline will air a special broadcast showing the names and faces of all American soldiers "killed by hostile fire" in the Iraq war.
• Sinclair Broadcast Group, which owns 62 television stations, including 7 ABC affiliates has announced that it will not air the program because "reading aloud the names of U.S. servicemen and women killed in action in Iraq ... appears to be motivated by a political agenda" According to Sinclair's General Counsel, it is "contrary to the public interest."
• Further research has shown that the executives of Sinclair have donated heavily to Bush's campaigns and have close ties to the White House.

The public airwaves belong to the public and are supposed to be used to serve the public interest (that's why they're regulated by the FCC, and cable -- which hasn't the same kind of limited spectrum -- isn't). How could recognizing the sacrifice of our troops not be in the public interest?

Michael Powell claimed to be responding to public demand when he went after recent obscenity cases. So why not see just how responsive he can be by filing a complaint with the FCC over this kind of action. From the FCC website:

You can mail, fax, or e-mail a complaint about a radio or TV station to the FCC at the following address:

Federal Communications Commission Enforcement Bureau 445 12th St., SW Washington, D.C. 20554 Fax: (202)-418-2810 Telephone number: (202) 418-7450 E-mail address: complaints-enf@fcc.gov

You should generally include the following information in your complaint: (1) the call letters of the station; (2) the city and state where the station is located; (3) the name, time, and date of the specific program or advertisement in question, if applicable; (4) the name of anyone contacted at the station, if applicable; and (5) a statement of the problem, as specific as possible, together with an audio or video tape or transcript of the program or advertisement (if possible). Please include your name and address if you would like information on the final disposition of your complaint; however, you may request confidentiality. We prefer that you submit complaints in writing, although you may submit complaints that are time-sensitive by telephone, especially if they involve safety.

What kind of twisted person thinks it's a partisan attack to show flag-draped coffins being treated with respect or to honor the soldiers who gave their lives in Iraq by name? And who is it who really "supports the troops"? Let's pay attention to the real people serving out there and their needs, rather than mouthing pointless collective platitudes.

Posted by Lis Riba at 10:15 PM

An interesting potential side-effect of the impending arrival of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts:

Several Massachusetts companies are announcing a discontinuation of domestic partner benefits. Companies who only offered the benefits to same-sex couples did so because those couples were unable to otherwise legally marry. Once same-sex couples have the same opportunity to marry as straights, holding them to the same standards to qualify would no longer be discriminatory.

Several companies are announcing that beginning next year, benefits will be restricted to married couples, even if unmarried same-sex partners previously qualified.

A bit tough -- particularly given (a) the attempts of some in the state to overturn same-sex marriage, and (b) the difficulty of planning a wedding in under seven months -- but it seems rather fair.

Posted by Lis Riba at 9:58 PM

The attempts by Republicans to label the 9/11 Commission as biased are increasing. One member has had memos she's written selectively declassified to discredit her. Rhetoric against her has gotten so strong, she's actually received death threats.

Now, Michelle Malkin is going after Bob Kerrey for having the temerity to appear on The Daily Show and crack jokes. She thinks he ought to be kicked off the commission because of it, while simultaneously acknowledging that he won't be.

And then I realized just how diabolically clever this attempt to frame the commission is.

Republicans are trying to paint the commission as biased against the President. That way, if the report is unfavorable to the current administration, they can dismiss it as a partisan attack that can safely be ignored. And if the administration comes out well in the report, it's all the better because it's coming from a "biased" committee.

Furthermore, the natural defensive reaction against such attacks is to say that the committee isn't partisan. But that doesn't actually jibe with the membership and history of the panel, which has included some close ties to Bush and Rice that weren't disclosed until recently. If people respond to the claims of bias by arguing the commision isn't biased, we lose ground in case the commission does unfairly favor the Bush administration or slander Clinton.

Should that happen, and we try to protest the report, Republicans will hold our own words against us and say "you said the commission was unbiased!"

So, best to be very careful as we counter this spreading falsehood. The commission is not biased against Bush. That doesn't necessarily mean it's unbiased, but it doesn't appear to be biased against Bush.

Added later: Interesting to note that the President and Vice President's questioning was held in the Oval Office, with "the commission members [...] sitting on the couches and in chairs." Even the press corps asked "Why not in a place where all of them could sit at a table?" but I think they missed the significance of that seating arrangement.
The administration demanded there would be no official stenographer or recording made of this event. The only notes that would exist would be those made by the members of the panel. And, seated on a couch without a table further hinders notetaking ability. Looks like Tom Toles was more right than he knew.

Added even later: I know I should know better than to trust Drudge, but on his website right now it says, "Commissioners' notebooks were taken from them before they left the session, with the White House saying they would be returned to them after they were reviewed for classified information..." The more details they reveal about this session the worse it sounds. [Just found confirmation; that quote comes from the New York Times.]

Posted by Lis Riba at 8:45 PM

After the initial excitement over the Google results for "Jew", I came to believe that the "problem" wasn't the result of antisemitic googlebombing, but just happenstance.

After all, how often do Jews actually use the word "Jew" in the singular? We speak of "Jews" plural, but rarely do we use Jew. "I am Jewish" not "I am a Jew." Most of the time when I hear "Jew" used in the singular, it is by antisemites using it as an epithet. What's more, the site at the heart of the controversy had the word "Jew" in its very title, so I suspect many of the links that elevated it to #1 were just other sites pointing to it by name. Google on enough words, and eventually you'll find one with an odious connotation topping the list.

I believe somebody actually went and checked Google that first day and found only about 35 links to the site. That's hardly impressive for a Googlebombing, and looks more like chance. [In contrast, Google currently lists 1,520 links to Wikipedia's entry on Jew, which was the subject of the countermeme.]

The reason I'm rehashing all this old news? Because now the antisemites are getting involved. They're planning their own Googlebombing to return Jew Watch to the top of the list. Somehow, I doubt they'll succeed, but it's happening nonetheless.

And frankly, I don't have much energy to care. The original outcry felt like a tempest in a teapot precipitated by somebody with little technical understanding who believes that the first Google result is the be all end all of searching. But I thought folks who participated in the first round might want to know.

[Credit to Seth Finkelstein for the heads up.]

Posted by Lis Riba at 5:20 PM

I suppose I've known it for a while, but it took shadowflyer to put it into words:

Shadowflyer created the artwork and is selling merchandise with the slogan on Café Press.She's "not keeping a dime of this - every commission check will be signed over to the fight to re-defeat George Bush and end his campaign of discrimination."

Claudia has created a LiveJournal-sized icon as a way of showing support:

Ashcroft would so not approve...

Posted by Lis Riba at 4:45 PM

For those not using LJ, how many posts or days worth of posts do you publish on your blog's main page? And why did you choose that number? Just wondering...

Posted by Lis Riba at 11:20 AM

I just found this in Penknife's journal. Only eight articles on it in Google News, and not much more in Daypop. I'll just quote her words verbatim, since she's done more reading on it than I have:

It takes a lot to appall me, lately, but this one's appalling.

Edited to clarify a few things; also, I'll keep you posted on how this shakes out over the next several days. The law's only a few days old.


Virginia just passed the "Marriage Affirmation Act." Not only does it ban gay marriage or civil union, and ban recognizing gay marriages or civil unions performed in other states, but it bans any "partnership contract or other arrangements that purport to provide the benefits of marriage."

What benefits are those? Well, the bill's pretty clear about that. ETA: Reading through it again, it's not actually out on the table in plain English. But this particular language probably means the following, according to the lawyers looking at the bill:

Powers of attorney. Custody arrangements. Health insurance coverage for same-sex domestic partners. Joint ownership of property. And--most sickeningly--wills leaving property to a same-sex partner.

It means that starting July 1, when this bill goes into effect, anyone who dies with a will that leaves their property to their same-sex partner can be treated as if they died without a will. Their property goes to their blood relatives. Don't have any? Sorry, your property's forfeit to the state of Virginia.

ETA: Not that the last is necessarily likely--it would probably be legal under this law, but the state's lawyers may not be quite that ready to start a legal battle. Wills being invalidated in favor of blood relatives is very, very likely.

The last time we had laws about who you could leave property to in a will, those laws were to forbid people from leaving property to slaves. That's not a part of our history I'd particularly like to revisit.

Anyone living in Virginia with a child they've adopted in a second-parent adoption? Sorry, you're a legal stranger to your kid in Virginia. If your partner dies, your kid goes to your partner's relatives or becomes a ward of the state. Have a custody order from another state? Thrown out. Have an order to pay child support to your ex's biological child? Probably thrown out too.

Anyone have a power of attorney for your elderly or disabled partner? Sorry, those decisions have to be made by a "real" relative. Or a court-appointed guardian, if you don't have one. Get in a wreck on the Virginia side of the state line, with a health-care power of attorney from another state authorizing your partner to make medical decisions for you? It's probably a worthless piece of paper, and, personally, that scares me to death. We live in Maryland. All our relatives live south of here. It's not like we can avoid driving through Virginia. We could fly, but the airport's in Virginia.

ETA: Whether to honor wills, custody orders, or powers of attorney is going to be up to individual judges. Some of them, in more liberal areas, are likely to say that these don't constitute "benefits of marriage." Many of them, in the majority of Virginia, are likely to say that they do, and throw them out. It's a big, scary question mark. And it leaves people who've made these legal documents to protect their families with no better answer to "Are they still valid?" than "There's a chance that they will be, if you get a good judge."

artaxastra's been getting calls all week from people who are going to have to leave the state. There's the couple who just moved into their new house in Virginia two months ago, the house that come July can't legally be in both their names. There's the national credit card company that may have to move its headquarters if it wants to continue to issue joint credit cards to same-sex couples. There's the professor leaving his tenured position at a university because if he stays his partner won't get his pension.

And there's the one that made her nearly cry at the dinner table telling me about it, the old lady in southern Virginia who lives with her partner. She's sixty-five, disabled, and blind. If her partner can't have her power of attorney anymore, she doesn't know how she'll get her bills paid or her banking done or her prescriptions filled at the drugstore. She asked artaxastra what to do, and the best she could say was, "Move across the state line into North Carolina."

This is just. Plain. Wrong.

And why are they doing this? Well, one legislator was kind enough to provide an explanation: to drive homosexuals in the state of Virginia into a legal limbo, so that they'll either have to become heterosexual or leave, and to break the power of homosexuals in state business and politics.

Right.

Details on the bill are here. It's a done deal, ratified over the governor's intent to veto, but Equality Virginia, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU are planning to legally challenge at least the part of the bill that prohibits private contracts and wills. I hope they win. I really do.

Sometimes, like tonight, I'm just really worried for my country. And really angry at people who can do this kind of thing and then face themselves in the mirror every day.

ETA: Wow. Lots more interest in this than I expected. I want to point out for those of you who are not my usual audience that I'm not a lawyer, and can't really debate the legal interpretation of the bill's language in an informed way. This is what the attorneys who work for Equality Virginia, Lambda Legal, and HRC are afraid the law will be used to do. I understand the reasons why they believe that only slightly better than I understand the explanations behind, say, particle physics. But this is what I hear from people in a position to know.


ETA2: If you live in Virginia, please take a few minutes to stop by Equality Virginia's online action center here:

http://www.equalityvirginia.org/action/index.html

and email your representatives. It's easy to do, and it really does make a difference.

If you're an LGBT person living in Virginia, Lambda Legal's Help Desk can answer the question of what this law means to you personally a lot better than I can. They can also help you find a lawyer in your area if you need one.

Lots more info in Penknife's post, including over 150 comments, which may add further information.

Posted by Lis Riba at 10:05 AM

If you have any interest in the latest scientific knowledge regarding female sexuality, whether you're a medical professional or just a curious layperson, BUMC's Institute for Sexual Medicine will be offering another free seminar on May 23rd in Newton.

Boston University Medical Center is one of the nation's leading facilities for research and treatment of sexual medicine. Every time I've heard Dr. Goldstein speak, I've come away enlightened. These are exciting times, as the field is rapidly advancing and changing.

I attended the last seminar (their first), and it was so fascinating, I could barely take notes. What comments I did record are in this Survey for the readership, Let's talk about sex, and A bitter pill to swallow. I'm not sure whether I'll attend this one, since I did get so much out of the last, but I strongly recommend hearing what they have to say, if at all possible.

The registration deadline is May 16; it is free, but they'd like some estimate of how many people to expect.

To register and for more information, go to http://www.bumc.bu.edu/sexualmedicine/fsdprogram

Posted by Lis Riba at 9:35 AM

The following meme is going around:

1. Go into your journal's archives.
2. Find your 23rd post (or closest to).
3. Find the fifth sentence (or closest to).
4. Post the text of the sentence in your blog along with these instructions.

Unfortunately, my 23rd post only contained one sentence, and besides the domain is dead.

So here are the fifth sentences of my 22nd and 24th posts:

• I'm somewhat tempted by Elf Princess and Still the Prettiest, but I probably won't buy either, since I rarely buy t-shirts.
• The courses I plan on taking are:

Not terribly amusing, I'm afraid.

Posted by Lis Riba at 3:35 PM

From today's Onion:

Bush To Iraqi Militants: 'Please Stop Bringing It On'
WASHINGTON, DC—In an internationally televised statement Monday, President Bush modified a July 2003 challenge to Iraqi militants attacking U.S. forces. "Terrorists, Saddam loyalists, and anti-American insurgents: Please stop bringing it on now," Bush said at a Monday press conference. "Nine months and 500 U.S. casualties ago, I may have invited y'all to bring it on, but as of today, I formally rescind that statement. I would officially like for you to step back." The president added that the "it" Iraqis should stop bringing includes gunfire, bombings, grenade attacks, and suicide missions of all types.

By the way, Jon Stewart's take on abortion and Karen Hughes was also quite funny.

And, as long as I'm sharing humorous tidbits, how about this unfortunate name I encountered in The Speckled monster: The Honorable Clotworth Skeffington. I know it's wrong to mock people's names, but since he died sometime in the 18th century and it looks like the given name Clotworth has gone out of popular usage, I think I can be excused this time...

Posted by Lis Riba at 3:15 PM

D'oh! I forgot to include the story I most wanted to mention in my big roundup post from earlier today:

Blog-Tracking May Gain Ground Among U.S. Intelligence Officials

   U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials might be starting to track blogs for important bits of information. This interest is a sign of how far Web media such as blogs have come in reshaping the data-collection habits of intelligence professionals and others, even with the knowledge that the accuracy of what's reported in some blogs is questionable.
    Still, a panel of folks who work in the U.S. intelligence field - some of them spies or former spies - discussed this month at a conference in Washington the idea of tracking blogs.
    "News and intelligence is about listening with a critical ear, and blogs are just another conversation to listen to and evaluate. They also are closer to (some situations) and may serve as early alerts," said Jock Gill, a former adviser on Internet media to President Clinton, in a later phone interview, after he spoke on the panel.
    Some panel and conference participants, because of their profession, could not be identified. But another who could is Robert Steele, another blog booster. The former U.S. intelligence officer said "absolutely" that blogs are valid sources of intelligence and news, though he said authenticating the information in blogs "leaves a lot to be desired."
<snip>
   The CIA and FBI haven't publicly commented about use of blogs in their work, but many D.C. observers believe both agencies monitor certain blogs.

Well, a big hello to all intelligence lifeforms everywhere. And to everyone else out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together, guys!

Have I reached the party to whom I am speaking?

Posted by Lis Riba at 2:42 PM

As just seen on Demagogue:

Jon Corzine and Ted Kennedy want employers who willfully neglect federal safety rules and, in doing so, kill an employee to be held criminally accountable

A man whose son was killed 11 years ago in a gruesome workplace accident urged Congress on Tuesday to give prosecutors the threat of felony convictions against employers whose neglect for federal safety rules causes a death.

Ron Hayes, a Fairhope, Ala., resident who in December ended his two-year term on the advisory panel overseeing the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, was in Washington to lobby for a proposal by Sens. Jon Corzine, D-N.J., and Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.

The Wrongful Death Accountability Act would increase the current $10,000 fine and/or 6 months in prison to a $250,000 fine and/or 10 years in prison for a first offense.

Companies keep pushing the notion of corporate personhood -- well, if they want the rights, then they should be subject to the same penalties as well.

Naturally, the Bush administration opposes this measure.

If you're at all interested in the subject, Confined Space is a weblog devoted to workplace safety issues. It's a very depressing read.

Posted by Lis Riba at 1:45 PM

As I mentioned yesterday, Ben and Jerry tied their Free Scoop Day with a voter registration drive. All the clerks behind the counter wore shirts which said "ETOV: Turn it around," and volunteers were asking people in line whether they were registered and had forms ready.

But what most fascinated me was a little flyer on the counter from Ben & Jerry's and Rock the Vote. If you have Flash, you can see a portion of it by going to this page, and clicking the link for "Get the facts. Every vote counts!" It listed a set of five "National voting rights" which, frankly, I had never heard before. They include:

2. [You have the right to] Cast a provisional ballot if you registered to vote and your name is not on the list at the polling place. If they made a mistake, they will verify it and your vote will count.
3. [You have the right to] Cast a ballot if you are in line at the polling place before the polls close.
4. [You have the right to] Ask questions about election procedures.

These put me in mind of recent election debacles. All the voters who were wrongly scrubbed from the Florida rolls in 2000? Why weren't they given the chance to cast provisional ballots? In 2002, voting machine problems delayed the opening of polls for hours as voters waited in line. While hours were extended, people working odd shifts may not have been able to come back. But if they had been in line before the polls closed, they should've been able to cast a ballot somehow...

Clearly, voters need to be informed of their rights, so they can stand up for themselves when future infringements occur.

Before the Supreme Court issued the Miranda decision, I remember reading about lawyers handing out wallet cards that spelled out people's rights in case they were stopped by the police. Maybe we need to do something similar here.

Create nonpartisan flyers spelling out voting rights. Display them outside the polling places. Hand them out to voters on their way in. Could prevent a heck of a lot of problems. What do you think?

Posted by Lis Riba at 1:15 PM

A few recent stories have been making the rounds of the blogosphere. You may have read some of these already, but since I was chatting with someone who hadn't heard them all, I thought I should share:

I didn't go to the March on Washington last weekend, but I do have fond memories of attending the two in April and November 1989. [Okay, the speakers at the second one bored me enough that I slipped away to the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum for part of the afternoon, but I was there in spirit and as part of the headcount!]

At any rate, Bush administration advisor Karen Hughes over the weekend explicitly equated pro-choice opinions with terrorism, saying "the fundamental difference between us and the terror network we fight is that we value every life." (Oh, really, Karen? And how many people were executed in Texas during Bush's tenure???) In other words, those of us who aren't anti-abortion are not part of the American people (the antecedent to her "us").

But we're in good company. It was only a few months ago that Education Secretary Rod Paige called teachers a "terrorist organization." So we're in good company.

But what's really stupid and ironic about this analogy is that there has been domestic terrorism in the abortion debate -- but it's all been aimed against the pro-choice side! Rivka elaborates:

Let's look at the FBI's definition of terrorism:

"The unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives". This definition includes three elements: (1) Terrorist activities are illegal and involve the use of force. (2) The actions are intended to intimidate or coerce. (3) The actions are committed in support of political or social objectives.

Now let's look at the examples of Chuck Spingola, Clayton Waagner, Paul Hill, James Kopp, and Eric Rudolph, all of whom have killed abortion providers or made terroristic threats against clinics. They - among many others - attempted to end women's access to legal abortions through violence, threats, and intimidation, and they were funded, supported, and defended by anti-abortion organizations. Now let's look at the other side, at a list of pro-choice activists who have used violence and illegal acts to intimidate or coerce the general public into supporting their positions: _____________

Speaking of domestic terrorism, Dave Neiwert at Orcinus has spent a lot of time researching domestic terrorism and links between right-wing rhetoric and violence. And he shares a disturbing bit of news that I haven't seen in the Boston papers. A man named Michael J. Breit was arrested last week:

Federal agents say they recovered seven guns, more than 1,300 rounds of ammunition, pipe bomb making components and other explosives, a list of government officials and political and public figures with the word "marked" written next to them, and a written plan for 15 heavily armed men to kill 1,500 people at a Democratic presidential meeting.

He was only caught because one of his guns accidentally discharged and somebody heard the gunfire and called the police.

As inconvenient as it may be, I'm somehow finding the heightened security plans for the Democratic National Convention in Boston to be a tad more reassuring, if this is what's really out there...

All around the blogosphere and news, I'm finding more evidence that Republicans are trying to spin the 9/11 commission as biased against Bush. Lambert (o