Young: champion of the religious state

This is getting ridiculous. How many bad votes can one US Representative make?

Representative Don Young voted for HR 2679, the Public Expression of Religion Act. The bill prevents lawyers who've won suits against the government for violating the separation of church and state (known as the Establishment Clause) from collecting attorneys fees. This means that the lawyers have to take these cases on pro bono or be brought by those wealthy enough to sue the government (it's not cheap to do this). If the goverment has been found guilty of breaking the law in this manner, it should have to pay for the costs of bringing a lawsuit to get them to straighten up, it seems to me. In fact, as constitutional scholar Erwin Chemerinsky points out in this Washington Post column, there is legal recognition of the barrier money plays for individuals, and a federal statute to provide for paying for fees in the event of a "defendent who acted wrongfully", in this case, the government.

The Public Expression of Religion Act is a deliberate attempt to prevent people from suing the goverment for wrongful action in supporting religion. (Attorneys don't get paid if they lose the lawsuit.) It's just one more attempt to cripple our Constitution.

The Pro-Torture Trio: Ted Stevens, Lisa Murkowski, and Don Young

All three members of Alaska's Congressional delegation have voted for unprecedented expansion of powers for the president. And when I say unprecedented, I mean NO president of the United States has ever been trusted with this much sheer control over the lives (and deaths) of suspected criminals. Note that word: suspected. Not convicted, not proved, simply suspected. For those of you out there who really are conservatives, not just knee-jerk follow-the-leader types, consider that the Military Commissions Act eviscerates the power of the courts and utterly shreds the Constitution. Our Declaration of Independence included these famous words: "all men are created equal". Not, "all citizens of our land": ALL men. Citizens, noncitizens, whatever. The principle has been expanded over time to include women, too: people. All people are deserving of equal protections, equal rights. Even those suspected of crimes. Even those who have actually committed crimes. Rights are not privileges: they are inalienable, something you can't just toss because it's inconvenient.

But that's what Don Young, Ted Stevens, and Lisa Murkowski have done: they've tossed out the Constitution because it's inconvenient. They've endorsed the Administration's use of torture, and they've endorsed the Administration's "right" to get away with it scot-free. They've voted to change the War Crimes Act, they've retroactively protected the president and his administration for any war crimes they may have committed or authorized since 2001, they've voted to redefine the infliction of severe pain or rape so that it doesn't come under the heading of torture, they've voted to allow the use of coerced evidence and secret evidence which the accused can respond to but can't see...in short, they've voted to turn the United States into a "decidership".

But of course, it's not just noncitizens who can be imprisoned without charge, tortured, etc. Citizens can be stipped of their rights, too.

Lynndie England was convicted in 2005 for doing far less than what this bill will allow. Doesn't that make you feel proud of what America has become? One set of barbaric rules for the peons, and another for the rulers.

A craven Congress kowtows to the king

Well, the Military Commissions bill passed in the Senate, and our senators were among those voting to allow the president to do whatever he wants to whoever he wants, a privilege not granted to monarchs since 1215.

I quote from the New York Times editorial of September 28, "Rushing Off a Cliff":

These are some of the bill’s biggest flaws:

Enemy Combatants: A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.

The Geneva Conventions: The bill would repudiate a half-century of international precedent by allowing Mr. Bush to decide on his own what abusive interrogation methods he considered permissible. And his decision could stay secret — there’s no requirement that this list be published.

Habeas Corpus: Detainees in U.S. military prisons would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment. These cases do not clog the courts, nor coddle terrorists. They simply give wrongly imprisoned people a chance to prove their innocence.

Judicial Review: The courts would have no power to review any aspect of this new system, except verdicts by military tribunals. The bill would limit appeals and bar legal actions based on the Geneva Conventions, directly or indirectly. All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him an illegal combatant and not have a trial.

Coerced Evidence: Coerced evidence would be permissible if a judge considered it reliable — already a contradiction in terms — and relevant. Coercion is defined in a way that exempts anything done before the passage of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, and anything else Mr. Bush chooses.

Secret Evidence: American standards of justice prohibit evidence and testimony that is kept secret from the defendant, whether the accused is a corporate executive or a mass murderer. But the bill as redrafted by Mr. Cheney seems to weaken protections against such evidence.

Offenses: The definition of torture is unacceptably narrow, a virtual reprise of the deeply cynical memos the administration produced after 9/11. Rape and sexual assault are defined in a retrograde way that covers only forced or coerced activity, and not other forms of nonconsensual sex. The bill would effectively eliminate the idea of rape as torture.

Apparently, the Republican Party line is that accusation = guilt, the end justifies the means, our intentions will pave the way to Heaven, and torture is a-okay.

From a September 26 letter to Congress signed by 609 legal scholars:

the bill's provisions rewrite American law to evade the fundamental principles of separation of powers, due process, habeas corpus, fair trials, and the rule of law, principles that, together, prohibit state-sanctioned violence. If there is any fixed point in the historical understandings of constitutional freedom that help to define us as a people, it is that no one may be picked up and locked up by the American state in secret or at an unknown location, or without opportunity to petition an independent court for inspection of the lawfulness of the lockup and of the treatment handed out by the state to the person locked up, under legal standards from time to time defined by Congress.

So, don't you feel all warm and fuzzy now?

What in the HELL are they thinking?

The House passed it. The final bill number was apparently HR 6166; the Senate version is S 3930. And Don Young traded our freedom away.

We are SO screwed.

Young may vote for HR 6054

I called up Representative Young's Washington office this morning, and spoke with a staffer there, trying to find out how Young plans to vote on the belowmentioned mess of a Military Commissions bill. The staffer wasn't sure, but thought that Young was leaning toward voting for it. If this bill passes, there goes 600 years of basic protections.

I registered my urgent request that he NOT vote for this, based on concern for its habeas-stripping provisions and the lack of a check by the judiciary on the executive. The staffer wanted to know if I was military. The problem is that this bill doesn't just cover the military, or military situations, or times of war.

Again, I quote Lederman:

if the Pentagon says you're an unlawful enemy combatant -- using whatever criteria they wish -- then as far as Congress, and U.S. law, is concerned, you are one, whether or not you have had any connection to "hostilities" at all.

This definition is not limited to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. It's not limited to aliens -- it covers U.S. citizens as well. It's not limited to persons captured or detained overseas. And it is not even limited to the armed conflict against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, authorized by Congress on September 18, 2001. Indeed, on the face of it, it's not even limited to a time of war or armed conflict; it could apply in peacetime.

Contact Don Young about this--we are potentially in deep trouble, folks.

An unchecked Executive branch

HR 6054, the Military Commissions Act (PDF), is a mess. The draft legislation approved recently 20-19 in the House Judiciary Committee would "make the President the sole arbiter of the meaning of the Geneva Conventions" and would strip the courts of their ability to oversee the Executive. No habeas corpus or civil actions, by anybody. Senator McCain's defense of this crap is horrific. As one writer put it, what did the administration do to break him when the Viet Cong couldn't?

The new amendments broaden certain truly obnoxious powers and muddy everything, rather than "bringing clarity". I quote Marty Lederman:

It is worth noting one thing about the breadth of the habeas-stripping provision, both in the new draft and in last week's version, that has thus far received inadequate attention in the public debate. That provision would eliminate the right to petition for habeas for all alleged alien enemy combatants, whether or not the detainee has been determined to be an "unlawful" combatant -- indeed, even if the detainee is deemed a lawful combatant (e.g., a POW) -- and no matter where they are detained, including in the United States.

Or, as Hilzoy on Obisidian Wings put it, "We can all be enemy combatants!"

Lucky us.

Balkinization has an ongoing review of this legislation, as does Obsidian Wings.

Devine pillow fight

and no, that's not a typo. Hans and I watched Waking Ned Devine last night. I've seen it before, but it was delightful to see it again. I laughed so hard my sides hurt. For those of you who don't know this movie, it's about a tiny village (52 residents) on an Irish island. One of the residents wins the Irish lotto, and dies from the shock of it. His buddies find him dead with the winning ticket in his hand, and (after a beatific vision) realize that Ned wanted them to have some of his "chicken dinner". So now the trick is to get the whole village in on the scam...

Among the scenes that live in my memory is of the old farts riding a motorcycle at top speed, in the nude, through the countryside...

Anyway, after recovering from laughter, Hans and I had a marvelous pillow fight. He knows some tricky martial pillow art moves, though, complete with sound effects and "Haieeeee!" exclamations. Very good sideways feints. But I got him pretty good, until he trapped both my pillows (we were double-fisting it). Of course, then it was a draw, because he couldn't whap me without letting go of my weapons of down-filled might, whereupon I'd whap him upside the head good. (He had to take off his glasses.)

Don Young casts the right vote

Young voted against HR 4844, the Federal Election Integrity Act, which aims to prevent noncitizens from voting (as though this is the most urgent problem with our voting system right now). SitNews has an excellent article on the subject. He was one of three Republicans voting against it (why does EVERYTHING seem to come down on party lines these days?), but it still passed, 228 to 196. The bill requires photo ID when voting, plus--and this is the stickler--proof of citizenship. The League of Women Voters is not happy about this.

Now, how many of you out there have proof of citizenship? And how many of you are thrilled by the idea of a national ID card, which, in essence, this would require?

Representative Young, I blasted you in my editorial, but you did good here. I'm just sorry it wasn't enough to prevent the bill from passing. And I'm really sorry that Congress is wasting its time on legislation like this, instead of dealing with the fundamental problems in our electoral system, like the unverifiable Dieboldization of our votes.

Resign, Rumsfeld!

Last night at Mike Musick's meet & greet at the Golden Eagle, Luke Hopkins told me about a resolution on the borough assembly consent agenda (PDF) for the September 28 meeting, introduced by Hank Bartos and Guy Sattley, that will call for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation (PDF). KUAC had a short bit about it this morning, in which Bartos demonstrated the support for this by military families by playing a telephone message from the father of one of the Stryker Brigade soldiers killed. Bartos, like others, thinks Rumsfeld is doing a very bad job. Among those others are six generals.

The list of calls for resignation is growing longer.

Satanic values

The inversion of values in the modern Newspeak of politics comes out clearly in this, the most appalling and clearly BAD idea I've seen yet coming from the "Christian" Right: The Traditional Values Coalition ("Empowering People of Faith through Knowledge") is all for torture.

The Traditional Values Coalition asked members of Congress to support President Bush's reform of prisoner treatment policies because "this is a war unlike any other we have fought -- the enemy is faceless and deliberately attacks the innocent."

Oh, really? you mean the innocent have never been attacked before? Ever?

TVC Chairman Rev. Louis P. Sheldon said American military and intelligence experts are hampered by a vague "outrages upon personal dignity" statement in Article Three of the Geneva Convention of 1950.

Actually, "outrages upon personal dignity" is pretty easy to determine. Sorta like right from wrong. (Here's a hint, Rev: torture is Wrong.)

"We need to clarify this policy for treating detainees," said Rev. Sheldon. "As it stands right now, the military and intelligence experts interrogating these terrorists are in much greater danger than the terrorists. Civil suits against our military personnel are tying their hands as they try to get vital information which will save the lives of our young military people and the innocent."

Um, like those who've been accused of crimes that haven't been proven? Like, lessee, the Canadian computer consultant who was falsely accused by people who'd been tortured, and was tortured himself into confessing crimes he didn't commit?

"Our rules for interrogation need to catch-up with this awful new form of war that is being fought against all of us and the free world. The post -World War II standards do not apply to this new war.

Nope. Apparently only medieval standards apply.

"We must redefine how our lawful society treats those who have nothing but contempt for the law and rely on terrorizing the innocent to accomplish their objectives. The lines must be redrawn and then we must pursue these criminals as quickly and as aggressively as the law permits.

And if the law allows for a presumption of innocence or for humane treatment of the accused or for, lessee, civil rights, well, then, to hell with the law! Or at least, change it so we can ignore all that pesky civilized stuff, like no terrorizing the innocent to accomplish our objectives.

"And since this debate is, at its very core, about preserving the traditional value of prosecuting injustice and protecting the innocent, TVC will score this vote in both the House and the Senate. We encourage all of our supporters and affiliated churches to contact their elected representatives and let them know we support President Bush's efforts to update our methods of interrogating terrorist detainees in order to provide greater protection for our troops and the innocent."

Yes, indeed, that IS what this debate is about. Too bad that this value is about protecting ALL of the innocent and prosecuting ALL injustice, whether it is committed by Their Side or Our Side. Looks to me like the good reverend is only concerned about bad things done by people he lables as enemies, and isn't too worried about bad things done by the people he votes for. Because, of course, in his eyes, the means justifies the ends.

What an appalling, spiritually impoverished excuse for a religious leader. He is the embodiment of exactly the opposite values that he claims to be fighting for.

Stevens: champion of the big guy

Well, Uncle Ted is proving himself, once again, champ for the guys with the bucks, and to heck with the good of the community or the little guy. Kudos to Alaska Report for spotting this delightful column at the Nation on how ol' Teddy is going to try to shove through that stupid telecom bill that will destroy Internet neutrality. Just so you know who's paying for his vote and influence, take a look at this page at the Center for Public Integrity, showing contributions from 1998-2004 (or 2000-2004, depending).

He's accepted a fair chunk of change from the media moguls. According to Open Secrets, Stevens has accepted $225,250 from the Communications/Electronics sector in the 2006 election cycle alone, putting him in the top 20 (Ms. Clinton is number 1, interestingly). Between 2001 and 2006, Stevens accepted $530,833 from this sector. Seventy-four percent of Stevens' overall contributions come from Outside. If you look at the industries supporting Stevens for this same period, you get some interesting numbers (Open Secrets explains why the numbers don't add up):

1. TV/Movies/Music: $195,871
2. Lawyers/Law Firms: $181,392
3. Air Transport: $173,650
4. Lobbyists: $166,784
5. Defense Aerospace: $111,000
6. Oil & Gas: $103,940
7. Retired: $102,650
8. Telephone Utilities: $99,550
9. Telecom Services & Equipment: $96,700
10. Real Estate: $89,450
11. Misc Defense: $88,000
12. Transportation Unions: $85,000
13. Computers/Internet: $84,162
14. Sea Transport: $82,891
15. Defense Electronics: $80,750
16. Leadership PACs: $72,310
17. Food & Beverage: $66,850
18. Securities & Investment: $61,562
19. Health Professionals: $58,700
20. Public Sector Unions: $55,000

One of these donors, Verizon, paid for a poll that "Tubes" Stevens has been spreading around as evidence that the public doesn't want Net neutrality. Too bad it's a slanted poll.

Even the American Electronics Association thinks what Stevens' bill will do is bad for the ferment of creativity and commerce that the Internet provides. They've written a report called "The Case for Net Neutrality".

So it looks like the entertainment industry is the main thrust behind his antipathy toward internet neutrality: he is #2 in the Senate, behind Hillary again, in donations from the TV production and distribution industry for 2005-2006. I guess now we know why he confused "pipes" with "tubes': he must have been thinking cathode-ray tubes, not Internet carrying capacity of cable...
Interesting what you can find out here, hey what?

Going solar: Not so SNAPpy

Looking further into prices for my solar power setup, it appears that a grid-worthy inverter will cost more than $1,000, which would almost double the cost of setup of a solar photovoltaic system for the office. Eventually, I'd like to feed back into the grid, and it would pay for itself pretty quickly, but I just don't have that kind of cash on hand. So, no SNAP for the Republic.

At least not yet.

Hans and I went down to ABS Alaskan and took a look at the various goodies they have there--so delightful. I filled out the electric load form incorrectly, apparently, and so it looks like I'd be using less power than I thought. I hope.

Going postal in Ester

Today about 60 to 100 people gathered at the Ester post office to celebrate the centennial of postal operations in Berry & Ester. Bill Akiss roped me and Frank into speaking, and a bunch of postal bigwigs were there, along with Ruth Jasper, several campaigning politicians, and about every wasp and yellowjacket left in the village. It was great. The theme was "100 years of serving the arts and mines in Ester", or something like that. Lots of artists brought their paintings and sculptures and whatnot to display, we had carrot cake, and extremely excellent special cancellation stamps and envelopes. VERY cool. I spoke about how the community saved the post office, which saved the village in its turn. Frank talked about hearing Led Zeppelin for the first time on the post office grounds-to-be in 1971. "I haven't been the same since!"

It was great fun. Many photographers were taking pictures, and I plan a big story on it in the next Republic.

Going solar: a SNAP

Well, I'm going to see about becoming a SNAP producer for GVEA. My little list of electrical equipment for the Republic office produced a rather larger electrical load total than I expected, and when I count surges for things like the heater startup and a coffeemaker, it gets a bit pricey. So I called up ABS Alaskan and Todd Hoener, Esteroid in charge of the Sustainable Natural Alternative Power (SNAP) program at Golden Valley Electric Association.

Looking over the basic requirements for a producer, I have to purchase and install the electicity-generating equipment (i.e., the solar panels, etc.), get an electrical permit, fill out the applications and agreements, and pay for hookup with GVEA (misc. fees and account setup, working out to $110 bucks plus line extension, which could be pricey). Then there's all those inspections and whatnot.

Only one problem (well, aside from all the cash): if I set up on this program, will I be able to power my office off of my battery when GVEA has its inevitable midwinter power outages?

Road kill

This week's Carnival of the Green has a story on it by Jacobito about a personal experience with a hit-and-run driver who (probably) killed a bicyclist right next to him. Jacobito muses on the daily sacrifices to the almighty automobile that we make:

We seem to think secular society gave up sacrifice years ago, or that sacrifice only occurs by soldiers in war to consecrate the nation. I don't know though. More people die in car accidents than all our wars combined.

Who are the real victims of sacrifice? Who is really consecrating the nation, making it sacred? Or are we consecrating something else? What? Cars? Transportation? Speed? Oil? Technology? Individuality? What is the meaning that all these bodies, like the one I saw last night, give and to whom or what do they give it? Its easy to say thats its meaningless death. I don't think so though. The consistency, normalcy, complacency, and universality of such deaths in the USA are too blatant to ignore. If the highway is our national graveyard, the cars the tombstones, the police and ambulances the priests, then what is the prayer that ties it all together?

I've been bicycling quite a bit this summer, to and from work about 5 or so miles each way. The road is littered with corpses: hares, birds, squirrels, voles, wasps, bumblebees, butterflies, dragonflies...our roads are paved with deaths, most of which we don't notice. There are the deaths from impact, the deaths from air pollution, the deaths from oil spills, the deaths from cancers caused by chemicals made from oil, the deaths from wars over oil.

We drive Death to his appointed rounds, enablers and apprentices, all of us. Switching to ethanol, or electric, or hybrid, won't relieve us of this. Driving less, or more slowly, will. Yet, the car has given human beings an incredibly valuable freedom, and this is why all those bloody, flattened corpses are ignored. The ability to leave one's little hamlet and go somewhere else without taking all day to get to the next little village, or a week to get to the next city, is a driving force in our vibrant modern cultures. The ability to move, to go, to explore is now available to the mass of people, not just the wealthy or crazy few.

Still, cars are expensive, in more ways than one. Bicycles give a similar freedom, although not as fast; so do scooters and motorcycles and small cars. These all cause a lot less damage then do the big cars Americans seem to love so much.

Small is beautiful!

Esteroid running for borough assembly

Or is Mike Musick an Esterite? Ah, the perennial question...but never mind that. Mike's running for Seat G (Guy Sattley's seat) on the Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly. His opponent? none other than Bonnie Williams! I'm hoping to have an interview with the two of them for the next issue of the Republic. Ought to be interesting reading, don't you think?

Why we shouldn't re-elect Don Young

I've been working on this editorial, going through Young's voting history public commentary (and they ARE appalling). Here's what I've got so far: so much seniority the guy's a fossil (we need some fresh ideas); actually bragging about bringing in pork (he really likes being known as a spendthrift and source of government waste!--think bridge); privately funded trips; homophobia; really rude and discourteous language to just about anybody, including high-school students; according to Young, there is no such thing as global warming or shrinking glaciers; again, per Donny-boy, his opinion is of equal weight to the years of study and analysis conducted by thousands of scientists worldwide; major campaign funding for years from VECO, Wal-Mart, and Carnival Corp. (the cruise ship company)--big biz from Outside, note; votes for the bankruptcy bill (you know, the one that screws you in the event of major medical or weather catastrophe), the Energy Policy Act (the one that gave all those tax breaks to the oil companies and hardly any support to renewable energy), and for the National Uniformity for Food Act, that prevents Alaska from requiring farmed fish labeling or GM fish labeling....

anyway, that's a start. If anyone out there has some other reasons why we shouldn't re-elect this man, let me know. I'll be writing 'em all up and putting 'em in my editorial.