Month: November 2005

Original at DailyKos.

This weekend, Mayor Ray Nagin appeared before Katrina survivors in Pleasant Grove Missionary Baptist Church in Houston, TX, asking them to return home and share in the reconstruction of the devastated city of New Orleans.

Part status report, pep talk as well as stump speech, his optimism wasn’t shared by many, said the Houston Chronicle. (A similar visit is scheduled for evacuees in Memphis, TN.)

The evacuees’ concerns varied, but generally they expressed dissatisfaction with the government for not doing enough either to help them or inform them as they tried to recover from Katrina.

Unlike his constituents, he has a house–in Dallas.  He vacationed in Jamaica during the Thanksgiving holiday as if he’s not up for reelection next February.  Anger among those displaced constituents, however, is growing.

He’s in big trouble.   And he has company.

Nagin may have a reprieve if the February primary vote is postponed this month by state officials, who have been locked in a fight with the Federal Emergency Management Agency over access to the new addresses of New Orleans residents who fled the storm.

What?  

But that’s what is the de facto leadership of New Orleans.  FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers.  I’m sure the Repub FEMA is proud of itself for this kind of footdragging.

The New York Times, however, said such a vote might be illegal and rife with questions about racial fairness and voter fraud, something that the city already knows something about:

But with as much as 80 percent of the city’s population still out of town, including most of the black voters who constitute the city’s majority, it is not clear whether a municipal election will occur here in February, as scheduled. […]

“The minority became the majority, and the majority became the minority,” said State Representative Juan A. LaFonta, a Democrat who represents Gentilly and wants the election delayed. “That changed the whole outlook of the political scene. If you have an election right now, it is going to be some of the people voting on behalf of all the people.”

And most of the returnees have been white.

Since the hurricane, most of the estimated 60,000 to 100,000 people who have returned to New Orleans have been white and middle class, changing the city’s racial composition, which had been two-thirds black. Residents who wish to vote will either have to make their way back to town or rely on absentee ballots, a method of voting that has had a checkered record across the nation in recent years.

Former residents frustrated over the snail slow pace of recovery in New Orleans interrupted Nagin several times during his speech in Houston and took the opportunity to vent. Which was all that many could do. 

“If they can destroy a country and build it up again, why can’t they fix this state?” [a]woman asked.

A man added, “It’s a hard thing to believe that the United States of America is spending nearly one billion [dollars] per week in Iraq, and here, in New Orleans, the United States, we’re being neglected.”

“Why do we have to beg and plead with our president, our congressmen, our elected leaders to tell them that we need help, when it’s on the media every day?”

Political and other observers are dismayed over Nagin’s lack of leadership.  He is more likely to be jetting to D.C. rather than exerting hands-on responsibility for the city.    Said a recent Bayou Buzz article:

While he has ample time to be a traveler and tourist, Nagin has not found the time to be a leader. An editorial last Friday in the Washington Post summed up the problem for New Orleans quite succinctly, “No unquestioned leader has emerged. Until one does, there is certainly a danger that the city and its problems will be forgotten and the architectural and cultural treasures of New Orleans ultimately abandoned. Memories are short in Washington, and some people already are arguing that New Orleans isn´t worth rebuilding. Now is the time for Louisiana´s politicians, in the state and on Capitol Hill, to come to a consensus about what they want New Orleans to look like.”

Nagin has relegated himself to be a mere booster.  His swearing in a successor to the dubious Eddie Compass, was the most substantial move he’s made that was more to assuage the security-conscious survivors in the Quarter and the Garden District.  But the city is broke and in hock to both the state and the Feds.  Furthermore, many returning residents are moving away because they are convinced the new levees should withstand a Category 5 hurricane, and that the city fathers should not shortchange  New Orleans with Category 3 protection.  Nagin, however, hopes to get Dutch and Italian expertise about this issue, but hopes, of course, are not immediate action.

Unfortunately, leadership is not only in short supply in the city, but in Baton Rouge as well.  According to the November 14 Louisiana Weekly, Governor Kathleen Blanco has almost blown it with the state’s black political leadership as well:

Disagreements have emerged over the types of hurricane recovery items that Blanco included in the special legislative session to deal with the aftermath of hurricanes Katrina and Rita and the items that she didn’t put up for debate.

But the Louisiana Legislative Black Caucus called attention to its displeasure this week when the group filed a lawsuit against Blanco, saying the governor didn’t have the legal authority to slash $431 million in state spending by executive order. The caucus asked a judge to reverse those deep budget cuts that Blanco handed down Saturday.

The developments have added new wrinkles to a tense budget-cutting process in the Legislature and a special session that was supposed to be a significant stamp on hurricane recovery for Louisiana by Blanco and lawmakers.

The disputes cut into Blanco’s traditional support from Democratic black lawmakers and put her at odds with many of the legislative leaders she helped select. Louisiana’s governor has a heavy hand in choosing top leaders in the Legislature and committee chairman.

Meanwhile it appears that Repub Peggy Wilson and Lt. Governor Mitch Landrieu, he of the Landrieu political family (father N.O. Mayor Moon Landrieu, and sister Senator Mary Landrieu) are considering their options.  With Wilson, the Repubs look to pry apart the Dem hold on New Orleans and the governorship:

Wilson, a former Republican Councilwoman At-Large, revealed to The Louisiana Weekly that she has hired Roy Fletcher. Fletcher is credited as the genius who transformed made Mike Foster from a millionaire scion into everyone’s favorite welder.

Wilson says she is optimistic about her run for mayor.

[…]

Last week, Lt. Governor Mitch Landrieu chastised both Governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco and Mayor C. Ray Nagin during the Louisiana Recovery and Rebuilding Conference. At the conference Landrieu criticized the fact that each named recovery and rebuilding committees and commissions, saying, “Frankly, I believe that it is time for the mayor and the governor to merge their commissions into one. We’re all in this together, and it’s time for us to start acting like it.”

The Lt. Governor said that only one voice was needed in New Orleans’ plight in front of the nation. “This is an American tragedy that requires an American response.” Could that voice be his? And at what level of government?

As Jim Brown pointed out in an article featured in this newspaper last week becoming Mayor of New Orleans would put Landrieu on the national stage. He could be another Rudy Giuliani.

Frankly, I am not sure whether the Weekly knows what it is saying that Landrieu could be another Giuliani.  As far as many New Yorkers are concerned, Guiliani was a disaster.  But here is further poop and scoop:

Landrieu ran for Mayor of New Orleans twelve years ago and lost to Marc H. Morial. Before Katrina/Rita, most people generally agree he was focused on a run for governor. A run he would consider following Blanco’s tenure. Reportedly, the Lt. Governor made a promise. He would not attempt to unseat a sitting Governor of his own party.

Again, that was before Katrina/Rita. It was before Blanco reneged on an alleged promise she made to Landrieu. In the days before the gubernatorial primary, Blanco reportedly led Landrieu to believe that she would transfer the State Department of Economic Development to the Lt. Governor’s purview. That has not happened. It is widely agreed in political circles, that Landrieu wants a job where he can make a difference. Tourism cheerleader does not suit Landrieu’s personality.

And this is precisely what Nagin is doing: window dressing for the tourist industry–and for who knows who else.  There is a lot that we don’t know behind the scenes, especially regarding the petrochemical industry.  Installing free WiFi is not going to bring back New Orleans residents or tourists.  Moreover:

Blanco already faces a Democratic challenger. PSC Commissioner Foster Campbell has announced his intentions to run for Governor on a populist platform highlighting Blanco’s close connections with the oil industry. Campbell recommends a four percent oil processing tax on refineries that would produce enough revenue to end Louisiana’s corporate and personal income taxes.

With Campbell’s challenge of Blanco’s governorship, Landrieu could present himself as the savior of Democrats, and seek the office with a clear conscience.

Bob Moffet, President of the Orleans Chapter of the Alliance for Good Government and a long time friend of the lieutenant governor, says if given to choose, “I think he (Landrieu) is going to run for governor…Blanco is toast.”

Yet the Times says that state officials are divided about having an election:

State politicians are divided over postponing the New Orleans election.

“My gut tells me that we don’t have it organized enough right now,” said State Representative Karen R. Carter, a Democrat who represents parts of Downtown New Orleans and the French Quarter. “However, my people tell me that they may be interested in new leadership.”

Others suggested that the election could be a milestone.

“The majority of people that I’ve heard, they want the elections to go on,” said State Representative Austin J. Badon Jr., a Democrat who represents New Orleans East. “They feel as though this is their constitutional right.”

With many of New Orleans’ black residents unable to return and to vote, just how constitutional will this right be come February?

My favorite Journalist at the WaPo Online, Dan  Froomkin Asked a great question the other day:

and the Answer is scary:

Consider that for a second.  

It has been more than a Full year since the president put himself in a  position to even  potentially hear a dissenting viewpoint, or a complaint about his leadership.  

But the Bubble by itself isn’t news anymore.  Thanks to Froomkin and others we’ve known about The WH’s manipulative efforts to create pretty pictures for the evening news  while vigilantly protecting W from the dangers of  dissenting viewpoints, unhappy citizens and disagreeable bumper stickers for sometime

What is news is  that the  Bubble around the president has shrunk severely recently.  He’s having a harder and harder time finding loyal crowds to speak in front of and his team is running to safer and safer locations

  Here’s how bad its gotten:

And He’s not exaggerating. Consider W’s most recent public appearances:

 SO lets review: He’s now speaking infront of a) paid audiences who will expect to be paid back.  b0 People whose paychecks he signs, and who he can fire at will and c) People who face jail time/ dishonrable discharge if they aren’t nice to him.

I believe this is more from necessity than choice.  As his poll numbers have made like Greg Louganis on the 10m platform; it’s become impossible to find enough fantatic supporters without obvious mental defects and/or Drooling issues.  Consider what happened the last time they tried a “phase Two” approach:

Not exactly the warm fuzzy visual they were looking for.

Gone are the days when his advance team could hand out tickets to local loyalists and party chairmen and ensure giant crowds of Cheering, worshipful, Glassy-eyed supporters; but not anymore.  Those Stepford crowds have simply ceased to exist.   W’s most precious commodity was the Blind faith so many on the right were willing to place in him.  It seems like at long last that well has dried up.

What makes this Story so remarkable is how the President himself seems utterly untroubled by this reversal of fortune.  It begs the question how much of the real situation he truly understands.   This is s not the first time a President has been so unpopular with the American people that he barely dared to venture outside the Whitehouse,  But it may be the first time the President himself is unaware of  this fact.  Consider What a Defense official told Seymour Hersh recently :

Can this really be so?  Can W really be so far gone that he doesn’t even recognize his own tricks as illusions anymore?

I’ll leave you with the same question Dan Froomkin used to open his article:

By the way,  anybody know where we left our copy of the 25th Amendment?

You’ve Gotta Fight, for Your Right, to have a REAL Party — Liberal Street Fighter

It is easy, here in the land of the Personality Cult and “There is no ‘I’ in team” and office environments plastered with motivational posters to blame the system or our “leaders” for the sorry state this culture festers in, but that is too simple, a cop out. How easily we forget, or run away from, the idea that this is a government of We the People …. David Sirota sums up the real problem:

The disease is simple to understand: It leads the supposedly “ideological” grassroots left to increasingly subvert its overarching ideology on issues in favor of pure partisan concerns. That may sound great at first glance. Democratic Party officials always talk about a need for “big tent unity” and subsequently try to downplay ideology. But as a trait of the grassroots and not just the party, Partisan War Syndrome could be positively devastating not just for issue advocacy, but also for Democrats’ political aspirations as well.

Remember last year, when so many of us (myself included) found ways to look past our values, our disappointment, our disgust at the Democratic Party’s fecklessness? Remember the way you made your peace with yet another shitty candidate, a candidate who lived down to all of our worst fears? Remember how everybody blames Nader for Gore’s loss, instead of Gore’s lousy campaign and all of the Democratic voters who’ve long since stopped demanding a responsive and representative party?

Sirota is right, and it would do us all a world of good to take his insights to heart.

Certainly, this disease can be difficult to detect. The mainstream media regularly portrays the so-called Democratic base as a highly ideological, “liberal” or “progressive” monolith, supposedly pressing an insulated, spineless D.C. Democratic establishment to move to the “left.” This portrayal creates the image that there really is a cohesive, powerful ideological force on the left, one that is committed to convictions and issues before party-much like there is on the right. This image is reinforced by the mainstream media’s constant characterization of Internet blogs and the “netroots” as an extension of this monolith-as if a medium automatically equals an ideology.

It’s an easy story to believe, and it is hard to accept that we’ve all stepped away from our responsibilties as citizens:

And it is a straw man. To be sure, there used to be a powerful ideological force on the left that constituted the Democratic Party base. And there are still remnants of that ideological movement left in various progressive labor, environmental and civil rights organizations, and disparate Internet blogs. But look no further than the 2004 Democratic presidential primaries to see that the ideological movement as a whole is in tatters. In that race, primary voters – supposedly a representation of this “ideological” base -supported John Kerry on the basis of his personal profile as a Vietnam War veteran and his supposed “electability.” It was the most non-ideological of choices in what we were supposed to believe was the most ideological of races.

This blunting of the left’s ideological edge is a result of three unfortunate circumstances. First, conservatives spent the better part of three decades vilifying the major tenets of the left’s core ideology, succeeding to the point where “liberal” is now considered a slur. Second, the media seized on these stereotypes and amplified them – both because there was little being done to refute them, and because they fit so cleanly into the increasingly primitive and binary political narrative being told on television.

And third is Partisan War Syndrome – the misconception even in supposedly “progressive” circles that substance is irrelevant when it comes to both electoral success and, far more damaging, to actually building a serious, long-lasting political movement. This is the syndrome resulting from the shellshock of the partisan wars that marked the Clinton presidency. It is an affliction that hollowed out much of the Democratic base’s economic and national security convictions in favor of an orthodoxy that says partisan concerns and cults of personality should be the only priorities because they are supposedly the only factors that win elections. It is a disease that subverts substance for “image” and has marked the last decade of Democrats’ repeated failures at the ballot box.

We’ve made politics just another hobby, another game, the same way we talk about chart position instead of songs, weekend box office instead of plot and direction, box scores instead of the poetry in motion of a good play. Surface without heart, that’s the modern American way. This is why the right is beating the shit out of us, why they are destroying our country … we aren’t fighting them. Not really. To really fight requires passion and heart and the willingness to risk all to fight for a better world.

To be sure, it is impossible to paint a picture of the entire “progressive” base in one stroke. After all, the base is not just a monolith (regardless of what the media would like you to believe). There still remain some institutions, pundits, blogs and grassroots power organized specifically around ideology and issue positions. But a quick glance at some of the most prominent “liberals” on newspaper op-ed pages or at a small but growing segment of “progressive” blogs makes clear that, unlike on the right, efforts to strengthen an ideology on the left face a clear roadblock with the advent of Partisan War Syndrome.

“Liberal” columnists write with little sense of an overarching ideological umbrella. A cadre of bloggers and blog commenters increasingly give and take away their support for candidates based on questions of political tactics and “profile,” not issues. The left’s emerging new ideological infrastructure still at times seems afraid to openly push the Democratic Party to embrace more progressive themes.

It is in the heat of debate that we find solutions. It is in open primaries and contentious elections that real consensus can form. Without passion from the left, the blinkered retrenchment in an imagined past, instead of a joyful embrace of a future of our own design, will continue to dominate our politics.

Why should this be troubling to the average progressive? First, it is both soulless and aimless. Partisanship is not ideology, and movements are not political parties – they are bigger than political parties, and shape those parties accordingly through pressure. As much as paid party hacks would argue otherwise, the most significant movements in American history did not emanate from the innards of the Democratic or Republican Party headquarters, and they did not come from groups of activists who put labels before substance: They spawned from millions of people committed to grassroots movements organized around ideas – movements which pushed both parties’ establishments to deal with given issues. Without those movements transcending exclusively partisan concerns, American history would be a one-page tale of status quo.[…]

This is why resisting Partisan War Syndrome and doing the hard work of rebuilding an ideological movement is both a moral imperative and a political necessity for the left. A grassroots base that is organized around hollow partisan labels rather than an overarching belief system – no matter how seemingly energized – will never defeat an opponent that puts ideological warriors ready to walk through fire on the political battlefield. If we do not rekindle that same fervor about actual issues on the left, we will continue living in a one-party country, losing elections into the distant future, and most disturbing of all, watching as our government serves only to protect those in power.

Be prepared to resist bad candidates if they are opposed to your values, even if you have to withhold your vote to do so. Work hard for good candidates, but if partisan manipulations make real progressives unavailable, then WITHHOLD YOUR VOTE. If a shitty scion of a political family is going to help take away your reproductive freedom, refuse your support. If a corporate whore is only to willing to protect corporate bankruptcy while taking away the same from working people, leave that place on the ballot blank if you have to. Remember, without your vote, they don’t have jobs, and would you hire somebody who you knew was going to do a shitty job for your own business?

Do not buy the bullying that you have no choice. Politics is eventually about what we value as a people, about what we want to BE as a people. Do you really like what you see now when you look around you?

In “Did Bush plan to Bomb al-Jazeera?” at Salon, Juan Cole presents new “evidence that Rumsfeld considered the Arabic satellite station’s reporting to be a form of murder.”

As JPol wrote here in his “Bush V Al-Jazeera: Fact or Fancy?,” linked by Juan Cole on Nov. 29 as “a detailed and very valuable timeline”:

… a leaked memo quoted yesterday by the London Mirror alleging that President Bush told British Prime Minister Tony Blair that he “planned to bomb Arab TV station al-Jazeera … demonstrates that this pre-existing agenda has its roots at the very top of the Bush administration, and that a major escalation of that operation was being contemplated.

Cole points out that “Rumsfeld himself had telegraphed the strategy during an interview in 2001 on … Al-Jazeera!” Thankfully for us, Juan Cole is a regular viewer of Al-Jazeera. Although the tape is missing from DOD archives (hmmm…), it was found and reaired by Al-Jazeera Monday. Cole watched:

… it contained a segment in which Rumsfeld defended the targeting of radio stations that supported the Taliban. He made it clear right then that he believed in total war, and made no distinction between civilian and military targets. The radio stations, he said, were part of the Taliban war effort. (Salon)

Cole has another new story at a new blog:

My article on Rumsfeld’s complicity with Saddam Hussein when he was using chemical weapons is at Truthdig.com, a new site, the force behind which is veteran journalist and truth-teller Bob Scheer.

It’s great news that Juan Cole has hooked up with Scheer’s blog. As you probably know, progressive columnist Bob Scheer was fired by the Los Angeles Times in early November.

In an interview with Amy Goodman on Nov. 14, 2005, Scheer said that he believes he was fired because of his politics and his vocal opposition to Bush and the Iraq war:

I had been the subject of vicious attacks by Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh. Sometimes Bill O’Reilly would sometimes go after me every day, and this went on for the last couple of years, and I’m still standing. I was a punching bag for those guys. I’m still standing, and the people who run the paper collapsed. And the big issue here, I think, is that the publisher took over the editorial pages, a guy named Jeff Johnson. He’s an accountant from Chicago, doesn’t know anything about what newspapers are supposed to be about, and he made a decision to get rid of the column. It had run as a column — I had worked at the paper since 1976, but the column had been running for 13 years, and I think it was a strong column, criticizing the war when the paper was supporting it.

And even as recently as last week, my last column, which I’m quite proud of, was on the Defense Intelligence Agency report that Senator Carl Levin released last week, and I wrote about how in February 2002 they knew there were no ties between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, that the key witness was a phony. This was released. Eight months later George Bush went before — spoke just before the Senate decided its decision and at that time knew that the key witness for this, really the only witness they had, was a phony, yet went and lied to the country. That column last week broke that news for the readers of the Los Angeles Times that the paper neglected to cover in any serious way. So, you know, it’s very disappointing.

The only other fact here that I would throw in, the paper is concerned about what the Bush administration thinks, because the Tribune Company bought the Times Mirror Corporation and now owns a television station, a very profitable one, in the same market in Los Angeles as the newspaper. And next year they have asked — they have to get a waiver in order to be able to do that, because that violates the law right now. They expected Congress — when they bought the property, they thought Congress would pass that law allowing them to have those two major outlets in the same market. It is now illegal, and in 2006 they are coming up for a waiver, and the Bush administration’s F.C.C. could easily deny that waiver to them. … Read all. (Emphasis mine.)

I’m glad that Scheer is stepping into the blogosphere, and that he is attracting fellow bloggers like Juan Cole. His blog site is very attractive, and highly readable. I wish him the best. God knows we need more voices like his and Juan Cole’s — as well as JPol, and so many others here. His site’s motto is:

Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.

                       —A.J. Liebling

We own one. Don’t we. Rummy can’t bomb and arrest every one of us. (Although they could take over the ‘net, and that’s a worry of mine.)

Annapolis, MD (APE) – President Bush today spoke to the midshipmen of the Naval Academy in Annapolis Maryland in the first of three planned speeches to begin reselling the war in Iraq to America. The White House hoped that the President by acting today would be able to beat the Christmas rush. Overall Christmas sales have been lackluster so far, after an initial rush of bargain hunters, so it is felt that the White House may have a good chance.

Cross posted at UNCONFIRMED SOURCES

The White House also today released a glossy 35 page catalog of admittedly recycled and retooled merchandise in the hopes that this may also increase sales. The catalog features merchandise which is guaranteed to appeal to those in support of the war effort in Iraq as well as the positions and policies of the Bush administration. The centerpiece of the collection is a Christmas tree decoration kit which will allow the home user to have a tree just like that on display in the White House. Christmas celebrants will then be able to show their support for the administration’s definitions of interrogation.

Another hot item from the catalog this Christmas, promises to be an autographed copy of “The Code of Military Conduct” by Donald Rumsfeld. A must-have for any serviceman overseas, it includes triplicate forms for reporting any civilian abuses to higher command, and tips upon how to avoid personal intervention.

White House presidential assistant Karl Rove admits that he is the point man for this campaign. “Our goal,” he stated, “is it to push back against this “Liberal Conspiracy” and put Bush back into Christmas.”

Merchandise is available for cash or through the administration’s “Political Capital Card”. Those using the Political Capital Card are eligible for a significant discount.

Today, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood.  This is the first abortion-related case to go before the Court in five years. If the Court rules in favor of the state the ruling will assault women’s reproductive freedoms and undermine guarantees written into law for the protection of women’s health. This bill is often spoken of as being a “parental notification” bill. It’s so much more than that.
Ayotte v PP, Not About Parental Notification

Today, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood.  This is the first abortion-related case to go before the Court in five years. If the Court rules in favor of the state the ruling will assault women’s reproductive freedoms and undermine guarantees written into law for the protection of women’s health. This bill is often spoken of as being a “parental notification” bill. It’s so much more than that.

There’s another important issue at stake in this case. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England challenged New Hampshire’s parental notification law before it could even take effect, claiming the state’s failure to make an exception for medical emergencies would impose an “undue burden” on many young women seeking abortion. If the Court rules in favor of the state it’s possible that the next time Planned Parenthood acts to protects the reproductive freedoms of women from an unconstitutional law they’ll have to do so after the fact rather than before.

The abortion case the Supreme Court will hear this week: A short primer

The case involves a New Hampshire law that prevents doctors from performing an abortion on a teen until 48 hours after a parent has been notified, even if this would mean putting the patient’s health at risk. The law includes an exception allowing an emergency abortion when necessary to prevent the teen’s death, but contains no exception where it is necessary to protect her health – and it was struck down by the lower court for that reason.

You may hear the case described as a “parental notification” case, but it is far more than that.  Two questions are before the Court in this case, and the outcome of either could radically change the law on abortion:

   
1. Whether an abortion regulation must contain an exception to protect a woman’s health.

   

2. What standard courts should use when considering challenges to an abortion regulation before it has taken effect (a “facial” challenge).

The answer to the first question should be easy, but is in doubt given changes in the Court’s makeup.  The Supreme Court held in Roe v. Wade, and reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992, that the government may not place a woman’s health at risk when erecting barriers to abortion.  Just look at what the Court said in Casey: “[T]he essential holding of Roe forbids a State to interfere with a woman’s choice to undergo an abortion procedure if continuing her pregnancy would constitute a threat to her health.”  But the state of New Hampshire, backed by the Bush Administration, is asking the Court to ignore those holdings and uphold an abortion law that lacks any health protection.  Their position would allow the government to forbid doctors from putting their patient’s health first – when that patient is a woman seeking an abortion.  If the Court agrees with the state and Bush Administration, it would leave women vulnerable to serious medical harm, such as permanent damage to major organ systems, fluid in the lungs, the spread of infection throughout the body, loss of vision, permanent loss of fertility, and chronic pain.  

The second issue to be decided in Ayotte, what standard courts should use when evaluating a facial challenge to an abortion, is also of tremendous importance.  The Court in Casey set the current standard – an abortion law can be declared unconstitutional before it takes effect in order to avoid harm to women.  That is how the New Hampshire law is being challenged, and how most abortion laws are challenged.  But the state and the U.S. government are arguing for a new standard under which a facial challenge would be virtually impossible to bring (because the challenger would have to show that there is no set of circumstances in which the law could be constitutionally applied), which would mean that women like those in New Hampshire would be forced to wait until they have been injured before they could sue to challenge the law.  So in this case, a teen in the throes of a medical emergency–with serious blood loss or even a dangerous infection–would have to go to court to challenge the law before obtaining medical care.  How much sense does that make?  Or think of another example – spousal notice.  If the new standard is adopted, this would mean that if a state passed a law requiring women to notify their husbands before obtaining an abortion, doctors who believed that this would harm victims of domestic violence would not be allowed to try to stop the law before it took effect.  Instead, doctors would have to wait until a woman faced abuse from telling a husband about her intended abortion.

For more information:

Women’s Health and Their Right to Choose is in Immediate Danger

Not exactly a “Profile in Courage”, but at least Walgreen’s is one drugstore that’s trying to come correct.

From ABC News:

Personally, I wish it was Walgreen’s policy, rather than state law, that prompted the disciplinary action:

Okay, so a Walgreen’s customer in, say, Missouri can go to another store…and have another pharmacist refuse to fill it…ad infinitum.

There’s no indication that these pharmacists have any objection to filling regular birth control prescriptions…so this so-called “moral objection” is obviously based on the canard spread by the “pro-life” gang that Plan B and equivalent medications act as abortifacients, merely because they can prevent the implantation of the fertilized egg…and everyone knows that there’s no difference between a fertilized egg and a living breathing baby, after all…

It’s important that we put pressure on our state legislatures to pass legislation similar to that in Illinois…and hope that the courts don’t side with the pharmacists and make the right to birth control one with no teeth…

December 1st is the day to honor the memory of all the people we have lost to AIDS and say a prayer in our hearts for those living HIV & AIDS.  The world has lost so many men, women, and children to this horrific disease.

cross posted @ My Left Wing,refinish69,Booman Tribune,Daily Kos)
This is the 17th World AIDS Day.  I remember attending a meeting to organize a remembrance 17 years ago in an apartment in Raleigh, North Carolina.  If anyone had told me I would still be attending or helping with World AIDS Day events 17 years later, I would have called them a liar but here I am. I refuse to rant or rave about the stupidity that has caused this disease to continue and worsen for so many years.  Today is not the day for that.  However, I will share some stories from my life.  

I have lost over 1,000 people I call friend to this disease.  I will not list all the names but they are burned into my heart and soul.  I will tell you about a few special people who touched my life, my heart and my soul.

The first person I lost to AIDS was David Pendergras.  He was one of the most beautiful men I have ever met.  I had a huge crush on David that finally became one of the best friendships I have ever had.  David was the brother my brother could never be to me.  We would spend hours talking about everything from our latest boy friend, clothes, music, movies, books, plays, and even family.  It was nothing for us to sit up all night talking, laughing and watching old movies.  I still miss his smile and wacky out sense of humor.   One tome when we were out shopping with my Mom, David screams from across the store “Would you come on Miss Thing. We are ready to go.”  I was mortified.  We were in Raleigh, North Carolina and I had only come out to my mom the previous year.   To my surprise, my mom laughed and hugged David.  I think he actually helped her understand me and what it meant to be a gay male.  Neither David nor I were nelly in anyway but did love to cut up once in awhile.  I still talk to David and tell him my dreams, fears, and aspirations and he is still listening and cracking jokes.  David, I love you and I miss you.

In July of 1999, I lost two incredible people in 10 days time.  Keith Mcelenny had been a friend for 8 years.  I had met him and his lover Carl when I was dating a mutual friend and bartending part time at a country western bar in San Francisco.  Keith was one of the gentlest souls I have ever known.  He was an artist, a writer, a furniture builder and designer.  Keith and I would get lost in the bookstores while our respective lovers would fuss and complain.  I loved attending plays, movies and concerts with Keith & Carl and talking about them afterwards.  For many years, any holiday was spent either at their home or with them at my home.  Dinner parties were a common occurrence and I always knew the food would be wonderful and would help with my own contributions.  The last two times I ever attended church were for Keith.  He was inducted as a deacon to the MCC church he and Carl belonged to and he asked me to attend.  Unknown to me, I was asked to participate in the lying on of hands part of the ceremony.  I tried to refuse as I am not a practicing church member of any kind and he and the minister said I had a Christian heart and the service would not be complete without me.  The next time I attended was for his memorial service.  I had promised Keith in the hospital that I would cater his memorial to make sure it was nice and not just thrown together.  Keith’s memorial was delayed for several days since his Minister and the majority of the congregation of the church was at an MCC World Conference.    I was honored to do this for him and still miss him terribly.  He will always hold a special place in my heart and mind.

The other person I lost that awful July was my Lover Don.  What can I say about Don?  He was light of my world.  Here was the one man that was special enough for me to date, live with and love more than 6 months.  He was someone I wanted to grow old with and laugh about our past blunders, but that was not to be.  When I met Don, he had been HIV positive for 15 years.  That did not mean a thing to me.  I was in love from the first night we spoke.  I am not saying everything was perfect.  No relationship is.  We were total opposites in almost everything.  He loved bloody action movies and gambling.  I am a comedy or chick flick guy.  In his entire life, he had never seen a play, a classical concert or even a jazz concert.  He laughingly said that the only things we had in common were that we were both gay, loved dogs, and loved each other. He had this sleepy little smile that could melt my heart and make me forget any little dispute.  He would plan special occasions for me that would simply blow my mind.  He was probably one of the most romantic men I have ever met.  It was nothing for him to plan a special night on the town or an incredible dinner at home with flowers and candles all over the house.  He made me feel special and unique.  Don died on the Thursday before Keith’s memorial.  He died at our home with our two dogs, his cat and me.   One week after Keith’s memorial, I threw a party for Don.  I cooked all of his favorite treats and invited his friends and mine.  There was a poker table set up in one room, music and conversation in the living room. I decorated the house with every type of flower I knew he loved.  

Don will always be a part of me.  He touched my heart & soul as no other human being ever has.  I think of him always and still talk to him and listen for his answers.  He occupies my dreams when I am troubled and has even helped me find solutions.  I wish anyone in love 10 years for every 6 months that Don and I had together.  It was the best 5.5 years of my life.    

Take some time today to remember the loved ones you have lost and to say a kind word to those you know who are living with HIV and AIDS.  Wear a Red Ribbon and explain the significance to all that ask.

I heard this on NPR the other day, now at Raw Story, so sorry if old news, will delete if so.

NPR said that Diebold uses a variety of code, and they blame it on Microsoft’s code as their excuse, and they won’t reveal the code in order to operate in NC and are therefore pulling the machines instead.

From The Register:

And:

Did George Bush make you feel special today when he told you he’d declassified their secret successful war plan just so you could read those documents at the Why-aaaate How-oooose Why-eb site?

Here’s what Richard Wolffe, Senior White House Correspondent for Newsweek, told Keith Olbermann last night:

OLBERMANN: This document, the “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq,” one would guess that it describes withdrawals but not timelines. Have any of its other contents leaked out? Do we know what it might be, what role it might play in the president‘s speech tomorrow?

WOLFFE: Well, it‘s nice of Scott to sprinkle some hocus-pocus about declassified documents around. But this is not secret stuff. For a start, this isn‘t a hostile government where you have intelligence operations on the ground, and you don‘t want to compromise sources and methods, and they‘re not going to publish the military options, i.e., you know, if we reach this point we can see this many troops come home.

And those military plans are under draft. They are being drawn up inside the Pentagon. And there are lots of different ones. We‘re not going to see that.

We‘re going to see basically what you and I would call propaganda, and what the administration calls public diplomacy.

Yup.