Senator Lieberman believes in torture because "It [water boarding] is not like putting burning coals on people's bodies...."

Rachel Kah-Troster writes:

Judaism teaches us that we are all created in the image of God, that respect for the inherent dignity of another person trumps many other mitzvot. Under Jewish law, one’s own words cannot be used against oneself for conviction of a crime; how much the more so information obtained via torture.

And this:

The Torah commands us to protect the stranger more times than it tells us what to do about Shabbat or kashrut. This includes the strangers in U.S.-custody being held without trial, being subject to harsh interrogation techniques, and being subject to a technique which even our Attorney General has said he would consider to be torture if he had to undergo it (though he refuses to rule it out).

This one of the most insightful analysis of Obama/Clintion campaigns that I have read in a long time.  It was published on MyDD.com and was written by Shaun Appleby.  The anaylsis concerns not the ideals embodies within various policies as annouciated by the candidates on healthcare, national security, etc. but on the real differences in how the campaigns are being run by the managers Patti Doyle (recently replaced by Maggie Williams) and David Plouffe.

But Shaun Appleby doesn't just do a quicky analysis but gives the historical context for how Senators Obama and Clinton have a common factor- Saul Alinsky.   What experiences did both candidates draw from Saul's community organizing methodology?

Senator Clinton wrote her honors thesis at Wellesly College on that topic.  Furthermore she wrote:

"I agreed with some of Alinsky's ideas," she explained in "Living History," her 2003 biography, "particularly the value of empowering people to help themselves. But we had a fundamental disagreement. He believed you could change the system only from the outside. I didn't."

Appleby writes:

This essential difference has been evident in Obama's strategy for his campaign from the outset.  Hillary had the support of the Democratic establishment long before her announcement, the support of party insiders, the unions and private sector alliances carefully built and nurtured from the time she began her Senate run in 2000.  Her notion of organising relied on these existing structures from 'within the system' to give her an unchallenged advantage in her bid for the nomination.  Not only had she acquired this support but it was so ubiquitous as to effectively deny these resources to any potential opponent.

Obama, while he had institutional support from Democrats in Illinois and a modest circle of supporters within the party, had only his message of political inclusion and an idea which traced it's lineage directly back to the 'people powered' politics of Alinsky and Chicago, with a 21st century twist.

Machine versus the people.  I am reminded of Colorado politics and the way the campaigns of Ken Salazar and Mike Miles reflected that dichotomy.  The "Party" backed Ken Salazar while the people backed Mike Miles.  The high point was the fact that the most ardent, grass roots party activists supported Miles in the face of a well monied machine backed candidate.

My question is this:  Obama in his most recent speeches talks about change that will be long lasting.  The change that he is referring to is institutional change that will be brought about from the people.  As new technologies impact the kinds of candidates that will be running because the people are having a greater voice in party politics.

Change, as Obama and Clinton, talk about is movement change.  I would not be surprised that one of the authors that both have read is Bill Moyer, social change activist and his strategic "Movement Action Plan".

Change will not be measured by an election but through decades to affect a society. 

H.L. Mencken's definition of a demagoguery:

"one who will preach doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots." 

Well we know who the idiots are, and it "ain't" us!  It is the corporate media that has a direct conflict of interest because of the huge amounts of advertising that telecom companies have with them.

AP journalist Pamela Hess writes:

Behind both sides' rhetoric, the issue of what the government can and can't do is complicated by a quirk in the temporary eavesdropping law adopted by Congress last August. It allows the government to initiate wiretaps for up to one year against a wide range of targets. It also explicitly compels telecommunications companies to comply with the orders, and protects them from civil lawsuits that may be filed against them for doing so.

Kurt Opsahl, from Electronic Freedom Foundation, writes:

Yesterday, in arguing for immunity for the telecom providers, the President said "If these companies are subjected to lawsuits that could cost them billions of dollars, they won't
participate. They won't help us. They won't help protect America." We just can't resist pointing out what this means:

• This is blackmail. It is unconscionable for the telecoms to condition protecting America on receiving a handout.

This is a flat out lie by Director of National Intelligence Mitch McConnell:

To get a court order, intelligence agents have to prove they have "probable cause" to believe a target is foreign agent or terrorist before being allowed to tap a line inside the United States, even if the communication originates and ends in a foreign country.

It is difficult for intelligence agents piecing together shreds of information to get enough to merit probable cause, he said. By the time they can amass enough information to do that, the phone number they wanted to track might already be obsolete, McConnell said.

FISA allows for upto 72 hours of surveillence without a court order. 

Glenn Greenwald states the case clearly that if Democrats in Congress stand up for principals and the Constitution then the mass media will take notice because Democratic leaders in the House are willing to make a understandable case to the American people.  Glenn writes:

When Democrats actually engage the debate and make their case unapologetically and with some passion, as they remarkably did yesterday, then journalists can and -- at least to some extent -- will convey the message. It's when they run away and hide and act defensively that their message does not get across.

Glenn notes this from an NPR interview with DNI McConnell:

The issue is not "intelligence gaps." Rather, as McConnell candidly admits, the "real issue" is "liability protection for the private sector."

Furthermore this, as Glenn notes, is what will the real consequences be:

...the Senate is about to enact a bill which has two simple purposes: (1) to render retroactively legal the President's illegal spying program by legalizing its crux: warrantless eavesdropping on Americans, and (2) to stifle forever the sole remaining avenue for finding out what the Government did and obtaining a judicial ruling as to its legality: namely, the lawsuits brought against the co-conspiring telecoms. In other words, the only steps taken by our political class upon exposure by the NYT of this profound lawbreaking is to endorse it all and then suppress any and all efforts to investigate it and subject it to the rule of law.

Isn't this what the hysterical Mr. Bush wants:  Immunity from prosecution.  Immunity from the laws that he intentional broke before 9/11.  

The local television media has been completely AWOL from this most crucial debate this country's political leaders are having.  

As far as I can tell from the local haha boys and girls of 2,4,7,9, and 31 there is no FISA debate on allowing a sitting president to spy on us merely on his say so.  There is no debate on whether or not to jettison one of the most crucial amendments to the Bill of Rights- the Fourth Amendment on the fact that the government must have probably cause to search your home and possessions. 

Why not?

Because it is bad for ratings. 

Will Senator Clinton use superdelegates to thwart the will of the Democratic Party voters?

WASHINGTON -- Hillary Clinton will take the Democratic nomination even if she does not win the popular vote, but persuades enough superdelegates to vote for her at the convention, her campaign advisers say.

I caught this off Talkingpointsmemo.com:

MoveOn Jumps Into Battle Over Super-Delegates By Greg Sargent - February 14, 2008, 11:36AM

In a sign that the spin wars over the super-delegates are starting to heat up in a big way, MoveOn has just jumped into the fight, sending out a mass email asking supporters to sign a petition urging super-delegates to back whoever wins the popular vote.

"The superdelegates are under lots of pressure right now to come out for one candidate or the other," reads the petition from MoveOn, which has endorsed Obama. "We urgently need to encourage them to let the voters decide between Clinton and Obama -- and then to support the will of the people."

MoveOn says that if they get 200,000 signatures this week, they'll publish the petition as an ad in USA Today.

Should not we, who participated in the caucus on Feb. 5, call or meet with Colorado's "superdelegates" to tell them that they should support the most popular Democratic party presidential candidate?   

Is this what we are becoming?  A nation that is the reality of Kafka's "The Trial" and "The Castle" with the illness Solzhenitsyn's "The Gulag Archipelago"?  Where there are a myriad internal "organs" held together by a common lust for power.  Where "Interzone" is our nation of high tech and low morals in a mash up that corrupts all denizens of the world.

From the Honolulu Advertiser: 

A 14-day-old infant traveling here for heart surgery died at Honolulu International Airport on Friday after he, his mother and a nurse were detained by immigration officials in a locked room, a lawyer for the boy's family said.

An insane world in which we have allowed ourselves to be stampeded into by fear.

However we can change this paradigm by forcing out those that would want us to live in fear for the rest of our lives.

We do not have to have the jack boot heel on our face forever.

We are better than the fearmongering, limp-dicked, effete George W. Cheney. 

We are utterly opposed to Dick W. Bush's anti-life equation and to those that are complicit in blinding us no matter who they are.

In the blogosphere there is much agitation to remove "Bush Dems" from office.  Why would Democratic elected officials want to support policies by Mr. Bush that harm America?   The usual reasons for supporting policies run the gamut from their being elected in +Republican districts, to being afraid of being branded "weak" on national security by their "advisors", or being in the pocket of corporate America.

This is a heartening example of how people still matter in the political process.  As many politics watchers know that Rep. Al Wynn is one of the most corrupt Democratic Representatives in the House.  The primary battle was between him and Donna Edwards.

MissLaura, from DailyKos.com, writes:

Here's a sign that supporters of Donna Edwards aren't the only ones who think she has a good shot at beating Al Wynn in Maryland's primary Tuesday: Matt Stoller is tracking Wynn's FEC filings, and in one 48 hour period, Wynn received over $100,000, with money coming from:

Foundation Coal, Verizon, Society of Independent Gasoline Markets, Reliant Energy, Allegheny Energy, American Electric Power, American Healthcare Association, BankAmerica Corporation, Cisco Systems, Coventry Health Care, Dell Inc, Dominion PAC, Eastman Kodak, Gaylord Entertainment Co PAC, General Electric PAC, Genesis Healthcare Corporation, Healthcare Distribution Management Assocation, Hogan and Hartson PAC, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Microsoft, Mirant, National Fisheries Institute (FISHPAC), National Association of Broadcasters, NODAK, Norfolk Southern, NORPAC, Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, US Chamber of Commerce

...

These guys are not giving Al Wynn money because he's a sure thing on Tuesday. They're giving him money because he's been a sure vote for their interests, and Donna Edwards won't be, and they think she can win.

The result:

Read the rest from Washington Post here.  What is mentioned in the story is the fact that such grassroots national organizations like Democracy for America and the DailyKos community had a big helping hand in Donna Edwards win today.

We, the people...are nothing more than small time ATM despensers to politicians and to be used for keeping them elected to their positions of keeping the status quo in this society.

Reading Matt Tabbia's "The Chicken Doves" is akin to seeing "The Matrix" for the first time or to be reminded that the reality is not what we believe in. 

Morpheus:

The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.

Matt Taibbi:

Rather than use the vast power they had to end the war, Democrats devoted their energy to making sure that "anti-war activism" became synonymous with "electing Democrats." Capitalizing on America's desire to end the war, they hijacked the anti-war movement itself, filling the ranks of peace groups with loyal party hacks. Anti-war organizations essentially became a political tool for the Democrats — one operated from inside the Beltway and devoted primarily to targeting Republicans.

This immoral "joke" is being played out on the killing fields of Iraq and here in the good old U. S. of A.

Rather then become the machine it is time to disassemble the machine.

The way to kill a man or a nation is to cut off his dreams, the way the whites are taking care of the Indians: killing their dreams, their magic, their familiar spirits.
William S. Burroughs

Perhaps Joe Klein has a point about Obama and his followers mantra of CHANGE.  Obama speaks to the people and to those who want to remove this horror show that Bush has created. 

It is time for the cynical Democratic Party bosses to heed this warning:

CHANGE means that all who a complict in this will be removed.

CHANGE means that the horror show will be disassembled. 

This is why the Joe Kleins of the world are now whispering: the "cult" of Obama. 

When a crime occurs it time for law enforcement and the judicial system to supercede any "binding arbitration" employee contract between a multi-billion dollar corporation and a single employee.   If a judge rules such that prevents justice from taking place due to said contract then it is time for our representatives to change contract law to be in line with justice and not for a corporation's fiscal and judicial benefit.

Jessica Lee's ordeal is not over.  

Tracy Barker's ordeal is not over.

Read Barker et al v. Halliburton Company et al

The fact that sexual harassment, assualt, and rape occurs at civilian contractor bases in Iraq and justice denied should be an outrage to all Americans.

A Texas judge has decided to deny justice to Tracy:

District Judge Gray Miller wrote in his order: “Whether it is wise to send this type of claim to arbitration is not a question for this court to decide.”

Read the comments section on the ABC News story "Sex Assault Suit Vs Halliburton Killed".  For example:

I'm not shocked in the least. I lived with and almost married a man that works for Halliburton in Wyoming- it is common practice there for the boys to be hung over, still drunk and/or on drugs. If I showed up to the site to bring him lunch, I constantly got leered at and creeped out. I have no doubt that if we weren't on American soil and I was working with these boys I would have gotten raped or assaulted. I'm not the least surprised, and I'm happy to longer be a part of the culture and mentality assocaited with KBR/ Halliburton. Nalliburton can distance themselves all they want, but it's the same.Posted by:
kdsky28 Feb-7

I hope the judge DOES NOT sweep this under carpet..it's happens too much over there and there are many more victims including myself. ITT and KBR are the worst criminal contracting companies there are...and THEY DO go by the "Good Old Boy" system...I left a 6 figure job because I couldn't stand being pinched, grabbed and slapped anymore. When I submitted a EO complaint I was told if I didn't like it to leave, I did and it hurt my ability to provide for my kids!! I had to give up a good job due to being sexually assaulted everyday by management...Being over in Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar these contracting companies do not have to go by the American legal system, so they can get away with alot, including drugs and alcohol in the workplace and stealing the military's money and equipment. I hope this judge makes the right decision and nails these guys to the wall....more needs to come out about the dirty dealings amongst these contractors because people go there to support the soldiers not the contracting company's sexual needs. These contractors would never dare to pull this kind of crap here in the US!!!Posted by:
Angelaa21 Feb-7

Ask you representative for a complete investigation.   

Tell them to support the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007 that amends the FAA by prohibiting pre-dispute arbitration agreements in all contracts involving employees, consumers or franchisees, and "in disputes arising under any statute intended to protect civil rights or to regulate contracts or transactions between parties of unequal bargaining power."
 

. 

What will Mr. Bush do that will continue to harm our troops?

Well how about this!  Jon Soltz writes:

At a time when a new acronym, TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury), has entered the American lexicon because of injuries sustained to troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, the New York Times reports that not only are many combat helmets being given to our troops substandard, and not only was there a lawsuit about it, but the government actually placed an order with the same company for more helmets just days before the suit was settled.

To compound this is the fact that the company officials were well aware of what they were doing.

Jon Stoltz continues:

The issue at the heart of the suit were two former employees of the company who maintained (and never were disproved) that Sioux was not weaving their Kevlar at the mandated 35 by 35 thread per square inch count, but 34 by 34, and making up the weight difference by just applying more hardened resin. I think in anyone's book, that would be considered reason enough to never place a contract with the same company again. But, what's worse, that extra resin makes the helmets more brittle, which doesn't give the necessary head protection to the troops.

Isn't it about time for Americans to demand that we need our loved ones home and let the Iraqi people govern themselves?

We should utterly repudicate Mr. Bush's "The White Man's Burden" obsession.

If Congress fails in this challenge then we will live under the boot heels of tyranny.

Attorney General Michael Mukasey is back on the Hill today, testifying to the House Judiciary Committee. Paul Kiel is covering it at TPMmuckraker.

So far, he's dropped too big bombshells. DOJ will not be investigating:

(1) whether the waterboarding, now admitted to by the White House, was a crime; or

(2) whether the Administration's warrantless wiretapping was illegal.

His rationale? Both programs had been signed off on in advance as legal by the Justice Department.

David Kurtz writes:

President Bush has now laid down his most aggressive challenge to the very constitutional authority of Congress. It is a naked assertion of executive power. The founders would have called it tyrannical. His cards are now all on the table. This is no bluff.

What do our Colorado Congressional Representatives and Senators think?

Why not call them or go down to their local offices and demand that they uphold our right to have a truly representative government rather than a dictatorship under Bush. 

The primary season for progressives, liberals, and Democrats and the two main candidates- Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton- is one of unity.  We may quibble over the policies of both candidates and how they have performed in the Senate but both represent the tradition of liberal ideals that have made modern America. 

I was reading Hullabaloo blog when Digby made a trenchent comment that we like both our candidates.  Not only that but supporters of either candidate could support the winner after the convention.  She writes:

That's what I see when I talk to actual Democrats, particularly those who don't spend all their time on the Internet. Not only do Democrats like both candidates, not only do they think they are going to get to vote FOR someone instead of AGAINST the Republican this year, but the primary is improving that view.

CNN polling confirms that view:

There's no doubt Democrats are torn between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. But the early exit polls show they are not bitterly divided: 72 percent of Democrats said they would be satisfied if Clinton won the party's nomination, while 71 percent say the same about Obama.

As Digby admonishing that we must hold our candidates "feet to the fire" so that they are not unduly influenced by their "D.C. beltway consultants".  We who must work diligently to change the rhetoric and policy on healthcare by Obama or what are the foreign policy objectives beyond Iraq by Clinton?

What is important to remember is that we are for progressive change in America as represented by Obama and Clinton. 

This is why IRV ballot process will not work.  IRV can only work in conjunction with public financing of candidates only.  Why?  If the top two candidates in IRV can dump huge sums of money into a race then the "smaller" candidates will be squeezed out by their lack of financial clout.

Only by forcing all candidates to have the same dollar amount then will there be fairer playing field or this will happen.  Politico reporter Jeanne Cummings writes:

The Arizona senator’s rejection of the presidential public financing program he once defended is just the latest evidence of how ineffective the post-Watergate reform has become in an era of multimillion-dollar candidacies.

The time is now for public funding of political campaigns because the current system is just wrong for the good of America.

What has Mr. Bush done to this nation but hurt all of us?

From the HuffingtonPost.com, Lolita C. Baldor writes:

The commission's 400-page report concludes that the nation "does not have sufficient trained, ready forces available" to respond to a chemical, biological or nuclear weapons incident, "an appalling gap that places the nation and its citizens at greater risk.

A three trillion dollar budget for weapons to kill human beings but Mr. Bush must increase the risk for Americans to become sick by cutting healthcare programs.  AP reporter Andrew Taylor writes:

WASHINGTON - President Bush's $3 trillion budget for next year slashes mental health funding and rural health care and freezes spending on medical research, among the cuts outlined in budget documents obtained.

War for profiteering is the bottom line for Mr. Bush's ideological blindness.  The madness of Mr. Bush is that he will endanger the human race as he wantonly ignores our plight in pursuit of profit over all other things good and right.

The clock is now just a few minutes from midnight:

Global warming- Mr. Bush has wasted 8 years of a 20 year window to prevent the worst effects of climate change on civilization.

Nuclear proliferation- Read what Sibel Edmonds has on Mr. Bush's intent to to have more nations and terrorist organizations to have those weapons.

Religious intolerance- Mr. Bush has done more to inflame religious zealots across the globe than any president because of his conversion to Je-sus means that he must convert the heathen or die trying.

Corporations over people- Mr. Bush favors corporations over people both at home and abroad because he has been a failure in the corporate world he now believes that he must compensate for it in the political world.

Money is power for Mr. Bush but his money both real and political are spent.

This nation he has placed on the path to ruination and becoming a pariah state in the world.

Justice will be served to Mr. Bush no matter how long it takes and by our adherence to our laws.