Extremism in the defense of liberty

" ... is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

-- Barry Goldwater, the nation's last respectable conservative (apparently)

(Thanks to Dallas Sidebar)

Patriot primer

Read Christopher Hitchen's account of getting waterboarded. Watch the video of the "exercise". Spoiler alert: he didn't like it. Thinks it's torture.

Then there's the New York Times' account of how Gitmo interrogators inadvertently adopted Chinese-Korean War-era interrogation methods (once upon a time referred to as "torture" and "brainwashing") that are proven -- like waterboarding -- to produce false confessions. Oops.

Almost as informative: how large GOP donors can influence policy in Texas in a New York minute, or give to both John McCain and to Latin-American death squads. Now that's as All-American as Ollie North and Ronald Reagan.

The tug-of-war going on between my friends and associates in the progressive community revolves around a couple of whip counts worth pondering over the long holiday: how many of us think that things are so bad that the best course of action is to let them get much, much worse so that "things come to a head" and we don't delude ourselves into thinking that our country can get by with incremental changes ...

... and how many of us think things are so bad that the best thing to do is to work as hard as we can to get Barack Obama elected, and likewise elect Democrats in sweeping victories in both houses in Washington, in Austin, and in Harris County so that we can emphatically reject Republican rule and get started ASAP in a better direction.

Or some half-measure of the above (the centrists, in other words).

Personally, I'm still deciding.

Why don't we celebrate the 4th on the 2nd?

Courtesy LiveScience:

John Adams predicted in a letter to his wife Abigail that Americans would celebrate their Independence Day on July 2. Off by two days -- not too bad for government work.

On July 2, 1776, Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence, signed only by Charles Thompson (the secretary of Congress) and John Hancock (the presiding officer). Two days later Congress approved the revised version and ordered it to be printed and distributed to the states and military officers. The other signatures would have to wait.

Many actually viewed the Declaration of Independence as a yawner -- a rehashing of arguments already made against the British government. John Adams would later describe the Declaration as "dress and ornament rather than Body, Soul, or Substance." The exception was the last paragraph that said the united colonies "are and of Right ought to be Free and Independent states" and were "Absolved of all Allegiance to the British Crown."

For Adams, it was the momentum towards achieving American independence initiated on July 2 that future generations would consider worth celebrating, not the approval of this document on July 4.

Interestingly, the pomp and circumstance that many Americans presume took place on July 4, 1776, actually occurred days to weeks afterwards.

The Philadelphia Evening Post published the Declaration's full text in its July 6 newspaper. And the Declaration of Independence was publicly read from the State House in Philadelphia on July 8. Later that day, it was read in Easton, PA, Trenton, NJ, and to the local embryonic militia to provide much-needed inspiration against the formidable British.

The shouting and firing of muskets that followed these first public readings represent America's first celebrations of independence.

As copies spread, the Declaration of Independence would be read at town meetings and religious services. In response, Americans lit bonfires, fired guns, rang bells, and removed symbols of the British monarchy.

The following year, no member of Congress thought about commemorating the adoption of the Declaration of Independence until July 3 -- one day too late. So the first organized elaborate celebration of independence occurred the following day: July 4, 1777, in Philadelphia. Ships in the harbor were decked in the nation's colors. Cannons rained 13-gun salutes in honor of each state. And parades and fireworks spiced up the festivities.

Fireworks did not become staples of July 4 celebrations until after 1816, when Americans began producing their own pyrotechnics and no longer relied on expensive fireworks from across the pond.

Since 1777, the tradition of celebrating America's independence on July 4 has continued.

More of these leading up to Independence Day ...

• Quiz: The Strange History of American Independence
• How Did America Get Its Name?
• Who Created Uncle Sam?

Olbermann on Obama/FISA

I snipped a bunch so it's best to just go read the whole thing. Maybe more than once (I had to, in order to fully get it):

The Democratic leadership in the Senate, Republican knuckle-dragging in the same chamber, and the mediocre skills of whoever wrote the final version of the FISA bill, have combined to give Senator Barack Obama a second chance to make a first impression.

And he damned well better take it. ...

Frankly, Senator, this political tight-rope act you’ve tried on FISA the last two weeks, which from the outside seems to have been intended to increase the chances of your election, probably hasn’t helped that chance in the slightest.

There is, fortunately, a possible — a most unexpected — solution.

Your second second chance.

Since the final version of the FISA bill was passed down from on high, John Dean has been reading it, and re-reading it, and cross-referencing it with other relevant law, and thinking.

Something bothered him about it. Or, more correctly, something didn’t bother him about it.

Turns out lawyers at the ACLU have been doing the same thing for the last ten days. John compared notes with them, and will be devoting his column at “Find Law” this week, to this unlikely conclusion:

The Republicans who wrote most of this bill at Mr. Bush’s urging, managed to immunize the telecoms from civil suits.

But not from criminal prosecution. ...

Keep your eye on the wording of the legislation to make sure the Republicans don’t realize its flaws. Then vote for the amendment to strip telecom immunity out of the FISA bill.

Then after that fails, vote for the FISA bill, if that’s your final answer.

Then the minute the president has signed the FISA bill, you announce that you voted for it because it renews FISA and because it permits a bigger prize than just civil suits; that it allows for criminal prosecution of past illegal eavesdropping.

Say, loudly, that your understanding of this bill is such, that if you are elected, your Attorney General will begin a full-scale criminal investigation of the telecom companies who collaborated with President Bush in eavesdropping on Americans.

And mention — oh by the way — that your Attorney General will subpoena such records, notes, e-mail, data, and testimony, from any and all Bush Administration officials, FBI or CIA personnel, or any members of the Executive Branch, who may have as much as breathed in the general direction of these nefarious acts of domestic spying at Mr. Bush’s behest. ...

You’ve already taken the political hit from the Right, for saying you’d seek to strip out, or rescind immunity. You’ve already taken the political hit from the Left, for saying you’d vote for the FISA bill even with the immunity. You’ve paid the political price in advance.

Now buy yourself — and those who have most ardently supported you — something worth more than just class action suits against Verizon.

Explain that you are standing aside on civil immunity, not just for political expediency, but for a greater and more tangible good — the holding to account, of the most-corrupt, the most dangerous, and the most anti-democracy presidential administration in our long history.

Of course, if you disagree with this interpretation — if you think the FISA bill doesn’t have the giant loophole, or if you don’t think you, as president, would be ready to support criminal prosecution of… well, criminals — then your duty is clear.

Vote against the FISA bill, if it still carries that immunity.

The Republicans are going to call you the names any which way, Senator.

They’re going to cry regardless, Senator.

And as the old line goes: give them something to cry about.

Update: via Socratic Gadfly (who is similarly unimpressed), the legal POV from bmaz at emptytwheel is that we are still hosed:

Telcos hire the best, most persistent, and most capable lawyers available. Always. They will not be being represented by some sleepy, understaffed and overworked public defenders; they will have the best criminal defense talent in the world. It will not be necessary; a child could win these proposed Olbermann/Obama master plan prosecutions. So easy that even Alberto Gonzales could carry the day. Bottom line, this is one of the most ridiculous non-starters I have ever heard. If this is the "Master Plan", we are in a world of hurt.

We're getting ready to attack Iran.

Could be weeks, could be days away. Seymour Hersh:

Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership. The covert activities involve support of the minority Ahwazi Arab and Baluchi groups and other dissident organizations. They also include gathering intelligence about Iran’s suspected nuclear-weapons program. ...

“The Finding was focussed on undermining Iran’s nuclear ambitions and trying to undermine the government through regime change,” a person familiar with its contents said, and involved “working with opposition groups and passing money.” The Finding provided for a whole new range of activities in southern Iran and in the areas, in the east, where Baluchi political opposition is strong, he said.

Although some legislators were troubled by aspects of the Finding, and “there was a significant amount of high-level discussion” about it, according to the source familiar with it, the funding for the escalation was approved. In other words, some members of the Democratic leadership—Congress has been under Democratic control since the 2006 elections—were willing, in secret, to go along with the Administration in expanding covert activities directed at Iran, while the Party’s presumptive candidate for President, Barack Obama, has said that he favors direct talks and diplomacy.

The request for funding came in the same period in which the Administration was coming to terms with a National Intelligence Estimate, released in December, that concluded that Iran had halted its work on nuclear weapons in 2003. The Administration downplayed the significance of the N.I.E., and, while saying that it was committed to diplomacy, continued to emphasize that urgent action was essential to counter the Iranian nuclear threat. President Bush questioned the N.I.E.’s conclusions, and senior national-security officials, including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, made similar statements. (So did Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican Presidential nominee.) Meanwhile, the Administration also revived charges that the Iranian leadership has been involved in the killing of American soldiers in Iraq: both directly, by dispatching commando units into Iraq, and indirectly, by supplying materials used for roadside bombs and other lethal goods. (There have been questions about the accuracy of the claims; the Times, among others, has reported that “significant uncertainties remain about the extent of that involvement.”)

This follows on the heels of this, last week:

Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen leaves Tuesday night on an overseas trip that will take him to Israel ... The trip has been scheduled for some time but U.S. officials say it comes just as the Israelis are mounting a full court press to get the Bush administration to strike Iran's nuclear complex.

CBS consultant Michael Oren says Israel doesn't want to wait for a new administration.

"The Israelis have been assured by the Bush administration that the Bush administration will not allow Iran to nuclearize," Oren said. "Israelis are uncertain about what would be the policies of the next administration vis-à-vis Iran."

Israel's message is simple: If you don't, we will. Israel held a dress rehearsal for a strike earlier this month, but military analysts say Israel can not do it alone.

"Keep in mind that Israel does not have strategic bombers," Oren said. "The Israeli Air Force is not the American Air Force. Israel can not eliminate Iran's nuclear program."

Cheney wants to strike, Mullen and Defense Secretary Gates do not.

How are we going to stop a third war in the Middle East, which will quickly send oil to $200 a barrel and beyond and gasoline past $5 the week the attack commences?

For starters, contact Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi -- they're on their Independence Day break, if you recall from my many FISA postings -- and tell their staff to pass on along your exhortation to stop the Bush administration's rush to another war.

You can also spread the word about it. E-mail this post to your list. Talk about a third war with Iran out loud, in public, with people where others can overhear you. You can also contact your locals, but for now start at the top, and speak out forcefully and clearly.

This shit has got to stop, and we're the only ones who can make them.

The Weekly Wrangle

Time for yet another edition of the Texas Progressive Alliance's weekly blog round-up. Posts included in the round-up are submitted each week by Alliance member blogs, and compiled by Vince from Capitol Annex.

Maybe PDiddie at Brains and Eggs was wrong about Obama and Texas. Decide for yourself.

Off the Kuff has one last belated interview from the state Dem convention, with CD32 candidate Eric Roberson.

There is a new email scandal in Harris County. XicanoPwr writes about the offensive emails discovered at the Harris County sheriff's office by a local media undercover investigation. One email has Osama bin Laden urging folks to vote Democratic. In another, a top commander suggested that alligators should be put in the Rio Grande to cut down on illegal immigration.

Big Drunk at McBlogger points out, again, the flaws in the R's "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less" strategy. Which really isn't hard to do since the R's don't excel at critical thinking, are in love with fantasy and are (to a large extent) willfully ignorant.

refinish69 of Doing My Part For The Left is delighted to announce that the Texas Medical Association rescinded their endorsement of Senator Box Turtle, and shares Rick Noriega's response to Big Bad John.

WCNews at Eye On Williamson posts on the cracks forming in the Texas Republican base in A Cooling Off Period For The Texas GOP.

Vince Leibowitz at Capitol Annex takes a look at the Texas Supreme Court's recent opinion declaring, essentially, that if you are injured by a church, you are screwed, which stems from the case of -- get this -- an exorcism gone horribly wrong.

North Texas Liberal reports on the charge that John McCain and his wife Cindy have defaulted on four years of back taxes for their La Jolla, Calif. residence.

The Texas Cloverleaf helps expose the fact that oil companies are not drilling on 3/4 of the land they already lease, because it will cost them too much. Corporate greed, anyone?

Over at Texas Kaos, it is Kenneth Foster all over again, as it looks like Texas' law of parties is fixing to execute another man, Jeff Wood, who didn't kill anyone.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme notes John McCain shows his true colors by choosing Phil 'Enron' Gramm as a close associate.

NyTexan at BlueBloggin tells how the Bush administration has hit the pinnacle of security chaos. We can rest easy now, knowing that we have outsourced the outsource: Department of Homeland Security Outsources National Security.

Bay Area Houston writes about state senator Kim Brimer keeping campaign cash for himself.

Extra Sunday Funnies

Still 317.

Had to think hard about changes from last week, but there is consensus that Nevada currently sits in McCain's camp, and that Alaska has moved to toss-up, again due to the Bob Barr phenomenon. But that doesn't change Obama's numbers.

<p><strong>><a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/electoral-college/'>Electoral College Prediction Map</a></strong> - Predict the winner of the general election. Use the map to experiment with winning combinations of states. Save your prediction and send it to friends.</p>

Maybe I'm wrong about Obama and Texas

After I wrote this, then the campaign appeared to take my challenge and made several promising announcements about moving staff into and spending money in the Lone Star.

Obama's 50-state strategy, (Obama campaign manager David Plouffe) said, is designed to help the party increase its majority on Capitol Hill and to try to regain control of state legislatures, including Texas, where the Democrats need to pick up just five House seats to control the chamber.

Another goal is to force the Republicans to spend money in "red" states so they have less available for swing states.

Obama's aides told the Houston Chronicle that the Texas expenditures could increase party turnout in targeted races such as Harris County district attorney, sheriff and county judge.

The national campaign's presence in the state also could help Democrats in closely watched Houston-area congressional races for the seats of incumbent Democrat Nick Lampson and Republican Michael McCaul.

"It'll help us create a government majority," said Plouffe. "In a state like Texas, there's House races, there's state Senate races, and we're going to encourage people to get involved in their local elections."

In Texas, for instance, Obama’s three dozen offices were overrun with volunteers during the primary; the campaign’s challenge is, in part, to find something useful to do with all that free labor. But, while Hildebrand said Obama is unlikely to pay for television advertising outside a core of about 15 states the candidate thinks he can win, he will spend some money on staff. Obama’s chief strategist, David Axelrod, reportedly told donors in Houston that he would send 15 staffers to Texas, and the campaign has committed to having some staff on the ground in all 50 states.

Harris County Democratic Party Chairman Gerald Birnberg said his ears perked up when Axelrod brought up, without being asked, redistricting after the 2010 Census.

"He said they were acutely aware that 2010 will be a redistricting year and that Texas presents some real opportunities."

Estimates are that Texas will gain four or five seats in the U.S. House of Representatives at the expense of northern states because of population growth.

That last part is emphasized because it means that, as a result of the 2010 census, the Lone Star adds Congressional districts -- likely Austin, San Antone, and a couple each in D-FW and Houston. Those districts get drawn by the majority in Austin, as Casey reminded re: DeLay.

I think fifteen staffers in Texas is -- well, something at least. Emphasis on voter registration is slightly disappointing, because of what Greg Palast has uncovered regarding state voter registrars' ability to throw out new registrations. You know if you read here regularly that countering voter suppression is much higher on my personal priority list.

And finally, if they're going to train a bunch of people here and then send them out to Virginia and Michigan and Nevada then I fail to see the positive impact on Texas.

But I will hold off for the moment on being a grouch, subject to how well the Obama campaign's words match their deeds.

11-10.

What a ballgame last night.

The home team overcame deficits of 4-0 and 9-6, then hung on in the ninth to win. They held Man-Ram nearly hitless but couldn't get Dustin Pedroia out. They rocked Bosox starter Jon Lester -- particularly Mark Loretta, who hit the first pitch he saw out of the park, after Lester had gotten struck on a comebacker and limped around the mound before resuming. They blasted reliever Manny Delcarmen in the eighth, in particular Lance Berkman, who had whiffed three times against Lester but turned around as a left-hander and delivered the game-winner.

Delcarmen entered in the eighth ("a short inning and I probably would have gone out for the ninth") and that dominance didn't last another batter. Ty Wigginton, the former Tampa Bay Ray, led off the bottom of the eighth with a tying, opposite-field home run, and Lance Berkman, who had been tied up in knots by Jon Lester in whiffing his first three at-bats, sliced an opposite-field, two-run double to climax an improbable comeback.

"I just looked at the video," Delcarmen said. "The pitch to Wigginton was away, and he just got his bat out there. When he hit it, I thought there was no way it had the height to go out. A 3-and-2 pitch, I didn't want to walk him with anything offspeed."

Darin Erstad followed by lining a pinch single ("A hanging curveball," said Delcarmen), and Brad Ausmus, the Dartmouth grad, showed that at 39 he can still drop down a bunt, sacrificing Erstad to second after being sent to pinch hit by manager Cecil Cooper.

Delcarmen struck out Michael Bourn, but walked Hunter Pence before Berkman delivered.

"We made some mistakes out over the plate and we about paid for every one of them," said Sox manager Terry Francona.

A full house of 43,000+ fans, split pretty evenly, screamed and chanted and stood throughout the ninth, yelling with the strikeout of Manny by Astros closer Jose Valverde, groaning with the Crawford Boxes home run shot by Mike Lowell, and rejoicing on the K's of Kevin Youkilis and Jason Varitek.

The pre-game New England buffet, complete with brats and chowdah and prime rib and Italian sausage and pasta and baked beans and Boston creme pie -- was very nearly as spectacular as the baseball playing.

If you have a ticket to this afternoon's matinee, you can't do much better than what we did last night for food, fun and games.