November 8, 2007 – Palm Springs Village Fest Voter Registration and Candidate Information Tabling at Palm Canyon & Arenas, Palm Springs, CA, Thursday nights from 6:00 p.m. – 10:00 p.m. (Adult beverages enjoyed thereafter at the local pubs).
Cool desert nights and progressive, Support-the-Troops/Stop-the-Insanity Democrats. Milling crowds of locals, visitors, and prospective voters. Village Fest was knee-deep in conferees from the United States Conference on AIDS 2007 (USCA) as well as attendees at Leather Pride Weekend. I was approached assertively by two military people who angrily questioned my ‘Support the Troops/End the War’ position. The male trooper expressed his concerns about stopping terrorism in Iraq and early withdrawal of troops meaning making insignificant the loss of thousands of U.S. military lives in Iraq. I tried to educate both about the nature of the Occupation of Iraq and its present Civil War. In addition, I was able to point out that the assault on Iraq was initially about avenging Sadaam Hussein’s alleged assassination plot agains George H.W. Bush and about securing a vast oil supply in the Middle East. Also, the pointless loss of U.S. soldier’s lives lies at the feet of the warmongers in the Bush Administration (e.g., Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Gates, Pace, etc.). We need to communicate with our troops and educate them that they are pawns in the service of a vengeful, cruel, incompetent despot. And I do not mean S. Hussein.
The Democratic clubs were well represented as usual with Desert Stonewall Democrats staffing one table thanks to George Zander, President of the Club and Bob Silverman, Treasurer. The Democrats of the Desert staffed another table thanks to Eleanor Jackson, and the Palm Springs Democrats staffed another table as well.
Progressive Democrats were rejoicing in the resounding victories in Tuesday’s elections across the Coachella Valley. More specifically, we discussed the win of Steve Pougnet for Mayor of Palm Springs, Rick Hutcheson for Palm Springs City Council, Karl Baker for Desert Hot Springs City Council, Craig Ewing for Desert Water Agency, and No on C. Democrats were also excited about the prospect of John Williams winning the second Palm Springs City Council seat following the counting of the additional Vote By Mail ballots and a possible recount of the overall votes.
Vic Gainer, of the recently defunct Vic Gainer for Palm Springs City Council campaign slunked past the tabling without a word, probably embarrassed that we had discovered that he registered as a member of the American Independent Party after none of the Democratic Clubs endorsed his candidacy.
More exciting details below the flip…
Paul Clay, declared Candidate for the CA-45 Congressional District, raised awareness about his candidacy. Amalia Deaztlan, Campaign Director for Manuel Perez, Vice-President of the Coachella Valley Unified School District and Candidate for the CA 80th Assembly District also spent time with the Democratics discussing the recent election victories and Perez’ prospects in the 80th.
Tracy Turner, Vets for Peace, helped stoke the fires of intelligent discussion and activism. He discussed their plans to march in the Palm Springs Veteran’s Day Parade, Sunday, November 11, 2007. More on anti-occupation efforts as information becomes available.
We had representation at the tables from the Sen. John Edwards campaign, i.e., yours truly, Captain of the Palm Springs for Edwards One Corps Chapter. I distributed position papers from the John Edwards for President campaign, provided campaign buttons and bumper stickers, signed up volunteers for the John Edwards for President Campaign, and solicited voters to register to vote. We discussed Edward’s surprisingly strong standing in the Iowa caucus polls and his strength in the recent candidate debates.
Wayne and the boyz staffed the Sen. Hillary Clinton table. Dave and his wife and Dave Huntzinger spearheaded the Sen. Barack Obama table. The Obama people were active in collecting information from potential volunteers. Bob Morris of the Draft Al Gore campaign circulated petitions to get Nobel Prize Winner Gore on the 2008 California Democratic Primary ballot.
We also registered 8 voters last night, including two changes of party affiliation from the Dark Side. Moderate and progressive Republicans have long had enough of the incompetence, ineptitude, and callous disregard for the truth of the Bush Administration. Now they are voting with their feet by moving quickly to the Democratic Party!
Zander and his friends, Tim, Renee, and Caesar, Silverman, Morris, Turner (Vets for Peace), Clay and yours truly attended the Unofficial Drinking Liberally (UODL) after-party at Bongo Johnny’s! Then, Zander, Tim, Renee, Caesar, Turner, and yours truly slipped over to Hunter’s Video Bar to trip the progressive light fantastic, celebrating yet another day in turning the Coachella Valley blue!
The decision is important in two ways. First, it established that aesthetics are a legitimate public purpose, for which government may regulate and condemn land. This principle has encouraged increased governmental intervention to achieve aesthetic and environmental goals. Second, Berman made clear that the phrase “public use” in the Takings Clause did not mean that land condemned had to remain in government ownership or be used physically by the public. The Court seemed to hold that eminent domain might be used to advance any goal that government could pursue under any of its powers. Subsequent decisions have confirmed this broad understanding of Berman. Thus, under the Takings Clause, “public use” means only public purpose.
In Midkiff the Court virtually eliminated public use as a limit on when governments can condemn property. A public use is present, the Court held, even when the property is immediately turned over to private hands and is never used by the public. The requirement is satisfied whenever the taking is rationally related to some conceivable public purpose; it is the purpose of the taking, not the use of the property, that is important. This meant, the Court said, that the condemnation power is equal in breadth to the police power. The Court also held that courts should defer to legislative determinations of whether a purpose is a public one unless the determination is without reasonable foundation.
Both of these decisions set the precedent for Kelo. Follow me over the flip…
Kelo was univocal to Berman and Midkiff in its rulings, but that doesn’t mean Berman and Midkiff were rightfully decided
Let’s start off with something self-evident: the public use clause is a meaningful limit on government’s eminent domain power, or else it would be surplusage. As they said in Marbury v. Madison 1 Cranch (5 U.S.) 137 (1803):
It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect, and therefore such construction is inadmissible unless the words require it.
Such a construction, although having the support of as great an expounder of the Constitution as Mr. Webster, is not in accord with the usual canon of interpretation of that instrument, which requires that real effect should be given to all the words it uses
So now you may be saying that the Takings Clause could distinguish the kinds of takings that require compensation with those that don’t. That would mean that takings for private use don’t require any compensation at all, and that would go against a founding principle of the United States: all takings require compensation.
So now let’s go over the definition of “use.” Some may say that it means “the act of employing” others may say it means “help.” Both are right as far as the dictionary definition goes. As far as the constitution goes, let’s look at the other places the word “use” is used (no pun intended)
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years
So let me ask you, don’t they mean that the Treasury will control and employ the revenue, and “employed to raise and support armies,” respectively? If yes, then how can one turn around and say they meant something entirely different in another part? Or for example, does use mean in the second one, “anything directed to achieving any military end”
Further, if the founders meant for public use to be as broad as some claim, why didn’t they say “general Welfare” or “public purpose?” They didn’t realize, you may say? Nope. Many founding era documents made the distinction. 6 of the original 13 states used the term “public use” while others says, “public exigencies” and “public necessity.”
Common law background further reinforces this. Methods have always existed for eliminating uses that negatively affected the public welfare: nuisance law. Nuisance law doesn’t require any compensation whatsoever.
To also say that “public use” means public purpose would say it’s redundant with the Necessary-and-proper clause:
Constitutional provision, U.S. Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 18, empowering Congress to make all laws which shall be “necessary and proper” for carrying into execution the enumerated powers of Congress. The phrase is not limited to such measures as are absolutely necessary, but includes all appropriate means that are conducive to the end to be accomplished, and which in the judgment of Congress, will most advantageously [a]ffect it. 110 U.S. 421, 440. The clause is not a grant of power but a declaration that Congress possesses all the means necessary to carry out its specifically granted powers. 361 U.S. 234.
With the Necessary-and-proper clause, the Public Use Clause would be irrelevant if it meant “public purpose.” The explicit mention of one thing excludes all others. So even if it said, “nor shall private property be taken without just compensation,” they wouldn’t be able to take it for whatever reason. Necessary-and-proper clause would ensure they only do it to exercise an enumerated power.
So with the Necessary-and-proper clause alone, taking would be permissible only for a valid public purpose, and to say the Public Use Clause means the same thing would again, make it surplusage
To irrigate, and thus to bring into possible cultivation, these large masses of otherwise worthless lands, would seem to be a public purpose, and a matter of public interest, not confined to the landowners, or even to any one section of the state. The fact that the use of the water is limited to the landowner is not, therefore, a fatal objection to this legislation. It is not essential that the entire community, or even any considerable portion thereof, should directly enjoy or participate in an improvement in order to constitute a public use.
That broad statement constitutes as dictum because the law in question made clear: (Ibid at 162)
All landowners in the district have the right to a proportionate share of the water, and no one landowner is favored above his fellow in his right to the use of the water
The SCOTUS cited no authority for the dictum.
Then to United States v. Gettysburg Electric R. Co., 160 U. S. 668 (1896), where the government was using eminent domain to build battlefield memorials at Gettysburg. That constitutes as a public use by anyone’s standards. But, the SCOTUS again engaged in dictum:
In these acts of congress, and in the joint resolution, the intended use of this land is plainly set forth. It is stated in the second volume of Judge Dillon’s work on Municipal Corporations (4th Ed. 600) that, when the legislature has declared the use or purpose to be a public one, its judgment will be respected by the courts, unless the use be palpably without reasonable foundation. Many authorities are cited in the note, and, indeed, the rule commends itself as a rational and proper one.
That was unnecessary and unjustifiable. To defer the definition of “public use” to the legislature is like deferring to the accused the decision of whether he/she’s guilty. Or to keep it in context with the Bill of Rights: Do we defer to the legislature’s interpretation of when a search or seizure is “reasonable?”
Subject to specific constitutional limitations, when the legislature has spoken, the public interest has been declared in terms well nigh conclusive. In such cases, the legislature, not the judiciary, is the main guardian of the public needs to be served by social legislation, whether it be Congress legislating concerning the District of Columbia
And in both, they equated eminent domain power with the police power. More explicitly in Midkiff:
The “public use” requirement is thus coterminous with the scope of a sovereign’s police powers.
That was just pucky. As I mentioned above, traditional police and regulatory power to abate a nuisance required no compensation whatsoever. In Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 (1887):
As already stated, the present case must be governed by principles that do not involve the power of eminent domain, in the exercise of which property may not be taken for public use without compensation. A prohibition simply upon the use of property for purposes that are declared, by valid legislation, to be injurious to the health, morals, or safety of the community, cannot, in any just sense, be deemed a taking or an appropriation of property for the public benefit. Such legislation does not disturb the owner in the control or use of his property for lawful purposes, nor restrict his right to dispose of it, but is only a declaration by the state that its use by any one, for certain forbidden purposes, is prejudicial to the public interests. Nor can legislation of that character come within the fourteenth amendment, in any case, unless it is apparent that its real object is not to protect the community, or to promote the general well-being, but, under the guise of police regulation, to deprive the owner of his liberty and property, without due process of law. The power which the states have of prohibiting such use by individuals of their property, as will be prejudicial to the health, the morals, or the safety of the public, is not, and, consistently with the existence and safety of organized society, cannot be, burdened with the condition that the state must compensate such individual owners for pecuniary losses they may sustain, by reason of their not being permitted, by a noxious use of their property, to inflict injury upon the community. The exercise of the police power by the destruction of property which is itself a public nuisance, or the prohibition of its use in a particular way, whereby its value becomes depreciated, is very different from taking property for public use, or from depriving a person of his property without due process of law. In the one case, a nuisance only is abated; in the other, unoffending property is taken away from an innocent owner. It is true, when the defendants in these cases purchased or erected their breweries, the laws of the state did not forbid the manufacture of intoxicating liquors. But the state did not thereby give any assurance, or come under an obligation, that its legislation upon that subject would remain unchanged.
So there you have it. Kelo wasn’t unprecedented, but it was based off previous dicta. The Public Use Clause was meant to be more restrictive than “public purpose.” Our founders understood that the taking of an innocent person’s property should not be a regular means of exercising their enumerated powers. The question of whether the government can regulate property with its police power is different from whether the government can take property with eminent domain. State nuisance law, not eminent domain, would have been the appropriate way to deal with Berman and Midkiff
Right now, I’m at Fort Mason, waiting for the Governor to come speak to the press. The scope of the ecological damage created by this oil seems to be growing rapidly. I’ll update with photos and more info in the comments shortly.
The conference just ended, and you get the normal mishmash of information. The governor signed an emergency declaration to ensure proper cooperation between the various state agencies and the federal government’s efforts. Currently there are 200 government workers on the cleanup with an additional 200 to show up tomorrow. Furthermore, volunteers will soon be joining the efforts. I’ll try to get more info on volunteering.
UPDATE: The Speaker now has a website for the oil spill here.
UPDATE: Ok, volunteer information. Call (800) 228-5455 or check out http://baykeeper.org to help with the clean up. And from MarkLeno.com: To report oil sightings, call 985-781-0804. To report oiled wildlife, call 877-823-6926. To submit a claim for oiled property, call 888-850-8486.
Right now, I’m at Fort Mason, waiting for the Governor to come speak to the press. The scope of the ecological damage created by this oil seems to be growing rapidly. I’ll update with photos and more info in the comments shortly.
My column at Capitol Weekly about Ron Shepston’s experiences during the Southern California wildfires is up here. It’s really a pretty amazing story.
As the flames closed in, and evacuation was recommended, Ron and his family packed up. One of his neighbors, a 37-year retired battalion chief with the Orange County Fire Authority named Mike, had plenty of experience with fighting fires, and with the limited official resources, he thought he could help protect the community if the fire engulfed the canyon. The problem was that his body was beaten from years of service. After escorting his family to safer ground, Ron told Mike he was willing to help. “I’ll be your legs,” he said.
Ignoring a mandatory evacuation, Ron and Mike went to work, setting up hoses, hooking into hydrants, watering down wood structures, and clearing fuel away from danger. They also provided assistance to federal, state and local firefighters about prime lookout spots to view the progress of the fire, and the local terrain. This lasted for 10 days, a non-stop firefighting effort in an attempt to protect the community. “I could hear the roar of the flames on the ridge,” Ron said, “There were flames rising 100 feet.”
Go throw me a bone and read the whole thing. There’s some discussion of Orange County’s failure to protect its residents by gutting firefighting operations, as well as the stark contrast between a leader like Shepston and Gary Miller, who has yet to make even one public statement about the fires. This will be an issue in the campaign.
Bill Richardson is goal-oriented, assertive and confident. He has served as a Congressman, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Secretary of Energy and is in his second term as Governor of New Mexico after a landslide re-election victory in November 2006.
Here are five of many reasons why I believe Richardson possesses the experience, vision and leadership skills to be a great President:
1. A Bright Vision for America
2. An Ironclad Promise to Promptly End the U.S. Occupation of Iraq
3. A Bold Agenda To Address The Pressing Challenges Facing Our Nation and Planet
4. The White House and A Landslide Victory for Democrats Nationwide in 2008
5. Comprehensive Immigration Reform In Accordance With the Values Upon Which Our Country Was Founded
This was originally posted on MyDD as part of its candidate series. I am not part of the Richardson campaign.
1. A Bright Vision for America
Richardson believes in using government to improve the lives of people and affect change in a positive way. He takes a practical approach to governing, focusing on solutions to problems rather than ideology. His vision for America is to be “a nation of opportunity and prosperity for all and guaranteeing real security for all our people.”
Earlier this year, in a speech to the Arab American Institute in April 2007, Richardson stated:
Here at home, we must adhere and protect the words, spirit and life of our Constitution for America is not just a country, it is a belief. A belief in a right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion. A belief that every man and woman has the right to elect their government and a belief in freedom, justice and equality. America is the land of opportunity, but we have much to do to ensure that America is the land of equality of opportunity.
To get an insight into Richardson the person, I suggest you watch the following videos. The first features the person who knows him best, Barbara Richardson, his wife of thirty-five years:
The second is a profile of Richardson by Charles Gibson of ABC News:
2. An Ironclad Promise to Promptly End the U.S. Occupation of Iraq
Rocky Anderson, human rights activist and the mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, has endorsed Richardson. In an essay in the Nation, Anderson states:
If ending the tragic, self-destructive occupation of Iraq is indeed a line-in-the-sand issue, only Bill Richardson stands out among the leading candidates as the choice for President.
While Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards refuse to pledge an end to the occupation, even by 2013, Bill Richardson commits clearly to pulling out all US troops. He recognizes that the occupation is widely despised, aiding in the recruitment of terrorists beyond Osama bin Laden’s wildest dreams.
Richardson’s consistent message on the necessity for a prompt and complete withdrawal from Iraq is resonating with Iowa voters. This week STAR*PAC (Stop the Arms Race Political Action Committee of Iowa) endorsed Richardson. Harold Wells, Chair of STAR*PAC, explained why:
Governor Richardson has consistently promised to get all the troops out of Iraq within one year and probably as soon as six months. He promises he will leave no residual troops behind. And his message is the same wherever he speaks — to a military audience in Georgetown, a New Hampshire town meeting, in a rural Iowa community or at STAR*PAC’s candidate forum with the Governor in August. Three generals — General Volney Warner, General William Odom and Lt. General Robert Gard — support Richardson’s plans to get the troops out of Iraq.
Richardson observes that a complete withdrawal gives us the leverage we now lack to get the warring factions to compromise, while our presence fuels the insurgency. In an Op Ed published in the Washington Post entitled “Why We Should Exit Iraq Now,” Richardson wrote:
So long as American troops are in Iraq, reconciliation among Iraqi factions is postponed. Leaving forces there enables the Iraqis to delay taking the necessary steps to end the violence. And it prevents us from using diplomacy to bring in other nations to help stabilize and rebuild the country.
The presence of American forces in Iraq weakens us in the war against al-Qaeda. It endows the anti-American propaganda of those who portray us as occupiers plundering Iraq’s oil and repressing Muslims. The day we leave, this myth collapses, and the Iraqis will drive foreign jihadists out of their country.
To hear Richardson explain his plan for Iraq, the imperative for all of our troops to leave Iraq as well as discussing the approach the U.S. should take on Iran through seeking common ground, listen to the following interview on News Hour with Jim Lehrer:
3. A Bold Agenda To Address The Pressing Challenges Facing Our Nation and Planet
Being the sole Democratic candidate for President with executive branch experience, voters can evaluate Richardson from the unique stand point of an actual record of implementing policy on key issues, not merely the speeches he has given. Each year, the Conservation Voters of New Mexico releases a Legislative Scorecard breaking down the votes on key bills impacting the environment. The CVNM also rates the Governor. This year, the CVNM gave Richardson an “A”.
Richardson recognizes that the threats to our environment extend beyond our borders:
A hungry world will also hunger for scapegoats. A thirsty world will thirst for revenge. A world in crisis will be a world of anger and violence and terrorism.
He has set forth a global agenda to address the welfare of the human race, linking climate change, poverty, international disease and war.
On the critical issue of climate change, Richardson has offered the most aggressive plan of any candidate, proposing to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by 2050. In a book published this week, entitled In LEADING BY EXAMPLE: How We Can Inspire an Energy and Security Revolution, Richardson argues that the U.S. should start a ten-year program immediately to eliminate its dependence on overseas oil and address global warming.
Can you believe this? Bill Richardson has written a truly exciting book. This is the book we’ve been waiting for – the one that takes us from the stage of awareness that Al Gore produced two years ago to the society that takes control of destiny and begins to live in global wealth, health and security.
Richardson begins by describing the existing current lag in leadership. America needs to reposition its image in the spirit that it has long held. Sacrifice and inspiration are essential to that image. With the image and presence of a compassionate America, nations will succeed in lifting themselves from tyranny, depression, illness and tragedy. We cannot afford to confuse our image as a people – that image that produces inspiration through compassion – with one that will overrun other nations to satisfy an addiction for oil.
4. The White House and A Landslide Victory for Democrats Nationwide in 2008
I written previously that Richardson will be Karl Rove’s worst nightmare. With Richardson at the head of the Democratic ticket, no longer would the fate of the Democratic candidate rise or fall on the outcome of one state.
We would start with the same states carried by Senator Kerry in 2004. Add in Richardson’s Latino heritage and Western values as well as economic policies and stance on 2nd Amendment issues, Richardson becomes the ideal Democratic candidate to convert Red states to Blue.
University of Virginia political science professor Larry Sabato recently made the same argument in an interview:
He is unbeatable. It is amazing the Democrats haven’t recognized that. Republicans will tell you privately that if the Democrats nominate Bill Richardson the election is over. They know they will lose to Bill Richardson. He is perfectly positioned.
Now contrast Richardson’s appeal with the current front runner and most well known Democratic politician in America. Even though opinion polls show most Americans believe our country is headed in the wrong direction and prefer a Democrat to succeed Bush, when Clinton is matched up against Giuliani the race is a dead heat. Why? More people rate Clinton negative on the quality of honesty than positive. The Democrats will win in a landslide in 2008, if Richardson is at the top of the ticket.
5. Comprehensive Immigration Reform In Accordance With the Values Upon Which Our Country Was Founded
Before the campaign commenced, Richardson called for comprehensive immigration reform that strengthens our borders while also providing a path to citizenship for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S.
Last year, Biden, Clinton, Dodd and Obama caved into the anti-immigrant pressure groups in voting for a massive, 700-mile wall along the U.S.-Mexican border. Richardson has repeatedly called the fence ineffective and a terrible symbol for America. In his view, it also creates a disincentive for Mexico to cooperate with the U.S. – which is essential for stopping illegal immigration.
On the current hot issue of the day – drivers’ licenses for illegal immigrants – Dodd and Edwards are now talking like Republicans. Edwards flip on this issue is especially revealing. Here is a candidate that time and time again has proclaimed, “We are past the time for cautious, poll-driven politics.” Yet, Edwards has seen the polls and changed his position to that which serves his short term political advantage.
Richardson doesn’t play the anti-immigrant card. He signed legislation in New Mexico that gave licenses to all persons without proof of citizenship. When this topic was raised in a recent interview, Richardson commented:
MATTHEWS: Governor, what would you have said to that same question? Were you on base with regard to whether we should give, at the state level, driver’s licenses to the people in the country illegally?
RICHARDSON: I would have said yes. You know, four years ago, my legislature sent me a bill to give driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. I signed it, because my law enforcement people asked me to do it. They said it was a matter of public safety, that we want safe drivers on the roads. Insurance-uninsured drivers has gone down in New Mexico, from 33 percent to 11 percent, since I signed that bill. It’s a matter of being safe on the highways and also knowing where they are. I think Senator Clinton should have just said yes. It sounded like she agreed with the governor. She did fumble that.
To hear Richardson discuss his plan on immigration, listen to the above video clip, the interview on News Hour with Jim Lehrer.
————
Finally, I’d like to comment on the issue of the day – the confirmation vote on Michael Mukasey. The vote on Mukasey was a vote the Dems in the Senate could have won if they showed a spine. Mukasey needed 51 votes to be confirmed. Biden, Dodd, Clinton and Obama were all missing in action.
Richardson spoke out first against Mukasey. On October 19th, prior to any statements by the other Presidential candidates, Richardson stepped forward and criticized Mukasey for refusing to say whether waterboarding is torture:
“Waterboarding is torture, and anyone who is unwilling to identify it as such is not qualified to be the chief legal officer of the United States of America. If I were in the U.S. Senate, I would vote against Mukasey unless he denounces such specific forms of torture.
“Torture does not work. Mistreatment backfires and destroys our international leadership, as we saw with Abu Ghraib. Torture also endangers our own troops. The standards we adopt may well be what our own troops are subjected to.
“Anytime one makes a person think he or she is being executed, the very nature of waterboarding, it obviously is a violation of the U.S. Constitution, international law, and basic human decency. . .
“If another nation engaged in waterboarding against American citizens, we would denounce that country and call the practice barbaric, and rightly so.
“We must stand against torture without equivocation, without compromise, and without exception. Torture is a violation of everything we stand for as Americans and as human beings.”
Shame on the Democrats that voted for Mukasey and those that didn’t show up at all. This was not a vote on one person. It was a vote on whether the U.S. government or agents acting for our government may commit torture in the name of national security.
Persons without a moral compass should not hold political power. And no surprise here – people under torture say what they believe their interrogators want them to say. The result is we get false and misleading information when we practice torture.
The results can be devastating. We went to war with Iraq in part because of intelligence based on the torture. I suggest everyone read Tim Weiner’s Legacy of Ashes. It is a fascinating history of the CIA. At page 487, he states:
[CIA Director George] Tenet provided his own grim warnings in a secret hearing before the Senate intelligence committee on September 17: ‘Iraq provided al Qaeda with various kinds of training – combat, bomb-making, and chemical, biological, radiological and nucler.’ He based that statement on the confessions of a single source – Ibn al-Shakh al-Libi, a fringe player who had been beaten stuffed in a two-foot-square box for seventeen hours, and threatened with prolonged torture. The prisoner had recanted after the threat of torture receded. Tenet did not correct the record.
Dear California… a report from the Draft Movement and their CA Primary Ballot Campaign
We are in the halfway mark of the ballot effort. It’s been real interesting meeting people, listening to their comments and learning how to work the political system from the grassroots levels. I recommend it to everyone to get involved with this effort as it will open your eyes to what is really been felt and said by us regular Americans.
Right now in my area I am pushing for voter registration along with our nomination papers. You can’t believe how many people don’t know their address has to be updated every time they move, some people don’t even know what party they are. So we working on correcting these problems.
I wish this experience could go on a long time, but alas, we must stop Dec. 4.
We are looking for volunteers, money and properly registered CA Democrats with a little moxy, imagination and political will. Are YOU one?
WE NEED MONEY AND PROFESSIONAL CIRCULATORS RIGHT NOW TO FINISH OUR JOB! GO TO
www.california4gore.org
The Draft Gore Movement Is Setting A Standard. We believe our “candidate” represents the level to which all other political aspirants should aspire to, including our current crop of presidential candidates.
And guess what? So does a lot of mainstream America.
I have Green Party members becoming Democrats so they can sign the nomination papers.
So many people ask me “Oh we really wish Al would run.” Less and less are saying no thanks. Get the picture?
In a story highlighted by a recent Democratic Party email, the LA Downtown News is reporting that signature gatherers are giving out food for signatures for a variety of initiative petitions:
It was about 10 a.m. on Tuesday, Oct. 16, when Fred Crawford walked to the back of a short line at Sixth and San Julian streets on Skid Row. The queue, a dozen or so people on a trash-strewn sidewalk, crept forward, and when Crawford reached the front a clipboard was pushed in front of him. The 40-ish man, who currently lives on the street, signed his name and scribbled an address. When he finished, one of the men behind the table handed him a bag of Ruffles potato chips. Crawford opened it on the spot and lifted the bag to his mouth.
In recent weeks, Downtown News observed petitions being gathered on Skid Row for four initiatives to be placed on ballots next year: two on eminent domain, one concerning bonds for children's hospitals, and another on electoral votes.
That “electoral” one is likely to be the “Dirty Trick” initative, and the eminent domain initiative is likely the Howie Rich finance successor to Prop 90. But look, I'm all for feeding the poor. In addition, it'd be great to see campaigns actually campaigning in areas like LA's Skid Row. But they don't. And this has nothing to do with listening to the concerns of the community, but rather it is all about using a community that is susceptible to abuse.
Not only is this unethical, it is against the law. Paying people for signatures is tantamount to selling your vote, and therefore we have seen fit to ban this action. (Although paid signature gathering is still legal due to 1st Amendment concerns.) We need to treat the Skid Row, and all other disadvantaged communities, with respect, and not toss them about as a political football or treat them as a dumping grounds.
This is the benign face of the industry that will undeniably get richer in a forced-market “universal” health care approach:
One of the state’s largest health insurers set goals and paid bonuses based in part on how many individual policyholders were dropped and how much money was saved.
Woodland Hills-based Health Net Inc. avoided paying $35.5 million in medical expenses by rescinding about 1,600 policies between 2000 and 2006. During that period, it paid its senior analyst in charge of cancellations more than $20,000 in bonuses based in part on her meeting or exceeding annual targets for revoking policies, documents disclosed Thursday showed.
The revelation that the health plan had cancellation goals and bonuses comes amid a storm of controversy over the industry-wide but long-hidden practice of rescinding coverage after expensive medical treatments have been authorized.
Cancellation GOALS. That’s right. One man’s catastrophic medical and financial situation is another man’s new boat.
This is of course nothing new. It’s standard practice for most insurers. When you get sick and put in a claim to actually use your health insurance, your file is immediately sent to the cancellation department and people review it for the slightest rationale to dump your coverage.
Now, market reforms like guaranteed issue, which would mandate that insurance companies cover anyone who wants health insurance regardless of pre-existing condition, would stop this practice. California’s latest iteration of a health reform bill includes this policy. But let’s not be so naive that insurers will not find other ways to stop paying their claims, and use the spectre of “affordability” to do so:
Insurers maintain that cancellations are necessary to root out fraud and keep premiums affordable. Individual coverage is issued to only the healthiest applicants, who must disclose preexisting conditions […]
The documents show that in 2002, the company’s goal for Barbara Fowler, Health Net’s senior analyst in charge of rescission reviews, was 15 cancellations a month. She exceeded that, rescinding 275 policies that year — a monthly average of 22.9.
More recently, her goals were expressed in financial terms. Her supervisor described 2003 as a “banner year” for Fowler because the company avoided about “$6 million in unnecessary health care expenses” through her rescission of 301 policies — one more than her performance goal.
In 2005, her goal was to save Health Net at least $6.5 million. Through nearly 300 rescissions, Fowler ended up saving an estimated $7 million, prompting her supervisor to write: “Barbara’s successful execution of her job responsibilities have been vital to the profitability” of individual and family policies.
Let’s not claim that “but in the future, this will be illegal” and clap our hands in self-congratulation. This is ALREADY illegal in the state of California. You can’t tie bonuses to claims reviews. But they did it nontheless.
So when you make deals with a for-profit health insurance industry, don’t be surprised if they ever so slightly go back on them.
This roundup comes through the fine work of the good folks at BlueNC. The really heavy lifting was performed by the excellent bloggers you’ll find at each state site. Flip it for the good stuff…
Texas Texas Kaos reports that rogue Judge Sharon Keller got a rebuke from another quarter this week when the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals changed its rules to allow email appeals.
Texas The Burnt Orange Report staff reflects on the enormous shifts that have occurred in Texas since the fateful 2002 elections.
Indiana Blue Indiana takes a look at the anatomy of Tuesday’s big electoral upset in Indianapolis.
Michigan Michigan College Republicans turn on their own. Michigan Liberal reports the Jan 15. primary date has been struck down.
Montana Another moderate Republican legislator feels pushed out by his own party. Left in the West gives the good news of Senators Baucus and Tester opposing Mukasey.
Alabama State Senator Harri Anne Smith looks to be the Republican choice for the AL-02 Congressional seat being vacated by Terry Everett. No Democratic candidate has announced for this seat yet, although rumors persist that Montgomery mayor Bobby Bright will throw his hat in the ring. Also, Do high profile endorsements mean Hillary will wear well in Alabama? It would mean more if they were from people who are running next year.
North Carolina Democrats Kay Hagan and Jim Neal, candidates for the NC Senate seat held by Elizabeth Dole, were both asked what their vote would have been in the nomination of Michael Mukasey for attorney general.
Illinois Blue and Bush Dogs including Melissa Bean of IL-08 are blocking mortgage relief legislation being pushed by real Democrats. Also, Prairie State Blue reports on how Bush Dog Lipinski is out of touch.
Minnesota Joe Bodell gives a roundup of Minnesota election results.
Wisconsin Uppity Wisconsin gives the scoop on how the Veterans Day parade excludes veterans
Iowa Bleeding Heartland asks, what happened in your city or town (election)?
Kentucky Mediaczech provides video of Lt. Gov. Dan Mongiardo who had quite a bit of praise for Lt. Col. Andrew Horne who may run against Mitch McConnell. Don’t miss the liveblog of the Kentucky Democratic Party Victory Celebration.
Right now, I’m at Fort Mason, waiting for the Governor to come speak to the press. The scope of the ecological damage created by this oil seems to be growing rapidly. I’ll update with photos and more info in the comments shortly.
Texas Kaos reports that rogue Judge Sharon Keller got a 
The Burnt Orange Report staff 
Blue Indiana takes a look at the 
Michigan College Republicans 
San Diego 
Another moderate Republican legislator feels 
One of the major environmental issues in Arizona is the contamination left from uranium mining. Now, 
Democrats Kay Hagan and Jim Neal, candidates for the NC Senate seat held by Elizabeth Dole, 
wvblueguy tells the story of 
Blue and Bush Dogs including 
Joe Bodell gives a 
Uppity Wisconsin gives 
Bleeding Heartland asks, what 
Maryland’s Comptroller Peter Franchot 
Vouchers 
Mediaczech provides video of Lt. Gov. Dan Mongiardo who had quite a bit of praise for Lt. Col. Andrew Horne 
According to Rob at Raising Kaine