Donle’s Daily Dispatches

Volume 1 Issue 182        Today’s News and Views     Wednesday, June 28, 2006

Sign My Guest Book

View My Guest Book

Get Your Free Guest Book

Donle's Daily Dispatches RSS News Feeds

Latest news and opinion headlines from NPR, BBC, NY Times, etc.

See the cost in your community

Update of US Casualties in Iraq: 2527

Update of US Casualties in Afghanistan: 313

Figures provided by

the Iraq Coalition Causality website

Support Our Troops

IMPEACH Bush/Cheney

Listen to Air America Radio while reading today's news and views

Today's News and Views

Concert to Benefit World Can't Wait Indianapolis July 1, 2006 info

Crooks and Liars

June 27, 2006

Vandals in the People's House

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Michael Winship

A recent trip down to Washington, DC, where I used to work and live, reminded me once again how much has changed in the capital since 9/11.

When I first moved there to go to school -- back in 19-mumble-mumble -- you could roam the Capitol and the Senate and House office buildings freely, say hello to members like Barry Goldwater and Bella Abzug as they passed in the hallways, walk into offices unannounced, ride the little subway that runs underground between the buildings, try to digest the thick bean soup in the Senate cafeteria.

You could do all of this unaccompanied, which was remarkable, for even in those days there were occasional threats, foiled plots, and, back in the fifties, an armed attack on the House chambers by Puerto Rican nationalists. They opened fire with automatic weapons, wounding five congressmen.

This lack of overt, heavy security made the Capitol and its offices feel like they truly belonged to the people, but over the years, things tightened up, especially after the July 1998 shooting incident that took the lives of two Capitol policemen.

First came the metal detectors and x-rays; then, following September 11, your basic, total lockdown. Shortly after 9/11, I remember sitting on the Metroliner in Washington's Union Station, waiting to head home to New York. I looked out on the platform. Suddenly, it was swarming with guys in gasmasks and HAZMAT suits. We were only a few blocks from the Capitol and anthrax had just been found in the office of then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle.

Now, unless you're there on business, you can only visit the Capitol on a guarded, guided tour. Pockets have to be emptied out when visiting any government building, even the National Archives and the Smithsonian. And concrete barriers and blocked off DC streets make it virtually impossible anymore to travel in a straight line from Official Point A to Official Point B.

Monday morning, however, you could walk a straight line from the front door of the Supreme Court to the east side of the Capitol, literally and metaphorically. Monday's decision by the highest judiciary in the land to strike down Vermont's campaign finance law is directly relevant to our Federal legislative body's inability to deal with measures that would help the majority of the people to whom the Capitol -- hell, the entire government -- is supposed to belong.

In what both the Washington Post and New York Times described as a "splintered" 6-3 decision (six separate opinions accompanied it), the court overruled the 1997 Vermont law -- the strictest in the country. The Post reported, "Although the court said the government retains the power to restrict contributions, for the first time it declared specific limits to be too low -- perhaps opening the way to challenges on some long-standing restrictions, such as the 30-year-old $5,000 contribution limit for political action committees."

The Vermont legislature passed its bill as an intentional challenge to the Court's 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision which, as the Post's Charles Lane wrote, "has generally been read to permit limits on campaign contributions, for the purpose of stopping corruption or apparent corruption -- and to bar limits on candidates' spending as a violation of free speech."

While it's true that the Vermont law may have set the bar far too low -- even the cost of a box of Krispy Kremes for a campaign kaffeeklatsch could be applied against an individual's $200 contribution limit in a local state house race -- the need for further campaign finance reform remains. In the words of Common Cause President Chellie Pingree, "This court is out of step with the vast majority of Americans who want to take back their democracy from wealthy special interests and strongly support spending limits."

That's why Common Cause and so many others favor public financing of all state and federal campaigns. As Pingree noted, "Given the Abramoff and other recent scandals out of Washington, and Congress' refusal to address its lax ethics system, public financing is a way for the public to get its concerns back at the top of the national agenda, where they should be."

In support of Common Cause's argument, let's introduce into evidence Monday's Washington Post story headlined, "Call for Lobbying Changes Is a Fading Cry." Those vocal demands for reform that accompanied Tom DeLay's resignation in the spring have vanished in those lazy, hazy, crazy days of summer.

The Post reports, "Legislators and public-interest group advocates say the most likely result this year is a minimalist package that would allow members to say they have responded to the Abramoff situation and other scandals but would do little to crimp their ability to accept lobbyist favors. The change, these people say, reflects a calculation that the political storm has mostly passed and that the need for more intrusive efforts to alter the congressional culture and the lobbyist-lawmaker relationship is less urgent."

So the big money lobbyists get to continue to wine, dine and bribe with few if any new constraints. And you wonder why it's so hard to get a minimum wage increase through Congress. Or to legislate restraints on government waste, compounded by corruption in the dealing out of contracts. Or to pass environmental restrictions on industries slowly choking and parboiling us to death.

But the problem isn't just greed, lobbyists and the need for the public financing of campaigns. Alas, it's also our own continuing, goddamned indifference.

Speaking of the need for wider reform, John McCain told the Post, "The reason why it didn't happen was that members didn't feel a sufficient amount of pressure to change the way they do business... There's a belief among my colleagues that our constituents are not concerned."

After the 1998 deaths at the Capitol, President Clinton and several congressional leaders went to great lengths to condemn the despicable violation of what they called "the people's house." We do it a further desecration with our apathy. We've let vandals enter the people's house. The damage they cause is as much our fault as theirs. If we don't demand and support a floor to ceiling cleanup -- indeed, a thoroughgoing, gut rehabilitation -- we don't deserve to call that house democracy's home.

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION

Copyright 2006 Messenger Post Newspapers

Michael Winship, Writers Guild of America Award winner and former writer with Bill Moyers, writes a weekly column for the Messenger Post Newspapers in upstate New York.

© BuzzFlash.

Legal Experts to Senate Committee: Bush "Signing Statements" Unconstitutional, Impeachable

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT

In a hearing today, the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony on presidential signing statements, which Ranking Member Leahy called "a grave threat to our constitutional system of checks and balances." Recent reports have highlighted how Bush has issued these orders in record numbers and exercised unprecedented overreach by giving himself the authority to ignore certain parts of the laws he signs.

Because of the extralegal nature of the signing statements, there is nothing for Congress or the Supreme Court to actually overrule. Nevertheless, the statements are binding for policy implementation.

Bruce Fein, attorney and renowned legal scholar, told the committee that Bush has essentially given himself a line item veto power by declaring portions of new laws unconstitutional and offering his own revisions.

"These statements, which have multiplied logarithmically under President George W. Bush, flout the Constitution's checks and balances and separation of powers. They usurp legislative prerogatives and evade accountability," Fein said. "The President does not enjoy a constitutional option of unilaterally pronouncing a provision he has signed into law as unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it on that count."

Citing Bush's behavior as "alarming," Fein suggested that the President could be impeached for "political crime(s) against the Constitution."

Also at the hearing, Harvard Law Professor Charles J. Ogletree added, "this excessive exercise of executive power, coupled with the failure to use the authorized veto power, creates serious issues of constitutional magnitude." Bush's abuse of signing statements is "not only bad public policy, but also creates a unilateral and unchecked exercise of authority in one branch of government without the interaction and consideration of the others."

In a statement, Sen. Russ Feingold said that the Administration "has taken upon itself the powers of all three branches of government" by not only executing but also interpreting and creating laws as it sees fit.

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT

© BuzzFlash.

Justice, fairness, and flipping

Molly Ivins - Creators Syndicate

06.27.06 - AUSTIN, Texas -- And then along comes Cut'n'Run Casey. We spend all last week listening to cut'n'run Democrats talking about their cut'n'run strategy for Iraq, and the only issue is whether they want to cut'n'run by the end of this year or to cut'n'run by the end of next year, and oh, by the way, did I mention that Republicans had been choreographed to refer to the Democrats' plans as cut'n'run?

As Vice President Dick ("Last Throes") Cheney said Thursday, redeployment of our troops would be "the worst possible thing we could do. ... No matter how you carve it -- you can call it anything you want -- but basically it is packing it in, going home, persuading and convincing and validating the theory that the Americans don't have the stomach for this fight."

Then right in the middle of Cut'n'Run Week, the top American commander in Iraq, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., held a classified briefing at the Pentagon and revealed his plan to reduce the 14 combat brigades now in Iraq to five or six. And here's the best part: Rather than wait 'til the end of this year or, heaven forefend, next year, Casey wants to start moving those troops out in September, just before whatever it is that happens in early November. They don't call him George W. Jr. for nothing.

One has to admit, the party never ends with the Bush administration. The only question about Cut'n'Run Week is whether they meant to punctuate a week-long festival of referring to Democrats as the party of "retreat" and "the white flag" with this rather abrupt announcement of their own cut'n'run program. Was it an error of timing?

I say no. I say Karl Rove doesn't make timing mistakes. This administration thoroughly believes the media and the people have a collective recollection of no more than one day. Five days of cut'n'run, one day off and BAM, you get your own cut'n'run plan out there.

Republicans have, in fact, a well-developed sense of aesthetics. Regard the superb pairing of the decision NOT to raise the minimum wage with the continued push to repeal the estate tax. House Republicans had almost opened their marble hearts and raised the minimum, now at $5.15 an hour, to a whopping $7.25 an hour by 2009. (Since 1997, when they last raised it, members of Congress have hiked their own pay by $31,000 a year.)

This might have gone well with their decision to reduce the estate tax yet again, so that only the top half a percent of estates will pay it, while it will cost the treasury $602 billion over the first 10 years -- but even better, NO increase in the minimum wage to match the vote to decrease taxes on the very, very, very richest. Is that suave or what?

Also, very slick move on the Voting Rights Act extension. No amendments, no exemptions, the South rose again and blocked the whole deal. Which Southern state do you think will be the first to pass laws to hold down the black vote? My money is on 'Bama -- for sentimental reasons.

And now, on to flag burning. What flag burning, you may well ask. Just because something doesn't happen is no reason not to outlaw it. Or, for that matter, not to amend the Constitution of the United States.

I am considering introducing an amendment to require everyone in the audience at "Peter Pan" to clap for Tinkerbell. I believe 99.8 percent of them do, but that's no reason not to amend the Constitution. I don't believe we should allow people to be different. If someone wants to burn a flag as symbolic political protest, I believe they should be beheaded. Also, flipping the bird at George W. should merit the same -- but not flipping off Clinton, Bill or Hillary.

(c) 2006 Creators Syndicate

Study shows US electronic voting machines vulnerable

By Thomas Ferraro

Tue Jun 27, 9:03 AM ET

The nation's three most commonly purchased electronic voting machines are all vulnerable to fraud, a study released on Tuesday found.

The study also concluded, however, that steps could be taken to reduce the chances of hackers breaking into these systems and undermining the integrity of state and national elections.

"These machines are vulnerable to attack. That's the bad news," said Michael Waldman, executive director of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School.

"The good news is that we know how to reduce the risks and the solutions are within reach," Waldman said.

The Brennan Center Task Force on Voting System Security, an initiative of the Brennan Center, conducted the study, which it called the most comprehensive study of electronic voting machines to date.

Larry Norden, chairman of the task force of government and private scientists, voting machine experts and security officials said about 80 percent of voters will vote on one of these electronic systems in November mid-term elections.

Norden said he hopes the study will prompt states and Congress to begin mandating that security measures recommended by the task force be part of the protocol for every county in the United States.

Rep. Rush Holt (news, bio, voting record), a New Jersey Democrat who has introduced legislation to upgrade security for electronic voting machines, arranged to attend a news conference on Capitol Hill on Tuesday where the report was to be released.

Holt's bill has 192 cosponsors, most of them fellow Democrats, an aide said. He introduced the bill last year and it remained unclear whether Congress would enact it into law.

The measure would require all voting machines to produce a paper record voters could inspect to check the accuracy of their votes and election officials could use to verify votes in the event of a computer malfunction or other irregularity.

"Anything of value should be auditable," said Holt.

"Votes are valuable, and each voter should have the knowledge and the confidence that his or her vote was recorded and counted as intended."

Copyright © 2006 Reuters Limited.

Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc.

Abstinence Double Standard Threatens Girls' Health

By Jessica Valenti, AlterNet
Posted on June 26, 2006, Printed on June 27, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/37956/

The U.S. government has a solution for unwanted pregnancies, AIDS and cervical cancer. It's called abstinence education, and the government funds it to the tune of around $178 million per year. The only problem is that study after study shows that abstinence education has no effect on the rates of premarital sex or STD infection. Perhaps that's because, as a 2004 report [pdf] from Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., showed, over 80 percent of federally funded abstinence programs contain false or misleading information about sex and reproductive health. But then abstinence-only education isn't about keeping teens safe -- it's about reinforcing traditional gender roles and ensuring girls are "pure."

Martha Kempner, vice president for information and communications at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), says that abstinence-only programs aren't giving a health message, they're giving a social one. "This is a social agenda masquerading as teen pregnancy prevention," says Kempner. "They're going so far backwards in the messages they're giving women -- that purity is the most important thing and what you should be striving for is a wedding. Saying that the most important thing you can do is get married and have children isn't the most empowering message."

SIECUS has been keeping track of abstinence-only education programs and dissecting their curriculum -- their findings are terrifying. The shame- and fear-based teachings are chock-full of sexist stereotypes, outdated notions of gender roles and even dangerous messages about sexual assault.

The sexist theme that seems to come up the most often in these classes is that girls just don't like sex, and therefore their main "job" is to keep boys, who do like sex, from getting any. A workbook from Sex Respect notes that "because they generally become aroused less easily, females are in a good position to help young men learn balance in relationships by keeping intimacy in perspective." But beware ladies, the increased sexualization of pop culture could interfere with your natural disdain for intercourse. The same workbook tells students that "a young man's natural desire for sex is already strong due to testosterone … females are becoming culturally conditioned to fantasize about sex as well."

Since girls don't like sex, it's their job to keep boys' desire at bay and to be the arbiters of chastity. "Girls need to be aware they may be able to tell when a kiss is leading to something else. The girl may need to put the brakes on first in order to help the boy." (Student Workbook, Reasonable Reasons to Wait) Because, after all, he can't help himself. "A woman is far more attracted by a man's personality while a man is stimulated by sight. A man is usually less discriminating about those to whom he is physically attracted." (WAIT Training manual, Friends First)

The only messages put forward about boys' sexuality is the idea that their urges are uncontrollable, and it's up to young women not to "tease" them. "A guy who wants to respect girls is distracted by sexy clothes and remembers her for one thing. Is it fair that guys are turned on by their senses and women by their hearts?" (Sex Respect) Another classroom activity tells the story of Stephanie and Drew, a couple trying to save sex until marriage. Stephanie is too affectionate and wears tight clothing: "Drew likes her a lot, but lately keeping his hands off her has been a real job!" Even thought Stephanie has been clear that she doesn't want to have sex, "her actions, however, are not matching her words." (Why kNOw?) No means yes, anyone? In fact, when abstinence curricula contains information about sexual abuse or assault (which they often don't), the message is similar. Girls should be preventing it, not boys.

Other teachings reinforce traditional gender roles that have nothing to do with sex. A program highlighted in the Waxman report teaches that women need "financial support" and men need "admiration." Another says: "Women gauge their happiness and judge their success on their relationships. Men's happiness and success hinge on their accomplishments."

"[These programs] are about getting to this '50s vision of a family with a mom who stays home and dad who works," Kempner notes. "And no gays, ever."

And this return to traditional gender roles is not just being pushed in our schools. The same conservative religious organizations that are creating and promoting abstinence-only education programs are also doing their best to insert themselves in family life.

You only need look at the increase of social programs and events specifically created for young girls, like Father-Daughter Purity Balls. Perhaps the most disturbing attempt at enforcing sexual "purity," these events feature young girls making abstinence pledges to their fathers in a prom-like event. One abstinence organization, the BRAVEheart Teen Initiative, features the following message to girls considering taking part in the ball:

"Have you ever wanted an opportunity to grow closer to your daddy? The Father-Daughter Purity Ball is the stellar event for you to be honored as his beautiful princess."

Oddly, there are no Mother-Son purity balls.

As much as abstinence-only proponents claim that their message is for both young men and women, abstinence for young men is treated as an afterthought in educational and social programs. While the curriculum talks about both boys and girls, the messages they get couldn't be more different. Remaining abstinent is girls' responsibility -- as is making sure that boys are.

While some legislators are attempting to limit federal support of these programs, it's been a slow battle. Reps. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., and Jim Moran, D-Va., have introduced the Guarantee of Medical Accuracy in Sex Education Act, which Focus on the Family tellingly calls a bill "to cut funding for purity," but it's not likely to go very far. The House Appropriations Committee recently refused to increase funding for abstinence-only education, but the programs are already getting $178 million a year in federal funds and have received over $1.1 billion since 1996. While some progress is being made in terms of awareness -- 15 states have evaluated their abstinence programs and found them ineffective -- abstinence groups aren't slowing down their pace.

Recently conservative organizations and abstinence educators have turned their focus to the debate over the new HPV vaccine--yet again, something that will overwhelmingly affect young women. The vaccine has proven to be extremely effective in preventing cervical cancer, which kills 200,000 women a year worldwide. Leslie Unruh of the National Abstinence Clearinghouse has said, "If you don't want to suffer these diseases, you need to abstain … I personally object to vaccinating children against a disease that is 100 percent preventable with proper sexual behavior."

Unruh's cavalier attitude about cervical cancer reveals one of the underlying problems with these programs. Under the guise of helping young people, abstinence education is actually putting girls' health and lives at risk. For these programs, "purity" is not about sex, health or even happiness. It's about a return to "traditional" gender roles at any cost.

Jessica Valenti is the executive editor of Feministing.

© 2006 Independent Media Institute.

Why Do Republicans Hate America's Veterans?

By Bob Geiger, AlterNet
Posted on June 27, 2006, Printed on June 27, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/38145/

In his quiet moments, Rep. John Murtha must sometimes catch himself thinking about how much easier his life would be if he had just kept his damn mouth shut and gone along to get along on the Iraq war. The Democrat, who has represented Pennsylvania's 12th Congressional District for 32 years, began angering the Republican party in late 2005 when, having seen enough of the Bush administration's incompetence, he became the most vocal critic of the White House's failed and dishonest Iraq policies.

"The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It's a flawed policy wrapped in illusion," said Murtha, in November 2005, in calling for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. "The American public is way ahead of the members of Congress. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq. But it's time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf regime."

Despite Murtha's standing as a highly decorated combat veteran, who served in the U.S. Marine Corps for 37 years, it was off to the races for the right-wing smear machine. They immediately set upon Murtha, who just turned 74, for requesting moderation and a cautious course when risking the lives of our military men and women stationed in Iraq.

And who did most of the attacking? Conservative chickenhawks, who have never served a day in uniform in their lives, but who immediately began talking tough and accusing a man of Murtha's stature of running from a fight.

It started on Nov. 18, 2005, the day after Murtha's initial remarks, when Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio, the most junior member of the House of Representatives at the time, implied loudly on the House floor that Murtha was a coward.

"Cowards cut and run, Marines n