Heard this story on NPR this morning - it nearly made me physically ill. Things like this just make me angry, and I have no good idea on what to do about it, other than get better funding for DNA labs these days and hope the system really is competent and stories like this are the exception rather than the rule.

Family Of Man Cleared By DNA Still Seeks Justice

William Jefferson is now unemployed, leaving him more time to hang around his house and gaze longingly into what I hope is a now-empty freezer.

Please, please, can somebody send Charles Rangel back as well?

Lieberman

The vote was today, and the Senate Democrats voted essentially to ignore common sense and allow Lieberman to keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee. This is the sort of thing that makes me angry.

It's not as bad as the Dems capitulation in recent years on all questionable national security measures (FISA, the Patriot Act) but it's not a good start to this supposed new era of Democratic leadership.

I didn't want Lieberman kicked out of the party. But it seemed pretty simple - support the other party's candidate and badmouth your own, lose your most powerful platform. The justifications don't make sense to me - the talk about reconciliation and unity to honor Obama's message is the worst sort of smokescreen. This feels, pure and simple, like Congressmen unwilling to take a stand to take power away from a colleague because they don't want to have to worry about losing power themselves.

I don't advocate holding committee spots over the head of any legislator who breaks ranks on an issue. In fact, I would be even more angry about that sort of move, which seems more in keeping with the Tom DeLay school of political philosophy. Principled stands on issues, or even a crass political move on a vote, doesn't merit retribution from the party. But this isn't about one issue, or any principled stand, it's about a Senator who has actively campaigned against the symbolic head of the party, as well as staked out ground well to the right of where the party should be heading.

What really makes me angry at this move isn't even the issues surrounding the Lieberman vote, but what it tells us about the mood of the party leadership. The Democrats have been playing scared for a long time, even after picking up control in 2006. After riding a wave of obvious sentiment against the way the country has been governed and Bush's presidency, instead of making coherent arguments and standing up against Bush on key votes, instead they've made an occasional valid point and then immediately backed down once the votes were cast. It's as though Rove's politics of fear have the bulk of the Democratic congress so worried about falling prey to easy attacks on complex votes they aren't willing to do anything that might give the other side an opening.

To me, this was the most exciting thing about Obama's campaign. On some key points, when the opposition was trying to stir up resentment about his positions Obama didn't take the bait. Instead of retreating or responding in kind, he actually stood behind his position. Look at his speech on the politics of race. Or his willingness to stand behind his statements about pursuing diplomatic talks with our enemies.

I think there is a real danger of the Democrats losing the public affection they've gained in the past two election cycles, but to me the most likely way that will happen is by concentrating on votes that are clearly designed to benefit the people passing them - by worrying more about amassing power than benefiting the nation. And by not passing sweeping reforms of a progressive bent. The situation calls for large measures, and the leadership should be willing to make complex arguments to the American public, even if such moves may be seen as politically unpopular in the short term.

What this vote tells me is the Democratic Senate is not going to be interested in those sorts of large-scale measures or complex discussions. They're going to be interested in enjoying the political power they've been denied for much of the past three decades. And this is going to be the surest way to screw it all up.

disappearing demolition derbies

The highlight of my rural county fair growing up was always the night of the demolition derby. I haven't seen one in a dozen years, although if I ever saw one advertised near me I'd jump at the chance to go.

Unfortunately, today the demolition derby is falling victim to the economy, at least according to this account.

Derbies demolished

The stories for this tag probably too often come from the Wired Threat Level blog but I think online security and the government's surveillance programs deserve a more penetrating look than most have been giving it. That's mostly why this stuff makes me sad, because even with the dust-up about warrantless wiretaps, it seems that the big picture mostly gets brushed aside in coverage of the details.

At any rate, here's an interested take on how the coverage is getting it wrong. I haven't taken the time to dig deep into the FISA legislation, but it sounds like the Wired guy has done more digging than the reporters, who (in defense of reporters everywhere) likely have way too many things on their plate and are reporting the information they're given.

Today's news item that just makes me sad

don't mention it

I find it hard to believe more people aren't upset at the calls to give Telco firms immunity from lawsuits over giving the NSA access to communications without a warrant. This drives me absolutely nuts. I haven't heard any credible evidence that getting warrants is really that hard, and I see no reason why the companies should be let off the hook for feeling it was in their best interests to let the government in. Hell, Qwest didn't buy it, despite apparently losing government contracts as a result.

Today the guy who brought some of this to light was making the rounds around Washington. I don't think an immunity bill will be passed while this is in the news, but I totally expect a provision to be tucked into some massive budget legislation sometime when attention is elsewhere.

NY Times story

secrets

A story in Slate nicely sums up just what bothers me about the State Secrets privilege:

It has long been the view of the Bush administration that nothing can be deemed illegal so long as it remains a secret. Never mind that it's a secret only to people living in igloos without wireless service.

Now, I will concede there are things the state or government justifiably needs to keep secret. However, I would also argue that without any oversight, any entity with power who can unilaterally determine what should be secret and what should not will keep secret more than it needs to, and will likely keep secret things which would embarrass or undermine its power, rather than legitimately threaten the larger security of the state. I don't know the best way to balance a need for classified/secret/clandestine arrangements with a need for oversight and some transparency, but I know I don't like the way it's being handled right now.

Orwell's limited mind

In an article about the Texas transportation department photographing random cars' license plates on certain stretches of highway and then mailing the car owners surveys:

"This is more than Orwell ever imagined," he said.

A quote from the director of the Texas Civil Rights Project.

Things like this drive me nuts. I'm as concerned about the erosion of civil liberties in this country as just about anyone. I worry about the effect of the general lack of privacy you can carve out of the information and electronic age. But anyone who's trying to fight the collection of data by government agencies should at least try to make rational arguments, rather than coming off as a kook who doesn't know what he's referencing.

Orwell envisioned a future where the rulers had a two-way link into every home. Where the only place you could be sure of privacy was inside your own head, with silent thoughts. A future where the government not only watched over the populace, but controlled all their access to any kind of information, and where accounts of the past were routinely re-written to reflect the political whims of the present.

I don't think photographing license plates with hidden cameras is more totalitarian than Big Brother.

I, of course, haven't been particularly consistent with this semi-regular feature, and this is a pretty old story, but it strikes me as an indicator of just how different the message coming from the architects of the Iraq War has been compared to the people who have been fighting it.

Iraq victory might not help.

For those who don't know but might care (a potential audience of, let's see - zero) I'm not a big fan of the current spate of legislation designed to make it easier for the government to spy on people in the U.S. without oversight. Especially since all the arguments this administration has put forth tend to be exaggerated or flat-out wrong.

Such as the push for the recent law to circumvent the need for FISA warrants. Newsweek has an article today on how one of the arguments made to Congress, that the law had helped foil a terror plot, was simply wrong.

The article

Iran

Yesterday on NPR, a story on the problems in Iraq and how the lack of troops available in the future will limit options was followed closely by a story about Iran. The second story included this quote:

Similarly, the Bush administration is divided over how to deal with Iran, with advocates of diplomatic engagement in the State Department — there have been two rounds of U.S.-Iranian talks in Baghdad this year — having to fend off pressure from more hard-line figures, like Vice President Dick Cheney.

It's not clear at the moment who is winning this battle, says Karim Sadjadpour, of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

The piece indicated the consensus option seems to be that the Bush and Iran administrations are posturing. The implied threats of force on both sides are just political games to get the other to capitulate.

But any talk of action against Iran seems to be ignoring the elephant in Iraq - we don't have enough troops now. So either the "hard-line figures" are posturing or they're willfully ignoring reality. Or both, which seems to be the default setting these days.

does this make sense to anyone else?

Apparently Scottish rugby officials have decided to stop selling game tickets on the day of the game. Only buying in advance will get you in the gate. The closest thing to an explanation this article puts forth is the claim it costs too much to pay the workers to be in place to sell same-day tickets. Also this:

"While there was some public criticism, most commentators accepted the SRU's rationale that experience had shown that far fewer people turn up without tickets than the organisation must allow for when making them available that way."

Huh? Why do you have to allow for a certain number of tickets to be available on the day of the game? You simply sell tickets for the seats which haven't already been ticketed. Bad luck if it's sold out ahead of time.

I can't figure this one out.

in honor of Alberto

This is the sort of thing which has become pervasive in the current administration. It appears from all the news coverage of the past few years Gonzales, along with Bush and Cheyney, has been at the center of causing a culture of secrecy and unchecked powers through the executive branch and the Justice Department.

It's a few weeks old, but here's my story of the day, since it has such a great headline, and such crazy assertions. Like AT&T saying since the government has said AT&T helping warrentless wiretaps is a state secret, and since it's secret, no evidence AT&T unlawfully aided such efforts could possibly be introduced into court.

"I feel like I'm in Alice in Wonderland"

This one makes me laugh more than anything, but it's still a sad statement on something. From an article about high schoolers on Facebook:

“Our school is really interested in its image—they don’t want us to be given a bad name,” says Katie, a Visitation student. She says the school brought in a law-enforcement officer, who told students that “by having a Facebook profile we are jeopardizing our future husbands’ political careers.”

The article

today's news item that just makes me sad...

If I actually can manage to get in the habit, I could pretty easily make this a daily feature. I've got a backlog of such items I could post one a day until at least the end of the month, and new ones come up all the time.

At any rate, here's today's story:

Rolling Stone