Citizen's Rent 2005

Friday Random 10: Subvert the Dominant Link Hierarchy

How is it that it's time for another Random 10 so soon? I've been swamped lately so my online explorations have been limited. But I've done my best and I offer you these six sites. I know, it's supposed to be 10. But I'm stuck at six and I don't want to simply offer you links to sites I haven't really looked at. So forgive me for being four sites short- and email me your recommended sites to help me out on the next Random 10, two weeks from now.

1. One Thousand Reasons: Next time Bush has trouble figuring out if he's made any mistakes, we can send him to this site. The site is like a cliff notes version of the missteps, mistakes, and misrepresentations of the Republicans in power. It's not striving for balance or hiding it's anti-Bush bias under the guise of even-handedness but neither is it a conspiracy laden site, embracing vitriol or ranting rages. It's a good place to see what those on the left find worthy of criticism. You can even get a historic overview by clicking on the 1000 failures link which lists 1633 failures (and counting).

2. King of Zembla: I like this site which is a solidly partisan site that points me to information I don't regularly stumble across in the round of WaPo, NYT, and a-list blogs. For example, this post highlights the impact of liberal radio and makes me wonder when we'll expand to a progressive TV network. Many of the posts are long excerpts from other sources, but they're sources I don't see elsewhere, with comments that direct the attention to the critical points made. Worth visiting for sure.

3. Bionic Octopus: I'd be tempted to include this blog simply for the name. But read it and you'll find a distinctly unique voice blogging opinions that are expressly her own. Whether it's the paean in praise of abortion or rants about the new "how to have sex" standards, the  rants and raves on women by this American expat in London are compelling. But the same unique writing that infuses these topical rants shows up in her other posts, including the occasional coverage of television shows. The writing here makes the site worth reading.

4. Dissent Channel: This is a quintessential lefty group blog. Topical, good writing, and personal insights mixed with what might be lefty talking points if they weren't so easy to ferret out with the use of some common sense and attention to the world. Coverage includes small stories and big alike. So why add this to your blogroll you ask? The writing. Take this comment on Wolfowitz as head of the world bank as a taste of what to expect: "A right-wing warmonger with a proven track record of utter ineptitude and rampaging destruction, with no development experience and no training as an economist is going to head one of the world's most important development organizations?" Pretty good, eh?

5. Anti-[everything]: This newly resurrected blog is dedicated to questioning everything - no small task. While the posts explaining the focus aren't the clearest I've read, those that actually engage in the questioning are sharp and thought-provoking. I hope the blogger stays the course and prods readers to question not only those things that generate a critical spark, but also those things that fit nicely in our own world views. I'll be reading to see what I'm prodded to question, to see what sparks get thrown.

6. Dr.Tony: For something completely different, check out this ER doc's blog. It's interesting, well-written and in the occasional post provides real insight into our country's health care system and the related insurance industry. It's definitely a worthy read, mixing information, personal stories, and linky love in a regular 'Grand Rounds" column that is the doc's version of the Random 10". Based on the links and some posts I'm sure this doc is conservative. But I won't hold that against his blog. It's too interesting.

Abu Ghraib Plea Deal

Lynndie England, the star of the Abu Ghraib photos who won that role with her portfolio of photos that showed her smiling as she held naked prisoners on leashes, is pleading guilty to two counts of conspiracy, four counts of maltreating prisoners and one count of dereliction of duty.

This 22 year old reservist, a file clerk with no training as a prison guard, is expected to get an 11 year sentence to the brig. Her planned defense was that she was just following orders. That defense hasn't worked for any of the other grunts charged in the Abu Ghraib scandal and it likely wouldn't have worked for her. And I don't think it should have.

I do think she had orders to mistreat the detainees. I don't think she came up with this stuff on her own or necessarily acted on her own initiative. But unlike other armies, our military men and women aren't given a pass on illegal conduct simply because they received orders to engage in that conduct.

It's a tall order to insist that our servicemen and women, who are schooled in the necessity of following orders as a fundamental military necessity, be prepared to reject an illegal order. It presumes that they know where the line between legal and illegal is, that they have the spine to stand up to their commanding officers and act counter to the weight of military tradition. And yet that is exactly what we ask of them. And we must. We can't eliminate personal responsibility for the legality, even the morality, of the acts they engage in. We can't remove all fear of consequences under the umbrella of obedience to a commanding officer. And yet to expect a private first class to know what is and isn't legal and to have the wherewithal to stand up and say "NO" in the midst of a war, in the war theater, is almost unrealistic.

Because what we ask is more than so many people could bear, I think there's a real chance that a "following orders" defense might work, even for the Abu Ghraib abusers. If only the defendants, here the diminutive England, didn't seem to be enjoying themselves so much. It's the pleasure they seem to take in their abuse that condemns them, that leaves no room for an argument that says they had no choice. The photos tell us that they didn't want that choice.

I continue to believe that complicity for the crimes at Abu Ghraib and those like them that occurred in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay, is shared with officers and senior officials who have been absolved of all blame. But that doesn't mean the folks holding the leash, unleashing the dogs, manhandling and abusing the prisoners are guilt-free. It just means they aren't alone in their guilt.

And Now, In Other News....

Today's a great day to release news you don't want anyone to pay attention to since all eyes and ears are tuned to Bush's prime time press conference. So, what are we missing?

• Baghdad suffered through 10 car bombs today, killing 30 and injuring 99
• Congress reached a deal on the budget that sets limits on spending which  includes:
• support for drilling in ANWR,
• $35 billion in cuts to medicaid and other social service programs (I refuse to call them entitlement programs)
• $106 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy, of which $70b are protected from legislative filibuster (capital gains and dividends cuts - gifts to the wealthy)
• a small increase in defense spending (not including the costs of the war)
• a three year freeze on domestic discretionary spending
• a $781 billion increase in the government's debt limit
• A book by a Gitmo Bay translator is out and it claims that interrogations witnessed by members of Congress were staged for their benefit.
• The top military officer at the Pentagon said in a Senate hearing that N. Korea can now mount a nuclear warhead on a missile capable of reaching the US

A lot more happened, but the budget deal is the most important. And it's a wonky topic that most people won't dig into anyway. It helps to have the press distracted.

Bush Embraces Wealth Redistribution

Imagine it's 1995. Imagine Clinton proposing a reform of social security. Imagine he proposes changing the way that benefits are determined so that the wealthiest would experience signfiicant cuts in benefits, the middle class serious cuts, but the lower class wouldn't see a change. Can you hear the Republican howls of rage? The tantrums over this proposed redistribution of wealth?

Fast forward to today. Make it Bush instead of Clinton.Keep the proposal the same. You don't have to use you imagination. This is what Bush proposed last night. Now listen closely. Do you hear the Republican howls of rage?

Me neither.

Defining Problems instead of Commanding

Here's a quote from Bush's press conference that caught my attention:

"But I have a duty as the president to define problems facing our nation and to call upon people to act."

Isn't his job not just to define problems but to provide leadership in defining and implementing solutions? He's not the problem-definer-in-Chief; he's the Commander-in-Chief. Commanders don't say, "So here's the problem, what do you think we should do?" They don't whine that others aren't willing to do the hard work of solving problems when they won't do that hard work themselves. At least, past Commanders didn't. But this one, well, he whines:

"I'm not surprised that some are balking at doing hard work."

Filbuster Deals

Sen. Frist just proposed a deal to Sen. Reid to bypass the conflict over the filibuster. It's an empty offer since it gives Frist his up or down vote on all nominees and prevents Democrats on the judiciary committee from blocking nominees. What it does provide is the semblance of Democratic opposition by allowing for 100 hours of debate before a vote is taken. So Dems can talk for 100 hours and then the Republicans can follow their marching orders and give Bush the out-of-the-mainstream judges he wants. Not such a great deal and one that Reid is unlikely to take.

So why did Frist put the deal on the table? Because he's losing the battle for public support, because his refusal to accept Reid's earlier compromise makes the Republicans look autocratic (which they are). So he found a way to look like he's willing to compromise by offering a deal that doesn't really offer a compromise. Necessary politics, maybe, but not a legitimate effort to negotiate a solution.

Is This Petty, or....

I got a generic email from Tom McMahon today. He's the guy Dean put in place as the executive director at the Democratic National Committee. That's all fine and good.  But here's the banner on the email, formatted to look like a letter written on formal letterhead:

Now, I know that some folks might think I'm being petty, that as executive director of the DNC he's de facto the executive director of the party. But it hit me wrong. It smacks of that top down, let me give you your marching orders, disrespect for the grassroots that we're trying to eliminate from the party.

So you tell me. Am I right to be annoyed or am I just being petty?

What Republican Flip-Flopping is Called

From Fox News in reference to the Republican back pedaling on the hijacking of the ethics committee and its rules:

He (Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Ill) praised Hastert for being willing to "pivot" on the issue.

UPDATE: I originally linked to this story in the Washington Post. But strangely, the original story is gone, the link broken. There's a different article posted on the same topic, same date - but the pivot quote isn't included. The original story was an AP story, which can still be found here.

Florida's New Law: It's Okay to Kill

Florida passed a new law on the use of deadly force by those who feel under threat of imminent death or great bodily harm. The new law codifies what's been commonly approved by the courts - you can defend yourself in your home, car or workplace. But that right to defense has been extended to cover any place you have the right to be - the mall, the school, the hospital - there are no limits.

Before this law was passed, you couldn't use deadly force in a public place unless you tried to escape the threat you faced before using that force. Now, you don't have to try to escape. So, for example, if you were at a ball game you had to try to get away from the drunk fan who was swinging his bat your way because you were rooting for the Sox instead of the Marlins. You didn't have the right to fight back until you tried to get away. Now, you can just shoot him.

Force Is In The Eye of the Beholder
The important thing to note here is that threat to life and limb doesn't have to be real. It's all in the eyes of the beholder. The person using force to defend themselves has to have a "reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or bodily injury". The law says that they have that fear if someone has unlawfully or forcibly entered their home or car and/or if that someone tries to force them to leave their home or car.

But the law also says the you are justified in using deadly force not only in the face of a real threat -  you just have to think that a forcible entry has occurred. It's the perception, not the reality, that allows for the use of force.

Illegal Entry Is Assumed to Be Forcible Entry
By the way, the law helpfully clarifies what qualifies as forcible entry. It's not what it sounds like - entering with force. Instead, it seems to say that any illegal entry or attempt to enter your home or car is in fact "forcible entry", that you can assume that there is an intent to commit violent acts using force or violence.

So don't accidentally get in the wrong car that looks just like yours. The owner can legally presume that you have violent and illegal intentions and they can shoot you. If you're camping, don't return to the wrong tent after taking a bathroom break in the middle of the night. That's a residence, too, and you could get shot.

Getting the Point Across to the the Cops and Courts
The law is written to encourage the police and prosecutors to err on the side of the shooter. The cops have to have probable cause before they detain or arrest someone using deadly force. That's not new - they need probable cause for any arrest.. What's new is that if they make a mistake by arresting the person who used deadly force and a judge disagrees, saying they didn't have probable cause, they have to compensate the user of deadly force for court costs, attorneys fees, and lost wages.

How is that fair to all those arrested for other crimes who are later let go because the district attorney's office declared that the cops didn't meet the probable cause burden? Or a judge declared that the probable cause burden wasn't met? It's not. And how much support will a cop get from the DA when he wants to make an arrest?

A Word of Warning to Trial Attorneys
On top of that, if the killer is sued in civil court by, say, the family of the person they killed, and i9t's determined that the use of deadly force was legal, the law requires those who sued to pay court and attorney fees as well as lost wages to the killer. But it's not only those who brought suit who are liable for those payments. Their attorneys are too. Talk about discouraging anyone  from taking on these cases! It's a quiet blow against trial attorneys.

A Blessing to Florida Gun Owners
No doubt, the 340,000 or so citizens of Florida who have permits to carry concealed weapons are thrilled that they have expanded rights to use those weapons anywhere in the state. They're joined by those who have guns in their home or cars, guns that don't require a permit. The NRA is hoping for a domino effect - that Florida is the first of many states that are loosening laws around the use of deadly force. This is an NRA victory. They can thank Jeb Bush and the Republican legislature. And they should be careful. Florida just got a lot more dangerous.

Huffington Blog Meme: I Got Tagged

eRobin from Fact-esque has tagged with the the latest meme: Who would be your top 5 people, living or dead, that you'd want to see blog? eRobin stuck with famous people (see her post for reasons why and to learn how the meme started) so I will too.

1. Group blog by Madison and Hamilton: These two were the primary authors of the Federalist Papers, loved so dearly by the far right. They're cited to justify policies that I find inconsistent with their writings, so I'd be pretty interested in reading their thoughts on politics today.
      
   
2. Bill Clinton: Love him or hate him, the guy is a master politician and a real policy wonk. I wish I could know what he really thinks about the internal arguments in the Democratic party, social security, the war on terrorism, the depletion of the social security trust fund and the disregard for the deficit.
   
   
3. Alice Walker: For the lyricism, the wisdom, the reminder to keep your feet on solid ground and the invitation to let your heart soar. I would read her for the balm her writing offers to tired minds and the hope it offers to tired hearts.
   
   
4. Simone de Beauvoir: She was smart, interesting, thoughtful, and willing to tackle the tough subjects. She probably wouldn't tackle current events, but I'd love to see her random musings on the idea that we were attacked because "they hate freedom", on the infusion of religion into politics, on the arguments over who has real morals. I have no doubt that her thoughts would extend my own understanding of the world. Just read these quotes and you'll see what I mean.
   
   • A God can pardon, efface, and compensate. But if God does not exist, man’s faults are inexpiable.
   • In order for men to become indignant or to admire, they must be conscious of their own freedom and the freedom of others.
   • The characteristic feature of all ethics is to consider human life as a game that can be won or lost and to teach man the means of winning.
5. Jane Austen: You need a break from the heavy and hard charging stuff and Jane Austen is my favorite non-living author. I love her writing, her wit. If she had a blog I'd read it every day.

Okay, that's it. Now.... who do I get to tag? Mmmm, I'm tagging David at ISOU,  Tas at Loaded Mouth, and Kathy at What Do I Know. Oh, and as co-author here, I'm hoping Marjo pipes up about her fave five.