FWIW I'm with the transit union. It's an easy position for me to take, not relying too much on the bus or subway, but I still think that workers have a right to do what they have to do when their bosses try to take away (or render unafordable/impractical) their health coverage and/or retirement.

While it's true that most transit jobs are "good" jobs, especially in comparison to most of the modern service industry, that's also what makes those good conditions worth protecting. I don't see why the people who make the critical infrastructure for the life of the city run shouldn't be very well compensated.

It would really suck if this secret spying shit was COINTELPRO all over again. Because we've done the whole "lets make a secret list of national security threats and spy on them" thing before.

You know who ended up on that list? Dr. King, John Lennon, and Abbie Hoffman, among a lot of other people who were trying to do the American thing and mobilize people. You know, that "democracy" angle?

So here's what I think is wrong. And here's an example of how it doesn't have to get really excessive in order to mess up someone's life.

What we have right now, in America, is a system where the 4th Amendment is essentially void, where citizens subject to search and seizure at any time, without disclosure or oversight, check, balance, or public record. The 4th Amendment, for the record, states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This is a law written before even the widespread use of the telegraph, so "papers" in this context means letters as well as records, and therefore has been understood solidly as meaning long-distance communication like email and phone calls.

Since early 2002, President Bush has personally authorized and re-authorized a program to violate the 4th Amendment, permitting wiretaps without any effort to obtain a warrant. This program is ongoing, happening right now, and justified by the threat of terrorism. This program is illegal.

Now, the line from the apologists for the President's Program is that we can't be bothered with sissy stuff like warrants since we're at war with evil people. The problem is, there's a really fucking easy way to, like, follow the law and get a warrant for anything terrorism-related. It's called the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Courts, a little system devised especially for this sort of thing. You can even get the warrant retroactively if you've got something pressing and need to move on it. In other words, you could search someone's home or tap their phone or take all their shit and impound it, and go get a warrant up to three days later as long as you had a decent explanation. Basically, the FISC's whole purpose is to be a fail-safe to prevent the State from using the guise of national security as a cover for other kinds of searches and seizures.

And the President decided he didn't need that kind of check on his power.

This program needs to stop now. Every unauthorized search and seizure made under the President's Program should be submitted to the FISC for review. Those that are a part of ongoing investigations which are legitimate can and will remain sealed -- that's another thing the FISC does -- until those investigations are concluded. However, if innocent people have been secretly spied upon, they have a right to know, and to seek redress.

For me, this is a line in the sand, so to speak. What the president has done is indefensible. There is absolutely no legitimate reason why you need to go around the FISC to effectively combat terrorism. The overhead for compliance with the law is not unduly burdensome. You can get the fucking warrants three days after the fact for crying out loud. The only reason to do it is to have complete secrecy about who you're spying on. Unchecked power. Tell me that wouldn't be tempting to misuse.

The fact that they're unwilling to open any of this up suggests strongly to me that they have something to hide. Have they been spying on journalists? On activists? On other politicians? On you? On me? It's unlikely that it's you or me, but at this point there's no way to know.

This is a watershed moment in terms of what the American people will put up with in the name of combatting terrorism. Terrorism as a justification for State crackdowns is not going away in our lifetime. We either submit to this threat as an ever-present rationale for taking away any of our freedoms at any time, or we draw the line here. If you're a Bush supporter and you think this is all hot air, imagine if Hillary Clinton becomes president in 2008. Would you be comfortable with her weilding the same authority?

Frankly, I'm uncomfortable with either. It's not just that I believe the President, or more likely his henchmen, to be venial and vindictive enough to misuse this power for political revenge, it's that this is cover for any number government agents to violate the rights of citizens.

This is beyond politics. This is about the State turning into a truly oppressive entity. Under an ever-present cloud of war, the State can secretly spy on you, abduct you without arrest or charge, place you in a secret prison, torture and kill you. Maybe because you read the wrong books. Are you comfortable with that? I'm not.

UPDATE: Again, it's ridiculously easy to comply with the law here. In its history, the FISC has rejected only 4 requests for a warrant. That's 4 out of more than 17,000. And again, you don't have to ask for the warrant before you start spying, just within three days after the fact.

A bipartisan bill making "redeployment" the official US policy of 2006 will be introduced soon. Props to Kooch for being on top of this, and very big ups to the GOPers (reps Paul and Jones) with the courage to defy the Republican Establishment and sponsor this legislation. We need to get out of Iraq, and congressional action is realistically one of the only ways to get that ball moving.

Given the emerging picture of attitude of the Republican Establishment toward the law -- which seems to be that they think they're above it -- I don't know how much difference this resolution, were it to pass, would make. Still, it would certainly put significant political pressure on the President, which seems to be the only thing he (occasionally) responds to.

The only way to force an end would be to go after the money -- to stop authorizing those $50B payouts -- but that's pretty fucking unlikely.

Unless something really interesting happens, I won't be getting professionally involved with any 2006 campaign except through my company. I don't see myself joining up, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to do some work to help Democrats win. Breaking the GOP lock on the Federal Government is important enough in its own right: competative balance is the only way we can hope to stem the tide of corruption and enforce some semblence of accountability on the White House.

Toward that end, there are some possibilities. There are seven GOP senate seats in play at this point. If you happen to live in PA, MO, OH, RI, MT, TN or AZ, there's important work to be done organizing now to help take down some of the most corrupt (DeWine - OH, Talent - MO, Burns - MT) and repugnant (Santorum - PA) members of the Senate. Even if your GOP Senator seems like he/she is maybe allright, think about digging in to help swing the national balance.

On the house side, things are more tricky. Most districts are heavily gerrymandered, but with the national mood turning against corruption and an entrenched establishment -- and with DeLay's scandals making headlines every week -- there's the possibility for the kind of sea change not seen since 1994's "Contract with on America."

Anyway, if you're fired up about stuff, now is a good time to start looking for where to plug yourself in. It's also a good time to start thinking about giving/raising a little bit of money if you're in a position to do so, as "early money" is quite valuable to a lot of campaigns.

I may do some volunteer fundraising later in '06, and will let everyone know what donations I make (not likely anything more than $20 here and there) myself.

Here's a question. What do you think of Hugo Chavez?

I'm not sure. I find I'm favorably predisposed to his notions of using oil revenue to build both physical and human infrastructure in Venezuela, and I also find that a great deal of criticism directed his way is speculative (what he "might" do) or hyperbolic. However, I'm no expert. Any opinions?

What strikes me the most as I try to learn more is just how fucked up Latin/South-American politics really are. I mean, I knew some things from my college studies, but those were sort of broad strokes about military juntas, secret police, people being "disappeared" and the like. Trying to read the news from down there presents a more granular, and frankly more difficult picture. Sort of makes me appreciate our own situation, bogus and screwy as it is.

Pretty neat: open source energy policy and message from Kossacks. This is one of those issues that is going to only get more prescient, both in terms of everyday realities and politics, but I'm pessimistic about anyone seizing the day on it in the next few years. Grassroots organization and peer-to-peer consciousness-raising can help prime the pump and get maybe elected officials moving.

Look. For the record, I think this "war on Christmas" stuff is complete bullshit. No one cares, except O'Reilly who uses it to grandstand, and extreme right-wing religious groups who use it to fundraise. I think it's a non-issue for the vast majority of US citizens, and I think it's a damn shame that these right-wing republican jerk-asses are politicizing this time of the year, which is about family and kindness and community and reflection. Fuck them.

So I'm excited that Sam Seder brings a little smack down on CNN. Fuckin-a, Sam. Don't you never back down.

It took me a while (being born in 1979 and all) to realize that a lot of the debate over Iraq is/was really about re-fighting the politcal battle over Vietnam.

What's surprising is how much the government's strategy also maps to what was said in the 60s about the conflict there. The paralells are really kind of scary.

Tomorrow, the GOP will launch attack ads saying Democrats are waving the white flag in Iraq by saying a military victory there is not possible for US forces.

There's some debate about how to respond, a lot of noise out there, but I think this dairist on Kos has it right.

The idea here is not to get Bush. Bush isn't up for re-election. Don't use Republican statements (Hagel, et al) to try and create a bipartisan cover for anti-war Dems. We don't need it. This is about contrast, people. We've got the public consensus on Iraq. The occupation is not suddenly going to get popular because of an ad campaign. Americans aren't going to change their minds and decide they like the war, but they may change their mind about who they want to lead them out of it.

Democrats need to provide a compelling rationale as to why they, not the GOP, should have the job of ending the US occupation.

The message is simple. Republicans (not Bush, Republicans... make them point out the difference; it confuses them to be divided against their leader) are fixated on an impossible military victory in Iraq. They are profiteering off this war, and they lack the will, courage, and insight to understand how to best Al-Qaeda. Then play the Bush speech about how he doesn't think we'll win the war on terror. Republicans, obsessed with Iraq, soft on terrorists.

Democrats understand that real victory in Iraq is up to the Iraqis, and that US troops there are providing a strategic benefit to our real enemies in Al-Qaeda. We want to stop spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year to fund what has become a giant terrorist training camp. We want to stop putting our troops in harms way guarding an occupation based on lies and misinformation. We want to bring our occupation of Iraq to a close so we can get back to Job #1: shutting down international terrorist networks.