Democracy for New Mexico

Bipartisan Victory for Net Neutrality in House Judiciary Committee

From Save the Internet:
The broad, nonpartisan movement for Internet freedom notched a major victory today, when a bipartisan majority of the House Judiciary Committee passed the “Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006″ — a bill that offers meaningful protections for Network Neutrality, “the First Amendment of the Internet.”

20 members of the Commitee (6 Republicans and 14 Democrats) voted for the bipartisan Bill, and only 13 against. Click for a roll call of the vote.

Today’s vote would have been unthinkable three weeks ago. It shows that the politicians are listening to the vast number of citizens who don’t want the Internet to become the private domain of the cable and telephone monopolies. Today’s vote is a milestone for the fast-growing movement to protect the public interest and defend Internet freedom.

In other good news, our petition drive today surpassed 750,000 signatures, as many of you flooded Congress with calls and letters.

Since we launched in late April, more than 700 groups spanning the political spectrum have joined the SavetheInternet.com Coalition, including MoveOn.org, the Christian Coalition, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the Gun Owners of America, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the American Library Association, and Craig Newmark of Craigslist.

The bipartisan “Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006″ (H.R. 5417) next moves to the full House after Congress returns from its Memorial Day recess. The SavetheInternet.com Coalition is urging people to continue writing and calling their members of Congress until Network Neutrality becomes law. The fight is far from over, but today was a good day for Internet freedom and open democracy.

Editor's Note: See our earlier post on this issue for more detailed information about the fight against telecom and cable companies taking ownership of the internet.

The Chickens Come Home to Roost

Bawk, bawk! Cluck, cluck! Enron's top crooks, Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling, were convicted today on numerous counts of fraud, conspiracy, insider trading and lying. Reuters has the details.

DarkSyde at Daily Kos has this to say in reminding us how close these criminals were with Bush:

Lay is known to be a very close personal friend of current US president George W. Bush, and was one of the largest contributors to his presidential campaigns. His contribution history is $651,760 to Republicans, $61,960 to Democrats, and $62,150 to special interests (Source: Breakdown by Candidate or PAC). He served on the Bush-Cheney Transition Advisory Committee and was rumored to be the early top contender for Secretary of the Treasury until his untimely fall from grace and credibility.

Skilling was a long time idea man and Enron power broker who served a couple of stints at CEO. He is a well known political cash cow with a campaign contribution history of $162,750 to Republicans, $9,750 to Democrats, and $50,783 classified as special interests (Source: Breakdown by Candidate or PAC).

If only these two stars of the Republican Culture of Corruption could be sent to one of those black hole prisons we're secretly operating in Eastern Europe. Let's hope they are sentenced to many years, even if it's likely to be in one of those Prison Hilton's reserved for rich, elite criminals.

40,000 Signatures Against Iran War Delivered to White House

Anti-Iran war sentiment is growing rapidly as information is revealed that we may already have troops and/or operatives on the ground in Iran. On Thursday, May 18th, more than 40,000 petition signatures were delivered to the White House against war with Iran.

Following the delivery of the petitions, a march to Donald Rumsfeld's house was led by Ray McGovern and Cindy Sheehan. Four people were arrested trying to deliver a message to the Secretary of Defense. Click for of the events shot by Truthout. Go here to access other the video in additional formats.

Feingold Berates Specter Over Gay Marriage Ban Amendment

Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee decided today was the day to throw some extra special red meat to their lunatic fringe. After all, the right-wing extremists who form the core of today's Republican Party have been very unhappy with Bush, his immigration plan and much more. In a transparent and cynical attempt to appease them, Repub Senators raised the always reliable issue of gay marriage.

They proposed a constitutional amendment that would deny states the right to offer their gay citizens equal civil rights under the law. The measure passed on a 10-8 party line vote. There's not a chance it will pass when it's considered by the full Senate on June 5th, and everyone knows it. So why did Repubs rush to offer it today? What better way to convince their complaining base that they're still fighting on their behalf against truth, justice and the American way?

A CNN story details a loud exchange between Sen. Russ Feingold and Committee Chair Arlen Specter at the session. Feingold questioned the handling and timing of the amendment. He also protested Specter's unusual decision to move the markup of the bill from the committee's regular meeting space to a room adjacent to the Senate floor. The President's Room, just by coincidence, offers no access to the public and no TV coverage:

... a shouting match ... ended when one Democrat strode out and the Republican chairman bid him "good riddance."

"I don't need to be lectured by you. You are no more a protector of the Constitution than am I," Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, shouted after Sen. Russ Feingold declared his opposition to the amendment, his affinity for the Constitution and his intention to leave the meeting.

"If you want to leave, good riddance," Specter finished.

"I've enjoyed your lecture, too, Mr. Chairman," replied Feingold, D-Wisconsin, who is considering a run for president in 2008. "See ya."

It seems ole Arlen, self-described "moderate" and "protector of the constitution," didn't want to be seen in public pushing for an ugly (and unattainable) constitutional change to satisfy the lower reaches of the Republican Party. Although he voted for the proposed constitutional amendment, he claimed he didn't really support it and was merely voting for it so the Senate could debate the topic. Right, Arlen. It must be difficult to serve yourself and your right-wing masters at the same time.

And Now the Dems
Of course you have to wonder why the Democrats on the committee voted against the effort to limit marriage, all over America, to "one man and one woman." Just the other day DNC Chair Howard Dean claimed the Party's 2004 platform included that very position. He was wrong about that, but you wouldn't know it from all the quivering and quaking Democrats who have been working so hard to pretend they're on the side of the Christian right.

It's evident that Repubs will keep using this issue to their advantage whenever they have a chance. With only a few Democrats, like Senator Feingold, willing to stand up to the right-wing noise machine on this issue, there's no chance we can frame it on our terms. Until Democrats are willing to support publicly what we all know most of them support privately, we'll make no progress on this. Instead, Democrats will continue to be cornered by it and made to look like frightened liars.

Come on Democrats! Everyone knows by now you believe that GLBT people, like all Americans, deserve equal treatment under civil law. Everyone knows you understand the difference between church doctrine and civil law. Everyone knows you strongly support justice for minorities. If you keep refusing to fight for your true values and beliefs, you'll just dig yourself deeper in the hole. You'll continue to fit the spineless stereotype used to paint Dems as frightened, duplicitous cowards. Now's the time to shed that burden and be yourselves before we end up once again studying the reasons why Democrats keep losing. If you won't stand up for your own true values, and ours, who will?

Feingold Releases Statement
The general reluctance of Dems to stick up for gay rights makes Feingold's stand even more remarkable. He released this statement about what happened today at the Senate Judiciary Committee meeting. Hurrah:

Objecting to the Judiciary Committee's Handling of the Constitutional Amendment on Marriage

Today's markup of the constitutional amendment concerning marriage, in a small room off the Senate floor with only a handful of people other than Senators and their staffs present, was an affront to the Constitution. I objected to its consideration in such an inappropriate setting and refused to help make a quorum.  I am deeply disappointed that the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee went forward with the markup over my objection.  Unfortunately, the Majority Leader has set a politically motivated schedule for floor consideration of this measure that the Chairman felt compelled to follow, even though he says he opposes the amendment.

Constitutional amendments deserve the most careful and deliberate consideration of any matter that comes before the Senate.  In addition to hearings and a subcommittee markup, such a measure should be considered by the Judiciary Committee in the light of day, open to the press and the public, with cameras present so that the whole country can see what is done.  Open and deliberate debate on such an important matter cannot take place in a setting such as the one chosen by the Chairman of the Committee today. 

The Constitution of the United States is an historic guarantee of individual freedom. It has served as a beacon of hope, an example to people around the world who yearn to be free and to live their lives without government interference in their most basic human decisions.  I took an oath when I joined this body to support and defend the Constitution.  I will continue to fight this mean-spirited, divisive, poorly drafted, and misguided amendment when it comes to the Senate floor.

Happy Mothers' Peace Day

From this weekend's Code Pink Mothers' Day Peace Demonstration

Mother's Day was created after the Civil War, as a protest to the carnage of that war, by women who had lost their sons. The first person to fight for an official Mother's Day celebration in the United States was , who had nursed wounded soldiers during the Civil War. You may be more familiar with her as the writer of the lyrics of the Civil War song, The Battle Hymn of the Republic.

Howe was born in New York City on May 27, 1819. Her family was well respected and wealthy. She was a published poet and abolitionist. She and her husband, Samuel Gridley Howe, co-published the anti-slavery newspaper The Commonwealth. She was active in the peace movement and the women's suffrage movement.

In 1870 she penned the Mother's Day Proclamation. In 1872 the Mothers' Peace Day Observance on the second Sunday in June was held and the meetings continued for several years. Her idea was widely accepted, but she was never able to get the day recognized as an official holiday. The Mothers' Peace Day was the beginning of the Mothers' Day holiday in the United States now celebrated in May.

The modern commercialized celebration of gifts, flowers and candy bears little resemblance to Howe's original idea. Here is the Proclamation that explains, in her own powerful words, the goals of the original Mother's Day in the United States:

Mothers' Day Proclamation: Julia Ward Howe, Boston, 1870

Arise, then, women of this day! Arise all women who have hearts, whether our baptism be that of water or of fears!

Say firmly: "We will not have great questions decided by irrelevant agencies. Our husbands shall not come to us, reeking with carnage, for caresses and applause. Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn all that we have been able to teach them of charity, mercy and patience.

We women of one country will be too tender of those of another country to allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs. From the bosom of the devastated earth a voice goes up with our own. It says "Disarm, Disarm! The sword of murder is not the balance of justice."

Blood does not wipe our dishonor nor violence indicate possession. As men have often forsaken the plow and the anvil at the summons of war, let women now leave all that may be left of home for a great and earnest day of counsel. Let them meet first, as women, to bewail and commemorate the dead.

Let them then solemnly take counsel with each other as to the means whereby the great human family can live in peace, each bearing after their own time the sacred impress, not of Caesar, but of God.

In the name of womanhood and of humanity, I earnestly ask that a general congress of women without limit of nationality may be appointed and held at some place deemed most convenient and at the earliest period consistent with its objects, to promote the alliance of the different nationalities, the amicable settlement of international questions, the great and general interests of peace.

Julia Ward Howe, Boston, 1870

BREAKING: Rove Indicted?

OMG, could it be true? According to Jason Leopold at Truthout, Karl Rove was indicted on Friday! Excerpt:

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald spent more than half a day Friday at the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm representing Karl Rove.

During the course of that meeting, Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning.

Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney, did not return a call for comment. Sources said Fitzgerald was in Washington, DC, Friday and met with Luskin for about 15 hours to go over the charges against Rove, which include perjury and lying to investigators about how and when Rove discovered that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert CIA operative and whether he shared that information with reporters, sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said.

It was still unknown Saturday whether Fitzgerald charged Rove with a more serious obstruction of justice charge. Sources close to the case said Friday that it appeared very likely that an obstruction charge against Rove would be included with charges of perjury and lying to investigators.

Even better, Last Hurrah claims it's becoming clear that prosecutor Fitzgerald is also going after Cheney.

Kerry Says: When Is Enough Really Enough?

Why didn't John Kerry talk like this when he was running for President? Did he really not get that the Bush Bunch had no intention to comply with mere nuisances like the Constitution or the law? I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that virtually every progressive or core Dem in the land had a clear view of the legal and illegal horrors we could expect from four more years of the Bush abomination. It was all there for anyone to see, if they cared to look and confront it.

Still, I guess I'm pleased to see Kerry calling a spade a spade, even at this late date. But think what could have been achieved if he had risked doing so BEFORE Bush snagged a second term. What I wanna know is -- Is that a filibuster of General Hayden' CIA appointment in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?

If you haven't already read it, here's the original USA Today story on the NSA creating a database of millions of Americans' domestic phone call records in cahoots with AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth. (Only Quest refused to cooperate with the NSA.) This was a last straw of sorts that caused Kerry to speak out on the Hayden nomination on Daily Kos and in a speech today. The lingering question, of course, is what other secret NSA spying programs are operating that haven't (yet) been leaked to the media? Is this only the tip of the iceberg?

(Long) Quote of the Day: Rove Indictment

David Shuster on Keith Olberman's Countdown: Well, Karl Rove's legal team has told me that they expect that a decision will come sometime in the next two weeks. And I am convinced that Karl Rove will, in fact, be indicted. And there are a couple of reasons why.

First of all, you don't put somebody in front of a grand jury at the end of an investigation or for the fifth time, as Karl Rove testified a couple, a week and a half ago, unless you feel that's your only chance of avoiding indictment. So in other words, the burden starts with Karl Rove to stop the charges.

Secondly, it's now been 13 days since Rove testified. After testifying for three and a half hours, prosecutors refused to give him any indication that he was clear. He has not gotten any indication since then. And the lawyers that I've spoken with outside of this case say that if Rove had gotten himself out of the jam, he would have heard something by now.

And then the third issue is something we've talked about before. And that is, in the Scooter Libby indictment, Karl Rove was identified as 'Official A.' It's the term that prosecutors use when they try to get around restrictions on naming somebody in an indictment. We've looked through the records of Patrick Fitzgerald from when he was prosecuting cases in New York and from when he's been US attorney in Chicago. And in every single investigation, whenever Fitzgerald has identified somebody as Official A, that person eventually gets indicted themselves, in every single investigation. Will Karl Rove defy history in this particular case? I suppose anything is possible when you are dealing with a White House official. But the lawyers that I've been speaking with who know this stuff say, don't bet on Karl Rove getting out of this.

Video at Crooks and Liars. I can't wait to see the perp walk. Visualize Karl Rove in handcuffs, marching like a frog. A picture's worth a thousand words.

A Bill of Bad Health: Contact Your Senators

From NM Voices for Children:
The U.S. Senate is currently considering the “Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act of 2005,” aka S. 1955. This legislation helps the few and hurts the many. The bill is lauded by its conservative sponsors as a way to reduce health insurance costs, but a study by the Center on Budget Policy Priorities (CBPP) shows otherwise.

What S. 1955 will do is override laws enacted at the state level that were put in place to regulate the industry and protect consumers. This will allow insurance companies to base the rates they charge any given business on the age and health status of that business’ employees. The result, many believe, will be that rates will go up for small businesses – particularly those with an older workforce or employees with pre-existing conditions – who will then either have to drop their employees’ insurance or resort to significantly scaled-back coverage. Bargain-basement coverage, the AARP says, that will no longer include vital screenings for illnesses such as cancer and diabetes.

The Senate is scheduled to debate S. 1955 this week.

What you can do:

• Email our senators and tell them to vote NO on 1955.
• Senator Jeff Bingaman at senator_bingaman@bingaman.senate.gov
• Senator Pete Domenici via a form at https://www.domenici.senate.gov
• Read the CBPP’s report on how similar legislation was tried – and eventually repealed – in New Hampshire at https://www.cbpp.org/4-26-06health.pdf

Listen In:
Our own Kay Monaco is a guest this afternoon on the Lee Logan show (perhaps one of the few locally-produced progressive talk shows). She’ll be speaking about our up-coming Race Matters conference.

Listen in from 4:30 to 5:00 PM today (Monday, May 8), on KAGM (106.3 FM in Albuquerque, 94.7 FM in Northern New Mexico). You can even join in the discussion by calling in (314-TALK in Albuquerque, 866-339-5986 outside Albuquerque).

Rumsfeld Lies About Lying (And Now Goss Resigns)

Think Progress has the video of recently retired, 27-year veteran CIA analyst Ray McGovern challenging Rumsfeld at a speech yesterday on his honesty about the Iraq war and the reasons concocted to justify the invasion. There's also a text version of the interaction.

In one exchange, Rummy denies he said he knew where the WMD's were in Iraq and McGovern reads him a verbatim quote where he says just that. Rumsfeld, rarely lacking in the spin department, had to skip at least one beat.

In addition to the blunt questioning from McGovern, there were at least three protestors in the crowd, including one guy who stood with his back towards Rumsfeld during his entire appearance. One guy was wearing a large sticker that said 'IMPEACH' and a woman was escorted out after holding up a banner that called Rummy a war criminal. Could we really be reaching a long overdue turning point on the crass manipulation of the truth by Bush and company? How much longer can they keep lying in the face of clear, documented evidence to the contrary? How much longer will the mainstream media play along with them?

Thus just in: Porter Goss "resigns" as CIA director. Why? And why now? Does it have something to do with the new prostitute scandal involving Duke Cunningham and some of his Republican cohorts? Is Goss involved in some way with the Plame lead scandal? Inquiring minds want to know.

Think Progress has the video and transcript of prominent neocon and editor of The Weekly Standard William Kristol's reaction to the Goss resignation:

Kristol:  It wasn’t done in a routine way. I don’t think people — certainly people close to Goss did not expect this to happen. Senior congressmen and senators didn’t expect this to happen. I’m not sure the White House expected this to happen ... I do think this was sudden. It was unexpected. There will be more of a story that will come out. I don’t know what it implies for the future of the agency and Goss’ effort to shake up an institution, an institution that’s very difficult to shake up. But I do not believe it was part of a long-planned —

... What was striking about the statement in the Oval Office with the President, he didn’t say, “I will serve until my successor is confirmed,” which is the usual practice. In the written statement, he says he intends to be there for a few weeks to help ensure a smooth transition, but implying he could well leave before his successor is confirmed by the United States Senate. So again, I think there were either serious disputes or some internal problem at the agency or some scandal conceivably involving an associate of Goss’. Who knows? Something that popped this week and that caused this sudden event this Friday.

Tick tock. Tick tock.