Thanks to everyone who worked to end DADT

I'd like to thank my friends and family for their efforts in ending the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law. It means a lot for me, as I had honestly given up hope of it happening any time soon.

It's too easy to be cynical, but as I watched the past two years go by, and watched the hugest congressional majority in recent memory evaporate, I thought for sure there would be no progress on queer issues. And although I told myself I was content with Obama just naming Supreme Court justices, I was enraged by the contradiction of his "fierce advocate" image shown by his administration's aggressive defense of DOMA, his utter inaction on ENDA and DOMA, and the snail's pace of DADT repeal (coupled with continued vigorous legal defense of the law). I had come to the conclusion that the Democrats had decided that gay votes, gay money, and gay wedge issues were simply too valuable to them to give up, and that they would hold us hostage for another six years or until the courts finally grew a pair. I just couldn't take the disappointment anymore, so I really stopped investing any hope.

Sure, I went through the motions with emails to elected officials (pointless, since I vote in Georgia), but I really couldn't bring myself to care a great deal. I was resigned to it. But this is where my family and friends really stepped in and pushed this through. I'm very thankful and grateful for friends and family who care enough about me to take on issues that affect me - without my having to ask. It really means a lot.

It was a little over two years ago when a former friend's opposition to same-sex marriage made me snap and made me raise my expectations of what friends and family will do to help with the issues of queer people. I'm thrilled to say that not only did they take action, they did it without my asking.

Granted, these issues affect us all — when some of us aren't free, all of us aren't free — but when the folks on the comfortable side of the privilege line do more than I do on issues that affect me, it really is touching. Thank you.

Be angry over corporate control of media, not political partisanship

National Public Radio published an article about the public's lack of trust in the media. They point to examples perceived political bias at CNN and Fox News, and the biases of the reporters in question, but they pointedly ignore corporate influence on news coverage.

But focusing on the popular political differences between Democratic and Republican news outlets is convenient for an organization like NPR, which is beholden to the corporate sponsors who pay for large 23% of its budget. One need only hear "brought to you by Archer Daniels Midland, Supermarket to the World" to understand who has influence over NPR's editorial policies. It really doesn't behoove NPR to point out that the public shouldn't trust NBC's analysis of war planning, since NBC's parent company General Electric does on the order of two billion dollars per year in DOD contracts.

The differences between Democratic and Republican policies are conveniently distracting, pitting the snake handlers vs the sodomites, the sheet-wearers vs the welfare queens, etc. Consolidation of media ownership continues apace, with major corporations effecting central control of all types of media. The recent media extinction events have helped speed this process, and media co-ops have yet to attract a major audience.

The media can't police itself, it sold us out a long time ago. But its attempts to shift the blame for its lack of public trust to its reporters and editors is increasingly obvious and ineffective.

Accountability moment: not one more gay cent until we see some results

When politicians make promises, they should be held to them. Especially when they promise hope, a new kind of politics, that they want to take contributions from actual people and be accountable to them. Well, we heard lots of promises, but we've not seen any action. Until we start seeing the change we paid for, President Obama and the Democratic party can forget about getting any more of my money:

I pledge not to donate to the Democratic National Committee, Organizing for America, or the Obama campaign until Congress passes, and the president signs, legislation enacting the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT), and repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

And yes, I'm serious about this. You'd better believe corporate donors are getting their money's worth right now, as they belly up to the trough for "healthcare reform". If they don't get what they paid for, they're not going to give again – and guess what, neither am I.

Both DOMA and DADT were passed during the previous Democratic administration. The just-finished Bush administration produced plenty of sturm und drang about teh gays, but never actually did legislative harm to us. The Obama administration had better start righting some wrongs, and President Obama had better start doing something to fulfill his pledge to be a "fierce advocate" for our community. With sixty filibuster-breaking votes in the senate and a strong majority in the house, the Democratic party has an opportunity to actually pass the agenda they trumpet when they come around begging for cash. With the midterm elections coming the time to act is now; otherwise it becomes increasingly obvious that the Democratic party is determined to block action on these issues in order to keep the gay money coming.

Either put up or find another sucker. If you feel the same way, join me in the pledge.

Georgia: dump Saxby Chambliss on December 2

Saxby Chambliss, chickenhawk extraordinaire, is in a runoff to keep his Senate seat in Georgia. Despite McCain carrying Georgia 52%-47%, Chambliss was unable to ride his white coattails to victory. People were pissed at him for voting for the Wall Street Giveaway, and they punished him just enough to force him into runoff against Jim Martin.

I'm voting for Jim Martin. He's the most progressive candidate Georgia has produced in a white, heterosexual male body since Jimmy Carter. His legislative record is solid, he's smart and hard working. I've voted for him many times over the years, and I'm happy to do so again.


But most importantly, Jim Martin is not Saxby Chambliss. In 2002 Chambliss won his Senate seat by sliming his opponent Max Cleland (a veteran who lost his limbs in Vietnam) as a terrorist sympathizer. He ran hand-in-hand with Governor Sonny Perdue whose platform of a "Confederate Flag for Georgia" helped propel them both to victory. It was shameful, and I'm still ashamed. It would be redundant to call out his record on voting for the Iraq war, voting for torture, voting for spying on US citizens, voting for retroactive immunity for the telecom companies who spied on Americans, and so on.

Georgia's Secretary of State has no information about the runoff election on her department's website or its Election 2008 website, so she obviously doesn't want people to vote – after all, turnout would be bad for the GOP. It's a shameful state of affairs, but if we "other folks" vote again, we can send Chambliss packing with the man he said he was "goin' to Washington DC to work for", George W. Bush. This time we can elect Jim Martin who will work for the citizens of the State of Georgia.

Vote December 2.

Asking more from family and friends on queer rights

Following the election last Tuesday, I am very happy and hopeful about the future. Even though Proposition 8 passed in California, President Barack Obama will appoint liberal Supreme Court justices who will eventually give me full equality in the United States, maybe even in my lifetime. I have hope.

But in the meantime, it's going to be rough. Each step forward will be met with stiff opposition. Queers have long been convenient targets for political hate campaigns. This will get worse before it gets better. It already is.

Recently I've discovered that several long-time friends don't agree I should have equal rights, including the right to be married. Some of them have participated in campaigns specifically intended to take away my civil rights. By definition, these people are not my friends, and I will no longer encourage such behaviour with my continued association. These people will no longer be able to truthfully say "I have gay friends, but..." – not if they're referring to me.

I am also raising my expectations of my friends and family. In the past I simply asked friends and family to accept me and not say bad things in my presence. I didn't feel I had the right to ask them to volunteer for a cause, contribute money, or vote a certain way. Although I knew in some cases that they were opposed to my rights, I ignored it. I had very low self-esteem, and I just felt happy that people actually liked me: Internalized homophobia is powerful and insidious. Those days are past.

Now I will call on my friends and family to help advance my civil rights whenever I see fit. Since my friends and family love me as I love them, I expect they will be willing to help me. If friends and family are engaged in or supporting organizations that hold anti-gay agendas, it is my expectation that they work to improve those organizations from within. To be clear, I'm not unreasonable: I don't actually expect my friends and family to live up to my every expectation any more than I live up to theirs.

Queer issues will never be as important to most of my friends and family as they are to me. But now I'm not going to hesitate to ask for help, and if that turns out to be a problem, it will be short-lived. It will be fantastic if they choose to help, and it will be okay if they don't, but no friend will be allowed to work against my civil rights and remain my friend. This is called self-respect, and it starts now.

Obama's election: hope for an exiled gay American

Living in Canada over the past four years it's been hard to admit I'm an American. Before the 2004 election people used to commiserate, saying "what a terrible government you Americans have to deal with." After 2004, the mood got ugly: we really did elect Bush that second time. The negative opinion of the US government was transferred onto its citizens. Since 2004 whenever I have admitted to being American I've watched welcoming smiles melt into frowns, and often had to listen to a tirade about Bush and the US government. I've had to agree with them, too.

After all, I had to leave the US in order to live with my husband, and you'd better believe I've resented it bitterly. With laws that treat me as something between an abomination and a criminal, a Supreme Court prepared to permanently relegate me to second-class citizenship, and a president that seemed intent on breaking every international law, violating every civil liberty and every standard of decent conduct, I could find little to defend about the US, and even less reason to want to.

I certainly hoped Obama would win. I contributed to his campaign, I made phone calls. But I never let myself really believe, because it would just hurt too much if he lost. The Supreme Court holds the key to deciding whether I'll be a second-class citizen in the US until the day I die, and if more Scalitos had been appointed it would have dashed my hopes for two generations. I held my breath.

Today Barack Obama pulled it off, and decisively, breaking the last barrier for African-Americans (which John McCain spoke of so eloquently and movingly in his concession speech). Obama even mentioned gay people as actual Americans in his acceptance speech. Today I have hope, and I can say I'm an American without embarrassment and without (excessive) anger and resentment. I see that the dream is alive in the United States, and I see reason to believe that one day I might be able to live there again, maybe even as an equal.

A lot more has to change for this to happen. Today, people in Arizona, California, and Florida voted to ban same-sex marriage; it passed in Arizona and Florida. The vote is very close in California, but one thing is certain: voters hold farm animals in higher esteem than their fellow citizens. We have a long way to go, but when I look at how far we've come in forty-five years, I have hope.

Congratulations to President-elect Barack Obama and to the people of the United States on turning this historic page. Congratulations to African-Americans who can say that they are now full participants in the society and democracy of the United States. Congratulations and thank you to everyone who worked, donated, and voted to make this happen. Someday it will make a difference for me, too.

Greenspan gets a clue after the damage is done

From Greenspan Concedes Error on Regulation in today's New York Times:

Facing a firing line of questions from Washington lawmakers, Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman once considered the infallible maestro of the financial system, admitted on Thursday that he “made a mistake” in trusting that free markets could regulate themselves without government oversight.

Whoopsie!

Referring to his free-market ideology, Mr. Greenspan added: “I have found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact."

Oh no, he's *distressed*. Well, fuck me with a chainsaw, it sounds like the poor man is suffering! Everybody should be so concerned about Alan Greenspan's legacy while we pick up the ruins of our financial system and economy. I am not sad to see that irrational cult of personality come to such an ignominious end.

Help stop constitutionalized bigotry in California

California's Proposition 8 is intended to end same-sex marriage in California, which the California Supreme Court ruled constitutional in June. The California Assembly had previously passed a law to allow same-sex marriage, but Governor Schwarzenegger (it hurts to type that) vetoed it, saying that it was up to the supreme court to decide. Well, they did, and although Arnie said he'd campaign against Prop 8, he's done dick-all about it. I guess he's too busy to call a press conference.

Anyhow, the Mormons are pouring enormous sums of cash into the campaign for Prop 8, and although many high-profile celebs are donating to the fight to stop it, it isn't enough. I've given, and I'd like to ask you to give as well. Everybody deserves the right to marry the person they love, and shouldn't have to emigrate to do so, as I did. Equality can be maintained, but only at a cost. Please give now.

Enjoli, for the woman that does it all

Back in the heady days of the late 1970s, feminism morphed from a fringe movement to a popular crusade. Helen Reddy sang I Am Woman and women sang along. Support for the Equal Rights Amendment reached its high water mark, and Gloria Steinem was a rock star. Women were earning $.69 for each dollar earned by their male counterparts, and were demanding compensation for household work.

In that heady climate of 1978, marketers decided to tap into the image of the all-capable woman:

♪ I can put the wash on the line, feed the kids, get dressed, pass out the kisses and get to work by five to nine, 'cuz I'm a woman – Enjoli ♫

Charles of the Ritz creates Enjoli, the new 8-hour perfume for the 24 hour woman.

♪ I can bring home the bacon, fry it up in a pan, and never never never let you forget you're a man. 'cuz I'm a woman. Enjoli! ♫

The feminist revolution was repackaged as slavery: women are strong, subservient, hard-working sex kittens that smell great – for eight hours! Long-lasting perfume really is such an important issue: women work 20% more than men, and if they want to hold on to a man so they can raise the children, make the money, and serve him sexually, they have to smell the part: 24 hours a day.

Bailout failout and the fallout

I had been anticipating the passage of the bailout by writing an[other] impassioned screed, a call to arms to punish representatives who voted away our future for a few extra points on the Dow. I have become so used to Congress bowing to corporatist rule that I never expected that it could be voted down, but it was. So let's take a moment to celebrate: for the moment, you've escaped an additional personal debt load of $2,300 that would have gone right into the balance sheets of companies that have well and truly wrecked our economy.

Now that the bill is dead (for the moment) a lot more details are coming out: it turns out that the "assurances" and "compromises" on the bill were window dressing. The full $700B would have committed immediately, the executive compensation measures were meaningless, and the oversight provisions were toothless. Basically, the bill got a lot longer last week, but it never got any better.

Very rich and well placed media figureheads, investors, and politicians are tut-tutting this sad state of affairs, saying "people just don't understand the magnitude of this issue." Oh, but darlings, we do understand. We understand far too well what happens when we spend far more than we take in for far too long, we understand bad investments and cutting our losses, and we're maybe starting to understand when we're being manipulated. And maybe, just maybe, we're starting to resist.

I wrote my congressmen every single day last week. I wrote them again today, and I'm going to keep up the pressure. My house representative, Hank Johnson (D-GA-7^th) voted against the bill so I sent him a nice campaign contribution as a thank-you note. If your representative voted for the bailout, you can ask for a change in the next vote, as there almost certainly will be one.

No bailout is big enough to solve the credit crunch

Portraying the credit crunch as a strange anomaly that can be cured by writing a trillion-dollar cheque is extremely naïve and unrealistic.

The United States and its citizens are carrying an unprecedented and unsustainable debt load. Thanks to the neocon regime of the past twenty-eight years (yes, you too, Mr. "3^rd Way") which hobbled the government, and the klepto-corporatist administration still in office (and up for a third term) which raided the wealth of the nation to hand over to oil and military contractors (and now financial firms), the United States is so far overextended that the entire world is collectively cutting it off from further credit.

Just as banks are suddenly thinking, "hey waitasecond, maybe we shouldn't hand out credit cards like party favours", and "maybe we should check to see whether the collateral on a loan actually exists", investors and central banks of other nations are suddenly thinking, "hmmm, the United States has a seemingly infinite trade deficit and doesn't seem to produce anything of value but porn", "I wonder what, if anything, backs T-bills these days", and finally "It doesn't seem that the US military is going to be pushing anybody else around anytime soon."

The bailout is supposed to remove toxic mortgages from the balance sheets of large financial firms, and that is supposed to magically cause the credit to flow again. Wrong. What happened with the subprime loan mess is that it eventually woke everybody up to the fact that the US is at the end of its empire, and extending it credit no longer makes any sense. The US and its citizens can't afford any more debt, and they aren't going to be allowed any more. The party's over, the keg is all tapped out, and this hangover is going to be long and difficult, with vomiting, nausea, and no more drinks for a long, long time.

There's not enough money in the collective assets of the United States at this point to buy a hair-of-the-dog large enough to make a difference. The US has declining human capital in every measurable way, it has a tarnished reputation, and the valuable raw natural resources now lie chiefly in other countries. This bailout is just a parting shot, a payoff to the powers who bought and paid for this administration, and a fond final farewell snatch from the taxpayers who made the whole show possible.

A thoughtful letter on the bailout from Rep. David Obey (D-WI-7th)

I wrote a note to Representative David Obey of the 7th district in Wisconsin. He wrote this very thoughtful and honest reply, which seemed refreshingly free of bullshit. Obviously he's going to vote for the bill, but he avoids the condescension, evasion, misdirection, and outright prevarication of shitheels like Isakson. Hopefully after Obama takes office in January we will see reversal of that indefensible bankruptcy bill and finally see some more meaningful reform. What the hell, maybe we'll get another New Deal. It's about time.

---

September 27, 2008

Dear Mr. LeDuc:

Thank you for contacting me about the President’s request for a massive $700 billion bailout of the financial markets.

As you might expect, I have heard from many, many people who are unhappy, fearful, and frustrated by what has been going on, and the vast majority are staunchly opposed to the President’s proposal for what is, in effect, a blank check. I am, too, and let me make it perfectly clear that I have no intention of giving this, or any other President, a blank check to do with as he wishes. We've seen that before when the President demanded that Congress give him a blank check for Iraq - with disastrous consequences.

We are currently paying a huge price for the fact that for over 20 years we’ve had massive deregulation of the financial sector of our economy and, at the same time, economic policies that have favored the top dogs at the expense of everybody else.

If you take all of the income growth that has occurred in this country in the last eight years and see who got it, over 95 percent of all of the income growth in the country went to the wealthiest 10 percent of families. That means 90 percent of American families – 9 out of 10 – were left to struggle to get a piece of just 4.7 percent of the total income growth that’s occurred in the last eight years.

As a result, people who, in real terms, have had their income frozen for nearly a decade have tried to keep their heads above water by borrowing. In fact, over the last eight years, mortgage debt alone has gone up by $7 trillion, almost seven times as much as the national debt that we hear so much about.

And with the umpire off the field because of the relentless drive for less regulation by the Reagan and Bush Administrations, and on occasion the Clinton Administration as well, many on Wall Street who were looking for a way to make a bigger buck than ever have made the problem worse.

I fought that pressure time and time again.

For example, I was one of 57 members in the House who opposed the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which was enacted during the FDR Administration. Glass-Steagall was enacted to keep investment banking and community banking separate, because they didn't want the high-flying, risk-taking actions of investment bankers to infect the community banking system. It stood us in good stead for generations. During debate on the House Floor during the vote to repeal Glass-Steagall, I said that the bill was:

"consumer fraud masquerading as financial reform. There is nothing wrong with modernizing financial institutions. It is nice to see that my colleagues are going to try to set up one-stop shopping services for financial services. But returning 1999 to 1929 is not reform in my book.”

At this point, we don’t know what will be negotiated with the White House, but we do know that they have the Congress over a barrel because if we don't do something credit markets are likely to freeze up. It doesn't just mean that Wall Street is going to be crippled; the people who will be left holding the bag are American families. The impact on Wall Street will have trickle down consequences for every family in America, and if Main Street business can't get credit, there could be thousands of businesses that go under and we could have the worst economic mess since the Great Depression. So something has to be done.

As Franklin Roosevelt said in his inaugural address in 1932 when he was facing a similar collapse of the financial sector of the economy, "we need action and now." We must provide that action at the same time we make every effort to build in assurances that protect American taxpayers.

Middle income families have missed out on the production of wealth in recent years and taxpayers have been ripped off with giveaways to the wealthy and well-connected, paid for by ballooning the deficit and passing the costs onto future generations.

We’re looking for a number of changes to the Administration’s proposal to protect the taxpayer’s interest.

First, we are trying to ensure that the taxpayer will get the benefit of any recovery in the value of the assets the government would buy from financial institutions.

Second, we are trying to find a mechanism by which Wall Street can pay a significant share of the tab so taxpayers don't get stuck with the whole load.

Third, there needs to be an independent review board looking over the shoulder of the Fed as it makes financial decisions to blow the whistle if problems develop.

Fourth, there certainly should be limitations on compensation to the executives of the companies receiving federal aid and no golden parachutes.

Fifth, there needs to be a reinvigoration of oversight by regulatory agencies to prevent this from happening again.

And that’s just scratching the surface. There are a number of other things that need to be done, too.

I also hope we’ll see a change in the bankruptcy law passed, over my objection, by the last Congress, which did not take into account that some people are unable to make their mortgage payments or credit card payments simply because they’d either lost their jobs or had a health problem. Certainly we ought to be able to provide some sort of relief for people in that kind of situation, so that people on Main Street are getting the same sort of considerations as the big shots on Wall Street.

You should also know that, as I write this letter, Congress is considering legislation that I authored to try to help people on Main Street who are suffering because of this crisis. We're trying to make greater investments in the country's infrastructure by beefing up our sewer and water construction and highway and airport construction in order to create a good number of well paying private sector jobs. We also want to extend unemployment insurance to help address the fact that 600,000 Americans have lost their jobs this year. And we are also trying to provide some budget support for states so they do not wind up knocking poor children off health care rolls.

Please be assured that, as we move forward to confront this challenge, the needs of taxpayers, homeowners, and working Americans and their families will be uppermost in my mind.

Thank you again for taking the time to get in touch.

Sincerely,
David Obey
Your Congressman

Johnny Isakson lies about the bailout

I just got this email reply today, 25 September 2008, from Johnny Isakson, senior senator from Georgia. The coward hasn't put it on his website, so here it is.

---

Dear Mr. LeDuc Thank you for your letter regarding the economy, the financial markets and the proposal from the Treasury Secretary to the Congress. We are in difficult financial times, and I am committed to protecting the savings and jobs of the people of Georgia by making sound decisions on both immediate actions as well as long-term actions. First, our economic stress is rooted in the decline of the housing market. The cause of the decline was the funding of marginal credit mortgages (subprime) through the creation of mortgage-backed securities that were sold around the world. As the default and foreclosure rate on these mortgages increased, the value of the securities declined. As the values declined, the balance sheet of the financial institutions that bought them deteriorated. The market for these securities declined and ultimately evaporated, thus causing a liquidity problem for the financial institutions and a credit crisis for American consumers and small businesses. In the immediate term, we must address the credit and liquidity crisis. In the long term, we must put in place the oversight and safeguards to ensure the transparency and accountability necessary to prevent this from happening again. The Treasury has proposed using up to $700 billion dollars to purchase, at a discount, these mortgage-backed securities. This would provide liquidity to the financial institutions and improve their balance sheets. The important question is this: "Is the taxpayer of Georgia protected?" If the Treasury properly discounts the securities to, say, 50 or 60 cents on the dollar, and holds the securities to maturity there should be little or no cost to the Treasury. More importantly, investors will return to the market and will compete with the Treasury to by these discounted securities and the market will be reestablished. I am working to ensure the safeguards necessary for maximum security for the taxpayer. In the long term, we must bring transparency and accountability to Wall Street. While I am not a big government regulator, if the investment bankers on Wall Street were held to the same standards of transparency and accountability as our national banking system, this would not have happened. The security rating agencies such as Moody's and Standard and Poor also share some of the blame for the way they rated the subprime mortgage-backed securities, and they should be held accountable. I will work hard for the right reform of Wall Street. The term bailout has been used a lot in this debate. Not a dollar of the $700 billion will go to the brokers who created the securities. Instead, they will go to the investors who bought them, and then only after they take a significant discount or loss. Properly executed, the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve believe this proposal will restore liquidity to the credit markets and return confidence in the financial system. I will continue to work for the best interest of our economy and the safety of the savings of the citizens of Georgia. Thank you again for contacting me. Please visit my webpage at http://isakson.senate.gov/ for more information on the issues important to you and to sign up for my e-newsletter by choosing Newsletter Subscription from the topic list. Sincerely, Johnny Isakson United States Senator For future correspondence with my office, please visit my web site at http://isakson.senate.gov/contact.cfm. You can also sign up for the eNewsletter by choosing Newsletter Subscription from the topic list.

---

My reply:

I am in receipt of your condescending and misleading letter concerning the Wall Street bailout.

Don't try to confuse the issue with me, sonny. Tax money going into a private balance sheet is a bailout. Businesses making threats that if they don't get blood money they'll take down the economy is called a shakedown. If you vote for this bill, you'll be making a choice which side you're on: corporations instead of citizens. And there will be consequences.

Count on it.

Now don't make a liar of me. Let's make these bastards pay.

Not one god-damned red cent for Wall Street

I'm just as deep in the stock market as anyone else is these days. After all, government policy has been urging employers to gut pension plans (remember guaranteed retirement benefits?) in favour of investment plans (with only a set contribution, but no guaranteed returns). So most of my retirement savings is tied up in the stock market, which is a risky gamble. I could lose it, but I wanted the big payoffs that stocks might provide, so I took a chance.

That's how the free market is supposed to work, right? Isn't that what Nobel-prize winner Milton Friedman said? Isn't that the ideology which has been ascendant in the US for the past twenty-eight years? If the banking industry isn't working miracles with all of those fantastic new financial instruments they've cooked up, and are in fact just building an elaborate confection that is collapsing on itself, why should we prop it up? It sounds like a huge proportion of the finance industry is doing things of no real economic value. They need a huge handout (plenty of which they'll pass back as "campaign contributions"), and if we give it they'll demand another huge handout in a year after they waste this one.

So fine, let my portfolio lose seventy-five percent of its value. Even ninety-five percent – we'll work it out. I'd rather spend a trillion dollars helping people in need than wasting it on more empty suits. Recessions are necessary: endlessly trying to apply the juice to extend a boom just makes the crash that much harder, and that's what we're seeing now. So let it go, and then we'll work out a more relevant (and possibly even less corrupt) financial system.

Bush said today the sky is falling so we've got to unlock the US Treasury with no questions asked and no accountability. He's the same guy that wanted to gut Social Security and put it all in the stock market! (Wow, too bad we didn't get to experience all of that great growth, huh?) First, we had to surrender all of our civil liberties because the terrorists were going to kill us all with box cutters. Second, we had to invade another country because they were going to nuke our balls. Now we're supposed to give an enormous birthday present to Wall Street because they blew our money on bear whores and cocaine. The man has no credibility. Fool me thrice: go fuck yourself.

Giving a huge payoff to this gang of crooks won't do a damned bit of good; it just encourages them to do it again. Write your senators and representative and tell them no. Maybe some regulation is in order. Maybe the banks need to be nationalized. Maybe mortgages need to be refinanced en masse. Maybe some depositors are going to lose their money (me included). So be it: when there is hell to pay, I'll pay it, but I won't pay one god-damned red cent in protection money.

Anti-Harper stickers in Vancouver

Seen on Davie Street in Vancouver tonight: little posters of Stephen Harper pasted to newspaper boxes and bus shelters.
I can't wait for the elections to be over – on both sides of the border.

Senator Herb Kohl on HR 6304 (The "I Spy" act)

Herb Kohl, Senator from AT&T

Back when the Democrats were preparing to sell our rights, our privacy, and the very rule of law to the telecom lobby while capitulating in the most pathetic way possible to the Bush administration, I wrote a letter to Wisconsin Democratic senator Herb Kohl. I urged him most specifically not to vote for H.R. 6304, a bill that made a mockery of the rule of law by giving felonious telecom companies a free pass for having helped the federal government to spy on US citizens in a way directly prohibited by federal statute.

Of course, he took his marching orders from the Democratic "leadership" (who take their marching orders from AT&T) and voted for the bill. In his letter he never addresses telecom immunity, which was the key issue I wrote to him about. Instead, he lies about the bill and its provisions, parroting the line set down by his masters. And of course, he never mentions that he personally voted to sustain telecom immunity.

Finally, I find it particularly offensive that he says he's taking time to "address my concerns" when he's not addressing them, he's ignoring and dismissing them. No, Senator Kohl, "everyone" doesn't agree.

HERB KOHL		COMMITTEES:
WISCONSIN
		APPROPRIATIONS
WASHINGTON OFFICE:
330 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING		JUDICIARY
WASHINGTON, DC 20510
(202) 224-5653		SPECIAL COMMITTEE
http://kohl.senate.gov	United States Senate	ON AGING
	WASHINGTON, DC 20510-4903
	July 24, 2008

Mr. Chuck Leduc
[address redacted]

Dear Mr. Leduc:

     Thank you for taking the time to contact me. I value the input I get from people back home in Wisconsin, and I would like to take this opportunity to address your concerns.

     In December 2005, the revelation that the President authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to monitor telephone calls and e-mails of United States citizens without obtaining a warrant or court order raises important legal and policy questions. I strongly believe that the President, Congress, and the courts all share a common goal: to protect the American people. If terrorists are operating in this country, or people in this country are communicating with terrorists, everyone can agree that we must give our government the tools it needs to protect the American people, including the power to listen to their phone calls. Security, the Rule of law, and the protection of civil liberties, however, are not mutually exclusive concepts; we can have all three.

     In August 2007, Congress passed, and the President signed, the Protect America Act (PAA). I opposed this bill because it authorized broad electronic surveillance of Americans' communications, and provided for little oversight by Congress and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). The PAA was ultimately enacted as a temporary fix. The ability to conduct surveillance pursuant to the PAA was set to expire in early August.

     It was critically important for Congress to authorize necessary surveillance authorities, this time with appropriate civil liberties protections. To that end, on June 19, 2008, Representative Silvestre Reyes introduced the FISA Amendments Act of2008 (H.R. 6304). This measure authorizes the Intelligence Community to conduct electronic surveillance of individuals located outside of the United States, but also provides Congress and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court greater authorities to conduct oversight of this surveillance and protect the privacy of innocent Americans. In addition, the bill authorizes a thorough investigation of the President's Terrorist Surveillance Program and clarifies that no surveillance can be conducted outside of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I voted for H.R. 6304 because I believe it strikes an appropriate balance between national security and protecting civil liberties. It was signed into law on July 10, 2008.

[page 2]

     Thank you again for contacting me on this important issue.

                         Sincerely,
                         (signed)
                         Herb Kohl
                         United States Senator
HK:mxh

... and finally, my response to his letter:

Dear Senator Kohl,

I am rather disappointed in your response to my letter about telecom immunity and spying. In my letter I specifically urged you to uphold the rule of law by holding telcos accountable for their lawbreaking. I obviously think your vote went contrary to the best interests of the people of the state you represent, but that is not why I am writing back.

The reason I am writing back is because you did not address telecom immunity, my primary concern, in your letter. That is political cowardice: if you are going to put the interests of corporations above those of your constituents, you might as well own up to it. You could even have made up some implausible justification (you seem to be pretty good at that), but to pretend it didn't happen is just plain insulting. Just how stupid do you think we are?

Sincerely,
Charles LeDuc

Hedy Fry on C-61, the Canadian DMCA

Members of the Canadian government are on the take from US media interests who are trying to criminalize, well, everybody. My MP, Hedy Fry, is a wonderful woman and I like her very much on most issues, but given that the film industry is a big deal here in Vancouver I expected the worst on copyright. Since she wouldn't comment when I asked her about her own party's copyright bill (C-60), I was surprised when she offered an opinion about Bill C-61. Although the Conservatives are only going a little farther than her own party in selling out Canadian citizens, she says that "This Bill does not serve either consumer or creator well," and that she would not support it without amendment. Some notable highlights:

"Everyone is in agreement that the Copyright Act has to be amended to reflect the impact of digital technology."

Really? Everyone?!?

"How to monetize digital technology to reward the creator and allow free and open use by the consumer is challenging"

...and it would be a challenge to finish that sentence, since it makes no sense whatsoever. Maybe "utilize" was the verb you were looking for?

"[...] since the invention of the printing press. The challenges seemed impossible then [...]"

Which challenges were those? The challenges of the established order keeping people under control and in continued ignorance? I do see a strong parallel, but it's not an auspicious parallel.

The text follows. Errors are hers (this letter is a mess). Proofreading, anyone?

CONSTITUENCY OFFICE 106-1030 Denman St. Vancouver, B.C. V6G 2M6 Tel.: (604) 666-0135 Fax.: (604) 666_0114	HOUSE OF COMMONS CHAMBRE DES COMMUNES OTTAWA, CANADA K1A 0A6	OTTAWA OFFICE Room 583 Confederation Bldg. House of Commons Ottawa, Canada K1A 0A6 Tel.: (613) 992-3213 Fax.: (613) 995-0056
	Hon. Hedy Fry, P.C., M.P. Vancouver Centre
Chuck LeDuc Vancouver, BC		JUIL JUL 1 6 2008

Dear Mr. LeDuc:

Thank you for your correspondence concerning Bill C-61, An Act to amend the Copyright Act.

As you are aware the previous Liberal government had tabled a Bill on this issue but it did not come to debate because of the election. The current Conservative Bill has been eagerly awaited since they announced their intentions, in December 2007.

Canada has signed two World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaties, but has not yet ratified them. The last time the Canadian Copyright Act was amended was in 1997 but these amendments did not address the WIPO treaty agreements. In the interim, communications technology has expanded rapidly. Everyone is in agreement that the Copyright Act has to be amended to reflect the impact of digital technology.

Bill C-61 should strike a balance between the right of creators to be reimbursed for their creative, intellectual property and the desire for consumers to have access to these creative works.

Indeed digital technology serves both the creator and the consumer well. It increases the reach and distribution of creative works as never imagined, before; which is precisefy what creators need and it gives consumers easy access to creative works that can entertain, enrich, and educate.

This Bill does not serve either consumer or creator well. It prescribes narrow, punitive solutions to a complex problem. In fact the Bill could well have the effect of curbing the use of digital technology, to the extent that it becomes useless. This would be a pity! As well, implementation of the measures in the Bill would be nearly impossible, unless one abandons all privacy rights or imposes locks on the digital technology that severely limits its application. How to monetize digital technology to reward the creator and allow free and open use by the consumer is challenging

---

- 2 -
As Liberals we believe that there should have been extensive consultations with legal experts, creators, distributors and conventional and digital media industries to find the right balance of solutions. It is typical of the Harper government that they do not consult but impose.

Liberals intend to begin these consultations over the course of the summer so that when the Bill comes to the House we can propose appropriate amendments. Moreover we believe that the Bill should be further subject to public scrutiny if it ever gets to committee stage. It could be that after we consult with the expert groups they believe that Bill C-61 is unsalvageable, in which case one would have to vote against the Bill and rewrite a new one.

These are exciting and challenging times in media communications technology that can broaden the consumption of arts and cultural products, in a manner unheard of since the invention of the printing press. The challenges seemed impossible then but solutions were found that led to a Renaissance of art and culture. We are at a similar point in history, now. We must not use a sledge hammer.

Once again, thank you for writing. Please feel free to contact my office if I may be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

(signed)

Hon. Hedy Fry, M.P.
Vancouver Centre

And finally, a scan of the letter:

Undiplomatic behaviour

Gregory Levey, a columnist for Salon.com, spins a good yarn about his time working for the Israeli government as a speechwriter in his book "Shut Up, I'm Talking: And Other Diplomacy Lessons I Learned in the Israeli Government". He gives a great view of the other side of politics and diplomacy, and tells a couple of really funny stories. I was a bit jealous of his experiences, though not so much when he described daily life in Tel Aviv.

Sold out

Although it is my sincere hope that things in the United States will change after the fall election, recent news is not encouraging. Although the Democratic leadership of the House of Representatives had as recently as March displayed the unprecedented existence of a spine while upholding the rule of law and the 4th amendment rights of Americans, on Friday 20 June they gave AT&T and other lawbreaking telecommunication companies a free pass for helping the executive branch to spy illegally on US citizens. They also opened the floodgates to domestic spying on a new and breathtaking level. They sold us out to the telecom lobby: Nancy Pelosi got $13k (good to know our worth); Barack Obama "opposes" telecom immunity (but won't do anything to stop it); wholesale spying, that he thinks is just dandy and we can trust him to use it responsibly once he's elected.

Although it would be hard to surpass the evil of Cheney/Bush over the past eight years, the amount of power being concentrated in the executive branch is frighteningly corrupting, and it continues to expand. Mother Teresa would be tempted by that amount of power. I don't trust anyone to wield absolute power responsibly, and I'm not supposed to have to: that's why the US has a constitution, at least in theory. I guess that's really just a quaint historical document now, and we'll be at the mercy of whoever gets elected. That's not the way it's supposed to work, folks.

"There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty." - John Adams [1772].

Delicious Carbon for Sale or Trade

Although Canada's conservative "new" federal government is locked in a Bushian nightmare of climate doublespeak and bad science, the provinces are doing much better. British Columbia (where I have the privilege to reside) started its carbon tax yesterday, the first in North America. Today following bilingual talks between the Québec and Ontario cabinets (reportedly held 60% in French) were followed by an announcement of a cap-and-trade carbon emission reduction scheme much like those used in Europe, to be implemented by January 2010.

Even if the reactionary do nothing federal government and the oil-producing rednecks of Alberta (our esteemed prime minister's spiritual home) won't do it, the rest of Canada will – or at least 75% of us will. Canadian federalism works. It's a proud day here in our fair country.