Fool’s News

So, today Attorney General Gonzales is claiming that he relied on his resigning deputy more than any other aide to decide which U.S. attorneys should be fired last year.  It is obvious to anyone with even less than a half a brain that Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty is being forced out as a scapegoat for Gonzales.

“You have to remember, at the end of the day, the recommendations reflected the views of the deputy attorney general. He signed off on the names,” Gonzales told reporters at a National Press Club forum in Washington. “And he would know better than anyone else, anyone in this room, anyone — again, the deputy attorney general would know best about the qualifications and the experiences of the United States attorneys community, and he signed off on the names.”

It amazes me that this is offered as an excuse.  It’s insane.  Regardless of who knew “best about the qualifications and the experiences of the United States attorneys community,” Gonzales is the head of the department.  Long gone is the time when the head of an agency (or department or corporation or country or business) actually took responsibility for those who work under them.  No, not any more.  Today we use those below us to cover our own asses.  Everyone wants the glory — no one can handle the honor.

A recent study finds that the national per capita divorce rate has declined steadily since its peak in 1981 and is now at its lowest level since 1970.

America’s divorce rate began climbing in the late 1960s and skyrocketed during the ’70s and early ’80s, as virtually every state adopted no-fault divorce laws. The rate peaked at 5.3 divorces per 1,000 people in 1981.

But since then it’s dropped by one-third, to 3.6. That’s the lowest rate since 1970.

Depending on the political bent of the “expert,” the reasons for this decline differ. Some attribute the decline the various federal and state pro-marriage initiatives such as the Bush administration’s Healthy Marriage initiative (on which it has spent $200 million) and Oklahoma’s state-funded marriage education programs.

Others believe that two-income families are happier and their marriages are more stress-free with less financial stress.

Yet others point to the fact that marriage rates have dropped by 30% in the past 25 years and Americans are waiting about five years longer to marry than they did in 1970. Of course, with fewer marriages taking place, there would logically be fewer divorces.

Glenn Stanton, a family policy expert with the conservative ministry Focus on the Family, argues, “A lot of young adults now are coming out of the family upheaval of the ’70s, and they are cohabiting out of fear. They don’t want to mess up the nice clean carpet of marriage – they saw their parents do that.”

It seems to me that Occam’s razor dictates that with a 30% drop in marriages per year during the last 25 years that would explain the reduction in divorce rates.

Interesting statistic nonetheless…regardless of the reasons.

Here’s the teaser:

“I knew then what had happened,” Cullen said. “I knew it was an alien implant from that first encounter in 1978. There was lost time that night. I have to assume I was abducted.”

Target and Red Lobster were the most popular responses to a Leadership Coles County survey that asked people what stores and restaurants they would like to see in Coles County.

I bet I know for whom Coles County voted in the 2004 presidential election…

From the Washington Post:

BAGHDAD, May 10 — A majority of members of Iraq’s parliament have signed a draft bill that would require a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. soldiers from Iraq and freeze current troop levels. The development was a sign of a growing division between Iraq’s legislators and prime minister that mirrors the widening gulf between the Bush administration and its critics in Congress.

The draft bill proposes a timeline for a gradual departure, much like what some U.S. Democratic lawmakers have demanded, and would require the Iraqi government to secure parliament’s approval before any further extensions of the U.N. mandate for foreign troops in Iraq, which expires at the end of 2007.

The American public wants us out of Iraq. The U.S. Congress wants us out of Iraq. Now, the Iraqis themselves want us out of Iraq. George, why won’t you listen? You keep reiterating that deadlines will ensure failure. We’ve been waging this battle your way for five (5) years without any meaningful results. It is a losing battle. You have inserted our soldiers into the middle of what was – from the beginning – a lost cause.

Cut your losses and go. Really.

One of the sources for my post stated, “The government is also fighting hard in court on behalf of the phone companies, filing repeated briefs which claim that “state secrets” trump even the legality of the alleged security programs.”

Here’s my problem with the government’s argument:

If the information was obtained illegally, the government shouldn’t possess this information.  Since the information was obtained illegally and the government should not have this information at all, how can it be a state secret?  This is the very problem with this administration.  It acts illegally (and, in my opinion, it knows its conduct is illegal) and then tries to rely on “state secret” and “national security” to avoid revealing its illegal conduct.

If it is illegal for the government to have the information, how can it be a state secret?  The government, assuming the allegations are correct, acquired private information (i.e., personal secrets) to which it was not entitled.  Now that it has this information, it claims it cannot reveal it because they are state secrets.  It is the most utterly circular and self-serving argument that can be made.

Moreover, I recently read (if you are not aware of this and/or are interested, I recommend you read the linked story) that not only was the government monitoring overseas phone calls, it was also monitoring e-mails.  And AT&T rolled over and conceded to the government’s request to secretly monitor its internet users.  By contrast, Qwest asked for a lawful subpoena.  When the government failed to produce one, it refused to cooperate.  Good for Qwest!

This administration has consistently behaved illegally – all in the name of the war on terror and protecting Americans.  The White House must be taken to task for its secret and illegal conduct.   It must be held accountable for its numerous and ongoing constitutional violations.

As many people may know, Verizon is one of the phone companies currently being sued over its alleged disclosure of customer phone records to the NSA.  Last week, Verizon filed a response to the court in which it asks for the entire case to be thrown out – on free speech grounds.

The response alleges that the case should be thrown out because even looking into the issue could violate state secrets. However, Verizon’s response also tries to make the case that Verizon has a First Amendment right to “petition” the government. “Based on plaintiffs’ own allegations, defendants’ right to communicate such information to the government is fully protected by the Free Speech and Petition Clauses of the First Amendment,” argue Verizon’s lawyers.

Essentially, the argument is that turning over truthful information to the government is free speech, and the EFF and ACLU can’t do anything about it. “Communicating facts to the government is protected petitioning activity,” says the response, even when the communication of those facts would normally be illegal or would violate a company’s owner promises to its customers.

If Verizon’s arguments fail, the Bush administration is already preparing to ask Congress for retroactive immunity for all telecommunications companies that assisted the government after September 11, 2001. The government is also fighting hard in court on behalf of the phone companies, filing repeated briefs which claim that “state secrets” trump even the legality of the alleged security programs. The administration’s new appropriations request for intelligence agencies was recently disclosed at a hearing of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and it includes a massive immunity grant to the phone companies who have been helping the NSA and other goverment agencies. Buried deep in the request is the following:

Notwithstanding any other law, and in addition to the immunities, privileges, and defenses provided by any other source of law, no action shall lie or be maintained in any court, and no penalty, sanction, or other form of remedy or relief shall be imposed by any court or any other body, against any person for the alleged provision to an element of the intelligence community of any information (including records or other information pertaining to a customer), facilities, or any other form of assistance, during the period of time beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on the date that is the effective date of this Act, in connection with any alleged classified communications intelligence activity that the Attorney General or a designee of the Attorney General certifies, in a manner consistent with the protection of State secrets, is, was, would be, or would have been intended to protect the United States from a terrorist attack.

Of course, this language would insulate the phone companies, but it would not prevent suits against the government for its conduct.

The issue of whether any of this behavior was legal is not important. The government has already argued that legality doesn’t matter when it comes to the phone companies, since even a ruling that their actions were illegal would expose the existence of the intelligence-gathering program in question. Therefore, such cases should not even be considered by the courts.

The EFF and others argued that communications privacy laws had been violated, but the government countered by claiming that a “state secrets” privilege meant that the cases should simply be thrown out. Though some cases were dismissed, the EFF’s case against AT&T continues, though it would also be dismissed if the proposed new legislation passes.

However, by moving to dismiss the first lawsuit filed over the NSA’s activities, the Administration is asking US citizens and residents to take it at its word that our privacy and constitutional rights are being safeguarded. With the executive branch being resistant to any sort of oversight or inquiry from either of the other two branches of government, it is difficult at best for many Americans to extend the administration the trust it is seeking.

Along the secrets line, most of the evidence in the lawsuit is being held under seal, as AT&T says that it contains detailed information related to “the technical structure of the AT&T telephone networks,” the disclosure of which would jeopardize its business.

This is the height of arrogance. The government asks the telecommunications companies to disclose information about customers which violates the Communications Act of 1934, the more recent Electronic Communications and Privacy Act, and the 1986 Stored Communications Act and the telecommunications companies comply.

When this conduct is called into question, AT&T argues that the technical structure of its networks is secret which should not be disclosed. Likewise, the government is claiming state secrets protection. So, the companies can disclose customers’ secrets to the government in violation of at least two federal laws, customer contracts and, in my opinion, the Constitution, but when those whose rights were violated seek redress neither the telecommunications companies nor the government are willing to defend their conduct and argue that their secrets should not be revealed. This is the height of arrogance. In other words, it’s okay for us to disclose your secrets, but don’t ask us to reveal ours.

Things like this make me so angry.

Here’s the flip side.  If Verizon wins its argument, it seems to me that Verizon (and other corporations) would then have a very difficult time enforcing its own Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) it has with its employees.  How stupid would Verizon look arguing the opposition position against a former employee.  So, if Verizon wins this motion, I would love to see a former employee start disclosing – in a loud and public way – lots of Verizon’s internal secrets.  According to Verizon’s argument, it would not be able to enforce the NDA so long as the former employee’s statements are truthful.

In his bid for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, Sen. John McCain has decided to reinforce his support of the military’s so-called “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy regarding homosexuals in the military.  In response to an inquiry from the Servicemembers Legal Defense Fund, McCain responded in writing “regarding the controvesial issue of homosexual rights in the military services.”  His April 16th response can be read in its entirety here.

McCain’s restatement of his support for the policy raises a couple of issues worthy of discussion.

1.     It seems that the current Republican presidential candidates are caving to advice that they cannot win the presidential nomination or election, for that matter, without the support of the extreme religious right.  Once – not so long ago (in 2004)  - NYC Mayor Giuiliani was called a “champion of gay rights,” now that Giuilani is also in competition for the Republican presidential nomination, he has done an about-face.  More recently, in April 2007, Giuiliani told CNN that he does not believe in “discrimination against gays,” but said now is not the time to question the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, in an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash, and reiterated his opposition to gay marriage.  As Gay City News reports on May 3, 2007:

Rudy Giuliani is continuing an emerging pattern of abandoning his previous support for gay rights, this past week attacking New Hampshire for enacting a civil union law for same-sex couples because it “goes too far” and is “the equivalent of marriage.”

That statement from the Republican presidential hopeful follows his retreat earlier this year on gays in the military on the grounds that “we are at war” and should not change the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy that he had criticized.

Giuliani voiced support for civil unions as recently as 2004 on Fox News and signed a domestic partners bill as mayor of New York City in 1998. He supported that legislation in 1997 in exchange for the neutrality of the Empire State Pride Agenda in his re-election bid against Manhattan Borough President Ruth Messinger, a leading LGBT rights advocate.

(more…)

From the Rainbow Law Center blog:

Despite the budget crisis that the State of Michigan is in State Representative Jack Brandenburg is spending his time calling for hearings to investigate Saginaw Valley State University – a University that isn’t even in his district – and asking for their funding be withheld immediately.  What could be so important that the Representative would divert his attention away from our state’s economy and focus it on further damaging a higher education institution that is already suffering as a result of the state’s financial crisis?  Representative Brandenburg is attacking SVSU because the American Family Association has told him he should be upset over SVSU’s production of the Tony, Emmy and Pulitzer Prize winning “Angels in America“.

In an April 26th interview with WJR, Rep. Brandenburg called for Michigan’s Speaker of the House to open hearings on SVSU.  He has apparently also called for funds to be withheld from SVSU and for the President of SVSU, Eric R. Gilbertson, to resign.  This interview prompted the host of the WJR show, Frank Beckmann, to write a column in The Detroit News supporting Representative Brandenburg’s position.  Ironically, at least three other universities in Michigan have staged “Angels in America” and even The University of Notre Dame has produced the play.

Triangle Foundation believes it is time for Representative Brandenburg to stop being manipulated by Gary Glenn and the American Family Association and end his attack on artistic expression and the First Amendment.

Congratulations are in order.  Congratulations to Denise on 1) passing the bar exam and 2) opening her own practice.  She is co-founder of Michigan’s Rainbow Law Center, PLLC whose mission is to provide Michigan’s LGBTQ community with friendly, competent, and price appropriate legal services.

You can access the firm’s blog here. It’s also been added to the blogroll——>

Congratulations to her and keep checking her blog!