Norwegian terrorist admires the Tea Party

Last Friday, a bomb exploded in Oslo, Norway, outside some government buildings. Many people immediately assumed it was al-Qaeda.

Then, less than two hours later, a gunman opened fire at a youth camp.

More than 90 people were killed in these two acts of violence.

Ironically, the admitted perpetrator in both incidents, Anders Behring Breivik, is not an Islamic terrorist, but rather a white radical right-wing Islamophobe who admires the American Tea Party movement and wants to save the Western world from Muslim infiltration/influence.

Violence based on that kind of attitude will never solve anything. Indeed, it's the mirror image of Islamic jihad. It leads only to unnecessary suffering and death.

Might does not make right. But, sadly, some people don't care about that.

"Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!"
-- Sarah Palin

The financial panic begins

With no agreement in Washington yet on raising the debt ceiling, a couple of people have told me that they are looking into moving their personal investments out of the stock market and into something safer.

If enough people do this, I'm guessing that it could destabilize our economy even worse.

Not that I blame them.

Some others, who are government workers, are slashing their personal spending even more, fearing loss of their paychecks. Since personal spending is what stimulates the economy, this too will have a negative effect.

Not that I blame them.

Will the GOP please stop playing games with our lives and livelihoods? (Rhetorical question, of course.)

Lesbian couple sues VT inn for discrimination; inn cries misunderstanding

It seems that lawsuits are never simple, and there are always at least two sides.

The latest example to catch my attention is the case of Baker and Linsley v. Wildflower Inn. In this case, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is working with a lesbian couple, Kate Baker and Ming Linsley, to sue a Vermont inn for refusing to host their wedding reception.

According to some case background on the ACLU website, the Wildflower Inn seemed very eager to host the reception until the innkeepers learned that the happy couple are two lesbians. Never mind the fact that same-sex marriage has been legal in Vermont since 2009; it appeared that the innkeepers wanted no part of it on their property.

The ACLU quotes an email from an employee of the inn who had been working with the mother of one of the brides on preliminary arrangements: "After our conversation, I checked in with my Innkeepers and unfortunately due to their personal feelings, they do not host gay receptions at our facility."

And this wasn't the first time, allegedly. According to the ACLU's official complaint, filed July 19, "during the same 12-month period in which the Meeting and Events Director refused to allow Ming and Kate to hold their reception at the resort, the Meeting and Events Director also turned away at least two other same-sex couples pursuant to the Wildflower Inn's no-gay-reception policy."

Imagine the public outrage if interracial couples were treated this way in 2011!

According to the ACLU, "The Vermont Human Rights Law has prohibited public accommodations from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation for nearly 20 years."

And, notes the ACLU, "This case is about discrimination, plain and simple. When a business that is open to the public refuses to serve two people and their guests solely because the two people are a same sex couple, it is no different than restaurants not serving individuals because they were black, or other businesses keeping out women or Jews. It is discrimination and it is illegal."

But, as I noted above, there are always at least two sides to every lawsuit. So I called the Wildflower Inn. I expected to hear, "No comment." Instead, I ended up speaking with a woman who wanted to talk, albeit reluctantly.

When she answered the phone at the inn, I introduced myself and explained that I am a writer in Philadelphia hoping to hear their side of the story. The woman (who did not give her name) said it was all a misunderstanding.

She went on to say that the Wildflower Inn employs a number of gay people, and that numerous gay guests have stayed there in the past and have returned for repeat visits.

Whey then, I asked, were Ming and Kate turned away?

I did not get a straight answer to that question (pun unintended). But the woman on the phone seemed to imply it was the decision of the Meeting and Events Director, who had allegedly not consulted the owners at all.

I'll leave it to the lawyers on both sides to drag out the real facts. And I'll leave it to the courts to ultimately decide who at the inn broke the law, if indeed a law was broken. But, at the very least, the email quoted above certainly does make it seem like someone at the inn has a homophobia problem.

In the meantime, ABC News reports that Ming and Kate have found a different place to hold the festivities. I wish them all the best.

Senate committee to consider DOMA repeal today

Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee will conduct a hearing to assess the impact of the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and to consider Senator Diane Feinstein's bill S.598, the Respect for Marriage Act.

According to Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), S.598 "would effectively repeal DOMA by allowing the U.S. federal government to provide benefits to married same-sex couples living in the 6 states (and the District of Columbia) that recognize marriage equality."

It is not total equality, but it's better than DOMA!

According to the Courage Campaign, "29 Senators now support repeal, which is more than twice the number of Senators that voted for DOMA in 1996." And President Obama has endorsed the bill.

Stay tuned for updates as this bill hopefully continues to move through Congress and on to the president's desk!

Philly archbishop resigns in wake of sex abuse scandal

Is it coincidence? I don't know.

But I find it interesting that Cardinal Justin Rigali, head of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia, is now resigning. This comes just a few months after a new grand jury report cited him for failing to adequately follow a previous report's recommendations issued in 2005 for dealing with clergy sex abuse scandals in the archdiocese.

According to the Associated Press, the 2005 report "charged that Rigali and his predecessor hid credible sex-abuse complaints made against dozens of Philadelphia priests."

According to KYW, Philadelphia's CBS affiliate, "Rigali put several reforms into place after [the 2005] grand jury's findings were released, hired an advocate for victims, and pledged to pastorally deal with the crisis."

But many believe he didn't do enough.

In all fairness, under Church law, he was required to retire when he turned 75 last year. But the Pope did not accept his resignation until now.

I hope Rigali's replacement will do a better job of protecting the children and supporting the victims.

In the meantime, I'm glad that the legal system is following up on this issue, since the Church is obviously not doing enough.

To Marcus Bachmann: Who are the real barbarians?

It's Friday, so I'm going to have some (sort of) tongue-in-cheek fun here.

Unfortunately, I'm thinking about Marcus Bachmann, homophobic husband of Congresswoman and GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann (R-MN).

I'm thinking about how Mr. Bachmann referred to homosexuals as "barbarians".

And I'm thinking that Mr. Bachmann obviously did not give a lot of forethought to that label before using it.

After all, the opposite of barbarism is culture. And the height of culture is fine living -- i.e., well decorated homes, an appreciation for beauty and art, and a flair for fine dining.

So tell me: Who can beat the gays at those things? For instance, who (besides Martha Stewart) can beat the gays at throwing a beautiful and fabulous gourmet brunch?

Probably not Marcus Bachmann.

Or, if he can, then maybe there are other questions we should be asking. ;-)

In any case, on the other hand, barbarism usually involves intolerance based on ignorance (willful or not).

QED.

A missed teabag opportunity

At lunchtime yesterday, while enjoying a salad at a local cafe, I noticed a 50-something man and his wife sitting nearby. The man was wearing a t-shirt with a picture of Barack Obama and the words "RACIST JERK" (in capital letters).

I was tempted to approach him and strike up a conversation. I thought it might be fun to act like a naive but inquisitive conservative seeking his higher knowledge.

In my mind, I imagined sweetly delivering the following opener: "Hey, I like your t-shirt. I heard Glenn Beck say Obama's a racist, too, and he knows about these things. But I keep wondering: How could he be a racist when his mother was white?"

I really, really wanted to do it. Because I really, really wanted to see how he would respond. And how his wife would react.

But, by the time I worked up the nerve, they had finished their lunch and left the building.

I need to be bolder faster.

Grayson wants his seat back

Good news for progressives: Former U.S. Congressman Alan Grayson (D-FL) is apparently running for office again.

According to WFTV in Orlando, "Grayson already raised nearly $100,000 in donations before filing his paperwork on Monday."

We need Grayson's progressive voice back in the House again, especially in the wake of Anthony Weiner's recent self-destruction.

Fingers crossed in hopes for a Grayson victory in 2012.

Will jobs cost Obama the election?

Last week's unemployment numbers came as a sad surprise to those of us who have to work for a living. New jobs were fewer than expected, and the unemployment percentage inched up to 9.2 percent.

If these numbers don't improve soon, I'm afraid President Obama might stand no chance of reelection.

And perhaps he will deserve that fate. After all, when he took office, he chose financial advisors who are sympathetic to Wall Street and corporate America - the folks who cause this economic mess. And, in his constant efforts to placate the GOP, he has seemingly abandoned his base.

On the other hand, if Obama loses in 2012, things will surely go from very bad to much worse.

I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. Where is the change I can believe in?

Bachmann vs. the First Amendment

GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann, known for her extreme right-wing "religious" crusade against all things "evil" (like science), has officially joined a war against pornography.

It's part of a broader candidate pledge that she signed to save marriage and the family (i.e., the right-wing "ideal" for each). Bachmann was the first candidate to sign the pledge.

The pledge also registers opposition to same-sex marriage, birth control, and marital infidelity (as well as that huge looming threat of Sharia law replacing our Constitution).

But it's the pornography thing that concerns me right now. Signers of the pledge vow to support the "[h]umane protection of women and the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy - our next generation of American children - from ... all forms of pornography."

While I can understand wanting to shield children from porn, we already have measures in place for that, so there's nothing for Bachmann and her cohorts to do.

But they want to "protect" everyone - and especially women - from porn (as if I need to be protected from it).

I'm no constitutional attorney, but it seems to me that there have been several cases in which the Supreme Court has ruled that pornography is protected under the First Amendment.

And that is healthy, in my opinion. After all, if you start censoring that which someone finds subjectively offensive, you construct a very slippery slope.

It's the very kind of thing that our Founding Fathers worked so hard to try to prevent.

It's sad and scary that Bachmann so hates our freedom.

Will Obama pull the plug on Grandma's income?

In all the talk about the deficit and the debt ceiling, I thought Social Security and Medicare had long ago been taken off the table. Apparently that's not the case.

The news yesterday was that President Obama might be willing to trade Social Security and Medicare cuts in exchange for tax increases.

Whose side is he on?! Certainly not on the side of our non-rich senior citizens.

I am appalled.

Sick of Casey Anthony

Today in Florida, Casey Anthony will be sentenced for the handful of misdemeanors for which the jury on Tuesday found her guilty, all related to giving false information to law enforcement. Since Anthony was acquitted of the more sensational charges against her, I am hoping that the whole media circus will now go away.

I am sick of it. And I am sick of the pundits and everyday citizens expressing their outrage over the jury's decision on Tuesday that Anthony is not guilty of the murder of her 2-year-old daughter. (As if these armchair critics are privy to some secret evidence that would erase the reasonable doubt. But no, they just know it anyway.)

Just after the verdict broke, an acquaintance asked me what I thought of it. I answered honestly: I don't care. I do not personally know Casey Anthony. She is not a member of my family or my professional or social circle, so it's none of my immediate business, unless her human rights are at some point violated (which would have been the case had she been convicted with a death sentence).

The Casey Anthony story got so big, and so out of control, because the media saw some glamour (and therefore ratings) in it. A hot white middle-class mom may have killed her cute white daughter because the toddler was interfering with mom's party-happy social life. Cha-ching! Not even Paris Hilton can compete with that.

But I hear stories every week here in Philly of missing children. In many of those cases, a parent is a suspect. But those other cases don't become national news sensations. Maybe they're just not glamorous enough. The parties involved might be minorities, or they just might not be interesting or edgy enough to capture the national spotlight.

This double standard is not solely the fault of the media that hype the select few cases. It's also the fault of the sheep who turn them into a ratings success.

Get a life, people.

Sadly, though, I predict some major magazine exposure for Anthony after this, along with maybe a book and a made-for-TV movie.

Again: Get a life, people.

Will Texas execute a Mexican national tomorrow?

Humberto Leal Garcia Jr., a Mexican national, is scheduled to be executed by lethal injection by the State of Texas tomorrow, July 7.

He was convicted of the 1994 rape and murder of a 16-year-old girl. Having been found guilty, punishment is warranted. But not the death penalty in this case.

That is because Texas cut legal corners in the case. Under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, international arrestees are entitled to help from the consulate of their home country. But Leal didn't find that out until he was already sitting on death row.

Texas is obviously not interested in true justice. They're just interested in procedural expediency. And so they have ignored mitigating evidence in Leal's clemency petition that the jury never heard during trial and sentencing, and that Leal (like so many other non-rich, non-white criminal defendants in this country) had inadequate and ineffective legal representation.

According to the Los Angeles Times, "The International Court of Justice has called on the United States to review Leal's case, as well as the cases of other Mexican nationals who were never told of their rights under the treaty."

Not good enough for Texas.

Even former President George W. Bush (who, while Governor of Texas, and under the influence of Alberto Gonzales, seemed to just love signing death warrants while ignoring mitigating evidence) called on Texas to comply with the Convention.

Not good enough for today's Texas.

So the Obama administration also called for a review of the case. According to the Telegraph (UK), "The Obama administration, adopting a similar stance to the one taken by President George W Bush's, believes executing Leal could endanger Americans abroad who are also entitled to consular assistance under the Vienna Convention."

Still apparently not good enough for Texas.

How you can help:

Click here to call on Texas Governor Rick Perry and the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles to commute Leal's sentence.

Please hurry.

Obama, the new war president

George W. Bush proudly described himself as a "war president". But it seems his successor has beaten him at the game, only 2 1/2 years in.

Under Bush, we carried on military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Under Obama, we continue killing and/or being killed on those fronts while also using military force in Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia.

Bush must be so jealous!

Don't underestimate Bachmann

Yesterday in Iowa, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) officially launched her 2012 campaign for the U.S. presidency.

Some on the left seem so quick to dismiss Bachmann's candidacy, calling it a long shot. But I want to remind those skeptics that we thought the same thing about George W. Bush at this stage of the game. And Bachmann is much more articulate than Bush.

If the economy remains sluggish and unemployment remains high, the people will crave change. And they will vote for change (no matter how bizarre the prospects), because they're desperate.

Heaven help us if that happens next year.

Same-sex marriage now legal in New York

In another big step forward towards equality for all citizens, last night New York became the sixth and most populous state to allow same-sex marriage. Governor Cuomo signed it just hours after it passed the state Senate.

For a while, it looked like the bill might not get through the Republican-controlled Senate, but finally a compromise was reached. The compromise provides that churches and other religious groups will not be penalized if they refuse to perform or bless same-sex marriages.

Fair enough.

I hope other states will see this as an example worth following.

Man robs bank to get prison health care

Think Progress recently reported on the case of James Richard Verone of North Carolina, formerly a hard-working, law-abiding citizen, who desperately resorted to robbing a store for one dollar in order to go to jail where he would get health coverage for some painful illnesses he was suffering.

This is what our nation has become.

"ObamaCare" might help in some such cases once all of its provisions take effect over the next few years. Unless the Republicans repeal it. And if you can afford to purchase your own insurance under the coming mandate.

America used to be called the land of opportunity.

Now it's where you either voluntarily go to jail or else suffer and die if you cannot afford your health insurance premiums.

Yes, this is what our nation has become.

In Wal-Mart wage discrimination case, SCOTUS sides with the big corporation

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the mega-corporation Wal-Mart, saying that a class-action wage discrimination lawsuit, which could potentially involve hundreds of thousands of past and present female employees, could not move forward as a class action.

In the suit, Wal-Mart was accused of a pattern of paying women less and giving them fewer promotions. The evidence of this was, in my opinion, overwhelming. And now it looks like they'll get away with it.

It's a complicated case, dealing with legal criteria under which parties may or may not pursue a class action suit. I am not a lawyer, but in skimming the decision, it appears that the Court decided that the legal criteria were not met. So the decision was based on a technicality, not on the root issue at hand.

A big part of the decision regards the defense that pay raises and promotions are granted subjectively by individual Wal-Mart managers across the company, not though any discriminatory policy at the corporate level. So it appears that wage discrimination cases against Wal-Mart will have to be brought individually, one by one, or where a small group of women can point to the same manager. In other words, ladies, you're on your own.

Justice Scalia wrote the opinion in the case, with Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito joining (predictably).

Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, joined as to parts I and III of the decision, but not part II.

Read the full opinion of the Court + Ginsburg's partial dissent (PDF)

Romney pretends to empathize with the unemployed

According to Jeff Zeleny's blog at The New York Times, GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney met with a group of unemployed Floridians yesterday.

And he told them, "I'm also unemployed."

Yes, he really said that. As if he can really relate to their predicament.

Romney, of course, is a millionaire many times over, with a net worth of as much as $250 million.

And his comment shows just how out of touch he is with ordinary Americans who have to struggle to pay the bills.

A small victory in Prop 8 case (but a long battle ahead)

Yesterday, U.S. District Court Chief Judge James S. Ware denied a motion to throw out last year's ruling that California's Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot initiative which outlawed same-sex marriage in that state, is unconstitutional.

The bigots in this case claimed that last year's ruling by Judge Vaughn Walker should be vacated because Walker should have recused himself from the case because he (Walker) is gay. Yesterday's ruling disagreed.

From the decision:

"After considering the Oppositions to the Motion and the governing law, as discussed below, the Court finds that neither recusal nor disqualification was required based on the asserted grounds. The sole fact that a federal judge shares the same circumstances or personal characteristics with other members of the general public, and that the judge could be affected by the outcome of a proceeding in the same way that other members of the general public would be affected, is not a basis for either recusal or disqualification under Section 455(b)(4).

"Further, under Section 455(a), it is not reasonable to presume that a judge is incapable of making an impartial decision about the constitutionality of a law, solely because, as a citizen, the judge could be affected by the proceedings. Accordingly, the Motion to Vacate Judgment on the sole ground of Judge Walker’s same-sex relationship is DENIED."

>> Read the full decision. (PDF)

While this is good news, Prop 8 will probably remain tied up in the courts for quite a while.

And when it gets all the way to the Supreme Court, anything could happen.

Stay tuned, with fingers crossed for equality.

If a Republican wins

Last night's GOP candidates' debate made a few things very clear:

If a Republican wins the 2012 presidential election, along with a GOP-heavy Congress, health care will be taken away from us ordinary people, and unemployment will remain the norm.

Meanwhile, the rich will get richer via more tax cuts for them.

The climate crisis will worsen as they drill, baby, drill.

And the middle class will continue on our path to extinction.

But I won't count on Fox News to broadcast all this to the sheep who would make it all happen.

GOP debate tonight

Tonight at 8:00 pm, CNN will broadcast a debate between seven current 2012 Republican presidential candidates. Scheduled participants are Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum.

I haven't decided whether or not I will watch it. While parts of the debate might be amusing, other parts will probably make me want to throw things at the TV.

On the other hand, it's time to get used to them. It's going to be a long and painful road ahead to November 2012.

Not a good match

I just got an interesting message from a man at Match.com. He describes his political leanings as "Very Conservative" and says his heroes are Ayn Rand and Alan Greenspan.

He expressed concern that I had mentioned in my profile that I am a vegetarian.

He said he wants to meet and hang out with me despite our differences because there are so many things he could teach me.

Yeah, I'll bet.

My response: <DELETE>

Why do we care about Anthony Weiner's sex life?

The American media just can't get enough of the latest Washington sex scandal - Weinergate, i.e., the revelation that U.S. Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-NY) sent some racy photos to young women via Twitter (and otherwise flirted with them over the course of some years).

I am disappointed in Rep. Weiner for lying about it to the press for a week before finally coming clean, but I disagree with all the calls for his resignation.

His sex life should be a matter between him and his wife. While his flirtations have been going in recent years, he has nevertheless represented his constituents well on the House floor. His sexual behavior has not affected his ability to do his job. So what is the problem?

Some call it an integrity issue, since it took Weiner so long to finally own up to his actions. But what normal person hasn't ever lied about sex?

In Europe, where politicians' affairs are met with disinterested yawns, America surely must surely look like a snickering, emotionally immature, sex-obsessed adolescent.

Kind of like Anthony Weiner.

And kind of like so many Americans who grew up in this puritanical culture.

So should we all be fired?

Could Santorum win the White House?

Yesterday, Rick "Man On Dog" Santorum, the ultra-conservative, homophobic Republican former U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania, announced that he will run for president in 2012.

It may seem like a long shot. But so did the prospect of a George W. Bush presidency early in the game.

So we have to take it seriously and work accordingly. After all, a Santorum presidency, especially if supported by a strong Republican Congress and Santorum-appointed Supreme Court justices, could roll back social progress by decades.

We cannot let that happen.

Jack Kevorkian meant well

Dr. Jack Kevorkian passed away on June 3. He died the old-fashioned way - in a Michigan hospital bed while suffering from pulmonary thrombosis. Kevorkian, also known as "Dr. Death", was famous as a proponent and provider of physician-assisted suicide for the terminally ill.

At the beginning, Michigan had no law against assisted suicide. Kevorkian eventually went to prison when he crossed the line and gave a lethal injection to a man suffering from Lou Gehrig's disease. He videotaped the event and provided the video to the CBS program "60 Minutes". Unlike Kevorkian's other patients, the Lou Gehrig's sufferer was unable to administer the lethal drug to himself. Kevorkian was subsequently convicted of second-degree murder. And the Michigan legislature proceeded to outlaw assisted suicide.

Some people call Kevorkian a murderer and a monster. I call him compassionate. He admirably wanted to relieve the suffering of the terminally ill. He just did so with a bit too much drama. Fortunately, his legacy lives on with a number of right-to-die organizations around the world that are fighting for what I see as the final human right: the right to choose a quick and dignified death over a painful, lingering one.

As a result of the work of these organizations, physician-assisted suicide is now available for terminally ill patients in Oregon, Washington, and Montana, as well as a small handful of European nations. Everywhere else, the terminally ill are forced to endure sometimes horrific pain at the end of life, or end their misery with a plastic bag, a noose, or other undignified means. And those sad, desperate acts will continue as long as so-called "pro-life" factions keep fighting attempts to widen the acceptance of physician-assisted suicide and provide more people with the power to choose a good death over a horrible, slow, painful one.

This is not euthanasia, where some people worry that the disabled will be killed to get them out of the way. Where physician-assisted suicide is legal, the patient must demonstrate a rational and clear-headed desire to die, and must pass medical screenings to prove that they are terminally ill.

Sometimes those on the "pro-life" side point to hospice care as an alternative that would provide palliative care to relieve suffering at the end of life. But the fact remains that modern medical science cannot yet provide adequate pain control for all dying patients, even by the best hospice organizations.

While physicians are sworn to do no harm, is it not harmful to force a dying patient to suffer a slow, lingering death against his or her will, perhaps kept alive artificially with respirators and feeding tubes?

When a pet becomes ill to the point where it is near death and suffering uncontrollably, a veterinarian will not think twice before recommending that the pet be euthanized, to put the animal out of its misery.

So why do we treat our dying pets with more mercy than we treat our dying people?

Dr. Kevorkian saw this double standard and chose to fight it. For that I admire him. May he now rest in peace.

Pentagon wants to make martyrs

Military officials announced earlier this week that they will pursue the death penalty against Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four other alleged 9/11 plotters via Guantanamo Bay's kangaroo-court-style military commission system.

Don't get me wrong -- I want to see these men prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But trying them in the heavily criticized military commission system and putting them to death will do nothing to discourage would-be terrorists. Quite the opposite, in fact.

It shows us as being hypocritical in all our talk of human rights and justice. And the death penalty would make martyrs of the defendants, which is exactly what they want.

Doing it this way, the terrorists win.

And the worst part is that they know it -- as do their followers.

Best to drop the death penalty, give them fair trials to show that we are a nation of laws, and then let them sit in an American jail for the rest of their lives. That would be a deterrent.

SCOTUS says Ashcroft can't be sued over post-9/11 detention

Yesterday, in the case of Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that former Bush administration attorney general John Ashcroft cannot be sued for his role in detaining an American Muslim man without charge after 9/11.

This reversed a Ninth Circuit ruling that the suit could move forward.

As the Washington Post has described the case, "At the heart of the lawsuit is a strategy launched by the Justice Department and the FBI after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Ashcroft, the attorney general at the time, asserted that authorities would take 'suspected terrorists off the street' and engage in 'aggressive detention of lawbreakers and material witnesses' to disrupt possible al-Qaeda plots."

In other words, they just scooped up all the "suspected terrorists" they could find (i.e., Muslim and Middle-Eastern-looking men) in hopes of discovering a theoretical needle in a haystack. That's called racial profiling. It's immoral. It's ineffective. And it's an expensive waste of time.

Will there be no accountability ever in the Bush administration's misguided "war on terror"?

According to a piece by Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog, the Court found that "Ashcroft was immune because he had not violated a constitutional right that existed at the time of al-Kidd’s arrest in March 2003."

So apparently universal human rights don't count. Only court-interpreted constitutional rights.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which the U.S. is a signatory, states the following:

Article 9.
• No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.
• Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.
• (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

But apparently the "justices" sitting on the highest court in the land cannot be bothered with such considerations.

>> Read more on this case at SCOTUSblog.

Happy 50th birthday, Amnesty International!

Today is Amnesty International's 50th birthday!

AI is marking this occasion with a 16-minute video that explores the organization's formation, growth, and human rights victories through the years. It's pretty impressive, if I do say so myself.

Check it out: 50 Years - Amnesty International

Will the New York election get the message through?

In a special election in New York on Tuesday, Democrat Kathy Hochul won a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. She won the election in the very Republican 26th District, where the GOP has held that seat for more than 40 years.

Some pundits say that Hocul's win sends a clear message to the GOP that the people - even in Republican districts - are firmly against the Medicare "reform" that's been brewing in the House.

But will the GOP really get the message?

Fortunately, the Senate voted down the Medicare nonsense yesterday, so it's safe for now. But the GOP-controlled House is far more radically skewed to the right.

Now 2012 is the next hurdle.

What will happen then? Will the voting public remember?

In the current political climate, nothing would surprise me. So stay tuned. And keep fingers crossed in hopes of some sanity.