Democrats Take House and Senate

by Justin Kral

Nov. 9th, 2006

In a surprising upset, Democrats took control of 234 seats in the House of Representatives and also lead in the Senate (51-49) with the Democratic candidate, Jim Webb defeating Senator George Allen by over 8,000 votes in Virginia.

Senator Allen conceded this afternoon, after the final vote spread was growing compared to that of election night. Additionally, nine House seats remain up in the air, with Democrats poised to gain control of at least a few more.

Many in the US, and throughout the world, view the Democrats' sweeping victory as a clear message to President Bush and those in his party that the American citizens want a new direction for their country.

Wisconsin Voter Wrap-Up

by Scott Colson

Nov. 8th, 2006

1. So, Kagen picked up in Mark Green's old district (who also lost his gubernatorial run to Gov. Jim Doyle). That's cool.
   
2. Death penalty ok 'd ( capttimes ). Not cool.
   
3. No surprise with the Tammy Baldwin win. But, This is a decent article about the Baldwin-Pelosi power duo.
   
4. But not everything is cool in Wisconsin. Hateful bigots are EVERYWHERE! (WSJ)
   
5. That's not all: the hate mongerers are doing their best to Make Catholicism the STATE RELIGION
   
6. But its really no surprise, with the active racist culture war going on

Contradictory Christian Right

By Kieran J. Grogan

kjgrogan(at)wisc(dot)edu

As is true with any election year, the partisanship and division of the political world seeks to entrap and recruit each municipality, district, and state for what is in their "best interest," or perhaps in the interest of something even more important. Each side likes to think they hold a moral or pragmatic high ground, and it is in the spirit of election to show which side is which. It is in this coming election in which Wisconsin is subject to a new referendum with much at stake, especially in determining that moral and pragmatic high ground.

The referendum in question is whether or not to ban gay marriage. On the left, the fact that this referendum even exists is an outrage, as most of those on the left believe that love is love, and this matter of personal freedom should not have interference from the political world. On the right, there have been pushes so extreme against gay marriage, including President Bush's concept of a national gay marriage ban amendment, the future of homosexual men and women are in extreme attack of a supposed personal freedom. Freedom, in America, is paramount to almost anything. It is particularly the Christians of the right who vigorously oppose the right for same sex couples to marry, saying it is in violation of the "natural order," where the sacrament of marriage has always been a sacred relationship between man and woman.

If the Christian right is so concerned with the "natural order," one may need closer examination of the principles of Christianity itself. In reading the iconic German writer, Nietzsche, it is apparent that Christians are, in fact, not in unison with what is "natural." Caring for and helping the poor, sick, and elderly, specific trademarks of what is Christian, is in fact against the laws of natural selection. According to that widely accepted concept, those who are weak should perish for the benefit of those who are strong. Christianity violates this natural law, yet at the same time, they have the gravitas to condemn gay marriage for violating the "natural order." While Christianity seemingly is both for and against "nature," one may ask whether or not nature is for or against Christianity. There is no doubt, Nietzsche knew the answer.

Of course, contradiction is nothing new to Christianity, let alone the Christian right. If he hadn't "risen from the dead," Jesus would be turning over in his grave over the horrible things done in his name. How many examples echo out in terrible disharmony of the violation of his peaceful message? I will not make that laundry list here.

The Christian right may have deeper, psychological reasons for wanting to deny marriage to those who are different from them. They may want to deny this wonderful celebration of unity to those who would oppose them in almost every election, not just this proposed gay marriage ban. For the state of Wisconsin, the fight will be taken up in November. Let us all hope the contradictory Christian right doesn't win this important battle, for letting them think they have any high ground at all is an injustice few are able to swallow.

Rewriting Law to Avoid Responsibility

by Justin Kral
Category: National News, Politics

September 22nd - It is likely that you have already heard about President Bush's latest political maneuver to change the rules for the interrogation and prosecution of terrorism suspects. If passed, this bill would redefine Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which concerns prohibited acts during war-time. More specifically, it would strip suspects of their right to view all of the evidence that has been collected and used against them, allow for here-say and coerced testimony, if deemed reliable. Most alarming, Bush's version would amend the War Crimes Act of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions to prohibit only certain "serious violations." It does not mention "outrages upon personal dignity" or "humiliating or degrading" treatment - such as the forced nakedness, use of dog leashes and wearing of women's underwear seen at the U.S.-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq -- that fall short of torture. It would also allow for prosecution of pre-September 11th crimes.

What exactly does Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions say, you ask? Passed and unchanged since 1949, it is actually quiet simple:

To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons (captured combatants and civilians):

1. violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

2. taking of hostages;

3. outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

4. the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

At a recent White House press conference, the President said that "outrages upon personal dignity" or more specifically, "human dignity" is too abstract of a notion. Most see it quite simply: human (or personal) dignity is recognizing that every human being has the right to exist. Such a seemingly simple idea is perplexing to our Commander-In-Chief.

WHATS WRONG WITH BUSH'S PROPOSAL?

Some critics say Bush's proposal is an Ex Post Facto Law, meaning that it would retroactively absolve the President, CIA officials, former military personnel and anyone else involved, of crimes which were committed under the original version of the Geneva Conventions. As signatories of the Conventions , which apply to more than 190 nations worldwide, the US is required to make grave violations of the Geneva Conventions a punishable criminal offence. So without a change in law, the disgraceful detainee treatment at Aub-Gharaib and Gitmo could bring charges against this administration. Additionally, the fact still remains that retroactively rewriting law to avoid being held responsible for a crime is not acceptable practice in a Democracy. Just imagine if someone committed a murder and then, at a later date, an official changed the law to say that the murderer's actions where legal. Such an act should be unheard of, but its similar to what Bush is trying to accomplish in order to legalize his actions.

Bush has been pressuring Congress to pass his legislation concerning terror detainees (see video of press conference). Key Senators reject Bush's legislation who say that Bush's bill will ultimately put our soldiers in harms way. Nay-Sayers include fellow Republican Senator John McCain. He was held as a prisoner-of-war in Vietnam and is arguing against Bush's current proposal, saying, " We have to hold the moral high ground," said Sen. John McCain of Arizona, one of the Republicans not satisfied with the White House proposal. "We don't think al Qaeda will ever observe those conventions, but we're going to be in other wars." "That's what we do not want, because Americans would be setting the precedent for changing a treaty that has been untouched by any nation for 57 years," he said.

Senator McCain is not the only official against Bush's policy. On an appearance on NPR Wednesday, Former US President Bill Clinton warned against circumventing international standards on prisoner treatment, citing U.S. abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, criticism of treatment at the Guantanamo Bay prison for suspected terrorists and a secret CIA prison system outside the United States. "The president says he's just trying to get the rules clear about how far the CIA can go when they're when they whacking these people around in these secret prisons," Clinton said in NPR's "Morning Edition" interview. "If you go around passing laws that legitimize a violation of the Geneva Convention and institutionalize what happened at Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo, we're going to be in real trouble," he said.

Moreover, by invading Iraq preemptively and remaining at war even after it has been well documented that we have no reason to be at war, this administration has already set a new, lower standard for the international community to follow. Instead of worsening our image and adding fuel to the fire of hatred and violence, Americans and our Representatives need to stand up together and hold this Administration accountable for breaking the law. The only way that we can hope to lead the way to peaceful and sane international relations, and gain the forgiveness of the world community, is to stop supporting these criminals and take control of our government.

America should be a beacon of freedom, human rights and human dignity. We need to hold people accountable for war crimes, including our leaders.

• List of countries that have ratified the four Geneva Conventions
• ICRC overview of the Geneva Conventions
  

Bush Says its "Unacceptable to Think"

YouTube/MSNBC

Sept. 19th - This video clip, aired on MSNBC's "Countdown," gives Bush's response to Colin Powell's recent letter to John McCain, in which Powell says that "The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism...To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts."

The clip also includes the unedited exchange between President Bush and NBC correspondent, David Gregory. During which, Gregory asks the President if he would find it acceptable for other countries to follow his breaking of precedent to make changes, as they see fit, to the Geneva Conventions. Besides belittling the reporter, Bush stammers and insists that redefining Article 3 to include torture is essential to the continued intelligence operations of the current "War on Terror."

More on this issue to be posted soon.

//related links

"Bush Owes Us an Apology"

Broadcast 9/18/06 on "Countdown with Keith Olbermann"

• Read the full text here
• Watch Olbermann's video here

 

• David versus the Goliath: Bush vs. David Gregory

 

"A Special Comment On 9/11"

Olbermann comments about 9/11 five years after the terrorist attacks.
A must see.

• Watch the video here

The Fight Against Fascism

By Scott Colson

Category: Politics, News

September 8th - The image of swastikas, armbands, and SS helmets on the Wisconsin State Capitol steps is an ironic image of free speech.  Images, however, are quite powerless compared to gestures. 

On August 26th, as many as 1500 counter-demonstrators shut down the voice and content of the National Socialist Party. Their message of race hatred fell on deaf ears as shouts, drums, and whistles filled the air.  A diverse range of viewpoints made their presence known with signs and flags: from the Holocaust-remembering Jews to the immigration-rights-demanding Latinos, anarchists, labor, socialists, and more.   So far, a typical protest.

Asking why people came out to the protest invoked a typical response – something along the lines of “Nazis are bad people,” or, “Race hatred is not acceptable here in Madison.”  Since this didn't answer my question, a question concerning the libidinal investment of a large number of people, I probed further.  Depending on your political background, this may or may not come as surprise: People linked the war in Iraq to the fascism of some wanna-be KKK redneck party.

Just at a time when Donald Rumsfeld is calling any who question his infinite wisdom appeasers, Chamberlain, or the Volk, there is an energy in the street that is saying, “Fascism is not coming, it has already begun.”

Many of the protestors went on to speak about the PATRIOT ACT, warrantless wiretapping, secret prisons, being videotaped and photographed by the police at this protest (perhaps for later harassment), the complete demonization of dissent, war for oil, and the lapdog press.  The seeds of fascism have been planted; they've sprouted.

To paraphrase Bill Clinton, only a few weeks ago, “Having a philosophy means one's views are open to question, to doubt, to the ideas of others.  Having an ideology means only looking at facts (or just making them up) to fit one's world-view.”  It is clear that this administration rules with a closed ideology, and is quickly running out of facts to support their views.  November cannot come soon enough.

//RELATED INFO:

"14 Characteristics of Fascism"

by Laurence W. Britt for the Free Inquiry.

"The new GOP buzzword: Fascism" . Associated Press.

The History of Fascism: Italy, Nazi Germany and Anti-Communism.

links to wikipedia.org/fascism

Emergency Contraception and the Politicization of Science

By Tammi Kral

Category: Gender Issues, Science

By now you have probably heard about the recent FDA decision to allow women access to “emergency contraception” without a prescription.  The long-awaited decision (it has been over three years) will not allow women under 18 years of age to obtain the drug, however, without a prescription. 

According to their press statement, the drug was not proven safe for women ages 16 and younger to take as an over-the-counter medication, although it is safe for women of such age to take Plan-B while supervised by a physician. 

What's the big deal?  Well, first off, juveniles are more likely to be in a situation where they are unable to obtain a prescription, due to many factors, such as not wanting to confront parents or needing such access over a weekend when clinics are not open.  (Plan B has to be taken within 72 hours to be effective).  In addition, requiring that a juvenile obtain a prescription from a physician, does not take into consideration the many young women who are victims of incest, as well as the growing number of uninsured Americans who do not have access to a physician. 

In an effort to better understand the logic that led to this decision to restrict emergency contraception to adults, I went to the FDA's web site and read the various press statements and memorandum under “Plan B”.  As it turns out, this was a unique case for the FDA, in that it would be the first time that one drug would be sold both as a prescription only as well as an OTC drug.  In order to do so the company that manufactures Plan B, Barr Pharmaceuticals, had to figure out a way to package the product with both types of labels.  This allowed the company to sell one drug separately to two different populations, but with only the cost of one type of package. 

Apparently, our society views young women as too ignorant to know how to swallow one pill, followed by another a few hours later –as well as reading instructions.  Yet, if this same woman who is too dull to deserve responsibility for taking a couple pills bears a child, I do not think the state asserts that she is too immature to raise that child.  I do not even think she is forced to receive proper healthcare throughout her pregnancy, especially if she is a member of the growing Uninsured. 

And what does this all mean for adults that need so-called “over-the-counter” emergency contraception?  They will be subject to the religiosity of pharmacists, who must procure the “racy” pills from under or behind the counter for their customer.  In case you did not feel irresponsible enough, how about a nice lecture from a complete stranger about your moral fiber? 

The reluctance to approve emergency contraception for over-the-counter use to all women is another sign of the ever-growing influence of religion on our government.  Similar to laws attempting to thwart other “sinful activities”, such as homosexuality, restricting the availability of contraception is a direct attack on peoples' right to privacy.  There is no reason one should have to justify their lifestyle choices to anyone, especially government officials, when there is no harm done to anyone.  If there is freedom of religion, there should also be freedom from religion.

Finally, the most basic reason this decision by the FDA needs to be questioned is that we can not accept any small concession when, in doing so, we must give up other freedoms.  It is definitely a step in the right direction that adults are able to obtain emergency contraception without a doctor's note, but we must not forget the basic principles at risk; every human being on this planet has basic rights, foremost of which should be the right to control over one's body and mind.

//RELATED INFO:

Planned Parenthood of WI: www.ppwi.org

FDA's Q&As on their EC Decision: www.fda.gov

The Nation: "Plan B for Plan B"