Yours truly is not the only one who is nuts for hockey and world peace. Durham, N.C. civil rights attorney and author Alex Charns has been making the news (at least in Edmonton) and raising some redneck hockey fan eyebrows with his game night protests in Raleigh.

Both the Edmonton Journal and Sun have run articles about him and his righteous antics during the Stanley Cup Final between the Edmonton Oilers and the Carolina Hurricanes.

Charns is the author of “How Hockey Saved the World* (and defeated George W. Bush, but not necessarily in that order)”.

Sing it loud, and sing it proud: More Hockey! Less War! More Hockey! Less War!

Thanks, Alex.

It’s true: We are all immigrants. The history of human development is a history of human migration.

I told my friend Anthony in Minneopolis that I wanted to make a bumper sticker and he suggested one that says “I’m tired of paying cheaper prices for food and services and I want there to be delays, inconveniences, and losses at the stores I shop in.”

He also went on to say, apropos the anemic counter-demonstrations, “It is amazing to see… people who also would have enthusiastically attended the Nuremberg Rallies.”

I noticed the trash can in my cubicle wasn’t emptied last night.

Tom Harkin has posted this statement on his Web site in support of Feingold’s censure:

We have a President who likes to break things. He has broken the federal budget, running up $3 trillion in new debt. He has broken the Geneva Conventions, giving the green light to torture. He has repeatedly broken promises—and broken faith—with the American people. And now, worst of all, he has broken the law.

In brazen violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), he ordered the National Security Agency to conduct warrantless wiretaps of American citizens. And, despite getting caught red-handed, he refuses to stop.

Let’s be clear: No American—and that must include the President—is above the law. And if we fail to hold Bush to account, then he will be confirmed in his conviction that he can pick and choose among the laws he wants to obey. This is profoundly dangerous to our democracy.

So it is time for Congress to stand up and say enough! That’s why, this week, Senator Russ Feingold proposed a resolution to censure George W. Bush for breaking the FISA law. And that’s why I fully support this resolution of censure.

Nothing is more important to me than the security of our country. Of course, we need to be listening to the terrorists’ conversations. And sometimes there is not time to get a warrant. That’s why the FISA law allows the President, when necessary, to wiretap first, and obtain a warrant afterward. But that’s not acceptable to this above-the-law President. He rejects the idea that he should have to obtain a warrant before or after wiretapping.

We have an out-of-control President whose arrogant and, now, illegal behavior is running our country into the ditch. It’s time to rein him in. And a fine place to start is by passing this resolution of censure. I hope that Senator Feingold’s measure will be brought to the floor. And when it is, I will proudly vote yes.

While the Democratic right slinks in the shadows and sends minions out to issue statements critical of Russ Feingold, Feingold shoots back. Feingold to Fox News’ Trish Turner:

I’m amazed at Democrats, cowering with this president’s numbers so low. The administration just has to raise the specter of the war and the Democrats run and hide. … Too many Democrats are going to do the same thing they did in 2000 and 2004. In the face of this, they’ll say we’d better just focus on domestic issues. … [Democrats shouldn’t] cower to the argument, that whatever you do, if you question the administration, you’re helping the terrorists.

Russ Feingold continues to tug and pull at the Democratic right, attempting to shine the spotlight on the 800 pound gorilla in the room: The President of the United States broke the law, and continues to break the law, violating fundamental constitutional rights, while the Democrats finish their posturing as tough on national security vis a vis the bogus security issue of Dubai and wait for the Republicans to take the lead on the next Bush stumble.

Even with the Republican party wallowing in scandal (Abramof-gate, Plame-gate), open revolt among the ranks (the religious right on Harriet Meirs, congressional GOPers on Dubai, George F. Will, Wm. F. Buckley, and a growing list of neo-cons opposing the war, etc. etc.), Cheney shooting a guy in the head and chest, and the worst polling numbers since Nixon, even with all that, the Democrats aren’t willing to take the opening and define a new message.

Only Russ Feingold is willing to stand alone (again), this time calling for Censure of Bush for the NSA’s domestic spying.

As predictable as the Republican’s response was, it was most galling to see the Democratic response—or lack thereof. So far only Tom Harkin and Russ Feingold seem to be willing to define a leading edge of a more assertively dovish, civil-libertarian policy package to counter the insane, fear-based myth of a national security state offered by the Republicans (and willingly abetted by the Dems).

I’m still waiting for the putative ’08 Dems (Hillary? JFKerry? Obama?!?) to take a clear constitutional case against the Eternal Warfare and Surveilence State. Right now I’m wondering if the Dems can even take back a single house of Congress. Even as the Republicans themselves abondon that profligate wastrel son-of-a-Bush, how can the party of FDR have become nothing but a echo chamber of the Republican party, only challenging the President when the Republicans do first?

I smell a weak showing in ’06 and defeat in ’08 without stronger leadership on every issue, but especially civil liberties and peace (both prime political openings and righteous issues). Hopefully Russ Feingold will start a trend.

As the first Senator to call the situation in Iraq a civil war, could Iowa Democrat Tom Harkin be at the fore of a new attitude among the dems going into the mid-term elections? From the Des Moines Register:

“I’m firmly convinced now, after all this time, that it really is a civil war,” Harkin said.

The senator, an opponent of the war, said the only solution to the surge of sectarian violence is to begin withdrawing U.S. forces.

“You keep hoping for the best,” Harkin said. “And then after a while you say, wait a minute, this isn’t working. This isn’t working.”

The White House responded with their stock answer: “We would undermine the morale of our troops by betraying the cause for which they have sacrificed….To retreat before victory would be an act of recklessness.”

Right… to honor those who have died (for a lie), we should make sure more die (so that we don’t hurt troop morale). Do they really believe there are soldiers on the ground in Iraq who wouldn’t rather be home with their families?

I’d list the chicken shit dems in the Senate who voted to extend Bush’s Patriot Act, but the list is too long. Instead here are the few that voted against it:

Wisconsin’s Russ Feingold (of course)
Hawaii’s Daniel Akaka
New Mexico’s Jeff Bingaman
West Virginia’s Robert Byrd
Iowa’s Tom Harkin
Vermont’s Patrick Leahy
Michigan’s Carl Levin
Washington’s Patty Murray
Oregon’s Ron Wyden.

Vermont’s independent Senator Jim Jeffords voted against, too; Hawaii’s Daniel Inouye was absent. All republicans voted for reauthorization.

Read the rest of this entry »

Why is it that the message of dissent on Iraq from conservative quarters is so much more coherent than anything from the “left”? (Is there now or has there ever really been an American left? Bernard-Henri L�vy tosses that question around in the February 27, 2006 issue of The Nation.)

To wit, George F. Will in today’s Washington Post (free subscription required):

Last week, in the latest iteration of a familiar speech (the enemy is “brutal,” “we’re on the offensive,” “freedom is on the march”) that should be retired, the president said, “This is a moment of choosing for the Iraqi people.” Meaning what? Who is to choose, and by what mechanism? Most Iraqis already “chose” — meaning prefer — peace….

Read the rest of this entry »

Only four senators have stood up to defend the constitution today. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Tom Harkin of Iowa, all Democrats, and James Jeffords, an independent from Vermont. Everybody else in that august body (with the exception of Inouye, who did not vote) voted yes on an extremely weak compromise ammendment to the Patriot act “meant to clarify the rights of people under surveillance and to further limit the government’s ability to scrutinize library records,” according to the Times.

The San Jose Mercury News quoted Feingold:

“If Democrats can’t stand up on something like this when the president’s poll numbers are 34 percent, I just wonder how much right we have to govern this country,” Feingold said in an interview Tuesday. “You’ve got to show people you believe in something, not just that you’re gaming the issues.”

Feingold protested the “cosmetic” nature of the reform by reading the constitution (with emphasis on the Fourth Amendment) to his colleagues.

First Fukuyma. Now Buckley. In a February 24 column in the National Review titled “It Didn’t Work”, Buckley writes:

“I can tell you the main reason behind all our woes—it is America.” The New York Times reporter is quoting the complaint of a clothing merchant in a Sunni stronghold in Iraq. “Everything that is going on between Sunni and Shiites, the troublemaker in the middle is America.”

One can’t doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed. The same edition of the paper quotes a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Reuel Marc Gerecht backed the American intervention. He now speaks of the bombing of the especially sacred Shiite mosque in Samara and what that has precipitated in the way of revenge. He concludes that “The bombing has completely demolished” what was being attempted—to bring Sunnis into the defense and interior ministries.

Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans.

Of course the paleo-con Buckley was never a big supporter of the neoconservatives (like Fukuyama), so this is not earth shattering. But it is coincident with the whole Dubai ports deal and the Republican congressional revolt. Always good to see the Republicans eating their young.