tom_thinks

Big thanks to everyone who went out (the whole 250-400 thousand of you). My friend Chris, has posted some nice pictures of the march here. Here's some excerpts from the NyTimes:

The organizers said they were also pleased by the size and diversity of the turnout. The faces appeared to be a cross-section of the American experience. There were individuals, families and groups from many states and across the region and the city. There were young people and older citizens, families with small children, students and representatives of the middle and working classes and many organizations, including advocates of gay and women's rights, antiwar groups, immigrants, veterans, artists, professionals, religious organizations and proponents of education, health and other causes.
...
The protest organizer, United for Peace and Justice, estimated the crowd at 500,000, rivaling a 1982 antinuclear rally in Central Park, and double the number it had predicted. It was, at best, a rough estimate. The Police Department, as is customary, offered no official estimate, but one officer in touch with the police command center at Madison Square Garden agreed that the crowd appeared to be close to a half-million.

The march, which took nearly six hours to complete, was a tense, shrill, largely choreographed trek from Chelsea to Midtown and back to Union Square, where it ended, as planned, without a rally. And while there were a couple of hundred arrests, the event went off without major violence, despite fears of explosive clashes with the biggest security force ever assembled in New York.

In related news, there's going to be a democracy for America meetup on Wednesday during the convention.

Each house party will have the opportunity to join a live conference call with Governor Dean and other house parties across the country.

The house parties will raise money for Democracy for America and local candidates. If your house party raises at least $500, Democracy for America will contribute 50% of what your party raises to candidates that the house party decides upon.

Seems like a great idea. By the way I just finished Joe Trippi's The Revolution will not be televised which I highly recommend (more on that later).

Well, I've been checking up on my site stats and found that a lot of traffic is coming from blogtemplates.noipo.org, so I figured I'd say hi to all of you. Thanks to Martijn who designed my template. Its great eh?

So now that you're here, why not stay a while?

and for eveyone else, they've got some nice templates so go check out their site.

The torture scandal goes deeper. Read this from the Toronto Star, via Common Dreams

"The medical system collaborated with designing and implementing psychologically and physically coercive interrogations," Miles writes in this week's edition of The Lancet, regarded as a leading international journal on medical ethics.

"Army officials stated that a physician and a psychiatrist helped design, approve, and monitor interrogations at Abu Ghraib."

The report cites an example of a "medically monitored interrogation" where the prisoner "collapsed and was apparently unconscious after a beating.

"Medical staff revived the detainee and left, and the abuse continued," the report says, citing the sworn statement of an Abu Ghraib detainee.

In another instance, "a medic inserted a intravenous catheter into the corpse of a detainee who died under torture in order to create evidence that he was alive at the hospital," the report says, citing evidence from a military police officer.

A U.S. military spokesperson told the Associated Press the incidents recounted by Miles came primarily from the Pentagon's own investigation.

The torture scandals seem to be out of the mainstream press lately, I guess their pre-occupied with all that swift boat garbage. Read Talking Points Memo for more on that.

Ok, I won't be going to New York City to protest the Republicans. Its too bad because I could get a discount at Applebee's if I wore a pin pledging to be peaceful. Not that I'm into throwing rocks and burning cars but getting a discount for "good behavior" kind of makes me want to cause some trouble just to prove I'm not here for the discounts. Check this out:

While such a scheme brings new meaning to the term "sellout," it's consistent with a cynical belief that every problem has a market-driven solution.

You have to love Mayor Bloomberg. Only a billionaire would be optimistic (read: silly) enough to believe that anyone planning to protest a divisive administration could be bought off for the price of a Big Onion Walking Tour of the city and a free mug from the Gotham Comedy Club.

"It's no fun to protest on an empty stomach," Bloomberg said, mocking Napoleon's insistence that an army "travels on its stomach." He then announced the benefits of never leaving home without a "Peaceful Political Activists Savings Card" at a news conference.

The card and a list of places where protesters can exchange their consciences for a pittance can be downloaded from www.nycvisit.com (no doubt including a certificate for a complimentary "666: The Number of the Beast" tattoo redeemable at all participating parlors).

Lest we forget, Esau sold his birthright for a pot of spicy lentils. Judas betrayed Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. Still, few of the expected 200,000 dissidents who'll jockey to get within spitting distance of the coronation of George W. Bush will settle for protests heavy in quiet desperation in exchange for $5 off the admission to the Museum of Sex.

To those of you going to protest, don't be bought off by this stupid crap ( I know you won't). To those of you not going, You better have a good reason. (I'm working and too broke to fly up to NYC.)

Some good news:

In a dramatic departure from the Bush administration, Republican Rep. Doug Bereuter says he now believes the U.S. military assault on Iraq was unjustified.

"I've reached the conclusion, retrospectively, now that the inadequate intelligence and faulty conclusions are being revealed, that all things being considered, it was a mistake to launch that military action," Bereuter wrote in a letter to constituents in the final days of his congressional career.

That's especially true in view of the fact that the attack was initiated "without a broad and engaged international coalition," the 1st District congressman said.

"Knowing now what I know about the reliance on the tenuous or insufficiently corroborated intelligence used to conclude that Saddam maintained a substantial WMD (weapons of mass destruction) arsenal, I believe that launching the pre-emptive military action was not justified."

As a result of the war, he said, "our country's reputation around the world has never been lower and our alliances are weakened."

Bereuter is a senior member of the House International Relations Committee and vice chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

If only the rest of the Republican party would wake up. But maybe many of them already have, Bereuter is leaving office and perhaps that's why he's opening his mouth about this. I suspect there's a good amount of Republicans who share his views, but their political ambitions prevent them from speaking out. They can't all be such foolish bumbling war-mongers, right?

Well, I couldn't agree more with this NY Times editorial:

But for the most part Mr. Kerry, who voted against the first Persian Gulf war, tailored his positions on this one to his presidential ambitions. He was more hawkish when the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination seemed to be Richard Gephardt, and more dovish when Howard Dean picked up momentum. At the height of the Dean insurgency, both Mr. Kerry and his running mate, John Edwards, decided to oppose spending $87 billion to underwrite the occupation of Iraq that they both voted to authorize.

The Republicans have made much of this record; the Kerry campaign is haunted by replays of the theme song from the old TV show "Flipper." Mr. Bush, however, has a far more dangerous pattern of behavior. On issues from tax cuts to foreign policy, the president tends to stick stubbornly to his original course even when changing events cry out for adaptation. His explanations seem to evolve every day, but his thinking never does.

What we would like to hear from Mr. Kerry is how the events of the last year have changed his own thinking. He consistently describes the failures of Iraq as failures in tactics - from a lack of international support to a lack of adequate body armor for the troops. We're wondering if he really believes better planning or better diplomacy would have made the difference, or whether the whole idea of sending troops was flawed. Arab nations have a painful history of Western colonization, and there is an instinctive resistance to the idea of a Western occupation of Arab soil. How much does Mr. Kerry think the addition of French and German soldiers would have improved things? In retrospect, it seems that even if Arab nations like Saudi Arabia or Egypt had added their support, the outcome would have more likely been trouble for the governments of those countries back home rather than credibility on the streets of Baghdad.

There are undoubtedly circumstances that call for military action, but we would like to know whether, as president, John Kerry would insist on a higher threshold than he settled for as an opportunistic senator in 2002.

After reading that, take a look at Talking Points Memo, where Josh Marshall says this and more about Kerry's war position:

In any case, all of this is merely a too-lengthy way of noting that giving the president the authority and the muscle to force the inspectors back into Iraq (i.e., giving him the authority to go to war if they were not allowed back in) simply cannot be equated with giving the president the go-ahead to game the process and go to war immediately even if they were allowed in.

That doesn't mean that Kerry is in the clear on any legitimate criticism. But ironically the best argument against Kerry's position is one that is simply off-limits to the president -- namely, that Kerry should have or perhaps did know that the president was lying when he said he needed the muscle of the resolution to force the inspectors back in and have some hope of settling the crisis short of war.

Friday was a sad day for our democracy, as a lawsuit brought forth by U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Fla was dismissed. From the AP via SFGate

A state appeals court dismissed a lawsuit that sought a paper trail for Florida's new touchscreen voting machines, ruling Friday that voters are not guaranteed "a perfect voting system."

U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Fla., had argued that the new machines will not allow for an accurate manual recount -- such as the one needed during the 2000 presidential election fiasco. He sued Florida Secretary of State Glenda Hood and Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections Theresa LePore to force them to add a paper trail to the computerized machines.

Wexler's state lawsuit was dismissed Friday, but he is pursuing a similar complaint in federal court.

State officials say Friday's ruling proves again that Florida's new multimillion-dollar touchscreen voting machines will fix the problems seen with paper ballots.

"Florida's voters should have confidence that their vote will count on Election Day," said Alia Faraj, a spokeswoman for Hood.

The appeals court, upholding a lower-court ruling, found that using a paperless voting system does not severely restrict the right to vote.

This is ridiculous. The proponents of these machines are constantly saying that is the doubters who are causing the doubt. But without recounts how can anyone be sure of the election results. At this rate, Clinton might be our last elected president.

Another brief post of recommended reading. Check this out:

It seems a safe bet that President Bush is not sleeping as soundly as he did before the abuse of prisoners came to light. He may feel thoroughly exposed in the magic suit of sold him by Ashcroft’s tailor/lawyers together with those working for White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, and may wish he had paid more attention to the strong cautions of Secretary of State Colin Powell against playing fast and loose with the Geneva Conventions on Prisoners of War.

The president can take little consolation in Gonzales’ reassurance that there is a “reasonable basis in law” that could provide a “solid defense,” should an independent counsel at some point in the future attempt to prosecute him under the U.S. War Crimes Act of 1996 for exempting the Taliban and perhaps others from the protections of the Geneva Conventions, to which the War Crimes Act is inextricably tied.

Meaning? Meaning that if the president’s numbers look no better in October than they do now, there will be particularly strong personal incentive on the part of the president, Rumsfeld, and Vice President Cheney to pull out all the stops in order to make four more years a sure thing. What seems increasingly clear is that putting off the election is under active consideration—a course more likely to be chosen to the extent it achieves status as just another option.

So I haven't been posting much lately nor have I been keeping up with all the online actions in my email. So get ready do-gooders here it goes: (I'll be pasting text from the appeals on this one since there's so many)

From Act for Change
In the latest reversal of a long standing U.S. position, the Bush administration last week announced that it will only support a nuclear nonproliferation treaty if provisions for inspection and verification are removed. Even former President Reagan, in promoting a similar treaty with the Soviet Union, promised conservative opponents (who favored increased nuclear weapons) that his position was "trust but verify." In an era when an increasing number of countries appear to be developing nuclear weapons, including Iran and North Korea, this reversal of policy is both bizarre and dangerous.

Click here to urge President Bush to reverse his position and have the U.S. join the rest of the world in supporting inspections and verification.

One of the dirty tricks of American elections is "voter suppression," in which a campaign seeks to discourage or prevent supporters of the other side from voting. While this can be done with both illegal and legal means, it is fundamentally inconsistent with our ideals of greater civic participation and should be prosecuted where illegal and repudiated where not.

Click here to demand that Attorney General Ashcroft act publicly to stop voter suppression from affecting the 2004 elections.

From the Union of Concerned Scientists
Thank your Representative for Invasive Species funding (if they voted for it)
On July 13, the House voted to increase funding to address two potentially devastating invasive species, the Asian longhorned beetle and sudden oak death. Votes on invasive species legislation are exceptionally rare but now almost every member of the House has a track record on this important issue. Take this opportunity to thank your representative for voting to support the increase in funding to stop invasive species. Also, ask your representative to continue to support invasives related legislation by passing the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act--broader, more comprehensive legislation that would help prevent the entry of more invaders. Take Action

From Oceana
Who doesn't like coral reefs?
Tell your Members of Congress to co-sponsor the Deep Sea Coral
Protection Act: http://ga0.org/campaign/coralprotection/k5ns8wr2jmbk3k

From DemocracyforAmerica
Representative Tom DeLay of Texas needs to be stopped. He is at the
center of machine that launders corporate influence in our political
process. And now his machine is at the center of investigations by a
grand jury in Texas and the House Ethics Committee in Washington into
ethics violations and criminal activity.
But the DeLay racket reaches even into the Ethics Committee itself. We
must act now to make sure the job gets done right.
The House Ethics Committee must appoint an outside counsel to lead the
investigation. Add your name to the call for accountability:

http://www.democracyforamerica.com/stoptomdelay
From BlueWater Network
From historic lighthouses and old shipwrecks, to graceful sea turtles and nearly 400
species of visiting birds, many of which are threatened and endangered, Cape Hatteras
National Seashore is a national treasure like no other. Stretched over 70 miles of barrier
islands in North Carolina, Cape Hatteras is one of the premier nesting locations for
migratory birds in the region due to its location on the Eastern Flyway, varied habitats,
and strong winds and storms that often bring exhausted migrants to the shore. But
rampant off-road vehicle (ORV) use threatens nesting birds and visitor's peace and quiet.
Email the Park Service and tell them to protect Cape Hatteras National Seashore from
ORV use: http://bluewaternetwork.org/alert_pl_atv_hatteras.shtml

From Defenders of Wildlife
Turning its back on decades of sound forest management, the Bush
administration is planning on removing protections for the last
remaining roadless areas of our national forests. Nearly 60 million
acres could be exposed to logging, oil and gas drilling, mining,
and road building. September 14 is the deadline to send your
comments in opposition to this plan. Please visit our action center
and go to alert #322 to take action.
http://denlines.org/080404/action.html

That's all for now.

Check it:

Unfortunately, at the moment, third parties mean less, not more democracy when it comes to voting in most elections in the US (because they cause minority-supported candidates to be elected and majorities of voters are thus unrepresented). Yet third (and fourth and fifth, etc.) parties are also critical to bringing out issues that the two big parties don't or won't address.The simple solution is to institute IRV in the United States, a step that many communities across the country have already taken. But to do this at the national level will require the agreement and participation of at least one of the two major parties - which is why many Progressives are supporting the Greens and, at the same time, infiltrating and becoming active in the Democratic Party.
It's similar to the strategy conservatives successfully used in the 1970s after the 1964 defeat of Barry Goldwater, when they proceeded to infiltrate and ultimately take control of the Republican Party and then bring Reagan to power. As progressives do the same with the Democratic Party - while still helping keep the Green Party and other progressive movements strong - we can then use the Democratic Party to push for IRV, re-enforcement of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, an end to "corporate personhood," and other progressive and truly democratic reforms.
As Franklin D. Roosevelt proved, only by influencing (both from without and from within) the power of one of the two national parties can progressives truly make the United States of America a more democratic and egalitarian nation. As more and more progressives join the Democratic Party, participate in meetings and caucuses, and present themselves as delegates, we will gain enough power to bring about changes (such as IRV) that will result in a renewal and reinvigoration of this great democracy, and pave the way for third, fourth, and fifth parties to participate in a truly democratic fashion in America.
<>But first we must correct the misperception Nader is pushing that the problem third parties face is purely the fault of the existing two parties. While it's true they resist third parties as a challenge to their power, the real problem is a flawed electoral system left over from 1787.

It's almost always deeper then it seems. This article was written by Thom Hartman from Project Censored among other things.

So I'm back from S. Florida and I've started a new day job. While I feel this job is more suited for me and my career, they have one policy that is making me very unhappy: NO INTERNET ACCESS! On top of that I work later hours and have been busy finishing a conservation video after work. So that's why I haven't made too many recent posts. Don't worry though, as soon as I finish this video, I'll be staying up late hours of the night to turn out the blog. See you soon.