Around the Blogs

Tonight's Rescue Rangers are jlms qkw, Shayera, Got a Grip, dadanation, srkp23, joyful and vcmvo2 as editor.

The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just~ Abraham Lincoln~

The diaries up for rescue this evening are:

Probability of failure

• gjohnsit discusses the personal impact of our financial system in Wall Street's Haute Con Job. (jlms qkw)
• In just ten minutes' time, the length of the embedded video in the diary, mconvente's Guardian (UK) video shows Mugabe's vote rigging, makes real the corruption of Robert Mugabe, and showcases what real journalism looks like. (dadanation)
• Using charts, graphs, and tables Migeru fills us in on the finger-pointing going on within OPEC as to why they think oil prices are so high in OPEC blames speculation. (Got a Grip)

the struggle

• DAMMIT! The Lobbyist "Express" Rolls Along, and StuHunter rolls with it to bring us the long list of McCain advisors you'll recognize as Bush/Rove cronies. (joyful)
• iampunha fills in the gaps in a piece of well-known history you only thought you knew in July 5, 1905: Horton helped the Whos be heard. (Got a Grip)
• The Republican presidential candidate spent July 4th not in this country, but schmoozing down in Colombia and Mexico. murrayewv brings us the details in John McCain's Excellent Latin American Adventure! (joyful)
• With the death of Jesse Helms yesterday, the revisionism machine is working overtime. Thankfully, Maaarrrk's Understanding the Far Right by Studying Senator "NO" puts the Helms legacy into a proper context, while Avenging Angel contrasts Bush's remarks about Helms' passing with those Bush gave regarding the death of Senator Paul Wellstone in Helms, Wellstone and the Partisan Eulogies of George W. Bush. Thus reminding us of how disrespectful partisan politics can sound. (dadanation)

support of a cause

• Morus informs us that the USA is not the only country where liberty versus security is a battle in "Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you? Did she die in vain?!" (jlms qkw), while Mentarch examines how Democracy is faring across the pond and finds it wanting in Democracies In Trouble. (Got a Grip)
• gmoke takes us on a well-narrated photo tour of Old Solar: 1980 Barnraised Solar Air Heater. (srkp23)
• Lib Dem FoP celebrates the life of a universal health care program in A Grand 60th Birthday. (jlms qkw)

what we believe

• jimstaro asks us to join him in viewing the stories of some of our veterans and their lives in "In Their Boots"-Premiere-Episode 1- Video. (Got a Grip)
• First-time diarist The Dave relates how he is dealing with his shock now that A friend of mine has come out. (vcmvo2)
• DeanDemocrat has an unwelcome encounter with an old acquaintance and realizes why it was he never really liked the guy in the first place in Ed. (Got a Grip)
• Tchrldy shares the heart-filling reason why we do what we do in "I Never Felt Like a Citizen Till Now". (jlms qkw)

jotter has High Impact Diaries - July 4, 2008.

monkeybiz has Top Comments 7. 5 . 08 : Nobody Home But Us Chickens.

Enjoy and please promote your own favorite diaries in this Open Thread.

If you enjoy Diary Rescue, please consider joining the Rescue Rangers. It's a great way to become more involved with the Daily Kos community. Did we mention it's rewarding and fun? To volunteer or learn more, please contact us (don't forget to tell us your screen name) at: dkos.rescuerangers@gmail.com

::

In response to the request for a new open thread, here it is.

And in keeping with the weekend's celebration of American history and values:

Virginia is a distant second to Texas in the number of executions carried out since 1976. The trend in Virginia has slowed recently. Why? Among the many reasons, this one should give everyone pause:

Jon Gould, director of the Center for Justice, Law and Society at George Mason University, thinks prosecutors may be more cautious in seeking the death penalty because he said the state has had 12 wrongful convictions for rape or murder since the late 1990s.

It's good to see a fair and balanced article about the death penalty in The Washington Times. Conservatives do not uniformly support the death penalty. Traditional conservatives have always distrusted government. [more ...]

The most conservative argument against the death penalty is that the government cannot be entrusted with the most important decision that can be made about an individual's life: whether to end it. Neocons have replaced that distrust with absolute faith that the government can do no wrong as long as Dick Cheney is running the show, but traditional conservatives and libertarians often join with the progressive view that our government should not be empowered to punish crime with death.

Other reasons for the decline in executions:

Lawmakers in 1994 also allowed juries to sentence convicts to life in prison without parole - a change former State Attorney General William G. Broaddus thinks is "the single biggest factor" in the decline of executions. ...

Virginia's changing demographics and increasing lean to the left also could play a role in the declining execution rate: Residents in recent years have elected two Democratic governors in a row, allowed a Democrat to take over an incumbent Republican's seat in the U.S. Senate and pushed Democrats into the state Senate majority.

Executions were also delayed while the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of most popular method of delivering a lethal injection.

Reader Keith Bruns took this during the Bellevue, Washington fireworks display last night. Click the photo to see a larger version.

For those not frequent readers of Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine, not every item that appears there is actually fiction -- though sometimes we may wish it were. This month's column by Robert Silverberg focuses on the depletion of resources that don't get as much press as oil.

The element gallium is in very short supply and the world may well run out of it in just a few years. Indium is threatened too, says Armin Reller, a materials chemist at Germany’s University of Augsburg. He estimates that our planet’s stock of indium will last no more than another decade. All the hafnium will be gone by 2017 also, and another twenty years will see the extinction of zinc.

If some of these elements seem rather exotic, odds are you're looking at them right this moment. Both gallium and indium are used in the making of flat-screen displays (along with other electronics). If there's one name on that list that should stand out, it's zinc.  Zinc is not particularly rare, but we're consuming it at a rate that's far faster than we're finding new sources. That's also true of our old friend copper, which is why construction sites the world over are often plagued with thieves who ransack locations for copper plumbing and wiring.  

But the sobering truth is that we still have millions of years to go before our own extinction date, or so we hope, and at our present rate of consumption we are likely to deplete most of the natural resources this planet has handed us. We have set up breeding and conservation programs to guard the few remaining whooping cranes, Indian rhinoceroses, and Siberian tigers. But we can’t exactly set up a reservation somewhere where the supply of gallium and hafnium can quietly replenish itself. And once the scientists have started talking about our chances of running out of copper, we know that the future is rapidly moving in on us and big changes lie ahead.

Of course, we're not really consuming these metals, not in the way we do oil or coal.  They're not actually gone, merely spread out in forms that are extremely difficult to recover. Even with our best efforts at recycling electronics, it's likely that we're years, not decades, away from making do without some of these rare earth elements. In the last twenty years alone, we've consumed about one third of available resources.  Want to make a guess as to how long this can continue?

A 2007 study published in the journal New Scientist, looked at of the elements used in producing electronics and came to the same conclusion. Indium is gone within a decade. Zinc and tantalum in about twice that. The increasing scarcity of some metals is reflected in their prices.

He estimates that we have, at best, 10 years before we run out of indium. Its impending scarcity could already be reflected in its price: in January 2003 the metal sold for around $60 per kilogram; by August 2006 the price had shot up to over $1000 per kilogram.

This report also highlights a similarity between oil and rare earth elements used in electronics -- the vast majority are imported, often from politically unstable countries.  

In fact, these elements can contribute directly to that instability.  For some of the elements, like gallium, there's simply no good source of high quality ore.  Oddly enough, that's one aspect of this story that might be a good thing.  Those elements that are both extremely rare and isolated to a few high quality sources are a spark for corruption, murder, and environmental destruction. We may be currently engaged in a war for oil, but corporate proxies are also taking brutal actions in a war for tantalum, better known these days by the name of it's principle ore, coltan.  

There are steps we can take, including rethinking ordnances that require copper pipes and making it easier to recycle electronics (which is similar to broadband in that it's simple in many municipalities, while rural areas often lack access).  Those are good steps, and the sooner we act, the easier it will be to avoid fighting wars over copper, zinc, and their rarer cousins.

There are also those who suggest mining of landfills, and undoubtedly this is going to be tempting in the next few decades.  After all, rare elements may be found at a higher concentration in some landfills than can be located in any source of ore.  They're also a domestic source.  However, metals trapped in consumer goods are often soundly locked in stable, complex compounds.  Mining them, and freeing these elements for reuse could mean all the same disruptions to the water table, toxic chemicals used in extraction, and smelting familiar in traditional metals mining.  Anyone cheering for broad application of landfill mining as a solution to our shortage of rare metals needs first to look at the pits remaining from copper mines in the west -- then think about how many of these you want next to your home town.

The President
The White House
July 11, 2008*:

Today, I have signed into law H.R. 6304, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. The Act authorizes critical intelligence gathering activities designed to defend the United States and its interests at home and abroad and provides much-needed flexibility to manage effectively the personnel and taxpayer resources devoted to the national defense.

Section 301(b) of the Act purports to place require the Inspectors General of the Department of Justice, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the National Security Agency, the Department of Defense, and any other element of the intelligence community that participated in the President's Surveillance Program, to complete a comprehensive review of all of the facts necessary to describe the establishment, implementation, product, and use of the product of the Program; access to legal reviews of the Program and access to information about the Program; communications with, and participation of, individuals and entities in the private sector related to the Program; interaction with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and transition to court orders related to the Program; and any other matters identified by any such Inspector General that would enable that Inspector General to complete a review of the Program, with respect to such Department or element.

The executive branch shall construe the requirements on the Inspectors General in section 301(b) as advisory in nature, so that the provisions are consistent with the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and to supervise the unitary executive branch.

What then?

*What you're looking at is an adaptation of one of Bush's oft-used signing statements. Since the "administration" claims that the AUMF and the president's "inherent powers" under the Constitution authorize his domestic spying as a "military" operation, a signing statement simply rejecting the obligation of the Inspectors General (a part of the "unitary executive") to produce these reports would be entirely consistent with everything the White House has argued to date, on this and other related subjects.

So, shorter version without legalese: The people supporting this FISA bill say it has accountability built right into it, because it requires the Inspectors General to conduct inquiries and produce reports on what happened.

What if Bush says, "Yeah, but I'm not going to do it"?

Did McCain invite the entire AP staff over for barbecue? Can someone please ask the crew over there how Sen. McCain’s ass tastes? Thanks.

The Real McCain: Why Conservatives Don’t Trust Him and Why Independents Shouldn’t

If the economy was doing better, losing foreign travelers wouldn't be quite as bad but unfortunately that's not the case. Is it our poor human rights record in recent years or have we become an unfriendly country or are other countries more interesting places to visit? If the US wants to be a world leader, does it even matter what the world thinks?

Or is he just a clever trick of the light? Questions swirl.

The Democratic establishment is out in full force now, providing justification for the crappy FISA Amendments Act that's about to become law. While they haven't learned how to fight like Republicans (who have redefined "compromise" to mean "capitulation") they've learned how to lie like them.

Case in point, Nancy Soderburg, who was Clinton's deputy national security advisor and an ambassador to the UN. She pens a truly deplorable op-ed in today's LA Times, in which she tries to rewrite not only the history of the Bush administration's lawlessness, but also this law.

I can't write a better take down of this nonsense than Glenn, so be sure to read his whole piece. But here's this part that's particularly salient:

It's notable because the political establishment is not only about to pass a patently corrupt bill, but worse, are spouting -- on a very bipartisan basis -- completely deceitful claims to obscure what they're really doing. This is what Soderberg says is what happened:

The Senate is dragging its feet because the compromise bill's opponents -- mostly Democrats -- want also to punish the telecommunications companies that answered President Bush's order for help with his illegal, warrantless wiretapping program. That is the wrong target.

In the aftermath of Sept. 11, the White House directed telecommunications carriers to cooperate with its efforts to bolster intelligence gathering and surveillance -- the administration's effort to do a better job of "connecting the dots" to prevent terrorist attacks. In its review of the effort, the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that the administration's written requests and directives indicated that such assistance "had been authorized by the president" and that the "activities had been determined to be lawful."

We now know that they were not lawful. But the companies that followed those directives are not the ones to blame for that abuse of presidential power.

I would really like to know where people like Soderberg get the idea that the U.S. President has the power to "order" private citizens to do anything, let alone to break the law, as even she admits happened here. I'm asking this literally: how did this warped and distinctly un-American mentality get implanted into our public discourse -- that the President can give "orders" to private citizens that must be complied with? Soderberg views the President as a monarch -- someone who can issue "orders" that must be obeyed, even when, as she acknowledges, the "orders" are illegal.

That just isn't how our country works and it never was. We don't have a King who can order people to break the law. I have no doubt that people like Nancy Soderberg are spending the July 4 weekend paying shallow homage to the Founding, all the while being completely ignorant of or indifferent to the principles they pretend to celebrate.

This line of thinking is not only patently false, it's absolutely dangerous. Political expediency has been put ahead of principle, which happens all the time in politics. Politicians are always going to be politicians and they are always going to be basing their actions on the next election.

In this case, it wasn't even smart strategy. There are basically three groups who care about this legislation--us, The Villagers, and the Bush/Cheney cabal. Voters aren't clamoring for the Democrats to cave--Bill Foster's win proves that. So in a valiant effort to appease The Villagers, they piss off the activist base. As usual.

But this time is different. This time it's the Constitution we're talking about, the core principles of our founding--separation of powers, rule of law, all those "quaint" phrases that have kept this country going for 218 years.

Now the phrase we get is "it's good enough." Literally, Nancy Soderburg says this bill is "good enough." Sorry, but some of us have slightly higher standards. One of the reasons the Republican establishment is about to be thrown out by the American people is because we're sick of being lied to. Dems should take that as a cautionary tale, and realize that we're just not that stupid.

That goes for our soon to be President, as well. We have a much better chance of continuing this battle, repealing this legislation, and having the information related to this program declassified with a President Obama than we do a President McCain, and I relish the opportunity to do just that.

That's why I'm supporting Obama fully in this election. He's got my vote. But truthy talking points are not going to fool us--we will not sit by while Dem leaders lie to us about what this bill does and and watch them confer the king-like powers on the office we hope he takes.

Coming Up on Sunday Kos ....

• georgia10 will explore the new face of activism and what it looks like for the millennial generation.
• DemFromCT will review recent polling on health care as it relates to the 2008 campaign, and the chances for health reform after the election.
• DevilsTower will take a look back at Freedomnomics, sockpuppetry and misleading economics.
• Think the Cold War ended? Think again. Plutonium Page will take us on a tour of one of the most contaminated nuclear sites on Earth... right here in the United States.
• DarkSyde will give a lyrical salute to one of the most beautiful places on earth.

There are young Americans like this all over the nation. These two are from Indianapolis:

[George] Srour, 24, was inspired by a Second Presbyterian Church speech given by local civic leader Jim Morris, who at the time was running the United Nations World Food Program. Srour landed an internship with the agency and saw schools in Uganda that didn't have walls or a roof. He raised $35,000 from fellow students at the College of William & and Mary for the first school building. His organization, Building Tomorrow, finished two more schools last month. ...

[Rachel] Sparks, 25, started her film work after learning about girls sold into prostitution in Thailand. She led a small group of young adults to Thailand last year to make a $75,000 documentary.

Remember the Me Generation? Sparks thinks today's 20-somethings belong to a more inclusive, less self-indulgent world. [more ...]

"Many say ours is a generation that is self-involved and apathetic," she said. "The SOLD Project says we are a generation hungry for social justice and full of the passion to create change."

Trends aside, every generation is a collection of individuals, and a percentage of those individuals born every year feel motivated to improve the larger world. What Srour and Sparks are doing on their own will accomplish that goal. For that they deserve our gratitude. If the percentage in Rachel Sparks' generation "hungry for social justice" is large, their opportunities to create lasting and systemic change will multiply.

What do you think? Does the generation of Rachel Sparks and George Srour represent a dramatic shift in the willingness of Americans to focus the government's resources (with or without private sector partnerships) on economic and social injustice in the United States and around the world? Has the clock spun around the dial, to the time when CSN&Y sang:

We can change the world
Rearrange the world
It's dying --
if you believe in justice
and if you believe in freedom
Let a man live his own life
Rules and regulations, who needs them
Open up the door

(And no, to those who watch the linked video, this post is not a prediction that the Denver convention will resemble Chicago 1968. Nor is it an endorsement of a libertarian view of rules and regulations. It's just a link to a cool song. Enjoy.)

Jed has details on the latest attack piece from the Associated Press's Jennifer Loven on Obama: How bad was Loven's hit piece? Well, it made Josh Marshall's eyes bleed and it numbed Steve Benen's mind.Jennifer Loven is giving AP's Liz Sidoti a run for her money They're probably fighting for the seat on McCain's plane. The media-types are giddy about the new plane, which Jed renamed the Lap Dog Express.

Actually, the political reporters are just giddy about McCain. It's a problem. The Washington Post's David Broder told his fellow pundits and reporters that McCain is off-limits: McCain benefits from a long-established reputation as a man who says what he believes. His shifts in position that have occurred in this campaign seem not to have damaged that aura.The Broder edict is that McCain is sacrosanct. But, Obama is fair game. Just watch how the press gobbles up the GOP talking points -- even when they're wrong. We'll see this happen over and over and over. What's disturbing is that the reporters are covering for McCain. Big time. Every reporter covering McCain knows the stories about his temper. They know his reputation. Some have even talked to McCain's Republican Senate colleagues who truly think McCain is off his rocker. Yet, none of that matters. They like McCain -- and Obama hasn't endeared himself to them. Again, it's a problem.

But, as Jed reminds us, it all comes back to donuts. Dunkin Donuts. With sprinkles:

Due to the holiday yesterday (and the resultant slow news day), we did not do a roundup on Friday, instead saving the news for today. House and Senate Roundup will be returning to its regularly scheduled...uh, schedule, on Monday - brownsox

Senate Races

MS-Sen: MSNBC reports on the Mississippi race between Republican Senator Roger Wicker and former Democratic Governor Ronnie Musgrove, noting that it will be the first competitive Senate race in the state for decades.

But the fact that a Democrat is able to seriously challenge a Magnolia state Republican in a GOP stronghold for a seat in the Senate is almost heresy in Mississippi, which hasn't had a close Senate race in two decades. It could bode ill for Republicans all around the South and maybe the nation.

"We're concerned in the South. We've lost some Republican seats and that can't help but worry all of us who are interested in keeping good Republicans in office," said Lucedale Mayor and town doctor Dayton Whites, who perched Wicker atop a fire engine in front of Town Hall for a campaign appearance.

Wicker is fairly well-liked in the areas where he is known, though as a recently appointed Senator, he still has somewhat less name recognition than Musgrove does, leading to humorous anecdotes like this one:

After finishing a 13-mile bike ride through the Civil War battlefield where Union forces laid siege to Vicksburg, 70-year-old Alan Lessem continually calls Wicker "Sen. Licker" before being corrected by a reporter.

I'll be very interested to see how Musgrove's fundraising went in the second quarter.

TX-Sen: Rick Noriega raised $930,000 in Q2. The good news is that this is Noriega's best haul yet. Nearly half of that -  $454,000 - came via ActBlue, a testament to the netroots' commitment to this race and the Texas blogosphere's effectiveness.

The bad news is, well, the same thing. Texas is the most expensive state this cycle in which to advertise, and Noriega's total haul is a patch on Cornyn's take (Big Bad John, sad to say, is a top-notch fundraiser).

We don't know what Cornyn raised last quarter, but he was sitting on $8.7 million previously to Noriega's $328K on hand. Adding %930,000 to that five months before the election is a disappointing take, I'm afraid.

NC-Sen: Elizabeth Dole wants to drill for oil off the coast of North Carolina.

But she also wants to protect North Carolina's coral reefs from the kind of damage that could ensue from drilling for oil off the coast of North Carolina.

Color me confused.

Elizabeth Dole’s campaign this week touted the letter she sent to President Bush asking him to protect the deep sea coral wilderness off the coast of North Carolina, designating it as a marine monument. Dole wrote that the corals may contain "new biomedical breakthroughs" urging its protection because it "cannot be replaced once disturbed and damaged."

Last week, Elizabeth Dole’s campaign touted the bill she cosponsored which would allow drilling off the coast of states, including North Carolina, where part of the deep sea coral wilderness is located.

Today, the Charlotte Observer’s Bruce Henderson wrote that the corals off of North Carolina’s coast, "could potentially be damaged by offshore drilling and deep-sea trawling."

"You can’t have it both ways," said Hagan Campaign Communications Director Colleen Flanagan. "Elizabeth Dole wants President Bush to protect the same coral reefs she wants to drill into for more oil – that is completely hypocritical. Dole wants us to believe she’s in favor of protecting North Carolina’s coral reefs but what she’s really in favor of is protecting Big Oil and Gas’ bottom line. Offshore drilling continues to pad their profits while doing nothing to help middle class North Carolinians, and nothing to help us invest in renewable energy on the path to true energy independence."

House Races

AZ-08: Well, this is embarrassing for one of the GOP's top recruits, Arizona Senate President Tim Bee.

The district's former Rep, moderate Republican Jim Kolbe, has pulled his support for Bee's campaign, as Bee seeks to unseat freshman Democrat Gabrielle Giffords.

"I will not be actively campaigning for Bee," the former Republican congressman said during a telephone interview with the Herald/Review on Thursday. Kolbe, whose district included Cochise County and whose seat in Congress is now held by Democrat Gabrielle Giffords, hosted a fundraiser recently for fellow Republican Bee at his Washington, D.C., home.

Kolbe's spokesman cited "personal reasons" for Kolbe's decision. He declined to elaborate, but the Sierra Daily Herald speculates that it may have something to do with Bee's support of a constitutional marriage amendment in Arizona (Kolbe is openly gay).

When asked if Bee’s vote in support of putting a potential gay marriage ban in Arizona on the ballot had anything to do with the issue, Dunn also refused to cite what Kolbe’s personal reasons were.

Kolbe has been openly gay since the early 1990s.

Last Friday, the Arizona Senate placed a constitutional marriage amendment on the November ballot.

Whatever the reason for Kolbe's decision, it certainly doesn't make Bee look like a moderate in Kolbe's mold, an image he needs to cultivate to unseat Giffords this year.

VA-01: We weren't running very hard here anyway, but still, this is disappointing; the lone Democrat in the race to face freshman Republican Rob Wittman has suspended his campaign.

Dr. Keith Hummel, a Democrat from Montross, has suspended his campaign for the 1st District congressional seat, leaving the Democratic Party potentially without a candidate to run against first-year Republican Rep. Robert J. Wittman.

Hummel said discussions about past financial difficulties have become a "distraction from the real issues at stake in this election." Those difficulties include a bankruptcy, campaign manager Stephen Pierce said.

Hummel, an emergency room doctor, said he had made no secret of his financial problems.

"I have always said that I am an imperfect candidate," Hummel said. "Unfortunately, our elections today revolve around narrow and simplistic assessments of viability."

Well, I do think that it's rather critical to be a decent fundraiser in a district which gave Bush 60% of the vote, and where the last Democratic candidate (Phil Forgit) actually underperformed Kerry in his December special-election bid. So perhaps Hummel was not the ideal candidate, anyway.

The First District Democratic Party will be able to pick a successor, if they want to, should Hummel officially drop out.

FL-21, FL-25: The Florida Democratic Party has sent out a press release noting that Miami-area foreclosures have more than doubled in the second quarter of 2008, in the face of action by the Diaz-Balart brothers. The New York Times reported on the Miami housing crisis in March:

But as Congress returns from a two-week recess on Monday for a furious debate over whether to help homeowners on the brink of default, Mr. Diaz-Balart is caught in a crunch of his own.

On one side, Democrats emboldened by the Federal Reserve’s intervention in the collapse of Bear Stearns are demanding help for "everyday Americans." On the other, Republicans including Senator John McCain, the party’s presumptive nominee, are urging restraint, reluctant to commit taxpayer funds to what they say is simply a bailout for greedy lenders and reckless buyers.

On the ground, Miami residents appear to be angry:

For constituents like Mr. Carpio, that is not enough. "I’m very lukewarm about him nowadays," said Mr. Carpio, who like his congressman is a lifelong Republican of Cuban heritage.

Others were less subtle. "He says a lot of about foreign policy, mainly toward Cuba, which makes no difference here," said David Carbonell, a former computer programmer and gas station manager now on disability with a heart ailment. "You have people living here at the edge of poverty and he has done nothing to bring anything back to Hialeah or Miami Lakes. He is a party hack. He will vote the way his party votes."

Ouch. I can't imagine that after the apparent second-quarter fiasco, things are any better for the Diaz-Balarts at home.

Barack Obama is puzzled:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Saturday his plan to end the Iraq war was unchanged and he was puzzled by the sharp reaction to his statement this week that he might "refine" his timetable for withdrawing U.S. combat troops. . . . "I was a little puzzled by the frenzy that I set off with what I thought was a pretty innocuous statement," he said on a flight from Montana to St. Louis. "I am absolutely committed to ending the war. I will call my joint chiefs of staff in and give them a new assignment and that is to end the war." . . .Obama said he did not make a mistake Wednesday with his choice of words in describing his Iraq position -- even though he called a second news conference a few hours after his initial comments to clarify his stance. He laid the blame with reporters.

"I'm surprised at how finely calibrated every single word was measured. I wasn't saying anything I hadn't said before, that I didn't say a year ago or when I was a United States senator," said Obama, who is still a senator from Illinois.

Let me see if I can explain it to Senator Obama on the flip.

You see Senator Obama, after you completely flip flopped on telco immunity and did a heck of a contortion on campaign finance and flipped on the validity of the DC gun ban and softened your view in support of a women's right to choose by agreeing that "mental distress" is not a sufficient reason for a late term abortion, people are prone to think you are going to "refine" (aka flip flop) all of your views. Consider also that the Village WANTS you to flip on Iraq and voila! - your statements on Iraq get turned upside down.

Ah, the dangers of a "move to the middle." People start to believe you're going to move to the middle on all the key issues. They start to say things like this:

SCARBOROUGH: Next up, is Obama‘s liberal base cracking up? Almost 10,000 of Barack Obama‘s most ardent supporters are protesting his support for FISA. They are doing it on a social networking site that lives in Obama‘s own campaign website. It seems as though the Internet, the campaign‘s not so secret but ultra-powerful grass roots organizing tool, may be on the verge of back-firing on team Obama.

John Harwood, our second question of the day, is it possible that the left could fall out of love with Obama if he fades on FISA, if he fades on interrogating, and if he seems siding with Cheney-Bush and the NSA on wiretapping?...

HARWOOD: No, it is not a problem for Barack Obama. This is one of those things that sounds like a problem, but if you really look at it, getting attacked from the left on national security issues is good news for Barack Obama, because it tells mainstream voters that he‘s not out on the far extreme and helps him counteract the attacks he‘s getting from John McCain and the Republicans.

SCARBOROUGH: But, you know, Richard Wolffe, changes are very good that Barack Obama—he‘s backed down on FISA. He‘s going to back down on Iraq. Everybody knows we‘re not getting out in 14 months. That‘s absolutely ridiculous. Chances are good he‘s going to back down on interrogation to a degree. On these national security issues, where he went far left, at least by today‘s standards, far left to win the Democratic primary, he is going to bolt back to the center in a Nixonian sort of way. Will the left stay with him come hell or high water?

WOLFFE: Joe, look, one of the raps against Obama is that he‘s never bucked any part of the liberal base and he‘s doing it right now. I‘m sorry, I hate to break this to you; I‘m with John on this one. I think when it comes to Iraq, actually, he‘s going to stick with withdrawal. It‘s not going to be the same kind of ambitious, fast paced withdrawal, but there is a real contrast there with McCain. In the end, elections are about choices. The people on the left are going to look at McCain and they‘re still going to vote with Obama.

SCARBOROUGH: You really believe, Richard Wolffe, that we‘re going to get out of Iraq in 14 months?

WOLFFE: No, I said it would be slower. He‘s still going to start withdrawals. That‘s going to be an important message for his base. He‘s not going to even do it all by the mid terms, but he‘s going to start it. That‘s what‘s important to these people.

SCARBOROUGH: You watch. We will have troop in Iraq, a significant number of troops in Iraq—we‘re still in Bosnia ten years after Bill Clinton said we‘d be out after one year. It‘s just not going to be that easy.

THAT conversation came BEFORE Obama said he would "refine" his Iraq policy. It should not come as a surprise to Obama and his people that a capitulation on Iraq by Obama was also expected and interpreted from his comments.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Rep. Mark Udall, running for Senate in Colorado, is among the House Dems who recently voted for the FISA bill.

That by itself isn't particularly remarkable. It's symptomatic of running for higher office, just as the votes of Bob Menendez and Sherrod Brown for the heinous Military Commissions Act was. They both voted for it, and almost immediately after winning announced how deeply they regretted it and that they'd be working to repeal it as soon as possible.

The MCA, of course, remains on the books. Its repeal never stood a chance so long as George W. Bush held his veto crayon. And both Brown and Menendez knew that when they said it.

But that's (political) life. It is what it is, and we say so out loud even though it's one of those dirty-but-open little secrets that Serious PeopleTM don't talk about. Actually, that's probably why we say so out loud.

So now Mark Udall finds himself in the same position. And just as Brown and Menendez bet it all on their promises to repeal, Udall now bets it all on committing the next administration -- yet to be elected, by the way -- to extensive criminal investigations penetrating into the very heart of years and years of executive operations.

Well, he's not really betting it all on it. There are literally hundreds of other critical issues and as many equally critical reasons why you absolutely must vote for him if you're a Colorado voter, despite anything that could possibly be said about FISA. And he's just one of dozens of Democrats running for higher office or for reelection to their current offices in November about whom I'd say the exact same thing. But FISA and the core issues underlying it are getting the same exact same glossing over from those other candidates as we're about to read from Udall. And all of the people saying it are actually rather hoping you won't notice if they eventually pick up their chips and drop the wager entirely.

So this is not important because Mark Udall said it. Mark Udall is just the vector we have under the microscope at the moment, and just as with Menendez and Brown, we are better off by far agreeing to live with the dirty little secret and electing him. What's important is that this letter or one like it is going out to millions of concerned constituents, in hundreds of districts around the country. You may be expecting one, yourself. I think you deserve a fuller discussion of the answers you're being offered. Then I think you should go out and vote for Udall and/or your local Democrat, anyway.

But here, via email to a constituent that was shared with us, is just one example of what we get when we're silly enough to actually ask why they voted for this thing:

This bill is designed to update FISA while putting an end to abusive domestic spying, and I voted for it in order to prevent a future program of warrantless surveillance by the executive branch. The bill is explicit that complying with FISA is the only way for the government to conduct surveillance. At the same time, it updates FISA, which was originally passed in 1978, to give us important capabilities to discover and stop terrorist activities. I fully understand why there is confusion and even anger that the legislation does not do more to require some telecommunications companies to respond to lawsuits for alleged privacy abuses in their actions to implement the Bush Administration's warrantless surveillance after 9-11. But it does require a comprehensive review of that surveillance program by the Inspectors General of the Justice Department, the Directorate of National Intelligence, the National Security Agency, and the Defense Department, including a report to the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees of Congress. This will mean that past abuses by the Bush Administration will not go uninvestigated. Also, the bill does not provide absolute or criminal immunity for these companies, and no government official will receive civil or criminal immunity for past abuses.

This particular line of response is now in wide circulation, doubtless disseminated by the House Democratic Caucus to help Members deal with constituent inquiries. And it does its job well. It sounds like a nuanced and intelligent response, and in most cases is likely enough to shoo away follow-ups and lingering doubts. But it's got serious holes in it -- serious enough to render the whole thing worthless, actually -- and they deserve examination.

Regarding the claim that this bill can "prevent a future program of warrantless surveillance by the executive branch," I say you're living in a dream world:

The "administration's" lawyers -- people like John Yoo -- advised Bush that the president had the "inherent power" to ignore the FISA provisions in the name of "national security."  So he did it. Despite the existence of the exclusivity provisions.

In fact, Yoo's memo insisted that FISA's exclusivity provisions meant exactly the opposite of what they do mean:

Unless Congress made a clear statement in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that it sought to restrict presidential authority to conduct warrantless searches in the national security area -- which it has not -- then the statute must be construed to avoid [such] a reading.

Just days ago, of course, the federal court in the Al-Haramain case said Yoo did indeed have it exactly backwards:

Congress squarely challenged and explicitly sought to prohibit warrantless wiretapping by the executive branch by means of FISA, as FISA's legislative history amply documented.

Congress appears clearly to have intended to -- and did -- establish as the exclusive means for foreign intelligence surveillance activities to be conducted.

Now, we've got a new exclusivity provision that also purports to prevent the president from simply ignoring the law, and it's being presented as something new and improved, and good enough by itself to justify a vote for the bill.

But the truth of the matter, as the court's decision makes clearer than ever, is exactly as Glenn Greenwald puts it:

They're presenting as a "gift" something you already have, and telling you that you should give up critical protections in exchange for receiving something that you already have -- namely, a requirement that the President comply with eavesdropping laws. What they're doing is tantamount to someone who steals your wallet, takes all the money out, gives the empty wallet back to you, and then tells you that you should be grateful to them because you have your wallet.

There really is no way to write a law such that it prevents someone from ignoring it, of course. If you ignore the law, you ignore the provisions preventing you from ignoring it. That, it turns out, is actually what "ignoring" means.

Regarding the claim that the bill "updates FISA, which was originally passed in 1978, to give us important capabilities to discover and stop terrorist activities," it's arguably true that the bill does "update" FISA, but it is decidedly misleading to follow that up by simply stating that FISA was originally passed in 1978. If "updating" is the issue, Udall might have taken care to mention that FISA has actually been updated dozens of times over the years, and several times just since 9/11.

It might also have been helpful to explain that while some of the updates were arguably necessary (debatable, but arguable), retroactive immunity for the telecom companies is neither an update to FISA, nor a necessity. Udall might have taken the opportunity to explain that George W. Bush would not accept the updates that were arguably necessary and proper unless he also won his point on immunity, and that he had in fact threatened to veto these "important capabilities to discover and stop terrorist activities" if he didn't get his way.

Some actual grown-ups among his constituents might like to know that.

Regarding the claim that the bill will "require a comprehensive review of that surveillance program by the Inspectors General of the Justice Department, the Directorate of National Intelligence, the National Security Agency, and the Defense Department, including a report to the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees of Congress," I offer this observation shared with me via email, by emptywheel:

The IG report, by law, cannot name a private citizen or entity that participated in the warrantless wiretap program. In other words, while a lot of people are pointing to the IG investigation as a great invention of transparency (though, without the Bingaman amendment [about which, see here], we have no way to force the Administration to carry out the investigation in good faith), but the IG investigation by design will continue to shield the telecoms that broke the law in assisting the Administration.

Sounds pretty "comprehensive," eh? Can't name names. That, I think, is going to be rather important when it comes to Udall's last and most ridiculous claim, that:

This will mean that past abuses by the Bush Administration will not go uninvestigated. Also, the bill does not provide absolute or criminal immunity for these companies, and no government official will receive civil or criminal immunity for past abuses.

This last claim has already been addressed thoroughly by bmaz, writing on emptywheel's blog at Firedoglake. And the issues with it utterly destroy the point. Just a few such issues:

WHAT CRIMES? - Neither Olbermann, Dean, Obama, nor anybody else discussing this hypothetical pipe dream has indicated exactly what crimes they think might be charged. Let us be clear on one thing, simply because a proscribed activity is unconstitutional does NOT make it criminal. For a crime to be charged, there needs to be a specific provision of the US Code (USC), or other statutory provision, making said conduct a crime. It is crystal clear, from the collective record to date, that the participating telcos were compelled by the Bush Administration to assist and were given written assurances that their cooperation was necessary for national security, legal and authorized by the President of the United States in a supposed time of war. That pretty much eliminates any crime that requires criminal intent by the perpetrator, and leaves only what, in criminal law, are known as strict liability crimes, of which none come to mind. The only cogent possibility is the criminal offense defined under the FISA law (18 USC 1809) which, you guessed it, requires specific intent. How are you going to prove that here?

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS: - Even if you could identify specific crimes to charge telcos and/or their owners, directors and personnel with, the crime must be viable and ripe for prosecution. The first question any criminal defense attorney is going to ask is "Gee, is this crime within the statute of limitations"? FISA is subject to the Federal general statute of limitation contained in 18 USC 3282, which is five years. And, remember, the statute starts to run when the crime is committed and/or when the government becomes aware of the conduct; in this case the Department of Justice knew about the conduct as, or before, it was being committed. When we, as citizens learned about it is not the relevant test. Obama, assuming he is indeed elected, will not be issuing indictments at the end of his inaugural address. The FISA Amendment Act provides for an investigation and report of the Bush/telco wiretapping/datamining and snooping to be completed by applicable Inspectors General within one year of passage; assuming Bush signs the FAA in mid-July, that would be mid-July 2009 for the report. The Bush Administration will not be working diligently to effect this while they are still in office; any meaningful work will have to be reviewed and/or performed under the new administration. It is unrealistic to expect that any charges could possibly be filed before said said report is due, so any act occurring prior to about July 15, 2004 will not be within the statute of limitations and will be barred from prosecution.

To these, I have still more to add.

1. Why, if you believe there are or may be grounds for criminal prosecution, would you immunize against civil liability? What sense does that make, exactly? Why make life easier for people you're telling us should be or could be subject to criminal liability?

2. Going the path in #1 says, "Don't press your rights by yourselves, Mr. or Ms. Citizen. Let the government that just finished stripping you of them take care of that for you. Maybe.

3. Who are these Congressmen commiting the Barack Obama administration to a major criminal investigation spanning eight years of the Bush White House's most secretive and most deeply shrouded abuses as its first official act, and have any of them asked Obama where he stands on this commitment?

4. The people promising you criminal prosecutions after '08 if you'll just shut up and trust them to read the law and take care of things after the election are the same people who promised you effective "subpoena power" after '06 if you'd just shut up and trust them to read the law and take care of things after the election.

Well, when they said it in '06, I read the law myself and saw very clearly (and dead accurately, I might add) what would happen to "subpoena power". Now we're back to trusting their reading of the law, their predictive powers, and their assumptions that Bush won't simply pardon everyone, out of some kind if pure shame, it is suggested, even though he hasn't exhibited such shame at any point in his life, much less during his "administration."

Absent the fact that Udall is hoping we'll all go away, this would be an intentionally stupid position to take at this point, 7 1/2 years into the Bush "administration." And if it weren't for the fact that we're all going to be hit with this telegraphed punch, I'd be more than happy to let those who subscribe to it take in on the chin while I laugh from ringside.

Too bad it's not that simple.

Who needs the environment when condos can be slapped up and friends can make a handsome profit?The deal was struck behind closed doors between Mark E. Rey, the former timber lobbyist who oversees the U.S. Forest Service, and Plum Creek Timber Co., a former logging company turned real estate investment trust that is building homes. Plum Creek owns more than 8 million acres nationwide, including 1.2 million acres in the mountains of western Montana, where local officials were stunned and outraged at the deal.

"We have 40 years of Forest Service history that has been reversed in the last three months," said Pat O'Herren, an official in Missoula County, which is threatening to sue the Forest Service for forgoing environmental assessments and other procedures that would have given the public a voice in the matter.

• The most unpopular president in history is still a formidable fundraiser even as his party frets over how to keep him confined to the attic during the upcoming convention. Some, in fact, don't even want him in the attic:

  "I don’t think there are a lot of people who want to see him at the convention," said Mr. Rohrabacher, who is especially irked with Mr. Bush for his stance on immigration. He said the president "should stay home from the Republican convention, and everybody would be better off."

• Vets for Freedom--a "non-partisan" group that boasted Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham on its policy board before the two rascals resigned--is gearing up for a multi-million dollar, battleground state ad blitz. I'm sure readers will be surprised to learn the ads will be critical of Barack Obama.
• A Canadian court ruled that a refugee board needs to re-examine its denial of asylum to Joshua Keys, author of The Deserter's Tale.
• Condoleeza Rice: Still Proud of Decision to Invade Iraq.
• The mighty state of California admits cowering in the face of Anthem Blue Cross, neglecting to enforce a $1 million verdict for fear of being "outgunned" in court.
• At Hullabaloo, Tristero ridicules the notion of "hard trade-offs and ideological confusions that the past years have forced on all thinking people" when those supposed "thinking people" are erstwhile supporters of the Iraq war. DHinMI
• Best eulogy of Jesse Helms, from Hendrick Hertzberg:

  Far too late for it to do anybody any good, Jesse Helms has died. He has done so on Independence Day, which, since he was born too late to own slaves and in too liberal an age to allow him to outlaw sedition, will forever be his only resemblance to Thomas Jefferson and John Adams.

  It is rude to speak ill of the dead. Luckily, I did so ahead of time.

  DHinMI

• Gallup:Obama Leads By 5, 47% to 42%

  Except for a brief period a week ago when McCain and Obama were tied in voter preference, Obama has had the slight upper hand in the race since Gallup's June 6 report, leading McCain by one to seven percentage points. The last time McCain had any numerical advantage over Obama was in Gallup's June 5 report when he was one percentage point ahead, 46% to 45%. However, the last time McCain had a statistically significant lead was in early May. (To view the complete trend since March 7, click here.)

  Gallup does not call it a statistical dead heat. DemFromCT

If Sen. Barack Obama moves his acceptance speech from the Pepsi Center to Invesco field, he'll need 76,000 people to fill the seats.

Only 50,000 are expected in town for the convention. Many in Denver will be doing their best to avoid downtown that week. I think they need a concert. Remember the 75,000 crowd in Portland, OR? They had Obama follow a free outdoor concert by the Decembrists which was planned in advance with his campaign.

Question: Who will it be? For reasons explained below, Bruce Springsteen, Sheryl Crow, Bonnie Raitt, Melissa Etheridge and Stevie Wonder come to mind. Will it be one huge band or a few smaller and diverse groups? [More...]

One consideration: Even if the groups waive a performing fee, it will still be expensive, given the cost of moving and setting up equipment, travel, etc. The Obama campaign would have to foot the bill for that -- as well, I suspect, as some of the extra security costs. I think groups already in town would have an advantage.

The Jazz Aspen-Snowmass Labor Day festival is overlapping with the convention this year, headlined by Bob Dylan. Dylan is pretty unpolitical when it comes to supporting candidates -- politics isn't his thing -- but he has said encouraging things about Obama. Some of the other groups: Widespread Panic, John Fogerty, Ziggy Marley, Yonder Mountain String Band and Dwight Yoakam.

Mellencamp played at the DNC in Boston in 2004. In 2008, he campaigned for Edwards in Iowa. (Here are my videos of his performing Pink Houses and Our Country in Des Moines and of Elizabeth Edwards thanking him.) After Edwards dropped out, he didn't choose between Hillary and Obama before the primary was decided -- his did one show for each of them. The Goo Goo Dolls also played for both candidates.

Bonnie Raitt and Jackson Browne also supported and played for Edwards. Raitt will be in Denver that week for another think tank event, Symposia of the Rockies. She'd be a good choice.

It's been reported Sheryl Crow will be in Denver performing at a closed delegate party:

I have it on good authority that singer Sheryl Crow has been booked for a Red Rocks show exclusively for DNC delegates on Aug. 24, the Sunday before the convention begins.

Stevie Wonder played in Denver this week. It was his first Colorado performance in 13 years. He's a huge Obama supporter and Obama has said he's one of his favorite artists.

Melissa Etheridge will be playing a Win the Vote Concert at the Fillmore in Denver on Aug. 26.

What about Bruce? He's on tour with a concert in nearby Kansas City on August 24 and then nothing until his final concert in Milwaukee on Aug. 28. Easy fit.

Personally, I'd love to see Bon Jovi or Tom Petty (they sure use his songs enough, between American Girl and Won't Back Down.) They can fill a stadium that size easily on multiple nights. One night should be a breeze.

As to Bon Jovi, he's ending a long European and U.S. tour in a few weeks. While he did campaign events for Kerry in 2004 and Gore in 2000, he's a longtime Hillary supporter, not that it should matter with the unity theme.

Tom Petty is playing in Texas that week. Crosby, Stills and Nash look free, and they were clearly looking forward to an Obama presidency when I saw them in concert last week. Dave Matthews will be on tour in other cities.

Who would you suggest for the musical acts that could pre-fill the stadium and be a great, rousing warm-up for Obama?