NYT says “It’s Torture!”

The NYT today published an obituary for a deceased American fighter pilot who was captured by the Chinese:

Harold E. Fischer Jr., an American Flier Tortured in a Chinese Prison, Dies at 83... From April 1953 through May 1955, Colonel Fischer — then an Air Force captain — was held at a prison outside Mukden, Manchuria. For most of that time, he was kept in a dark, damp cell with no bed and no opening except a slot in the door through which a bowl of food could be pushed. Much of the time he was handcuffed. Hour after hour, a high-frequency whistle pierced the air. [...] Under duress, Captain Fischer had falsely confessed to participating in germ warfare.
So - when the Chinese do it it's torture. When the US do it it's "harsh interrogation". We expect more consistency of our major news organizations. We expect more of our own government. It's time to call for a special prosecutor, Mr. Attorney General. [via Glenn Greenwald, and Andrew Sullivan]

Continue ReadingNYT says “It’s Torture!”

Maine makes it 5/50

I present without (much) comment the following from the governor of Maine, John E. Baldacci:

"I have followed closely the debate on this issue. I have listened to both sides, as they have presented their arguments during the public hearing and on the floor of the Maine Senate and the House of Representatives. I have read many of the notes and letters sent to my office, and I have weighed my decision carefully,” Governor Baldacci said. “I did not come to this decision lightly or in haste." “I appreciate the tone brought to this debate by both sides of the issue,” Governor Baldacci said. “This is an emotional issue that touches deeply many of our most important ideals and traditions. There are good, earnest and honest people on both sides of the question.” “In the past, I opposed gay marriage while supporting the idea of civil unions,” Governor Baldacci said. “I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage.”
Welcome to the inevitable progress of American society. Cue wingnut outrage in 3, 2 ...

Continue ReadingMaine makes it 5/50

The GOP are for Healthcare reform! Honest!

Frank Lutz, in yet another sterling example of Republican doublespeak, calls on the GOP to 'support Healthcare Reform". Only one problem with that statement - the GOP has absolutely no proposals to reform healthcare. Not one! The only perspective he offers is how to sound like you are for reform, yet offer no proposal of your own. From the article:

“You simply MUST be vocally and passionately on the side of REFORM,” Luntz advises in a confidential 26-page report obtained from Capitol Hill Republicans. “The status quo is no longer acceptable. If the dynamic becomes ‘President Obama is on the side of reform and Republicans are against it,’ then the battle is lost and every word in this document is useless. “Republicans must be for the right kind of reform that protects the quality of healthcare for all Americans. And you must establish your support of reform early in your presentation.” Instead, Luntz says Republicans should warn against a “Washington takeover” of health care, and insist that patients would have to “stand in line” with “Washington bureaucrats in charge of healthcare.”
That would be instead of standing in line waiting for a 'for profit' bureaucracy to determine your fate. As it currently stands, the current proposals are too limited, since none of the current proposals on the table include single-payer, as used in most of the developed world. In fact, at recent senate hearings physician activists in favor of single payer were removed from the chamber and arrested for interrupting the proceedings, while the committee went on to hear solely from industry lobbyists in favor of industry-based solutions. [via Politico]

Continue ReadingThe GOP are for Healthcare reform! Honest!

Public court proceedings aren’t very public, and that’s the way they like them.

Would you like to monitor our government at work? What if there’s a really interesting court proceeding in Massachusetts, but you live far from Massachusetts? But you’d really like to hear the court proceeding live, because this case is about some of the lawsuits that record companies have been bringing under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 501, alleging that individual defendants (many of whom were students) were copyright infringers—that they had illegally used file-sharing software to download and disseminate copyrighted songs without paying royalties. The Plaintiffs were a large group of record companies including Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Warner Bros. Records, Inc., Atlantic Recording Corporation, Arista Records, LLC, and UMG Recordings, Inc. In a case styled In re Sony BMG Music Entertainment, 2009 WL 1017505, 7 (1st Circuit, (Mass) 2009), the Court of Appeals recently ruled that I don't have the right to listen to court deliberations over the Internet, at least in the First District. In the trial court, Joel Tenenbaum (one of the persons whom the record companies had sued) moved to permit Courtroom View Network to webcast a non-evidentiary motions hearing that was scheduled for January 22, 2009. Presiding Judge Nancy Gertner, citing the keen public interest in the litigation, granted his motion over the objection of the record companies. She thought it would be a good idea to permit webcasting of the motion hearings. She thought that anyone interested in the exercise of the Court’s power should have the opportunity to listen in remotely through a computer. On April 16, 2009, however, the Court of Appeals struck down Judge Gertner’s decision, holding that it was inappropriate to make the inner workings of the private PUBLIC courts easily accessible to the public. The Court of Appeals said something that a sarcastic lawyer might paraphrase like this: No more of that webcasting nonsense, Judge Gertner!

Continue ReadingPublic court proceedings aren’t very public, and that’s the way they like them.

Missouri May Allow Pharmacists to Just Say No

Need the pill? If you live in Missouri, and your pharmacist disagrees with your doctor about your reproductive needs, you're stuck. No recourse. That is, if an amended bill passed in the House makes it to law this week. According to this,

The amendment is similar to "conscience legislation" passed in other states that protects pharmacists who object to dispensing birth control medication.

Let your legislators know whether you think personal medical decsions should be up to doctors and patients, or churches acting through politicians.

Continue ReadingMissouri May Allow Pharmacists to Just Say No