It's been a long journey, but I'm now at the point where I regard George Bush's impeachment as a necessity. I believe the effort should be undertaken now, no matter or even especially if it is destined to fail.

I don't normally believe that my personal trains of thought rise to the level of public discourse, but I find that many of the people I converse with regularly are coming to a similar conclusion. None of us, I believe, have come to it lightly.

I don't consider myself a leftist caricature. My father died in the Vietnam War; my stepfather served in the Air Force until his retirement a decade ago. I know how to shoot a gun, I've run my own business, and frankly, some lefties embarrass the hell out of me. I opposed the Iraq war out of the simple calculation that it was not in our national interest to be invested in that country, and because I believed that the people in charge did not have a clue about the all-important postwar scenario. I'm not all that sure that immediate withdrawal from Iraq is in the U.S. national interest, either; my goal there is and remains victory, no matter how much I disagree with the conflict in the first place. Great powers don't lose wars without suffering damage, in my opinion, to that status, and the consequences of defeat in Iraq would be horrific. From where I stand, the only person with a clue about foreign policy in this country remains Henry Kissinger. Domestically, I was aghast at Gavin Newsom's decision to allow marriage licenses for gay couples in San Francisco, not because I disagreed with the larger objective, but because it violated a proper reverence for the law. From where I stand, Newsom should have been impeached on the spot.

I find much to disagree with in the policies of George Bush and his party. I think "faith-based initiatives" violate the wall of separation. Their corruption and cronyism is damaging the formerly muscular U.S. economy. The same can be said of their borrow-and-spend profligacy and their deregulatory efforts. I'm appalled at the sheer extent of their incompetence, as this WashPost editorial lays out. Their assault on basic scientific integrity, as part of a wider attempt to ideologize everything within reach, is appalling. I'm pretty sure that Karl Rove did indeed out Valerie Plame, that George Bush knew there were no nukes in Iraq, that they have no clue about how to deal with Iran, and that the country is perilously adrift with no clear direction.

None of these observations, however, rise to the level of impeachable offenses in my view. With the exception of the reasons for war, the proper remedy for political actions is at the voting booth. If this is what the American people want, this is what they should get. If a voter chooses to give credence to the libelous drivel oozing from Fox or the smear-boaters, then that is that voter's right.

What is different now is that George Bush has broken the law with his illegal domestic spying. The facts of the case are clear: the governing law for domestic wiretaps is the FISA statute. Congress passed this law in 1978 in response to Richard Nixon's claim of executive privilege on national security matters. The administration itself sought congressional authority to operate domestically in this 'war on terror' business, and was rebuffed; the AUMF does not allow it to operate within the borders of the United States except under strict safeguards. The White House now claims authority to ignore FISA based on the war-making powers of the constitution. In fact, the domestic spying is now being re-branded as 'terrorist surveillance' and trotted out as a campaign issue. Meanwhile, there is no end in sight for the war on terror, no concrete enemy to defeat, no way to know when we've won. By way of comparison, the IRA started its war on the British Government in 1916, and there is no reason to expect Al Qaeda to have a shorter lifespan.

The question is not, as the administration and its lackeys would have us believe, whether domestic spying is legal. It is, under FISA. The question is rather whether the executive branch can, at its own discretion and pleasure, ignore the legislative acts of Congress. If Congress affirms this action, they might as well go home, because they will be nothing more than an advisory body humbly petitioning the throne, much like the Saudi-Arabian Majlis. If Bush and his successors can ignore FISA, then what can they not do? In a 'generational war', as this war on terror has been called, under the view of Bush and his counselors, the power of the legislature to govern is subject to Presidential approval. We will be an empire, not a democratic republic.

Some will argue that this is rank partisanship. I beg to differ. There is no immediate or short-term gain for Democrats from pushing impeachment, given that we do not control Congress. Bush's replacement would be Dick Cheney, who could then appoint a new Vice President. If he chooses well, that person would go into the 2008 elections with the bonus of incumbency. Arguably, impeachment could cost us seats, given media complacency and the fury sure to erupt over in the rightwing echo chamber. The part of me that loves power and winning above all else is not thrilled at the idea.

However, that larger part of me that looks to history, to the legacy we have been handed as Americans, is more than willing to defend the privileges even of a republican Congress. Separation of powers, accountability, and oversight are not partisan issues. Americans need to rise up and say that enough is enough. Our history, our constitution and our future demand no less.

A funny thing happened back in 2000: the American people elected Al Gore to the Presidency, but some other guy, originally from Connecticut, took the office instead, after a partisan and unconstitutional intervention from some well-placed friends of his.

That same guy later claimed the right to imprison anyone he chose, without due process, a warrant or even charges, for as long as he chose, and without oversight by anyone. The Supreme Court shot that idea down quickly.

Today, the guy is at it again, claiming the right to wiretap American citizens without a warrant, let alone any court oversight, at his sole discretion and pleasure. Legal justification is something he claims to derive from a congressional resolution that says no such thing. These wiretaps are in direct conflict with the relevant Federal statute.

So here's the question. What limits, if any, are his party playmates willing to accept on his claimed "authority"? Or is that 'separation of powers' thing a quaint concept from before we had one-party government?

Thanks to NARAL-Pro Choice for keeping track of this information at prochoiceamerica.org : New York Legislation.

I have made myself a promise : EQUALITY, AUTONOMY AND FREEDOM are going to be my issues to jour in the coming elections. I believe many legislative and political decisions made in this country in the last 20 years have been towards curtailing these three precepts of our culture.

We've lost ground on equal rights under the law, not just on reproductive issues, but in the broader idea of social justice. So you have environmental, educational or even national & state security policies that disregard the precepts of equal protection under the law.

We have lost ground also on law regarding autonomy : Reproductive autonomy and hence the individual autonomy of women --especially teenagers. Personal autonomy is, of course, springs from the more general idea of freedom. Autonomy though, when it involves a child and their learning path --a path that may take them against schooling--; is not only negated but attacked in many education regulations and laws in this state; making it one of the least progressive states in the country when it comes to education legislation.

As to freedom; there is nothing more patently against freedom than the Patriot Act. Less 'in your face' but more of a nightmare are the digital restrictions management laws which have been successfully been used not only to curtail the free movement of ideas in this country but even of people (aka, workers carrying 'intellectual property' owned by their employers).

In the following list of bills you can see a pattern of mandated co-ersion. Women under the law have become nothing more than incubators in a political game of human harvesting.

ABORTION BANS AFTER 12 WEEKS
Bill Number: NY A 6433
Summary: Bans safe, medically appropriate abortions as early as 12 weeks of pregnancy without exception to protect women's health.
Sponsor: Manning (R)
Introduced: 03/11/2005
Last Action: Introduced

Bill Number: NY S 1868
Summary: Bans safe, medically appropriate abortions as early as 12 weeks of pregnancy without exception to protect women's health.
Sponsor: Maltese (R)
Introduced: 02/04/2005
Last Action: Introduced

ABSTINENCE-ONLY
Bill Number: NY A 554
Summary: Appropriates funds for abstinence education.
Sponsor: Office of the Governor
Introduced: 01/18/2005
Last Action: Enacted with Governor's Signature
Last Action Date: 04/12/2005

ANTI-CHOICE CLINICS
Bill Number: NY A 555
Summary: Relates to providing funds for anti-choice clinics that are barred from providing women with access to the full range of reproductive health options.
Sponsor: Office of the Governor
Introduced: 01/18/2005
Last Action: Enacted with Governor's Signature
Last Action Date: 04/12/2005

BIASED COUNSELING AND MANDATORY DELAY
Bill Number: NY A 4753
Summary: Mandates parental consent prior to a young woman obtaining an abortion without an exception to protect young women's health. Requires women receive state-mandated lecture prior to obtaining abortion services; prohibits abortion unless women wait an additional 24 hours after receiving lecture.
Sponsor: Barra (R)
Introduced: 02/14/2005
Last Action: Introduced

Bill Number: NY A 5696
Summary: Requires women receive state-mandated lecture prior to obtaining abortion services; prohibits abortion unless women wait an additional 24 hours after receiving lecture.
Sponsor: Young (R)
Introduced: 02/25/2005
Last Action: Introduced

Bill Number: NY S 1869
Summary: Requires women receive state-mandated lecture which may include medically inaccurate information prior to obtaining abortion services; prohibits abortion unless women wait an additional 24 hours after receiving lecture.
Sponsor: Maltese (R)
Introduced: 02/04/2005
Last Action: Introduced

REFUSAL TO PROVIDE MEDICAL SERVICES
Bill Number: NY S 1873
Summary: Allows certain individuals or entities to refuse to perform abortion services and to refuse to dispense or provide contraceptives in all or most circumstances.
Sponsor: Maltese (R)
Introduced: 02/04/2005
Last Action: Introduced

RESTRICTIONS ON LOW-INCOME WOMEN'S ACCESS TO ABORTION
Bill Number: NY A 4910
Summary: Restricts low-income women's access to abortion except in cases of life endangerment.
Sponsor: Barraga (R)
Introduced: 02/15/2005
Last Action: Introduced

Bill Number: NY A 6119
Summary: Restricts low-income women's access to abortion.
Sponsor: Kirwan (R)
Introduced: 03/04/2005
Last Action: Introduced

Bill Number: NY S 5623
Summary: Restricts low-income women's access to abortion except in cases of life endangerment, rape, or incest.
Sponsor: Rules Cmt
Introduced: 06/08/2005
Last Action: Passed Senate
Last Action Date: 06/15/2005

RESTRICTIONS ON YOUNG WOMEN'S ACCESS TO ABORTION
Bill Number: NY A 4753
Summary: Mandates parental consent prior to a young woman obtaining an abortion without an exception to protect young women's health. Requires women receive state-mandated lecture prior to obtaining abortion services; prohibits abortion unless women wait an additional 24 hours after receiving lecture.
Sponsor: Barra (R)
Introduced: 02/14/2005
Last Action: Introduced

Bill Number: NY A 6439
Summary: Mandates parental notice prior to a young woman obtaining an abortion without adequate health exception.
Sponsor: Reilich (R)
Introduced: 03/11/2005
Last Action: Introduced

Bill Number: NY S 2139
Summary: Mandates parental consent prior to a young woman obtaining an abortion without an exception to protect young women's health. Requires women receive state-mandated lecture prior to obtaining abortion services; prohibits abortion unless women wait an additional 24 hours after receiving lecture.
Sponsor: Padavan (R)
Introduced: 02/09/2005
Last Action: Introduced

RESTRICTIONS ON YOUNG WOMEN'S ACCESS TO FAMILY PLANNING
Bill Number: NY A 8075
Summary: Pharmacy access to emergency contraception (EC). Allows pharmacists to dispense EC directly to women without a prescription. Restricts young people's access to contraception by requiring parental notice.
Sponsor: Manning (R)
Introduced: 05/03/2005
Last Action: Introduced

SEPARATE LEGAL STATUS FOR EMBRYOS AND FETUSES
Bill Number: NY A 4544
Summary: Amends definition of "person" in portions of criminal code to include "an unborn child at any stage of gestation."
Sponsor: Seddio (D)
Introduced: 02/10/2005
Last Action: Introduced

Bill Number: NY S 1867
Summary: Amends definition of "decedent" in section of civil law to include fetus.
Sponsor: Maltese (R)
Introduced: 02/04/2005
Last Action: Introduced

Bill Number: NY S 2515
Summary: Amends definition of person in portions of criminal code to include "unborn child at any stage of gestation." Amends homicide laws to allow an "unborn child" to be a victim of crime separate and apart from the pregnant woman at any stage of pregnancy.
Sponsor: Maltese (R)
Introduced: 02/18/2005
Last Action: Introduced

I will be coming back to these legislations because I am particularly interested in knowing more about the sponsors, whether they are running on 2006, and if so, what are their fundraising machines.

As you can see they are all republicans.

New York City-based Progressive Organization calls for Opposition and Questioning of Candidate for Supreme Court

NEW YORK, N.Y., Aug. 24 -- New Democratic Majority (NDM) joins People for the American Way (PFAW) and other progressive organizations across the country in opposing the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court of the United States.

“To give George Bush a free pass on the nomination of Judge Roberts to the Supreme Court would fly in the face of America’s sentiment towards the president,

[via FindLaw's Writ - Sebok: New York City's $50 Million Strip-search Suit Settlement]:

Tyson was filed on behalf of approximately 60,000 persons who were arrested on misdemeanors between July 1996 and June 1997 in Manhattan and Queens. During this period, the New York City Department of Corrections, which ran the city's jails (where people who are arrested and awaiting arraignment are held) stripped and examined everyone brought to them, regardless of whether that person appeared to be concealing contraband or not.

I want to point out the cases of strip searches covered by this settlement where done under the Rudolph Giuliani administration. Rudoplh Giuliani's hyper-inflating of the term "crime activity" in the city of New York --via his 'quality of life' policies-- is what led to more than 60,000 people being arrested and mistreated by NYPD and corrections personnel.

Unfortunately for the City, ten years earlier, in 1986, the Supreme Court had held in Weber v. Dell that strip-searching a person who has been arrested for a minor offense, but who has not yet been arraigned or convicted of a crime, violates the Fourth Amendment. The lawyers working for the City of New York knew or should have known of that holding. Unsurprisingly, soon after Tyson was filed in 1997, the city ordered the Department of Correction to stop its policies of automatic strip searches.  read more »