Within the last couple hours, someone (Rightwingextremist.net is claiming responsibility) hacked Twincities Indymedia to pull up a bunch of pro-Bush/anti-Kerry websites.
Basic Problem:
The attacker uploaded an “article” with the following subject (spaces added to messup markup):
< iframe src=" http://aimwarfare.net/upload/rwe22.swf " > < / iframe > BushSucks
The flash file does all the annoying stuff.
At least in the Opera browser, if I disable JavaScript, I can view the IndyMedia site again.
US REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 05
Jay Pond (GPM) vs Daniel Mathias (Rep) vs Martin Sabo (DFL)
I am voting for Jay Pond.
I have a small magnet with a quote attributed to Mahatma Gandhi which says:
“We must be the change we wish to see in the world.”
I do not wish to belong to a world run by two powerful political parties with my only choice being which of the two I dislike the least. I believe that if I am going to believe in Democracy, I have to believe that I can vote for the candidate I support the most and that my vote means something.
Otherwise, Democracy holds no value for me. I’d rather live in a dictatorship and not be given the illusion of having a choice than be forced to choose soley between the DNC and the RNC.
Because I believe that I should be able to vote for the candidate I most support, I must choose to vote for the candidate I most support. Furthermore, I must believe that on some level, that vote counts for something. Should this prove to not be the case, then I can not believe that our society has the true values of Democracy and that sacrifices made in the name of that ideal have been in vain.
Thankfully, In this particular race, I do feel that our US representative race is not a choice between the lesser of two evils. I prefer Jay Pond, but have found Martin Sabo to be a decent representative. I believe that for the most part, a vote for Mathias is a vote in support of our current administration. He seems like a decent person, but is not one I could vote for.
The major things I support about him are:
* Support for Instant Runoff Voting and other Fair Vote initiatives.
* Belief that we need to focus on developing regionally supplied renewable energy resources.
* Opposition to the doctrines of “preemptive” or “preventative” war.
* Opposition to the PATRIOT act
* Opposition to corporate media consolidation.
I find his support of Kucinich and Barbara Lee’s “Department of Peace” to be an interesting thought, but I need to look more deeply at the specifics of the proposal.
I also find his concepts of moving taxation from being based on income and labor to being based on resource usage/consumption to be highly compelling, but I would like to see more details on it. I would be concerned that it could be somewhat regressive in nature.
I am concerned about his call to bring the troops home from the current conflicts as he does not address how to protect those left behind from the war lords who would sweep into the power vacuum we would leave behind.
Martin Olav Sabo, also from Minneapolis, is our current representative and has been in office since 1978. I believe his experience is a valuable asset and I have always found him responsive to any concerns I have sent his way. This is an important trait in a representative.
Unfortunately, one of the downsides of my untimely Internet outage is that I have not been able to fully research incumbent voting records, but to my recollection, Sabo has an above-average rate of voting the way I would wish on things.
If he wins, I will not be overly disappointed.
He does support alternative energy resources, although his language seems to fall more along the lines of promoting efficiency and technology – a path that without radical changes in power sources, I do not believe will take care of our problems.
He does believe in federally provided health care.
He does want to “modify” the PATRIOT act, but to what extent is not clear.
I’m not completely comfortable with the fact that he seems to support the “War on Terrorism” as well as be following the DFL line that the war in Iraq was a good thing to do but done in the wrong way.
One major concern is that he wants to reduce the trade barriers and, if I’m reading behind the lines correctly, is a supporter of NAFTA, the WTO, and Free Trade (as opposed to fair trade). I believe these approaches support economic imperialism which ultimately will be at least as destructive as military imperialism. I do not believe this is outright what Sabo wants, but I believe it is an inevitable effect of supporting these things. I believe that they have worked their way into the Democratic platforms due, in large part, to corporate influences.
He also strikes me as being strongly partisan – a trait I do not like. His home page, rather than discussing his platform or record says:
“I want to thank you and all of the 15,000 Minnesotans who attended their DFL Precinct Caucuses in the 5th Congressional District to get involved in a very important election year and turn our country back in the direction of hope and opportunity and away from hand-outs to corporate interests and the super wealthy. We must rid the axis of arrogance from the White House. It is time for a change.”…
“United we can make sure John Kerry is our next President, the Congress is controlled by Democrats and the Minnesota House of Representatives is once again run by the DFL Party.”
I don’t like the current administration in the white house, but I also don’t really want to see our world controlled by Democrats. This is not a vision of victory for me.
Daniel Mathias is a teacher and courier from Minneapolis. He seems like a nice enough guy, but I do disagree with many of his platform points. From what I can tell, he seems to feel that our current administration is on the right track.
I can see some common grounds on aspects of healthcare, education, and taxes, and I strongly agree with him that we need to take better care of our veterans.
Some of his points:
From his web site:
“After the September 11th attacks and the renewed threat of terrorism, I saw how President Bush led our nation in a new policy of rooting out the terrorist organizations and the nations that support them. From my studies, I knew that much of the problems of the Middle East stem from the political repression and a lack of freedom, economically and socially.”
An interesting thing he discusses is the concept that many of the problems in urban education are breakdowns within the family and the community making it hard for students to succeed. I definitely agree that this is an important thing to take into account and would be interested in seeing more about how he would approach this problem.
One of his platform points is “protecting marriage” which, I feel has become a code phrase for “keep gays out of it”.
Arggh
personal
There was a major glitch with my Qwest line and I’ve been w/o internet connectivity for about a week. This has significantly intefered with both my ability to get work done as well as with my ability to review the candidates.
Unfortunately, this means I will not be able to do as in depth of a review of the candidates as I had originally hoped. It also means they will have to come more rapid fire now.
JUDGE – COURT OF APPEALS 14
(i) R. A. (JIM) RANDALL vs DANIEL L. GRIFFITH
I am choosing to vote for Jim Randall
This is a challenging one to decide. Both Randall and Griffith seem to be men of principle and idealism with a clear view that the job of a judge is to see justice done within the confines of the consititution.
One source of information was the League of Women Voters’ website.
Daniel Griffith responded to all the questions with answers I supported. He believes that a judge’s personal beliefs are subordinate to the law and that the paramount duty of a judge is justice. He wants to see people be more able to learn what a judge believes in so they can make informed decisions on who they vote for.
Jim Randall did not answer all the question, but the one he did answer had a nice response:
List and describe the duties of the judicial office you are seeking as you see them. How would you rank those duties in order of importance? Are there duties you would like to see added to or removed from the list?I have devoted my 37 years as a lawyer and a judge to the protection of the men and women of Minnesota from unwarranted intrusion in their lives by the power of the government. I see social justice as the start and end of my working day. Social justice and criminal justice follow when government treats its citizens fairly and honestly.
Reading Griffith’s web site supports the answers he gave and painted a picture of a decent person who has done good things with their life. One interesting thing he included on his site:
Our first US Supreme Court Chief Justice, John Jay, said we should elect of all people Christians. I think that was because he knew that it is important for our judges to believe in God so they do not think they have become God once they get into office.
While I may not agree with what Jay had to say, I think Griffith’s interpretation of its significance is respectable.
Randall will reach mandatory retirement on Aug 31, 2010 which will be 2 months before this seat is up for election again meaning a replacement will be appointed at that time. Griffith is concerned that this means his replacement would be appointed rather than elected.
However, I believe the replacement would only be appointed for the remainder of 2010, and a new judge would be elected in Nov 2010 taking office in Jan 2011, so I’m not sure this is that big of a deal.
Jordan Kushner from the MPD (State Politics Discussion) List:
I have appeared before Judge Randall as an attorney numerous times. He among the best prepared and sharpest judges I have seen. During oral arguments, he often refers to documents or evidence in the court file that the attorney did not know about, and can point to specific sentences in attorney’s legal briefs that contradict statements in the attorney’s oral argument. A former criminal defense lawyer, Randall has also demonstrated a willingness to apply the Bill of Rights, regardless of whether it means ruling against the government. This is critical in an ever increasing atmosphere where individual liberties are expected to be sacraficed under the guise of public safety.
I’m left feeling like both candidates would be fine options (wow, isn’t that a change of events?), so I am not endorsing either candidate.
I am personally going to vote for Jim Randall as his statements as well as Kushner’s comments imply that he leans more towards the rights of the citizens than the rights of the goverment as well as the fact that few seem to have complaints about how he has done the job.
Whoops!
Er, I mean, I’m happy to do my patriotic duty!
national/international
So, I recently commented on an LA Times article which stated that the Bush administration will delay major assaults until after U.S. elections in November.
My take was basically that it is a really bad idea to let politicians control military strategy – they should set the rules of conduct and the objectives, but allow the military to determine the best strategy within those guidelines.
Based on recent reports, the military is actually pushing hard on Fallujah, and according to a link from Mitch Berg’s Shot in the Dark, the information leading to the article I was referring to may have actually been released as a smokescreen to help the military gain the element of surprise.
Did I pull a Rather?
At a minimum, it looks like I was reacting to a non-issue. My bad.
Or, to look at it another way, I was simply doing my patriotic duty and spreading the tactical disinformation. My good.
Anyway. To quote Punch Drunk Love, “That’s that”.
Candidate Review
state politics
JUDGE – COURT OF APPEALS 3
(i) DAVID MINGE vs PAUL ELLIOT ROSS.
I am choosing to vote for David Minge
I noted that Ross was involved in creating a questionnaire asking candidates on their stances on specific issues. The questionnaire appears to cover a number of specific Republican concerns. I couldn’t find evidence that Minge or Ross answered the questionnaire.
There is definitely a concern that Minge (appointed by Ventura) no longer lives in the district that he is representing. He was appointed a week before the redistricting was announced. However, while this suit could have been raised long ago, it was only raised after the filing was closed. Had it been judged against Minge at that point, Ross would have won the seat by default.
I am rather concerned about a post I found on the Free Republic by a Paul Ross:
That is not credible when DeLay opposes the Defense of Marriage Constitutional Amendment. 99% of everybody here understands that we need to break the POLITICAL back of the pro-gay marriage movement. Not just the legal. By making this an electoral referendum, we force these guys out from their cover, and give us the best chance in some time to do some political & maybe even judicial house-cleaning. Can anyone say “judicial impeachment”?If we don’t get the Amendment going now, then we are looking at a political fait accompli’ being created by the otherside, just as with abortion. DeLay appears to be showing his true colors on this issue. And they are not conservative.
I’m not positive that this is the same Paul Ross, but judging by a general review of comments, mentions made of being from Minnesota, and similarity between things said here and mentioned in other news articles, he doesn’t look like someone I wish to support.
I posted a mention of this article to the state politics list and no one stated that I was mistaken in the assumption that this is the same Paul Ross. It doesn’t prove that it is, but it makes me more comfortable in assuming that it is.
Minge did answer a questionnaire by the Minnesota Newspaper Association to some extent. He also responded to the questions of The League of Women Voters. Paul Ross did not reply to either of them. I find it somewhat strange that Ross went through so much effort to get information about Judicial candidates publicly stated, but did not state his own information.
Jordan Kushner from the MPD (State Politics Discussion) List:
David Minge was appointed by Ventura only two years ago and therefore has not established an extensive record. Based on several of his opinions that I have read, he appears very reasonable and competent. He certainly has ample legal and legislative experience.I cannot find information about Ross as he does not appear to have responded to questionnaires. I would be curious as to the reasons he is challenging Minge.
Susan Rego from the MPD:
One year, when David Minge was running for re-election to Congress, I walked with him from the parking lot to the building where a debate between him and his opponent was to take place. It was a rainy, blustery October day. He had brought his campaign sign to put up outside the building.I helped him put the sign in, and then we noticed that his opponent’s sign had blown down in the strong wind. He put it back up, and stuck it into the ground really well so it wouldn’t fall over again.
Tom Searles from the MPD:
David Minge was a US Representative for my district before he was voted out in favor of the Republican candidate, Mark Kennedy. I did not agree with many of Minge’s votes, but a Democrat may feel differently. I don’t know anything about Paul Ross
After consideration of all the above, I am voting to keep Minge.
Candidate Review
state politics
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE-SUPREME CT 6
(i) ALAN C. PAGE vs TIM TINGELSTAD
I am choosing to vote for Alan Page.
Alan Page : Senior member of the Minnesota Supreme court with a moderate record and, in the words of Jordan Kushner: “the only member at this time who applies to his legal decision making generally recognized problems of the extremely disproportionate numbers of people color getting arrested and imprisoned”
Tim Tingelstad : In the words of his web site:
“Our founding fathers were inspired by God to create the greatest form of government the world has ever known. These were men of strong convictions and a deep faith in God. They were certain that this Nation would only prosper if we continue to embrace the Biblical principles upon which they built our constitutional government. It is time to rediscover our Godly heritage; to restore His Truth to our communities, our State and our Nation.”
and
“There is a growing misinterpretation of the ‘wall of separation’ between Church and State which is destroying the foundation of this Godly Nation. The United States Constitution does not contain the words ‘wall of separation.’ The framers of the Constitution did not desire a wall to be built which would keep the Word of God from influencing the government and the people, and they would be in complete opposition to the direction our courts have taken us toward taking God out of our public institutions. The Church must return to its vital role of supporting and influencing the State.”
To be clear on my bias, I am not Christian, and I have no desire to see any Church (Christian variants or otherwise) increase its influence over our government and our lives.
Clearly, a Judge will sometimes be required to use their own discretion to make a decision that is not clear cut in the letter of the law.
That decision will, of necessity, be driven by that judge’s values and beliefs. One’s values and beliefs will often come from one’s religion, and I think that it is reasonable to let people know where you’re coming from. In general, I think Christian ethics are good ethics and I have no trouble with a Judge using them as their moral base.
However, reading Tingelstad’s web site made me believe that he wants to go further than simply letting us know that his faith will drive his discretionary decisions. I believe he actively wants to increase the influence of the Church upon the state.
Secondly, those aspects of the Christian religion that I do appreciate, respect, and try and follow in my own life are those that were taught by the prophet Jesus. Surprisingly, I found no reference to Jesus anywhere on Tingelstad’s site. For that matter, I believe almost everything I saw was drawn from the Old Testament.
From what I’ve read, while Christ was a teacher of love and forgiveness, the Old Testament is pretty clear in directing its followers to be intolerant of those who do not follow the word of God. Logically (and, based on my experiences, it holds), Christians who focus more on the Old Testament than on Christ’s teachings will tend to be more intolerant towards those of us who do not follow their ways.
So, I don’t want to vote for Tingelstad, but should I vote for Page?
Here is some information about him, according to Jordan Kushner from the MPD (State Politics Discussion) List:
Alan Page is the most senior judge currently serving on the Minnesota Supreme Court (12 years). His overall records could only fairly be labelled as moderate since he usually does not demonstrate significant dissension from other justices in most areas, and does not take the same side in any particular regardless of the case. Page has demonstrated a specific commitment, however, to exposing racial disparities in the criminal justice system. He is the only African American who has ever served on the Minnesota Supreme Court, and is the only member at this time who applies to his legal decision making generally recognized problems of the extremely disproportionate numbers of people color getting arrested and imprisoned. (One would have to go back more than 10 years to the era of Perprich-appointed judges to find majority opinions indicating a commitment to attacking racism in the criminal justice system). Page has authored detailed dissents in particular cases where he has thoroughly documented patterns of differential treatment based on race. An overall study of Page’s opinions would most likely demonstrate a greater orientation than his colleagues towards the rights of the individual versus the interests of government, corporations, or insurance companies.
This sounds pretty good to me, and as I haven’t seen any of this debunked on the state list, I’m going to trust that it is a reasonably accurate assessment.
I’ve also found that he is the founder of the Page Education Foundation which provides mentoring and scholarships encouraging Minnesota students to continue their studies after high school. He also helped create “the Kodak/Alan Page Challenge” which is an essay contest aimed at encouraging urban youth to recognize the value of education. These actions were not highlighted on his campaign site, and while they don’t necessarily make him a better judge, they do speak to his character.
Alan Page for Associate Justice, Minnesota State Supreme Court 6
Kerry, the right wing Democrat
national politics
Conservartive pundent Andrew Sullivan sees electing Kerry as a potential step towards eliminating the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Not in so many words, but read it for your self and tell me what you think:
The major objection to this, of course, is that Kerry simply cannot be trusted. He won’t simply change tactics in the war; he’ll change direction. His long record of appeasing America’s enemies certainly suggests as much. And I don’t blame anyone who thinks that’s enough evidence and votes for Bush as a result. But it behooves fair-minded people also to listen to what Kerry has actually said in this campaign: that he won’t relent against terrorism. He isn’t Howard Dean. And 9/11 has changed things – even within the Democratic party. Moreover, the war on terror, if we are going to succeed in the long run, has to be a bipartisan affair. By far the most worrying legacy of the Bush years is the sense that this is a Republican war: that one party owns it and that our partisan battles will define it. Simply put: that’s bad for the country and bad for the war. Electing Kerry would force the Democrats to take responsibility for a war that is theirs’ as well. It would deny the Deaniac-Mooreish wing a perpetual chance to whine and pretend that we are not threatened, or to entertain such excrescences as the notion that president Bush is as big a threat as al Qaeda or Saddam. It would call their bluff and force the Democrats to get serious again about defending this country. Maybe I’m naive in hoping this could happen. But it is not an inappropriate hope. And it is offered in the broader belief that we can win this war – united rather than divided.
Well, that’s an interesting way to look at it. Consider everything he’s saying here. Kerry may be able to unite the country behind the war on terror and will weaken the “Deaniac-Mooreish” wing of the Democratic party. Personally, I’m not too concerned about Dean or Moore, but the implication is that the more progressive elements of the party will be undermined.
When politicians start running the war…
national/international
If you are going to fight a war, your politicians/society should determine the objectives and the rules of engagement. However, once on the ground, tactical decisions should be made by the military within the confines of those rules and objectives. Politicians should not be involved in making strategic military decisions.
WASHINGTON – The Bush administration will delay major assaults on rebel-held cities in Iraq until after U.S. elections in November, say administration officials, mindful that large-scale military offensives could affect the U.S. presidential race.Although American commanders in Iraq have been buoyed by recent successes in insurgent-held towns such as Samarra and Tall Afar, administration and Pentagon officials say they will not try to retake cities such as Fallujah and Ramadi — where insurgents’ grip is strongest and U.S. military casualties could be the greatest — until after Americans vote in what is likely to be a close election.
“When this election’s over, you’ll see us move very vigorously,” said one senior administration official involved in strategic planning, speaking on condition of anonymity.
“Once you’re past the election, it changes the political ramifications” of a large-scale offensive, the official said. “We’re not on hold right now. We’re just not as aggressive.”
Snippet and link to latimes article were stolen from Eschaton.
Freedom of the press.
international
Last week, IMC servers in the UK were seized by the FBI. They came in and took two servers providing service to a number of international Indymedia sites. Since the subpoena was issued to Rackspace (IMC UK’s hosting site), Indymedia is not currently aware of why their servers were taken down. Rackspace issued a statement:
“In the present matter regarding Indymedia, Rackspace Managed Hosting, a U.S. based company with offices in London, is acting in compliance with a court order pursuant to a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT), which establishes procedures for countries to assist each other in investigations such as international terrorism, kidnapping and money laundering. Rackspace responded to a Commissioner’s subpoena, duly issued under Title 28, United States Code, Section 1782 in an investigation that did not arise in the United States. Rackspace is acting as a good corporate citizen and is cooperating with international law enforcement authorities. The court prohibits Rackspace from commenting further on this matter.”
Hopefully more will be revealed on why this was done.
Someplace to run to.
international
WolfspiritJPH posted a link to a petition asking the Canadian government to give refuge to US citizens who refuse to “be accomplices in the US-led war on Iraq.”
Recent Comments