"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" - Christine O'Donnell

The absurd controversy over Markos' use of the title American Taliban in his latest book has papered over the real issue for liberals and progressives - the unending drive of the Right to constitutionalize government promotion and imposition of religion. The above quote from Christine O'Donnell has drawn a great deal of attention in the Left blogs, but I think the focus on O'Donnell's ignorance with regard to the Establishment clause misses the larger point - O'Donnell was merely parroting the standard line of the Republican Party and the Right on the separation of church and state. Consider National Review's Ramesh Ponnoru's defense of O'Donnell:

[O'Donnell] denies is that the First Amendment requires �the separation of church and state.� Here�s something I wrote about this question several years ago that, I think, is on point: [. . .] People mean different things when they talk about �theocrats,� �the separation of church and state,� and �secularism.� The word �secular� can describe both irreligion and neutrality about religion.

Ponnoru is not writing in a vacuum. The drive to change the meaning of "separation of church and state" is a program of longstanding for the Right. Consider the 2002 case Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, where Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote:

Warren Carter pleaded guilty to stealing copper wire from the Little Nell Residences in Aspen. The judge sentenced him to three years. Upon hearing the sentence, he bolted from the courtroom and was caught 7 minutes later.

Yesterday, Carter agreed to plead guilty to escape for his 7 minutes on the lam. The agreed upon sentence: three years, consecutive to the three years on the original charge. Carter will plead on November 1. Until then, it looks like he'll remain a guest of the Pitkin County Jail.

True, he has a lengthy record, and could have been charged as a habitual offender and faced much more time, but labeling someone a "fugitive" for a 7 minute panic attack seems a little excessive.

Update: The Women�s Marijuana Movement and Just Say Now today launched an online phone banking tool for women marijuana activists from across the country to place phone calls to women voters in California, a key demographic to turn out for Proposition 19.

"If Prop 19 is going to pass in California, it needs the votes of women and mothers,� said Jeralyn Merritt, a criminal defense attorney and board member of Just Say Now. �Prop 19 is the safe, smart choice for California communities. Thanks to this new organizing tool, women marijuana activists can speak directly with women voters in California about the benefits of Prop 19 and get out the vote. This is a great way to empower women voters and let them know their votes not only count, but can make a real difference on a critical issue facing California communities.�

Original Post:

Jane at Firedoglake reports the Just Say Now phone bank operation (sign up here) is experiencing something unique: voters love getting the calls. [More...]

I'm not invested in Jack Conway's run for Senate from Kentucky. Would he be better than Rand Paul? Obviously. But he'll just be a Blue Dog Dem. Russ Feingold's race is the one that matters most to me.

But I was amused by the Beltway Blogger storm over Conway's "disgraceful" Aqua Buddha ad. I think the ad is ineffective, but the idea that it was disgraceful is just plain funny. What world do these Beltway Bloggers live in? But I especially like the outrage ringleader's defense of his outrage:

[T]here's a difference between the role of the journalist and the role of the politician. [. . .] So even if Conway is right to kick Rand Paul in the groin, I'm also right for pointing out that's what he's doing.

But "the Left" is wrong to do it about Obama's policies and are idiots for doing so according to Chait. He's a "journalist" you see. What a clown.

Speaking for me only

Dean Baker fisks this WaPo "news" article:

The Washington Post appears to have outdone itself in a discussion of the politics surrounding the foreclosure crisis. For beginners, it told readers that:

[. . . T]he White House, which is looking past the midterm elections, has been restrained. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan wrote over the weekend that 'a national, blanket moratorium on all foreclosure sales would do far more harm than good, hurting homeowners and home buyers alike.'"

Okay, it's fun with logic time. Secretary Donovan wants more foreclosures, presumably to further depress prices. [. . .] If Donovan thinks it is good to speed up the foreclosure process then why is the administration pushing HAMP? [. . .] That may make sense to the Washington Post, but probably not to anyone else. [. . .] The article then gives us a quote from a Democratic consultant without a name: "But shutting down foreclosures has the potential of shutting down the whole housing market, which isn't helpful to anybody."

Let's see, we have how many hundreds of thousands of homes that non-foreclosed sellers are putting on the market each month, plus a backlog of several hundred thousand foreclosed homes already in the banks' possession. How exactly does a moratorium on foreclosures shut down the whole housing market?

Of course it doesn't. But the cloud on titles to homes does. The Obama Administration wants to sweep reality under the rug. Baker does not mention one WaPo "fact" that astounded me:

105 tons of marijuana seized in Mexico. (Lots more pictures below the fold.) The Mexican authorities at a press conference held by Brigadier General Staff commander of the Second Military Zone, Alfonso Duarte Mujica, said it began with a random observation by the Tijuana municipal police who noticed a convoy of vehicles accompanying a tractor trailer. A shootout ensued and they called for backup and the military and other law enforcement groups quickly arrived. They detained a bunch of people who took them to houses in three different poor neighborhoods of the city, and then they got to a warehouse where they located six tractor trailers loaded with the pot.

So whose pot was it? Apparently not the cartels'. Gen. Duarte Mujica says there are no more cartels in Baja and Tijuana. [More...]

Bristol Palin came in at the bottom of the leaderboard tonight. It wasn't the monkey suit, but that she forgot most of the moves. The Baltimore Sun critic says:

“It’s like kid-forgets-the-words-during-the-talent-show painful, except on national television.”

She's still getting "polite" criticism from the judges, all of whom called her out on forgetting the moves. Will tea partiers text in to save her? I wouldn't be surprised. Right above her: Kyle and Lacey. Kyle was much better than Bristol, plus he's entertaining to watch, but I won't be suprised if he doesn't get as many viewer votes and ends up going home.

Let's Go Yankees!

Open Thread.

The Supreme Court today announced it will review the case of former detainee and material witness Abdullah al-Kidd against former Attorney General John Ashcroft. Al-Kidd is a U.S.-born American citizen:

Al-Kidd, a one-time University of Idaho football star who converted to Islam, was arrested at Dulles International Airport in 2003 as he was boarding a plane for Saudi Arabia, where he planned to study.

He was held for 15 nights as a material witness in a broader terrorism probe. But he claims that was simply a pretext for a larger plan approved by Ashcroft to sweep up Muslim men it could not prove had any ties to terrorism.

The 9th Circuit rejected personal immunity for Ashcroft. En Banc hearing was denied.

The Obama Administration is representing Ashcroft and asking the Supreme Court to overturn the decision. The ACLU says more than 70 people have similar complaints about their detention as material witnesses. More on the abuse of the material witness statute is here and here.

Coming to a theater near you, Four Days Inside Guantanamo: You Don't Like the Truth. It's the story of the interrogation of child soldier Omar Khadr, based on the You Tube videos of his interrogation by Canadian officials at Guantanamo (See here and here. The tapes were released in 2008.)

Two filmmakers [Luc Cote and Patricio Henriquez] take footage of Omar Khadr interrogation to create YouTube videos and carry on to a feature documentary

...The core of this extraordinary feature documentary is the much-discussed video footage of interrogations of Omar Khadr by Canadian Security Intelligence Service agents that was made public following a Supreme Court of Canada ruling two years ago.

The movie premiered at a film festival Thursday and opens in Montreal and Toronto on October 29.

The filmmakers' point -and I think it's tough to disagree with them -is that whether or not Khadr is guilty, it's an outrage that Canadian security agents would interrogate him under these circumstances, in a prison that has no international legal legitimacy. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled this year that this interrogation was indeed a violation of Khadr's rights.

What a mess. The U.S. Sentencing Commission implemented its emergency temporary amendments to the crack cocaine guidelines to comply with the Fair Sentencing Act passed by Congress that reduces the penalties for crack cocaine to be more in line with those for powder cocaine (roughly 18 to 1 instead of 100 to 1) and how did they do it?

They increased the base levels for amounts of crack that included the mandatory minimum threshold amounts from 24 and 30 to 26 and 32 instead of keeping them at 24 and 30. (Text of Amendments here.) What it means: Some crack defendants will see no change in their base offense levels under the Fair Sentencing Act, for example, those with quantities between 28 and 35 grams, 280 and 499 grams and 840 grams and 1.49 kilograms. (See page 9 of the Federal Defender's letter.)

There's also a big risk of double counting due to all the enhancements they threw in (some of which, like "violence" are not even defined.)

The Sentencing Commission asked for public comments on the change. They posed the question as: [More...]

Paul Krugman calls this an Epitaph for the Obama Administration:

In today�s report on the foreclosure mess, a revealing sentence:

As the foreclosure abuses have come to light, the Obama administration has resisted calls for a more forceful response, worried that added pressure might spook the banks and hobble the broader economy.

The country has demanded bold, persistent experimentation and the Obama Administration's economic team has provided persistent resistance to boldness.

Speaking for me only

HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan:

[A] national, blanket moratorium on all foreclosure sales would do far more harm than good -- hurting homeowners and home-buyers alike at a time when foreclosed homes make up 25 percent of home sales.

For instance, in Cleveland, where there are over 18,000 vacant homes, lives Millie Davis who recently earned her Master's Degree in Urban Planning from Cleveland State University and just bought her first home - one that had fallen into foreclosure and sat abandoned for years. Had a blanket moratorium been in place, that sale would have fallen through [. . .] These homeowners are at risk, too - and the best hope they have is for the "Foreclosed" signs in front of the vacant, abandoned properties on their block to come down, so that the value of their homes can start rising again.

(Emphasis supplied.) I am insistent on following the rule of law and providing homeowners due process, not a moratorium on foreclosures. I am for ending the moratorium on the rule of law that persists in this country regarding foreclosures. But beyond that, Donovan's statement makes no sense. The current climate of clouds over titles to homes is not a result of a potential national moratorium on foreclosures. Quite the opposite. It was due to the moratorium, blithely accepted by the Obama Administration, on due process and the rule of law. The Obama Administration has simply been incompetent regarding the mortgage crisis (from HAMP on down.) There is a crisis of confidence in the country about this issue, and a cause of that is the incompetence of the Obama Administration.

Speaking for me only

I've tried, but I just don't like Boardwalk Empire. It's depressing, viscerally unappealing and the characters are completely one-dimensional. I don't care about any of them. I also don't think Steve Buschemi was a good choice for the lead character.

At least there's a new Next Iron Chef, Desperate Housewives and Brothers and Sisters.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

Ken Buck and Sen. Michael Bennet were on Meet the Press today. Ken Buck said homosexuality is a choice.

DAVID GREGORY: Do you believe that being gay is a choice?

KEN BUCK: I do.

DAVID GREGORY: Based on what?

KEN BUCK: Based on what?

DAVID GREGORY: Yeah. Why do you believe that?
KEN BUCK: I guess-- you can choose who your partner is.

DAVID GREGORY: You don't think it's something that's determined at birth?

KEN BUCK: I-- I think that-- birth has an influence over like alcoholism and some other things-- but I think that-- basically, you-- you have a choice.

Sen. Bennet called Buck an opportunist:[More....]