In the News:

Bush's abstinence programs don't work;

the Guantánamo detainees get a day in (Supreme) court, sort of - says the NYTimes, "A majority of the court appeared ready to agree that the detainees [at Guantánamo Bay] were entitled to invoke some measure of constitutional protection," which sounds positive given the last few years of absolutely nada on the matter;

and I agree with Roger Cohen (creepy, I know) that Der Bush could learn from the quasi-humility displayed by Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez in accepting defeat-by-democracy, earlier this week. (Also, if you're interested in South American politics, check out UpsideDownWorld.)

Check out this from Cohen:

Bill Clinton’s latest whining about press coverage of his wife, Mitt Romney’s latest broadside on immigration, the various spins of the Iran intelligence volte-face, and the sterile who’s-got-more-God competition between candidates, look like the machinations of a disoriented power.

The United States needs a new beginning. It cannot lie in the Tudor-Stuart-like alternation of the Bush-Clinton dynasties, nor in the macho militarism of Republicans who see war without end. It has to involve a fresh face that will reconcile the country with itself and the world, get over divisions — internal and external — and speak with honesty about American glory and shame.

Boo! Hiss! to the stinky Supreme Court

I know I'm always permalinking articles from the New York Times, and I'm not even a huge Times fan, compared to The Nation or blogs, but the Times has the advantage of a huge staff and a fuckton of money. For coverage of something as depressing as the Supreme Court's actions yesterday, one can't beat their slew of journalistic attempts to put the SC's back-assward-ness in context.

Here's what I want you to read (or at least skim for juicy/juicily depressing nuggets):

The hard news - the Supreme Court in no uncertain terms gives America five pasty-white middle fingers.

The related study - where are we, decades after Brown? (The answer: not anywhere we'd wanted to be.)

The other side speaks out - what the Brown lawyers think about this mess.

The Times editorial.

The Dark Side speaks out - because, you know, Brown was so long ago, and so much has changed, it's really not fair to say that it has any relevance to today's America.

Juan Williams makes a good point that desegregating kids doesn't help much if their parents are still holed up in class- and race-centric enclaves. If there are white neighborhoods, black neighborhoods, good neighborhoods, bad neighborhoods, won't the kids grow up racist or classist anyway? I for one believe that desegregating kids is a great and necessary first step towards reaching parents. Of course desegregation isn't the only answer, but it is such an obvious attempt at being one answer.

Until we understand each other, we will not respect each other. At least let us help our kids understand one another... Or come up with better legislation, better programs, some positive idea or attempted answer; don't tear down the icon of progress, inter-racial love and understanding, and hope that has propelled us from the pre-Civil Rights movement Dark Ages into at least a partially enlightened future.

In less bad news (actually, in good news, couched in badness by the news surrounding it), the SC did rule that people with severe mental problems who commit crimes should probably not be executed. Seems like common sense, but it took until 2007 to make it the law.

As I have said before, anyone interested in mental health and the vast, bizarre system of vocations, rules, and prisons surrounding it should read R. D. Laing's brilliant The Politics of Experience.

A sad day in America

Today the Supreme Court, in a 5 - 4 vote (of course) voted to end desegration in our schools. Justice Breyer, exasperated and emotional, made an historic appearance on CNN after the vote (and his anguished dissent) to claim (about Roberts and Alito), "never before have so few undone so much in so little time". And a couple of hours later, the House passed heinous anti-gay legislation as part of a DC appropriations bill. You may ask yourself, how could a discriminatory law be passed in our Democratic House? Because 40 Democrats voted for it. 40. Democrats. Excuse me while I go throw up.

Two Interesting Points...

By our Board Chair Colin Greer - essentially noting that there is no American "center," no "mainstream" voter base. There aren't a million-million Joe Blow McAverage Republicrackers out in Iowa or Idaho or wherehaveyou, voting for evil Supreme Court fuckers who would prefer to overturn the social progress we've made in the last century. America instead consists of individuals who will vote sensibly if they're not confuzitized by the Republicans. Not that every victory would go to the Dems - far from it. Greer notes (and I think many at CP would agree) that truly Independent candidates are the goal...

And by some dude named George Lakoff who Greer doesn't really like - but has a great point about Prez. Bush's perceived "incompetence," which I've long said is a mask for the competence of his evil. Lakoff's whole "how to speak to conservatives" thinking points are interesting just because - like Colin's quite funny, easy to take in but hard to disagree with notes about who really votes for what, when - they provide us not-so-scholarly, perhaps not-so-eloquent progressives, radicals, reformers, etc. with new ways to combat old challenges.

And both articles ultimately give us cause for hope: Eventually, sense will prevail, as long as we aren't intimidated by the Bushes of the world. He may be a competent tyrant, but we can't let ourselves be incompetent voters or bad thinkers. As Larry Wright pointed out, America isn't going to fall to some Outsider with an alien agenda. But America might fall because of greedy, competently immoral Americans.

step off Supreme Court!

Planned Parenthood New York just sent an e-blast announcing

Moments ago Governor Spitzer announced his introduction of the Reproductive Health and Privacy Protection Act!

You heard it here first, but we haven't yet found any citation to confirm it...stand by for more news.

the sanctity of human life

The front page of the NY Times said it all this morning.
President Bush commended the Supreme Court's

protecting human dignity and upholding the sanctity of life

as nearly 200 more people died in Iraq.