Did you think I was kidding when I asked you to send 10 emails to friends asking for cash for Hank Johnson??

I’ve gotten like 3 emails from people who’ve said they did it. I’m feeling depressed and ashamed. Where’s my vast influence? Where’s the legions of people ready to stand up and follow the banner of…wait a minute, I’m not Kos.

Seriously, please do step up and send some emails to friends and ask them to send $10 or more to Hank at http://www.hankforcongress.com/contribute. You’ll feel better in the morning…

From Yahoo News:

LONDON (AP) The Phonak cycling team says it has been notified of a positive doping test by Tour de France winner Floyd Landis.

We’ve raised a couple thousand dollars for Hank Johnson, and we’re obviously not where I wanted to be yet, and I’m not nearly giving up.

So I want to ask you all to do one thing tonight.

As an explanation, I’ll talk about one of the great political fundraisers of my lifetime, Willie Brown, former Assembly Speaker here in California. Willie (no one calls him anything else) is a genius, and had he not been so … openminded … about certain ethical issues (note that he was always just on the right side of the law), he’d have been close to the perfect politician. He actually ran the Assembly, and managed to get some good things done while he was there.

One summer, in the late 70’s, he spoke at an Alameda County Labor picnic, on Labor Day.He gave his usual stem-winding speech, then explained that he was going to raise some money for the union that day.

He demanded – he didn’t ask – that each of us take out or wallets and hold them in the air. At first, only a few people did. But he pointed at people and called them out and gradually, over maybe five minutes, the whole crowd was sitting, holding their wallets stiffly in the air.

I was pretty bemused by this exercise in social pressure. But I’ve since then seen it at a number of high-dollar fundraisers, where each table is challenged to match the highest total donation by another table.

So I’m sitting there, with my wallet in my hand, thinking that this is a perfect metaphor for something, when Willie told us to hand our wallets to the person on our right. He asked up to take out a bill – I recall that he asked us to confirm with the owner that it was OK, but I wonder how seriously he meant it – and pass the bill to our right as we gave the wallet back to its owner.

I was suspended between amusement and annoyance when I began to marvel at what a great job he’d done of separating us from our cash. Some of my more conservative friends, when told about this, explained that was how he ran the government as well…

I’ve already asked each of you to kick in some cash to Hank Johnson, and explained in the post and in my comments why I thought it was important – no matter whether you line up behind him (or me) or not.

To paraphrase: The thing we need the most in this country’s politics today is the simple acknowledgement that we’re all in this together, that while we may differ – deeply and strongly in some cases – that we’re all part of the great American project.

Politics has been ruled for the last generation by centrifugal force (yes I know it’s only apparent). It’s time for some centripetal politicians. And I genuinely believe Hank Johnson is one of them.

So here’s what I want you to do.

Go to your email client. Pick ten friends, who you think are solvent enough to spend $20 without missing a meal. Email them, and ask them – in your own words – to go to Hank Johnson’s site at http://www.hankforcongress.com/contribute and give him $20.

Email me and tell me you’ve done it, and unless it’s a violation of election law, I’ll pick a name and send one of you an Armed Liberal mousepad.

As you can see, we’ve elected to support and publish a letter from Hank Johnson, who is a Democrat running to replace Cynthia McKinney as the Member of Congress from Georgia’s 4th District. I’m going a step further and working with other bloggers to try and raise some significant bucks for her opponent.

The goal: $50,000 in two weeks for Commissioner Hank Johnson.

This is an important race, for a variety of reasons, and I think that it matters that the moderate Dems. – like myself – support someone who may well be a little more liberal than we are, because while we may or may not be aligned widely on issues, Commissioner Johnson isn’t someone who practices the politics of conspiracy, hate, and hyperbole.

McKinney’s record as a Member ought to speak for itself. She has passed one bill – renaming a post office – while serving as a go-to quote for the newsmedia looking for controversy. Her belief that Bush conspired to plan 9/11; her letter to the Saudis after 9/11 asking for money; her support from organizations that have been linked to terrorist fundraising; her abject failure as a Member of Congress to do the job she was elected to do. Here’s a quote from a commenter on NPR:

Your analysis of Cynthia McKinney is right on track. I am a liberal African-American democrat living in her district and I have been strongly engaged in the effort to unseat her. Aside from her hysterical behavior she is an embarrassment to her constituents. Like many I am tired of her race baiting platform and I have no tangible evidence of what she has done in our area. I was particularly disturbed by a picture of her sitting with Cindy Sheehan that appeared in the Atlanta paper the day after the primary for two reasons. First, I admire Ms. Sheehan and her anti-war efforts and secondly, this was one of the few times I have ever seen her photographed with Caucasians on both sides of her. Obviously I am voting for Mr. Johnson, he appears to be rational and as qualified as the incumbent.

Her record is despicable enough that it ought to be enough reason to replace her.

The organic rise of Johnson to challenge McKinney is an example of the self-correcting forces within the system, forces that we’re potentially all part of. I’m happy to help them along.

If you want to be a part, the go over to Johnson’s website and give the man some money.

That’s why I’m setting a target of $50,000 in donations in the next two weeks.

That sounds wildly ambitions – and it is – but it’s only 5,000 people giving $10 each. I’m in for $100, so we only need 4,990 now…

So go on over, drop $10.00 (or more) on the candidate, and send me an email and tell me you did it. I’ll keep a tally.

Here:

A judge who threatened deportation to Mexico for an illegal immigrant seeking a restraining order against her husband has been dropped from the roster of part-time judges used by the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

Judge Pro Tem Bruce R. Fink, a family law attorney from Orange, was removed from the list of about 1,200 attorneys who are used as substitute judges for the county, court spokesman Allan Parachini said Friday.

Fink was sitting pro tem in a courtroom granting restraining orders when a woman approached him in a domestic violence case, asking for a TRO against her allegedly abusive husband.

Fink’s response?

“I hate the immigration laws that we have, but I think the bailiff could take you to the immigration services and send you to Mexico,” the judge responded, according to a court transcript. “Is that what you guys want?”

Fink later warned Gonzalez that he was going to count to 20 and expected her to disappear by the time he was finished.

“One. Two. Three. Four. Five. Six. When I get to 20, she gets arrested and goes to Mexico,” Fink said, according to the transcript.

Genius. Sheer genius. Because the police certainly won’t roll to a domestic violence call if she’s illegal, and the emergency room won’t treat her, and the coroner won’t have to receive or prep her body.

Immigration – or, more accurately, enforcement of existing immigration laws – is a complex subject.

But guess what. Even the most egregious illegal immigrant has the right to be secure in their person here.

TG and I finally got some time away from the Great Project (some work we’re doing on the house) and sat and watched a movie Friday night.

We watched the DVD of the musical Producers, with Nathan Lane, Matthew Broderick, and Uma Thurman.

We’d seen the play, with a different cast, and wanted to see what Lane and Broderick could do with it. Oh, and I wanted to see Uma – as noted, she’s the one actress I have … ahem … a mild obsession over.

The film was serviceable, and Lane is a fricking genius. He took the Zero Mostel role and made it his own. Sadly, Broderick didn’t…he never found an interesting center for Leo Bloom apart from some mildly Gene Wilder-ish bits.

And Uma. Sigh. She’s really a terrific actress, projects intelligence as well as grownup babe-aliciousness – but damn, she flat can’t sing, or dance (Broderick can, by the way).Angie Schworer, the actress we saw in the Los Angeles production, was actually far better…

Am I depressed to have been shown a flaw in Uma’s perfection? No, I am not.

Great Japanese artisans strive to show imperfections in their work, to show wabi-sabi. Now I’m not saying that Uma is aging badly; it’s not about that at all (although I do tend to look at younger actresses who are considered very attractive and wonder about their babysitting skills). It’s about embracing imperfections as a demonstration of what is real; about humility.

And the fact that Uma can’t sing and can’t dance makes her imperfect, and thus all the closer to perfection.

TG is already there, of course…

LANDIS!!

Kevin Drum wants one.

I would too, if I thought for a minute that it would meet its declared specs – an electric car with a lithium-ion battery that does 0-60 in 4 seconds, has a top speed of 130 and a range of 250 miles.

One (or more) of these things is likely not to be true…I’ll keep an open ear, but will believe it when I see it proved.

From the always-interesting site ‘democracyarsenal’ (not known for its generous helpings of Bush-love), an interesting post by Shadi Hamid.

Hezbollah knew that any attack on Israel would elicit a forceful response, particularly in light of Israel’s sustained efforts to recover abducted soldier Gilad Shalit the previous week. Any intelligent person could have predicted that Israel would do everything in its power to destroy Hezbullah infrastructure if provoked along the border. Sure, there are short-term strategic gains which may yet accrue to Hezbollah, but in the long run, the group’s organizational capacity has been severely hit and, now, its continued existence as the second strongest political force in Lebanon (along with coalition partners Amal) is a big question-mark. If Hezbollah’s goal was, in fact, to force Israel into a prisoner exhange, then killing eight soldiers makes absolutely no sense. Nasrallah might very well be a raging megalomaniac but I’m not sure that, by itself, explains Hezbollah’s strategic self-immolation.

A strategic setback for Hizbollah sounds like a victory for Israel, no? How else can it be interpreted?

Some Egyptians I have spoken to here, in between tiresome praises of Nasrallah, claim to understand it quite well – that Hezbollah did this for karamah, to reclaim Arab world’s dignity (the destruction of one’s country would seem a rather exorbitant price to pay for regaining one’s “dignity”). Or, as someone else suggested – it’s every militant Islamist group’s dream to drag the world into some kind or regional conflagration, where Arabs will be forced to get up or sit down (although the vast majority of Arabs have been sitting down rather consistently for the last five decades). Read Michael Doran’s “Somebody Else’s Civil War” for a sense of how this set-up might work. (Interestingly, Doran is now the point-person for the Middle East on the National Security Council).

Interesting to see the man who ran Muslims for Kerry making an approving comment about Bush’s NSC staff choices, too…

An interesting piece.

So, glancing through Memorandum today, I see an article from the NY Times on war crimes and the current conflict in the Middle East.

The United Nations’ top human rights official said Wednesday that the killing and maiming of civilians under attack in Lebanon, Israel and Gaza and the West Bank could constitute war crimes.

The scale of killings in the region, and their predictability, could engage the personal criminal responsibility of those involved, particularly those in a position of command and control,” said Louise Arbour, the high commissioner for human rights.

Ms. Arbour is a former justice of Canada’s Supreme Court who, as chief prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, indicted the former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic.

International humanitarian law is clear on the supreme obligations to protect civilians during hostilities,’’ she said. That same obligation exists, she added, in international criminal law, which defines war crimes and crimes against humanity.

I went off and read the thing (the 4th Geneva Convention). You should too.
Like all contracts, the meaning isn’t completely in the text; there’s a body of law and interpretation that truly define what they mean.

So keeping that in mind, here are some key points (with my highlighting)…

Art. 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace-time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

OK, that pretty much commits Israel to honor them even if Hamas doesn’t…

Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

MMMkay, so there’s a distinction between those taking no part in the hostility and those who are…

Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

Mmmmmkay again, so it’s not meant to be a suicide pact.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

OK, so there remains an obligation to some measure of due care. And then there’s this:

Art. 28. The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.

Hmmm…so legitimate military actions within civilian areas – when those civilian areas are being used by combatants – are possibly not crimes.