I was horrified this morning to read this headline and the accompanying article in the Hill: McCain: ‘Serious mistake’ if car bombing suspect was Mirandized’.

It would have been a serious mistake to have read the suspect in the attempted Times Square car bombing his Miranda rights, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Tuesday.

McCain, the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a longtime leading Republican on national security issues, said he expected the suspect in the case could face charges that might warrant a death sentence if convicted.

“Obviously that would be a serious mistake…at least until we find out as much information we have,” McCain said during an appearance on “Imus in the Morning” when asked whether the suspect, 30-year-old Faisal Shahzad, a naturalized American citizen from Pakistan.

“Don’t give this guy his Miranda rights until we find out what it’s all about,” McCain added.

From everything I’m reading about the suspect that was arrested this morning for the failed incendiary device left in a car in Saturday’s fail attack on Time’s Square, says he is a U.S. citizen. He may be a horrible one, and traitorous one and a potentially murderous one, but he’s still a U.S. citizen. There was a time in our country when that meant something.

Investigators believe Faisal Shahzad, a recently naturalized U.S. citizen living in Shelton, Conn., paid cash for a Nissan Pathfinder that was found packed with explosives Saturday night on a tourist-crowded block in Midtown Manhattan. The vehicle was set on fire, but a homemade bomb inside failed to detonate.

Investigators located Shahzad after a two-day investigation that yielded what senior White House officials described as a flood of international and domestic clues. It was not immediately clear whether there was any link between Shahzad and videotapes that police circulated widely on Monday, showing men near the site of the attempted bombing who may have been acting suspiciously.

The Constitution grants specific rights because the colonial governments who ruled this part of the world did things to their colonies and their own citizens that were capricious. Many things done to colonists, the colonized natives, and indeed to people not within the power structure or threatening the power structure didn’t even recognize their basic humanity. Our constitution is there to protect every one from the abuses and excesses of a powerful central government. Even the ones we do not like. This is because when government is allowed to run rampantly over one set of citizens, it eventually means it can run over any and all of us. If you’ve ever been hauled of to jail having done absolutely nothing or been shot and killed for standing on your campus during the lunch hour–as was done 40 years ago with Kent State May 4 student killings by the Ohio National Guard–you are fully aware of the capriciousness of a state that has police power.

This just seems to be yet another attack on the rights of individuals to the justice and liberty we’ve established in our constitution and with our rule of law. We’ve just recently seen complete overstep by the Arizona government to deal with crime problems coming from Mexico. If you haven’t read former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s take on the new Arizona round ’em up and document ’em law, please do.

In her first public comments on an issue that has embroiled her state in controversy, Justice O’Connor said she understood why Arizona passed the bill last month allowing local police to question a person’s legal residency. Like California, she said, Arizona is a border state that suffers from smuggling of drugs and people from Mexico.

But she expressed doubt on whether the state had the authority to enact such a law. “It is essentially the job of the federal national government to secure our borders,” Justice O’Connor said Monday at a luncheon here hosted by St. Ignatius College Preparatory, the high school alma mater of her late husband, John. Arizona “may have gone a little too far in its authority,” she said.

The retired justice suggested that one potential issue with the new law, signed by Republican Gov. Jan Brewer on April 23, could be racial profiling by police. Immigration-rights groups have raised concerns the law could result in the targeting of people who look Hispanic.

The question courts may have to decide, she said, is whether the law “does too much to allow officers to arrest people because they look Hispanic. It might not read that way, but it might work that way.”

The justice predicted the law would be the subject of legal challenges, and added: “We will be locked up in court for a long time” over it.

We supposedly have a movement afoot that is mad over the powers wielded by the Federal Government. But what laws are they supporting? This year we’ve had states pass laws that stick the government’s nose squarely in the uterus of pregnant women, laws that allow the police to ask you for papers just because, and now a senator suggesting you don’t read a U.S. citizen his Miranda Rights. What’s next, asking every one with an accent or a slightly foreign look for a portfolio of documents? Perhaps we should just suggest we all get permission slips from the government before we go for plastic surgery now or take an ESL course so they can determine if we might be up to something that goes against certain religions or political mindsets. Maybe they should just barcode us all so the police can figure out which level of constitutional rights we get? Teaparty on dudes!

WTF is going on here?

No matter what the source of religious extremism, the war against modernity and science continues to place women on the front lines. Europe is fighting to free women from the islamofascists that force women into burqas.

Silvana Koch-Mehrin, a member of Germany’s pro-business Free Democrats and a vice-president of the European Parliament, has called for a complete ban on the Islamic full-body covering in an interview with the German Bild am Sonntag newspaper.

In her editorial, Koch-Mehrin said that the full veil “openly supports values that we do not share in Europe.”

Koch-Mehrin said personal and religious freedom should be defended, but should not “go so far as to take away a person’s face in public.”

“The burqa is a massive attack on the rights of women. It is a mobile prison,” she wrote.

Meanwhile,American women are losing the war against christofascists that continue to push through laws that put our rights to our bodies lower than the “right to life’ of non-sentient clump of cells. One of the worst states to live as a woman–and I ought to know because I was raised there–is Nebraska. Without absolutely any medical or scientific evidence, the Governor signed into law law that bans most abortions after 20 weeks (a new threshold) because it’s been hypothesized by religious fanatics that a fetus feels pain at that point in gestation. Theses bill are meant to go to the Supreme Court to challenge two seminal laws defining when the government can begin to weigh the life of the women and fetal viability(now 25 weeks). Those would be Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey. Since the swing vote now appears to be Justice Anthony Kennedy, this bill appears to be one of many coming out of states to test the waters.

At the same time, Nebraska has ended Prenatal care for Illegal Immigrants. So evidently, the pain of some clumps of cells are more important than others. Does this mean undocumented women in Nebraska will die with pregnancy complications too? (My doctor daughters says the University Med Center is now eating the costs of prenatal care for pregnant and undocumented women. Maybe the right to life movement should consider holding bake sales for future american citizens living in “illegal” wombs?) I guess I’d call this the let the Latinas die bill.

Less than 48 hours after a top state lawmaker told Nebraska Watchdog he was confident Governor Dave Heineman (NE-R) would back a controversial move to provide pre-natal care to the unborn children of illegal immigrants, the Governor has issued a statement clearly indicating he won’t.

The Nebraska I feel-your-fetal-pain bill is essentially begging the court to rethink the current standard. Rather than viability, it uses the possibility that the fetus could feel pain as a new dividing line at which abortions could be banned. Again, scientific evidence appears to be irrelevant to this current law. There’s another agenda at work.

Will the courts turn on almost 40 years of precedent, and trade in the viability standard for one that considers the possibility of fetal pain a more “compelling” point? It’s doubtful: the court has, on numerous occasions, reaffirmed its commitment to the viability standard. Moreover, I think it’s important to note here that research suggests fetuses cannot feel pain at 20 weeks, undermining this particular bill’s scientific credibility.

As pointed out by Charles M. Blow today in a NY Times’ Op-Ed, Florida joined the ranks looking to push challenges to current abortion law on Friday. There are other challenges that have been passed in Mississippi and Oklahoma that are meant to annoy women enough to give up on their right to choose to be a state forced incubator or a person with the right to self determination and ability to protect their health and individual sanctity. Would these kinds of things happen if we had more women in elected positions?

On Wednesday, Mississippi’s Legislature sent a bill to the governor that forbids public financing of abortions. The prohibition stands even in cases of severe birth defects.

Tuesday, the Oklahoma Legislature overrode a gubernatorial veto to pass two abortion laws. One requires women, even those seeking to end a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, to have an ultrasound and have the fetus described to them. The other prevents mothers from suing doctors who withhold information about fetal birth defects.

And on Friday, the Florida Legislature passed a bill also requiring all women seeking an abortion to undergo an ultrasound. Even if the women don’t want to see the image, the doctor must still describe it to them.

We now have so many special interest wars on deck that I suppose these folks believe that no one will notice that we continue to pass one set of laws for men and potential men and another set for women. I imagine that they’re now full speed ahead on this because the fight over the health care bill showed how quickly the White House and the Democratic leadership will throw over women and their right to physical self determination for corporate interests.

More disturbing are signs that civil rights activists are having to fight on so many fronts, that we may be losing the message in the culture wars fought by determined religionists with an endless source of funds and fanaticism. There are so many moves against modernity that it’s hard to chose battles.

Proponents hope that some of these measures will force the Supreme Court to reconsider Roe v. Wade. Unfortunately, public opinion is inching in their direction. A Washington Post/ABC News poll released on Friday found that the percentage of people who think that the Supreme Court is too liberal is at its highest since they began asking the question, as is the percentage of people who say that if Roe v. Wade were to come before the court again, the next justice should vote to overturn it. They’re not the majority, but it’s still not good.

It might be tempting to think of this as a temporary blip — a conservative swing during tough times, but that would be shortsighted. There is a long-range trend of public opposition coming from unexpected quarters.

Unexpected quarters indeed. We can no longer rely on the Democratic party to protect our rights and yet they try to convince us we have no place else to go. Nearly every other developed nation has fought off the established efforts by churches and others to push women’s health issues back to the 1950s. Prior to the 1980, the Republican Party supported both the ERA and a woman’s right to choose. It now endorses neither and actively supports candidates that can at best be described as troglodytes on issues impacting women and children. But what do we call the likes of Bart Stupak who was the clear winner of the Great Congressional Health Care battle? We also see these same group of people continuing to rewrite textbooks and history to shape public opinion so that ignorance rules the day. It is obvious that after 30 years of fighting, christofascists will continue the battle. Will we?

It is time we enjoin them again. We must fight people who seek to replace evidence with opinion and facts with myth. It is time to beat our hard drives into swords so that we fight the good fight for truth and freedom. We cannot rely on Democratic elected officials to block their efforts any more.

No more Jane Crow! No more Stupakistan!!! No more laws enacting religious persecution of women!!!!

I’ve taken my dog Karma for a walk several times today and this evening there is a smell that I can only describe as being similar to that of the coffee can I used to have full of old crayons when I was a kid. It vaguely smells like a leaky old kerosene lamp. It’s not pleasant. The air is thick with humidity, sickly smelling, and heavy. There are very gray clouds–possibly the smoke from the controlled burns–blowing in from the south. I have that same feeling in my gut that I had around Hurricane Katrina when I knew the aftermath was going to be more of a disaster than disaster itself.

It is now more than 8 days after the original fire. There’s a spill headed for us and the oil is still burbling up from the uncapped well head. Again, I repeat, it’s been doing that for 8 days and counting now. We’ve finally gotten the Governor to ask for a federal declaration of disaster and the President is finally sending his versions of Heckuva Job Brownies down here. Notice, he’s not even giving us a fly over yet. At least the electricity is on, so there will be no Presidential speeches where the only lights in the city are on him and the cathedral. I don’t know if I could handle another one of those photo-ops.

Meanwhile, this is the AP headline: Gulf Coast oil spill could eclipse Exxon Valdez. Yup, read it, it could eclipse the big one. Do any of you out there want to drill, baby, drill now? The only potentially positive thing my friends (who are air core drilling specialists) and I see coming out of this is a big huge ownership stake in BP for every single Louisianan. We’re going to need some compensation because I can’t image how much damage this is going to do to our economy, our ecosystem, and our wildlife. I know I’m going to see pictures on TV shortly that will make me cry and it’s way too soon for that again. At least it is for me and it will probably will be for most of my neighbors. We’re still tired recovering from all those hurricanes and from Bobby Jindal’s way of balancing the state budget.

This is been one big SOP of hoping for the best, saying you’re planning for the worst in front of the press, the worst happens and then you’re planning is pretty much shown for what it is; empty words. Did I mention I have a headache now?

An oil spill that threatened to eclipse even the Exxon Valdez disaster spread out of control and drifted inexorably toward the Gulf Coast on Thursday as fishermen rushed to scoop up shrimp and crews spread floating barriers around marshes.

The spill was both bigger and closer than imagined — five times larger than first estimated, with the leading edge just three miles from the Louisiana shore. Authorities said it could reach the Mississippi River delta by Thursday night.

“It is of grave concern,” David Kennedy of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told The Associated Press. “I am frightened. This is a very, very big thing. And the efforts that are going to be required to do anything about it, especially if it continues on, are just mind-boggling.”

The oil slick could become the nation’s worst environmental disaster in decades, threatening hundreds of species of fish, birds and other wildlife along the Gulf Coast, one of the world’s richest seafood grounds, teeming with shrimp, oysters and other marine life.

The leak from the ocean floor proved to be far bigger than initially reported, contributing to a growing sense among many in Louisiana that the government failed them again, just as it did during Hurricane Katrina. President Barack Obama dispatched Cabinet officials to deal with the crisis.

So, I’ve been sending money to Congressman Charlie Melancon who is trying to take on David Vitter for Senator down here. He’s not a great Democratic candidate but he’s not Vitter, and at the moment that’s all I want. Here’s some information for any one that’s interested in helping us, the wetlands and coastline, and all the critters that are going to be in the path of destruction. Notice, they’re asking for citizens with boats again. I can’t believe it, nearly FIVE friggin’ years after Katrina and we’re still relying on our neighbors with boats. Yup, getting rid of Dubya, made a big difference didn’t it? So much for hope and change down here in bayou land. Would it be too cynical of me to ask for a reconsideration of the Obama Drill Baby Drill plan now?

Here’s some information via Congressman Melancon:

Already, I’ve run into many Louisianians who want to know how they can help. Below are some resources that you can use to find opportunities to pitch in. We’ll be updating this list as new updates come in at CharlieMelancon.com/oilspill.

Volunteering

BP and the federal government have established an official hotline for volunteers at 1-866-448-5816. You can also find information on getting involved at Volunteer Louisiana, the official state website for local volunteering.

If you have a boat in Louisiana and want to help with the oil spill response, BP is telling volunteers to contact Vince Mitchell at vince.mitchell@lamor.com or 425-745-8017.

News Updates on the Response

In addition to local news sources, you can get updates on the federal response at DeepwaterHorizonResponse.com.

Updates on the state response can be found at Emergency.Louisiana.gov.

Emergency Contact Information

If you would like to report oiled wildlife, spill related damage, or oil on land, please use the following contact numbers:

• To report oiled wildlife, please call 1-866-557-1401 and leave a message. Messages will be checked hourly.
• To discuss spill related damage, please call 1-800-440-0858.
• To report oil on land or for general community and volunteer information, please call 1-866-448-5816.

I just spent the morning watching Goldman Sachs executives dance around both good and bad questions from senators sitting on Karl Levin’s Subcommittee on Investigations. I’ve learned several things. First, many senators sitting on that committee seem to misunderstand the role of firms like Goldman Sachs as market makers. Senators Coburn and Ensign should be required to spend some time in an investments class or seminar until they figure out why strategies for buying and selling and for risk management can be different at various levels of a firm. Some folks manage the entire position of the firm of Goldman Sachs and then some have to manage the position of individual products that will be originated and sold to many parties; including competitors. They also seemed to confuse why Goldman could sell a product and then create a synthetic hedge to minimize the risk or basically insure a price. That being said, I completely enjoyed watching Senator Levin make them squirm in their seats with words from their own emails.

On the Goldman side, I was really impressed with Dan Sparks who seemed to try to answer questions and at times, even tried to explain the complex derivatives world to the very thickheaded Senator Jon Tester who was clearly asking questions that showed he should be limited to serving on agriculture and land use committees. Joshua Birnbaum seemed to suffer from a lot of forgetfulness for such a young man and Fabrice Tourre seemed to parse words with the ease of a champion linguist. (Aside: I’ve been wondering all day what the deal is with the woman behind Fabrice over his right shoulder. Is she dying from boredom or is it just me?)

As Senator Susan Collins remarked, they sure spent a lot of time not answering questions in very complex ways. Collins spent a great deal of time trying to ask about how much loyalty an investment banker should have to a client compared to loyalty to their firm and potential bonus checks. (BTW, GS stock is up at the moment, that should say something.)

Sen. Susan Collins asked the question to Dan Sparks, former head of the mortgages department at Goldman He paused briefly, then said: “I believe we have a duty to do well for our clients.”

Collins asked the same question to Joshua Birnbaum, a former managing director in structured products group trading at Goldman. Birnbaum said Goldman has such a duty and has fulfilled that duty.

Collins asked the question to Fabrice Tourre, executive director in structured products group trading at Goldman. He said the firm has a duty to serve clients in its role as a market maker by providing liquidity. “I do not believe we act as an investment adviser to our clients,” Tourre added.

“There seems to be confusion here,” Collins concluded. She also proposed legislation that would impose a clear fiduciary duty on investment banks to work in the best interests of their clients.

“Conceptually that doesn’t seem like an issue,” Birnbaum said. “It seems like an interest idea.”

Even though this was set up to be a public circus, there were some very revealing moments. Senator Karl Levin just connected the dots between emails (the ones leaked recently) within Goldman Sachs and products foisted on the public. It was clearly buyer beware atmosphere as far as GS was concerned. If they could off load it, they would and they did.

Here’s the best exchange I saw this morning highlighted at Politico. It’s an excerpt from the YouTube video above with some political analysis added.

“Boy, that Timberwolf was one shitty deal,” Levin said, quoting the email from a Goldman Sachs executive.

It is extremely unusual for senators to use obscenities from the dais, let alone during remarks carried live on cable television networks. Levin used it again and again.

“How much of that shitty deal did you sell to your clients?” Levin asked a witness, Daniel Sparks, former head of the Mortgage Department at Goldman Sachs.

“Mr. Chairman, I don’t know the answer to that,” Sparks replied.

Levin pressed Sparks on the question of whether he had an obligation to disclose to his clients that he was selling assets that Goldman itself was betting against.

“You didn’t tell them you thought it was a shitty deal? Levin asked.

Sparks said that the context of the email was that his own performance on the deal was not good.

“Should Goldman Sachs be trying to sell a shitty deal?” Levin pressed.

“Well, there are prices in the market that people want to invest in things,” Sparks responded.