There is always the need, when one is looking at something complex and sprawling, to have a skeleton key, a filter that brings the overall arch of the story into focus whenever you get lost in the myriad details. For the last 8 years we have not had enough information about the actions of the Bush administration to develop such a skeleton key, this, however, has now changed. It turns out there is a single unifying factor which runs from August 2001 to January 20th 2009; fear.  

Would it matter to you if the nominee to the Supreme Court which President Obama is going to shortly pick were openly gay or lesbian? The Dog is going to assume his readers are liberal and would care less about a Justices sexual orientation than about her or his views on the law. After all, we don’t seem to care the current Justices are all heterosexual so what difference should it make, right?

Okay, there is nothing the Dog hates more than having to admit to being wrong (being a member of the First Church of the Fonz it is nearly against our religion!) but when you start to try to be in any fashion credible in commentary, even as a lowly poster on a community blog you have to be ready to walk back statements or arguments that are wrong.  

Welcome to the 9th in the Dog’s letter writing campaign series. This series is dedicated to taking action (even if it is a small action) every week on the issue of torture. Here is how it works, each week the Dog writes a letter highlighting some aspect of the torture issue and making the point this requires investigation. The Dog sends these letters to the President, the Supreme Court, AG Holder, Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid and Rep. John Conyers, the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee. Your part, if you chose to act is pretty easy. Simply cut and paste the letter and send it under your own name.  

It’s Monday so usually the first thing the Dog writes is the weekly torture letter,that is going to be a little later but there is something going on that he thinks the DD crew is uniquely suited to address. We are seeing a massive increase in the number of torture apologist articles in the newspapers and on the Web. This is the an attempt by the pro-torture camp, aided by the weakest kneed of the pundocracy to set the frame for the issue with the vast majority of population who are troubled about torture but not yet on board with investigations and prosecutions.  

Happy Friday and welcome to the 4th in the Dog’s First Amendment Friday series. This series is following the syllabus for the class called The First Amendment and taught at Yale Law School by Professor Jack M. Balkin. As with the Friday Constitutional series this is a layman’s look at the Law, specifically the Supreme Court opinions which have shaped the boundaries of our 1st Amendment Protections. So far we have been working through cases that have had to do with seditious speech. If you are interested in the previous installments in this series you can find them at the following links:  

Dear President Obama;

I watched your press conference last night. I was happy with the tone that you set about the N1H1 ’09 virus and thought you gave quite good advice. However that is not why I am writing you today. Mr. President I continue to be dismayed with your efforts to straddle the line on the issue of the Bush administrations apparent State Sponsored Torture program.  

This is the eighth in Dog’s letter writing campaign. For those joining us in the middle the basic idea is that each week the Dog creates a letter which you, the home audience can cut and paste and send to the following list of officials:

President Obama

AG Holder

Speaker Pelosi

Majority Leader Reid

Justices of the Supreme Court

Of course you can send it to your Senators and Representative as well, but the point is to get a steady drum beat of letters to these folks in the hopes that they will read some of them and take action on the issue of the Bush administrations State Sponsored Torture program.

This week’s letter is going to be addressed to AG Holder, with copies to all of the others.  

Happy Friday and welcome to the 3rd in the First Amendment Friday series. This is a series looking at the Supreme Court decisions which have given shape to our First Amendment protections. In this phase of the series we are looking at the way that seditious speech has been defined. If you missed the first two installments of this series, you can find them at the links below:

First Amendment Friday 1 – Abrams v US

First Amendment Friday 2 – Gitlow v New York

Cross Posted at Square State