The Senate voted today to expand the government's wiretapping authority. They also voted for legal protections for the telecoms who let the NSA listen in on domestic and international communications without a warrant. I don't care who you are - Democrat, Republican - you just lost some of your freedom today. Did you feel it when it went?

Just received this email from (now ex-)president Gene Nichol on the W&M alumni list. The emphasis below is mine.

Dear Members of the William & Mary Community:

I was informed by the Rector on Sunday, after our Charter Day celebrations, that my contract will not be renewed in July. Appropriately, serving the College in the wake of such a decision is beyond my imagining. Accordingly, I have advised the Rector, and announce today, effective immediately, my resignation as president of the College of William & Mary. I return to the faculty of the school of law to resume teaching and writing.

I have made four decisions, or sets of decisions, during my tenure that have stirred ample controversy.

First, as is widely known, I altered the way a Christian cross was displayed in a public facility, on a public university campus, in a chapel used regularly for secular College events — both voluntary and mandatory — in order to help Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, and other religious minorities feel more meaningfully included as members of our broad community. The decision was likely required by any effective notion of separation of church and state. And it was certainly motivated by the desire to extend the College’s welcome more generously to all. We are charged, as state actors, to respect and accommodate all religions, and to endorse none. The decision did no more.

Second, I have refused, now on two occasions, to ban from the campus a program funded by our student-fee-based, and student-governed, speaker series. To stop the production because I found it offensive, or unappealing, would have violated both the First Amendment and the traditions of openness and inquiry that sustain great universities. It would have been a knowing, intentional denial of the constitutional rights of our students. It is perhaps worth recalling that my very first act as president of the College was to swear on oath not to do so.

Third, in my early months here, recognizing that we likely had fewer poor, or Pell eligible, students than any public university in America, and that our record was getting worse, I introduced an aggressive Gateway scholarship program for Virginians demonstrating the strongest financial need. Under its terms, resident students from families earning $40,000 a year or less have 100% of their need met, without loans. Gateway has increased our Pell eligible students by 20% in the past two years.

Fourth, from the outset of my presidency, I have made it clear that if the College is to reach its aspirations of leadership, it is essential that it become a more diverse, less homogeneous institution. In the past two and half years we have proceeded, with surprising success, to assure that is so. Our last two entering classes have been, by good measure, the most diverse in the College’s history. We have, in the past two and a half years, more than doubled our number of faculty members of color. And we have more effectively integrated the administrative leadership of William & Mary. It is no longer the case, as it was when I arrived, that we could host a leadership retreat inviting the 35 senior administrators of the College and see, around the table, no persons of color.

As the result of these decisions, the last sixteen months have been challenging ones for me and my family. A committed, relentless, frequently untruthful and vicious campaign — on the internet and in the press — has been waged against me, my wife and my daughters. It has been joined, occasionally, by members of the Virginia House of Delegates — including last week’s steps by the Privileges and Elections Committee to effectively threaten Board appointees if I were not fired over decisions concerning the Wren Cross and the Sex Workers’ Art Show. That campaign has now been rendered successful. And those same voices will no doubt claim victory today.

It is fair to say that, over the course of the past year, I have, more than once, considered either resigning my post or abandoning the positions I have taken on these matters — which I believe crucial to the College’s future. But as I did so, I thought of other persons as well.

I thought of those students, staff, faculty, and alumni, not of the religious majority, who have told me of the power of even small steps, like the decision over display of the Wren Cross, to recognize that they, too, are full members of this inspiring community.

I have thought of those students, faculty, and staff who, in the past three years, have joined us with explicit hopes and assurances that the College could become more effectively opened to those of different races, backgrounds, and economic circumstances — and I have thought of my own unwillingness to voluntarily abandon their efforts, and their prospects, in mid-stream.

I have thought of faculty and staff members here who have, for decades, believed that the College has, unlike many of its competitors, failed to place the challenge of becoming an effectively diverse institution center stage — and who, as a result, have been strongly encouraged by the progress of the last two years.

I have thought of the students who define and personify the College’s belief in community, in service, in openness, in idealism — those who make William & Mary a unique repository of the American promise. And I have believed it unworthy, regardless of burden, to break our bonds of partnership.

And I have thought, perhaps most acutely, of my wife and three remarkable daughters. I’ve believed it vital to understand, with them, that though defeat may at times come, it is crucial not to surrender to the loud and the vitriolic and the angry — just because they are loud and vitriolic and angry. Recalling the old Methodist hymn that commands us “not to be afraid to defend the weak because of the anger of the strong,” nor “afraid to defend the poor because of the anger of the rich.” So I have sought not to yield. The Board’s decision, of course, changes that.

To my faculty colleagues, who have here created a distinctive culture of engaged, student-centered teaching and research, I will remember your strong and steadfast support until the end of my days.

To those staff members and alumni of this accomplished and heartening community, who have struggled to make the William & Mary of the future worthy of its distinctive past, I regret that I will no longer be part of that uplifting cause. But I have little doubt where the course of history lies.

And, finally, to the life-changing and soul-inspiring students of the College, the largest surprise of my professional life, those who have created in me a surpassing faith not only in an institution, but in a generation, I have not words to touch my affections. My belief in your promise has been the central and defining focus of my presidency. The too-quick ending of our work together is among the most profound and wrenching disappointments in my life. Your support, particularly of the past few weeks and days, will remain the strongest balm I’ve known. I am confident of the triumphs and contributions the future holds for women and men of such power and commitment.

I add only that, on Sunday, the Board of Visitors offered both my wife and me substantial economic incentives if we would agree “not to characterize [the non-renewal decision] as based on ideological grounds” or make any other statement about my departure without their approval. Some members may have intended this as a gesture of generosity to ease my transition. But the stipulation of censorship made it seem like something else entirely. We, of course, rejected the offer. It would have required that I make statements I believe to be untrue and that I believe most would find non-credible. I’ve said before that the values of the College are not for sale. Neither are ours.

Mine, to be sure, has not been a perfect presidency. I have sometimes moved too swiftly, and perhaps paid insufficient attention to the processes and practices of a strong and complex university. A wiser leader would likely have done otherwise. But I have believed, and attempted to explain, from even before my arrival on the campus, that an emboldened future for the College of William & Mary requires wider horizons, more fully opened doors, a broader membership, and a more engaging clash of perspectives than the sometimes narrowed gauges of the past have allowed. I step down today believing it still.

I have also hoped that this noble College might one day claim not only Thomas Jefferson’s pedigree, but his political philosophy as well. It was Jefferson who argued for a “wall of separation between church and state” — putting all religious sects “on an equal footing.” He expressly rejected the claim that speech should be suppressed because “it might influence others to do evil,” insisting instead that “we have nothing to fear from the demoralizing reasonings of some if others are left free to demonstrate their errors.” And he averred powerfully that “worth and genius” should “be sought from every condition” of society.

The College of William & Mary is a singular place of invention, rigor, commitment, character, and heart. I have been proud that even in a short term we have engaged a marvelous new Chancellor, successfully concluded a hugely-promising capital campaign, secured surprising support for a cutting-edge school of education and other essential physical facilities, seen the most vibrant applicant pools in our history, fostered path-breaking achievements in undergraduate research, more potently internationalized our programs and opportunities, led the nation in an explosion of civic engagement, invigorated the fruitful marriage of athletics and academics, lifted the salaries of our lowest-paid employees, and even hosted a queen. None of this compares, though, to the magic and the inspiration of the people — young and older — who Glenn and I have come to know here. You will remain always and forever at the center of our hearts.

Go Tribe. And hark upon the gale.

Gene Nichol

It's been a few days now since my favorite presidential candidate, Dennis Kucinich, dropped out of the race. I'm sorry to see him go; while it's clear he was the longest of long shots, he represented my views more closely than any other candidate in the contest. Having a voice like Kucinich in the debate (and, sometimes, not in it) has undoubtedly had a positive influence the positions of the "mainstream" candidates. And I had hoped that I would be able to cast my vote for him in the Virginia primary on February 12. (I suppose I still could, although it would be a fairly Quixotic action at this point.)

Since we've been through a few primaries now, and since ours is looming, I need to get down to business and figure out who to vote for. My choice is Barack Obama.

First, let me just say this: Barack Obama inspires me. He can deliver a speech like no other modern politician I've ever seen. He can make you share his vision. I will never forget his 2004 Democratic convention speech, or his victory speech a couple of days ago in South Carolina. Obama is the first politician I've actually wanted to support, whom I've felt drawn to, rather than repelled by, on more than just the policy level.

But that's not enough. Lots of people can talk a good game. If it's all high-minded rhetoric and no substance, then it's nothing more than a marketing gimmick, and says nothing about policy or the ability to run the United States. You have to look at the issues, at practical matters. I did, and here I'm going to explain why I'm supporting Obama.

Here are my choices: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards. Honestly, it is extremely difficult to find policy differences between these candidates. There are a lot of reasons for this. There aren't many differences to begin with, and their policy positions also tend to be obscured behind overarching statements about the goals of their policies, rather than the policies themselves. "I will improve America's standing in the world" doesn't tell you much in the Democratic field - who will you negotiate with? Who will receive foreign aid? What do you see as the most serious problems in foreign nations right now?

Here are the key points that distinguish Obama for me:

• Obama has opposed the Iraq war from the start. Both Clinton and Edwards voted to authorize the war. Although they've since acknowledged this decision as a mistake (to varying degrees), Obama gets a lot of credit on this one for seeing it for what it was.
• Obama voted against the Kyl-Lieberman amendment escalating the Iran situation. Clinton voted for it, in a decision that is very troubling to me. In an atmosphere of nearly universal distrust of the Bush Administration on foreign policy, and with serious questions about the Administration's fearmongering on Iran issues, and with Lieberman impersonating Zell Miller, I don't see how you vote for this bill. Edwards, of course, isn't a Senator, so we don't get to see how he'd vote on this.
• Obama is clearly making open, transparent government a priority. The Bush Administration's extreme secrecy has been incredibly damaging to our democracy. Obama has proposed a set of policies that will make open government a reality.
• Obama would meet with the leaders of Iran and North Korea. This position did some damage to Obama during the debates, but I think it's smart. If you get rogue nations to the table, you can gather information about them you wouldn't otherwise get. You increase international pressure on them to make concessions. You provide opportunities for them to deescalate and still save face. You don't have to give them the keys to Los Alamos - all you have to do is make yourself available to talk. It's a no-brainer.
• Obama is committed to reducing the influence of corporate lobbyists. And Edwards gets every bit as much credit for this. But Clinton doesn't. She has a whole page dedicated to "comprehensive government reform," with no mention of corporate lobbying.
• Obama has a long history of activism. Hillary Clinton has been a politician for a long time. John Edwards has been a politician for a short time, but he was a trial lawyer before that. Obama has been working in civil rights and death penalty reform for years, including significant experience in constitutional and civil rights law.
• Obama favors death penalty reform. As does Edwards. But again, not Clinton.
• Obama is demonstrably committed to reducing racial and socioeconomic inequality in America. He has a strong record in favor of affirmative action, he has made equality part of his central message to a greater degree than any other candidate. John Edwards does well on this one, but Hillary Clinton's record is mixed, particularly in the areas of affirmative action and welfare.

One of the biggest issues for me, health care, is kind of a wash. Each candidate's plan has advantages and disadvantages. Clinton's and Edwards', for example, require health care coverage for all Americans, but Obama's requires it only for children. Obama and Edwards are closer to a single-payer system, where Clinton's plan builds on private insurance companies. If I had to pick one plan as my favorite, it would be Edwards'. I don't think any of them go far enough toward truly universal coverage, but any of the three plans would be a real breath of fresh air. Everybody wins.

On the environment, John Edwards is the only one of the three who opposes nuclear power. Obama has proposed more funding for alternative-fuels research than the other candidates.

John Edwards comes in a close second for me. He's an outstanding candidate and would make a great president. I can support him on nearly every issue. But his priorities are not my priorities. Edwards has made economic reforms his main issue, whereas my concerns are more philosophical - the openness of our government, its responsibilities toward its citizens, the guiding principles of its foreign policy. I think Edwards could address my concerns, but he has chosen to focus on other areas. Obama's focus is more consistent with my priorities.

Hillary Clinton is a non-starter for me. She has made a career out of safe, carefully calculated centrist political decisions, and she's just not what we need. The Bush Administration broke our government and our political system, and Clinton seems unable to recognize this or to introduce real solutions. I didn't suffer through four more years of Bush/Cheney for this.

Barack Obama has shown that he recognizes the damage the Bush Administration has done, and he has real ideas about how to fix it. His positions are very clear and incredibly detailed. The chief concern that people seem to have about Obama - his "inexperience" - is unfounded. He has a proven record of working to reduce inequality and defend the constitution. He has good ideas that can work, and he will enlist smart people to make them work. Let's remember that Bush's foreign policy team has extensive experience dating back to the Nixon Administration. It's not raw experience that counts, but the ability to make smart decisions, to improve people's lives, and to be an effective leader.

Barack Obama should be the next president of the United States. Thanks for reading.

Things are happening here, and frankly, it scares the shit out of me:

• The IAEA has contradicted recent reports of the advanced status of Iran's nuclear program, and has indicated that Iran is cooperating well and making progress. And yet Bush continues to make dire warnings about Iran and nuclear weapons.
• Norman Podhoretz, a leading neoconservative, who "makes Paul Wolfowitz… seem almost a moderate realist," and who recently wrote an essay advocating an attack on Iran, is on Rudy Giuliani's foreign policy team.
• Some Russian bombers recently flew really close to UK airspace. Russia has a pretty good relationship with Iran, because the Iranians like to buy their weapons.
• Syria recently fired on Israeli aircraft.
• Our air force just flew six nuclear-tipped cruise missiles to an air force base in Louisiana that may be a Middle East staging area. They said the nukes were a mistake, but the cruise missiles were on purpose.
• Iran says that the US is behind Kurdish rebel attacks inside Iran.

Let's think about it for a second. In the region, we have Sunni and Shiite factions openly fighting and practicing ethnic cleansing in Iraq. We have Iran, which is Shiite, and may or may not be supporting or participating in the fighting in Iraq. We have Syria, and Hezbollah in Lebanon, which are Shiite and openly supported by Iran. We have Saudi Arabia, which is Sunni, and which is the birthplace of Al Qaeda and the home country of nearly all the 9/11 hijackers. We have Israel, which is hated by Sunni and Shiite alike. We have Hamas, which is Sunni, and which does not have any regional ambitions other than the eradication of Israel. We have the Kurds in northern Iraq, who are friendly to the US and not at all to Iran, and who would like to declare independence from Iraq. We have Turkey, which is opposed to Kurdish independence. And we have the United States, which is about as universally hated as Israel, and whose military is stretched thin because of commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Okay, so let's say we attack Iran using air power exclusively, because we can't commit any ground troops to an invasion. Iran, weakened but still capable on the ground, immediately moves into Iraq in force to engage Americans. They also hit Kurdistan in retaliation for the rebel attacks on their soil. Hezbollah and Syria begin to bombard Israel with rockets, because hey, you might as well (remember, Saddam did the same thing back in the first Gulf war). Syria may take the opportunity to overthrow the Lebansese government. Saudi Arabia perceives a problem in Iraq, because the Iranian troops are there, and if they gain access to southern Iraq, they'll be at the Saudis' doorstep. Basra is the main city in southern Iraq, and it's predominantly Shiite, and therefore possibly sympathetic to Iran. So Saudi Arabia sends troops into Iraq. Iraq's government, which is on life support anyway, bites the dust. Meanwhile, Israel is retaliating against Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran with airstrikes, and Turkey invades Kurdistan to protect their interests there.

And let's not forget that Israel and the United States both have nuclear weapons. Oh, and you can forget about oil supplies for the next twenty years while everybody fights it out.

So now you have, incredibly, a far worse godawful mess in the region than the godawful mess we have now. And it's closer to being a reality than you think, folks. The administration wants to invade Iran. They have their contingency plans all set. They know what targets they will hit. Right now, in the media, what you are seeing is the administration attempting to turn public opinion against Iran. They want you to think that the Iranian government is killing Americans in Iraq, and that their acquisition of nuclear weapons is imminent. They did the exact same thing in the run-up to the Iraq war - they said Iraq was behind 9/11, and they said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. They were lying then, and they're lying now.

This is real, people. They want to do this. They are trying to do it right now. Do not fall for it. We cannot afford to attack Iran.

Got this email forward yesterday…

LIGHTS ON…..9/11

PLEASE forward this email to everyone in your address book asking them to also forward it. Please join us on 9/11. We have over two weeks to get the word out all across this great land we love and call the United States of America . Let's see how powerful e-mail can be!

On Tuesday, September 11, 2007 everyone in the USA who will be driving a motor vehicle is asked to drive with their headlights on during daylight hours. Though no explanation is needed as to why we are commemorating September 11, we hope more importantly to pay respect to the victims of that day, show our nation's solidarity and show support for our men and women of the Armed Forces. You can help by sending this e-mail on to others!

REMEMBER!

LIGHTS ON…..9/11

So, we'll all commemorate 9/11 by doing something that has absolutely nothing to do with what happened or with anything traditionally considered to be a commemorative activity. That is, we will make up a brand new commemorative activity, one that actually happens to be required by law for truckers and motorcyclists, and for cars in many places, and that is also generally considered to be a good idea and is done by most people already anyway. Thus, it will be entirely unclear whether anyone observed to be engaging in the activity:

• is required by law to do so
• does it all the time anyway
• is doing it by accident, or
• is actually commemorating something.

Not to mention the fact that you can only do it if you own a car. Or the tragic irony of commemorating 9/11 through an activity that burns enormous amounts of fossil fuels, our crippling dependence on which is the root cause of the Middle East policies that angered the perpetrators of 9/11 to begin with.

It shouldn't be so easy.

Remember how you felt in 2001? Speechless and barely able to breathe due to the mind-numbing horror of what you were seeing? Then you spent the rest of the year furtively glancing upward as planes flew overhead, wondering if something else was about to be annihilated as part of the next wave in a massive campaign to make the United States look more like downtown Kabul. Does turning on your headlights account for that?

People are getting shot and blown up in Iraq and Afghanistan because of what happened on 9/11. Americans, Iraqis, British, military personnel, contractors, civilians, men, women, children… it's war, that's what happens. Still think turning on your headlights for a day is enough?

Here's an idea: at 8:46 am, everything stops. We pull our cars over. We turn off our computers and televisions. We hang up our telephones. We stop talking. And we maintain a dignified, respectful silence. We think about the lives that were lost in 9/11 and in the wars that have followed it, and the living people still affected by those losses. We consider the unity that we all felt in the days after 9/11, and the spirit that moved everyone to hang a flag outside their doors. And then, at 10:28 am, we begin our lives again.

Doesn't that seem a more fitting tribute than something you can do with a flick of your wrist?

Just came across this supremely weird story about photos that used to be taken of freshmen at Ivy League and Seven Sisters schools. As recently as forty years ago, freshmen were told to strip naked and allow themselves to be photographed with metal pins affixed along their spines to indicate their posture. This was supposedly part of some now-debunked, Nazi-tinged scientific theory. Many of the photos were destroyed, but the surviving ones (27,000 of them) are now in a restricted archive at the Smithsonian. Many now-prominent people were photographed, including George W. Bush, Hillary Rodham, Meryl Streep, Diane Sawyer, Judith Martin, Bob Woodward, and Nora Ephron.

I took some photos today of the protesters, media, and police gearing up for Michael Vick's arraignment on dogfighting charges. It was a pretty wild scene.

This is depressing… here's where all the presidential candidates currently stand on the political compass. Boy, they sure are close together, aren't they?

If you remember, this is where I fall, in the opposite corner. Hell, they can't even hear me shouting from where they are.

It's too bad my only ideological compatriots are a lawn gnome and a schizophrenic homeless man. Of course, if Gravel is such a loony, what does that make me?

Okay, so Cheney will be President for a little while on Saturday while Bush gets a colonoscopy. Big deal - he's already President anyway.

What I love is the use of the term 'surveillance' to describe the procedure:

He last underwent colorectal cancer surveillance on June 29, 2002.

"As reported at the time and in subsequent physical exams, absent any symptoms, the president's doctor recommended repeat surveillance in approximately five years," Snow said. "The president has had no symptoms."

See? The President is subject to invasive surveillance, too, just like everyone else in the country since he took office. He gets a crack medical team from Bethesda (pun definitely intentional), and we get AT&T. But it's the same thing.

It'll be interesting to see if they find that conditions have improved since his last colonoscopy in 2002. That's when they discovered the story of Saddam Hussein attempting to purchase uranium in Niger. Obviously, they pulled it right out of there when they found it. And there've been other "removals" as well.

Here's to President Bush's continuing colorectal health.

John McCain's campaign manager, chief strategist, and chief of staff all quit this week. I'm not a "Washington insider," but I doubt this is part of a sequence of events that ends with President McCain.

Also: New York Times coverage.