Stop Mukasey

Copying straight from cos (not Kos)

Alberto Gonzales resigned. Bush nominated Michael Mukasey for Attorney General to replace him. When Senators asked him whether waterboarding is torture, he replied that he wasn't really sure what waterboarding is. Yeah, right.

Based on this and other things he said, Mukasey sounds like he'll let the Bush administration keep on torturing, breaking the law, spying without warrnats, and hiding everything from Congress, but unlike Gonzales, he'll be much better at doubletalking his way around it all. Here's a good summary of some of the other reasons, besides torture, that Mukasey is worse than Gonzales. For example, he doesn't think a US Attorney should be allowed to challenge claims of "executive privilege" by White House officials!

We've got a Democratic Senate, so there's a chance of at least refusing to confirm him until he shows he'll actually stop the US from torturing people if he gets the job. But it's just a chance.

The Senate Judiciary Committee will probably vote tomorrow on Mukasey. If all the Democats vote No, he'll be rejected. Most of the Democrats on the committee have said they'll vote No, but two say they plan to vote Yes:

• New York Senator Chuck Schumer, 202-224-6542 / 212-486-4430
• California Senator Diane Feinstein, 202-224-3841 / 415-393-0707 / 310-914-7300

If they switch their votes, Mukasey will be rejected. Also, it'll be clear why he was rejected: Not promising clearly to cause the government to stop toturing people. Call them?

P.S. Pass this on to anyone you know in New York or California.

Should small trucks still be allowed in cars-only lanes?

(also posted on Blue Jersey (here) and Daily Kos (here)) The cars-only lanes on the New Jersey Turnpike and other highways exist, in large part, because many drivers of cars find the decreased visibility of driving with trucks to be less safe and comfortable. Yet drivers of vehicles that block vision of what's in front of them almost as effectively as semis do are allowed. I'm talking about those SUV, pickups, and in rarer case minvans that are so big they get emissions and/or tax breaks for being trucks.

I need to do more research before I'd absolutely commit to this position, but I think if you're big enough to get perks for being a truck, you don't belong in cars-only spaces.

That's not a position politicians can lead on. It might get majority support, but at least at first, those opposed would likely to care a lot more. So if a change is to happen, we need to push from the outside.

The blocked vision is very real: in my low-sitting Elantra, I find I have much less awareness of the road beyond the vehicle in front of me, because of the rise of the SUVs. An added advantage of pushing this is that it will increase the self-perception of big-vehicle drivers that they're being sort of piggish, which they often (but not always) are.

So tell me what you think, but also, especially if you're from New Jersey, tell me where I can go for more research. Researchg on how this would effect safety, what the official purpose of the cars-only lanes are, who the public interest groups that might be interested are, and which legislators would be worth contacting. (Some of those answers I'll be finding for myself over the next few days, but head starts from Daily Kos would be most welcome.)

[Poll #1083367]