Early in this campaign season, I vowed to donate time, but not money. For me, it's been easy in the past to just write a check, and use that as justification for not putting in actual labor. So this election, I worked as a precinct captain, raised money, and adopted a precinct in Texas.

Over time, I donated a bit of money here and there also, both to candidates and causes. A little over a week ago, I was told that Barack Obama would be doing a few fundraisers in Northern California. So, I bit the bullet and wrote a check. And today I heard and shook hands with the next President of the United States.

Hardly a shocker, but the Bush administration once again has declared itself above the law. The stated justification is, what else, "national security."

It is increasingly common for people to vote absentee, and many campaigns push it to lock in voters. But, as an individual, I have always gone to the polls to vote. Today, as a newly minted, first time ever precinct captain, I ran across a perfect example of why one may want to wait until election day to cast one's ballot.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported this afternoon that Diane Feinstein has put forth a proposed compromise on the FISA telecom immunity dispute. Just what we need, more decisions by secret courts.

I knows he's not much of a reader, but let's hope so, because there was a wonderful op-ed piece in the Stars and Stripes today.

We recently launched an effort aimed at influencing candidates to take action to stop the use of torture by the United States.  Members pledge that they will not contribute to candidates who do not denounce torture unequivocally.  

We invited each candidate to answer the following questions:

1.  What is your position on the use of torture by any entity of the United States?

2.  If elected President of the United States, what actions, if any, will you take on this issue?

A few weeks ago, during the Mukasey debacle, I became sick and tired of screaming into the night. While pacing and ranting one night, I decided that I would not give another penny to any candidate who did not have the moral fortitude to speak out against the use of torture by our government.

The next day, in an undoubtedly quixotic effort, I registered the domain name notacent.com and created the most rudimentary website ever to launch from Silicon Valley. Not my forte. But at least I felt like I was doing something. Which brings me to my thank you.

Could John McCain be more progressive on human rights than Hillary Clinton or other Democratic candidates?

One question in Wednesday’s Republican debate addressed the use of torture by the United States. John McCain said without equivocation that the United States should never engage in torture, and pointed out that "this is not a 24 episode" (or words to that effect). Down the row, Mitt Romney used the "we don’t do it, but we’re not going to discuss what we do" defense, and refused to acknowledge that waterboarding is torture. McCain's response: "Governor, let me tell you, if we're going to gain the high ground in this world ... we're not going to torture people. How in the world someone could think that that kind of thing could be inflicted on people who are in our custody is absolutely beyond me."

During the back and forth, you could see Senator McCain’s jaw clenching, and Mitt Romney’s face becoming what one could only describe as mottled. If it weren’t so serious an issue, it would have been funny. Mr. Romney at points looked like a terrified deer in the headlights (an apt analogy, I think, considering the questions on guns that preceded it).

Apparently, there is a move afoot in the State Department to "clarify" the United States' policy on the use of torture.  http://news.yahoo.com/...  While one could argue that it is encouraging that the issue is being addressed, the fact that such clarification is necessary at all shows how low we have fallen.  

It seems clear that our current government, under George Bush, has determined that the United States is justified in using torture in its efforts against terrorism.  What we once professed to abhor has become nothing more than a "technique," a "method of interrogation."  

A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll taken in early November found that 69% of Americans believe that waterboarding is torture, and that 58% of Americans do not believe that the United States should be allowed to use it.  http://www.cnn.com/...

And yet, there is little outcry, little protest.  Perhaps we do nothing because we feel powerless.