Splinters

Police State?

2006-05-27T16:55:00.000-07:00

I don’t know about you, but I'm getting more and more signals indicating that the land of the free and home of the brave is fast becoming a police state. That dreaded word, once absurd in any discourse about the United States, has appeared in several columns lately, not least the end of Frank Rich’s column in the recent New York Times. Is this chicken-little paranoia, or is it based on reality?

Consider recent revelations. First, we find out that the National Security Agency (NSA) the biggest eavesdropping agency in the world has been tapping the domestic phone calls of Americans suspected of making calls to Al Qaeda agents or people connected to Al Qaeda. This has been done without the necessary warrants from the FISA courts, with the NSA simply going around the law of the land, and bragging about it. Both the President, and now his nominee for CIA chief, Michael Hayden, who was NSA head when the surveillance started, have insisted that warrant less wiretapping of Americans affects only communications with Al Qaeda, and hence is limited and legal. To "protect the American people," they have both asserted the President can do whatever he wants, regardless of Congressional statute.

However, USA Today revealed last week that the surveillance wasn’t so limited after all. Its report stated that major communications corporations AT&T, Bell South, Verizon and others, have been routinely turning over their phone records to the government. This means that the government has documented proof of every phone call made by virtually every American. Of course, both the phone companies and the Bush administration insist that this does not constitute phone tapping, because only the phone numbers, not the callers’ names, are revealed. Bush has also insisted that no "data mining" or "trolling" for information is taking place. But what would the government be doing with all these phone records if not trolling through them to see who is calling whom, and why? And who is to determine what use is made of all this information?

In both the above cases, the danger is that some computer program can easily identify an American who has called someone related to a terrorist, or someone whose relations themselves are related to someone related to a terrorist or suspected terrorist, and bingo, he or she lands on the list of terrorist sympathizers. And in the climate that has been created in the so-called "Long War on Terror," that nebulous connection alone could get someone arrested, held without charges, and tortured before anyone figured out whether the original call was significant or not.

Nor is this the end of it. ABC News has learned that all of its phone calls are being monitored as well. Reporter Brian Ross, in an interview with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now says:

"The F.B.I. then, Amy, last night put out a statement essentially acknowledging that they are tracking phone calls of reporters." ("They Track Journalists, Don’t They?" 5/16/06 on Thruthout.com

The reason seems to be that the Bush administration is so apoplectic over "leaks" that it now considers all reporters suspect. The fact that this is a major attempt to intimidate the free press, not to mention its obvious violation of the First Amendment, seems not to have mattered. Rather than address the problems and even crimes exposed in such news stories, the Bush administration chooses to attack those who have the temerity to do their jobs.

Finally, a recent report ((link) has revealed that Kellogg, Brown & Root, that ubiquitous subsidiary of Vice-President Cheney’s old company Halliburton, has been given a $385 million contract to build a series of detention centers, not in Iraq, but in the United States. Now who could the government be contemplating as inmates of those domestic detention centers? Those who report the news? Those who respond with anger to the corruption they see in the government? Those who might be arrested by National Guard troops about to be dispatched as guards for our southern border, in clear violation of the Posse Comitatus Act?

Whatever the answer, one thing is becoming alarmingly clear: the police-state tactics that Americans have always been assured was a mark of totalitarian regimes like the Soviet Union, China, Iraq, or Korea are increasingly becoming the hallmark of this administration and this nation.

The Free-Market Cure for Iraq

2006-05-22T13:53:00.000-07:00

To justify its invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration has constantly trumpeted its plans to democratize a country long exploited by a dictator, to introduce the marvels of free-market capitalism to the long-suffering Iraqi people. "Iraq for the Iraqis" was the mantra used early and often, especially with regard to its oil. A recent report by Kathy Kelly ("The Illness of Victors," Counterpunch: 5/13/06) reminds us how deceptive this sugarcoating of aggression and gross exploitation has turned out to be.

Instead of democracy and freedom, the Iraqis have been met with staggering violence, total absence of infrastructure, a healthcare system in ruins, and shortages of what was once plentiful and dirt-cheap gasoline and fuel in a country with the second largest petroleum reserves in the world. And the reason? The rules and regulations imposed by the Bush administration, in direct violation of all laws governing occupying powers, to benefit itself and its corporate cronies. Here is what Kelly says:

"The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have now instituted programs that require Iraq to begin paying back debts incurred by the former dictator, Saddam Hussein. To pay those debts, the interim government in Iraq has agreed to cut back on subsidies that enabled every family to purchase cooking oil and petrol at low prices. The prices have already risen threefold and a tenfold increase is expected by the end of the year. Another austerity measure involves ‘monetizing the ration basket,’ which means that the meager distribution of lentils, rice, cooking oil and tea once available to Iraqi families is being cut back, causing the price of these goods in the market to soar beyond the means of many poor families."

This is called "structural adjustment," the debilitating policies poorer nations worldwide must submit to, in order to conform to the wonders of the "free" market. The result is everywhere the same: in order to pay off their debts, however they are incurred, poor nations must cut off all social programs designed to help their impoverished masses survive because such programs have the odor of that economic pariah, "socialism." No matter if starvation and penury are the result; no matter if Iraq, once the only first-world nation in the Middle East is now a third-world basket case.

A democratic Iraqi government, under the gentle guidance of Uncle Sam, has been elected, and is committed to administering the free-market "medicine" to cure all of Iraq's ills. Meantime, other countries in the Middle East--Syria, Afghanistan, Iran--must be rubbing their hands in eager anticipation wondering: can Uncle Sam's wondrous health injection for us be far off?

A Crisis in Competence

2006-05-11T13:11:00.000-07:00

What’s to be our fate
With a gang that can’t shoot straight?
They hire the whores
And jump into wars
While building the debts
And losing the bets
In every national sector
While playing the latest trifecta

The Bush Administration seems unable to win a war but is quick to start them. They have prosecuted the war in Afghanistan as though it did not matter. In fact, it took them over a year to employ artillery. That was Rummy’s idea of a new light offense. Four years later, we are losing to the Taliban there and to the insurgents in Iraq. Could it be that this War President wants to play the Trifecta by opening a new front in Iran? Every indication is that Bush is simply drooling to attack Iran and to fill out his death wish for our fighting men and women. He deliberately outed an undercover agent and likely all her contacts. Valerie Plame was assigned to develop the intelligence on the Iranian nuclear program but that was all thrown away when Bush “declassified” her mission to cover up his lies about the yellowcake in Niger. If it were anybody else on the planet, the offender would be prosecuted for grave security violations if not treason. Instead, we listen to lame excuses by Bush that he was trying to present the truth about the yellowcake nuclear materials. As was said in the movie A Few Good Men, he can’t take the truth, and the truth is that Bush is completely incompetent.

In case you are wondering about the whores in the verse, we now know that professional prostitute Jeff Gannon visited the White House more than 80 (recorded) times while he pretended to be a reporter. Were those social or professional visits? More recently, we learned that “Duke” Cunningham was paid off by Bush Administration military contractors in money and women who serviced him in Watergate, of all places. What kind of vetting process produces whores and losers in position after position? The answer is that cronyism trumps vetting for this gang of losers. Return to the scene of the crime in New Orleans and you will discover incompetence in depth. Sometimes 15 feet under water! “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job.” The contracts went out to the cronies again without a bidding process and yet their performance was abysmal. The chaos and lack of planning was tied to cronyism could not be repainted by FOX to look pretty. New Orleans is still suffering from presidential incompetence in selecting administrators or personally directing recovery. We will say more about White House imaging, but first let us consider fiscal prowess.

Bush has rung up MORE national debt than ALL preceding presidents COMBINED. He has boasted about making tax cuts for the super wealthy a permanent artifact for his legacy, but what he has done is to put every man, woman and child further in debt than anybody can possibly pay off in a lifetime. That is his inevitable legacy. This is the administration that used Dick Cheney to draft up our energy policy in secret. Now you know why it was a secret set of meetings. You can see the reasons at the gas pump as the dollars spin up like a Las Vegas slot machine, except that sometimes you can win at Las Vegas. This is the Bush that claimed, “Of course, you have to have a court order to wiretap.” He then commanded NSA to wiretap with out court orders. The only thing I can say in his defense is that he might not know the difference. Yes, he could be that incompetent.

As for the Bush penchant to spin the news, events have a way of building up where the truth becomes ever more difficult to hide. How many disasters can be rephrased as successes? Yes, he has fired Scott McClellan, but is it Scott’s fault that lies and failure got to the podium before him? Will Tony Snow and FOX be able to paint Iraq and Afghanistan as wins? Will he be able to continue to speak of the “wild speculation” of our likely attack on Iran? At some point, the pattern that is already identical to the buildup for Iraq will become apparent. “No options are off the table.” I once felt that Bush was misguided but capable, but the evidence is building that incompetence is the root cause of tragedy. Don’t look for Bush to solve his own problem. He can’t. Will people in the streets do it?

The Problem with Immigration

2006-05-01T23:47:00.000-07:00

The current turmoil over illegal immigration--including the largest demonstrations in U.S. history--has resulted in reams of foolishness. Whether it be the standard complaint that "these people" are lawbreakers and should be criminalized (the approach of House Republicans), or the boilerplate lament that all immigrants, legal or illegal, always help rather than hurt the American economy (the approach of the protesters and their supporters), or the guest-worker program pushed for years by the Bush administration, nearly all arguments have so far suppressed a critical fact: the nefarious role of the North American Free Trade Agreement in stimulating emigration from Latin America. An article by Roger Bybee and Carolyn Winter, "Immigration Flood Unleashedby NAFTA," (THRUTOUT.com) makes this crystal clear.

Where NAFTA was supposed to "solve" the problem of immigration, it has done just the opposite. It has allowed American corporations like Walmart to flood the Mexican market with cheap goods, thus putting small Mexican companies out of business, and forcing already underpaid Mexican workers to compete with labor in China and elsewhere. It has encouraged American agribusiness to overwhelm Mexico with U.S. grown corn, which is so heavily subsidized by U.S. taxpayers that Mexican growers cannot compete (this is reminiscent of what happened in Italy in the 1880s, with exactly the same result: impoverished peasants who fled to America in droves). All this, plus American factories in border towns paying starvation wages, has created such massive displacement (poor farmers and workers moving to overburdened cities with no jobs) and misery that the rate of immigration has dramatically increased since 1996 when NAFTA was signed. Whereas only about 2.5 million Mexican illegals were here in 1996, more than 8 million have crossed the border illegally since then, thanks in large part to NAFTA. "Free trade" has turned out to be the "free fall" of wages and living standards not only in Mexico, but in all of the Americas, and that includes the United States.

As Bybee and Winter put it:

The wholesale surge of Mexicans across the border dramatically illustrates that NAFTA was no attempt at a broad uplift of living conditions and democracy in Mexico, but a formula for government-sanctioned corporate plunder benefiting elites on both sides of the border. NAFTA essentially annexed Mexico as a low-wage industrial suburb of the USA.

No amount of half-baked solutions by politicians trying to appease an aroused electorate will fix this mess. Only a serious and courageous look at the dominant reign of corporatism and globalization can ever hope to stop the massive migration of the world's new wage slaves.

Bush’s Balancing Act

2006-04-11T18:32:00.000-07:00

As the price of labor goes down
Half the Right wears a frown
Mumbling bring on the beagles
And chase the illegals
Across the South border
And build a high wall
To keep law and order
Before we all fall
While the other half praises
The lowest of wages
At home and abroad
And legislates fraud

In a strange way, it is fun to watch the Republicans in a schizoid stance trying to balance the hatred of the far right with the greed of the far right. We have racist ideologues facing off with free market ideologues. Of course, the free market ideologues have an edge with Bush pushing for a guest worker (no citizenship) program. This keeps wages low here and keeps the status quo in Mexico so that the oligarchs there, including Fox, don't have to invest in a middle class and we can reduce our middle class at home. Meanwhile, we are in a war that takes all the fun out of the Republican dilemma because in that ultimate reality program real people are really being killed and the money is our tax money being paid out through no-bid contracts.

If you happen to stop in a bookstore, pick up Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq by Michael R. Gordon and Bernard E. Trainor. It will confirm all your suspicions about how soon in his first term Bush and his accomplices decided to go to war and how weak the planning became as Donald Rumsfeld bullied General Officers to whittle down the size of the invasion force while speeding up the process. As Condi Rice put it so well, "thousands of mistakes were made." Of course, the most frightening scenario is that the administration has not learned from its mistakes.

Planning for Katrina was no better than Iraq and the same no-bid contracts were let to the same contractors with the same underachievement. Cronyism ruled contracting both home and away. Indeed, the administration used the Katrina aftermath as an opportunity to combine the incompetence of senior appointees with the economic disadvantages of low wages so Halliburton and others are hiring manual laborers from Mexico to clean up New Orleans.

For the Bush administration and its cronies, Katrina may, in fact be the perfect storm. It has permitted, through an act of God, the enrichment of the few while so changing the demographics as to make a Democratic district a wasteland and simultaneously deny the former residents an opportunity to vote. We boasted how we encouraged ex-patriot Iraqis to vote from remote locations here in the United States, but refused to allow displaced New Orleans residents the same. It is difficult to distinguish the effects of nefarious intentions from sheer incompetence and I am not sure which label best fits the Bush Leaguers. The result will be conversion of a Democratic district in Louisiana into a Republican district. Above all, (including outing a CIA undercover agent) it is politics above the good of the nation. DeLay in Texas redistricting and Bush in Ohio and Louisiana disenfranchisement. Now that is teamwork.

For those of you who wonder how the Congress will resolve the "immigration" issue, look no further than the immediate past for your best prediction. There will be a compromise for the racist right with the "free market" right. The racist right will get its Berlin Wall West and the corporate right will get its no-bid contracts and a franchise for low priced labor. Look for the invocation of "national security" to build a wall and then look for some compassionate consideration by permitting Mexicans and Central Americans as guest laborers. This is essentially the gastarbeiter system of Germany that has failed so miserably. The connected will get the no-bid contracts to build the wall and with a minimum wage here that is three times the average wage in Mexico, the infiltration will continue to the delight of the Right.

Corporate Crime

2006-04-10T15:55:00.000-07:00

After the claim about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction was proven baseless, the Bush Administration retreated to the fallback position occupied by the great American myth: our selfless nation's divinely-ordained mission was to bring democracy and all its benefits to the Iraqi people. As soon as it was feasible, our noble conquerors would return the country's governance to Iraq¹s newly elected leaders, and the gifts of self-government and private enterprise would flow upon the Iraqi people like manna from heaven.

As we have been seeing lately, however, this promise is turning out to be yet another cruel joke. Far from benefiting the bleeding people of Iraq, the American-imposed "regime change" was clearly meant to open yet another country to the corporate giants who control our world. The latest scholar to point this out is Antonia Juhasz. In several articles and now in a new book, The Bush Agenda: Invading the World, One Economy at a Time, Juhasz argues that the invasion of Iraq was about turning that ancient country into a free-fire zone for America's corporate-welfare elite. The orders imposed by L. Paul Bremer, former head of the now-defunct Iraqi Provisional Authority, make this abundantly clear. For what those orders did (and they are still in effect) was to cancel Iraq's planned economy which had given the Iraqi people food, jobs, and control of their massive oil reserves in favor of the mass privatization of virtually every resource: the oil, the water, the power, the security, the whole shebang. All were made available to takeover by private American corporations like Bechtel (rebuilding the water works destroyed by American bombers), Halliburton, Exxon-Mobil, Lockheed-Martin and their ilk. And what these American "benefactors" have done is increasingly brought cheap foreign labor and goods into Iraq, leaving most of the Iraqis themselves jobless.

What's worse, far worse, is that all of these orders by Bremer violate international laws overturning occupying powers, which state that such interference with an occupied nation's existing laws is wholly illegal. To quote Juhasz in a recent article:

Transformation of an occupied country’s fundamental laws is illegal under international law. It directly violates the international convention governing the behavior of occupying forces, the Hague regulations of 1907 (the companion to the 1949 Geneva conventions, both ratified by the United States), as well as the U.S. Army's own code of war as stated in the Army field manual "The Law of Land Warfare." Article 43 of the Hague Regulations requires that an occupying power "re-establish and insure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country." (See "The Economic Colonization of Iraq," at The Bush Agenda.)

In brief, the occupying power is required to protect the people of the occupied nation and obey its existing laws. True to its disdain for all international law, the Bush Administration has done just the opposite. It has completely overturned Iraq's legal system and economy in favor of one benefiting its corporate cronies. And it knows this, which is why it is so impatient for the Iraqis to form a puppet government to ratify what has already been done.

Now we can see the "frustration" of officials like Condoleeza Rice and the "tough" members of Congress in a new light. They keep threatening the Iraqi government with dire consequences if they don’t resolve their differences and form a government. Why? Because such a government is desperately needed as cover for war crimes, i.e., as an entity to make official the theft already committed, and to welcome with open arms the American corporations eager to rush in and glut themselves on the economic bonanza that has been prepared for them.

How craven and calculating and cruel this will one day appear to all those who have sacrificed their lives in this criminally commercial endeavor, can only be imagined.

Can the Democrats Win?

2006-04-07T13:20:00.000-07:00

We hear a great deal these days from Democrats about the Fall elections, about the increasingly strong chances for a Democratic retaking of Congress, and especially about how best to accomplish this feat. All of this is fine, but one fact threatens to make all this speculation moot: Republican control of the elections process and the high probability that the theft of the most recent elections will be repeated. If nothing is done to change these conditions, all the election strategy in the world will not bring victory.

Consider the recent article posted on AlterNet.com (see bottom of link) (Mar. 2, 2006) by Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman, Ohio authors of How the GOP Stole America's 2004 Election & Is Rigging 2008. What they pointed out as the product of their latest research adding to the more than 100 different ways in which the Republican Party perverted the democratic process in Ohio is the purging of more than 300,000 mostly Democrat voters from the Ohio voting rolls!

In traditional Democratic Party strongholds like Cuyahoga County (Cleveland), some 175,000 voters were purged and 10,000 who were registered were lost due to "clerical error." This in a state where George W. Bush's margin of victory was only 119,000 votes. An additional 133,000 voters were eliminated from the registration rolls in Cincinnati and Toledo, the excuse being that they had failed to vote in two previous elections (note that no law requires this). The result of this and other purges was that thousands of voters turned up to vote at their regular polling places, only to be told that their names had been somehow removed from the rolls. When many of these voters used the government-mandated provisional ballots, they found that the Republican Secretary of State, Kenneth Blackwell, had instituted unprecedented requirements for provisional ballots, such as supplying the voter's birth date, which poll workers failed to mention. As a result, thousands of such "disqualified" ballots were then thrown out.

Anyone who doubts that the 2004 election was stolen should read another book on the Republican theft, Fooled Again, by Mark Crispin Miller. Among the literally hundreds of dirty tricks employed by legions of Republicans throughout the nation, Miller cites (a) New Mexico, where 19,000 under votes were cast (an under vote is where no vote is cast for president on an otherwise completed ballot), with 17,147 of these under votes coming from notoriously "fixable" electronic voting machines this in a state where Bush won by only 7,047 votes (Miller, p. 149); (b) the expatriate voting scandal, where of 7 million eligible voters living or working in foreign countries (with civilians outnumbering service personnel by 15 to 1 and hence favoring Kerry by large margins), at least 43% were prevented from voting according to the Overseas Voting Foundation, because they were either prevented from registering on time, or they received their ballots late or not at all (Miller, pp. 249 ff).

There is far more to Miller's book, as well as to the accounts of Fitrakis and Wasserman in Ohio. The sum total is chilling. Most important, it makes all too clear that short of a major Democratic Party effort to closely monitor and fiercely contend any inkling of chicanery in future elections, all the strategy in the world will be useless. For the truth is, John Kerry was declared the winner in every exit poll, and he still "lost."

If such unprecedented fixing can be done once, it can be done, and will be done, repeatedly. In short, democracy and all strategies to ensure it are simply meaningless if the very basis of Democracy a fair and free election can no longer be counted on.

Iraq House Training, er, Nation-Building

2006-03-24T06:00:00.000-08:00

MSNBC's catoonist, Daryl Cagle, after hearing Bush explain his Adminstration's failure in Iraq this week after so many years, captures in living color the fact that looking backwards, "house training" (aka "nation-building") in Iraq has gone rather badly.

Nations are just not very good at nation-building and a long serious review of history informs us of that fact. The issue was addressed last week-end in many of the pundit talk shows like Hardball, the McLaughlin Group, This Week, and others: the commentators were all, by and large, in agreement.

The neo-con idea that the USA could start a pre-emptive war and then hope to nation-build was flawed from the begining.

The Truth About Iraq

2006-03-20T13:35:00.000-08:00

Our myopic president, G. W. Bush, has been traveling the country recently, hoping to head off the bad news emerging as America observes the 3rd anniversary of his disastrous venture in Iraq. Like a broken record, he keeps repeating his mantra: We’re doing better than the media lets on, we can’t retreat, we must fight the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them here. And Americans in increasing numbers are responding that the war was a mistake, and not worth what it is costing in lives and treasure (upwards of $400 billion at last count).

If there still remain Americans unconvinced of the folly of this war, they should take a look at the stunning article by Orville Schell, dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at UC Berkeley, to be printed in the April issue of The New York Review of Books (available now on Tomsdispatch.com and truthout.com). The piece is almost wholly descriptive of Schell’s trip to Baghdad to assess the state of the journalism there, and it is a sobering reminder of the horrors that we, the United States of America, have perpetrated upon the people and culture of that long-suffering country.

Pretending that we are "liberating" them, and educating them into our democratic ways, we have turned a once-prosperous and modern nation into a medieval nightmare resembling nothing so much as the landscape in the distopic film, Blade Runner. Trash and debris from abandoned military vehicles line the roads. The roads themselves are a no-man¹s land upon which it is only safe to drive in armored vehicles manned with private security forces. No American reporter can venture out alone.

Most are trapped in their hotels and must depend on Iraqi stringers to bring them news from outside. Any place that can afford it is hidden behind twelve-foot highway "T-walls" which, Schell says, "looks something like giant tombstones, totems perhaps from some long-lost Easter Island culture gone minimalist.:" The entire city is barricaded behind these "Bremer walls" placed edge-to-edge to serve as blast walls. There are no services to speak of, no infrastructure, with electricity and water available only part time, with fuel, in which Iraq should be drowning, available only after waiting in line for hours and days, and with no police worth the name (those police there are remain so fearful of being identified as American collaborators that they "wear black stocking caps with eye, nose, and mouth holes pulled down over their faces so they look like so many bank robbers.") Baghdad, outside the American-fortified Green Zone, is a city virtually abandoned to monarchy, a city in the hands of militias, criminals, and private security forces the latter numbering above 25,000, according to Schell, all earning many times what American troops earn, the result being that the aspiration of many American troops is to finish their tour of duty and begin their civilian careers in the booming private security sector.

Schell's account does not even begin to assess the terrible damage that has been inflicted upon individual Iraqis trying to survive in this living hell, but the impact of the article, and many other accounts, leaves no doubt that it has been brutal and all consuming.

One can only hope that some day, and soon, those who have inflicted this disaster upon an innocent people will be held to account, and that Americans will rise up and demand an end to and reparations for this outrage—the wanton, random destruction of the very civilization that gave birth to us all.

A Lost Cause

2006-03-18T11:00:00.000-08:00

Mike Lester, with the Rome News Tribune in Georgia, captures Senator Russ Feingold's dilemma last week.

The thing is that Feingold has not been consistent lately: to wit, he voted for Bush's boys on the Supreme Court. Shame!

On Immigration

2006-03-12T22:10:00.000-08:00

Guest Blogger: Charlie Ara, Cerritos, Calif.

This morning I attended the Cerritos Optimist Club's annual Oratorical Contest at the Sheraton Hotel. In addition to a delicious meal with parents, teachers and fellow Optimists, I heard the excellent inspirational speeches of seven students from the ABC School District.

As I listened, I noticed that all seven students had dark black hair. I reflected that all were either immigrants or the children of immigrants and that the future of our country will be denriched with their contributions and talents.

To me, the Oratorical Contest was a teaching moment for all the adults present. It was an opportunity to reflect on the immigration debate now raging in the United States.

I do not know if each of these students or their parents are documented or undocumented. However, this was on my mind as the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee takes up a series of proposed immigration reforms.

At the present time there exists a hysterical anti-immigration sentiment sweeping even Cerritos as evidenced by the Cerritos Republican Club inviting Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project, to address their meeting.

Recently, Cardinal Roger Mahony spoke out against this hysteria. He framed the immigration debate in moral and ethical terms. He suggested that the Judeo-Christian Tradition welcomed the immigrant.

Yes, some reforms are needed. As we say in our Optimist Creed "...to spend so much timeon our own self improvement that we have no time to be critical of others..."

The Minutemen type would have it be a felony to help an undocumented immigrant. The priest, rabbi, iman, minister, etcetera would have to have everyone show their papers before entering a house of worship.

What are we coming to as a country? What can we do about the mean spirited hysteria?

As we are all immigrants or children of immigrants (except for Native Americans) why can't we find ways to deal with our problems without being mean-spirited?

What are some considerations for reforming immigration?

Here are some ideas being considered:

(1) Visas for family members of migrants to reduce what can be decades-long waits to reunify.
(2) A guest worker program with a path to permanent residency.
(3) Legalization of undocumented migrants.
(4) Better legal process to guarantee immigrants rights.
(5) Economic development in poor countries to reduce the need to migrate.

Yes, let's debate the issue of immigration but let us do it with a sense of justice, fairness and concern for all our fellow human beings on planet earth.

Harboring Terrorists

2006-03-08T23:24:00.000-08:00

As the Parker political cartoon describes well (and after today's vote in the House), Bush's plan for our harbors seem like a lost idea.

Iran's Oil Bourse

2006-03-03T14:25:00.000-08:00

The warning signs are rising again that the Bush administration really does intend to initiate another aggressive action against Middle East oil giant, this time Iran. Part of the problem most Americans have imagining such a drastic scenario is the lack of information about the real cause of such action perhaps because the situation is too dire for the media to handle. I am referring to the plan by Iran to open an Oil Bourse, or oil exchange of its own.

As explained by Mike Whitney on Op-Ed News, "The Bush administration will never allow the Iranian government to open an oil exchange (bourse) that trades petroleum in euros. If that were to happen, hundreds of billions of dollars would come flooding back to the United States crushing the greenback and destroying the economy. This is why Bush and Company are planning to lead the nation to war against Iran. It is straightforward defense of the current global system and the continuing dominance of the reserve currency, the dollar."

Whitney goes on to explain that because the world oil market is denominated in U.S. dollars, oil nations hold enormous dollar reserves, which forces them into the U.S. orbit. Add to this the huge national debt now in excess of $8 trillion and continuing record trade deficits, which also force nations like China and others to hold huge reserves in dollars, and it becomes clear why the U.S. is worried about Iran’s bourse.

If oil-producing nations were to suddenly no longer have to hold their dollar reserves, it could start a stampede of dollars rushing back into the U.S. The result could either be hyperinflation or depression, depending on whether the Fed decides to raise interest rates to leading to recession, or print more money, leading to hyperinflation.

Thus, the war rumblings echoing throughout Washington have nothing to do with Iran’s supposed nuclear development plans. That is just the cover story, as countless analysts have pointed out that it would be at least 10 years before Iran might have a bomb. Iran poses no threat to anyone, not even Israel, which has over 200 (unacknowledged) nuclear weapons of its own.

As for the United States, which has launched unprovoked attacks on both Afghanistan and Iraq, not only is there no threat, but any thinking person must reflect back on the identical situation that prevailed in 2002 and 2003, when Americans were told the same story about the growing threat of Iraq’s WMDs. In fact, no WMD were ever found. The whole threat was a ruse, an excuse for the Bush administration to begin its Middle East aggression, and for similar reasons: Iraq, too, had threatened to switch from dollars to Euros. Such open defiance of United States hegemony could not be allowed to stand then, and it appears it will not be allowed to stand now.

The only question is, are Americans and the world dumb enough to be fooled into yet another phony war? Stay tuned. Or better yet, let Washington know that you object to their plans, by going to the web site Stop War on Iran.

Note: For additional information and some historical tid-bits read a Krassimir Petrov, PhD article. Dr. Petrov teaches Economics at the American University in Bulgaria.

George W. Nixon

2006-03-02T00:46:00.000-08:00

Paul Conrad's view of the Bush, er, Bush-Nixon Administration.

Mr. Conrad always gets to the core of the argument.

Plutocracy versus Democracy

2006-03-01T01:32:00.000-08:00

It was widely reported in the Associated Press recently that the US Coast Guard raised some red flags when the proposed take-over by Dubai Ports World of certain US ports was brought to their attention. Last December the Coast Guard warned of potential intelligence gaps and, as such, made it difficult for the Guard to evaluate the true security threat before the business deal was approved. We still do not know why their concerns were ignored (or ameliorated) but I have a view, and to me it seems the plutocrats continue to wield power in America.

It’s such a tragedy that so many Americans do not see the irony as this little political brouhaha developed vis-a vis our policy towards Iraq the last four years. Our Splinters team member George Giacoppe wrote a sizzling post a few days ago as he unmasked the realities of life for many living in the UAE, especially foreigners. As Mr. Giacoppe discussed, in the UAE there is no democracy, but the Bush Administration, it seems, can care less.

By contrast, let’s remember than one of the goals (later stated) of invading Iraq was to bring democracy and freedom to a country under the control of a political strongman. Yet, as the Bush Administration cozies up to the UAE regime demonstrably shows it’s not about democracy that concerns Bush when it comes to the conflicts in the Middle East, but, what else, the eternal lucre and getting along with other plutocratic regimes in the area. All the arguments made about the UAE being America’s friend in the “so-called” war on terrorism is just a red herring. We Americans have to keep our eye on the events that are developing without relying on the faux arguments made by the ever-lying White House.

When plutocrats—like the ones in power in Washington DC (mostly the executive branch, but not exclusively) and the UAE—have the same agenda they are all too willing to work together. This is the same throughout the Middle East as we work warmly with the non-democratic regimes such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and others. Before the fall of the Shah (1979), America was so nice to Iran, another plutocratic regime. We never criticize these regimes, not even a little bit. I'll say it out loud, “There is a hidden agenda, and it’s about money, oil, and control.”

And I have heard zero about the political background of the UAE that Mr. Giacoppe addressed in his post in the mainstream media, yet the media networks continue to parrot Bush’s democratic goals in Iraq daily. Shameful.

Yet, for Bush, the problem with plutocratic regimes, especially in open societies, is that not everyone with spheres of governmental influence is in adherence with the plans of the leadership in power at any point in time. In this fiasco many Republicans in Congress who worry about re-election next year have determined the Bush Administration is not concerned about their needs, and as expected, they are fighting Bush on this contentious issue. Look at the public opinion polls: 75% of Americans oppose the UAE taking charge of our ports. So it comes to no one’s surprise that Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), chair of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee said, "I am more convinced than ever that the process was truly flawed. I can only conclude that there was a rush to judgment."

I've mentioned in my posts that the legislative goals of Democrats in Congress lie with moderate Republicans. Now it seems that Republicans concerned about loosing the next election can also help, at least in this instance. I strongly believe that in the end Congress will stop this very strange deal and override Bush’s threatened veto.

United Arab Emirates: Worse Than You Thought

2006-02-25T11:02:00.000-08:00

The War Prez is true to his sport
And now can bring war to our ports
With terror at home and away
As a new form of play
With Dubai at our feet
We’ll have warlords to beat
And we’ll outsource Logistics
And plan with our mystics
While making some hay
By selling away
The home of the brave
To the UAE with her slaves

Lots of good Americans are wondering how the best politicians that money can buy including Snow and Bush himself could go so far into power and ego as to have selective memory on the UAE. Perhaps Bush feels a need to move us firmly into the 18th Century and the days of princes and slaves. Camel jockeys alone account for about 40,000 slaves in the UAE. The wealthy there buy boys as young as two to race on camels as early as age four. They are bought in Pakistan, Bangladesh and India for about $3,000 each and fed as little as possible to minimize the weight on the camels being raced. Of course, young girls are bought to be used as child sex slaves for the rich of Dubai. I guess that King George overlooked that since he has promoted these scions of sin to these United States. King George has claimed that he wants to bring democracy to the Middle East, yet the UAE has never held an election. There is a new twist on the old question. How can you tell when Bush is lying? It is when Scott McClellan is moving his lips.

As you may recall, two of the suicide hijackers in the 9/11 attack were UAE citizens. The UAE was one of only 3 nations in the whole world that recognized the Taliban in Afghanistan. UAE money financed the training of the UAE hijackers here in our United States. Millions of dollars were laundered through Dubai banks to support bin Laden and, in fact, the US attack planned on bin Laden in 1999 was called off because he was meeting with the princes of the UAE at that very moment and we did not want to hurt the princes or the Bush I investment deals. Al Qaeda and the UAE princes are banking buddies and, of course, George Bush Sr. is an investment buddy of the bin Laden family through the Carlisle Group. If this does not model on the royal privilege of the 1700’s, it is close enough for government work.

The "foreign company" that Bush has defended is not a private entity, but a direct arm of the sovereign UAE, the princes and the slave-holders. If we do not do business with Cuba that is 90 miles from our coast based on principles, what does this say about bringing the corruption of Dubai to our shores? We select our principles? Poor Cubans bad; rich princes good? There are no human rights in the UAE, but the Emirates have enough money to attract investors like Bush and Snow. Incidentally, the administration has probably lied about the scope of the deal and what was originally reported as a contract for 6 ports is now 21 ports. I guess that Bush’s dog Barney ate his homework. Even in a pass/fail system, Bush flunks this one.

As a token of respect and privilege for the princes of Dubai, the Administration has agreed not to require the UAE to keep its business records on US soil. This means that we have no audit trail. We have no way to trace the money or the manifests or the communications to the bank that has already been caught financing terrorism in the US and in Afghanistan. With no audit trail, we will have no way to demand production of paper for a court or even for a Congressional investigation. We should trust them based on the administrative skills that led us through Katrina. The license to the UAE becomes a license to steal and to kill. Bush, consistent with his Pharmaceutical Protection Act (Medicare, Part D) provides for government exclusion from control. If the Coast Guard cannot demand a manifest or a bill of lading, how can it defend us from a repeat of prior UAE support of our enemies? Maybe security is not a priority, but WAR is a priority.

Allow me to offer a few reasons beyond the usual Bush incompetence:

1. Cronyism. The sport of kings and princes (along with camel racing).
2. Union busting. The living wage is a 20th century anachronism. Slaves are cool.
3. War is good for business and the UAE is a trusted broker for profiteering.
4. No audit trail means no impeachment trial. Plan for success now.
5. Democracy is for Iraq, not for Palestine or the UAE.

Peace

Again: What Liberal Media?

2006-02-24T00:05:00.000-08:00

Yes, journalist Eric Alterman reminds us one more time about the non-existent so-called Liberal media.

Please see here.

Donna Shalala, Hypocrite of the Month

2006-02-23T00:23:00.000-08:00

Did you hear about Donna Shalala, the former Secretary of Health and Human Services under the Clinton Administration?

Well these days Dr. Shalala, as president of University of Miami, is battling campus janitors who, God forbid, are trying to unionize in order to bargain for living wages and health benefits.

Wow, doesn’t Shalala, a life long Democrat, believe the role unions play in order to bring about a just society? I think she is clueless and/or a complete sellout. No two ways about this issue.

Currently the janitors make as little as $6.40 per hour and have zero, yes, zero health benefits. Shalala on the other hand makes over a half a million per year. Moreover, the university is not hurting for money and has recently raised over one billion dollars in a single fundraising drive. Woman, I ask, what happened to your Democratic values?

The irony: Shalala's 9,000 square-foot digs, paid by the university, was featured recently in the New York Times magazine. The article shows off her Coral Gables estate and discusses her other worldly possessions including the fact that her dog "Sweetie" has four dog beds. This case makes her the top candidate for the hypocrite of the month.

In unity, carajo!

Sí se puede.

For more information read here.

Uber blogger Wonkette has a super take on the topic here.

Tone Deaf Bush

2006-02-22T09:19:00.000-08:00

Bush has fallen into some very hot, if not boiling, political water with his proposed approval of the purchase by Dubai Ports World, a United Arab Emirates owned firm, of the London based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, which runs six major United States ports. Bush even threatens a veto if Congress takes any action preventing the sale. Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-South Carolina) calls the move foolish and said the Bush Administration was "unbelievably tone deaf politically." To quote the great fictional moral philosopher Forrest Gump, "Stupid is what stupid does."

The ports involved are very important and vital to our economy. They include some of our busiest: New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

The bipartisan angst felt about this issue brings about a good question: Why should we worry? Well, the company that will run the ports can select the personnel of their choice and have oversight of the cargo brought into the country. Moreover, the firm will have complete knowledge of the security plans along the eastern seaboard--an inviting opportunity for any terrorist organization with proactive plans that have hatred towards the U.S.

Rep. Edward Markey, (D-Mass.) said:

Almost none of the cargo that enters our ports is ever inspected. While the federal government is ultimately responsible for security at ports, much of the day-to-day security responsibilities, such as hiring security guards and ensuring adequate access controls and fencing are in place, are delegated to the companies that operate at the port.

Yet, the Republican in Congress will not go quietly into the night on this issue. They’re ticked off and are willing to challenge the Bush Administration on this strange decision. In fact, House Speaker Hastert called for an "immediate moratorium" to be placed on the deal. Oh, oh, those sound like fighting words.

We have enough problems in combating terrorism domestically to add another headache to worry about. As such, this issue is a winner for Democrats, and we can rightly make the case that we’re tougher on security issues than the Bush Administration. Dems can rightly argue that Bush allowed "bombs in a box" to be potentially brought into the country by outsourcing the management of ports.

We have a winner folks.

Update: Kevin Drum over at the Washington Monthly blog has a diferent take. See here.

Jeff Parker Captures Bush in Action

2006-02-21T11:09:00.000-08:00

We have another super political cartoon from Jeff Parker who is with Florida Today.

Mr. Parker captures Bush true interests in this drawing, and it’s not the same interests of the men who wear the uniform in our armed forces.

For more of Jeff Parker please visit here.

Republicans: Have You No Sense of Decency?

2006-02-20T09:31:00.000-08:00

Photo: Senator Jay D. Rockefeller IV

In 1954 during the contentious Army-McCarthy hearings, Army general counsel Joseph Welch reprimanded daffy Senator McCarthy by saying, "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

The recent illegal domestic wiretapping inquiry by the Senate has been stonewalled by GOP operatives from the White House working in conjunction with Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kansas), chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee. I say it's fair to ask the same question in this instance, "Chairman Roberts, have you no sense of decency."

Sen. Jay D. Rockefeller IV (D-West Virginia) said that Sen. Roberts had abdicated his responsibility as the leader of the committee that is supposed to oversee the intelligence activities in the Unites States. Clearly an important job if one believes in oversight and the proper role of Congress.

One could easily conclude that there is no separation of powers when it comes to the Republican controlled Senate. It appears the Senate is beholding to the executive branch, as the Intelligence Committee under the leadership of Roberts, seems under the commander-in-chief’s spell.

There is still hope for Americans who believe in justice as Congresswoman Heather A. Wilson (R-New Mexico), chair of the House Intelligence Committee, is considering its own inquiry. As they say in pop culture, “You go girl.”

On the bright side these conservative Republicans are giving lots of ammunition to Democrats running for office this year. This election cycle will be an interesting one politically. Let’s hope Americans eschew jingoism and an extreme nationalistic mentality for the sake of our Republic as envisioned by our Founding Fathers.

Republican-English Dictionary

2006-02-19T10:02:00.000-08:00

Over at The Reality-Based Community Blog there is a super post by Mark Kleiman named "Entries from the Republican-English Dictionary." It's a complete hoot.

Two of my favorites are:

*class warfare/ n./* Any attempt to raise the minimum wage.

*pro-life/ adj./* Valuing human life up until birth

There are so many other good ones.

Check it out here.

Deadeye Dick

2006-02-17T06:30:00.000-08:00

The more we hear about it, the more it becomes clear that Vice-President Cheney’s mishap, wherein he shot his hunting companion, Harry Whittington, stands as the perfect metaphor for this administration.

Consider: Here we have the man who, as Vice-President, is arguably the most powerful VP in United States history, one who is in large part responsible not only for the rush to invade Iraq without provocation, but also the man in charge of what Lawrence Wilkerson, military aide to Secretary of State Colin Powell, calls a "cabal" operating out of his office. He is the man who snarls and snaps not only in secret but also in public; a man whose office "outs" CIA agents in order to punish the perceived disloyalty of their husbands. He also may be responsible for a lot more that we don’t know about, or at least don't yet have proof of.

And yet, this is the man who has so little regard for the rules that he simply whirls and fires at an alleged quail and whacks his 76-year-old companion dressed in orange jacket and in the line of fire. And then keeps it secret for a day or two, while his minions try to make sure the story will disappear. Only it doesn't. Whittington ends up in the intensive care ward, is said to be happy and jolly and certainly not holding the Veep responsible, until suddenly, he has a heart attack and we find out the shotgun pellets not only pierced the skin, but one pellet has migrated into the heart!

Our Vice President shot his friend in the heart.

This is the man we are supposed to trust. This is the man whose selection as VP was supposed to assure us that even though George W. was a rookie, Dick Cheney was a veteran, cool, calm, collected, "old reliable" who would be capable of engineering both foreign and domestic policy. Only that the game plan began to unravel as early as 9/11, when, during the chaos following the initial attacks, we find that it was "old reliable" Cheney who ordered the planes that finally scrambled to "shoot to kill" flight 93.

Flight 93 which eventually crashed in a Pennsylvania field, supposedly brought down by the heroics of the passengers on board. Only now, perhaps we have to revise our notions. This is, after all, the "chicken hawk" so eager to get off a good shot and prove his manhood that he shoots his companion.

It’s all almost too symbolic. The old reliable "chicken hawk" the man too busy for such mundane matters as military service‹turns out to be trigger-happy. And if that doesn't symbolize and epitomize American foreign policy since the Bush administration took office, I don't know what does. The man and all he represents is a clear and present danger to himself, to his friends, to our country, to the entire world. At the very least, Deadeye Dick should resign.

Keefe on Cheney

2006-02-16T10:04:00.000-08:00

Mike Keefe, an award winning political cartoonist with the Denver Post, explains why VP Dick Cheney was able to dodge the draft back in the 1960's. Forget that going to school business.

Congress Blames Homeland Security Dept.

2006-02-15T04:02:00.000-08:00

Photo: Rep. Shays (R-Conn.)

A U.S. District Judge ruled that FEMA could evict 12,000 families staying at hotels, all causalities of America’s worst natural disaster: hurricane Katrina. It’s another example that the US government cares little about its citizens. The feds are more concerned about waging idiotic wars in far away lands and spending billions and billions on arms and fattening the coffers of companies like Halliburton than bringing some sense of normalcy to Louisiana.

FEMA spokesman Butch Kinerney said, ”People kind of get into a routine living in these hotels, and it’s not necessarily a good routine.” So what’s FEMA’s answer: to put the families on the street. Let’s not forget that the federal government via the Homeland Security Department totally bungled the relief effort. A House Report will state exactly how badly the feds blew it.

Expect the Homeland Security chief, Michael Chertoff, to be grilled by both Republicans and Democrats alike when he testifies in Congress. Yesterday Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) was on ABC’s Good Morning America making the case that The White House was clearly in “a fog." Shays, a member of the committee that will produce a sizzling House report scheduled for released today added, "We wanted the Homeland Security Department to be an asset to help FEMA, and instead it stood and watched it fail."

Of course Chertoff will begin to cover his behind just like former FEMA director Michael Brown did last week. And Republicans always talk about accepting responsibility. Ha, ha. ha, ha!

Bush Continues to Ignore Congress

2006-02-14T07:16:00.000-08:00

The Los Angeles Times reported yesterday that the Bush Administration continues on the wrong track insofar how the US deals with prisoners in our so-called War on Terrorism (WOT). Of course I continue to mention that this conflict is a "so-called" WOT because it’s quite clear that terrorism is a tactic and not a philosophy; countries do not go to war against tactics per se.

According to the Times article a recent United Nations inquiry states that the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay very often amounts to torture and violates all sorts of international laws like the Geneva Convention where the US is a signatory.

There was a saying used during the 1960’s that captured the spirit the US should use when dealing with Third World countries and their battle with communism. The US should win their hearts and minds was the oft-used phrase. Well, how the US is currently dealing with prisoners is not the way to win the hearts and minds of the Arab and Muslim street.

The Bush Administration should heed the words of Sen. John McCain. Last year he took a strong stance against such abuses and distanced himself from such policies. Earlier in the month McCain attended the Munich Conference on Security Policy in Germany and was applauded by the audience for his stance against torture.

Of course the subject of the "unitary executive" seems to pop up again and again with the Bush Administration. After all Bush signed into law this year's Defense Appropriations Bill and it included the McCain Amendment forbidding the torture of detainees by all US personnel. Since Bush cares little about the separation of powers, he included a "signing statement" which is the official Bush Administration position pronouncing his interpretation of the new law. In this specific instance, Bush's signing statement declared that he views the new torture law to be limited by his "inherent authority" as commander-in-chief to protect the national security of America. In short, he could do want he wants, certainly not the intent of Congress.

The report, compiled by five UN envoys, interviewed former prisoners, detainees’ lawyers and family, and US officials. It strongly urges US policymakers to close Guntanamo and bring all captives to trial in the US.

Congressman Rangel On Bush

2006-02-11T05:16:00.000-08:00

Here for your consideration is a trenchant and hilarious political commentary.

Note: At first blush one may think Rep. Rangel's (D-New York) quote was made up whole cloth by a political comedy writer, but his quip was first reported in the Washington Post by journalist Al Kamen. Click Here.

Mr. Kamen wrote in WAPO:

But there was nothing inadvertent about a quip from Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.), second-most senior member of the Congressional Black Caucus. Rangel was interviewed on New York Public Television WLIW21 last Monday night and asked for his quick reaction to various people. The first was Bush.

"Well," Rangel said. "I really think that he shatters the myth of white supremacy once and for all; it shows that, in this great country, anybody can become president."

We have a winner.

The Nixon-Bush Doctrine

2006-02-10T00:14:00.000-08:00

Long time political correspondent Bruce Morton (now with CNN) warns that the all-powerful imperial presidency is here to stay unless Congress asserts itself and defends its proper role within the schema of our democratic republic. Otherwise, the executive will continue to be emboldened and continue to use powers not enumerated in the constitution and act in ways contrary to law.

Morton calls this executive usurpation of power the "Nixon-Bush" doctrine and recalls an interview Richard Nixon gave British journalist David Frost:

Frost: "So ... what ... you're saying is that there are certain situations ... where the president can decide that it's in the best interests of the nation or something, and do something illegal."
Nixon: "Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal."
Frost: " By definition."
Nixon: "Exactly, exactly. If the president, for example, approves something because of the national security ... then the president's decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out to carry it out without violating a law."

Of course the national security card can be used at will much like a wild card in poker, except, according to Nixon and Bush, it seems the president always has the wild card; a very scary concept. Because Nixon's view eschews the notion of checks and balance, he is talking more like a tyrant and not a leader of a democratic constitutional republic who swore an oath to uphold our Constitution.

The notion also becomes more daunting because Morton correctly notes that terrorism is not a philosophy per se but a tactic used by opponents who do not have the wherewithal to fight conventional type conflicts. So the "War Against Terror" becomes an eternal battle. If Congress does not assert itself, then the imperial presidency, dare I say the "unitary" executive, is here to stay.

No wonder Republicans who are serious about their oath to defend the Constitution (Sen. Arlen Specter and Sen. Lindsay Graham) were vocal in their objections to the "Nixon-Bush" doctrine as articulated by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales earlier in the week. But because they are Republicans and realize their Republican teammates are heading into a very tough election year, their objections were rather mild.

What puzzles me is how many conservatives are defending Bush and his actions. It's ironic because anyone who even thinks about regulating the spread of guns in American society is hit, and hit hard, by the Second Amendment argument. Gun-loving conservatives seem enamored with "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." It's a shame conservative folk do not respect the Fourth Amendment as much as they do the Second Amendment.

For additional information read CNN reporter Bruce Morton.

Richie Ross, Political Consultant Extraordinaire

2006-02-09T08:19:00.000-08:00

There is a great background article in the Capitol Weekly about famed Sacramento political consultant Richie Ross who long ago worked as Assembly Speaker Willie Brown's chief-of-staff, to be sure, an incredible top post. He was there when California lawmakers saw maestro Speaker Brown at work. Under Brown's tutelage Ross became one of Sacramento's most influential Democratic insiders in recent years.

He's also a powerful lobbyist which has brought Ross some recent controversy and conflict of interest charges by his foes and his clients opponents. Of course controversy is always found in the world of politics and it should come as no surprise. Hello!

Ross was inspired by the tumult of the 1960's to get involved in politics, always keeping in mind social justice. He was a seminary student in Maryland when he first heard about the struggle of Cesar Chavez and his farm workers movement in California. Ross decided to join the struggle as an organizer and made the trek to arid Central California. After working long hours with Chavez and the United Farm Workers (UFW), and making great gains, Ross entered the hurly-burly world of elective politics.

The article discusses some of the inner workings in Sacramento and is a must read if Sacramento politics interests you.

Of course to get the full flavor I recommend you GOOGLE Richie Ross.

Read here about political consultant Richie Ross.

James Madison, the Constitution and Tyranny

2006-02-08T05:46:00.000-08:00

When the machiavellian pols at the White House found out that some brave soul with a conscience in the Bush Administration had contacted the New York Times to blow the whistle on the clearly illegal wiretaps the NSA had been conducting for a couple of years they went to work overtime. Via a request from the NSA the Department of Justice began an investigation into the leak. How paradoxical. The Bush Administration is going after the person/s who courageously warned Americans that something has gone awry in the executive leadership of this country.

Needless to say right wing-nut Republicans came to the defense of the law-breaking Bush and the actions of the NSA. The following was recently posted in a popular progressive Blog (as an example of idiotic thought):

Liberals continue to put our safety in jeopardy for purely partisan political reasons. Most liberals are so politically desperate that they cannot be trusted to keep secrets. The revelation of this program, unlike the Plaime crapola, has resulted in "severe harm" to our security and we have yet to hear the liberal outcry. It will take another 9/11 event in the homeland to put an end to the harmful liberal hackery. God save us all from liberal treachery.

The treachery I see is coming from the Bush White House. Leaving aside the rest of the reactionary nonsensical dribble, it comes down to what Senator Leahy said to Attorney Alberto Gonzales on Monday, "Nobody is above the law, not even the President of the United States." Sen. Leahy could have also added to the quote: "Not even in time of war." If one believes the president is above the law, at any time, then we’re sliding towards the destruction of our republican democracy (read: three separate co-equal governmental branches).

Remember that James Madison, known as the Father of our Constitution, once warned in Federalist No. 47 that the accumulation of power, unfettered power, in any of the three branches of our government was the definition of "tyranny."

In James Madison’s own words:

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

It was James Madison, in fact, that helped frame the Bill of Rights, including the Fourth Amendment. There is little doubt that the framers of our Constitution went to great lengths to secure for its citizens the arbitrary use of power from the government, even in time of war (Amendment III). Madison was a strong proponent of the Bill of Rights because he wanted to protect civil liberties that the federal government could easily curtail.

How ironic that hard-line Republicans always champion Constitutional originalism or strict constructionism and how the judiciary should use either as guiding principles. It seems they only argue that point when politically it best suits the Republicans, and only then. In this instance, it seems defenders of the Bush Administration adhere to a conceptual framework known as the "living Constitution," that is, interpreting the Constitution to the needs of the society rather than a fixed maybe outdated meaning. So, neo-conservatives and reactionary Republicans embrace the "unitary presidency," especially in time of war; screw FISA, warrants, and the intent of the legislature.

Instead of posting a painting of Founding Father James Madison, should I have posted an upside down flag of the United States, an international signal of distress? Maybe I should have because our American Republic, our Constitution, and the venerable separation-of-powers doctrine we cherish are in a state of crisis and the sooner we Americans come to realize that, the better.

Clash of Titans: Executive v. Congressional Powers

2006-02-07T02:38:00.000-08:00

The "Wartime Executive Power and the NSA’s Surveillance Authority" hearings by the Senate Legislative Committee headed by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) yesterday were nothing short of contentious. The issue as revealed by the New York Times last year involves President Bush authorizing the NSA to perform thousands of wiretaps without Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court authorization, as required by law. Bush believes that his actions were legal because Article II of the Constitution gives him broad "commander-in-chief" powers, especially in time of war.

The hearing began with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales making a strange argument when he used both President Wilson and President Franklin Delano Roosevelt as examples of broad executive power used during time of war. Both presidents used what today would be considered extralegal methods to surveil Americans during World War I and II. Of course Gonzales did not have to go back that far back in time, he could have used President Richard Nixon as a more recent example, or former FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover who wiretapped Americans, presidential hopefuls and their girlfriends at will.

However, Gonzales did not mention the fact that FISA enacted in 1978 did not apply in any of the instances that he mentioned. In fact, FISA was written in response to the abuses of the Nixon Administration a few years earlier. Prior to 1978 Congress had not flexed its legislative muscle; it did with FISA.

The Supreme Court can resolve this clash between the executive and legislative branches, and the sooner the better. And, the Supreme Court itself (if this issue gets to them at all) will more likely look toward the reasoning of Justice Robert H. Jackson in his concurrence in the landmark Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer (1952) to determine if Bush has acted constitutionally. In Youngstown, the Court (6-3) held that President Truman had acted unconstitutionally when he seized private property because the president did not unilaterally have the inherent authority to do so without Congressional approval, even during a time when national security was at stake.

Justice Jackson, in his concurrence in Youngstown, divided presidential power into three quite specific categories. Presidential authority is the strongest in cases where the executive acts with the express or implied authority given by Congress. In cases where Congress has been silent, what Justice Jackson called the "zone of twilight," the power of the president is at best uncertain. The president’s power is the weakest, however, in cases where the executive branch defies laws passed by Congress.

I believe the constitutional issues when it comes to the NSA using domestic wiretaps on its citizens without going to the FISA Court are quite obvious. Does the executive branch have the authority to order such wiretaps without due process as stated in FISA? Justice Jackson’s third category in Youngstown—-that is, presidential power is weak in these cases because Congress has acted and passed a law-—is apparent in the current NSA domestic surveillance cases.

According to FISA, in order to spy on American citizens, the executive needs probable cause before the requisite warrants are issued. When President Bush allowed the NSA to use wiretaps without going through the FISA Court he acted contrary to a law mandated by Congress. Again, the Bush Administration believes they have the authority to by-pass FISA because the president is acting under the "war powers" articulated in Article Two of the Constitution and, as such, FISA does not apply. The Bush Administration believes when acting as the commander-in chief in time of war they have broad implied executive powers and Congress cannot interfere, even via statute.

Let’s note what Justice Jackson wrote in Youngstown:

When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb, for then he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter. ...Presidential claim to a power at once so conclusive and preclusive must be scrutinized with caution, for what is at stake is the equilibrium established by our constitutional system.

The difficulty now lies with how civil libertarians can get the Court to review the actions of the Bush Administration since the Supremes are the only ones who can make a definitive ruling on the matter at hand. It’s impossible for individual Senators or members of the House to bring the case before the Courts because individual lawmakers lack standing (unless they were wiretapped without a Court order). Our hopes lies with the ACLU and that their case against the NSA will bear some judicial fruit.

To read the ACLU Fact Sheet: Legal Claims in ACLU v. National Security Agency, please Click Here.

To read the myths of the NSA spying brouhaha, please Click Here.

Power Corrupts

2006-02-06T01:28:00.000-08:00

Guest Blogger: Larry Caballero, La Palma, Calif.

As an American, I am saddened by the culture of corruption in Washington DC, and it's disgusting that any politician is capable of abusing their office. I'm sure no one gets elected so he or she can be corrupt; it's just something that happens over time, but it still happens.

Campaign finance reform can help to stop some of this, but there is still too much money in campaigns. There are too many lobbyists who are willing to spend too much money on officials in order to influence their votes. And pork barrel projects are the name of the game in Washington since it helps politicians get elected back home, and to get elected, it takes money, lots of it.

Of course, when was the last time you gave any money to a politician to help with campaign expenditures?

That's the problem. Most voters are so turned off with politicians that they don't want to donate to them, so politicians have to depend on lobbyists and special interests to finance their campaigns. Wealthy candidates who are willing to fund their own political races are less dependent on these groups, but they are not immune.

So what is the answer? Perhaps the public media can provide free time for the candidates. Otherwise, they’ll need to raise millions of dollars to pay for TV ads. Limiting the amount of money a candidate can raise, and by whom, can help, but there are too many loopholes in the system.

Several groups and organizations have Political Action Committee (PAC) money, which they can use to support their candidates. This makes it too easy to abuse the system, and corruption follows soon.

In Sacramento much of the same problem exists. We will be having a primary in June for several statewide and local offices, and it's amazing the millions of dollars spent for an office that pays something over $100,000 a year. For the governor's race alone, each candidate will spend close to 40 million dollars.

Enough is enough. The voters need to be more involved in the political process and make it clear to our elected officials and candidates that we want them to represent all of the people, and not only those who contribute to their campaigns.

The reason for term limits was to ensure that no politician stays in office too long, but inevitably the best kind of term limits is the ballot box on Election Day. If a candidate is not being fair with the people who he or she represents, then that candidate needs to be removed from office.

Maybe it's time for a change in Sacramento in November. It's obvious to me and most Californians that Arnold the Governator has let us down over and over again. After his election he attacked for no good reason the very people who put him in office—the nurses, teachers, policemen, and firemen—then he wasted our tax dollars on a needless early election. Now he wants us to believe that he cares about the people of California by proposing a budget that is irresponsible.

It's a budget that will only lead to a larger deficit and I though the Republican Party was the party of fiscal responsibility. What happened under Arnold's reign? Is it possible that he too has become corrupt? Here’s a man who once said he was so rich he would not take money from the special interests then turned around to take more money than even Gray Davis took after serving five years!

It’s time for the people to demand that our elected officials and candidates promise to do what is right, or they should plan to be out of a job at election time.

The Republican Moderates and the Constitution

2006-02-05T10:24:00.000-08:00

I told my good political friend last year that the best hopes of Democrats in Washington lie with the Republican moderates, especially in the Senate. I still believe that, more or less.

Tomorrow, Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania), chair of the Judiciary Committee will begin a hearing on the “Wartime Executive Power and the NSA’s Surveillance Authority.” The main witness on Monday will be U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. The hearing is scheduled for 9:30am EST.

The problem: According to the latest polling, 51% of Americans support the illegal wiretaps as a part of the so-called “War on Terror,” and I do not find that outlook surprising. After all the flag is waving very high these days and the Administration keeps reminding Americans of that: It’s code Orange people.

According to Kermit L. Hall, a constitutional law scholar and legal historian, Americans have always revealed a paradox towards civil liberties and civil rights. According to Hall surveys have historically shown that when Americans are offered the choice between quite specific libertarian and anti-libertarian choices they tend to select the more “pro government intrusive” options. So as it’s playing out right now, by a narrow margin, Americans agree that it does not matter what civil rights are violated as long as we get those “bastards.” After all if the ones whose constitutional rights have been violated are innocent what are they afraid of? Screw the Bill of Rights, is the mentality of many Americans; it’s war.

Let’s hope moderate Republicans take a stand on this issue for the sake of our Republic as envisioned by the Founding Fathers; the Fourth Amendment is quite clear.

Update: To read (PDF) the AP/Ipsos Poll Click Here.

Bush’s Armageddon Option in Iran

2006-02-03T22:18:00.000-08:00

My friends, we’re headin’
To true Armageddon
Unless we can stop
Planting the crop
Of unrelenting fear
In the land we hold dear
To build up the case
For saving our face
While losing our can
And nuking Iran

Last weekend held a watershed moment for me as I participated in the Executive Board meeting for the California Democratic Party. I listened, truly listened, to a deeply conservative activist Republican who held forth at a small luncheon on Saturday. Scott Ritter, the Weapons of Mass Destruction inspector who made headlines prior to our invasion of Iraq has not re-registered as a Democrat. Far from it and despite the character assassination by Administration Republicans, Scott still holds to the ideals of the GOP because he believes that his party is on the wrong path and that it needs to return to its true path to the future. We Democrats have a model here for ourselves, because Scott’s enthusiasm and endurance shined through despite his treatment by the right wing.

Scott’s message, however, was not about his personal damage, but about the horrific pattern that has already begun to pre-justify a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the latest Enemy-du-Jour, Iran. Let me repeat that. The Bush administration is already greasing the skids to justify the unthinkable unleashing of nuclear weapons on Iran. Just as we vilified Iraq and its tyrant before our pre-emptive invasion, we are beginning to ratchet up the rhetoric to vilify Iran and its tyrant leader. A quick look at the Sunday Register Op-Ed section supported Scott. The right wing press is already beginning to color Iranians as the nuclear enemy. This time, however, and because we have handled the occupation in Iraq so badly, we do not have the ground forces to send troops in. Our allies are beginning to withdraw forces, so we can’t use surrogates to do our bidding. The all too obvious answer is that we have to resort to the Armageddon Option.

The name is not coincidental. It is borne in the mystic Revelations clutched as literal truth by the religious right. What is frightening is that these true believers are in bed with the NEOCONs who can make it happen. In addition, we have a Bush recess appointment to the UN in the name of John Bolton who is a charter NEOCON that signed the infamous 1998 letter demanding that Clinton invade Iraq. NEOCONs and the far right fringe see no inconsistency in actually initiating the END TIME instead of waiting for it to happen. All the talk about Israel and her religious enemies fan the flames. The dim-witted public statements by Iranian leaders provide ample fuel and the pattern builds. If you cannot see the pattern, you should smell it. It is corrupt and evil beyond description and it is gaining momentum. It is already following the model for invading Iraq except that this time Colin Powell won’t have to lie at the UN. We will have John Bolton who will present believable, if spurious, evidence and demand immediate action by the UN.

The UN, as before, will question the validity of the evidence. We will rush the process and demand action. Soon after demanding action, we will announce that “no options are off the table.” All this by the gang that cannot shoot straight, literally as well as figuratively. The Bush Administration with several days warning could not save lives or property in New Orleans and then lied about not having warning. Bush himself has recently misled Americans very directly by sneering, in his condescending way, that “Of course, we have to have court orders to wiretap,” and then NOT getting court orders available under FISA and conducting surveillance on Americans through the NSA in violation of their personal oaths not to do so. Then, having not been straight shooters with us in the build-up, they marched lock-step behind Military-Lite, Planning-Lite, Outsourcing Heavy and Torture Moderate Donald (everything is Ducky) Rumsfeld.

Other signs of Bush END TIME: the Administration and the literal press whores like Jeff Gannon (J.D. Guckert who had virtually unlimited access to the White House despite his male prostitute on-line credentials) and the quid quo pro whores like FOX who trade tip-offs for defending the indefensible will support Bush and attack Iran and any individual with the courage to demand the truth. Look for the attacks on Democrats and moderate Republicans to be both vicious and personal. Lies will be institutionalized by their quick repetition in the far right media followed by the unquestioning sheep of the rest of the network, cable and printed media. This is a done deal that can only be averted by concerted action to elect moderates in November.

Just imagine, boys and girls, Secretary of State Condi Rice may get her wish for a mushroom cloud even if she has to do it herself. Also imagine just how impossible it will be to put her genie (Jinn) back in the bottle once we have unleashed the immense and senseless slaughter of nuclear weapons. Clearly, we do not understand that, just as in parenting, our example is far more eloquent than our words. If we use pre-emptive strikes with nukes, who is to stop anybody else from following our lead? Bush is much like the parent who beats the crap out of his kids while screaming at them not to be violent. He is already setting up the “legal” interpretation that the (unitary) president needs no further authority. He already has it. Congress is irrelevant. May the Lord have mercy on us all and, please Lord, let me be wrong.

SOTU and Groundhog Day

2006-02-02T18:48:00.000-08:00

Guest Blogger: Eileen Becker Salmas, Southern California

This year, both Groundhog Day and the State of the Union Address fall on the same day.

As Air America Radio pointed out, "It is an ironic juxtaposition: one involves a meaningless ritual in which we look to a creature of little intelligence for prognostication, and the other involves a groundhog."

SOTU and the Straw Men in the Room

2006-02-02T02:14:00.000-08:00

To begin with, the most important event in the state of the union extravaganza last night took place before the speech. Activist Cindy Sheehan was invited to sit in the gallery by Representative Lynn Woolsey. But though Sheehan, like the President's showcase family, has lost a son in Iraq, she wore a T-shirt that announced her opposition to the war. So she was arrested and removed from the hall before the president arrived.

More than any speech, this tells us the real state of the union: wearing an anti-war T-shirt in the presence of the "leader" brands one a security risk.

Aside from that, the speech was a desperate attempt on the part of this president to revitalize his floundering presidency. He therefore harped on the war on terror for most of the speech, trying to change the rationale once again for the war in Iraq. All else having failed, he is calling it the war for "freedom." While Americans have shown conclusively that they now think the war was a mistake, the president tries once again to evolve a winning position: "No one can deny the success of freedom."

Ah yes. Freedom. Our legacy to the world. The only problem being that freedom in the hands of this president consists of death and destruction: death and destruction for countless thousands of Iraqis, and thousands of American troops, and any other nation the Administration decides it has to "pre-empt."

But the President insisted he was confident, "We're in this fight to win and we're winning."

If only it weren't for those damned "isolationists." But wait. Wasn't it this president who ran on the platform of staying out of the affairs of other nations, of rejecting "nation-building"? Now, suddenly, he is trying to sound like Franklin Roosevelt in the years before World War II.

It won't wash. His whole argument, his whole speech, consisted of nothing but straw-man arguments. Who in the opposition has proposed withdrawing from the world? Who has made an isolationist argument, either militarily or economically? No one. Isolationism is a straw man--an argument attributed to one's opposition, and then easily attacked. The same is true of "defeatism," and "protectionism" and those the president says counsel economic "retreat." All straw men. All designed to evoke the specter of the 9/11 attacks, inspire fear, and rally the macho response: let's kill those terrible terrorists, including all those who look like them, act like them, talk like them, live near them, and may be related to them in any way. Or converse with them on the phone. Or by email. All of which is legal, never mind the laws preventing it, because the President says so.

All the nonsense aside, the President did reveal one thing in his speech: he lacks real policies. Aside from the so-called war on terror, his only policy is tax cuts. And as all Americans should know by now, tax cuts are George Bush's way of providing social security for him and his wealthy cronies. Billions in welfare for the rich, but cutbacks in all programs for those in need. That is his program. And it was on full display last night.

The only question is how long will it take the American people to wake up to the theft of their birthright that is taking place.

SOTU: Patriotism and Platitudes

2006-02-01T01:59:00.000-08:00

The State of the Union (SOTU) address is a speech, mandated by the US Constitution to Congress, and as such, to the people of the United States collectively. Instead what we received was a speech targeted to his right wing political base.

The SOTU address was just as I expected: lots of bluster about American foreign policy in Iraq and terrorism. This is about the only time the Democratic lawmakers rose to their feet and applauded; they are politicians after all and in the end it’s much about posturing, and I can’t blame them as Democrats should never be seen as weak on American security. (Yes, we Democrats support our troops in Iraq, but not the foolish US-Iraq War, which will get many of our soldiers killed for no good national security reason.)

As Samuel Johnson in 1775 once said, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel," and the Bush Administration took that road long ago. Democrats are along for the ride at this point. Yes, America should implement a muscular plan to protect America but how the Bushies go about it time and time again is to appeal to our fears, our super charged patriotism, and extra-legal methods like wiretapping Americans without a court order. "If you are not with us, you are against us," is Bush’s mantra.

And I can’t believe Bush continues to defend, in the SOTU, the clearly illegal wiretapping of Americans without a Court order; talk about chutzpah.

On the domestic side Bush’s comments were a litany of initiatives that will probably get nowhere and, as such, seem like platitudes. As it was often joked during the 2000 presidential election, "That Dubya from Texas, he’s all hat and no cattle."

Yet, the SOTU truly is not important. As Charlie Cook, a Republican analyst of congressional and national elections (and writes the non-partisan "Charlie Cook Political Report," and is fair and reasonable) said on PBS Tuesday evening:

The State of the Union speeches are not memorable and are not important. State of the Union speeches do not make a difference, they never make a difference. The average person may have watched the first 10 minutes, but they don’t stick around.

Finally, Bush forgot to mention, other than a few sentences, the plight of the citizens in New Orleans, the State of Louisiana, and the future of the victims of Hurricane Katrina. How terrible, as I know they must have been listening very closely.

I agree with Congressman Rahm Emanuel (D-Illinois) who after the SOTU speech said, "If you liked the last 5 years, he’ll give you 3 more years of that."

Oh no!

UPDATE: My apologies to Mr. Cook. He informs me that he has been registered as an independent fo18 years.

Democrats Unable to "Hold the Line" in the Senate

2006-01-31T01:04:00.000-08:00

The cloture vote yesterday to prevent the filibuster of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito resulted in a Mexican standoff in the Senate. The ultime goal, of course, was to block his nomination. The combatants were the progressive Democrats, "movement Republicans," and the moderates from both parties. Instead of a stalemate, the gutless moderate Democrats blinked first and gave the reactionary Republicans bragging rights and the Supreme Court another member in good standing of the ultra-conservative Federalist Society.

Moreover, the moderate Democrats will give Bush a huge win the day he delivers the State of the Union address. Because many of these Senate mods are from red states they appear to care more about their political careers than the values of both the national Democratic Party and the Democratic citizens that elected them.

The Democrats were only able to secure 25 of the 41 needed votes in order to pull off the filibuster parliamentary procedure. In fact, many Democrats voted to end the filibuster even though they will vote against Alito today. The fictional General Maximus, in the film Gladiator, screamed to his troops in the thick of the Germania campaign, "Hold the line," however, it's apparent Democrats were not ready to do battle, not when it counts.

To be sure, "movement conservatives" were definitely able to hold the line and were ready for combat when Bush nominated Harriet Myers a few months ago. They are not timid about using every political arsenal available to them, including intimidating George W. Bush. Another good example of aggressive Republicans is how Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) was able to pull off his redistricting scam in Texas and, consequently, was able to gain a few more Republican seats in the Lone Star State. He was merciless in his approach and it was unprecedented.

Yes, it's true that the filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee has never been used against a nominee supported by a Senate majority and some argue that the filibuster of Alito would set a dangerous precedent. So what? These days are difficult political times, and, as in the redistricting plan in Texas, Republicans are setting new precedents all the time. Another good example of setting inventive precedents is how Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist campaigned against then Democratic Minority Leader Tom Daschle in South Dakota in 2004, an unheard of move in a Senate long known for its collegiality and folkways.

Steve Clemmons with the New America Foundation notes about the Democratic Alito confirmation strategy in general:

No one "owned" this battle in the progressive community, and those who rallied troops at the end were encouraged by the cynical electioneering stances of John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and others. I believe Ted Kennedy's opposition was real, as was Pat Leahy's -- but the machine against Alito should have been launched day one.

The reason I fear Samuel Alito's confirmation is not the abortion issue (read Susan Estrich analysis in the Mercury News). Like Clemmons I fear Alito because the egregious abuses from the executive branch witnessed during the Nixon years should be behind us, but with Bush in The White House, and Alito in the Court, I fear we may be revisiting history due to the potential widening of executive power. Many judicial analysts have made the case that Alito very often backs executive power and the "unitary executive" theory will soon be tested in the Supreme Court.

Clemons adds:

Alito will contribute to a vast expansion of Executive Power, and this will seriously harm our democracy...Dems will rue the day that they let Alito pass; so will moderate Republicans; and so will independent-minded Americans who value our system of checks and balances. I think that there have been some real heroes doing their best against Alito -- but the Democratic establishment is still inchoate and without the backbone to fight consistently against the White House.

Democrats should not be timid in using every legal and ethical option available to them. Hard line Republicans certainly are not afraid; witness the Harriet Meyers nomination. Republican operatives forced Bush to pull the nomination and placed in her stead a far right wing, more than likely, "movement conservative." Why should Democrats not use the established parliamentary procedure in the Senate known as the filibuster? To refuse to do so is foolish because time and time again Republicans have taken a "no prisoners" strategy towards the Democrats and others who they disagree with; ask Republican Harriet Meyers. As Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nevada) said, "[Meyers was] a good woman treated so poorly, and the people who destroyed her are being rewarded by the Alito nomination."

I say, shame, shame, shame on the Democratic Senators, who have not learned to hold the line and fight. That's why they were elected to the office in the first place: to fight for the values of the people who elected them to office.

To read Susan Estrich's op-ed piece about Alito and the abortion issue Click Here.

To read the New York Times article that reviews how the Republicans have learned to fight Click Here.

State of the Union: Should Democratic Lawmakers Walk Out on Bush?

2006-01-30T03:57:00.000-08:00

Recently a few well known Democratic political activists have been making the case that Democratic lawmakers in Congress should walk out when President Bush enters the Capitol House chamber to give his State of the Union address on Tuesday. As readers of the Splinters Team Blog know, I'm a rabid Democratic partisan and activist. To be sure, we are in a metaphorical war with our antagonists the Republican "movement conservatives," but I disagree with this far-fetched suggestion.

This is the argument espoused recently by William Rivers Pitt:

I have a wild and crazy idea. George W. Bush's delivery of the State of the Union address will take place on Tuesday, January 31, a little more than a week from now. It is my strong belief that every single Democrat present in the House chamber for the speech should, at a predetermined moment, stand up and walk out. No yelling. No heated words. Every Democrat should simply stand silently and leave.

Americans of all political stripes—Democrats, Republican, Greens, independents, and others—should respect the Office of the Presidency, although not necessarily the person holding that office. Moreover, in the Constitution of the Unites States, it does quite unequivocally state that the president shall "from time to time give Congress Information of the State of the Union." So, it is the duty of Democratic lawmakers to participate in a function mandated in the Constitution.

Also, the move would probably backfire as Republican operatives, acting as spinmeisters after the speech, would claim that Democrats have no respect for the presidential office, and make moderate Republicans and independents who have turned on Bush (hence his low popularity ratings) go back into the anyone but a Democrat tent. There is certain amount of decorum that Americans should follow no matter who holds the executive office. Showing up during the address is that certain amount of decorum. In short, the gesture will be seen as a "cheap political stunt."

Besides how can we get "every single Democrat" to walk out. I'm not even sure we can carry out an Alito filibuster in the Senate right now. Democrats, even more than Republicans, tend be "political entrepreneurs" rather than hard-core party loyalists. This is true because in America we have a weak party system unlike, let's say, in Britain where the political Parties help their candidates every step of the way in getting elected. In America, it’s often catch-as-catch-can.

However, having said that, I do think Democratic lawmakers should dramatically curtail and limit much of the standing, cheering, and applause that always follow after certain comments are made by presidents during their address. And, if Bush says something idiotic (one never knows), like defending in his address the clearly illegal wiretappings done by the National Security Agency as legal because Congress gave him the necessary authority force to protect the American people, this Democrat would not mind Democratic lawmakers yelling in unison, much like they do in Britain’s parliament, "Shame, shame, shame."

Where we Democrats will get the law-breaking Bush is in the Courts (the ACLU has filed a law suit over the clearly illegal wiretappings) and in Congressional hearings. In fact, Sen. Arlen Specter (R- Pennsylvania), the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has convened for a February 6th hearing; thank God for the Republican moderates who follow their conscience and follow the law and are not beholding to a radical national political party—Sen. Specter is clearly not a "movement conservative."

That's where we'll get Bush and just in time because, as the leader of his party, it will certainly hurt Republican lawmakers running for office in the mid-term elections coming up in November. I bet my lunch money that many Republicans will distance themselves from Bush in the upcoming elections and, as such, it becomes problematic for Bush to advance his political agenda. I say Bush is a lame duck president with three years to go.

Yes, I’m looking forward to tuning in on Tuesday and see how many lies and obfuscations Bush will deliver. The speech will be great fodder for progressive bloggers like the Splinters Team Blog.

Let’s get him, progressives.

For information about the ACLU suit click here.

For information about the additional clients in the NSA SPY-PROGRAM ACLU suit click here.

Lying Weasels

2006-01-29T00:50:00.000-08:00

I know I said my next post was slated for Monday, but, I could not help myself after hearing a "load of bull" from the lying mouth of press secretary Scott McClellan.

The issue: Sen. John Kerry calling for a Senatorial filibuster regarding the Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination.

Background: Where was Senator Kerry when he made his statement to the press? According to the Los Angeles Times, Kerry was at the World Economic Forum, along with many Republican Senators, at Davos, Switzerland.

So what did that lying Bush weasel McClellan flack say to the press about Senator's Kerry's statement?

This was the first time ever that a senator has called for a filibuster from the slopes of Davos, Switzerland. I think even for a senator, it takes some pretty serious yodeling to call for a filibuster from a five-star ski resort in the Swiss Alps.

When I first heard the story on CNN the reporters never bothered to inform the viewers why Senator Kerry was in Switzerland. After all CNN should air the story with some kind of coherent context.

I just don't know how the media, by and large, believes anything that comes out of Bush spin machine operatives like McClellan. Yet, the press buys off the mendacity fed by the Bushies time and time again. Journalists, print and broadcast, should do a little fact finding before they report anything said by the White House lackeys found in the Bush Administration.

Conclusion: Not only is CNN's coverage poor journalism, but, again, I ask, as I always do: What liberal freakin' media? Amazing!

Note: Comparing Bush's rascals to the energetic weasel is truly unfair to the "weasel" Musteliade family.

We Recommend a Blog

2006-01-27T00:51:00.000-08:00

Team Splinters will be taking the week-end off. I'll be back on Monday with a piece about the upcoming State of the Union address.

In the mean time Team Splinters member Lawrence DiStasi recommends Seth Abramson, a fellow blogger. Seth Abramson has been covering the completely illegal wiretappings with gusto.

We refer you here: Seth Abramson.

This is especially a good piece: read here.

In Unity.

Joe Bageant, essayist

2006-01-26T21:07:00.000-08:00

Guest Blogger: Diane Altadena, Southern Calif.

This is an amazing piece, worth every second of reading. It's refreshing and heartbreaking at the same time to identify so much of Bageant's description of modern American culture and its decline. I especially agree with Bageant's take on consumerism and the loss of creative thinking in our children (and adults)... most of the images in their heads are placed there...for them. We throw the concept of "freedom" around so loosely, but one wonders if we really know what it means anymore.

See: The Simulacran Republic.

Also, I include a website to read an interview with Joe Bageant... an old hippie, to be sure, but a cogent, wise philosopher, at best.

See: Interview with Joe Bageant (2004).

Trashing the Constitution

2006-01-25T00:15:00.000-08:00

The President and his men have rolled out their big guns in a desperate attempt to convince the American people that their wiretapping of Americans was lawful. As part of that attempt, General Michael Hayden, the former head of the National Security Agency (NSA) which did the spying, held a press conference on Monday, January 23, in which he revealed the core issue in this lurid chapter of presidential arrogance.

First, he repeatedly asserted that the NSA program targeted communications "that we have reason to believe are Al-Qaeda communications" or "someone we believe is associated with Al-Qaeda" or something that "we have a reasonable basis to believe involved Al-Qaeda or one of its affiliates." A Knight-Ridder reporter honed in on these statements with a question relating to the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution. He asked if the NSA didn’t have to have "probable cause" to justify such wiretapping, to determine who, in fact, should be wiretapped.

Here is where General Hayden revealed the true core of the government’s liability and ignorance. He said that there was no requirement in the 4th Amendment to conform to "probable cause" but only that the search had to be "reasonable." It could not constitute an "unreasonable search and seizure," he said. The reporter persisted about probable cause and again General Hayden insisted that the only requirement in the Constitution was the government's "reasonable belief" that the communication involved Al-Qaeda.

Here, unknowingly, the then head of NSA provided the real smoking guns regarding the government's motives. The first is ignorance. We have the highest ranking officer in the National Security Agency, someone who had, throughout his remarks, assured his audience that the NSA officers making decisions about whom to spy on were "experts and lawyers who know the law better than anyone" and he is ignorant of the most fundamental legal constraint in the Constitution! That provision is contained in the 4th Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

And it guarantees that no American’s person or property can be violated, cannot be searched or seized, except for probable cause. That is, before a judge will give a warrant legal authority to police officers to search an American’s person or property, that judge must be given probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed. This amendment was written and adopted to prevent dictators or kings or secret police from simply entering a person's premises because they "think" or "believe" or "say" that the person is guilty of something. They must be able to convince a judge that "probable cause" of a crime exists before they can search and/or arrest that person.

With his breathtaking remark, General Hayden not only displayed his ignorance of the Constitution, he also displayed the ignorance and, equally, the arrogance of the Bush administration, which clearly believes that the President and the entire Executive Branch need only conform to part of the 4th Amendment. It need only assert to itself that a search is "reasonable," or that it has a "reasonable belief" that an American is somehow related to terrorism, to justify its searches, in this case its spying on his communications.

It does not have to supply "probable cause" to convince a judge, in this case a judge of the FISA Court, that its proposed spying is reasonable or necessary. It does not have to convince anyone of anything. It simply has to assert its "reasonable belief" that someone is somehow connected to terrorism (it does not have to say how) in order to spy on any American.

This is the definition of a king, of a tyrant, of a dictator. The dictator simply says: "I know what is right. I know what the country needs to be safe. I know whom to suspect and whom to arrest and whom to torture and whom to keep jailed for as long as I determine it is necessary. And no one, not the Congress, not the Courts, not the people, not anyone can challenge my judgment."

America’s founding fathers so often publicly venerated by this administration and its apologists wrote a Constitution expressly to prevent such a dictator (in this case the King of England) from ever again oppressing a people with actions based on his orders alone.

The 4th Amendment is a bedrock of that Constitution, a bedrock of the system of "laws not men" that they devised. This administration must not be allowed to get away with the trashing of that system of laws, for if they do, we shall be once again at the mercy of a tyrannical government ruled by men and not laws, men both ignorant and contemptuous of that founding document which the President in private has called "a goddam piece of paper."

Osama, Bush and the Thrust for Power

2006-01-24T00:52:00.001-08:00

Part Two of Two

Guest Blogger: Dave Amos, Arcadia, Calif.

Why did Bush invade? Get familiar with the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a neo-con think tank based in Washington DC, and it all comes together. One of the sub silentio aims of PNAC is to dominate the world oil market by gaining political control of the Middle East.

The purpose of the Iraq War, in my view, is as follows:

(1) Maintain American ability to remain the world’s #1 economic and military power (the two are co-dependent), and

(2) Allow Western Oil Interests (especially American oil interests) to become the dominant economic force in the world and thus further enrich the establishment even further.

But beyond this quasi-ideological reason for invading, there was another reason: to promote the idea that Bush’s war on terrorism was a real “shooting” war, and that thus, Bush is a “War President.” This is important, for this provides the pretext for Bush to expand the powers of the executive branch of our government and to offset the built-in system of checks and balances provided in our Constitution. Thus, we see the promotion of the odiferous concept of the “unitary executive” president.

Get this straight, folks, Bush invaded for reasons of American domestic eco/politics, and not because of his fancied “war on terror.”

But Bush was able to sell the American people (but not most of the rest of the world) on the Iraq War was part of the war on terror. The American people are slowly becoming aware that Bush’s war on terror is built on a house of cards comprised of a fabric of lies.

As readers of history are well aware, it is a standard ploy, used over and over again by political and/or military leaders who strive for more and more power, to get what they want on the domestic scene by scaring the wits out of their citizens by promoting the idea of an outside threat to the very existence of their country.

Sometimes the threat is made up of whole cloth, sometimes the threat is greatly exaggerated, and sometimes the threat is very real. Mostly, however, the threat is greatly exaggerated, and so it has been with the threat of terror. Was 9-11 horrible? Yes. Is Osama bin Laden a danger to the citizenry of the United States (and other nations)? Yes. Is Osama bin Laden and his ilk a danger to the very existence of the United States? Not even close.

Did Iraq under Saddam do horrible things, such as his invasion of Kuwait? Yes, of course. However, the Gulf War and the international sanctions that followed made Saddam/Iraq become a small threat to anyone outside the borders of Iraq.

Was the threat of in 2002 a danger to the US citizenry? No.

Was the threat of in 2002 a danger to the very existence of the US? No.

Was Iraq a logical place to massively undertake a war on terrorism? By no means.

Did Bush and his cohorts (including the willing media) promote the idea that Osama bin Laden is a threat the citizens of the USA very existence of America? Yes.

Did the Bush Administration promote the idea that Saddam/Iraq posed a threat to the citizens of the USA? Yes.

Did Bush and his cohorts promote the idea that Saddam/Iraq posed a threat to the very existence of world peace? Yes.

Does the Bush Administration still promote such ideas, even after they have been proven to have, in my view, bankrupt policies? Yes.

Has the invasion of Iraq proven to be a terrible mistake? Yes, although an alarming number of American people do not understand the ramifications of this terrible mistake. That is, Americans, trust an American president, who has demonstrated an ability to kill, on a large scale, to achieve his goals and still believe that we had to eliminate Saddam because he was a nasty man.

But Osama has never been captured. He remains the symbol of terrorism, a symbol so invaluable to George W. Bush and his Administration.

George W. Bush is not about fighting terrorism. George W. Bush is not about protecting America. George W. Bush is about George W. Bush, who’s goal, while president, is to be in a position to use (and abuse) absolute power.

What domestically has happened due to the concentration of the Bush Administration's desire for more and more power, and the GOP’s concentration of absolute legislative power? The answer: A culture of corruption, built on the notion that the "ends justify the means."

This year may be our last chance to meaningfully begin to change, that is, to take the steps necessary to return to the workable notion that in the United States, power must be shared to be effective as our Founding Fathers envisioned.

Or has the Rubicon already been crossed?

Tune in next November.

A Political Drawing

2006-01-23T05:00:00.000-08:00

A super political commentary via a cartoonist on a Monday.

I do urge you to read Dave Amos' essay posted yesterday. It's a good read.

And, stay tuned for part two on Tuesday.

In Unity----

Osama, Bush and the Thrust for Power

2006-01-22T14:32:00.000-08:00

Part One of Two

Guest Blogger: Dave Amos, Arcadia, Calif.

Without 9-11 and Osama bin Laden, where would George W. Bush be? Back in Texas, that’s where. There is no question that without Osama bin Laden Bush would have clearly lost the 2004 presidential election to the lukewarm Sen. John Kerry, or for that matter, anyone the Democratic Party would have offered as their presidential candidate.

It is equally true that Osama needs a Bush type mentality in the American White House in order generate foolish responses by Islamic extremists. The majority of Arabs, and Muslims around the world, feel the United States and the western world are doing their best to oppress them. Bush’s invasion of Iraq confirmed that Osama bin Laden is right.

This effectively symbiotic relationship between Bush and Osama goes a long way to explain why Osama still runs free. It is not at all unreasonable, when one understands Bush’s and the GOP’s reliance on the continuing existence of Osama bin Laden, to suppose that Bush has no real intention of eliminating Osama – he needs him too much. In short, without Osama, Bush would no longer be in power.

Until 9-11, Bush’s approval rating was in the doldrums: well under 50%. He was a lackluster president who irritated the majority of American voters by betraying his pledge to be a “uniter” and making little attempt to form a consensus in the body politic and doggedly pushing a hard-line neo-conservative agenda that, in the main, most found offensive. With 9-11 Bush was able to promote himself as the “America’s Protector” (this, in spite of the fact that his Administration was totally asleep at the wheel when the 9-11 attack took place). Fear motivated many American voters to throw away their differences with the Bush Administration and accept the notion (carefully propagandized via the media) that Bush was a strong and decisive leader who would keep us safe from terrorists.

Bush (or, is it Karl Rove?) moved quickly and the tawdry Patriot Act was put before Congress for a vote (with little time allowed for congressmen and senators to actually read the bill, which few did) and any opposition to this blatant grabbing of executive power timidly shrank away due to fear of not being on the side of “Good Americans” in Bush’s self-declared “war on terror.” Very few brave souls (only the ones in very safe Congressional districts did) objected.

When it was seen how easy it was to bulldoze the opposition, Bush (again, was it Karl Rove?) continued to move at a record pace by gearing up for an “invasion” of Afghanistan when the Taliban leaders refused to deliver Osama – in keeping with medieval Pathan concepts of honor – whose concepts, one should assume, were well known to intelligence consultants in the Bush Administration.

Having no real way to counter American air power in concert with the power of the northern warlords, the Taliban quickly collapsed. With this, Bush had a “victory” to bolster his standing with the American people. Osama, however, somehow managed to get away.

In the meantime, using the excuse of 9-11 (and grossly misleading the American public) Bush advocated a war with Iraq. This is spite of the fact that the foreign policy and military experts, both Republican and Democratic alike, advised against such a folly, making the case that Iraq has never been a unified country and the suggested invasion would result in a vast quagmire of competing forces--Shi'a, Sunni, Kurds, and secularists--that do not share the same goals. Professional foreign policy observers saw a huge internal political sandpit and an anchor around the neck of the American military. How prescient they were.

But Bush insisted that the invasion was necessary to continue his (and, now our) war on terrorism, and the American people, for the most part, believed him. Osama, in the mean time, was still, and continues to be free.

Everything about American involvement in Iraq is a lie; a lie generated by George W. Bush and his policy advisors. The imagined existence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) was a lie. And most of all, the relationship of the invasion to the war on terror was a lie; a lie that is repeated even today, over and over again by the Bush Administration. They cannot abandon that lie, for to do so is to admit the utter ruthlessness of the Bush team as they strive for absolute power.

Part Two on Tuesday, Jan. 24, 2006

High Crimes and Misdemeanors

2006-01-21T03:02:00.000-08:00

The House of Representatives Democrats held a forum with legal experts on Friday regarding the recent domestic surveillance performed without Court approval by the Bush Administration. In an exchange with Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-New York), one of the lions in the Democratic Party, Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington Law School said:

"What the president ordered in this case was a crime. The federal law makes it clear that you cannot engage in this type of operation without committing a crime."

Read all about it here in the Baltimore Sun.

Moreover, Congressman Nadler asked if he, Turley, believed Bush’s actions met the "high crimes and misdemeanors" criteria mentioned in the Constitution. Turley said that he believed the Administration's actions were "high crimes and misdemeanors. "

Woo. It's going to be a "bumpy ride" the next few months.

A Letter from the Front

2006-01-20T00:37:00.000-08:00

The following is a personal email that was forwarded to our Team Blogger leader, Mr. Giacoppe, via one of his West Point grad friends. There are no last names for the sake of privacy. This email, sent to a good friend, speaks volumes about the current events in Iraq.

Yes, we Dems support our troops, but, in the main, not the idiotic war which may bring harm to them for no good reason.

Guest Bloger: Charlie B.

Dan:

I don't see progress on the big picture front, with the Judge quitting, no one venturing outside the wire without being in a column of armored vehicles sporting 25 mm cannons, not hiring Iraqis for jobs, bombs continuing to go off on the roads as though nothing has changed by the elections.

Down at the grass roots level, the whole deal is turning it over to the Iraqi Army and Police units as they come on line. I see things going on this front based on things that are going on within our KBR (Kellogg, Brown and Root) realm, we being overlayed on all the facilities. Too early to talk about it - [because] I'd have to come back and kill ya.

Troops get a lot of support. A lot. Makes one wistful about it if one is a Vietnam Vet, as we all are.

What you can do to support the troops is through your vote and elected officials to hold the Administration's feet to the fire about the statements they have made - "When the Iraqi military and police can stand up, we will be coming home." We need to hold their feet to the fire about this without the weepy eyed bullshit that comes out of the mouths of misguided fools in the entertainment business. (The entertainment business - movies, tv, magazines, clubs and bars, stage shows, fiction writers, numerous congressmen and senators in elected positions, and, of course, news reporters.)

To the extent that George and DOD is still claiming Iraq is not militarily ready six months from now, you need to be getting way skeptical. The Iraq Army - or any other Army - is not going to operate at any where near our level. There is some idealism at play here that needs to be questioned.

You can also lobby against a psychopatic Department of Defense that encourages the constant flow of FNG Presidents to use the same sergeants and captains to go off to the combat zone every eighteen months, or less, because we don't have enough boots to do all these adventures.

Whew - Having said all that, and knowing that all one can do is take care of his little piece of the planet, I would say find a soldier serving here from within your universe - nephew, neice, kid next door, whatever - and send him e-mails, cards, DVD movies, and cigars with no expectation of an answer.

Charlie B.

Revising History. No way.

2006-01-19T00:47:00.000-08:00

The following is a FORWARD (FW) that has been going around the internet and sent by “movement conservatives” (or possibly uninformed ditto heads) who seem to want to take the law into their own hands (international assassinations), do not mind the president is above the law, prefer a unitary presidency, and like to revisit and revise American history.

Note: I have added my own comments in brackets and in italics to demonstrably show how supercilious this attempt at revisionist history has been drafted.

The scene: In 1987, Lt. Col. Oliver North, USMC, testifying at the Iran-Contra [constitutional and foreign policy scandal] hearings during the Reagan Administration: There was Ollie in front of God and country [the television cameras and under oath] getting the third degree [being asked probing, objective questions as the Senator was doing his job. It is an investigation after all.], but what he said was stunning. A senator was drilling him [asking a fair question]; "Did you not recently spend close to $60,000 for a home security system?" Ollie replied, "Yes, I did, Sir." The senator continued, "Isn't that just a little excessive?" "No, sir," said Ollie. "No? And why not?" the senator asked. "Because the lives of my family and I were threatened, sir." "Threatened? By whom?" the senator questioned. "By a terrorist, sir," Ollie answered. "Terrorist? What terrorist could possibly scare you that much?" "His name is Osama bin Laden, sir," Ollie replied.

“Why are you so afraid of this man?" the senator asked. "Because, sir, he is the most evil person alive that I know of," Ollie answered. "And what do you recommend we do about him?" asked the senator. "Well, sir, if it was up to me, I would recommend that an assassin team [illegal since 1976] be formed to eliminate him and his men from the face of the earth."

The senator disagreed with this approach [as it was against American foreign policy].

By the way, that senator was Al Gore [a human being who cannot read tea leaves].

So what can we make of this dribble? How interesting that these conservatives hail North a hero? How wonderful that Ollie, an officer and a representative of the Regan Administration, after he took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, took deliberate steps to perform clear unconstitutional acts by by-passing the wishes of Congress stated in the Boland Amendment, and in addition sold arms to a country not friendly to the United States (Iran) and at that time a sworn enemy. Besides during the 1980s America was providing arms and military intelligence to Iraq. In the process North and his cohorts (Poindexter, Mc Farlane, Weinberger, Cassey), almost brought down the Reagan Administration. Intelligence operatives no wonder coined the term “blowback” for potential repercussions against the US due to a super-muscular American foreign policy.

In the 1994 film Clear and Present Danger, with Harrison Ford, the location might have been in Colombia, but the overarching theme was the Iran-Contra scandal and how presidential administrations can and often do break the law. Examples include: the Warren Harding Administration (Teapot Dome scandal), the Nixon Administration (Watergate), the Johnson Administration (Gulf of Tonking incident), the Reagan Administration (Iran Contra), George W. Bush (wiretapping without a Court warrant as dictated in the 1978 FISA statute, and the build up of war with lies and misrepresentations), and even the venerable Abe Lincoln (suspending the writ of habeas corpus in Courts, which was later ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court).

And as for assassinating nefarious characters in the world 14 years before a possible dastardly act is performed against the United States is also against the law, if not cheap Monday morning quarterbacking. Presidents since Ford have signed executive orders prohibiting international assassinations; in Ford’s case it was E. O. 11905. These EO’s were signed in order to curtail the excesses of the Cold War in South America and elsewhere in the world and the quite stunning acts of the CIA (Chile, El Salvador, Iran, and elsewhere).

Also, if Ollie had information about Osama, well he should since he was a part of the intelligence community within the Reagan White House and was privy to such information and it says little about Gore. As recent events during the build up of the US-Iraq War show as an example Senators have little intelligence information. This is because they do not have the CIA, the NSA, and others working for them. In addition, they obtain information via oversight committees and briefings from the executive branch. Gore, I assume, was against assassinations be used because it was against existing US policy. Since this exchange took place 14 years before 9/11 how can anyone who appreciates intellectual honesty take this FW seriously?

According to Section V, Part G of E. O. 11905: Prohibition of Assassination. No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination.

Today, neo-cons and the Bush Administration want to reinstate assassinations and torture and repercussions will be felt here in the homeland and around the world.

See here: http:// www.heatherwokusch.com/columns/column45.html

Even Americans, in the main, know better. The so-called Christian extremist, Pat Robertson, got lambasted in every corner of the United States and in the media for advocating killing Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, to be sure an antagonist of the US. Talk about ignoring what Jesus Christ was said to have said in the Bible.

In short, this FORWARD being sent by Republicans only proves that Gore was stating American foreign policy at the time. It also proves that by looking at the whole Iran-Contra scandal in its entirety North acted as a nefarious character insofar he believes the president is above the law and can ignore the laws passed by Congress. We do not and should not have an imperial presidency. The Founding Fathers did not want that. Read the American constitution. Most of the powers in that document are given to Congress, the representatives of the people.

Is North a hero? Hardly. No way. Not to this American who believes in the separation-of powers.

His Terminating Days Are Gone

2006-01-18T01:10:00.000-08:00

Guest Blogger: Larry Caballero, La Palma, Calif.

What a difference a year makes! Last January the governor was unbeatable. He could walk on water. He was an intimidating figure. Yes, the terminator governor had it all--except common sense and good advisors.

Now, we hear Arnold in his State of the State speech admitting that he had been foolish. He now understands, he says. The voters have spoken.

He's learned his lesson, and now understands that the people of California want "to cut the warfare, cool the rhetoric, find common ground, and fix the problems together."

Now he wants to do what is right for the people of California, which means he has to work with the state legislature. You remember them; they were the "girlie men" of last year--now they've become his newest best friends. And what about those bad special interest folks? You know, the teachers, nurses, policemen and firemen? Well, they're okay now, too.

Are we to believe that he has had an extreme makeover since the special elections of last month? Are we to forgive him for wasting the goodwill that we had once showered upon him when he won the recall? We'll see how seriously he believes his own words.

He now wants to do all things for all of us. In fact, he proposed in his State of the State Address to find the funding to provide all kinds of projects to improve the education of our children, the safety of our streets, improve the health care of our elderly, and insure that California remains the fifth economy in the world.

"I say, build it!" the governor shouted several times, but what does he want to build? Is it truly our infrastructure, or is it his stature in the state? All of that without raising any taxes! If I didn't know better, I would have thought that it was he who parted the Red Sea and not Moses, and it was he who fed the people with only a fish and a loaf of bread.

He now wants to be the Collectinator instead of the Terminator Governor. He thinks the federal government will come to our aid and help to fund the projects he mentioned. Well, where have the feds been since Arnold took over the reigns of power in California? Why does he think the federal government will come forward to help us now?

It's obvious that cutting taxes for the wealthy and funding a war based on lies have depleted the government's treasury. And California being a blue state in the last few elections won't make Bush or a Republican led Congress any more sympathetic to our needs.

The problem, of course, is that Arnold no longer has any credibility with the people. His true colors were out there for all to see leading up to the special election. Is he saying these things now because he realizes that he needs to be the people's governor instead of the governor of corporations and big business, or is he only thinking about his re-election in November?

Does he care about rebuilding California, or only rebuilding his own image? Is he thinking about the people, or his legacy as governor?

Only time will tell. If he's sincere, then in January 2007, Californians will be cheering him as a true advocate for the people. If he's not, then we will be sending him back home to Hollywood.

There, he can always get a role in a low budget film portraying a governor. As they say, once an actor, always an actor, even if the governor was never really a very good one.

VP Gore's Speech

2006-01-17T11:29:00.000-08:00

Guest Blogger: Diane Ropp, Altadena, Calif.

The following is one of the best segments of Vice President Gore's speech yesterday.

Is our Congress today in more danger than were their predecessors when the British army was marching on the Capitol? Is the world more dangerous than when we faced an ideological enemy with tens of thousands of missiles poised to be launched against us and annihilate our country at a moment's notice? Is America in more danger now than when we faced worldwide fascism on the march-when our fathers fought and won two World Wars simultaneously?

It is simply an insult to those who came before us and sacrificed so much on our behalf to imply that we have more to be fearful of than they. Yet they faithfully protected our freedoms and now it is up to us to do the same.

We have a duty as Americans to defend our citizens' right not only to life but also to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is therefore vital in our current circumstances that immediate steps be taken to safeguard our Constitution against the present danger posed by the intrusive overreaching on the part of the Executive Branch and the President's apparent belief that he need not live under the rule of law.

I endorse the words of Bob Barr, when he said, "The President has dared the American people to do something about it. For the sake of the Constitution, I hope they will."

DeLay, Abramoff and Rohrabacher: Santa Claus, the Elf, and the Lackey

2006-01-16T00:16:00.000-08:00

Bribers bribe
While tempting their fates
And fleecing our tribes
At outrageous rates
Still, Rohrabacher’s roaring
Defending the whoring
Of Abramoff and the Hammer
On their way to the slammer

“Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.”

He is a Republican exterminator from Sugar Land, Texas. His Chief Elf is a lobbyist who wears a number of hats. Abramoff, the Elf, gives money only to good boys and girls who are always Republican except for a RINO Libertarian like Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-46-Huntington Beach). The congressman’s recent defense of Abramoff is puzzling if not disturbing. Given that Dana has been paid some $17,000 by a crook for a screenplay that will never see the light of day while promising access to Bush, he may have experience with being naive. Dana ate regularly at the Elf’s Signatures restaurant (Chef’s hat) and has been linked with Jack Abramoff by acting as his reference for the SunCruz (casino) $60 million business deal (green eyeshade) in Florida that turned bloody with the murder of Konstantinos Boulis who happened to be an Abramoff rival (black homburg).

An interesting Rohrabacher quote appeared in the Washington Post as Dana referred to Jack Abramoff: "I think he's been dealt a bad hand and the worst, rawest deal I've ever seen in my life. Words like bribery are being used to describe things that happened every day in Washington and are not bribes." Just what do we call these payments, Dana?

Just what if Dana is not naïve and knows what Abramoff and Scanlon and DeLay have done? Is it possible that Dana is simply trying to put a little lipstick on this pig? Not lie, exactly, but dress up the Hammer as Santa Claus who simply has a host of elves to do his good works? Dana and Jack, incidentally, have known each other since the heady days when Dana was a speechwriter for Ronald Reagan. Maybe Dana only saw Jack in the sunshine of a new love? Let us take a look at that possibility. Dana is one who actually took money directly from Jack. Incidentally, they were 100% Republican for those of you who have been distracted by the Republican comb-over claiming that everybody benefited.

While some Democrats did accept contributions from some of the same tribes that were bilked by Abramoff, only Republicans took money directly from Jack. Dana took $7500 and gave back $2000. I am not sure that the $2000 was returned to Jack or given to some charity, but it still appears to be related to the Republican fuzzy math and Dana had to know that Jack was tied to Scanlon as well as Tom DeLay. Then again, maybe there was some $5500 in services rendered and Dana did not have business lunches with Jack. Maybe Dana bussed the tables at Signatures.

My theory is that Dana and Tom and Jack himself know that the truth of power is that being guilty and even getting caught are merely technicalities on the way to ultimate vindication. Loyalty is the coin of the Bush realm and Bush is, indeed the man who would be king. How could anyone let Jack and Tom and Dana languish in Danbury Prison? We have the precedent of the Nixon pardon where he was not only pardoned for past crimes, but for future crimes as well. We have the precedent of the Colonel North release where Congress tainted the process of conviction. Republicans have control of the process and have control of the three branches of government. Pardon Me!

Of course we will hear that Abramoff, DeLay and Ney, etc. and the American people have suffered enough. They have earned Royal Pardons. Loyalty is worthy of sainthood in the Church of Greed. The trip to the slammer is a mere diversion on the way to sainthood much as Paul went to prison for his Church.

Rohrabacher is running against Jim Brandt for the 46th Congressional District. Jim was a Marine and he knows that Santa Claus is really the Marine who provides Toys for Tots and not Treachery for Tribes. Let us clean up our government one representative at a time. Jim knows that all Americans including Native Americans deserve open and honest government. We can do better than whisper the myth of Santa Claus with the reality of corruption screaming in our ears. Rohrabacher and his cronies are not so naïve as they are arrogant. They feel that they will be protected.

Before these criminals can say ”Pardon me, please,” let us vote them out of office.

Response to a Subversive Operative

2006-01-15T00:11:00.000-08:00

Recently what, to me, seems a subversive political operative, has posted responses to Brother Lawrence DiStasi's observations. His moniker is Blade Runner and she (or he) earlier noted that the president's nominee to the Supreme Court "has to be" approved by the Senate because the president won the election. That comment is too silly to respond to other that to state that the Senate has the duty to advice AND consent. No consent, no confirmation, find another candidate, please.

But on to the matter at hand, Blade Runner writes:

You claim the President can only refuse to enforce or obey a congressional statute if the Supreme Court has made a ruling that it is unconstitutional. It's a legitimate position to take in an argument but it is not the law.

What Blade Runner fails to notice is that DiStasi’s argument is nuanced and measured. By reading his text, DiStasi never mentions that the president has to, in toto, observe every decision passed by Congress. He specifically argues about the Congressional law known as FISA passed in 1978 and what would happen if Alito became a Supreme Court Justice. The essay was, after all, about Alito and not Supreme Court jurisprudence per se.

Today, for example, if the Republican controlled Congress passed a law that ordered the president to place so many Quakers in relocation camps because they have protested against the US-Iraq war and so on and so on, Bush would have an obligation, if not a duty, to ignore such a law because it runs contrary to the many rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Every case is different, and some are quite clear even to the non-initiated.

In 1978 Congress passed FISA, a statute that echoed Fourth Amendment protections guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, albeit with a lot of leeway (the three-day ruling to obtain a warrant after the fact of a wiretap is an example).

Only a power hungry president can claim to the new and obscure "unitary executive theory" and claim that he (or she, in the future) is not beholding to Congress' laws in time of war or at any time.

That’s what worries not only DiStasi but a score of Republicans like Congressman Chris Shays, former Congressman Amo Houghton and Bob Barr, Senator Chuck Hagel, Senator John McCain and others.

Blade Runner also brings up the case Meyers v. US (1926):

The US Supreme Court addressed this issue in the 1926 case of Myers v. US. There Democrat President Wilson refused to comply with what he felt was an unconstitutional law (barring him from removing postmasters). The Supreme Court upheld his authority to refuse to enforce unconstitutional acts.

Of course this case in a 6-3 ruling has nothing in common with FISA. The Myers case involved the Tenure of Office Act (1867), later modified, and passed during Andrew Johnson’s term in office. In fact, President Johnson was impeached by the Congress for his action to fire Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. Johnson made it by the skin of his teeth. At first blush the Myers’s case made Wilson’s argument prudent. Yet the case was later modified in Humphrey’s Executor v. US (1935) where Justice Sutherland wrote that Congress COULD limit the president’s power of removal; the Court found that the Myers principle applied only to executive officers. Is a postmaster an executive officer? Is a postmaster "in any proper sense be characterized as an arm or an eye of the executive"? Not in my mind, so Wilson was wrong, in the long run.

Later, in the case Morrison v. Olson (1988) the Court upheld the Independent Counsel Act, again intruding on the executive. The executive is often wrong. Hello!

That’s why the imperial presidency is so worrisome even in times of war. Presidents should be prudent with the power they wield and purport to have and often do not. That’s why the Samuel Alito nomination is so worrisome for us combat Democrats. That’s what Lawrence DiStasi’s wrote about in his essay.

Moreover, in times of war, as Professor Buzan, the Constitutional Law scholar at Cal State Fullerton used to remind me, "In times of war, when the flag goes up, the Justices dive under the beach." In my mind, Alito would be the first to find a safe spot under that bench and agree with the president, just like the Court did in 1943 and upheld the placing of thousand of Japanese–American citizens in relocation camps. The team members of the Splinters Blog, in short, are civil libertarians.

Finally, to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin philosophy in Walter Issacson’s book, "Compromise, may not make great heroes, but they make great democracies." The office of the presidency needs to compromise and work with the legislature instead of depending on Supreme Court Justices who agree with his politics and his ideology. The Alito nomination would bring in another ideologue and make him believe he is imperious with unfettered power, not as the Founding Fathers envisioned.

Finally , we don’t bemoan, we fight!

Read our bios. All of us are Democratic activists and we don’t hide by monikers.

The Constitutional Crisis

2006-01-13T11:02:00.000-08:00

A critical and perhaps unprecedented development took place in the course of the Samuel Alito hearings on Thursday, January 12th. During Senator Feingold’s questions about the power of the president to override statutes during wartime, Judge Alito reiterated more emphatically than ever his repeated implication that in the conflict between a statute enacted by Congress and the Constitution's Article 2 provisions giving the president Commander-in-Chief authority during wartime, the Constitution tends to trump the power of statutes. Alito typically puts this in terms of a hypothetical: like any citizen, the President is obliged, says Alito, to obey the law in this case any statute enacted by Congress except where the law might be unconstitutional.

What this means in real terms is that in the case of the FISA law which the President has in fact repeatedly violated by authorizing the NSA to wiretap U.S. citizens, the President was obliged to obey FISA UNLESS it turns out that the FISA law limiting the President’s right to wiretap is judged by the Supreme Court to be an unconstitutional abridgement of the President’s wartime powers. Since Samuel Alito will more than likely be sitting on the Supreme Court when such a case comes before it, it appears almost certain that the Court would render a judgment in favor of Presidential authority i.e. a President above the law.

An alternative prospect raised by Alito is that the case might not be "judiciable." This would mean that the Court could not render a judgment in such a case. It was this that evoked from Senator Feingold the remarkable statement that the country now appeared to be in a "constitutional crisis" which even the Supreme Court may not be able to resolve, and which he found "very troubling."

What’s really troubling is that the crisis Feingold referred to is already upon us. Especially if Samuel Alito is confirmed, and if he runs true to the form he has demonstrated in his hearings, the nation will find itself ruled by a chief executive who can disobey any law written by Congress simply by appealing to his war powers (the war on terror is, by definition, unending), ignoring the law and allowing the conflict to come to the Supreme Court. The Court, packed with the President’s men, can rule that the president’s power as outlined in Article 2 of the Constitution overrides the power of the Congress to make laws controlling that power.

This, in effect, leaves the Congress irrelevant. It shreds the most basic idea of a republic, the balance of powers, whereby each of the three branches acts as a check and balance against any one branch accumulating excessive power. Thus the constitutional crisis Senator Feingold was referring to, and which he found "very troubling."

In truth, the crisis is worse than Senator Feingold acknowledged. For in this situation, the Congress and particularly the Democratic minority in Congress have only a few choices. First, it can roll over and play dead, accepting the fact that it no longer has a decisive role to play in the affairs of the nation. We have already seen the current Congress doing this, a tactic that, in effect, has left the authority to rule in the hands of a dictator called the President.

If Democrats (and conscientious Republicans) in Congress choose not to abdicate in this way, they can take several actions to remedy the situation, and resolve the crisis. Each action will take uncommon courage.

(a) They can reject Samuel Alito, and any subsequent Supreme Court nominee who indicates a similar disposition to kowtow to unitary and unlimited presidential power. They can do this by filibustering the Alito nomination until the President is forced to withdraw it and nominate a more mainstream candidate.

(b) They can attempt to change the Constitution by amendment, altering the language in Article 2 in such a way as to make specific the prohibition against violating the civil rights of Americans at all times, including during wartime. This will eliminate the conflict between the existing Congressional statute (the FISA Act) and the Constitution.

(c) They can initiate actions designed to shut down the Congress itself, refusing to enact laws and budgets to continue the Iraq war and any other war until the President agrees to abide by the legal statutes limiting his powers, specifically the FISA statute.

(d) They can initiate impeachment proceedings designed to remove President Bush from office for high crimes and misdemeanors, in this case, knowingly and consciously violating a specific law the FISA Statue designed to make illegal the wiretapping actions he has publicly admitted to.

The role of an informed citizenry in all of the above remedies is critical. Waiting for the next election will not do here. Every concerned citizen must make plain through direct action letters, phone calls, emails, contributions to impeachment campaigns, participation in demonstrations calling for one or all of the above congressional remedies that he or she will not now, or ever, tolerate a Chief Executive or a government which holds itself unaccountable to and in contempt of the most fundamental laws and principles of this democracy.

Richard Rodriguez

2006-01-12T17:14:00.000-08:00

One of California's most talented essayists has to be Richard Rodriguez. In this article he explains some of the cultural and economic difficulties facing California.

He begins:

The traditional task of the writer in California has been to write about what it means to be human in a place advertised as paradise. Disappointment has always been the theme. The literature to come will begin with a different expectation.

Read all about it here here. It's long but worth it.

Web Watch

2006-01-12T00:04:00.000-08:00

If you are interested in keeping up with the governors race here in California check out this excellent web site and bookmark it for future reference.

See here.

I love it. According to the January 9th post the Reps are loosing sight of the "prize." Ha!

And, here's a funny: I met Hugh Hewitt a few years back at the Yorba Linda Richard M. Nixon Library (cool location) and after a bit of chit-chat I told him he and I saw politics completely different. His response: he refused to have his picture taken with me. What a puppy.

Even the other Republicans who I was chatting with thought he was a loser due to his behavior towards me.

Ethnic Ties Are Not Enough

2006-01-11T12:18:00.000-08:00

As an Italian American historian and writer, I have been the recipient, in recent days, of numerous appeals to join the rallying cry by large Italian American organizations in favor of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, whose forebears were Italian immigrants (there is some dispute about his father, originally Salvatore Alati, who in 1942 claimed New Jersey as his birthplace, but is now said to have come to America at 5 months of age, which would make him just barely an immigrant.)

I have resisted such appeals for the simple reason that a candidate's putative Italian-ness is not nearly enough to override an analysis of the man and his history, and an understanding of what such a history represents.

To begin with, though he may be a brilliant lawyer and capable judge, Samuel Alito is clearly an ideologue whose views on abortion, on presidential authority, and on the privilege of money and power over human rights promise a sharp right turn to a court which is already heavily weighted toward conservatism. He has said, for example, "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion." It is for this reason that he is the darling of the religious right, which is literally salivating in anticipation of his providing the swing vote necessary to overturn Roe v. Wade.

But it is not Roe that I am primarily concerned about. Rather, Alito's ascension to the Supreme Court would put him in a position to add a critical vote to those who support virtually unlimited presidential power. At this unprecedented time, when the Bush Administration has revealed its arrogant assumption of the president's right to place himself above the law particularly in authorizing wiretapping on American citizens against both the Constitution and the express action of the Congress forbidding it a justice with Alito's views would be fatal to basic American notions of justice and liberty.

Instead of providing a balance to adjudicate between the power of the presidency and the power of the congress, Alito's prior decisions have shown a clear predilection to not only favor an imperial presidency, but at the same time to curtail the powers of Congress to make laws protecting average Americans. For when it comes to protecting the rights of "little people" as opposed to government officials or corporations, Alito has voted for a state requirement that women notify their husbands before an abortion, voted to strike down a congressionally authorized ban on machine guns, and voted to uphold a strip search of a 10-year-old girl and her mother not named in a search warrant. This is a judge who comes down consistently on the side of power and privilege and against the rights of those who have only the law to protect them.

Listening to Judge Alito in his hearings provides a sensory link to how the man and his opinions are of one piece. His voice has a kind of whine to it. It is the type of whine one associates with people who invariably, throughout life, curry favor with those in authority. The voice of those who, it is easy to imagine, if born in Italy, would have opted to join the priesthood and carefully nurture relationships with power to end up in the Roman Curia narrowly interpreting canon law against any innovation or human consideration. At Princeton, he was a member of CAP (Concerned Alumni of Princeton), an organization "concerned" about the number of women and minorities admitted in recent years. As a lawyer, he moved quickely to seek a government job, and obtained one as counsel in the Reagan White House partly on the basis of his CAP membership and his now-infamous opinion about Roe v. Wade. And as a judge, he has voted in favor, in almost every instance, of corporations and authorities in conflict with the powerless such as the farmers, who, when they were kicked off their farm, were subjected to what Michael Chertoff, now head of Homeland Security, and most others reviewing the case agreed were "Gestapo-like tactics."

Judge Alito, however, dissented, and opined that such tactics were legally defensible and justified. One wonders what the Judge really knows about those immigrant forebears he now claims to honor. One wonders what he would have thought of the authorities who rounded up hundreds and deported them in tyhe infamous Palmer Raids of the 1920s, or of FBI and INS agents who targeted thousands more because of their Italian birth in the 1940s when 600,000 of them were branded enemy aliens. Would he have been so diligent about defending each tiny element of legal authority then?

Perhaps. For it is characteristic of certain types of men that when they or theirs have been subject to discrimination and suspicion in the past, they respond by going over to the far side. Having been accused of disloyalty, they attempt to demonstrate a super-loyalty. Having felt the brutality of power, they attempt to align themselves in every instance on the side of that power, and those who, no matter how imperially or cruelly, administer that power.

This may be historically understandable, but it is no excuse. And so, though Judge Alito may be roughly suitable for the job he now holds on the Third Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court is a different matter. For that critical position, which requires both brains and a heart that is sensitive to the real world, he seems peculiarly unfit.

Institutions

2006-01-09T21:10:00.000-08:00

As a political scientist I've been trained to watch institutions and watch them closely as often they have been infected by "goal displacement."

The once honorable United Farm Workers (UFW) is a recent and good example.

Read all about it in the Los Angels Times.

As my abuelita used to tell me, "Keep your ojos on the pelota."

Republicans in Troubled Waters

2006-01-07T19:27:00.000-08:00

Finally, the Congress House Republicans are doing the right thing according to the Los Angeles Times as they collectively destroy Tom "Ratman" DeLay. Of course the move is politically motivated because the Republicans are seen as political rascals these days. And, rascals is a mild word considering what they have been up to. The Reps are "eating" one of their own because they know the days ahead will be troubling for their party and any elected Republican, especially in the non-safe districts.

Read all about it here.

As Democratic activist Bill Daly wrote in an earlier post this is an excellent time to pounce on Republicans due to their recent dastardly acts.

Yes, we need leadership and a unified voice both in Sacramento and Washington DC.

Let’s do it Democrats! We have to fight not only for our country but the future of our kids, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, and good friends as well.

Snake Oil and More Snake Oil

2006-01-06T12:19:00.000-08:00

The governator gave his highly touted State of the State speech last night. And after his phony apologetics, clearly designed to win back some of the millions of moderates who voted for him as California's savior and then rejected his special election which, incidentally, cost the state $60 million in funds it can ill afford we get not a modest proposal consistent with the state's reeling finances, but more grandiosity hiding beneath more snake oil.

This grade-B actor's grinning proposals for education and infrastructure upgrades didn't even pass the grade-B test, being an obvious ploy to curry favor with the electorate which abandoned him.

And how does this fraud, whose claim to fame was his promise to get the state out of its terrible financial mess, propose to pay for all this? With more bond measures! Billions and billions more. Like the good conservative he is, he brags, "We can do this with no new taxes." But bonds those are fine, he suggests, never reminding a duped and dazed electorate that bonds aren't free. They have to be paid back, with interest!

But of course, most of that won't come due until our savior is long gone. The pain won't affect him and the rest of the billionaires who rule us. No, the debt will impoverish only the average Californian whose children and grandchildren will be groaning under the weight of this sleight-of-hand unto their dotage.

Californians, wake up! The man is a lousy actor and a snake-oil salesman to boot. Urge your representatives to find some courage and demand that the governor come up with transparent ways such as legitimate taxes on excess wealth and real estate--to pay for his grandiose plans.

And then get him out of town.

The Governator Does it Again

2006-01-06T08:27:00.000-08:00

Sacramento Bee columnist, Dan Walters, writes it very well again after the governator's State of the State address last night.

Walters wrote, "Arnold Schwarzenegger, exuding equal measures of hubris and naiveté, has repeatedly set up himself and his governorship for failure - promising more than he could deliver, reneging when promises collided with fiscal and political reality, overhyping his modest accomplishments, and confusing Californians by abruptly changing his rhetorical tone."

Read all about it here.

I guess Gov. Arnold wants to be the Governor Pat Brown of the 21st century since Governor Brown is credited with massive infrastructure spending during the early 1960s that helped make California one of strongest economic "tiger" machines in the world the last 40 years. Can he convince the citizens of California that more, if not creative progressive revenue streams (read: taxes), will be needed to accomplish many of his goals?

I doubt it. I just don't think he has the political stones to do that. He's a typical Republican. The governator is not the esteemed Governor Pat Brown.

The Los Angeles Times also has a good article here.

Dancing With the Stars

2006-01-05T20:05:00.000-08:00

A moment of frivolity . . . hey why not?

I'll be following the ABC television show Dancing With the Stars the next few weeks. My fav, I trust, will be Tatum O'Neal, best remembered in the film Paper Moon.

Ariel Sharon, Statesman

2006-01-05T15:03:00.000-08:00

Funny how some politicians can surprise you. Israel prime minister Ariel Sharon is such a politician as he became a statesman during his time as Israel's top excutive politician.

In an op-ed I wrote for Cal State Fullerton's Daily Titan this what I thought of Sharon in 2002: see here. Not good.

Still, he became a statesman with his unilateral disengagement plan. Sharon broke from Likud, the political party he helped organize, to carry out a plan which removed all permanent Israeli presence in the Gaza Strip and four settlements in the northern West Bank.

Amazing.

To read Sharon's bio see here.

Another Regressive Tax

2006-01-05T13:19:00.000-08:00

According to the Capitol Weekly, via the Los Angeles Times, the governator will introduce adding toll roads in California in his State of the State speech tonight. Oh great just what we need, another regressive tax.

Toll roads will be part of the governor's proposal to request voters to approve $25 billion in bonds over the next five years for state infrastructure needs. State Senate Leader Don Perata (D-Oakland) said, "The first of several rounds of borrowing proposals hammered out between lawmakers and the governor could appear before voters in June."

Read the LA Times story here.

Letterman v. O'Reilly

2006-01-04T15:01:00.000-08:00

I did not see the show, darn it, but I heard via CNN that David Letterman kicked some major booty when he had that idiot Bill O'Reilly on his show a few days ago. Maybe CBS is must see teevee.

WAY TO GO DAVID! I'm never watching Jay Leno again.

Getting Nasty

2006-01-04T14:14:00.000-08:00

The undocumented immigration issue is getting quite nasty in Southern California, especially in the City of Costa Mesa.

Read the Los Angeles Times here.

Assembly Speaker Fabian

2006-01-03T08:02:00.000-08:00

Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez is one of my heros these days and you can read all about it here.

Mission Impossible

2006-01-02T02:40:00.000-08:00

Last week I read an excellent article in the Los Angeles Times that fully explains why the US-Iraq War has been such a terrible mistake. Of course I've been privy to the difficulties because in graduate school I read the seminal Clash of Civilizations by Harvard political science professor Samuel P. Huntington.

As Professor Huntington said, “[The] fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural.”

Huntington adds, “The people of different civilizations have different views on the relations between God and man, the individual and the group, the citizen and the state, parents and children, husband and wife, as well as differing views of the relative importance of rights as responsibilities, liberty and authority, equality and hierarchy. These differences are a product of centuries.”

After absorbing Huntington’s thoughts I agree that to try to westernize an Islamic nation like Iraq is completely foolhardy. The stated goals will not work because there are forces in Iraq that are well beyond our control. The Iraqis are a part of a civilization that is very different than our western civilization; in terms of values, mores, religion, and such. In short, through the barrel of a gun we are trying to impose western values in a part of the world whose people want very little with what they, especially their religious elites, would term “infidel” values.

Besides Iraq should be three countries as the article points out and to try to bring a unified “nationalistic” identity will be unattainable. What a mission impossible the United States is on.

Read the Los Angeles Times article

Read about The Clash of Civilizations

Ouch, the Truth Hurts

2006-01-01T11:09:00.000-08:00

Note: the following is a candid responce to the Splinters Team New Year's email.

A note from a Fighting Irish:

Guest Blogger: Bill Daly, Chair, 72nd Assembly District Comm.

Dear Lou:

Thank you for your upbeat attitude and encouraging words for next year.

Realistically, however, where are our Democratic leaders across the country in this heyday of Republican chaos, dilemma, and incriminations? If the situation were reversed Karl Rove and every Republican representative would be going for the Democratic jugular.

Frankly, in my opinion, our Democratic leaders are not leading as forcefully as they should.

What is holding them back?

Many a Republican figurehead like Ralph Reed is in political jeopardy. Is any Democrat pouncing on that son of a bitch in Georgia, especially after he crucified our Democratic war hero to gain office?

Can you tell me who is activating across the country?

The wave of political tide is in our favor; when are we going to start to ride it?

Where is our Democratic counterpart to John McCain?

Again, I appreciate your positive attitude, but I'd prefer to see a substantive base of support from our leaders to warrant it.

I'd rather wish you a Successful Year than a Happy one.

Critically yours,
Bill Daly

Orange County Dems: A Call to Arms

2005-12-31T07:15:00.000-08:00

According to an article in the Orange County Register Orange County Democrats have got to get ready for political war next year and beyond. We Dems have made good strides in central OC winning a Congressional seat (Hon. Loretta Sanchez), a State Senate seat (Hon. Joe Dunn) and an Assembly seat (Hon. Tom Umberg, Hon. Lou Correa and back to Hon. Umberg). Those are the seats the Republicans want back and according to the Register the Reps have spent over $100,000 the last couple of years in a massive voter registration drive.

Things look especially tough in the 34th State Senate District (Joe Dunn’s current seat) where in 2002 we Democrats had a 10.6% registration lead over the Republicans but now that has dwindled to a 1.7%. OC Demo Party chair Frank Barbaro has vowed to concentrate on voter registration and I know he will. We’ve only just begun to fight the good fight. I expect Sacramento Senate Caucus money to flood to Orange County and help increase that small registration spread in the 34th.

See: Register Article

Hero and Villains of the Year

2005-12-30T04:05:00.000-08:00

This Blog entry is the opinion of this writer and not necessarily the general views of any the Splinters Team.

My hero of the year is without question Ms. Cindy “peace mom” Sheehan. I’ve always believed that social justice begins with courage, and that courage begins with one voice. A great example in the last fifty years has been Rosa Parks who our nation sadly lost recently. This year Ms. Sheehan, almost single handedly brought the anti-war sentiments felt in America to a new high. All she wanted is a second meeting with the president so that he can explain a few things to her. It was a beautiful move on behalf of the anti-war political front and the media helped (finally since the media have been such lackeys).

In an interview in 2004 Ms. Sheehan said:

We haven't been happy with the way the war has been handled. The president has changed his reasons for being over there every time a reason is proven false or an objective reached.

Tom Matzzie of MoveOn said:

In her grief and bravery, Cindy has become a symbol for millions of Americans who demand better answers about the Iraq War. Though right-wing pundits have attacked her personally, her honesty is unimpeachable. Now more and more mothers (and fathers, brothers, sisters, wives, husbands, sons and daughters) are standing up with Cindy. [Together], we'll make sure that President Bush can't escape the reality of this war—even in Crawford, Texas.

The villain of 2005 in my mind is The Federalist Society. The group has been working very hard since 1982 to turn back the clock and reverse the landmark cases steered during the 1950s and 1960s by Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justice Brennan, and the Court decisions made during President Roosevelt’s New Deal tenuous period. In short, these folk want to turn back the time and go back to this fantasy world of “originalism,” that is, taking back the Constitution to what the Founding Fathers doctrine stated back in 1789 and/or 1929, if we can discernibly know what that is.

To be sure, the world and our country today is so vastly different than 1789. More importantly, I don’t want to live by the mores, the economic and social interests of a 1789 society, let alone a pre New Deal society--it’s a hidden agenda really.

According to Alfred Ross, the founder of Institute for Democratic Studies in an interview with Democracy Now:

If one looks at the history of the Federalist Society, which was established at the inspiration of Robert Bork in the early 1980s, their entire trajectory has been to move our judicial system in an extremely radically right wing direction.

My point is that we better understand what our foes are up to, and the sooner the better.

Happy New Year fellow Democratic activists. We Shall Overcome!

To visit Democracy Now for more info about the Federalist Society please visit here.

Alito Nomination: Lets's Get Ready to Rumble

2005-12-29T07:53:00.000-08:00

I recommend that the New Year resolution for many Democratic Senators should be: Let's buckle up for a huge fight over the confirmation of Samuel Alito. If the documents recently released by the National Archives are any indication of Alito's political philosophy and, maybe more importantly, his political ideology, then the Senators should more courageous than they were with the confirmation of Chief Justice Roberts.

Re the vast numbers of documents released last month, this is what Jeffrey Rosen, professor of law at George Washington University and legal affairs editor at the New Republic had to say to PBS’ NewsHour with Jim Lehrer:

It is possible to get a sense, and it's interesting to compare them with the Roberts memos. In many ways, Alito's seemed less deft; I think in particular of that job application that he sent to Attorney General Meese where he said, "I am a fierce conservative. I'm proudest of my opposition to abortion.”

However what Stuart Taylor, a columnist with National Journal and a fellow at the Brookings Institution, argued surprised me:

He was critical of the Warren court. But I don't think it shows him to be a guy who's going to get on the Supreme Court 20 years later with some kind of conservative agenda to revolutionize the law, as you might think from reading some of the papers.

I just don’t understand. None of us are value-free including Supreme Court justices. The three notorious conservatives the last 10 years: Rehnquist, Scalia and Uncle Thomas have been trying to do just that--move forward a radical conservative agenda. Given what Alito has written send political shivers up my spine. If I were I Democratic Senator I’d take the safe road and fight this nomination, why should Alito be given the benefit of the doubt when the stakes are so high? What I see now is a smoking gun and I don’t want Alito to fire additional bullets when he’s on the Court. As, Dr. Donald Matthewson, a political scientist professor at Cal State Fullerton once told me, “The Supreme Court justices are basically policy makers who wear black robes.” In short, the policy preferences Alito has advanced scare me.

Professor Rosen says it well:

[We] have much more evidence of what Samuel Alito's private thoughts are. No one could have any doubt what his political philosophy is. He laid it out in a letter to the attorney general, which said, here's what I believe: limited government, deference to the police, the ability of states to enforce traditional moral values. You can't walk away from this.

Expect the so-called “nuclear option” to be the main weapon used against the Democratic Senators by “movement conservative” Senators if the venerable filibuster is used.

So I leave you all with a refresher course on the nuclear option written by Norman Ornstein, a smart political scientist who works for the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank based in Washington DC. I respect Dr. Ornstein because I’ve always considered him a pragmatic Republican and not a “movement conservative.” The “nuclear option” article is another indication that Ornstein is a political scientist first, and a Republican second. Ornstein is an “institutionalist” and respects the long traditions and folkways of the Senate. He wants to make sure the Senate is “left a better place.”

See: Norman Ornestein, PhD

Phil Angelides v. Steve Westly

2005-12-28T06:01:00.000-08:00

There is a great article in the Los Angeles Times that compares and contrasts two Democratic men who are running for governor in California: Phil Angelides and Steve Wesley. The article is fair and offers a great comparison between the two. At one point I believed Phil Angelides would offer the best chance to defeat the Governator, but my mind has changed recently, more or less. I had a chance to talk to Steve Wesley recently at an after Special Election party held at the Biltmore Hotel and I found him quite engaging and charismatic as well. The latter if super important because you need that type of personality to defeat the Governator. Also, I did not realize that Wesley has been around Democratic politics for over twenty years.

The only thing that concerns me is how Mr. Westly cozied up to the Governator in 2004 when he, as the Los Angeles Times states, joined “Schwarzenegger's campaign for fiscal measures on the March 2004 ballot, then taking a combative approach to the governor once his popularity dropped.” Come on Mr. Westly politics is war, especially at the state level.

Still, the Times article argues that, “apart from the flip-flop charge, Westly's willingness to work with Schwarzenegger could appeal to voters eager to see state leaders drop their partisan rancor and work together on problems facing California, among them traffic, smog, illegal immigration and substandard schools.”

The broader electorate might see it that way but not this Democratic activist. I guess I’m still undecided and that should not come as a surprise as both candidates need to be challenged by the media and the electorate as well. The primary will be super interesting: I expect fireworks.

See: Los Angeles Times

A Story of Blessing

2005-12-27T01:18:00.000-08:00

Guest Blogger: Diane Altadena, Southern Calif.

A Beautiful Christmas True Story.

If you read the front page story of the San Fransico Chronicle on Thurday, Dec. 25, 2005 you would have read about a female humpback whale who had become entangled in a spider web of crab traps and lines. She was weighted down by 100s of pounds of traps that caused her to struggle to stay afloat. She had 100s of yards of line (rope) wrapped around her body: her tail, her torso, a line tugging in her mouth.

A fisherman spotted her just east of the Farralone Islands (outside the Golden Gate) and radioed an environmental group for help. Within a few hours the rescue team arrived and determined that she was so badly off, the only way to save her was to dive in and untangle her -- a very dangerous proposition -- one slap of the tail could kill a few rescuers. They worked for hours with curved knives and eventually freed her. When she was free, the divers say she swam in what seemed like joyous circles. She then came back to each and every diver, one at a time, and nudged them, pushed them gently around -- she thanked them ... some say it was the most incredibly beautiful experience of their lives. The guy who cut the rope out of her mouth says her eye was following him the whole time, and he will never be the same.

Please see here.

Hope you made some good Christmas memories too!

Garamendi and Prop 103

2005-12-24T23:40:00.000-08:00

In a recent Los Angeles Times article, John Garamendi, California’s top insurance regulator says he will soon make the case that insurance rates should be based on one's driving record, how many miles one drives, instead of where one lives.

I know John Garamendi, and he’s a friend of mine, but “hello,” John, what took you so long.

Still, better late than never as the old saying goes, and he’s right. Garamendi said, “[my] proposal [is] intended to implement provisions of Proposition 103, the 1988 voter initiative that said auto insurance rates should be based primarily on three factors: driving record, miles driven, and driving experience.”

Former Insurance Commissioner Quakenbush, who was chased out of California for political irregularities, due to Court rulings, allowed zip codes be used as the primary factor.

Needless to say, consumer activists have been asking Garamendi since 2003 to revisit the formula. Thank God, Garamendi finally saw the light.

Garamendi is a good man who may be cautious at times, but finally the people’s will shall be done. For this and many other reasons I applaud Insurance Commissioner Garamendi and his future endeavors. But as the song from the 1975 film Nashville says, "I’m Easy."

Solutions?

2005-12-21T07:26:00.000-08:00

In speaking political
We tend to be critical
And point out the faults
Of an engine that halts
Rather than praise
The sunnier days
Yet meaning no harm
To the Animal Farm
We’ll put into print
The broadest of hints
On how to confess
And clean up the mess

A few days ago, Brad, a Republican friend of mine reminded me that anybody can cite the wrongs of this administration, but that the responsible thing is to provide solutions. I responded that many of my past essays offered solutions, so I offer this installment. There are too many suggestions to fit into this essay, but I can begin.

In the classic 12-step recovery process, or any serious change approach, a person first has to admit to a problem. Only when Bush admits that he forced the intelligence, instead of shifting the blame to the intelligence community and then awarding a medal to George Tenet, will he will be on the first step to recovery. Until then, it is more of the same BS (Bush Shift). He also needs to admit that the planning to get into the war in Iraq was mainly a Public Relations plan and not a War plan. We went in with too few troops and did not have the troop skill mix or the allied participation to secure the peace or provide basic security. By firing all of the Iraqi Army and dismantling the economy, he immediately put most Iraqi adults out of work and he single-handedly created the very insurgency that we warned against. Instead of hiring Cheney’s Halliburton, Bush should have hired Iraqis who needed the work and might feel enough Iraqi pride to defend the oil production and the water supply and the power generation. Instead, we have some highly paid US managers supervising the cheapest non-Iraqi labor they could find. Halliburton and the Outsorcery are there to make money, not to solve Iraqi problems or share the Iraqi wealth with Iraqis. They have lifetime passes on the no-bid gravy train and have no motivation to leave Iraq.

The PR plan continued with the dog and pony show of “Mission Accomplished” and even the tearing down of Saddam’s statue. The latter, choreographed by our troops, was made to look like an Iraqi event. It fooled many Americans but did not get by the Iraqis. An aerial photograph of the scene shows just how poorly attended and how phony the event was. Meanwhile, Bush, Cheney and Rice boldly state that we do not torture while saying that we need the flexibility to do so. Cheney states that the insurgency is in its last throes while Rumsfeld states that there is no insurgency at all. The troops on the ground know better. The Iraqis on the ground know better. Even the timid US press has begun to question the spin. In the last few weeks, we found that the administration paid at least $300 million (outsourced to the Lincoln Group) to plant stories in the Iraqi press. If this were a PR war and not a real war, then our casualties would be generated from paper cuts instead of IED trauma. They have it wrong and need to make it right. How can we fight an insurgency if we do not admit that it exists? The way to fix that is to stop the BS and move Iraqi soldiers and police out of Iraq to train them thoroughly and re-insert them as trained units with leadership that may include some Baathists who have experience and can be trusted. Competence counts. Cronyism kills in Baghdad as well as in New Orleans. Incompetence punishes the brave for loyal service.

The Iraqi flag needs to be everywhere in Iraq instead of factional symbols and we need to separate the scores of militias from Iran and their Taliban South government. We set up conditions for a Shiite theocracy by pushing for elections and knowing demographics of the electorate. Shiites rule. Women had considerable freedom in a secular Iraq. They will be in abayas soon and could be in burkhas before we depart Iraq. No amount of PR will change that. We have created Theocracy through Hypocrisy by hiring convicted embezzlers like Ahmed Chalabi (simultaneously aligned with Cheney and Iran). Bush has now used the NSA to spy on Americans in showing Iraqis that laws are meaningless and that only power has meaning. I think that Iraqis knew that. They were taught by Saddam. Brad, you may not like the answer, but the only way for us to break even is to undo the harm done to Iraq and ourselves. End the hypocrisy and heal the body and soul of both nations.

Der Fuhrer

2005-12-21T07:14:00.000-08:00

When George W. Bush was running for President, and continually throughout his presidency, he has stressed as his most outstanding quality his "leadership." Again and again he told us how he was a "leader" who knew how to lead, buttressing this with criticism of his rivals deficiencies in this area. Incredibly, much of the
American public believed this mantra, not once, but twice.

Some of us, however, were disturbed by Bush¹s repeated attempts to wrap himself in the mantle of "the leader," remembering that Adolf Hitler called himself "Der Fuhrer" and that Benito Mussolini called himself "Il Duce."

Both terms mean leader, and a world plunged into war soon found out that the words also mean "ruthless dictator." Now we in America are finding out that Bush¹s use of the word has a similar meaning.

The latest administration scandal reinforces this conclusion. Recent reports in the New York Times and elsewhere have revealed a shocking story still developing.

Dan Walters: Telling Like He See's It

2005-12-16T00:18:00.000-08:00

The Sacramento Bee political writer, Dan Walters is one of the deans of Sacramento political journalism, if not "the dean", and who many Dems believe is a bit too conservative for their tastes. Yet he is very pragmatic and smart, and should never be ignored. This is unlike, let’s say, the "so-called" journalists from Faux News on basic cable.

Right now, in a ten-part series, Walters is systematically writing about why the "One Term-minator" has failed miserably. According to Walters, Arnold’s main misstep was the hubris he came to Sacramento with, all hoopla aside. The articles are worth a read and short. His writing documents well what has happened in Sacramento since the Governator’s election, and we Dems, look pretty good in the end, given the State is so difficult one to govern, if at all, says Walters. He makes a lot of sense.

So, to take a look at recent history and for a refresher course, do visit his web page on the Bee.

Read Dan Walters, journalist

Psychopaths in Charge

2005-12-14T19:17:00.000-08:00

The more one listens to and watches administration figures desperately trying to counter the tsunami of charges related to how the war in Iraq was foisted on the American people, the more one has to ponder the discomfiting question: what kind of humans are these? What kind of person can engage in such blatant deception, unprovoked aggression, and state-organized murder? How can a public figure maintain a straight face while promoting such deadly, costly lies?

The Secretary of State, for example, has embarked on her European tour to shore up the sagging support of European governments outraged over reports of CIA flights through their airspace in order to render kidnapped terror suspects to secret prisons and/or countries where they can be tortured. Such flights make these governments liable for collusion in international crimes. But despite the clear evidence of flight logs and personal testimony from those, like Khaled al Masri, who have been kidnapped and tortured, the Secretary of State feigns her own outrage over the charges , and states vehemently: "The United States does not send people to foreign countries for the purpose of torture." No matter that the whole world knows this is a lie. Condoleeza Rice insists on repeating it, pumping up her trademark pout that anyone could imagine such a thing.

The Vice-President engages in the same act. He considers it "reprehensible and irresponsible" for anyone to suggest that his administration consciously deceived the public about the reasons for invading Iraq. Though his innocence is slightly compromised by a barely suppressed snarl, not to mention the current plight of his chief of staff, Lewis Libby, he projects, nonetheless, a most savage umbrage.

And of course the President, with his foolish grin miming nothing so much as a teenager caught altering a bad report card, plays the role of outraged patriot to perfection. "The United States does not engage in torture," he insists staunchly, even as photographs and reports circle the world documenting precisely the torture he is denying. "Our plan for victory is working; we will not cut and run while I am President," he maintains, even as his commanders feverishly work up plans to create at least the appearance of reduced troop levels in time for the 2006 elections.

Do these people have no shame? No sense of embarrassment over the mountains of evidence confirming the totality of their lies, the hypocrisy of their outrage, their utter lack of moral or social responsibility? Have they no remorse whatsoever for the thousands of American and Iraqi lives destroyed by their self-serving machinations?

Apparently not. And since such behavior, on the part of most of us, would be considered pathological, to say the least, we have no alternative but to agree with what increasing multitudes, both around the world, and in our own country, have long since concluded: the United States of America, once held to be a bastion of democratic sanity, is now in the cold, bloody hands of psychopaths.

Our Endangered Values

2005-12-08T02:28:00.000-08:00

Jimmy Carter has always been one of my heroes. As a former president he has spent his life building homes for the poor, settling international disputes and fighting for a more peaceful world. The list of Mr. Carter’s involvement is longer than this but these are some of the things that I admire in this most moral man.

Recently, I had the opportunity to read, in its entirety, his new book entitled OUR ENDAGERED VALUES.

What immediately became clear was that the Republican Party has adopted as its platform the narrowly defined tenets of rigid religious fundamentalism.

The book begins with a restatement of America’s traditional moral values. These values, according to Mr. Carter, include promoting economic and social justice, preserving peace for ourselves and others, raising the banner of freedom and human rights, protecting the quality of our environment, alleviating human suffering and co-operating with other peoples around the globe to reach these goals.

Mr. Carter documents in his book the religious right attack on these values by trying to justify preemptive war, by striving to deny women’s rights, by attempting to take away our civil liberties, by degrading the environment, by putting religious beliefs over science and by otherwise melding religion and politics.

Interesting chapter titles include: Must Women Be Subservient?, Worshiping the Prince Peace, or Preemptive War?, No Conflict between Science and Religion, The Entwining of Church and State, The Distortion of American Foreign Policy, and Attacking Terrorism, Not Human Rights.

Through this easy to read book, President Carter comes across as an excellent teacher, political analyst and a compassionate human being deeply concerned about the trend away from traditional moral values in the false name of religion.

Would that our political leaders could follow Carter’s advice of Peace through diplomacy as a way to protect America’s interests and make a better world.

I recommend this book to all who want to understand an objective view of the great moral issues surrounding the current events in American politics.

I conclude the review of his book with a quote from Thomas Jefferson on a plaque given to Mr. Carter on the day he left office:

I HAVE THE CONSOLATION TO REFLECT

THAT DURING THE PERIOD OF MY ADMINISTRATION

NOT A DROP OF BLOOD OF A SINGLE CITIZEN

WAS SHED BY THE SWORD OF WAR

Our Dickinsonian Democracy

2005-12-06T20:41:00.000-08:00

The rich had their pickin’s
In the days of Charles Dickens
While the poor had to flail
With the prospect of jail
For falling behind in their rent
Or challenging a gent

We are again in a Dickinsonian Democracy for anybody out there keeping score of the reality game being played by the Bush Administration and the current Congress. The new rules on debt and bankruptcy are another attack on the middle class along with the pattern of debauched planning by the authors of the Bush Drug Program that forbids competitive bidding. The outsourcing of goods and services that were normally provided by the government is costing the American taxpayer the fortunes of their children and again with cushy no-bid contracts among the gentry for hurricanes and wars. Free trade is a slogan that is now used to lower wages of working families while protecting the connected by forbidding competition and awarding contracts based on who knows whom rather than value to the taxpayer.

While this is unfolding, we also see a new society; a new Order of the Greed Garter. The pattern of corruption highlighted this past week by the guilty sobbings of Representative “Duke” Cunningham who bullied contracting officers into awarding contracts to those providing him with kickbacks of at least $2.4 million plus untold campaign funding. “Duke” brings an image of Nineteenth Century England when wealth and title was its own sanctity.

The list of these white collar and black-hearted new moguls of menace grows daily. Bill Frist, VP for Torture (Dick Cheney), the Ohio governor, and the entire string of DeLay-Abramoff “bribees.” Operatives like DeLay’s Scanlon are setting new records for both fraud and singing like the yellow canaries they are. G. Bush Sr. rakes in the cash with his bin Laden soul mates through the Carlisle Group. Halliburton gets no-bid contracts in MS, LA and, of course, Iraq while paying wages of 45 cents per hour there and below average wages wherever it can. Again, in Iraq, we are paying the Lincoln Group (catchy name for Republicans financially supporting Bush) $300 million (no-bid) to plant stories in the Iraqi press of how good Americans are while bribing Iraqis to do it. What if this new aristocracy doesn’t deliver the goods and services? They deserve to be rewarded because they are appointed to the Order! Meanwhile, Afghanistan falls into the hands of the Taliban and Iraq falls into civil war while the connected collect their spoils from the blood of our best.

Dickens and Darwin were essentially contemporaries and I see more than a little irony that the crowd that places Intelligent Design on a par with Darwin’s Theory while the Order practices the survival of the fittest through selection in the most opportunistic way since Dickens. God Bless us, every one, because these bastards won’t.

Selling War

2005-11-24T10:56:00.000-08:00

Recent news about so-called Iraqi defectors providing bogus information about Saddam Hussein's "hidden" weapons of mass destruction has demonstrated more vividly than ever that, far from being an activity willingly engaged in by "patriots," war increasingly has to be sold. What's new in our time is that, like everything else these days, the selling of war has now been privatized, so that salesmen can profit from it.

Consider the case of Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri. It is not simply that al-Haideri, like the more notorious "Curveball," told lies about biological and nuclear weapons hidden in Iraq. Nor is it that the Bush administration adopted al-Haideri's fictions as gospel and peddled them to the American people to justify their already-planned invasion. As James Bamford points out in a recent article in Rolling Stone Magazine, al-Haideri was a product of a CIA/Pentagon operation designed to create the propaganda needed to convince the American people to go to war. Worse, the operation was run by a private propaganda firm run by one John Rendon under contract to the American government. Rendon's job--worth $16 million for this one task--was to "target Iraq and other adversaries with propaganda." The government calls this "perception management." What it amounts to is sophisticated lying. Rendon has been doing this since he virtually created the Iraqi National Congress out of whole cloth. With al-Haideri (whom the CIA knew, from its own lie-detector tests, to be telling lies) Rendon's propaganda efforts reached new heights. He succeeded, along with the willing liars at the top of the Bush administration, in misleading an entire nation into war.

In short, thousands of American men and women (not to mention innocent Iraqis) have been induced to engage in the most lethal form of human endeavor, sacrificing their lives and limbs under the illusion of fighting for their country's survival, based on a set of lies knowingly produced under contract to the United States government!

If that is not grounds for the impeachment of the President, the Vice-President, the Secretary of Defense, the Director of the CIA, and anyone else found to have colluded in this deadly deception, I do not know what is.

Note: The James Bamford Rolling Stone article courtesy of Common Dreams News Center and Rolling Stone Magazine.

Iraq Exit Plan: Why We Need to Know

2005-11-23T07:58:00.000-08:00

We come to the season
To search for a reason
To ride that horse
And stay the course
While riding from rack to ruin
In Iraq’s countless sand dunes

Yesterday, in a meeting in Egypt, the three major factions of Iraqis have concluded that we need to set a timetable to leave Iraq. All this comes when the President is testing new lows in the polls. Moderate Republicans are breaking ranks and refusing to be seen with Bush, the living model of insanity who on seeing failure through death after death in Iraq, sternly announces that he is “staying the course.” Bush provides the rationale that to announce an end date would provide too much information to the enemy. As we have written in the past, the impact of that information on the enemy is far less than it is on our own troops. Apparently, King George is the only one who doesn’t get it.

Our own troops need to know how to plan the combat operations and the supporting logistics. They need to know how to plan their personal lives. This same information, even if made public, is hardly “actionable intelligence” as we like to term information that will support a raid or an attack. The obvious countermeasures include training Iraqis and stationing a strike force in Kuwait as well as providing a step-by-step process to protect the diminishing troop numbers.

If we knew when we were leaving Iraq, we could set performance goals for the development of the infrastructure and then break down those goals into achievable objectives in water purification and delivery; petroleum production, school and road construction, hospital activation and staffing, etc.

If we knew when we were leaving Iraq, we could prepare job programs and training programs for returning veterans. If we knew when we were leaving Iraq, we could budget for domestic programs with greater certainty. If we knew when we were leaving Iraq, we could plan the recuperation of our armed forces and homeland defense. If we knew when we were leaving Iraq, we could select the champagne and get a better price.

Peace

Congressman Jack Murtha: Hero of the Week

2005-11-21T11:58:00.000-08:00

Congressman Jack Murtha (D-12-Pennsylvania) finally had enough and last week and he lashed out at the Bush Administration's handling of the war in Iraq. The former decorated Vietnam War veteran said, “It’s a flawed policy, wrapped in illusion.”

Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst, writing in tompaine.com describes the White House dilemma splendidly. It seems ten battalion commanders briefed various senators last week and the picture they painted is not too pretty and one that does not conform to the "official" White House spin. McGovern said:

The Army and Marine commanders reportedly were chosen for their experience on the battlefield rather than in the political arena. Battalion commanders represent the crucial link between operations and strategy and, as a group, are ideally positioned to deliver a reality check to Congress. They are at once close to their troops, responsible for implementing the strategy in Iraq, and, at the same time, somewhat insulated from the civilians in the Pentagon.

So their credentials are impeccable. They told the senators not only that they needed more troops, but that their repeated requests had been “turned down flat.” The battalion commanders indicated that, as a result, their units had to “leapfrog” around Iraq to keep insurgents from going back into towns that had been cleared by U.S. forces. They added that there are never enough explosive experts to deal with the roadside bombs responsible for the majority of U.S. casualties.

So what do the Republicans do: they call Congressman Murtha unpatriotic. Can you believe it? But a tough Marine like Murtha, who served in the Marines for 37 years, won two purple hearts in Vietnam among other awards, and retired as a Colonel, won’t let snides like the ones we heard all weekend long go unchallenged.

Murtha fired back:

I like guys who've never been there that criticize us who've been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done.

Even Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska), a firm critic of the war and how the Administration blew it from the get-go, got in on the action. He added:

I think historians will look back on this day and will say this was a turning point.

Post Special Election View: All Elections are Partisan

2005-11-18T09:10:00.000-08:00

When I was in a Catholic Seminary, I remember our professors challenging our ability to think deeper about the subject matter. They did this largely by making distinctions using Latin expressions, many of which are used in our English language today.

My most vivid memory of those distinctions was in the use of the words de jure and de facto. De jure referred to the literal meaning while de facto referred to the reality.

In applying this to so-called non-partisan elections, the de facto reality is that there is no such thing as non-partisan elections. Republican and Democratic political clubs exist to elect party members to both partisan and non-partisan offices. As the former Speaker of Congress, Tip O’Neal (D-Massachusetts) said, “All politics are local,” and Democrats follow the dictum, “Think globally, act locally.”

There are many types of local elections across the country that are referred to as non-partisan. These include city councils, water boards, boards of supervisors and school boards to name a few. For political parties, these local offices serve in a fashion like farm clubs do for baseball. Parties move their candidates up. Thus, local Republican Don Knabe went from Cerritos City Council to run for the California State Senate (which he lost) and then ran and won a spot on the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. Democrat Rudy Bermudez went from the Norwalk-La Mirada School Board to the Norwalk City Council to the California State Assembly. Today he is running for the California Senate.

Elected officials, once in office, have far reaching influence and power because they appoint individuals to national, state, regional, city and county boards, commissions and special districts. In addition, their staffs are mostly made up of people from their own political party.

As you can see, there is a huge ripple effect created when locally elected Republican office holder shave the power to appoint like-minded, doctrinaire right-wingers to serve so many public functions. Congressman Tom Delay (R-Texas) has made no secret that he wants Republicans elected in all the so-called non-partisan offices.

By way of example, the staff and appointees of Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Gloria Molina and Yvonne B. Burke are made up of mostly Democrats. I would venture to say that the staff and appointees of Supervisor Don Knabe are more than 90% Republican, the most notable exception being the appointment of Alex Beanum, the former Mayor of Cerritos.

An elected public official has an awesome responsibility in forming public policy and working for the common good, not just the special interests. People belong to a political party because they see their party’s core beliefs as better bringing about the common good. In that sense, candidates from the other party are political opponents. Political opponents can be friends on a personal basis. However, to cross party lines because of friendship is, in my opinion, to sell out one’s personal beliefs as to which party best serves the common good.

Saying over and over that an election is “non-partisan” does not de facto make it true. If you are a Democratic public official in a non-partisan office (read: could it be you?) it’s not valid to say that “so-and-so” of the opposite party supported me and therefore I must support them even though we are adversaries when it comes to political beliefs.

Remember, de facto, there is no such thing as a non-partisan race.

Garamendi v. Speier: Will there be Fireworks?

2005-11-16T13:33:00.000-08:00

Look for a great and interesting California Senate Insurance Committee Oversight meeting on Monday, November the 21st. The chair of the committee is Jackie Speier (D-8-San Francisco) and testifying is Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi who, along with Sen. Speier is running for Lt. Governor in 2006. The hearing should be broadcast on the California Channel. It should be an interesting day.

John Garamendi is a well-known political brand name in California. He came to the attention of Californians statewide when he first captured the commissioner's post in 1990. He gave it up in 1994 when he made an unsuccessful bid to become the Democratic candidate for governor of California. His also worked for the Clinton Administration as deputy secretary of the Interior in 1995 and has also worked in private investment in California.

Conventional wisdom says that John Garamendi has the best shot at this race due to name recognition and the ability to raise the money. And he is also tremendously charismatic and is known for his hard work on the campaign trail.

[Update]: 11/19/05 The California State Senate Banking and Senate Committee will meet on Monday at 10:00am and it will be televised on the California Channel. Be there or be square.

To visit John Garamendi’s web site visit here.

To visit Jackie Speier’s web site visit here.

Image © by Lou Delgado, SpotLight Public Relations & Photography.

Arrogance of Power: Tom DeLay

2005-11-15T13:41:00.000-08:00

"Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Lord John Dalberg-Acton (British historian 1834-1902)

According to the Washington Post Tom “Ratman” DeLay ratted on himself when he met Texas prosecutor Ronnie Earle.

R. Jeffrey Smith in the Post writes:

The last-minute negotiations between the lawyers and Texas prosecutor Ronnie Earle were arranged after DeLay made what Earle considered a seriously damaging admission about his fundraising activities during an Aug. 17 meeting with the prosecutor in Austin.

At that session, DeLay acknowledged that in 2002 he was informed about and expressed his support for transfers of $190,000 in mostly corporate funds from his Texas political action committee to an arm of the Republican National Committee in Washington and then back to Texas, according to the sources, who spoke on the condition that they not be named.

Sounds like Delay admitted to knowing about the money laundering. According to Texas law it is unlawful for corporations to donate money in election campaigns. So what DeLay admitted is that his PAC, Texans for a Republican Majority aka as TRMPAC, went around the law by hitting up corporations to the tune of $190,000. He then sent the cash to the RNC, who turned around and sent the loot back to local Texas candidates. It sounds like a classic case of money laundering.

The moral of the story is that when you amass such power as DeLay has the last couple of years you begin to think you are invincible. That type of hubris will bring down Delay and the sooner the better.

The Neo-Con Spin Machine: In Action Once Again

2005-11-12T17:52:00.000-08:00

Selling out the White Shack
To the highest bidder
Chalabi’s back in town
And he’s such a kidder
But wearing such a frown
King George has lost his crown
And his gold is turning brown

Karl Rove, despite his chores explaining Treasongate to prosecutor Fitzgerald is surely the mind behind the VP coming out of his undisclosed location. Cheney laid a wreath to honor those he has dishonored with his insistence on going to war with lies that he personally emphasized. The neo-con Jinn has taken a back row to get King George out in front in the attack on “Democrats and others” who are questioning the candor of the White House. Somebody please put him back into the bottle.

Perhaps the most bizarre element is that the badly burned Bush is claiming that everybody had the same intelligence and that the investigation on intelligence exonerated him for forcing bad interpretation. Most civics teachers would claim that the Judiciary and the Legislature don’t do intelligence and that there is a branch of government charged with that responsibility, his. Cheney’s old golfing buddy, Ahmed Chalabi now claims that he didn’t provide bad intel and he is not a mole for Iran. Perhaps that means that the press and VP were merely incompetent and not guilty of cooking the intelligence, but it sure smells like cooked intelligence. Sorry, George, you are the elected leader of the executive branch assigned that unique role and the ignorance excuse will not bring back the thousands of American soldiers we have lost nor the uncounted thousands of Iraqis killed in strife both civil and uncivil.

Condi Rice is trying to get the Iraqi factions to stop killing each other and has set out to scold them. It is a pity that she did not see this coming because the rest of the world did before her blathering about a “mushroom cloud” got in the way of her analysis.

This George is about to twist the motto that described the first president. This George is becoming last in war; last in peace and last in the hearts of his countrymen. The polls are down. Attack and rally the Right, George. They are moving to the Center!

Peace

Election Evening: Party at the Biltmore Hotel

2005-11-11T13:55:00.000-08:00

I spent last Tuesday, election evening, with my Democratic friends celebrating our incredible victory in California's Special Election. The Democratic Party is on the move. I just wished the Congressional elections were held that day as well, because I'm confident that we Dems could have taken back the Senate, if not the House of Representatives. The mood across the country is vastly different today than it was a year ago, and the Republicans have only themselves to blame: on the national and the state level.

The photo above (right to left) is of future District #41 Assemblymember Kelly Hayes-Raitt (Santa Monica, and way beyond), Assemblymember Cindy Montañez (D-39-San Fernando), and Senator Gil Cedillo (D-22-Los Angeles).

The second photo, below the first, is a snap that reflects the energy that was present at the Biltmore Hotel in Downtown Los Angeles. Democratic activists certainly worked hard in the Special Election, but in the end: we did it! Sí se puede Californians.

To visit Ms. Kelly Hayes-Raitt campaign web site, please click here. Please donate to her campaign. Even a small amount is chevere!

Images © by Lou Delgado, SpotLight Public Relations & Photography.

Arnold v. the California Voters

2005-11-10T16:16:00.000-08:00

We at Team Splinters bring you another poignant retort from the Sacramento Bee's political cartoonist: Rex Babin. Yes, it seems the bubble burst on the Governator. He even admitted today that if he could go back in time, like he did in the Terminator films, he would tell himself "not" to hold the Special Election. No kiddin'. He spent 70 million dollars on a foolish ploy. Governance is about compromise, and the so-called "special interests" are at the heart of pluralism.

California Elections: Just Say No

2005-11-09T14:05:00.000-08:00

Yesterday Governator Schwarzenegger forced the state of California to needlessly spend 50 million dollars on 8 Propositions Californians wanted nothing to do with. It’s said by political scientists that the issues are so complex voters rely on “cues” from people and groups they trust in order to make “rational” choices. And therein lies the problem. “Cues” are simply not enough. Voters, en masse, not only voted the Propositions that irked Democrats and unions, but they voted down two pro-consumer Propositions: No. 79 and 80.

Proposition 79 would have created a drug discount program that required participation of drug manufacturers. It would have meant steep discounts for seniors, families, small businesses, and the State. The State would have saved millions of dollars, and California consumers would have received cheaper prescription drugs.

Proposition 80 was a common-sense consumer initiative that could have helped the energy blackouts we faced a few years ago and prevented the horrendous fraud committed by unregulated energy producers like Enron and others.

Yet, the “cues” that the voters heard was that the Democratic Party, the nurses, the police and firefighters, and teachers were fighting the governor by “just saying no.” And no they voted across the board. It’s a shame because Propositions 79 and 80 were consumer-friendly initiatives. Well, there is always next year.

And, I love what Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, (D-Los Angeles) said after yesterday's election:

We want a true partnership that gets things done and leaves no Californian behind. That begins with civility, no more cheap shots, no more name calling, no more dropping the grenade on the Legislature about your priorities.

In the political cartoon above, Rex Babin, who draws for the Sacramento Bee, gets it right. The Propositions, much like in Arnold’s film The Terminator, marched slowly to death yesterday.

Special Election Day in California, USA

2005-11-08T00:33:00.000-08:00

Today is Special Election day in California. In a supposed drive to “reform” California politics Governator Schwarzenegger could not wait seven months and put the Propositions he strongly backs in next year’s Primary Elections held in June. He did this of course, not for any sense of urgency, but pure Machiavellian politics. It’s pretty much a certainty that voter turnout is remarkably low in off year elections (on Tuesday it is expected to be 42% of eligible voters). And this is historically true of Democratic Party voters. In fact, in an article in the Los Angeles Times by Robert Salladay, “[Schwarzenegger’s] campaign strategy relies on relatively few people showing up [on] Tuesday and large segments of voters staying home.” In addition, he has forced his opposition, the labor unions, to spend millions of dollars fighting his power grab, thereby weakening the unions financially in the political battles to come next year. Very smart politics in many ways. However, as the old adage says, “Be careful what you wish for.” The polls predict most, if not all, of the Propositions he backs are going down in flames. Whatever political capital he had, has now evaporated.

In general I read the Los Angeles Times to keep me informed about what is happening in this state and elsewhere in the world. The work of Patt Morrison, Jean Pasco, Jean Merl, Steve Lopez, Robin Abcarian, among others, is top notch.

The following is a take from Patt Morrison and Steve Lopez on Tuesday’s, Special Election:

Patt Morrison: Can we please stop calling it a special election? It’s not. It’s marriage counseling. Almost every measure on Tuesday’s ballot represents a breakdown, a failure of California institutions to work things out with their significant others: governor and legislature, public unions and governor, business and legislature. So they come to us voters for help, these troubled couples.

Steve Lopez: We all knew California politics could get wacky, but I think it’s fair to say we’re outdoing ourselves this time…. You’ve heard of democracy run amok? This would be direct democracy run amok, and if Schwarzenegger prevails, I believe California would officially become a banana republic…I can’t think of a better reason to stop everything you’re doing [on] Tuesday, get off your duff, and run---don’t walk---to the polls, where your mission is clear as never before: Vote early and often.

Lalo Alcaraz: Chicano Political Cartoonist

2005-11-05T07:10:00.000-08:00

Syndicated award winning editorial cartoonist, Lalo Alcaraz, is well known for capturing the angst felt in the Chicano and Latino community. As such, he brings a breath of fresh air to many of the editorial pages across the country: New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Variety, et al. In fact, Acaraz is the only political cartoonist that draws a Latino-themed comic strip (La Cucaracha). Alcaraz has worked for the alternative LA Weekly since 1992 and originated cartoons for La Opinion, America's oldest Español newspaper. He was born in Tijuana, Mexico and raised in San Diego. He graduated from San Diego State and received his Bachelor Degree in Art.

In the above cartoon Alcaraz has lost all faith in Bush, calling his presidency a "lame duck" Administration, and this only ten months after he barely won re-election. I lie badly: Alcaraz never had any faith in the "Shrub" Administration.

To visit La Cucaracha web-site please see here.

To read an interview of Lalo Alcaraz written by Andrea Almond (AP) visit here.

To visit Cartoonista the web site devoted to Alcaraz's editorial cartoons visit here.

"Cues" in California’s Special Election: Working the Latino Community

2005-11-04T03:13:00.000-08:00

The Special Election is coming up in California next Tuesday, November the 8th. The Guvernator’s job approval rating according to a recent Los Angeles Times Poll stand at a measly 40% so it seems the momentum is on the side of the Democratic Party and their allies and that is a positive sign for Democrats because according to studies “ . . . partisanship is one of the best predictors of individual and county level votes on ballot measures.”

In my recent posting “Initiatives: What Were the Progressive Thinking?” I discussed how citizens rely on what political scientists call “cues” when making their decisions on how to vote on propositions. Interesting commercials have been airing recently with very, very catching “cues.” One of the best I’ve seen that illustrates how “cues” are used is a commercial that airs on Univision.

Univision is one of the Spanish media companies that serve the Latino population in America. One of its stations, KMEX-12 in Los Angeles has been airing an impressive "NO on Propositions 74, 75, 76, and 77" commercial. However, lets go back in history a bit and review Proposition 187 before discussing the commercial. In November 1994 the voters enacted 187 into law (although it was later overturned by the Courts). The goal of 187 was to prevent undocumented residents from receiving public aid. The campaign was bitter and then Governor Pete Wilson was at the forefront of the nasty campaign. Wilson became the most hated politician in the Latino community.

Cut to the commercial: With a narrator in the background speaking about power grabs, we see a picture of Pete Wilson, then the photo morphs into a snap of Arnold Schwarzenegger. The commercial does this several times and then the narrator asks, “Do you trust these men?” Brilliant move. Chevere! I can just hear the chatter in Español across the Southland and a whole lot of cussin’.

I predict a good Latino turnout in this Special Election and the votes ain’t going to the Gropernator.

To read more about the Propositions in this Election visit here.

To read more about Proposition 187, visit here.

Bush’s Compartments of Morality

2005-11-03T01:39:00.000-08:00

The Right and George had a Fight
Over Harry the judge to be
The Right showed its might
In a struggle for all to see
But what do you think
They stared at the Bush
And he blinked
And still his head’s in his tush
Now we learn what it meant
As we find his maze of compartments

We have all recently witnessed bizarre White House maneuvers related to the extremism of the Bush administration. Bush is the man who says that he is not influenced by polls, at least when the polls are negative. The irony of Mad King George being stampeded into responding to the uproar of the right wing would be comical except for the fact of the President is a puppet on a string and that the string is not held by the majority of Americans, but a group of religious zealots who have a narrow view on morality that denounces abortion but does nothing to reduce the probability that an abortion would need to be considered by a woman. I have never met anyone who thought that abortions were good, but this country had 300,000 fewer abortions every year during the Clinton Administration than we do now. Of course, there was help putting women to work during the Clinton years, but that is not important. It is the principle. How can the right wing compartmentalize morality so narrowly that it ignores outcomes and foams over “principles?”

Another painful example is the criminal behavior documented in the cover-up of the White House through the deliberate actions of Scooter Libby working for the Vice President. The right wing pundits including Max Boot and the usual suspects are attacking Joe Wilson, but not the illegal behavior of perjury or false statements. Again, they demonstrate elegant compartmentalization. Worse, there is no mention of the fact that this nation went to war under false pretenses and then blamed the CIA for intelligence despite the fact that the CIA discounted the 16 words the President put into the 2003 State of the Union in the prior October. Both Bush and Cheney praised Scooter for his service on his resignation and said nothing in condemnation of the behavior. They have watertight compartments.

The clincher for me is that all this is a misdirection play to take the spotlight off the war that has hijacked our morality as a nation. The fact is that the war has no moral basis or even a practical basis to attack terrorists. The war has, instead, established a climate of death and destruction in a country that never attacked us and where President Hussein offered to accept exile instead of war (according to CNN and other sources today). The war has established a new climate where torture is de facto national policy and the President threatened to veto the funding of our Armed Services in order to not be held to the standards of our own field manuals and the Geneva Conventions. There were bin Laden terrorists in Afghanistan but we chose to invade Iraq. Meanwhile we attracted insurgents to Iraq and are averaging 3 US military deaths each day with no count of Iraqi civilians killed and we have enabled a Shiite theocracy much like Taliban we still fight in Afghanistan. Theocracy is bad in Afghanistan. It is good in Iraq?

Incidentally, there is no motivation by our leaders to leave Iraq. Cheney’s stock options in Halliburton have increased about 14 fold since 2003. The Carlyle Group is profiting immensely and neither G.H.W. Bush nor the bin Ladens see conflict of interest issues in being profiteering Carlyle partners. These compartments of morality are failing our nation. Maybe it is time to flood the failing compartments to save the Ship of State.

Peace

Senator Harry Reid: Hero of the Week

2005-11-02T01:57:00.000-08:00

My new hero this week is Minority Leader and Senator Harry Reid (D-Nevada). As former Secretary of State Madeline Albright might have said, “He found his cojones.” Sen. Reid used the current Senate rules and procedurally moved that the Senate go into “closed session.” Clearly he wanted to make a bold statement to warn the nation that something has gone far astray in the workings of the Senate. Before he made his motion, Sen. Reid, on the dais in the Senate floor, said that the Republican Senators were beholding to the White House and, sub silentio, there is very little separation-of-powers.

It seems twenty months ago the Democratic Senators were promised by Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kansas), Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, a full investigation regarding our march to war with Iraq (Phase II). No investigation was forthcoming and the Senators were effectively stonewalled. What broke the camel’s back, however, was when forty Senators wrote President Bush expressing their concerns and requested information. What they received from the White House was not a response from the President as is protocol, but what seemed a form letter from an assistant named Candy Wolf. Talk about stupid moves.

The response from Majority Leader Senator Bill Frist (R-Tennessee) was to throw a hissy fit and told the press he was metaphorically "slapped in the face." Good.

Sen. Reid considers his action today as, "A victory for the American people."

War, Lies, and Videotape

2005-11-01T13:32:00.000-08:00

Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice-President Cheney's Chief of Staff, has now been indicted on five counts of perjury and obstruction of Justice. He has lied repeatedly in the Grand Jury investigation of the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame, whose husband, Joseph Wilson, had the temerity to publicly challenge the Administration's case for war against Iraq.

In one sense, this is a victory for those who have opposed this administration’s illegal war. But in another, the limiting of the indictment to one man's lies simply continues the cover-up of war crimes. That is because, for one, the best guess is that Libby will cop a guilty plea, thus avoiding a trial that could expose the real reason for his "obsession" with Joseph Wilson. The spin meisters are already hard at work saying that yes, Libby was powerful enough to have acted on his own in revealing Valerie Plame's identity to reporters. David Brooks on the 10/28 Newshour asserted exactly that.

So what we had was an administration trying to cover up the Big Lie with the Little Lie. The only problem is that the Big Lie is preserved for all to see on videotape: the President, in his 2003 State of the Union Address saying that British intelligence has learned that Saddam Hussein has tried to purchase uranium from Africa; Vice-President Cheney asserting time and again the certainty that Saddam is building nuclear weapons; Condoleeza Rice indulging in that most fearsome imagery, the mushroom cloud, which her President repeats in a subsequent speech: we cannot wait for the smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud. All this and more were reprised in Maria Hinojosa's report on NOW the PBS News Magazine 10/28 edition. And what it demonstrates is that the most serious lie of all, leading a nation to unprovoked aggression on false pretenses, has been committed by the sitting President of the United States.

This is why Joseph Wilson had to be stopped, had to be punished with the outing of his wife. To cover the Big Lie with the Little Lie. And of course, the Little Lie of little "Scooter" Libby is now said to be his alone--this generation’s lone gunman. Acting on his own volition, without the approval or knowledge of his boss, the Vice, or his bigger boss, the President, or the other key source who escaped indictment, the father of Bush lies, Karl Rove.

It is the current Big Lie. To believe which, to believe that "Scooter" acted on his own at the risk destroying an entire presidency, is to reveal that one suffers (or the nation suffers collectively) from a cerebro-rectal inversion.

[To read the transcript of Maria Hinojosa's report on NOW see here.]

Political Cartoonist Conrad's Latest Volley

2005-10-31T23:37:00.001-08:00

The above is former Los Angeles Times Editorial Cartoonist Paul Conrad's take on the current condition of the Bush Administration. Clearly Bush tapped Judge Samuel Alito, Monday morning at 8:00am, for the Supreme Court in order to metaphorically get the heat off and help his Administration stop melting. Bush wants the media to talk about anything else other that his recent woes; it's so transparent. I hope the media won't buy in. I fear they will.

Initiatives: What were the Progressives Thinking?

2005-10-30T21:57:00.000-08:00

In 1911 California Governor Hiram Johnson, one of the leaders of the Progressive movement, sought to draw "the people" more directly into public affairs and was able to convince the California legislature and the people to pass into law the initiative, the referendum, and the recall. What were the Progressives thinking? The upcoming special elections in California where the citizens are asked to vote in incredibly complex issues is nothing short of surreal. (Not to even talk about the money the special election will cost.) What it does illustrate is the hubris of Governor Schwarzenegger and how he’ll have to depend on showmanship to win the votes needed to pass the initiatives he is advancing. What a way to govern the most important State in the Union.

Originally the initiative was seen as a method to control the railroad "barons" in the early part of the century. In fact, the "barons" opposed the initiative but historically the initiative was not successful in controlling the power of the "barons." Today, special interest groups, very often, corporate, use the initiative to advance their economic and political agenda. These corporate interests often pursue policies that are anti social justice in nature. Proposition 13, here in California is an excellent example of an initiative that has not advanced social justice. By and large, the biggest winners with the passing of Proposition 13 have been corporate interests.

There is an inherent conflict between representative democracy and "direct democracy" (the American form) in any state that allows initiatives. After all the Founding Fathers of this nation and of this founders of this State structured a constitution where the citizens choose their representatives to the legislature and they, in turn, would enact the laws. In the States where Progressives were a powerful political movement a certain tension began as the initiative was adopted. Who governs became a serious concern? In fact, the Greek philosopher Aristotle, feared direct democracy--and for good reason, he believed it would ultimately degenerate into "mob" rule due to the prejudices of the citizens and the possibility of them being swept away by emotion. This is especially true when a community is confronted by severe economic hardships.

Then there is the problem of the complexity of the initiatives. I recently read the 2005 Official Voter Information Guide: Special Statewide Election, and even though I am a political scientist by training, I found it incredibly difficult to slog through the booklet. One has to be a specialist in public finance and an expert in the recent political history of California to know what is going on. I can just see the millions and millions of citizens eyes glaze over as they attempt to read this very complex book with very particular and esoteric language.

So what does the citizenry do? No, they don’t read the Voter Guide or try to analyze the issues, they, as political scientists would say, look for "cues." People will make their choice by trusting the people they trust and maybe, more importantly, who they distrust; enter the firefighters, the nurses, rescue workers, and the teachers in this volatile race, and they are used in vast mailers, television commercials, slate mailing and radio spots. This bodes well for the Democratic Party, as the Guvernator's popularity ratings are an all time low. One can easily see in this Special Election how "emotion" (popularity ratings) plays such an important role in "direct democracy," and in the long run I see this as very problematic. In this election the emotions of the citizenry are on the side of the Democrats but due to the vagaries of politics that will change some day--depending on the cause, economic situation, other uncontrolled conditions and the players--and Democrats will be unhappy. I guess I’m a republican (small r, people) at heart with Democratic Party core values.

Governing from the Center

2005-10-27T11:50:00.000-07:00

President Nixon always believed that when you run presidential campaigns, if one is a Republican, you always run from the "Right," but when you get into office, in the main, you govern from the "Center." Sounds like good advice, especially since most of America is to be sure, "Moderate." Well, Bush has been trying to follow Nixon's advice somewhat, the nomination of Ms. Miers for Supreme Court Justice is a good example. But, radical "movement conservatives" just won't let Bush do that. Very scary.