I've written a new feature article for my other blog, Demockracy, which focuses on public policy. The article is about why President Obama and the Democrats shouldn't care whether or not the Republicans are on board for health care reform; they don't even need the Republicans.
Glenn Greenwald, you brilliant man, you. Once again, he points out that the media consider a unilateral condemnation on torture to be a a "left" or "hard left" phenomenon. Why is it radical to condemn torture? Why is it radical for a president to be honest about what has been going on in the name of the United States? As Jon Stewart pointed out on Tuesday's The Daily Show, TV pundits are shocked -- shocked! -- that the government would acknowledge that we tortured! That's what they're upset about. They couldn't care less that the United States tortured people (and, by all accounts, we got our intelligence from the people we captured before we tortured them); they care that we admitted to it. Also, Greenwald noted in a Twitter post yesterday that the use of the phrase "torture debate" normalizes torture. Suddenly, when there is a "debate," there are two legitimate opposing sides, and thus torture, which should be unilaterally wrong in all instances, is open for speculation on whether or not it's legal, useful, and ethical. Again, the false dichotomy: by saying that there are two sides to every issue, the opposition's argument -- however wrong -- is legitimized as it is brought up to the status of "debate," when in fact there shouldn't even be a question that torture is wrong, wrong, wrong.
How wrong is torture? Sen. John McCain reminded us, in 2007 (when he was against torture before he was in favor of it), that some Japanese soldiers were executed after World War II for waterboarding American soldiers.
In today's New York Times, the FBI interrogator who interrogated (not tortured! Seriously; both the FBI and the U.S. military refused to engage in the torture the CIA willingly participated in) Abu Zubaydah refutes the Bush administration argument that torturing Zubaydah provided actionable intelligence:
There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn't, or couldn't have been, gained from regular tactics. In addition, I saw that using these alternative methods on other terrorists backfired on more than a few occasions -- all of which are still classified. The short sightedness behind the use of these techniques ignored the unreliability of the methods, the nature of the threat, the mentality and modus operandi of the terrorists, and due process.
And, by the way, 24 is not real and torture doesn't work.
Former Massachusetts Governor and presidential nominee Mitt Romney, who for some reason is still asked his opinion about things, thinks that investigating Bush administration officials for their complicity in torture is just "partisanship." I suppose this means that mercilessly investigating Bill Clinton for eight years in order to get something, anything, to stick and then unsuccessfully impeaching him for perjury is ... justice?
Thankfully, Obama contradicted the statements of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Press Secretary Robert Gibbs by saying that it's up to the Attorney General to decide whether or not to prosecute people for torture.
Paul Krugman connects the dots after eight years and discovers a Grand Unified Scandal going on in our name:
Let's say this slowly: the Bush administration wanted to use 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq, even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. So it tortured people to make them confess to the nonexistent link.There's a word for this: it's evil.
According to Ron Suskind, author of The One Percent Doctrine, you can correlate the torture timeline with the events leading up to the Iraq War, providing support for the argument that torture was not used to prevent another terrorist attack, but was instead used to find support -- any support -- for an invasion of a country that had nothing to do with the September 11 attacks. Former Vice President Cheney, however, has waffled on the issue of government secrecy. Once the champion of making sure the American people have no idea what their government is doing, Cheney instead wants the CIA to declassify memos showing how effective torture was. That makes it okay!
All of this revelation doesn't stop Fox News' Shepard Smith from putting his head in the sand. It's as though he's having a flashback to when he was eight years old and woke up in the middle of the night to find his mother replacing the tooth under his pillow with a dollar bill.
One more interesting observation: the Spanish government wants to prosecute six former Bush administration officials for holding and torturing five Spanish residents in Guantanamo Bay. If the U.S. government can lay claim to "extraordinary rendition," then why can't Spain order the kidnapping and rendition of such U.S. citizens as John Yoo and Jay Bybee?
But none of these revelations stop Roger Cohen from telling us to let bygones be bygones. Imagine if we told that to Simon Weisenthal? Germany still wants to have John Demjanjuk extradited to stand trial for crimes he committed as a prison guard during the Holocaust, despite his old age. The Justice Department retroactively revoked his U.S. citizenship because he lied about being a Nazi prison guard. Why don't they look forward, and not backward?
Dateline, Week Two -- Obama and the Democrats want to pass an $825 billion stimulus package designed to support the struggling economy. The package is no mere handout; some Republicans have suggested it amounts to paying $825 billion merely to hire 4 million new workers, for an average salary of $206,000 per person. The plan, though, is not a one-time payout. It is an investment in infrastructure of all kinds: transportation, energy, education, health. Sure, the government could pay people to move dirt from one place to another, with no one getting any utility out of anything. That's what the Republicans claim this does. But that would be stupid. Instead, we'll employ people to do meaningful things. We wouldn't we?
And, furthermore, is this necessary? Turns out yes. Aggregate demand is falling: people, anticipating a recession, spend less. Companies spend less. And, especially in this economy, companies spend less on capital projects that require credit. Banks are still loathe to extend credit, since they can't trust anybody. When aggregate demand falls, the government must step in and take up the slack until people buy things again.
Republicans don't like this idea. They don't like spending money. Unless that money goes to contracts that would result in kickbacks from lobbyists. Or unless that money gets spend on the Department of Defense. And that money spend at DoD results in contracts that would result in kickbacks from lobbyists.
Sorry, sorry. Cheap shot, I know. Let's be post-partisan. Okay, Republicans don't like the idea. Rep. John Boehner, the House Minority Leader (from The Great State of Ohio!) has said his party intends to vote against the bill unless the 2001 Bush tax cuts are made permanent, among other things.
You know what, John Boehner? You go ahead and do that. But first, you might like to catch up on the news you've apparently missed for the last three months. As it turns out, your party lost. And it lost big. Remember that presidency you lost? And the eight Senate seats (not counting Minnesota, where Republican incumbent Norm Coleman will likely lose)? And the twenty-two House seats? Adding up all these numbers, it appears -- and I'm not entirely sure on this -- that you aren't in a position to be making demands. The House can pass whatever it wants even if every Republican votes against it. So can the Senate. And then, the Democratic president will sign it into law. (You may wish to call up your Originalist judges to overturn the law, just in case. They have a firepole, so they can move quick!)
The stimulus package will move ahead, whether you like it or not. It will move ahead with an end to the Bush tax cuts. Senate Republicans can filibuster the bill, and I would love to see Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid let them. At that point, the Republican spin machine would choke and the gears would come to a halt. How could they put their P.R. to work on refusing to stimulate the economy? It bodes nothing but badly for them. Reid would do well to let them dig their own grave and show Americans once and for all that Republicans aren't interested in helping the middle class.
Then again, a filibuster might happen. Not every Republican senator can be so easily duped. I'm looking at Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. He's shown his willingness to disagree with Republicans before. Democrats would need only two more votes to invoke cloture and end any filibusters.
Thankfully, Democrats do not appear to be backing down. In 2007, they used their newly-minted majority status to ... do everything the Bush administration wanted. Hmm. Well, never let it be said that Democrats know when they're ahead. I guess that prior sentence should be modified: Democrats do not appear to be backing down (but they might!). But once -- just once -- it would be nice for Democrats not to screw things up by acting like a beaten puppy and capitulating at the first sign of conflict. They won; Republicans lost. Now, they have an agenda that they want to advance. Republicans want to stop that agenda, but they no longer have the ability to do so. And what Republicans want is not what Americans want. Not anymore. So they can play their P.R. game and send John Boehner on Meet the Press to explain why it's just too much money, but they'll be left to explain themselves.
And a Republican trying to explain himself is a sure way to clear the room.
By Richard D. Erlich
This is a continuation of what I had to say in an essay stating that life doesn't begin; it began. There I pointed out that the abortion controversy doesn't really have to do with the question of when life begins or "What is life?" but with "What is human?" -- when a living being becomes and should be recognized as a "(human) person under the law."
It's a dangerous question.
Slavery in the US was based in the idea that Blacks were not fully human and, hence, could be bought and sold and exploited like nonhuman animals. Nazi extermination programs were based even more consciously in the idea that Jews and Roma (Gypsies) and other groups were literally degenerate and/or subhuman. I wouldn't want to employ what's been called "The 'Twice is Always' Rule," but it should give us a serious warning to recall that these questions of definition of "human" weren't resolved by argument but by wars.
People aren't always -- or often? -- logical, but we are indirectly governed by logics, plural: where different ideas lead. Push to its end one way to oppose abortion, and the logic goes like this.
Human beings are essentially souls, souls to be saved. (The body is at most the temple of the soul, at worst its prison.)Human beings are "ensouled" at the moment of conception, so a human zygote -- the fertilized egg -- is not just a unique individual organism but an unborn baby, in some variations, an unborn baby who can be saved or damned.
To kill that baby is the murder of an innocent, and possibly worse: the condemning of that innocent to Hell as an unbaptized baby. The abortion rate in the US is now at a very low point, as these things go, but we're still talking some 1.2 million abortions in 2005. If a human zygote, embryo, fetus is a human child, that's a body-count each year of massacre proportions.
Even as it is the shame of the World War II Allies that they didn't do all they could to act against the Hitlerian Holocaust -- including bombing the camps and the rail lines when begged to -- so it is to the shame (and damnation?) of members of our generation to fail to do everything possible to stop a holocaust in unborn, unbaptized babies.
Maybe including, as a last resort, violence, even lethal violence against those one sees -- following such logic -- as mass murderers.
On the other side (the one I'm on) is a logical and historical argument less rigorous, or rigid, but equally powerful: for giving women control over their bodies.
These arguments can't be reconciled by argument, but there is a possibility for a political resolution, and we know what it is. You attempt to make abortion "safe, legal, and rare": which includes actively pushing birth control and hell yes, making condoms readily available to anyone old enough to know what they are -- and making sure U.S. kids know about birth-control/STD-prevention by puberty. It means the opportunity for freely-made, early decisions by women who might want an abortion to have one or to carry the fetus to term. And on the other side, it means legal restrictions on late-term abortions.
Such a resolution is no solution and it neither will nor should satisfy a lot of people (press the Slavery/Holocaust analogy, and you'll see the problem). But most Americans will be able to live with it, and such a messy resolution will allow us to get through a very dangerous period and move on to other conflicts.
Richard D. Erlich is a Professor Emeritus of English at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio. He lives in Ventura County, California.
If it seems like I haven't been writing here for a while, it's because I haven't. I have been enlisted to write for a political blog, Demockracy, and as such, have been posting much of my stuff there.
But here's something that wouldn't go well on a political blog. It's about a hand transplant patient. David Savage was 19 when he lost his hand in an accident with a metal-stamping machine. Two years ago, he received a hand transplant from a cadaver donor. Now, he is able to feel sensations in his new hand that he could feel in his old one, something that scientists thought was impossible. It was previously assumed that when a limb was lost, the portion of the brain devoted to sensation in that limb was re-used for other functions. It turns out that Savage's brain reprogrammed itself, and now the part of his brain that controlled sensations for the old limb is performing that function for the new one.
What has brought us this marvel? The ability to take a dead person's hand, connect to a live person, and have that live person feel sensation in the new hand?
I'll tell you what didn't bring us this power: mysticism. Belief in, and subsequent fear of, an almighty, overarching, transcendental and inexplicable being did not attach a new hand to David Savage. Rituals, dances, prayer -- these things did not give David Savage a new hand.
Science gave David Savage a new hand. Human ingenuity, empiricism, logic, and reason all did this. Magic and the supernatural did not.
It's important to keep these things in mind as long as Sarah Palin is the vice presidential candidate. Sarah Palin not only believes in God, she believes in a Christian God who created the Earth 5,000 years ago. She further believes that she should be fulfilling the goals of Christianity through her political office.
A Sarah Palin world would not able to reattach hands. A Sarah Palin world would look very much like the Dark Ages, with man struggling to understand the world around him through a lens of religion.
This is not to say that religion is not valuable; it just turns out that it doesn't create things like new hands, longer lifespans, less mortality, going to the moon, flying around the world, spending extended lengths of time underwater, harnessing the world's knowledge and delivering it to everyone's homes. Religion is incapable of doing any of these things for us. By its nature, religion precludes the use of the observable world for any purpose other than serving as a testament to the greatness of a supernatural creator.
Perhaps the only religion that could be useful to a scientist is one in which the supernatural deity creates a world, gives it a set of rules, and lets it go. This idea of the "clockmaker god" has been embraced for hundreds of years, including by amateur inventor Thomas Jefferson. In this use of religion, the deity can be understood, and the rules that govern the operation of the universe can be discerned by human beings.
Sarah Palin's evangelical Protestantism, however, is no such thing. She believes that prayer can heal the sick, that hoping for a cure is just as powerful as using science to create a cure. She believes that creationism carries just as much weight as evolution and that both should be taught in schools. Sarah Palin could do nothing for David Savage; no amount of prayer can bring a man's hand back. But a lot of science, it turns out, can.
Barack Obama must be naive and inexperienced indeed if he is seriously suggesting that maintaining proper tire pressure and keeping cars maintained can save as much oil as offshore drilling would create. I mean ...
Wait? What?
Oh, it turns out he was right. While Republicans are making fun of his plan for the sheer novelty of the suggestion, no one has refuted the merits of what he said. Yes, it's true: keeping your tires properly inflated can increase your gas mileage. This means that it can save you money on gas. And it can do so right now.
New offshore drilling, on the other hand, would have an economic impact ... by the year 2030. What about the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR)? Surely it can produce enough oil to bring down those gas prices! Well, maybe someday. Drilling in ANWR "would have its largest impact nearly 20 years from now if Congress voted to open the refuge today," says U.S. News & World Report.
Republicans would like to find more fuel-efficient ways for us to continue consuming (all goods) at our present rate. Democrats would like to find alternatives to consumption. The latter most necessary; our resources are not finite, and rather than try and come up with new fuel substitutes, we need to learn how not to use so much fuel in the first place. The American way of life trumpeted by Rush Limbaugh and others -- the way of life where every American drives a Hummer and has a three-acre lawn with a sprinkler system -- is quickly coming to an end. As it should, for that lifestyle was not sustainable in the long run. It is an historical abnormality unique to a particular time -- a time when the United States had limitless power and resources. Times have changed, and it's time for proponents of limitless consumption to recognize that.
Former vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro still blames sexism for Hillary Clinton's loss.
Hard to believe, considering that Hillary won big time -- in fact, by the biggest margins of any of her states -- in Kentucky, West Virginia, and Arkansas, Appalachian states in which sexism and "traditional roles" for women are still very much the norm.
Also hard to believe because the most educated, and ostensibly least sexist (or any ist), section of America voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama.
Of course, Ferraro is unable to cite any instances of Barack Obama being sexist toward Hillary Clinton. In Ferraro's mind, sexism is the only clear answer. Clinton's campaign couldn't possibly have failed because people want Obama to be president more than they want her to be president.
Armchair historian George W. Bush last week, in an act of terrifying tactlessness, accused "some" in the United States of wanting to "appease" terrorists the same way that Neville Chamberlain appeased Adolf Hitler. His act is tactless, said Barack Obama, because he criticized Americans in front of a foreign delegation, and all because those "some" Americans disagreed with his foreign policy. But, nevertheless, it may have been valid because his speech was on foreign policy ...
Wait a minute, wait a minute. Whoops! Turns out he was giving a speech as part of the celebration of Israel's 60th anniversary. Happy birthday, Israel! Don't you just hate Democrats?
Chris Matthews of all people took the time to point out to a stupid guest why Bush's immediate distaste for "appeasement" doesn't make sense: the act that makes historians slap their palms to their foreheads is not that Chamberlain met with Hitler -- for, at the time, Hitler had not yet demonstrated his desire for world domination; the problems in Germany were external -- but rather that they gave him Czechoslovakia in return for the promise that he wouldn't go after any other countries. Hitler alleged that Germany had a legitimate claim to the Rhineland in Czechoslovakia. The other European leaders, still stinging from World War I, which is a more horrible war than you've been taught in history class, wanted to avoid another war at any cost.
Talking to leaders was, before 2001, how diplomacy got done. For Bush's analogy to make sense, his political enemies would have had to suggest that they let the other Arab states destroy Israel. To my knowledge, no Democrat has suggested this.
It could be that Bush, with his college-freshman mind, had heard the word "appeasement" in a class somewhere but didn't fully understand what it meant. Or, more sinisterly, he knows full well what it means, and knows that the Israelis know that, too. Perhaps he was sending a code to the Israeli delegation, saying, "If the United States elects a Democrat to the presidency, that person will stand idly by while Iran, Syria, and Lebanon destroy you."
Sadly, though, I don't think Bush is that smart. I think, as Chris Matthews has suggested, he's using the word "appeasement" as a buzz-word in the same way as every other pundit, including right-wing talk show host Kevin James. James was asked two dozen times by Matthews what Chamberlain did that was appeasing. For five minutes, James insisted that "we all know" what he did, and that "he was an appeaser." Finally, James admitted that he didn't actually know what Chamberlain did that was "appeasing."
And still, the election in 2008 will be almost a tie. How can James and others get away with this and have people believe them?
That's what Bill Maher said last week on Real Time with Bill Maher regarding the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. His argument was that Barack Obama could have done the politically expedient thing and distanced himself from Rev. Wright last month. Instead, when video on YouTube emerged of Rev. Wright apparently denouncing the United States (which he didn't do -- more on that later), Obama delivered a cogent and nuanced speech about race that treated Americans as intelligent people instead of as empty vessels into which simple, polarized opinions are poured. Obama's race speech was, sadly, revered throughout the media. I say "sadly" because it's the kind of speech that would be the old hat in academia: a speech in which a subject is carefully analyzed, and the apparent discrepancies are explained, but no solid conclusion is reached. Race is a very complex subject, Obama said, and should not be dealt with using platitudes. Wright, said Obama, is his spiritual mentor; he could no more disown him than he could disown his white grandmother, who also made occasionally racist statements. This kind of speech is not politically expedient, because it does not distill the issue down to talking points and sound bites. For Obama to be lauded for delivering a real speech with actual ideas is a disturbing commentary on how far our country's discourse has fallen.
But I digress. Obama took a bullet for Rev. Wright and was congratulated for it. And we thought it was the end. But the ABC debate that preceded the Pennsylvania primary brought Rev. Wright back into the spotlight, and Wright felt it necessary to go on a press blitz over the weekend. He appeared on Bill Moyers' PBS show as a soft-spoken, intelligent man -- but Moyers never addressed Wright's more inflammatory statements, like his assertion that the U.S. government spread HIV to kill black people. In one of his other appearances over the weekend, he said that Obama's defense of him was due to the fact that he's "a politician."
It's this statement that Bill Maher found most offensive: here is Barack Obama, trying his hardest not to appear like just another politician. Here's Barack Obama, faced with an association with a man who could injure his chance at the presidency. And Barack Obama takes the high road -- risking his candidacy -- to defend Rev. Wright. And how does Rev. Wright repay him? By going on TV and saying that Obama is just another politician, spitting in the face of everything Obama has been doing for the past year. And it is for this reason, I think, that Obama made a clean break with Rev. Wright.
Now, there are some points that Rev. Wright has made that are very good points: his "God damn America" statement is not a unilateral statement of hatred for the United States. God is damning America, according to Rev. Wright, because America fails to care for its impoverished and marginalized people, and because America involves itself in unjust wars that cost billions of dollars while people in this country live in poverty and without health care, among other things. Many commentators have passed judgment on the form of the opinion, but no one has talked about the opinion itself: is it valid or not? And the answer is yes, Rev. Wright's opinion is valid. His comment about HIV comes from his statement that, after the Tuskeegee experiments, he will believe anything. This, however, does not excuse statements that are factually incorrect as well as inflammatory. Like any human being, Rev. Wright makes good statements, but he also makes bad ones.
His statements about U.S. foreign policy are actually not the most offensive statements he has made. What's offensive is that Obama took a bullet for him, and Wright repaid him by throwing him under a bus.
It's official, America. You're a glutton for punishment.
Here you had Barack Obama, a candidate who promised change, a candidate who wasn't another hackneyed politician. He was an activist and a constitutional law professor. He was eloquent and he had solutions. He held the promise that Democrats had been waiting for: someone who wouldn't cower when faced with the Republicans, but wouldn't become one of them, either. He was someone who would hold his ground and stand up for what he believed in.
And you destroyed him, America. You turned him into the politician you wanted to see: you wanted to see the same hackeneyed baloney. You wanted personal attacks, pandering, and feuding. You wanted George Stephanopoulos and Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews and Sean Hannity to officiate a professional wrestling match. You didn't care about issues: I mean, clearly you don't care about issues. President Bush, after all, has a 69% disapproval rating, and still -- still! -- this election is up in the air. The easy decision, the one that could be made by any student from a middling kindergarten class, would be to vote for someone who is different from the person you hate! In your self-loathing, America, you knew that smoking was bad for you, but you kept on doing it, anyway.
Barack Obama had to go on television this week to denounce the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Why did he have to do this? Is it because the American people are so stupid that they would think that, because Obama went to Wright's church, it follows that Obama himself believes that the government spread HIV in black communities? Of course not: Obama went on television to put an end to the Rev. Wright saga. Something is wrong with this country when the first 45 minutes of a debate are taken up with such issues as flag lapel pins and a crazy pastor.* 45 minutes spent on why he doesn't wear a flag lapel pin? What do you mean by "bitter"? And my favorite, from George Stephanoupolos, "Does Rev. Wright love America as much as you do?" If they really wanted to stir up some controversy, they should have asked him if he liked deep-dish or New York style.
This election promised, more than the others in my memory, to deliver real issues. The country is in the midst of an economic crisis. We're mired in an unpopular war abroad. The president doesn't seem to care about the average person. This is prime time for a politician to talk about what he or she plans to do to save the country. And for the first few months of the campaign, we did talk about that. But as the primaries wore on and it was clear that there would be no definite winner, the so-called mainstream media became bored. Twenty-four hours is a lot of time to fill, and the candidates weren't saying anything new or different. What's a twenty-four hour network to do?
Make up controversy, of course!
It's no coincidence that the Rev. Wright "controversy" landed squarely in the middle of the lull between the Ohio primary and the Pennsylvania primary. Undoubtedly the news media were scouring every source they could find in order to shake the grass. Issues are great, but they don't glue people to news "analysis" enough to justify the ad prices. By finding some great YouTube footage of Rev. Wright supposedly denouncing America, there was more than enough analysis to fill twenty-four hours of television: the initial video! The history of Rev. Wright! What should Obama do! What is Hillary's response! Repeat ad nauseum.
Obama looked like the candidate for change. But now he looks just like any other candidate. Gone is the Obama of a year ago who fired up young Americans and made them believe in their leaders again. America couldn't tolerate a candidate who didn't give it bread and circuses. So they pulled Obama down into the muck with them, ensuring that they would have entertainment for the next week, even if it means granting the Bush administration a four-year extension.
... if you count Michigan and Florida. Hillary claimed yesterday that she was 100,000 votes ahead in the popular vote for the Democratic nomination. Her statement was artfully crafted so as to be technically true but nevertheless misleading: "I'm very proud that as of today, I have received more votes by the people who have voted than anyone else," she said. The key clause here is "people who have voted." While people in Michigan and Florida voted, their votes did not count. How odd that Hillary, who once upon a time agreed that she would not campaign in those states and that those states' votes wouldn't count, is now the champion of enfranchising those voters.
This is an excellent example of what to expect from President Hillary Clinton: misleading phrases that are technically true but pragmatically misleading, and support for positions that are politically popular, not right. President Bush is currently the master of the technically-true-but-misleading phrase; with Hillary, we would get at least four more years of that.
While Hillary continues to count Michigan and Florida voters, no one else does. There will be no re-vote in those states, which chose -- against DNC rules -- to hold their primaries before Feb. 5. As a result, their delegates will not be seated.
Here's the problem: Hillary is, in reality, 500,000 votes behind Obama. With her 10-point victory in Pennsylvania, she officially cannot win the nomination with pledged delegates alone. Prior to Pennsylvania, she would have had to win every remaining contest by at least 20 points. She has taken out insurance in the form of trying to coerce superdelegates, but a win financed by superdelegates in spite of Obama's popular victory would make her candidacy appear illegitimate and artificial. Add these two facts -- the fact that she cannot win through pledged delegates and the fact that she must appear to have popular support -- and the sum is that she desperately needs to get the Michigan and Florida delegates seated. That gives her more popular votes, which equals more legitimacy, and if she succeeds in wooing enough superdelegates to her side to win the nomination, she can point to her popular vote numbers as proof that she won through "the will of the people" and not back-room deals with party insiders.
But what would the rest of the country think? Hillary is essentially asking to change the rules now that she dislikes the outcome. Obama didn't campaign in Florida, and he -- along with every other Democratic candidate except Hillary -- wasn't on the ticket in Michigan, since everyone agreed that Florida and Michigan wouldn't count. Hillary was okay with this deal in January because she -- like most of us -- thought the election would be decided in Iowa and New Hampshire like it is in every election. Once she realized that Obama had more popularity than anyone had thought, she panicked and reneged on her agreement under the assumption that votes need to be counted, people need to be recognized, etc. etc. Never mind that there is no right to vote in a party primary. While party primaries are administered by the FEC and local boards of election, they do not hold the same status as official elections. Parties, for example, may limit participation in their primaries to party members only. The notion that voters have a "right" to vote in a primary is a mistaken notion; voters in primaries are subject to the stipulations of the parties involved, unlike a general election.
Seating the delegates outright is out of the question; a contest where Hillary was the only candidate would be plainly unfair, as would a contest in which no other candidates campaigned in the state because they thought (correctly) that that state wouldn't count. All she can do now is mount a P.R. campaign designed to make her appear -- both to voters and superdelegates -- more electable than she really is. The fact is that, in order to win the presidency, the Democratic candidate has to be able to sway not just died-in-the-wool Democrats, but also swing voters and new voters. In Pennsylvania, Obama captured six of ten new voters: he also holds sway among swing voters. Republicans definitely don't like Hillary Clinton, and her candidacy wouldn't make them abandon John McCain. Obama, however, might do just that.
The next contests are May 6 in Indiana and North Carolina. Polls in Indiana are up in the air, ranging from neck-and-neck to a huge Hillary win. North Carolina is definitively Obama country, with the spread ranging from 9 points in his favor to 25 points in his favor. He will soundly defeat Hillary in North Carolina; only Indiana remains a swing state.
If Hillary loses the popular vote and the pledged delegate count, but manages to use the Clinton "victory at any cost" machine to drive right over Obama and secure the nomination, the Democratic party will be in shambles and their victory in November -- which is crucial for the survival of this country -- will be in serious doubt. A McCain victory assures continued involvement in Iraq, continued military spending, no foreseeable health care reform, continued tax breaks for the Americans who need tax breaks the least, and God knows what kind of foreign policy. A McCain victory in November would give added credence to the Republicans, as though "they're back!" Republican inertia would in turn lead to more Republican wins, bringing us right back to where we were in 2002.
Sen. Barack Obama has received a good deal of flack for comments he made last week in San Francisco. Speaking of middle-class workers in Pennsylvania, he said, "It's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." Sen. Hillary Clinton immediately went for the throat, criticizing his comments as "elitist." (In today's CNN Compassion Forum, Clinton added "out of touch" to her characterization of his comments. Please keep in mind that Hillary is a graduate of both Brown University and Yale Law School, hardly bastions of the "common man.")
But are his comments wrong? Clinton has suggested that Obama is being "patronizing" in his suggestion that religion is something that people turn to when times are tough. But she has not answered Obama's argument: namely, that middle-class Americans in economically depressed parts of the country have lost faith in the ability of government to help them, choosing instead to turn somewhere else for help, or to blame others (in this case, immigrants) for the problems that government has caused.
Paul Levinson suggests that this is a non-issue, since working families know how hard their lives are, and for Hillary to suggest that everything is rosy is just as disingenuous as George W. Bush suggesting that the economy is doing just fine. What do Americans want: a politician who insists everything is fine as the country burns around her, or a politican who tells it like it is? John McCain didn't receive the same amount of criticism when he appeared in Detroit earlier in the year and told an audience there that "there are some jobs that won't be coming back." Mitt Romney, on the other hand, went to Detroit and said that they could get jobs back, and he could help.
That's a lie.
Aside from forcing American auto manufacturers from employing Americans in the United States, there's nothing the president can do. Furthermore, the "free trade" types that populate the Republican party would have none of it.
Every time Obama disseminates a harsh truth, Hillary calls him on it, as though the job of the president is to be the nation's cheerleader. What's the point in that? And, if Hillary really wants to make a change, why would she choose to adhere to a George W. Bush tactic; namely, putting an irrationally and incorrectly optimistic spin on a situation that isn't very good?
Elizabeth Drew, writing in The New York Review of Books, characterizes Hillary Clinton's campaign strategy as "molehill politics":
In this fight, the Clinton camp is the more aggressive of the two, and it's adept at what might be called molehill politics: making a very big deal in the press about something that's a very small deal—such as a single word in a mailing or a slip-up by an aide. Clinton's strategists pounce on whatever opportunity presents itself to attack Obama, and try to knock him off his own message, and his stride.
According to Drew, Hillary can't make positive steps forward; all she can do is try to bring Obama down. It's come down to the superdelegates, since Hillary would have to win by at least 20% in every remaining primary contest if she wanted to beat Obama in pledged delegates. Ever since the Texas and Ohio primaries -- which, instead of definitively ending the contest, assured only that it would continue -- Hillary has abandoned the state primaries and instead focused on superdelegates. This, says Drew, is Clinton's goal: "to convince the as-yet-uncommitted superdelegates which candidate would be stronger in the general election -- regardless of who has won the most pledged delegates." The 3 AM ad, the mortgage crisis ad: these are designed to convince superdelegates that Obama is not as electable as Clinton.
In the meantime, according to Daily Kos, the Republican National Committee is trying to get Hillary Clinton seated as the Democratic nominee because they believe she will be easier to defeat.
And all the while, John McCain is portrayed as a "maverick" in the so-called mainstream media even as he adjusts his positions to match those of the Republican mainstream. McCain, who has never been particularly religious, switched to evangelical Protestantism in order to appease that wing of the Republican party. McCain's foreign policy has also taken a turn toward neoconservatism, ensuring that this once-maverick politician joins the Republican mainstream and delivers us four more years of what we've seen since 2001.
By Richard D. Erlich
"Freedom isn't free" is a true statement that became a cliché, so we no longer think about what it means, nor its implications.
We need to think about it.
John F. Kennedy said that we Americans would "pay any price, bear any burden [...] to assure the survival and the success of liberty." Within a few years, a bitter observation had it that the world would be better off if Lyndon Johnson was a more consistent Machiavellian and hadn't applied such Kennedy-esque idealism to Vietnam. Ideals can be pushed too far when the cost is human lives.
Usually, though, people go too far in the other direction, arguing that "If it saves just one life, it" -- all sorts of "it's" -- is justified. Safety can be idealized and presented as an infinite good, and that, too, is a problem.
I have heard people say, "Nothing is more important than protecting our troops?" If nothing is more important than protecting our troops, we should keep them out of war zones. If they're in combat on a justified mission, accomplishing the mission is more important than their safety.
Similarly, George W. Bush has said that his main duty as President was protecting the American people. Actually, what a president swears most specifically to do is "to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." The president's job includes protecting Americans, but his primary job is protecting America, which can be something different. To protect America, the president may have to send to their deaths American troops.
Civilians, too, need to take risks, and the cost of freedom includes civilian deaths.
Freedom can be dangerous. I'm a life-member of the American Civil Liberties Union, but I'll tell you that most Americans, most of the time -- even most members of most minority groups -- would be safer in a police state.
Part of the cost of freedom is the blood of Americans who would not have died or been wounded or maimed if we lived in a police state.
Racism complicates things, but most of us would be safer -- at least initially -- in an America without the Bill of Rights: disarmed (no Amendment 2) with constant surveillance (Amendment 4), and no troublemakers free to openly spread dangerous doctrines (Amendment 1). Most of us would be safer in a country without trials and legal technicalities, where the authorities could just throw known or suspected evil-doers into jail indefinitely and torture them for information -- or just to break them -- or, for "the worst of the worst" of the evil, send out death squads to kill them (Amendments 5-8).
Freedom isn't free, and neither is safety, and a fair number of American civilians seem willing to pay high prices in military blood for freedom, and the blood of foreign civilians, but not take too many risks for themselves or their kids. Many of us will trade a whole bunch of freedom for at least a sense of safety.
And to get done other handy things.
If you don't believe this, check out a sampling of American schools and then ask about bringing some medical marijuana with you on a commercial air flight. Kids don't have the same rights as adults, but to preserve their safety we've made a lot of schools very like prisons -- complete with "lockdowns" -- and have quietly dropped critical thinking and Civics as part of the "basics" kids should know. These practices have contributed to a generation or two with little sense of a right to privacy, and little knowledge of or dedication to most of the US Bill of Rights.
Oh -- and if you openly bring marijuana of any sort onto a commercial air flight, you'll be arrested: extraordinary laws to protect us against terrorists are used against the most ordinary sorts of crimes.
We need to take seriously "Freedom isn't free," and liberals, conservatives, and civil libertarians need to talk openly and honestly about the price they are willing to pay, and ask others to pay, for freedom. We need to discuss how much courage we can demand from ordinary people.
Justice Louis D. Brandeis said, "The makers of the Constitution conferred the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by all civilized men -- the right to be let alone." If we are to maintain that right, we Americans need to carefully balance the claims of liberty and security -- and take more risks. As Steven Stills said, we must "Find the cost of freedom," and be willing to pay.
Richard D. Erlich is currently the main content provider for the Clockworks 2 wiki, which people interested in science fiction should visit and help build since, even including the hard-copy, hard-cover Clockworks [1] (Greenwood Press), is a radically incomplete List of Works Useful for the Study of the Human/Machine Interface in SF.
Today, President Bush held a press conference that dealt with many issues. One of the questions asked was about the Protect America Act. Bush once again said that it was necessary for our security, including the part about retroactive immunity for telecom companies. But he introduced a fun new argument into play that only Dick Cheney had used up to that point:
It was legal. And now, all of a sudden, plaintiffs attorneys, class-action plaintiffs attorneys, you know -- I don't want to try to get inside their head; I suspect they see, you know, a financial gravy train -- are trying to sue these companies. First, it's unfair. It is patently unfair. And secondly, these lawsuits create doubts amongst those who will -- whose help we need.
Financial gravy train? Who does Bush think is filing these lawsuits? I know that, in his mind, the only law firms that exist are giant, corporate law firms that sue to prevent dishing out workers compensation claims, but let's be reasonable! Giant, profit-making law firms are not engaging in these lawsuits. Non-profit organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation are filing these lawsuits. They're not making any money! If they thought there were money to be made, giant, profit-making law firms would be leading the charge of class-action lawsuits against these telecom companies.
Today, Sen. Hillary Clinton lambasted Sen. Barack Obama for insinuating, through campaign mailers, that Hillary's healthcare plan will be mandatory and will punish people who don't join. "Sen. Obama knows it is not true that my plan forces people to buy insurance even if they can't afford it," she said today.
So, are these allegations true or false? Hillary appeared on This Week on Feb. 3. Even then, the Obama campaign was telling people that Hillary's healthcare plan would force people to purchase insurance. Host George Stephanopolous asked Hillary to answer these charges:
Stephanopolous: "They're claiming this issue of the penalty, and a lot of healthcare experts, many who side-- who worked with you in 1994, say that without these enforcement mechanisms, you simply can't get to universal coverage, you can't claim to have universal coverage, so there's no difference between your plan and Senator Obama's, and, and, and, I mean, you talk about automatic enrollment. Will you garnish wages of people who, uh, don't comply, don't buy the insurance?"Hillary: "George, we will have an enforcement mechanism. Whether it's that or it's some other, uh, mechanism through the tax system or automatic enrollment--"
In what way do the words "whether it's that [meaning garnishing wages] or some other mechanism" not translate into forcing people to buy insurance? And incidentally, this controversy has been around since the beginning of February. Only now is Hillary drawing new attention to it as she tries -- desperately, I might add -- to win Ohio and Texas on Mar. 4.
In an essay for The Atlantic Monthly entitled "Goodbye to All That," Andrew Sullivan presents a novel reason why Obama is fundamentally different from any candidate we've seen in our generation:
Unlike any of the other candidates, he could take America—finally—past the debilitating, self-perpetuating family quarrel of the Baby Boom generation that has long engulfed all of us. So much has happened in America in the past seven years, let alone the past 40, that we can be forgiven for focusing on the present and the immediate future.[...]
At its best, the Obama candidacy is about ending a war—not so much the war in Iraq, which now has a momentum that will propel the occupation into the next decade—but the war within America that has prevailed since Vietnam and that shows dangerous signs of intensifying, a nonviolent civil war that has crippled America at the very time the world needs it most. It is a war about war—and about culture and about religion and about race. And in that war, Obama—and Obama alone—offers the possibility of a truce.
Vietnam and the culture wars of the 1960s, says Sullivan, have informed political discourse ever since then, and only Obama is young enough not to have politically matured during that time. He has not been affected by the "triumphant post-Reagan conservatism" that has kept Democrats on the defensive since the 1980s. Even today, it seems, Democrats have to justify to the country why their ideas are not ludicrous, while Republican ideas are accepted as normal. Going to war in Iraq? Sounds great. Suggesting we don't go to war in Iraq? Whoa, there, buddy! You'd better have a good reason for us not to go to war. The beauty of the Iraq War is that President Bush didn't have to do very much actual convincing. The narrative of our nation's politics said that the Republicans knew how to protect the nation, so Bush knew best.
Which brings us to why Obama would make a great president: "He is among the first Democrats in a generation not to be afraid or ashamed of what they actually believe, which also gives them more freedom to move pragmatically to the right, if necessary." Nowhere was the polarization of something as basic as an opinion demonstrated than in 2004. On the one hand, we have George W. Bush, a man who believes so much in his own opinion -- and others' faith in his opinion -- that he has not once changed his mind about anything. He has made no mistakes, and he has no regrets. Undoubtedly, if someone asked if he would do anything about his preidency differently, he wouldsn't have an answer. Even when he is wrong, he refuses to back down, as though his own stubbornness is prima facie evidence of how correct he is -- because, seriously, how could someone who is wrong be so unwilling to admit he's wrong? He dares people to call him on his hubris, and largely, his supporters never do, assuming that he's either completely correct or a totally tactless moron.
John Kerry was on the other end of the spectrum, constantly changing his mind when he realized it would be politically expedient to do so. He famously said of a defense spending bill, "I voted for it before I voted against it." This only gave his opponents more ammunition in their gunfight to demonstrate to voters that he didn't have any firm positions. A successful "Google bomb" shot John Kerry's campaign website to number one as the search result for "waffles."
The fear of Republicans is driving this congress. It's the reason why Democrats have consistently refused to stand up to President Bush when he is urging for the passage of stupid laws, like a provision for warrantless wiretapping. It's the reason why they haven't done the investigations they should be doing. Democrats take Bush's comments about them to heart and are terrified that, after twelve years of being browbeaten by Republicans, the hard-earned gains of 2006 will disappear when voters believe it when the president says that Congress is spending too much money and wasting time with investigations and attempts to end the war in Iraq.
Obama knows that the president is bluffing. He knows that Democrats don't pay any attention to what he says, and the president's conservative audience already doesn't like the Democrats, so there's no reason to pander. Obama isn't afraid of Bush and he isn't afraid of Republicans. It takes a certain amount of idealism to think that you're doing what's right. Bush has that idealism, but he's carried it too far, to the point where he's doing what only he thinks is right and doesn't come to a consensus with anyone. When the Senate intimated that it might not confirm Michael Mukasey as Attorney General, Bush was fine with that. We just won't have an Attorney General, then, he told the Senate. In no uncertain terms, he told them that they would be confirming Michael Mukasey, and if they didn't like it, then he would publicly blame them for the lack of an Attorney General. He would not be nominating anyone else.
Obama, though, is not unilateral. But he's not a chicken. And, says Sullivan, he brings with him more than pragmatism:
If you believe that America’s current crisis is not a deep one, if you think that pragmatism alone will be enough to navigate a world on the verge of even more religious warfare, if you believe that today’s ideological polarization is not dangerous, and that what appears dark today is an illusion fostered by the lingering trauma of the Bush presidency, then the argument for Obama is not that strong. Clinton will do.
For some reason, CNN keeps giving superdelegates to candidates. "Superdelegates" are delegates that are not pledged to a specific candidate. For example, Arizona has 67 delegates and 11 superdelegates. This means that, after the Feb. 5 primary, 67 delegates will be obligated to vote for a particular candidate, and 11 will be free to make up their minds how they want. Liken them to "at-large" delegates. But their allegiances are far from certain.
CNN makes guesses about who gets superdelegates, adds them to the pledged delegate totals, and then puts the sum on their Election Center front page. It's 725 for Hillary to 636 for Obama, which sounds like quite a disparity, until you remove the superdelegates. In terms of pledged delegates, Hillary has 532, while Obama has 530. The race is much closer than it initially appears.
Bloomberg News reports that Hillary Clinton "took in $823,087 from registered lobbyists and members of their firms in 2007." And Barack Obama? None. Obama "doesn't take money from registered lobbyists." How can Hillary Clinton talk about change while she takes money from the very people for whom change is bad?
With 22 states poised to have primaries on Tuesday, the battle for the Democratic nomination could be decided in a few days. Barack Obama is the best choice for the Democratic nomination, hands down.
A year ago, I was hesitant to consider Barack Obama due to his lack of experience. He has been a U.S. senator for only three years; what could he possibly have to offer? It seems, though, that Obama's perceived lack of experience is not as important as what he could bring to the table. Obama likes to say that he offers "hope," and this is true: Obama doesn't behave the same way that Hillary does. His outlook on the way government ought to work is different from Hillary's, and it's different from the way that politics has been conducted as far back as I can remember.
Consider the personalities: who is leveling personal attacks? When Barack Obama said that he thought Ronald Reagan took advantage of a time when the country wanted to hear his new ideas, Hillary took the comment and spun it wildly out of control, claiming that Obama revered Ronald Reagan and thought that he had better ideas than the Democrats. When Hillary Clinton said that Martin Luther King, Jr., couldn't have accomplished his dream of civil rights reform without Lyndon Johnson in the White House, everyone in the media pounced on her, assailing her for daring to suggest that King had any flaws. The media turned that comment -- which is, actually, probably true -- and spun it into an issue of "race." But guess who didn't jump on that bandwagon? Barack Obama, the very person who would have benefitted most from such spin.
Most of their policies are pretty much the same. Healthcare reform, for example. Both Hillary and Obama want to allow people to buy into the same kinds of federal health plans that Congress uses. Both of them would allow people to keep their private insurance, if they wanted. Both of them want to cover children (although Obama says explicitly that he wants mandatory healthcare coverage for children) and both of them want to allow the use of generics where possible, with Obama adding that he would allow the purchase of drugs from other developed countries. Neither candidate is out to create a Canadian or British-style single-payer system. That's a shame, but it's also realistic. Moving to a federal healthcare system for people who can't afford private health insurance is the first step toward creating a single-payer system. Both Hillary and Obama would strengthen oversight over the healthcare industry and modernize the systems they use, so as to keep costs down. (Paul Krugman, the columnist Republicans love to hate, estimates that 25% of the money we spend on healthcare is eaten up by administrative costs; that is, pushing paper from one place to another.)
Even though she is more in favor among Latino voters, Hillary's website doesn't go into specifics about her immigration policies. Obama is unsurprisingly centrist about immigration, not using the "a"-word, but not allowing for an exploitative guest worker program. Under an Obama immigration policy, illegal immigrants would pay a fine and then go to "the back of the line" to get their citizenship, a process that can take up to fifteen years on a good day (which includes a few years to get an immigrant visa, a few more years to become a permanent resident, and then several years after that to become a citizen). Our immigration and naturalization system is tremendously bureaucratic and broken. Obama won't fix that to my satisfaction. Neither will Hillary.
What are we left with? The Iraq War. As a state senator from Illinois, Obama was opposed to the Iraq War. Hillary voted to use force in Iraq. During last week's debate, she attempted to spin her support for the war as though she had no idea the president would actually use force. She voted, she said, for the president to enforce U.N. Resolution 1441, something she thought he would do through diplomacy.
Are we really supposed to believe this? A president beats the drums of war for months before invading, and Hillary is naive enough to think that he won't go to war? She never admitted that she was naive, or that she was duped, or even that she was wrong. That sends her on the path to the Dark Side toward a policy of never admitting you're wrong, kind of like a certain president I know.
Hillary has also never said definitively if she would remove troops from Iraq. She has said that she might do it, but there are no guarantees. Obama is explicitly promising a withdrawal from Iraq. This is something that I find necessary in a candidate. The Iraq War was a sham and a mistake from the very beginning, and to continue it is to continue legitimizing that lie. The war has to end as soon as possible, and only Obama has promised to do it.
The impression that I get out of Obama is that he will actually act as a voice for change. Not since 1994 have the Democrats had a candidate so charismatic and so promising. The Al Gore of 2000 was not the Al Gore that spoke passionately about global warming; the Al Gore of 2000 was boring and didn't seem nearly as amiable as George W. Bush. In 2004, the Democrats trotted out John Kerry, a candidate who gained the support of people who didn't want to vote for George W. Bush. Kerry was, if at all possible, less enigmatic than Gore and conceded defeat despite obvious voting irregularities in Ohio. Hillary has too many political and corporate connections to be a real voice of change. She -- and her husband -- have the same penchant for secrecy that George W. Bush has now. We will never know how the Clinton healthcare plan was formed, since the records are still secret. A Hillary presidency may attempt to stonewall government transparency, but I believe that an Obama presidency never will. He has never been anything but honest with the American people.
Hearing Obama speak cogently and honestly about the issues at hand actually does give me a sense of hope, as though the evil of the last eight years can be undone, our government can be made to function once again, corruption can be placed under control, and our cynical war for money in the Middle East can end. No wonder the Obama logo looks like a rising sun.
Imagine that you're a political campaign with at least three times the notoriety of Ron Paul but one-sixth the number of party delegates. Imagine that you've been running on a platform of national security, but not much else, and not even a good platform of national security, at that.
Your name is Rudy Giuliani, and things aren't going well for you. After contests in Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, South Carolina, and Wyoming, you've picked up only one delegate. Ron Paul, crazy Texas libertarian and Internet darling, has six delegates. How could this happen? You were supposed to be the Republican golden boy. You were "America's Mayor." You were Time magazine's Person of the Year in 2001. Where did you go wrong?
For one, in several debates, Giuliani demonstrated that he knows next to nothing about formulating policy. In the very first Republican debate last year, Paul schooled Giuliani on "blowback" and why our Middle East policies may have created an environment for people like Osama Bin Laden to gain supporters. Giuliani would have none of it, insisting that Paul was blaming the United States for the September 11 attacks. At the end of the day, though, Giuliani's protestations about the evil terrorists revealed only that he has the same lack of understanding about the world that George W. Bush does.
And speaking of September 11, Giuliani speaks of September 11 a lot. His invocation of September 11 has entered the realm of the farcical, and prompted former presidential candidate Joe Biden to remark of Giuliani, "There's only three things he mentions in a sentence: a noun, and a verb and 9/11." He has no clear policy positions, and his only credentials -- getting New York out of September 11 -- are based on doing exactly what anyone else in his place would have done. Doing the obvious does not make Giuliani an expert on national security. And continuing to invoke September 11, even in situations where it doesn't seem appropriate or necessary, only serves to strengthen the notion that he stands on the pedestal of September 11 because he has no other credentials.
Giuliani also managed to alienate the religious core of the Republican party with his stances on abortion and gay marriage. He used to be just peachy with abortion and gay marriage, but Giuliani has definitively come out against them now that it's politically expedient to do so. Christian conservatives wouldn't have anything to do with a candidate who isn't explicitly in line with their beliefs. While Giuliani may have changed his mind, it won't help him secure the nomination.
And most dastardly, Giuliani bypassed South Carolina altogether. Conventional wisdom tells us that no Republican has secured the party nomination without carrying South Carolina. Giuliani, rather than get into that brawl, opted instead to put all of his eggs into Florida, where he's been campaigning heavily. It is surely this misguided notion that will end Giuliani's chances at getting the nomination. Florida's delegates have been cut in half by the Republican National Committee as punishment for having their primary earlier than the RNC allowed. Florida has 57 delegates to pass out among the Republican candidates, and even if Giuliani wins most of them, it's not enough to surpass Mitt Romney, the current Republican leader. Perhaps Giuliani hopes that a win in Florida will give him a morale boost -- both for himself, his supporters, and the media -- but he should realize that he's dropped off the national radar. His decision to focus on Florida to the exclusion of all else has meant that he has pulled the plug on his own campaign, and even if he does win Florida, that can't help him win the nomination. He's lost too much already.
First, a lesson in how statistics work. This is addressed chiefly to CNN.
You see, if a candidate is two points ahead of another candidate, but the margin of error for that poll is more than two points, then there is no definitive statement that can be made about that poll. Yet, time and again, news outlets report that one candidate is inching out another by mere millimeters even though the margin between the candidates is well within the margin of error for the poll. Example: if a poll says that 34% of people support Hillary, but 32% support Barack Obama, and the margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points, then who wins the poll? The CNN answer -- and subsequent headline -- is, "Hillary ekes out two-point lead over Obama." The real answer is that the actual poll results could conceivably be that Obama has 35% and Hillary has 31%!
Okay. On to the show.
Here we are, ten years into a twenty-year long political campaign, and what do we have to show for it? Examine the situation: President Bush is a lame duck president facing off against a Congress controlled by the opposing party. A minority of the country supports him, and he has led the country into an expensive war that will be in its fifth year this March. This president has decimated civil liberties, destroyed science, and alienated every moderate person in the world with his cavalier, shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later "Don't mess with [the popular caricature of] Texas" style of governance. You'd think that all a candidate would have to do is be breathing in order to gain support. Terri Schiavo for president!
But it's not so. No candidate has emerged that is truly the winner. The Democrats have three plausible contenders: Obama, Clinton, and John Edwards. Any one of these people has a shot at the nomination. Seriously. But they poll very close to each other. It's almost as though they're -- dare I say it -- indistinguishable from one another.
The Republicans are faring worse. There has been no Republican savior, no heir to the Reagan mantle. Fred Thompson was touted as the true scion, but after his three months on the road, he's closer to winning the Grampa Munster Lookalike Contest than the presidency. Rudy Giuliani has enthralled his supporters but scared the bejeezus out of the rest of us. John McCain is that Little Engine That Wants To, but his staunch support of the Iraq war and even torture (!) in some cases makes us suspicious. And at the end of the day, no matter how hard Bush beats him, he comes back, insisting, "It was my fault. Bush really is a good person. It's just that sometimes he wants to win so much that he spreads rumors about me in South Carolina." Mike Huckabee is just as frightening as Giuliani, but he hates gays more. Mitt Romney is an android.
Sadly, in the Republican camp, no one is coming out on top. Again, Terri Schiavo should be able to do it. Sure, Mike Huckabee won Iowa in a surprise victory, but McCain won New Hampshire. At the end of the day, there is no one candidate who appeals to all people. Where is the Super Candidate? The Republicans have spent eight years in the White House because they're good at keeping the team together: stay on message, or Karl Rove will eat your skull.
Instead of a spicy burrito of a campaign with many different, exotic ingredients, this election -- like most others -- has turned instead into a gray, indiscernible goulash that doesn't taste much like anything but smells a lot like money. It's appalling that we're in the state that we're in right now: the White House is ripe for the picking, but no one can figure out how to build a ladder to pick it.
It's not that I don't like Ron Paul. I think he's a good senator, but it remains to be seen whether or not he will make a good president. As I have written before, Paul is definitely a libertarian, and while he may own Rudolph Giuliani in presidential debates, that doesn't mean that he would make a good president.
Ron Paul was debating the other day with SEDHE Villain of the Forever candidate Glenn Beck about abolishing the income tax. It's funny to watch Beck say that he agrees with Paul, and then proceed to disagree with him. Beck, of course, is a Christian conservative who believes that the government should be fiscally conservative and dictate morality. Paul is a fiscal conservative who also believes that the government shouldn't dictate morality. Beck, it seems, doesn't understand how someone can be in favor of small government and a government that doesn't care whether or not you are gay (even though Ron Paul does care if you're gay; see above link). But that's a writing for another day.
The problem with Ron Paul is that, while he wants to eliminate the income tax, he really has no plan for replacing it with anything. Paul's answer to this is just to make the government smaller. But there are a lot of government programs that are good -- like Medicare and Medicaid -- that would suffer from Ron Paul's idea of a bare-bones government.
Paul's website mentions nothing about his desire to destroy the IRS and the Federal Reserve. There are vagueries about returning to the Constitution (whatever that is supposed to mean in this case -- unless the sixteenth amendment isn't part of the Constitution?) and lowering taxes, but nothing to indicate the nature of his position. How many Ron Paul supporters know what he really thinks? You certainly wouldn't gather that from his web site. The Internet loves Ron Paul for saying what he thinks, but even on the Internet, he doesn't say what he really thinks. He reserves that for television.
Sure, the Bush administration has taken us thirty years backward in terms of surveillance, privacy, environmentalism, and science. It fights hard against enforcing the nation’s environmental laws, even going to the Supreme Court to argue that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and shouldn’t be regulated by the EPA. It supports wrong-headed scientific opinions -- like the president’s stem cell policy and his endorsement of abstience-only education -- that are based not on science, but on the religious beliefs of a few people in positions of power. Is there anything else the Bush Time Machine can do? Turns out there is. The magic word is “secrecy.�
Let’s go back to a time when the earth and Dick Clark were young. The year was 1972 and agents of the president were caught breaking into the Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate Hotel in Washington, DC. The break-in to the hotel was the first in a series of revelations collectively called the “Watergate scandal� that exposed the government’s role in illegal activities that ranged from surveillance to information leaks. Over the course of two years, America learned that not only was the government engaging in illegal activities against its own citizens, but it was actively covering up those activities through a combination of legal maneuvering, plausible deniability, and -- when all else failed -- the paper shredder.
The Watergate scandal resulted in a number of changes to the way government operates. The Office of Special Counsel was created to serve as an independent investigatory arm. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) prohibited the executive from spying on Americans without a warrant. The Presidential Records Act placed the National Archives in charge of the paper being shuffled around the White House: it would decide what would be classified or declassified, shredded or preserved for posterity. United States v. Nixon declared that executive privilege could not be asserted in criminal investigations. The Nixon administration tested the limits of government accountability and oversight, and perhaps thanks to Nixon, we have laws on the books preventing those same abuses from happening again.
Until now. Wiretapping, leaking, and cover-ups have become fashionable again with the Bush administration. And it has little to do with the War on Terr’ and a great deal to do with the mindset of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, who see transparency as a threat to their power. Let’s not forget that Bush fought vehemently against a committee to investigate the events of September 11, 2001. As the administration engages in surveillance for surveillance’s sake, so too does it engage in opacity for opacity’s sake.
The Bush/Cheney penchant for hiding information from the public they serve is not about national security. Recall that, in 2001, Cheney met with several unknown persons in order to churn out the the president’s energy policy. The energy policy was fossil fuel-centric, leading groups like the Sierra Club to sue the administration. They smelled the influence of energy company executives and wanted to know for sure with whom the vice president had met. The administration asserted executive privilege, and the Supreme Court agreed.
Fast forward to 2007, when the Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenaed Harriet Miers and Karl Rove to find out how much they knew about the firing of US attorneys. The administration sent a friendly letter stating that it would be asserting executive privilege. The Judiciary Committee held both Miers and Rove in contempt, but that would prove to be pointless. It is the US attorney for the District of Columbia who files contempt charges, and the Justice Department -- then under the control of President Bush via Alberto Gonzales -- ordered the DC attorney not to file contempt charges. Problem solved! This is one of the reasons why Gonzales resigned: the public soon began to understand that he did whatever the president did, without question, regardless of its legality. By virtue of his being president, Bush could never break the law.
In that case, what was at issue was not national security information. It was the potential embarrassment of having the nation learn that what we suspected all along was true: the US attorney firings were politically motivated. The administration tends to cover up things that could be potentially embarrassing, as it attempted to do when the Jack Abramoff scandals hit the streets in 2006. Bush insisted that Abramoff may have visited the White House a few times, but refused to relinquish the White House visitor logs to prove it. The logs were normally kept by the Secret Service, but Bush ordered them sent to the White House and then destroyed. It soon became policy to destroy White House visitors logs rather than keep them. It is plain that there is no national security interest here, nor any executive privilege claim. The White House simply didn’t want anyone to know who came calling and then use that information against the executive branch. All that changed yesterday, when a federal court judge ruled that, despite what Bush may have ordered, the White House visitor logs are Secret Service records, and as a result, the National Archives has control over them.
Earlier this year, the National Archives’ investigative office complained that the president and vice president were not complying with an executive order signed by President Clinton regarding declassification of executive documents. Bush and Cheney were deciding for themselves what documents would remain classified; in fact, the authority to declassify presidential documents rests with the National Archives. The fear here was that, perhaps, the National Archives would declassify documents that did not contain information damaging to national security, but did contain information damaging to Bush and Cheney. Cheney refused to allow the inspector to even enter his office. He then asserted that he did not have to be in compliance with the law because the vice president’s office was not part of the executive branch. Bush also jumped on the bandwagon and insisted that the Office of the President was exempt from the order. We all had a good laugh for about a week, and then Bush and Cheney relented after the House of Representatives threatened to cut the Office of the Vice President out of the executive branch’s budget, since he wasn’t a member of that branch. The scary part of that week was that Bush and Cheney weren’t joking -- they even entered the realm of irreality to prevent oversight, so much was their desire to prevent anyone from knowing what was going on.
And it will continue into the future. Bush has signed orders keeping his own records, and those of his father, sealed until far into the future. The Bush conceit of secrecy is obviously an attempt to save his own behind. Whenever a scandal arises, cover it up! And if someone causes a scandal, leak something! Valerie Plame learned that the administration plays hardball with its critics. At the same time, though, it keeps information close to its chest. The attitude is reminiscent of the Nixon administration, where G. Gordon Liddy occupied an office in the basement with the name “Plumber� on the door. It was Liddy’s job to plug leaks (hence the title “White House plumber�), but it was also his job to strategically make leaks. The worlds of Nixon and Bush collided on a Fox News show where Liddy had the audacity to insist that it was okay for the Bush administration to leak Valerie Plame’s CIA status. This from a man who has the moral high ground because he went to prison for his role in the Watergate scandal. President Bush is a man deeply concerned about his legacy. With any luck, history will look back on him as the man who unearthed Richard Nixon and wore his skull around as a Halloween mask.
Here's one: at Sunday's summit of OPEC leaders, Chavez -- president of oil-rich Venezuela -- suggested that "OPEC should set itself up as an active political agent," according to The Houston Chronicle. He means, of course, that OPEC should use oil as a bargaining tool. He means, of course, that OPEC should greatly increase the price of oil specifically to harm the United States, which Chavez has set up as the enemy that only he can vanquish.
Tilting at windmills much? As if Chavez didn't already have dictatorial tendencies (which have before been chronicled in this space), now we have him creating an enemy for his people to hate, with the promise that he will save them from that enemy. This is chapter four of the Dictator's Playbook, one used to good advantage by Mssrs. Hitler, Stalin, and honorable mention for the Party in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four. Nothing unites people like a common foe.
Both Chavez and his new best friend, Iranian president and winner of the Definitely Not Crazy Wet T-Shirt Contest at the Hooter's in Persepolis, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, blamed the rising price of oil on the weakening U.S. dollar. Oil is traded in U.S. dollars, and as the value of the dollar decreases, countries would have to increase the price of oil to compensate. This makes sense only if you discount the fact that the price of oil started increasing before the U.S. dollar went into decline, which was before this summer when the credit crunch caused the world's faith in the U.S. markets to decline. May I also add that, as both Chavez and Ahmadinejad are Princeton-trained economists, their statements are totally earnest and in no way an attempt to lash out at the United States.
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia may approve of lashing a woman 200 times for the crime of being raped (although, in Saudi Arabia's defense, the crime wasn't that she got raped, but that she talked about it publicly and tried to get her attackers prosecuted), but that doesn't mean he's a fool. "Those who want OPEC to take advantage of its position are forgetting that OPEC has always acted moderately and wisely," he said.
It's true that OPEC meets the technical definition of a cartel: a small group of firms in an oligopolistic market that meet to set prices so as to take advantage of the relative inelasticity of demand. But in the past, OPEC has used its cartel-power to make money, not political statements. And whenever OPEC has set its prices, Saudi Arabia -- whose number one customer is the United States -- has always caved in. If they give us cheap oil, we won't press for "regime change" in a country run by a theocratic dictator whose government supports terrorism. But trust us: Saddam Hussein was the most heinous threat facing our nation, much like the guy who ran that stop sign should be arrested before the guy who's driving over a hundred and weaving in and out of traffic.
Disappointingly, not many nations have joined Chavez and Ahmadinejad's new after-school club for countries that hate the United States. President Bush is only shooting himself in the face with a hunting rifle by making macho condemnations of Iran, fueling their sense of outrage and making the United States even less of a diplomatic power. (Note to GWB: You forgot the "speak softly" part.) For now, our enemies will remain our enemies in private, deciding -- unlike the Gruesome Twosome -- to publicly remain our friends. It would be bad for business for most other countries in the world (of course, it doesn't cost Chavez or Ahmadinejad anything; they don't trade with us, anyway!).
Bloggers, geeks, and other online types tend to be more libertarian than anything else. As a result, much of the Internet is fawning over Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) as much as Oprah is fawning over Barack Obama. I wonder, though, how much of the Internet knows how much crazy there still is in Rep. Paul. Sure, he p0wned Rudy Giuliani earlier this year at a Republican debate, but that doesn't mean that he will make a good president. Here's a sampling of the legislation authored by Ron Paul:
Crazytown Level: High. This is explicitly a repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment, which amended the Constitution to permit Congress to levy income taxes. But how will the government get money?
Crazytown level: Low. I heartily disagree with this amendment, but anti-immigration proponents have been after this for years, citing some EU countries as examples. (Again, contemporary legislation from other countries is acceptable as a prototype only when you agree with it; otherwise, you must limit yourself to vague, uncodified doctrines of "Western tradition." Justice Scalia, I'm looking at you!) As crazy legislation, this isn't so crazy, as natural citizenship is one way Those Mexcians get their feet in the door here.
Crazytown level: High. While Congress is explicitly granted the power to regulate the federal courts' appellate jurisdiction, it hasn't exercised it. I suppose Rep. Paul's idea here is that the federal government should stay completely out of our lives, even in adjudication. The problem is that, to preserve the government's non-intrusion into our lives, we need the court to tell the government to stop it. Oh, and by the way, if a judge violates this law, it's an impeachable offense. Oh, and by the way, any past cases that deal with any of the above issues are no longer admissable as a precedent. That section goes way, way too far. Judges grab precedents from cases that don't, on first appearance, have anything to do with their current cases. Don't tell judges how to do their jobs (as the Republicans tried to do with Terri Schiavo).
Crazytown level: High. For a guy who purports to be a libertarian, how can he write this stuff? I give this a "high" Crazytown level because it's so hypocritical.
Crazytown level: High. We started the freaking United Nations. We're not going anywhere anytime soon, despite what John Bolton wants.
Crazytown level: Very high. Here's the text of 31 USC 5103: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts." Yes, folks, in this bill, Rep. Paul wants to eliminate Federal Reserve notes (e.g., dollar bills) from being used as legal tender. I wonder why the bill contains hardly any references to the fact that paper money and coinage would no longer be used in transactions. And what else does he want us to use? Gold? I'm starting to get the feeling that Rep. Paul would be happier living in Ayn Rand's capitalist utopia. As a corollary, Rep. Paul also wants to repeal the Federal Reserve Act and eliminate federal banks. I thought we settled this in 1913?
Crazytown level: High. Also, this legislation is unconstitutional. The Constitution gives Congress the sole authority to "grant letters of marque and reprisal" (Art. I, § 8). Ignoring that for a second, this would give bounty hunters the authority to track down members of al-Qaeda or seize their property. A letter of marque is a warrant "authorizing the designated agent to search, seize, or destroy specified assets or personnel belonging to a party which has committed some offense under the laws of nations against the assets or citizens of the issuing nation." They were once granted to state-sponsored pirates, like Sir Francis Drake, to provide them with a legal basis for raiding enemy ships. Ignoring that, do we want Dog the Bounty Hunter going out into the wide world to alienate even more Frenchmen?
So, before you decide that Ron Paul is the greatest guy in the world because he understands the concept of "blowback" and isn't afraid to speak truth to Giuliani, keep in mind that he lives in Crazytown. He's the author of good legislation, as well (like this and this), but he would make a pretty awful president.
Why pay for insurance if the insurance company isn't going to pay for the services that you signed up for them to pay for?
Kos, proprietor of Daily Kos, lives just up the road in Berkeley and has had a heck of a time trying to get his insurance provider, Blue Shield, to pay for an anesthesiology procedure. "Of course, we never asked them to process this at the 'preferred rate'," he says. "We ask [sic] them to pay for the service. That's why we're paying over $800/month in insurance premiums. To be insured." He concludes, "How could a government-run service be any worse than these unaccountable, unethical, disgusting creeps?"
Opponents of government-run healthcare claim that such a system would be inefficient, but in the United States, people with private insurance often have to deal with each physician individually if they're taken care of by a team of physicians (e.g., if a person had surgery, that person may have to deal with each doctor's billing individually). Furthermore, even though you're paying hundreds of dollars per month for that insurance, there's no guarantee that the insurance company will pay for your treatment. This goes back to what I said the other day: insurance companies are more than happy to pay for a prescription here or there, but when it comes to expensive procedures, they don't want to pay, and they insert language into your contract that gives them the right to waive payment for expensive procedures whenever they want. You may think that you're covered, but for any given procedure, there may be a loophole that exempts the healthcare provider from paying for it.
The price of healthcare (guess what? It's steep)
A study published by the Kaiser Family Foundation in 2004 found that the price of healthcare is rising faster than employee wages:
“Since 2000, the cost of health insurance has risen 59 percent, while workers wages have increased only 12 percent. Since 2001, employee contributions increased 57 percent for single coverage and 49 percent for family coverage, while workers wages have increased only 12 percent. This is why fewer small employers are offering coverage, and why fewer workers are taking-up coverage,� said Jon Gabel, vice president for Health Systems Studies at the Health Research and Educational Trust.
Let's be completely clear: "employer-provided" does not always mean that the employer pays for your healthcare. What is more likely than not is that you pay a certain amount per month for your healthcare. At my job, $30 is deducted from each paycheck to pay for my healthcare plan, if I elect to enroll in a healthcare plan (which, of course, I emphatically do).
And for the people out there who insist that, if you don't have employer-provided healthcare, you should just purchase your own: let's crunch the numbers. Purchasing your own healthcare is very expensive; in fact, it could be considered a regressive tax (the tax rate increasing as income decreases), since people at the lowest incomes are less likely to have jobs that provide them with healthcare, forcing them to obtain private healthcare at a cost many times that of what employees with employer-provided healthcare pay. The Kaiser Foundation found that people who purchase their own insurance pay an average of $308 for single coverage; as I mentioned above, I pay $30 a month. Does it make much sense that the people who are least in a position to pay a lot for healthcare are the ones who are most often going to pay a lot for healthcare?
Or you could just go without healthcare. President Bush feels that we have a very robust healthcare system for those who don't qualify for Medicare or Medicaid, or don't have their own insurance. "The immediate goal is to make sure there are more people on private insurance plans," he said in Cleveland on July 10. "I mean, people have access to health care in America. After all, you just go to an emergency room." Bush is technically correct in that federal law requires emergency rooms to treat patients regardless of their ability to pay; however, this near-sighted philosophy ignores the fact that (1) emergency room care is very expensive; and (2) the cost of treating the emergency patient could have been significantly reduced had the patient had access to preventative care, eliminating his need to use expensive emergency care.
But, to paraphrase Kanye West, George Bush doesn't care about poor people. He has demonstrated time and time again that it is more important to allow private industry to make money than it is to permit people to survive -- and by "survive," I mean "not die." This is also the situation in Iraq, where incompetent private contractors get no-bid contracts and then proceed to not do things they said they would.
Part of the reason that we have a separation of powers in the Constitution is that the authors of the Constitution wanted to force compromise to happen. With no one branch of government, or even one person, singly in charge of every state process, making unilateral decisions would be difficult. Compromises that everyone could agree to had to happen for business to get done.
For six years, President Bush has been executive and legislator. As head of his party, which was also in control of Congress, he was able to dictate whatever he wanted. If a particular Republican voted in a way that he didn't like, Karl Rove's political machinery would work to make sure that person wasn't re-elected. Like the political bosses of turn-of-the-century New York, Bush kept a tight ship; everyone who didn't fall into lockstep with the Bush/Cheney philosophy was smeared, or ousted, or both.
Once the Democrats were in charge, Bush suddenly had to do something he had never done before: compromise. Except he never compromised. He always refused to budge, insisting that whenever Democrats held hearings, or demanded accountability for the war in Iraq, or oversight over warrantless wiretapping, they "lost sight of the fact that we're at war."
Hey, guess what! He said that yesterday! Apparently, during a time of war, Congress should acquiesce and do whatever the president wants. Failure to do so may result in another terrorist attack.
Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee hinted that it may not recommend that Judge Michael Mukasey, Bush's nominee for Attorney General, be sent to the full Senate. Some senators have expressed reservations that he refused to say whether or not "waterboarding" -- an interrogation technique banned by the Army but maybe (or maybe not) currently being used by the CIA -- counts as "torture." Mukasey said that he couldn't say whether or not it was torture. This article from The New York Times indicates that, if Mukasey did say waterboarding constituted torture, the administration (which, let's be honest because we're all adults here, is doing, otherwise their knickers wouldn't be in such a twist about it) could be liable domestically and internationally for war crimes.
But what I'm more concerned about is Judge Mukasey's apparent belief that the president may not necessarily be bound by the law, as long as the violation of that law is because he is defending the country. Read as Judge Mukasey takes a page from the Alberto Gonzales Doublespeak Playbook:
LEAHY: Can a president authorize illegal conduct? Can the president -- can a president put somebody above the law by authorizing illegal conduct?MUKASEY: The only way for me to respond to that in the abstract is to say that if by illegal you mean contrary to a statute, but within the authority of the president to defend the country, the president is not putting somebody above the law; the president is putting somebody within the law.
Can the president put somebody above the law? No. The president doesn't stand above the law.
But the law emphatically includes the Constitution. It starts with the Constitution.
"Putting somebody within the law" doesn't make any sense. If you thought Mukasey's views on executive power were any less erroneous or made-up than Alberto Gonzales', then you thought wrong.
President Bush also said yesterday, "People who say we are not at war are either disingenuous or naïve." I'm surprised he's using words like "disingenuous," which is a big word for him. But does he know what it means? Perhaps he doesn't realize that it is also "disingenuous" to state that the United States does not torture, and then turn around and refuse to outlaw specific acts that could constitute torture, or to sign into law, without equivocation, a bill that bans the use of torture in the War on Terr'. Now that you have a fun new word to use, Mr. President, would you call the latter acts "disingenuous"?
The president's solution to Congress' refusal to allow Mukasey to get a full hearing is ... nothing. In a speech to the conservative Heritage Foundation, Bush said, "If the Senate Judiciary Committee were to block Judge Mukasey on these grounds, they would send a new standard for confirmation that could not be met by any responsible nominee for attorney general. And that would guarantee that America would have no attorney general during this time of war." Apparently, it's asking way too much for an Attorney General nominee to take a stand on executive authority that doesn't feature the president as the head of all three branches of government. Equally burdensome is asking Mukasey to state his opinion on waterboarding. Since we don't officially know that waterboarding even goes on, what's the harm in asking him his opinion?
The end result will be not a compromise, but a whole lot of nothing. Bush will pout, fold his arms and hold his breath while Congress does the same. The onus, however, is on Bush to find a nominee that Congress likes. This is one of Congress' checks on the president: the latter's nominees require "the advice and consent of the Senate." No consent, no nominee. In much the same way that the president is allowed to fire any U.S. attorney at any time, for any reason, it is within the Senate's purview to refuse to consent to a president's choice for Attorney General for any reason.
The president is not beyond compromise, though. In 2006, he withdrew the nomination of Harriet Miers because the political cost-benefit analysis showed that she wasn't worth the humiliation of her being voted down by the Senate, which she would have been, by both Democrats and Republicans. Justice Alito's approval by the Senate was due in part to a pact entered into by Bush and then-chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Arlen Specter (R-PA). Specter didn't like Alito, anyway, but in exchange for Alito making it out of committee, Bush would agree that the Judiciary Committee -- and not the secretive Intelligence Committee -- would be the venue for hearings about the warrantless wiretapping program.
The political meme of "all these Democrats do is waste people's time with their hearings and their frivolous spending" that began two weeks ago has reached a head, as Bush triumphantly smiles his asinine, shit-eating grin while the Democrats stall his nominee and appear to prove him right. This is a power play for Bush, and to back down now would signal that the Democrats do have real authority, an impression the president would like to avoid. The Miers withdrawal was bi-partisan and mitigated by a news release indicating that she withdrew herself. Okay, maybe she couldn't stand the heat; she can at least reasonably be given the benefit of the doubt. But a Mukasey withdrawal will emphatically be interpreted as having occurred because the Democrats successfully blocked him. And if it appears that the Democrats actually have some authority, they may (yikes) actually start to act like they do.
It's a doozy. From Paul Krugman, we have the story of why President Bush loves outsourcing everything, from emergency management to the army. Krugman refers specifically to the recent Blackwater controversy in Iraq, in which the U.S. contract-security firm may have killed 8-20 Iraqi civilians without any reason. This is just business as usual for the Bush administration, which trumpets the virtues of the private sector over those of the government:
But it's also worth noting that the Bush administration has tried to privatize every aspect of the U.S. government it can, using taxpayers' money to give lucrative contracts to its friends -- people like Erik Prince, the owner of Blackwater, who has strong Republican connections. You might think that national security would take precedence over the fetish for privatization -- but remember, President Bush tried to keep airport security in private hands, even after 9/11.
The private sector has, in the last six years, entered many areas of the government, usually with anything but virtue. Remember 2005, when it was revealed that Halliburton subsidiary KBR overcharged the government for meals that were never delivered and laundry that was never washed -- or that never even existed?
The best way for rich investors to make money is to get government contracts. Here's how the process works, in my Handy Guide to Outsourcing the Government:
Next, from Philip Boffey, the use of the nasty "s-word." It was brought up repeatedly by opponents of the State Children's Health Insurance Program expansion. (The word is "socialism," by the way.) How are Republicans claiming that not expanding healthcare for uninsured children -- children! -- is a good thing? They're pulling the old Soviet ghosts out of the closet, dusting them off, and brandishing them with as much scare as a 50-year-old straw man can be brandished. Dana Perino, the president's spokeswoman, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, both used "socialized medicine" to refer to the SCHIP program. Expanding the program, they say, is just the Democrats' way of getting their foot in the door so that they can sneak Dr. Stalin and Dr. Castro in to perform unnecessary surgery on your right to pay way too much money to a private insurance company (and then spend the next six months in customer support hell as you try to explain that the surgery to remove your almost-exploded gallbladder really wasn't frivolous).
Boffey points out that, in making these arguments, Republican opponents (and they are all Republican) of SHCIP ignore the fact that we already have socialized medicine in this country, in the form of Medicare, Medicaid, and VA hospitals.
Your grandmother is being strangled by Karl Marx right now! Our boys in uniform are being slaughtered by the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man, who's been dressed up to look like Che Guevara! Except that millions of Americans use socialized medicine, and they aren't trying to topple the government and institute a dictatorship of the proletariat. Paul Krugman once observed that opponents of socialized medicine use hip surgeries as a benchmark for efficacy of medical treatment. The United States, he says, has the best record for hip surgery in the world. But what those opponents fail to note is that hip surgeries are, by and large, performed on the elderly -- the same elderly who are using Medicare. In their attempt, then, to prove that socialized medicine is not as good as "private" medicine, opponents of socialized medicine have only confirmed that socialized medicine is better than private medicine.
In the same way that Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth propelled global warming from its status of "maybe it's not happening" to "we need to do something about this right now," so too has Michael Moore's Sicko brought government healthcare into the light. It's no longer a debate about whether or not we should have it, but when we're going to have it and what it will look like. This film single-handedly clued Americans into how broken, unfair, and stupid our medical system really is. The issue can no longer be shuttled back into the shadows by Republicans (like former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, whose family runs one of the nation's largest private hospital systems).
WASHINGTON -- The Associated Press reports that President Bush will pick Michael Mukasey, a retired federal judge and judicial advisor to the Giuliani campaign, as his nominee for Attorney General. I don't know very much about Mukasey, but he appears not to be a member of the Bush Good Old Boys Network. This is heartening news; with a Democratic majority in the Senate -- and with Republicans tired of Gonzales' cronyism -- Bush was forced to pick a nominee based not on his history with the president, but on -- what's that? His credentials?!
This is exactly what the Founding Fathers hoped for in writing the Constitution: that requiring the "advice and consent" of the Senate would mean that the president would have to compromise. For six years, the president and the Senate were the same party, so Bush could pretty much appoint whomever he wanted (unless the nominee was hilariously unqualified, as with Harriet Miers). Now, though, with Democrats in the majority, Bush is forced to actually pick a candidate that everyone will be happy with, and that kind of candidate is not someone who has been with Bush for the last fifteen years (cf. Gonzales, Miers, Karl Rove, et al.).
Mukasey seems eminently qualified. He first served as a U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York in the 1970s and was then appointed as a federal judge for the same district in 1987. He left that position in 2006, returning to the New York law firm he worked for from 1976 to 1987. He does not appear to have any strong ties to President Bush; or, at least, his ties aren't nearly as strong as Gonazles'. Let's hope Mukasey's tenure signals the end of Bush cronyism in Washington.
After almost six months of haranguing, arguing, disputing, questioning, lying, hearings, ad hominem attacks, and constitutional showdowns, Alberto Gonzales has stepped down as Attorney General, effective Sept. 17. Prior to being Attorney General, Gonzales was White House Counsel. Prior to that, he was President Bush's personal counsel. Prior to that, he was a justice on the Texas Supreme Court. Gonzales has been a Bush man through and through for at least the last ten years. Despite President Bush's assertions to the contrary, Gonzales has handled the Justice Department not with incompetence when it comes to doing his job, but incompetence when it comes to engaging in the lies and cover-ups that are a necessary part of daily life in the Bush administration.
It's no secret that the Bush administration is secretive, going to great lengths to prevent its critics and even the American people from knowing what's really going on in the White House. This tendency first became clear in the summer of 2001, when Vice President Cheney met with unnamed people to craft the administration's official energy policy. Environmental groups suspected that the petroleum-centric nature of the National Energy Policy meant that oil company executives -- who are not strangers to Cheney and Bush -- were involved. Judicial Watch and The Sierra Club sued for the right to know who exactly was involved. The case went to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the administration's justifications of executive privilege in keeping this information secret.
It went only downhill from there. September 11 was a terrific reason to start painting over the White House windows; requests for information could be -- and have been -- rejected due to "national security."
As a Bush acolyte, Gonzales was right up there with Harriet Miers. The two could have been King and Queen of the Bush Loyalty Prom. By all accounts, Gonzales was good at his job. As White House Counsel, it was he who drafted the first legal arguments that the president didn't have to adhere to the "quaint" Geneva Conventions when dealing with enemy combatants. According to former Deputy Attorney General James Comey, Gonzales and White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card tried to get a drugged-up John Ashcroft to authorize an extension to the administration's warrantless wiretapping program, despite the fact that Ashcroft had transferred the powers of the Attorney General to Comey prior to entering the hospital for pancreatitis. Being bad at his job wasn't the problem. As we'll see, being bad at the Bush cover-up game was his problem.
As Attorney General, Gonzales vetted the roles of U.S. attorneys, removing anyone who was not a "loyal Bushie." But it was these same U.S. attorneys who would ultimately begin his downfall. Questions began: were these people fired for political reasons? The administration and its loyal mouthpieces (Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Bill Kristol) quickly fired back that U.S. attorneys served at the pleasure of the president, political reasons or not. And while this is true, the firing of these attorneys -- in the middle of a term, not at the beginning of one like the Clinton purges -- was tacky, nevertheless. And so Gonzales visited the Senate for questioning. From March onward, it seemed like he was testifying every week.
So began his downfall.
Gonzales soon found himself caught in a web of lies of Rumsfeldian proportions. He said he had nothing to do with the firings, that other people below him prepared lists of names and all he, Gonzales, did was sign the paperwork. Then we found out that he had attended meetings about the attorney firings, and it seemed that he was the only one who didn't remember them. Gonzales' faulty memory became chronic as he was suddenly unable to remember where he was on particular days, that he had signed particular documents, or that he had talked to particular people.
This initial investigation spawned spin-off investigations. The original series U.S. Attorney Firings morphed into mid-season replacements like Violations of the Hatch Act, Whose Wiretapping Is It, Anyway? and the favorite prime-time drama of the summer, Wheel of Perjury. Gonzales had lied himself into several corners, and when he wasn't intentionally lying, he was accidentally telling the truth, as he did when he inadvertently revealed the existence of another as-yet undisclosed warrant-less wiretapping program earlier this summer. Gonzales was to Congressional investigations what Norman Lear was to TV sitcoms of the 1970s and '80s.
At the end of six months of investigations, where did we end up? The administration refused to budge on the issue of executive privilege. Harriet Miers and Karl Rove ignored Congressional subpoenas, refusing even to show up on Capitol Hill. (Only former White House political director Sara Taylor testified, and many of her answers included the words "executive privilege," but hey, at least she put in an appearance.) We all knew, in our heart of hearts, that these attorneys were fired for political reasons, not the "performance" problems we had been told back in March. But we had no evidence to prove it. Once Gonzales is no longer Attorney General, he will not be in the spotlight. Another poor shmuck -- perhaps Solicitor General Paul Clement or even Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff (late of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, you know) will get the unenviable task of fixing the Justice Department. It doesn't really matter who gets the job, as long as he or she isn't as much of a Bush lackey as Gonzales was.
Which begs the question: why was Gonzales so loyal? He owed his entire career to George Bush, from his post as Justice on the Texas Supreme Court to Attorney General. He continued riding the Bush Train to Hell even when it became painfully clear what the destination was. That's loyalty.
Republicans will suggest that Gonzales' so-called incompetence was caused by Democrats and their incessant hounding of him. "If only they had let him do his job at Justice instead of calling him in for testimony every other day," they'll say, "the Department wouldn't be in the shape it is." But it's not Congress' fault for exercising its role of oversight. That's like a felon who shot at the police blaming them for a gunshot wound. Gonzales thatched his roof; now he had to live under it. Now that he's moved out of that house, with the way the housing market is going, he won't get back nearly what he put into it.
Last week, Fox News host John Gibson took the high road toward criticizing those who would dare to criticize the president and his Iraq War. On his syndicated radio show, Gibson played a tape of Daily Show host Jon Stewart's tear-filled post-September 11 monologue and ridiculed it. Show co-host (?) "Angry Rich" called Stewart a "phony" because, in Gibson's opinion, it is inconsistent for a person to feel badly about September 11 and criticize the president.
Forget for a moment that this doesn't make sense, and let's leap into the mind of John Gibson, Bush Acolyte. Bush has polarized the country, and he has polarized its opinions, especially for Republicans. I'm not sure that Republicans actually believe half the things they say, because if they did, then perhaps they should look into careers as mental asylum inmates. But for the sake of argument, let's pretend that they actually believe what they say. This means that Republicans believe that criticism of the government, President Bush, or his policies, including (but not limited to) the Iraq War, is a rejection of American values and an implicit endorsement of terrorism. Does it stand to reason that, because you're against the war, you are necessarily in favor of terrorism? Only in the tortured minds of Fox News correspondents does this hold true.
How disingenuous and irresponsible for John Gibson to suggest that it is impossible to simultaneously feel sorrow for September 11 and contempt for President Bush. How are these opinions inconsistent? Perhaps it's the delusion that President Bush somehow "saved" the nation after September 11? How would he have done this? He did send troops to Afghanistan, but shortly afterward, he diverted those resources to Iraq. Here's inconsistency for you: suppose that a nation attacks us. Our only logical course of action is to retaliate. Suppose, also, that there exists a nation that has never attacked us. Should we divert resources from the nation that did attack us to the nation that didn't? Even though that action sounds really stupid, it's what happened. Iraq never attacked us. Why did we attack them?
As Jon Stewart pointed out on last night's Daily Show, it's only Republicans -- only Republicans -- who are calling their opponents' patriotism into question. Why resort to this tactic in a debate? Is it because they're out of real arguments and have to resort to the ad hominem attack? Is it because they can't debate properly? Is it because they're immoral, selfish douchebags? I think the answer is "(D) All of the above."
Yes, John Gibson earns the distinction of being a SEDHE Villain of the Forever for being one of the aforementioned immoral, selfish douchebags. He also earns that distinction for not only mocking legitimate sorrow but also for encouraging another September 11 attack.
Alberto Gonzales and The Truth have kind of a hate-hate relationship. If you've been watching C-SPAN for the last several months, you've seen Attorney General Gonzales try to spin his way out of a web woven over the past six years by himself, President Bush, and other administration insiders.
Most recently, Gonzales suggested that, when he (as White House Counsel) and then-White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card visited then-Attorney General John Ashcroft in the famous Hospital Room Meeting, they discussed not the administration's warrantless wiretapping program, but a different program. At the time, we thought he was lying, attempting to suggest that he wasn't trying to "take advantage of a sick man," Attorney General Ashcroft, who had already voiced his disapproval of the wiretapping program.
Did you think the administration didn't have its lies surrounded by a mantle of more lies, all protecting a solid, inner core of some kind of truth? Turns out Gonzales, in attempting to lie, actually ended up telling the truth! This man is so incompetent, that even when he tries to lie, he can't do it right!
The Raw Story reports that, after September 11, 2001, President Bush signed an executive order authorizing a "series of secret surveillance activities." So, it turns out, Gonzales accidentally let slip that there were other surveillance activities going on without anyone's knowledge. What else has been going on that no one outside of the Bush administration knows about?
Can you believe that I started this blog back in 2003? Four years later, we're at post number 600. Whoa! Of course, I've had help from people like Brian, Elizabeth, Mike, and Rich Erlich, who contributed articles. I mustn't forget them!
Post number 600 is about Rudy Giuliani, courtesy of Digg. Here, we have a speech made by Rudy Giuliani in 1994. He's talking about freedom, and here's what he thinks of it:
We look upon authority too often and focus over and over again, for 30 or 40 or 50 years, as if there is something wrong with authority. We see only the oppressive side of authority. Maybe it comes out of our history and our background. What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.
So, what's presidential hopeful Rudolph Giuliani saying here? Earlier in the speech, he says, "We constantly present the false impression that government can solve problems that government in America was designed not to solve." So it appears that he's saying that authority can't solve our social problems. Then, in the above blockquote, he says that it's not authority that's the problem: it's freedom! Yes, if everyone would just submit to authority, we wouldn't have the law enforcement problems we have now. It's not that the government should be more forceful; it's that people should be more submissive to their governments! That way, we can have authoritarianism while still claiming that we have less government intrusion into people's lives.
So, not only is Rudolph Giuliani a shameless self-promoter and ignorant about foreign affairs, he is also for authoritarianism cloaked as willing submission to the government, so that it doesn't appear that the government is stronger.
Will Rudolph Giuliani win a Republican nomination? He would be a terrible candidate, so hopefully so (for the Democrats), but probably not, as I hope people aren't that stupid. With John McCain's most recent financial troubles, though, Giuliani might be the front runner. Are Fred Thompson's odds even that good? Does anyone really know who he is, outside of "that guy from Law and Order"? Oh, and he was in The Hunt for Red October.
If he isn't one already, I think I'll take post number 600 to make Rudy Giuliani a SEDHE Villain of the Forever.
Things don’t look good for the new Democratic Congress. Even with a majority in both houses, even with subpoena power, even with President Bush’s approval rating in the twenties and Vice President Cheney’s even lower, there’s still something missing.
Documented law-breaking.
Since November, we’ve had scandal after scandal that appeared to be really bad, but beneath the appearances, no laws were broken.
In March, we learned that nine U.S. attorneys were fired in 2005 and 2006 for undisclosed reasons. The attorney firing was one blunder after another, with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales initially blaming the firings on “performance.� Then, when the fired attorneys all said that they had never received any indication that they weren’t up to par – and, indeed, when it was revealed that they actually received excellent reviews, the P.R. machine needed to find a new tactic. Gonzales then disclaimed all responsibility for the firings, saying that the decisions were ultimately made by his deputies, Kyle Sampson and Monica Goodling. That explanation worked – until both Sampson and Goodling testified that they had had several meetings with Gonzales about the firings. Just after the scandal broke, Sampson resigned. Goodling asserted her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, refusing to testify until the Senate granted her immunity. In her testimony, she suggested that Gonzales had met with her to get their stories straight, which made her “uncomfortable.�
During the weeks of testimony that ensued, the names Karl Rove and Harriet Miers came up. At the time, Rove was Deputy Chief of Staff and Miers, White House Counsel. Both of them were involved in decisions about whom to fire, contradicting Gonzales’ assertions that Justice bureaucrats made the decisions and assembled the lists. The White House, as it turns out, was intimately involved.
Some of the attorneys were fired to make way for political appointees, like Tim Griffin, a former Rove aide who was installed as the U.S. attorney for Arkansas. Some of the attorneys appeared to have been fired for refusing to take on the cases that Republican representatives wanted them to, as in New Mexico with David Iglesias.
But then it gets weirder. Former Deputy Attorney General James Comey testified that Gonzales and White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card went to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft’s sickbed in 2004 to try and get the Attorney General to sign off on the administration’s wiretapping program, even though Ashcroft had previously refused to do so. Ashcroft was in the hospital recovering from pancreatitis, and before he left, he vested the powers of the Attorney General in Comey. "I thought I just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man,� said Comey.
More testimony and documents led to the discovery that Karl Rove and his aides held several meetings in 2004, designed to discuss how best to get Republicans elected in key states and districts. House and Senate oversight committees raised their eyebrows at this possible violation of the Hatch Act, which prohibits political campaigning, fundraising, or strategizing on government property. The White House claimed that the presentations were “informational briefings about the political landscape.� The Office of Special Counsel is investigating these charges.
At the same time, House and Senate panels tried to gain access to White House emails to see whether or not the topic of U.S. attorney firings had been discussed, only to find that such emails didn’t exist. At least eighty White House staffers were using email addresses provided by the Republican National Committee for official government correspondence. These emails weren’t secure (they weren’t hosted on White House servers) and weren’t backed up, in violation of the Presidential Records Act. When the House Judiciary Committee brought up the subject of an actual violation of the law, the emails – previously believed lost forever – were suddenly available.
Two weeks ago, we learned that Vice President Cheney’s office had been ignoring an executive order requiring the executive branch to report to the National Archives statistics on documents its classifies. Not only had Cheney been ignoring the order since 2003, but when the Information Security Oversight Office, the agency charged with making sure classified information is handled properly, tried to inspect Cheney’s physical office, they were shut out. Cheney then suggested that the office should be disbanded. When we found out that Cheney had been in flagrant violation of the law, Cheney asserted that he was not a member of the executive branch and was thus not subject to the order. President Bush also jumped on the bandwagon, insisting that the order didn’t apply to the Office of the President, either.
Last week, the House subpoenaed all documents relating to the firing of U.S. attorneys, as well as the testimony of Harriet Miers. The White House has, predictably, refused to hand over the documents, citing executive privilege.
Where are the results?
The list goes on, since before the Democrats took office, but this is a smattering of the kinds of things that have seen the light of day in the past four months. To any reasonable person, it appears as though the Bush administration is flaunting the law, giving the American people the legal equivalent of, “Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah, you can’t touch me!�
The Bush administration’s rhetoric has always occupied a dark space between fiction and reality. Some of the things that come out of the White House are technically true, but phrased in such a way as to be misleading. For years, Bush used the words “Saddam Hussein,� “al-Qaeda,� and “September 11� in the same sentence, words away from each other, without expressly saying, “Saddam Hussein was in league with al-Qaeda and was responsible for the September 11 attacks.� To a frightened and loyal public, those words weren’t necessary: in 2005, 47 percent of Americans polled believed that Saddam Hussein �helped plan and support� the September 11 attacks, compared with practically none who believed that immediately after the attacks. Even after the September 11 Commission determined that there was “no significant operating relationship� between Saddam and al-Qaeda, the administration continued repeating that they were in cahoots, based on a meeting between Iraq and al-Qaeda officials in Prague. Even this story is known by international intelligence to be untrue. Nevertheless, the administration claims that it thought Iraq and al-Qaeda were in cahoots.
As for those attorney firings, weren’t they illegal? Actually, no. All U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, and he is within his rights to dismiss them at any time, for any reason. Goodling testified that questions about political affiliation were part of the screening process for prospective attorneys; even that isn’t illegal. The only reason a president may not fire a U.S. attorney is to obstruct an investigation, and while it appears that that may have happened in the case of Iglesias, there’s no evidence that it was true for the other attorneys.
Violations of the Hatch Act may have happened, but there’s no definitive evidence for that. The Presidential Records Act may have been violated, but the emails were ultimately produced, so no “injury in fact� happened.
As for the subpoenaing of documents, that’s a trickier issue. The White House can claim executive privilege only as long as it is not doing so to obstruct a criminal investigation. It’s unclear what crimes the administration is being accused of: possibly only the charge of removing an attorney to interfere with an investigation (the case of David Iglesias). President Bush offered months ago to have Harriet Miers and Karl Rove testify, off the record and not under oath, before Congress. The House Judiciary Committee rightly rejected that patronizing offer for what it was: insulting to the Judiciary Committee as an oversight body.
But it would be hard to get past the assertions that internal executive deliberations about which attorney generals should be removed is confidential. That is, after all, the point of executive privilege: for the president to get advice from his staff without fear that the staff’s comments will become public knowledge. It is only in this way, goes the doctrine, that a president can get honest counsel. In United States v. Nixon, the Supreme Court ruled that President Nixon could not use the claim of executive privilege when it came to criminal investigations. Things looked bleak for Nixon in 1973, as his office increasingly became responsible for violations of election laws and even some state criminal laws (breaking and entering suddenly comes to mind).
While everyone knows in their Heart of Hearts that the Bush administration has broken the law and has the utmost contempt for any checks placed on what President Bush and Vice President Cheney believe are the president’s absolute powers, it is difficult to actually pin any crimes on them. “Scooter� Libby was the fall guy for Cheney, who set out to destroy presidential critic Joe Wilson by revealing that his wife was an undercover CIA operative. If this were a movie, everyone in the audience would complain, “Well, of course Cheney leaked Valerie Plame’s identity!� But in the judicial system, what everyone knows doesn’t meet the standard of reasonable doubt. For this reason, “Scooter� Libby is in jail right now and Vice President Cheney is living large in the vice presidential residence at the U.S. Naval Observatory – where, by the way, all visitor logs were ordered destroyed by the Secret Service.
Senator Barack Obama has come out against Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s articles of impeachment against Cheney, insisting that impeachment is reserved for only the gravest of crimes. And, implicitly, only the most obvious ones. This administration has done of good job of covering up its tracks while breaking the law, or flexing enough to be within the technical boundaries of the law, or, failing all that, re-writing the law so that its actions are legal. The Democrats hold a thin majority in both houses, and some of those Democrats are afraid of appearing to be too critical of the administration. The already tepid P.R. the Democrats have in their favor could quickly turn ice-cold if the public perceives them to be on an impeachment fishing expedition. Nixon, by contrast, was on record as being deeply involved in White House scandals, and Vice President Agnew had just resigned. There was hard, undeniable evidence of obstruction of justice, burglary, and more. This Congress has no such luxury. This administration’s lips are sealed tight and leak only at the strategic say-so of the president or vice president.
It may be years before we know the true scope of Bush and Cheney’s destruction of our country. Cheney will have to be dead before that happens, as he will vehemently fight against declassification of anything. Bush may not have to be so dead; he is deeply concerned about his legacy, and how history will look at him, but repentance might be enough to make us tolerate him. He could go with Prime Minister Tony Blair’s lament in his farewell address, “I did what I thought was right.� But much time will pass before we know what he thought, as the fog of secrecy still hangs heavy in the Land of Washington, where the shadows lie.
Two nights ago, half a dozen Republican presidential candidates met in South Carolina for another TV debate, this one sponsored by Fox News. The shining star of the debate was Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, the only one of the candidates to oppose the Iraq War. Paul is an "old-school" conservative who believes that the Republican party has lost its way "because the conservative wing of the Republican Party always advocated a noninterventionist foreign policy," as he told moderators Brit Hume and Wendell Goler. Of the Iraq War, he said, "And my argument is that we shouldn't go to war so carelessly. When we do, the wars don't end." Goler then asked if the United States' non-interventionist policies hadn't changed with September 11. And so began an exchange that would separate the idiots from everyone else, an exchange that would expose Rudy Giuliani as an opportunist:
MR. GOLER: Congressman, you don't think that changed with the 9/11 attacks, sir?REP. PAUL: What changed?
MR. GOLER: The non-interventionist policies.
REP. PAUL: No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East -- I think Reagan was right.
We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. (Applause.)
MR. GOLER: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?
REP. PAUL: I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, "I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier." They have already now since that time -- have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary.
MR. GIULIANI: Wendell, may I comment on that? That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.)
And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that. (Applause.)
MR. GOLER: Congressman?
REP. PAUL: I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem.
They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there. I mean, what would we think if we were -- if other foreign countries were doing that to us?
Giuliani is in trouble. He has already demonstrated that he has very little knowledge of foreign policy. He departs from the rest of his party on the issues of gay rights and abortion. The only thing going for him are his credentials as mayor of New York during the September 11 attacks. But it turns out that waving the flag of September 11 doesn't make you a good presidential candidate. In this exchange, Giuliani misconstrues what Paul says, implying that if we say that our foreign policy toward the Middle East contributed to the September 11 attacks, we're simultaneously saying that we "deserved" to be attacked. This is not true.
Paul appears to be fed up with the simplistic explanation given by our president that "they hate us for our freedoms." As Pat Buchanan noted in an op-ed today, Osama bin Laden and friends -- formerly the mujahideen of Afghanistan -- were our allies in the 1980s. " What Ron Paul was addressing was the question of what turned the allies we aided into haters of the United States," wrote Buchanan. "Was it the fact that they discovered we have freedom of speech or separation of church and state? Do they hate us because of who we are? Or do they hate us because of what we do?" It turns out that viewers who tuned in to the debate weren't misled by Giuliani's simplistic opportunism; text-message polls showed that viewers believed it was Paul who won the debate that night.
The fact that Giuliani couldn't get away with what President Bush was able to get away with many times before signals a welcome change in political discourse: simple explanations won't cut it anymore. With a majority of the American people wanting to get out of Iraq, we've learned that President Bush can't be trusted. Bush is a man who takes Occam's Razor too literally: not only must the simplest explanation be true, but the true explanation must necessarily be the simplest one. Do Middle Eastern countries hate the United States because of thirty years of foreign policy or because we have freedom of speech, and they don't, and they're either jealous of our freedom of speech, or they hate the idea of freedom of speech? Thirty years of foreign policy is a lot to delve into; catchy slogans not so much. Bush is a president who likes complex ideas distilled into bumper sticker-length slogans. The American public is tired of being deceived by simplicity.
Oh, and I think both Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan are deserving of becoming SEDHE Heroes of the Week.
If only Democrats were calling for Alberto Gonzales' head, then the administration's insistence that Democrats "like to get headlines more than they like to get the facts" regarding the U.S. attorney firing scandal would make sense. But the administration is continuing to insist that this is a partisan political game at the same time that both Democrats and Republicans think that Gonzales' answers don't add up. Sens. Arlen Specter (R-PA), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) all find Gonzales' answers unacceptable. The list of Republican senators calling for Gonzales' resignation includes John McCain (R-AZ), Tom Coburn (R-OK), John Sununu (R-NH), and Gordon Smith (R-OR).
In order for the administration to believably cry "partisan politics," it would have to be just Democrats saying Gonzales should resign. Sadly for them, that's not the case. Now, the Office of Special Counsel is investigating whether or not Karl Rove's aides may have violated the Hatch Act in making political "presentations" to various executive agencies.
Whereas crying foul to Republicans used to work, Republicans are either (1) no longer capable of plausibly following the Bush party line and appearing as though they're upholding the laws, or (2) actually getting sick and tired of all this politicking interfering with national business.
Mike posted a comment to my previous post, entitled "Exactly how stupid is our president?" The comment is pretty long, so I won't repost it in its entirety; rather, I'll address each section in turn.
I think building schools, hospitals, infrastructure, etc. is good news. Yes, when terrorists blow up our public works projects, that's bad news. And I'll concede that there's more bad news than good coming out of Iraq. But there is good news there.
Point taken. Yes, there may be some good news coming out of Iraq. But a majority of Iraqis (and especially those in Baghdad) don't feel that things are going so well and they actually wish Saddam Hussein were back in power. Why is this? Saddam's brutal repression didn't impact the average man-on-the-street very much. There was water, there was power. There weren't bombers blowing people up every day (and suicide bombers are now a daily occurrence in Iraq). Yes, Saddam was a dictator, and yes, dictators are always evil. But the Iraqis themselves don't necessarily feel that way. If his dictatorship touched them, it wasn't very much -- unless they were Kurds or dissidents (and, actually, "Iraqi Kurdistan," as it calls itself, is actually doing quite well; there are hardly any bombings up there, but then again, things were always better up there). Was did touch them was infastructure and the basic necessities of life. Saddam -- and to an even greater degree, the government -- kept that stuff running. Now that Saddam is out, there's no security, and you have situations where insurgents are destroying power lines and killing repair crews that come to repair the power lines. I submit that life for the average person in Iraq is getting worse. And people are fleeing Iraq to the tune of about 100,000 per month. Some countries, like Canada, have recognized that Iraq's situation is special and has granted refugee status to Iraqis. Again, there may be good things happening, but by and large, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan, the Iraqis are worse off than they were four years ago.
2. Believing things were better under Saddam is not the same as believing Saddam is good.
Of course not. Nevertheless, you say, "But I would not be pining for the good ol' days of totalitarianism, even if I did recognize that Saddam imparted a certain stability." The problem is that there are Iraqis "pining for the good ol' days of totalitarianism." And this is a problem for us, because one of our many reasons for going into Iraq was to "spread democracy." If democracy is so great, why don't the Iraqi people realize it? The answer is that democracy is great, but we severely botched our implementation of democracy in Iraq to the point that people would rather have the greater security and lesser freedom of Saddam than the lesser security and greater freedom of an Iraq without Saddam. This reflects poorly on our leaders' handling of the situation. Democracy should be good in and of itself, without explanation, but in this case, we created a half-assed democracy that has all the appearances of a democracy (elected leaders, independent branches of government) without the substance of one. The fact that Iraqis would rather live under a repressive Saddam than a free Nouri al-Maliki is a testament to how bad the situation there is.
3-4. This all could have been cleared up if Iraq had been more forthcoming with UN inspectors. The onus was on them.
Granted; Saddam could have been more forthcoming about the fact that he didn't have WMDs (most likely, he didn't want the U.N. wandering around and finding massive human rights abuses, instead). But President Bush also prematurely removed U.N. weapons inspectors from the country in 2003 before they had a chance to finish their inspections, and then he spun it to make it seem as though it was Saddam who had tossed the weapons inspectors out. When President Bush claimed that all diplomatic means had been exhausted, he was lying. All diplomatic means had not been exhausted; rather, Bush put an end to diplomacy in order to begin military action, the latter of which he had been intending to use all along regardless of whether Saddam complied with weapons inspectors (cf. The Downing Street Memo).
5. Your argument amounts to the old "but officer, I saw two other guys speeding too, and you didn't give them tickets" bit. No sale.
Yes, sale. Bush's arguments about why Saddam was more evil than other dictators in the world were unconvincing. He offered no hard evidence as to why we should go after Saddam rather than, say, North Korea or Saudi Arabia. This argument speaks more to our intentions than anything else. Was our intention to do away with an evil dictator? If so, then why didn't we go after the more evil dictators who really did have weapons of mass destruction? Answer: because our intentions had nothing to do with the altruistic notion of removing an evil dictator from power. That was a ruse and it only proves that we have been consistently lied to for four years. Why go after a dictator who -- evil though he may be -- is not a direct threat to us? I still regret not asking P.J. O'Rourke this question when he came to Miami. Here's what I would have asked him: "Sometime in 2003, all of America went to sleep, and Iraq was a distant threat. Sure, it was run by a dictator, but it was a nebulous, indirect, and not urgent threat to the United States. Then, the next day, suddenly Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was on the verge of developing nuclear weapons, and they had to be taken out now. Why did the administration's view on Iraq change so dramatically and so suddenly?" The bottom line: Saddam was not a threat to us. There were other nations that were threats to us. And yet we attacked the country that was not a threat to us. Why did this illogical situation occur?
6. Maybe I'm dense (it's a distinct possibility) but I don't remember anyone but Bush opponents giving out the "Iraq = al-Qaeda" line.
There's a great book out there called All the President's Spin which actually analyzes the ways in which the Bush administration went to great lengths to equate Iraq and al-Qaeda without explicitly saying the words. By casually mentioning Iraq and al-Qaeda together, coupled with the words "September the eleventh," Bush was able to create the impression that Iraq had something to do with September 11 while all the time retaining plausible deniability by not overtly saying the words. "What? Iraq was involved in September 11? I never said that!" And it's true that he never said the words, but he has excellent P.R. people working for him who know how to sell an idea without actually coming out and saying "Iraq = al-Qaeda = September 11." Advertising is all about subtlety. The American people were sold on this war as though it were blue jeans or Camel cigarettes. Sure, Camel doesn't come out and say that smoking is cool, but it's difficult to say that its advertising doesn't suggest that. In 2003, 40 percent of Americans thought that Iraq was responsible for September 11. Where could they have gotten that idea, especially since Iraq has never bombed us and al-Qaeda has bombed U.S. properties (embassies in Africa, the USS Cole) several times? Remember: You're a lot smarter than the average American, so just because you didn't fall for it doesn't mean that other people didn't.
"He never defines what the 'job' is, or what 'done' means ..."
Granted. Bush defines "job" every time he says it: "an Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself." But he repeats it so often that it has become less a policy argument than a catch-phrase.
He may not be the smartest man ever to occupy the post of president, I'll concede that; but an incurious and uncaring man, interested only in self, wouldn't start a pre-emptive foreign war justified, in his words, by dangers to the nation's long-term survival.
Here's the cynical part: I don't believe that President Bush does care about our nation's long-term survival. He may offer these reasons as justifications for his war, but they are all bromides. Bromides for what, I don't know; I've been spending four years wondering what his true reasons for the Iraq War are. A just war requires no convincing. Take our action in Afghanistan, with which I completely agreed. Al-Qaeda, supported by Afghanistan's Taliban government, attacked us. I believe we were completely justified in retaliating, and the rest of the world agreed. And if President Bush is so concerned about democracy, why did he "cut and run" in Afghanistan? He left that country "before the job [was] done" so that he could focus on Iraq. One of these was a war of necessity (if such a thing can exist); the other was a war of choice. Our retaliation against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan was a natural step that any president -- yes, even Al Gore -- would have taken. The war in Iraq is one that was undertaken by President Bush of his own volition. And he took resources from Afghanistan -- where, by the way, there are still problems that remain unfixed -- to fight his pre-emptive war of choice in Iraq.
It was only after we went to war in Iraq that the goodwill we had generated after September 11 was gone. The bipartisan bickering was back, and the world was more resentful toward us than ever before. Recall what former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke said: that, after the September 11 attacks, Bush and Rumsfeld ordered the CIA to find intelligence -- any intelligence, reliable or not, that might link Iraq to those attacks. Their reaction was not, "Let's find out who did this"; rather, it was, "Let's find out how we can blame Iraq for this." For me, this serves as a terrible bit of evidence indicating that Bush was itching for a war with Iraq from the start.
It's not that I disagree with the way the president has handled this war. It's that I disagree with the war itself; there is no "good" way to operate this war, since it shouldn't have happened to begin with. I believe that it was unjustified, illegal, and morally reprehensible. I find it further terrible that President Bush makes bold, idealistic justifications in public when there is substantial evidence to indicate that his real reasons are more cynical, sinister, and less motivated by the public welfare. (Recall that Bush wanted to goad Iraq into war by painting a U.S. spy plane in U.N. colors, encouraging them to fire on it. He must have been reading Lyndon Johnson's The Art of War.)
Thanks for your comments, Mike. I hope you find this response less hate-filled. Years of lies, swagger, immature smugness, and a disregard for reality have left me with a deep distaste for this president -- a distaste that I had only finally put to words in that previous post.
Let it never be said that I'm so partisan and foolishly blind as to believe that the Democrats can do no wrong. Case in point: Rep. Charles Rangel, D-NY. Today, on CBS's Face the Nation, Rangel said that he would introduce legislation to re-instate the draft.
Ugh. I'm pretty sure that most Democrats don't want to reinstate the draft, so this legislation will most likely die in committee. But let's hear Rangel's reasoning for this:
There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way.
Earth to Chuck Rangel! Members of Congress would never write legislation that would ever require their children to serve in the military. Members of Congress want other people's children to fight their wars for them! Of course they would write exemptions into any draft legislation that would allow their children to stay out of the military. During the Vietnam War, exemptions were granted for people who were in college or pursuing a graduate degree. Vice President Cheney certainly used up his share of deferments; he got five of them!
Not to mention that there would be six kinds of uproar about mandatory conscription into a war that 69% of Americans disapprove of. We drafted young men for Vietnam, and that went just swimmingly.
Rangel tried to re-introduce the draft in 2003, but military leaders were actually against it, saying that a volunteer army would be better than a conscripted one. His 2003 proposal died in the Republican-controlled House. Imagine what a tortorous death it will be in a Democratic House.
Bush's tone in his speech last Wednesday was very somber, a marked and welcome change from his normal gratuitous self. This was no doubt brought on by the realization that he's lost his carte blanche and must now engage in actual diplomacy with the Democrats. Diplomacy is not one of his strong points. Suddenly, though, Bush was the most conciliatory person in the world, noting that the midterm election results showed that America was a strong democracy. (In private, though, he's probably cursing up a storm.)
Now that George Allen has conceded defeat, the Democrats are in control of both the House and the Senate. On Thursday, when Allen conceded, U.S. generals said that there would probably be a shift in our Iraq policy. No kidding! Here's a list of things that will also change:
Now we get to spend the next two years figuring out what's been going on behind our backs for the last five years. Oh, and Germany is planning on filing criminal charges against Donald Rumsfeld for the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison. (Not that the charges would mean anything; the U.S. isn't a party to the International Criminal Court, only to the Geneva Conventions.)
If you're a Democrat, that is. Last night, the Democrats pwned the Republicans, gaining 28 seats in the House, enough to give them control of that chamber. The Senate went pretty well, too. Pennsylvania crazyman Rick Santorum was ousted from his seat there. In Ohio, Mike DeWine was upset by Sherrod Brown, and in Missouri, Clair McCaskill beat Jim Talent. Democrats captured six governorships, as well.
Ours will continue to be the state of Caleefoahneah, as Governor Terminator soundly trounced Democratic challenger State Treasurer Phil Angelides. All of the statewide ballot initiatives, including Proposition 85 and Proposition 90, failed. Hey, as long as 85 and 90 failed, I'm happy.
And then what do I see when I go to cnn.com to check on election results? "Rumsfeld Quitting As Defense Secretary." Holy crap! Remember last year, when everyone wanted Bush to dump Rumsfeld, and he declared, "I'm the decider"? Yeah, it looks like the American people are deciding once again. Bush even acknowledged that the decision was motivated by last night's election results, noting, "I recognize that many Americans voted last night to register their displeasure with the lack of progress being made." Rumsfeld will be replaced by former CIA head Robert Gates.
With the Democrats at least in control of the House, we can start to have hearings -- under oath, even! -- that finally get down into what's been going on for five years: Iraq, intelligence failures, scandals, Halliburton, torture, secret prisons, habeas corpus, on and on and on. With their control of the House, Democrats will now be in charge of House committees. CNN projects that the Democrats have won 5 of the 6 seats they need to gain a majority in the Senate. Even if they do only get a majority of one, that puts them in control of committees -- especially the important Senate Judiciary and Intelligence committees.
It's even more interesting to note where the upsets happened: Missouri, Ohio, Indiana, Montana. These are "Middle America"; the strongholds of the Republican base. The people there have apparently woken up from their haze and discovered that they've been screwed for the past five years, and they've decided that it needs to stop.
Good work, America!
Michael Kinsley, writing in The Washington Post, observed in a Sept. 29 column that President Bush’s stance on the “right to life� is very capricious. Bush’s stance, like many religious conservatives, is that life begins at conception:
Even tiny embryos composed of a half-dozen microscopic cells, he thinks, have the same right to life as you and I do. That is why he cannot bring himself to allow federal funding for research on new lines of embryonic stem cells or even for other projects in labs where stem cell research is going on.
Even though the possibility exists that the destruction of these embryos could help extend the lives of already-born human beings, the moral dilemma for Bush is no dilemma at all. Even if there existed the possibility that destroying embryos could help people, the destruction of these embryos is so evil that nothing could justify said destruction.
Okay, fine. Makes sense. But what about Iraq? Kinsley presents us with an ethical conundrum. On the one hand, the president refuses to kill a “human� (in quotation marks because, while the president believes it, I do not) even though, in that death, more humans might be saved. But in Iraq, Bush does not refuse to stop killing humans, even though, in their death, more humans might be saved. Kinsley writes:
But it is hard -- indeed, I would say it is impossible -- to reconcile Bush's absolutism over allegedly human life when it is a clump of unknowing, unfeeling cells with his sophisticated, if not cavalier, attitude toward the loss of innocent human life when it is children and adults in Iraq. [...] And -- oh, yes -- there is still the question of whether a clump of a half-dozen cells you can't see without a microscope is actually a human being in the same sense as a 6-year-old girl blown up as she skips off to kindergarten in Baghdad.
While Kinsley proves what we’ve known all along -- namely, that President Bush is a hypocrite who doesn’t take a great many things into account when making decisions -- it is still interesting to examine what he is doing and consider that he is still in office.
WASHINGTON -- President Bush is lobbying Congress to make "clarifications" to its interpretation of the Geneva Conventions, alleging that "alternative tactics" are sometimes necessary in order to extract information from terrorist suspects. One reason for this "clarification" is that the Geneva Conventions are vague on its definition of torture -- and let's be clear about this. "Torture" is what Bush and Cheney want to do. Given all of the puzzle pieces -- (1) the Abu Ghraib scandal; (2) the existence of secret prisons out of the reach of U.S. law; (3) the president's signing statement attached to the Detainee Treatment Act, where he said that his authority as the president gives him the ability to ignore certain non-torture provisions -- it is quite clear that the Bush administration wants to be able to torture detainees. Whether it's shrouded in euphemisms like "alternative," "tough," or "enhanced," the idea remains the same: President Bush wants the legal authority to torture suspects.
John Negroponte, Director of National Security, argues in a USA Today op-ed that the Geneva Conventions need "clarification" so as to protect interrogators: "Thus, the president has asked that Congress clarify our treaty obligations just as it has done on so many other occasions. Absent such clarification, our intelligence professionals would be subject to unpredictable legal interpretations, including those of foreign courts." A wonderful sentiment, but this is exactly why the United States is not a party to the International Criminal Court (ICC). The U.S. refuses to join the ICC because it is afraid of the authority the ICC would have over its military operations. If the U.S. were a party to the ICC, American servicemen could be prosecuted under international law for war crimes or violations of international war treaties. Negroponte's argument fails to convince because it addresses a situation that doesn't exist.
But we already know why torture is bad from an ethical standpoint: torture is wrong. Period. But does torture actually work as a method of gathering intelligence? Perhaps the show Twenty-Four -- probably one of the most pro-government shows on TV -- is the most guilty of inspiring the notion that torture is necessary for instances in which there's a bomb somewhere right now and only this guy knows where it is so we need to beat that information out of him!. These instances -- like aborting a fetus or embryo to save the life of the mother -- are rare and apocryphal. In his Sept. 11 speech last week, Bush insisted that torture of detainees held in secret CIA prisons has stopped terror plots from being executed, but how are we to know that he's telling the truth?
There are far better ways to get information than by torture. Scotland Yard and MI-5 foiled the British liquid explosives attacks through old-fashioned policework: they went through the arduous process of obtaining wiretapping warrants (amazing, isn't it? A terror plot foiled even though they got warrants!), listened on the phone, got names and addresses, and then arrested people. A simple interrogation of those people -- without torture -- yielded more names and more information. Perhaps the U.S. is just lazy; we have fewer undercover operatives around the world than we ever have. (Of course, it's hard to spy on the enemy when conservative columnists publish the names of covert operatives and the Army fires homosexual Arabic translators because it's more important to enforce Jerry Falwell's morality than it is to have competent people who speak al-Qaeda's language.)
(Incidentally, the British terrorist plot wasn't nearly as ready as the news made it out to be. The terrorists didn't even have passports yet, so it wasn't something that was going to happen even in the next month.)
Experts in the field of torture have come to realize the same thing: torture is ineffective as a means of obtaining information. Israel, the world's expert when it comes to anti-terrorism, takes a dim view of torture for precisely this reason. The assumption made about torture is that the person being tortured is telling the truth; but the torturee's goal is not to tell the truth, but rather to stop the torture. For this reason, he is all the more inclined to tell the torturer what he wants to hear in the hope that the torture will stop. This is why a slew of military officers -- including Sen. John McCain, who was himself tortured in Vietnam -- has spoken out against torture, citing not only its inefficacy, but also its dehumanizing nature.
But interestingly, notes Naomi Klein in The Nation, getting information may be only ancillary to torture's true goal:
This is torture's true purpose: to terrorize--not only the people in Guantánamo's cages and Syria's isolation cells but also, and more important, the broader community that hears about these abuses. Torture is a machine designed to break the will to resist--the individual prisoner's will and the collective will.This is not a controversial claim. In 2001 the US NGO Physicians for Human Rights published a manual on treating torture survivors that noted: "perpetrators often attempt to justify their acts of torture and ill treatment by the need to gather information. Such conceptualizations obscure the purpose of torture....The aim of torture is to dehumanize the victim, break his/her will, and at the same time, set horrific examples for those who come in contact with the victim. In this way, torture can break or damage the will and coherence of entire communities."
Torture thus sends a message to potential terrorists: if we capture you, you'll get the same treatment, so don't even think about becoming a terrorist. Torture comes from the same machismo that inspired Bush to tell terrorists, "Bring it on." In economics, this is called the Jackie Chain fallacy: what is good for Jackie Chan is not necessarily good for everyone.
And, at its heart, is torture not also about that most ubiquitous of human emotions -- revenge? The desire to see the enemy injured in the same way -- indeed, in a worse way -- than one's dead compatriots must surely be a part of it. The Geneva Conventions are our attempt to take war and make it more civilized. As humanity has become civilized, our baser instincts have not, and even though we've tried to create rules to control them, they come out, anyway. And now we have an administration that attempts to use rational justifications to legalize an irrational and barbarous practice.
Did you even notice the subtle shift in language that Republicans have begun using when referring to the Democratic Party? You see, for Republicans, the noun and the adjective are the same: "Republican." But for Democrats, the noun and the adjective are different.
The problem is, if you're a Republican, talking about the "Democratic" party makes it sound as though that party founded the idea of democracy. It makes it sound as though they are more about democracy than you are. What's a Republican to do?
Manipulate language, of course! In recent speeches, President Bush has taken to calling the party of Democrats the "Democrat party" instead of the gramatically-correct "Democratic" party -- ostensibly because he doesn't want anyone to perceive that the Democrats are more democratic than the Republicans.
The connotation, though, is that the democrats are not the party of Democracy. Republicans have begun using the term pejoratively to describe Democrats -- as though they (the Democrats) didn't believe in democracy.
The evidence comes from Media Matters, a left-leaning nonprofit organization that analyzes and criticizes the U.S. media. Their analysis:
The ungrammatical conversion of the noun "Democrat" to an adjective was the brainchild of Republican partisans, presumably an attempt to deny the opposing party the claim to being "democratic" -- or in the words of New Yorker magazine senior editor Hendrik Hertzberg, "to deny the enemy the positive connotations of its chosen appellation." In the early 1990s, apparently due largely to the urging of then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) and Republican pollster Frank Luntz, the use of the word "Democrat" as an adjective became near-universal among Republicans.
Hertzberg argued against the use of the word "Democrat" as an adjective because it was ungrammatical. What would Republican stalwart William F. Buckley, Jr. say? While Buckley is the founder of National Review, he is -- like many old-school Republicans (notably James J. Kilpatrick) -- crazy about proper grammar. Will their love of correct English trump their hatred of Democrats? It appears that, among new-school neo-cons, hatred wins the day.
The word 'fascist' takes on new meaninglessness
In "Politics and the English Language," George Orwell argued that the word fascist -- which once had a specific meaning, referring to a dictatorial, hyper-patriotic, militaristic, hyper-capitalist form of government -- no longer had any meaning, as it was bandied about as an insult toward anyone the speaker didn't like. So, too, did "communist" cease to be a description of a centralized economic system, becoming instead an insult hurled at any left-leaning person.
Well, "fascist" is back, thanks to President Bush, Donald "Duck" Rumsfeld, and Vice President Cheney. CNN reports:
President Bush in recent days has recast the global war on terror into a "war against Islamic fascism." Fascism, in fact, seems to be the new buzz word for Republicans in an election season dominated by an unpopular war in Iraq.Bush used the term earlier this month in talking about the arrest of suspected terrorists in Britain, and spoke of "Islamic fascists" in a later speech in Green Bay, Wisconsin. Spokesman Tony Snow has used variations on the phrase at White House press briefings.
[...]
White House aides and outside Republican strategists said the new description is an attempt to more clearly identify the ideology that motivates many organized terrorist groups, representing a shift in emphasis from the general to the specific.
"I think it's an appropriate definition of the war that we're in," said GOP pollster Ed Goeas. "I think it's effective in that it definitively defines the enemy in a way that we can't because they're not in uniforms."
But, again, the word "fascist" is being used incorrectly. Fascism, the governmental system, is defined by Mirriam-Webster as "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition." For Ed Goeas to say that a group is "fascist" because it is "not in uniforms" is stupid: fascism is a type of government. Muslim terrorist groups are not governments.
And guess what, NASCAR fans: not all Muslim terrorist groups are the same!
Al-Qaeda, formed in the 1990s, devoted itself to three objectives: (1) getting U.S. troops out of Saudi Arabia; (2) destroying Israel; and (3) creating a pan-Islamic movement to destroy the West, if at all possible. Hezbollah, Hamas, and the PLO exist only to destroy Israel, and they are not pan-Islamic movements.
So why lump all Muslim terrorist groups into a poorly-named container called "fascism"? Because it's good P.R. The gum-chewing public knows that "fascism" is bad; it has been ingrained in our culture. So, without any further explanation, the Bush administration can say "terrorists = fascists" and its audience gets the message without any further explanation.
Nick Gillespie isn't just the husband of one of my Miami University English professors. He's also the Editor-in-Chief of the Libertarian magazine Reason. One of Reason's online offerings this month is a conglomertation of articles called "Immigration Now, Immigration Tomorrow, Immigration Forever: Reason's Guide to Reality-Based Reform." It's a very good source of information for people who think current immigration restrictions are stupid -- for economic reasons.
And security ones. As Gillespie points out in "Bush's Border Bravado," there are freedom concerns in play. Bush, in a May 15 speech, touted identification cards as one method of making sure that workers are legal. This is where liberals and Libertarians agree: government surveillance is bad, and identification cards are bad. They take away privacy while not replacing that void with an equal amount of security. It's not like The Bad Guys are going out and getting fake IDs; they're not college frat-boys, and they're not that stupid. If an identification system is implemented, they will go out of their way to game the system until the system issues them a legitimate ID card with fake information. (ID-based security systems -- in the form of passports and visas -- didn't stop the September 11 hijackers from entering the country; they had legitimate identification.)
Criticizing Bush's call for a "tamper-resistant identification card," Gillespie correctly notes that "there ain't no such thing as a tamper-resistant anything." Also, an identification card separating guest workers from regular workers would mean "that all workers -- regardless of country of origin or citizenship -- will have to show a 'tamper-resistant identification card.'"
Want another reason to allow more immigrants? More tax money! Immigration opponents say that immigrants are leaches who get government services without paying for them; however, Gillespie notes that "[a]bout two-thirds of illegals pay Medicare, Social Security, and income taxes. All pay sales tax and property taxes." Gillespie says that the best way to address concerns about illegals taking government services "is by making it easier for illegals to function in the light of day, where they would have every reason to pay all the taxes the rest of us do."
Here we are in Year Six of the Bush Administration, and President Bush is about to use his first veto ... ever.
Were you aware? In his first term, Bush didn't veto a single bill. Now, halfway through his second term, he finally vetoes a bill. And what is it about? It's a bill authorizing federal funding for stem cell research. Recall that, back in 2001, before he became the Terror President, Bush had nothing better to worry about than stacked energy policies and stem cells. The Religious Right -- which is at the core of Bush's base -- detests using embryonic stem cells for research, and in 2001, Bush issued an Executive Order placing a moratorium on federal funding for new embryonic stem cells lines. There were already sixty embryonic stem cell lines in existence, he said, and the government will continue to fund those. (Of course, it is now well-documented that Bush lied when he said there were sixty stem cell lines. Currently, there are about twenty viable lines, with "viable" being the key word.)
The bill, passed in 2005 by the House and Tuesday by the Senate, allowed couples who had embryos frozen in fertility clinics to donate them to research. Bush vetoed the bill this morning, saying that the bill "crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect. "
"Oh, really?" counters Salon contributor Scott Rosenberg:
Here is why Bush's position is a joke: Thousands and thousands of embryos are destroyed every year in fertility clinics. They are created in petri dishes as part of fertility treatments like IVF; then they are discarded.If Bush and his administration truly believe that destroying an embryo is a kind of murder, they shouldn't be wasting their time arguing about research funding: They should immediately shut down every fertility clinic in the country, arrest the doctors and staff who operate them, and charge all the wannabe parents who have been wantonly slaughtering legions of the unborn.
But of course they'll never do such a thing. (Nor, to be absolutely clear, do I think they should.) Bush could not care less about this issue except as far as it helps burnish his pro-life credentials among his "base." This has been true since the first airing of Bush's position in 2001, as I said back then. So he finds a purely symbolic way of taking a stand, but won't follow the logic of his position to the place where it might cause him any political harm -- as opposing the family-building dreams of millions of middle-class Americans would doubtless do.
If Bush stated his opposition to the destruction of embryos as including fertility clinics, there would be riots in the streets and he would never be spoken to again. So, instead of being put to some use, these embryos from fertility clinics will be destroyed anyway! "They remind us of what is lost when embryos are destroyed in the name of research," he said of children born of "adopted" embryos from fertility clinics. But these are few and far-between; thousands of embryos will be destroyed -- not in the name of research -- but in the name of nothing! The argument is the same as that for abortion: "You could be aborting the next Einstein." The point is moot! There's an equal chance that I'm aborting the anti-Christ; it really doesn't matter. The same goes for posturing with these children: sure, it's great that they were born from adopted embryos. That's great. But if they hadn't been born from those embryos, because the embryos were destroyed, we wouldn't miss them at all! What Bush should have done is brought a vial of frozen embryos on stage to cuddle with. Of course, humans don't respond to frozen embryos the same way they do to babies, so some of the pathos gets lost.
Sen. Ted Stevens, R-AK, has proven himself to be a giant idiot time and again. Never mind his championship of last year's biggest pork-barrel project, the Bridge to Nowhere. Never mind that, as chairman of the committee investigating high gas prices last September, he refused -- even at the insistence of Democratic colleagues on the committee -- to place the presidents of the nation's largest oil companies under oath.
Last Thursday, Sen. Stevens has voiced his opposition to net neutrality in the Senate because of his own hilarious misunderstanding of how the Internet works. According to Sen. Stevens, there are two "internets": the commercial Internet and the personal Internet. Sometimes, the commercial Internet gets too clogged with things from the personal Internet, slowing down the commercial Internet, and this is why we need two Internets.
Now, I understand that Sen. Stevens thinks his "tubes" analogy is just a metaphor for how the Internet really works. But the Internet still doesn't behave in the way that he claims it does.
Please, people who live in Alaska, don't re-elect this guy. (Brian, tell your sister to dump his ass.)
In Berkeley, everything is "organic." The hippies who live here would have nothing less. Even the University of California at Berkeley is ramping up its food purchases to include more organic items.
What the hell does "organic" mean, anyway? It sounds like it means "good" or "healthful." But it depends on who you are; "organic" sort of means whatever you want it to mean. Like Orwell's example of "fascism" in his essay "Politics and the English Language," the word "organic" has been taken to mean something different from what it originally meant.
Let's start with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is responsible for food labeling. There are rules in place for what you can call food -- "organic," "fat-free," "low-fat," etc. These rules are written by either the USDA or the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In this case of "organic," it is the USDA that controls what can and cannot be labeled that way.
According to the USDA's National Organic Program Labeling and Marketing Information, "organic" foods "must consist of at least 95 percent organically produced ingredients (excluding water and salt). Any remaining product ingredients must consist of nonagricultural substances approved on the National List or non-organically produced agricultural products that are not commercially available in organic form." There are other regulations and requirements for foods that are not themselves totally organic, but may be labeled as "made with organic ingredients." The USDA levies a $10,000 fine upon any person who knowingly mislabels a product as "organic" when it doesn't meet the above standards.
But the organic foods movement isn't just about food, as Stephen Shapin explains in a New Yorker article entitled "What Are You Buying When You Buy Organic?" The modern organic movement was as much about liberal politics and anti-capitalism as it was about food:
The organic movement that sprang up in America during the postwar years, manured by the enthusiasm of both the hippies and their New Age successors, supplemented [English agronomist Sir Albert] Howard’s ideas of soil health with the imperative that the scale should be small and the length of the food chain from farm to consumer short. You were supposed to know who it was that produced your food, and to participate in a network of trust in familiar people and transparent agricultural practices. A former nutritionist at Columbia, who went on to grow produce upstate, recalls, “When we said organic, we meant local. We meant healthful. We meant being true to the ecologies of regions. We meant mutually respectful growers and eaters. We meant social justice and equality.�
Buying organic is supposed to be about buying from a place that is local, where the profits go directly to the people growing the food, not to a nameless, faceless corporation like ArcherDanielsMidland. Buying organic is also supposed to be about food grown "naturally"; that is, without pesticides and without genetic modification. The organic movement operates using the same paradigm as the Romantic idealization of nature: nature is, in itself, virtuous, and humans -- or anything artificial -- is necessarily evil. The closer you are to nature, and the further you are from humanity, the more virtuous you become. The corollary for this axiom is that people who are further from man-made structures (i.e., without material wealth or societal power, which translates into "marginalized peoples") are necessarily more virtuous. People on the fringes of society -- farmers, children, the poor, and the insane -- are all virtuous because of their distance from human institutions. In the polar world of Romantic idealism, there are only two possibilities: being close to humanity or being close to nature. Being close to nature means, necessarily, being further from humanity, and vice versa.
The organic movement feels the same way. Food grown far from the impact of humanity is more virtuous than food grown by a large agribusiness using pesticides and genetic modification (did you ever think your food could be virtuous?) But the modern organic movement has abandoned this and, as usually happens, large corporations have seen money in a new trend and have capitalized (no pun intended) on it. Whole Foods -- the nation's number-one organic food chain -- would certainly not be endorsed by Berkeley's organic hippies if they knew some interesting facts. "[T]he company is as ferociously anti-union as Wal-Mart -- John Mackey, the volubly libertarian founder and CEO, has called unions 'parasites,'" writes Shapin. The nation's largest organic retailer fails the organic movement immediately by not staying true to liberal political principles, which would hold that the store should be unionized. Whole Foods is also definitely not your local, home-town grocery: says Shapin, "Last year, its total revenue was more than $5 billion and its gross profit was more than $1.6 billion. In 2004, according to the Financial Times, Whole Foods was 'the fastest-growing mass retailer in the US, with same-store sales rising 17.1 per cent quarter-on-quarter.'" Thus, the organic movement is no longer a "counterculture" movement; rather, it has become decidedly mainstream. Organic food is also no longer grown by moms and pops in the backyard and sold at the farmer's market: Earthbound Farm, one of Whole Foods' suppliers and the nation's largest producer of organic produce, grows its "organic" food "on giant farms in six different counties in California, two in Arizona, one in Colorado, and in three Mexican states. [...] By 2004, Earthbound was farming twenty-six thousand acres; its production plants in California and Arizona total four hundred thousand square feet, and its products are available in supermarkets in every state of the Union."
So, what's the problem with this? First of all, "organic" food was never designed to be mass-produced. It takes, on average, four times as many resources to grow organic food as it does "regular" food, since much of the crop is lost to pesticides and disease. Remember: organic growers cannot use pesticides and they cannot use genetic modification that might make a crop resistant to disease. This is why Earthbound needs so much space: to produce the same amount of food as conventional farming, they need to grow more food, with the understanding that much of it will be lost.
Corporations, though, don't like to do things -- and, indeed, can't -- do things on small scales. Organic is fine for individuals, but it stinks as a growth method for a nation or the world. There's as much an ethical dilemma in producing all the world's food organically as there is in nameless, faceless corporations producing all the world's food. Organic food is more expensive than regular food; what about the poor? The very people who are idealized and romanticized by the organic movement (at least, according to me, based on my reading of the organic movement and its relationship to the Romantic movement) can't afford organic food! Shapin hits on something about organic food that I've been saying for a long time:
Genetically modified, industrially produced monocultural corn is what feeds victims of the African famine, not the gorgeous organic technicolor Swiss chard from your local farmers' market. Food for a "small planet" will, for the forseeable future, require a much smaller human population on the planet.
I'll refrain from re-stating my opinion that the sinister implication -- whether conscious or not -- of the "sustainability" movement is the requirement that most of the world's population die of starvation. But the point remains: the world's famine problems will be solved by pesticides and genetic engineering, not organic food. Thomas Malthus famously predicted that we would all starve in the twentieth century, since humans grow geometrically while plants can only grow arithmetically. He famously forgot the influence of technology that coudl allow plant growth to keep up with human growth. The organic movement negates that technology.
And, thirdly, modern pesticides and -- especially -- genetic engineering are harmless. Says Shapin:
According to Samuel Fromartz, ninety per cent of “frequent� organic buyers think they’re buying better “health and nutrition.� They may be right. If, for any reason, you don’t want the slightest pesticide residue in your salad, or you want to insure that there are no traces of recombinant bovine somatotropin hormone (rbST) in your children’s milk, you’re better off spending the extra money for organically produced food. But scientific evidence for the risks of such residues is iffy, as it is, too, for the benefits of the micro-nutrients that are said to be more plentiful in an organic carrot than in its conventional equivalent.
The organic food movement isn't "bad." For a person to eat organically is acceptable. For a whole group of people to try and foist organic lifestyles on the world is not. Behind the organic movement is a political movement. If you're going to have a political movement, then present it as a political movement, not something else designed to draw in supporters who would otherwise not support you if they knew what you were really up to. Second, I don't know how many "organic" supporters know what organic means these days. It means big companies like Whole Foods overcharging you for food that comes from a place you're just as unfamiliar with as the food that comes from Safeway or Kroger. I fail to see how organic food is necessarily better simply because it's "organic." And I hope that I can educate some organic-types who didn't know that their organic movement wasn't as close to nature as they thought it was.
WASHINGTON -- President George W. Bush announced in a surprise press conference today that he would launch nuclear weapons against countries that the United States deemed too small.
"Small countries take up a good deal of space that could be used to better advantage by larger countries," he told the White House Press Corps today in the Rose Garden. "Large countries can do things more efficiently than small countries, and as a result, they waste fewer resources. It's called 'economy of scale.' Look it up. I have an MBA from Harvard, so I don't need to look it up. I already know. But you have to look it up. You don't know."
Later in the day on the Fox News Channel, anchor Brit Hume defended Bush's remarks. "It's high time countries like Micronesia, Fiji, and Monaco gave up their land and resources to somebody else. They're only standing in the way of progress. What is this, the seventh century? We're not nation-states anymore."
A source within the White House said that Bush came to the conclusion late on Saturday, when his computer's hard drive became full. "The president called in one of our technical experts, who showed him how to uninstall unnecessary programs and delete old files. The president was amazed by this ability to free up space on his computer, and wondered out loud to the technician if this would work to clear what he called 'the hard drive of the world.' According to the technician, he responded by replying, 'I don't know, sir. I'm just desktop support."
According to the source, Bush made an emergency phone call to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and asked her whether what he called "the hard drive strategy" would work. Dr. Rice replied that it was a very good analogy and suggested they implement the plan immediately. After securing Vice President Dick Cheney's approval, a team of speechwriters met Sunday morning while the president was at church to outline the plan for destroying the world's unnecessary countries.
A spokesman for Microsoft, manufacturer of Windows, the world's most popular computer operating system, said that the president had contacted Bill Gates, the company's chairman, to secure an endorsement. "Mr. Gates told the president that while 'the hard drive strategy' was a good strategy for computers, it probably wouldn't work in the real world," said the spokesman.
"We need to go further than just cleaning out the world's hard drive," said syndicated talk radio host Rush Limbaugh earlier today. "We need to clean out the world's RAM, which means dissolving the United Nations. We need to go back to a mainframe/terminal architecture, in which all nations get their orders from the United States. Our embassies will be like terminals. It will save the world's diplomatic and computing resources! What good is a computer when its different parts have different ideologies?"
Some world diplomatic experts questioned whether or not global policies should be formulated based on an analogy, but they were quickly dismissed by critics who said that they were just raising pointless issues because they want to see the terrorists win. "It's the same old thing you see with all these cretins," said syndicated columnist Ann Coulter. "These diplomatic eggheads in their liberal ivory towers want to make everything theoretical so that they can prevent the common man from understanding what's going on in the world. You know what's going on? Muslims are blowing up Christians and Jews, and these Commie wackos in their comfortable universities are cheering them on. They hate Christianity, they hate America, and they don't even like computers. They're against this computer analogy because they want to take us back to a time before typewriters, back when we were using pencil and paper. I think our university system has a corrupt header block, and we should re-initialize all of these professors to get rid of the corruption."
White House Press Secretary Tony Snow cautioned that the plan would take time to implement. "First, we need to scan the world to see what countries are too small. Then, we have to actually 'delete' them with nuclear weapons. It will take several months to assemble a team to scan the world, so I expect that the American people have nothing to worry about. I'm going to place this hourglass on the podium like so, and that will tell us when our scanning team is done scanning. If for some reason they encounter a problem, the hour glass will stop, and we'll have to start all over again. But I repeat that the American people have nothing to worry about in the near future."
And I couldn't think of a better story to report on for my 500th entry! It's been three years and five hundred entries since I started this blog back in 2003. That's a long time.
The New York Times reports today that Sen. Arlen Specter, R-PA, is furious with Vice President Dick Cheney. In a letter sent to Cheney and the press, Specter revealed that the vice president intentionally kept him out of negotiations with other members of the Senate Judiciary Committee -- of which he is the chairman -- regarding the illegal, poorly-justified, warrantless wiretaps of United States persons. Cheney and other Republicans on the committee apparently came to an agreement that no telecom company executives would testify in front of the Judiciary Committee -- a decision that Specter is unhappy with. He is one of the few Republican voices that dares criticize the Bush administration. In his letter, he said that "the administration is continuing warrantless wiretaps in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and is preventing the Senate Judiciary Committee from carrying out its constitutional responsibility for Congressional oversight."
If Cheney manages to threaten enough Senate Republicans, the other Republicans on the committee could vote Specter off the Judiciary Committee altogether. Specter has been critical of the administration's broad (and largely self-invented) assertions of executive power, which could get him into trouble with Cheney.
Last week, the Boston Globe revealed that Cheney's assistants personally review every piece of legislation that is scheduled to come before the president and check for any language that might limit the president's power. The assistants then recommend that the president add a "signing statement" in which he says that he refuses to abide by any law that limits his constitutional powers as president. It helps, of course, if you believe that the Constitution places no limitations on your presidential power, and therefore any legislative oversight at all (like the anti-torture amendment introduced by John McCain) is a limitation that the president won't abide by.
It should be noted that, in his five years in office, Bush has issued more than 750 "signing statements," more than every president before him combined. If a signing statement issue came before the Supreme Court, I'm quite confident that the Supremes would declare the signing statement's weight as law unconstitutional for the same reasons they declared the line-item veto unconstitutional.
Cheney is at the forefront of taking power from the legislature and giving it to the executive, whether through quasi-legal means, like signing statements, or through outright intimidation via Karl Rove. Specter has called him out on it; now how will the administration smear him? Will it suggest that he wasn't invited to meet with the vice president because, like Richard Clarke, he's "out of the loop"? (And, like Richard Clarke, when you're the chairman, it's hard to be "out of the loop" unless you're deliberately excluded.)
Zarqawi killed in Iraq
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of the terrorist group called Al-Qaeda in Iraq, was killed in an airstrike yesterday. This is good news. Osama bin Laden remains at large. This is bad news.
I wonder if warrantless wiretapping tipped the U.S. off to Zarqawi's whereabouts?
The Senate is scheduled to vote later this week on permanently repealing the estate tax. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-AL, wrote an op-ed for The Washington Post last week in which he recommends the permanent repeal of the estate tax. Sadly, the editorial makes use of the same old falsehoods about the estate tax.
One of the arguments is that, while the super-rich can afford the estate tax, people on the cusp of wealth cannot. The oft-provided example -- and it is repeated by Sessions -- is that of the family farm. The farm has a monetary value, and when the farm is passed on after death, the value of the farm is taxed. But since the value of the farm's land isn't liquid until the property is sold, children who receive the land as inheritance must sell some of the land to pay the tax. As a result, many family farms have gone out of business because of the estate tax. Horrors! Sadly, however, this isn't true.
A Washington Post editorial from last year cited a Congressional Budget Office report on the estate tax. Sessions, in his op-ed, mentions that the estate tax "is one of the IRS's most painful taxes," "hits hardest at heirs of small-business owners and family farmers," and other superlatives. But he never mentions another interesting superlative: that it is the most exclusive tax. The CBO report estimates that there were between 4,641 and 5,308 estates owned by farmers in 2000. The Post reports, "The numbers that owed estate tax, the CBO found, were paltry, and the number without enough cash on hand to pay the bill even punier: In 2000, for example, just 1,659 farm estates had taxes due, of which 138 didn't report enough liquid assets to cover their tax liability," This is not a tax that most people are going to have to pay.
The estate tax is a tax only on the super-rich, as there is a $1.5 million exemption currently in place. In 2009, the exemption will increase to $3.5 million. In 2000, "only 300 farm estates in 2000 would have owed any tax at all -- and of those, just 27 would have a tax bill in excess of their liquid assets." Under the 2009 exemption, the CBO projects that "65 farm estates would owe taxes and 13 would not have enough cash to cover the bill."
Sessions even claims that the estate tax is bad for minority-owned business, and cites what is probably the most prominent example of a minority-owned business having to pay the estate tax: the Chicago Defender, which had to pay $3 million in estate tax when its founder died in 1997. Estate tax opponents try to appeal to minorities with this single instance of an African-American-owned business that faced a large estate tax bill, suggesting with this one piece of support that "death taxes are killing black businesses." As argument, this is poor: one incident does not a trend make.
You might expect the world's wealthiest people to be against the estate tax. Warren, Buffett, CEO of the investment firm BerkshireHathaway, has an estimated net worth of $42 billion. And he opposes the--
What a second. No, Warren Buffett is in favor of the estate tax! So is liberal baby-killer, terrorist sympathizer, and Cindy Sheehan puppetmaster George Soros! Are these guys nuts, or just nuts?
The estate tax places the burden of payment on those who can afford to pay. In a perfect world, we wouldn't have an estate tax; indeed, we would have no taxes. But the government needs to run somehow, and the $28 billion tax shortfall that would come from eliminating the estate tax needs to come from somewhere (we need all the money we can to fund stupid wars, illegal wiretapping, and bogus news releases about the Medicare prescription drug plan). Then again, if we cut government revenue, then we can shut the doors on departments we don't like, and we can say, "Well, we just didn't have the money." This sounds a lot less political than "I didn't like the department and I was looking for any way to kill it that I could."
First, a timeline of events.
Last August
An FBI investigation of Jefferson's home reveals $90,000 in cash stashed in his freezer. The cash was part of a $100,000 bribe an FBI informant gave to Jefferson. The informant was wearing a wire. Oops!
January
Former Jefferson aide Brett Pfeffer pleads guilty to aiding and abetting the bribery of a public official.
Earlier this month
Kentucky businessman Vernon Jackson, as part of a plea bargain, admits that he bribed a member of Congress in order to get contracts for his electronics products in the U.S. federal government and some west African governments. The plea did not identify Jefferson, D-LA, by name, but referred to a member of the House as "Representative A." Jefferson's own spokesmen later confirmed that he was the "Representative A" mentioned in the plea. According to the plea agreement, Jackson paid $367,500 over four years to a company controlled by Jefferson's family in exchange for helping Jackson's company win government contracts.
Last week
The House Ethics Committee opens an investigation against Jefferson and Rep. Bob Ney, R-OH. Apparently, the Justice Department was interested in their alleged ties to the now-jailed Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Last Saturday, May 20
As part of the the Justice Department's investigation, the FBI raids Jefferson's office at 7:15 PM, seizing both paper and digital documents and records.
Wednesday, May 24
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, sends a letter to Jefferson, asking him to resign from the powerful House Ways and Means Committee.
Later in the day, in a surprising move, Pelosi and Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, R-IL, release a joint statement condemning the FBI raid. "The Justice Department was wrong to seize records from Congressman Jefferson's office in violation of the constitutional principle of separation of powers, the speech or debate clause of the Constitution, and the practice of the last 219 years," they wrote. Jefferson's attorneys also filed a motion to have the documents returned, alleging that the search was unreasonable because requests by one of Jefferson's attorneys and by the House's general counsel to witness the search were rebuffed.
Everyone asks the FBI to surrender documents they had seized.
Thursday, May 25
President Bush steps in! He directs the FBI to surrender any seized materials to U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement for safe-keeping. Bush then orders the seized items sealed for 45 days while this thing cools down.
Friday, May 26
Pfeffer, Jefferson's former aide, is sentenced to eight years in prison for aiding and abetting the bribery of a public official, after pleading guilty in January.
On the same day, House leaders concede that the FBI does have a right to search the offices of members of Congress, as long as it has a warrant.
Saturday, May 27
The New York Times reveals that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, and FBI Director Robert Mueller were prepared to resign Thursday if President Bush had ordered the FBI to return documents seized in the raid on Jefferson's office.
So what?
So the FBI raided the office of a congressman. As long as they (1) had a warrant (2) issued by a judge who (3) was not working under the auspices of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and (4) applied the probable cause standard in issuing the warrant, what's the problem?
It's curious that both Pelosi and Hastert teamed up on this one. It's understandable that Pelosi would think that the FBI was overstepping its authority in raiding the offices of a member of her own party -- but Hastert? Either Pelosi and Hastert are both dopes in the ways of civil liberties -- unlikely, as it appears that the FBI was completely legitimate in conducting the raid -- or they have something to hide.
It's hard siding with the Democrats, especially when they try to suggest that whenever a Democrat gets involved in a scandal, it's never as bad as when a Republican gets caught in a scandal. Guess what, guys: no one should be taking bribes! Pelosi and Hastert's double-teaming of President Bush suggests that there are bi-partisan scandals going on, some that both Hastert and Pelosi may be involved in, and they don't want to be next on the raid list. The FBI's investigation of Jefferson had gone on for over a year, and given the facts at hand, any judge would have been more than willing to grant a search warrant to the FBI. Given his history of bribery, it can be assumed that there might be more information in his office. That's how warrants work: if the state can prove that, based on evidence it has already found, there's "probable cause" that there might be more evidence in a place they need a warrant to get to, a judge will grant the warrant. This is not an issue of "getting" anyone. This is not an issue of overstepping civil liberties. Pelosi and Hastert are sour grapes. Pelosi either because she has something to hide or she's upset about one of her own being investigated; Hastert most likely because he has something to hide. As Speaker of the House, he would take quite a fall if implicated in a scandal.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), though -- a person who is actually currently under investigation for a scandal, but has not been charged (his shares in the nation's largest for-profit medical company were supposed to be in a blind trust, but it turns out his shares were taken out just before the stock price tanked) -- would seem like Person No. 1 to object to searching the office of a member of Congress. Frist, though, had no problem with the search; although, he is meeting with Justice Department lawyers to hammer out a procedure for searching congressmen's offices.
It's quite telling to see that there was wide disagreement within the echelons of government. Gonzales, normally a Bush syncophant and apologist, threatened to resign if the president ordered him to return the seized records. Hastert -- who holds the same syncophantic titles as Gonzales -- also strongly disagreed. The Bush Machine is usually very good about keeping inter-administration disagreements out of the news, so as to foster the image that everyone in the White House agrees with him. (Notable exception: Colin Powell.) What happened this time? And why was there so much disagreement? Bush managed to come up with a solution that, instead of resolving the dispute, delayed the time necessary to resolve the dispute so that the parties involved could have a little chat. It was a good way to avoid making a decision that would alienate either Democrats or members of his own cabinet.
Now we shall wait and see what U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan says about all this.
Every year, the White House Press Corps gets together and schmoozes with the administration in what is known as the White House Press Corps Association Dinner. Usually, the press hires some comedians to poke gentle fun at the administration, all without any serious criticism.
Until now.
Stephen Colbert, formerly of The Daily Show and now host of his own Comedy Central show, The Colbert Report, turned the dinner from a moderately funny distraction from the horrors of the Bush administration into a stinging criticism of the administration. For twenty minutes, Colbert deadpanned biting criticisms of the administration in his Colbert Report persona: a pompous conservative zealot (in the mold of Bill O'Reilly or Joe Scarborough) who makes the Bush administration and conservatives appear ridiculous whiel he's trying to defend them. This Boing Boing link provides a link to a summary of the routine, as well as links to videos and torrents of videos of Colbert's twenty-minute speech, as well as the whole dinner.
Though he normally silences or ignores critics, President Bush was a captive audience as Colbert lambasted him and his administration, often speaking directly to him. Bush was reportedly fuming as he was forced to actually listen to criticism of his administration. The White House now says that, next year, comedians will be screened more carefully.
While Colbert is clearly a satirical hero -- speaking directly to the object of satire as that object is forced to sit and listen, something that satirists from Aristophanes to Jonathan Swift must have dreamed about -- the press has remained remarkably quiet, and only recently has the so-called mainstream media talked about Colbert's performance, dubbing him unfunny. Salon suspects this is because Colbert was also criticizing the media's complicity in the Bush machine's takeover:
Colbert's deadly performance did more than reveal, with devastating clarity, how Bush's well-oiled myth machine works. It exposed the mainstream press' pathetic collusion with an administration that has treated it -- and the truth -- with contempt from the moment it took office. Intimidated, coddled, fearful of violating propriety, the press corps that for years dutifully repeated Bush talking points was stunned and horrified when someone dared to reveal that the media emperor had no clothes. Colbert refused to play his dutiful, toothless part in the White House correspondents dinner -- an incestuous, backslapping ritual that should be retired. For that, he had to be marginalized. Voilà : "He wasn't funny."
And so, instead of The New York Times talking about Colbert as a comedy hero, it talked about fluff, which is the best way to play down something's significance: "Bush impersonator funny!"
For taking on the administration and winning, Stephen Colbert joins John Stuart Mill as a SEDHE Hero of the Forever.
In an attempt to make it appear as though policy will change and that there is some kind of accountability, the Bush administration has announced some staffing changes. They began a while ago by replacing White house Chief of Staff Andrew Card with Josh Bolten.
Yesterday, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan announced his resignation.
Whaa! It looks like ethics have finally gotten to McClellan, who has spent two years either outright lying to members of the Press Corps or trying to spin statements made by Bush, cabinet members, or former Press Secretary Ari Fleischer. Perhaps his conscience -- which we thought shared the same metaphysical standing as Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, and the Tooth Fairy -- really exists after all.
McClellan is so good at spinning the truth that he was even able to put a positive spin on his own resignation:
The White House is going through a time of transition. Change can be helpful. This is a good time and a good position to help bring about change. I'm ready to move on. I've been in this position a long time and my wife and I are excited about beginning the next chapter in our life together.
It goes without saying that McClellan did not resign of his own volition; rather, the administration and McClellan probably agreed that he should be replaced in an effort to make it appear that the administration is being all shook up. Several generals are calling for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and instead, Bush gives them Scott McClellan and ... what's this? Karl Rove?
Karl Rove isn't being fired; he's just being given a different job. The White House Sleazeball-in-Chief -- who probably leaked Valerie Plame's name to Bob Novak, suggested that democrats wanted to coddle our enemies after September 11, and spread rumors in South Carolina that John McCain had adopted "a black baby" -- will "will no longer focus on policy but will be involved in long-term strategic planning as a deputy chief of staff and a senior adviser," says CNN.
Nevertheless, even though a few administration officials are getting fired or moved around -- and Fox News watchers will insist that Bush is really, really shaking things up, here, so baby-killing liberals should stop making a fuss -- there is little change happening. Rove continues to be the little voice in Bush's ear; Rumsfeld continues to be in charge of the military; the Project for a New American Century continues to be in control of national policy.
And, based on Pentagon testing in Nevada, it looks like we're going to nuke Iran. While Iran's dictator is clearly crazy, there is the same pressing, immediate threat there that there was in Iraq three years ago -- which is to say, none. Iran is, according to nuclear scientists, several years from developing a nuclear weapon. The number of centrifuges they have (a small number) combined with the size of aluminum tubes they have signals exactly what they've been saying all along: that they're trying to develop nuclear power, which is their right under the law. And if they're lying? Then let nuclear inspectors determine that, not a trigger-happy U.S. president.
Last week, many retired generals and admirals -- some former members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (an advisory committee composed of the heads of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, and Marines) -- signed letters asking President Bush to fire Secretary of Defense Donald "Duck" Rumsfeld.
Making Light has a round-up of the comments that military brass have been making this week. Some stand-out names include Gen. Anthony Zinni of U.S. Central Command and Lt. Gen. Anthony Newbold, Director of Operations to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The military's complaint with Rumsfeld is that he is tactically incompetent and lacks integrity. Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, in charge of training the new Iraq army, said, "He has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically, and is far more than anyone responsible for what has happened to our important mission in Iraq." NYT has more on this story.
How will the Bush admnistration smear these people? Hard to say. They've managed to smear grieving mothers, ambassadors, CIA operatives, distinguished servicemen from their own party, and whistle-blowers (can you guess who these people are? Scroll down to see if you were right!) Can the administration say that this group of generals doesn't know what's going on down there, that they're not in the heat of battle? Nope; some of these criticisms are coming from people in the heat of battle. Can the administration claim that these people hate America? Come on; they're generals. Also, they're not against the War on Terr', either. They're against the way it's being fought, and while I disagree with the whole War on Terr' concept, I think the generals and I can agree that, putting the war itself aside, it's been fought pretty crappily.
But at least the administration has a stranglehold on the minds of America's youth, what with maniacs like David Horowitz out there. Wait a minute: could it be that there are West Point graduates out there who are against the war? Turns out there are!
Once you get past the 1997-style design, West Point Graduates Against the War indicts Bush and Rumsfeld for failing to live up to the codes of honor and integrity that they were taught as students. If military cadets have a higher level of integrity than the Commander-in-Chief or the Secretary of Defense, then something is very wrong.
The website takes a lot of cues from Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, a former president and, before that, Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe during World War II. Eisenhower became a liberal favorite at the end of his presidency when he warned of "the military-industrial complex" in his farewell address. It's a shame it took him until the last day of his presidency to realize the dangers that happen when the government and defense contractors sleep together, but his warning is still well-taken:
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peace time, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence, economic, political, even spiritual, is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Eisenhower isn't entirely correct in saying that there was no armaments industry before World War II. Winchester, Colt, and the Springfield Repeating Arms Co. certainly weren't going hungry, but neither were they producing arms on such a massive scale, both in terms of quantity and sheer size of armaments before World War II.
The scary thing about the military-industrial complex is that, to military contractors, it doesn't matter who the enemy is, as long as there's an enemy. War becomes devoid of meaning -- it's not war for a particular purpose, it's war for war's sake, because the revenues of companies like United Defense depend on there being war. No war, no need to make tanks. No tanks, no sales. No sales, no revenue. But if war were perpetual, then comapnies in the business of war would always be guaranteed a customer. It's no surprise, then, considering that members of the administration come from defense companies, that we are nearing a state of perpetual war. It's to their advantage to go to war, as it increases the shares of company stock that they received as part of their severance packages. (To this day, Dick Cheney receives income from Halliburton as part of his severance package.)
The more incompetent the Secretary of Defense, the longer war can go on. And the more money Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld will make in the process.
Answers to Smears
"Grieving Mother": Cindy Sheehan was portrayed by the Republican Spin Machine as a puppet of George Soros at the least, and treasonous at the most.
"Ambassadors": Former Ambassador Joe Wilson went to Niger to investigate whether or not Iraq had tried to purchase uranium there. He concluded that they hadn't. The Republican Spin Machine went all out to discredit Wilson, suggesting that he spent his trip to Niger sipping green tea by a pool. In June, 2003, Bob Novak revealed that his wife was a CIA operative, most likely in an administration attempt to punish him for writing a NYT op-ed criticizing the administration's suggestion in the State of the Union speech that Iraq tried to purchase uranium from Niger.
"CIA operative": Valerie Wilson, alias Valerie Plame, wife of Joe Wilson, was an undercover operative outed by Bob Novak, apparently on orders by someone in the administration. Novak also outed Brewster Jennings, the CIA front company Plame used when talking with international arms dealers.
"Distinguished servicemen from their own party": Karl Rove spread rumors through South Carolina that John McCain had adopted "a black baby." McCain lost the Republican primary in South Carolina. McCain fought in Vietnam -- something that Bush, Cheney, Rove, or Rumsfeld ever did -- and spent six years as a POW at the infamous "Hanoi Hilton."
"Whistle-blowers": Former counterterrorism official Richard Clarke was smeared in 2004 after he wrote a book suggeting that the administration ignored obvious signs that al-Qaeda was planning to attack the United States. Dick Cheney publicly said that Clarke was nothing more than a disgruntled former employee with a book to sell.
Last Thursday, indicted former Vice Presidential Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby testified to a grand jury that it was President Bush himself who authorized the leak of Valerie Plame's name in 2003. Plame, you'll recall, was an undercover CIA operative. Her husband, Joseph Wilson, was a former U.S. ambassador sent to Niger to investigate whether or not Iraq had tried to purchase yellowcake uranium there. Wilson published an op-ed in The New York Times indicating that Iraq had not tried to purchase uranium from Niger and the administration was incorrect in asserting that it had. A few months later, Plame's identity surfaced, leading many to believe that the administration was somehow "punishing" Wilson for criticizing the administration.
For months, President Bush said that he didn't know who the leaker was, but if anyone in the White House was involved in the leak, they would be "dealt with." Last summer, when U.S. prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation moved closer to the White House, Bush broguht his standard of evidence up to a person who was convicted of wrongdoing. Shortly thereafter, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan refused to "comment on an ongoing investigation."
Hmmm.
The White House's response? McClellan finally came out of the cave of "ongoing investigation" and offered the White House's opinion on the matter: it wasn't illegal.
On Friday, the White House responded to the allegations by noting that Bush declassified a national intelligence estimate so that the public could have access to the same intelligence legislators had when they voted to authorize force against Iraq. The national intelligence declassification apparently included mentioning Plame, and thus what the administration did was not illegal, since the information about her identity was no longer classified.
McClellan on Friday proceeded to make a tortured (no pun intended) analogy between intelligence the benefits the public (which apparently includes outing an undercover CIA operative) and intelligence that threatens national security (such as when someone in the administration lets the American people know about illegal, warrantless, poorly justified wiretaps on Americans. Did I mention that the wiretaps are illegal and that no law professor at even the most podunk, two-bit law school would ever accept Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' legal reasoning in support of this program?).
So, it's okay for the administration to out a CIA operative, because that's in the public interest. But it's not in the public interest to let the American people know that their president is wantonly and flagrantly breaking the law? Apparently all presidents are equal, but some presidents are more equal than others.
Now that President Bush's illegal, warrantless wiretapping program is out of the bag, conservatives are on spin control the only way they can be: by suggesting that President Clinton also engaged in warrantless wiretapping. Many conservative commentators have made this accusation, which is designed to mark liberal critics as hypocrites (if they supported warrantless wiretaps under Clinton, but not under Bush, then they're clearly against Bush's warrantless wiretaps just because they don't like him). Even Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has suggested that President Clinton used warrantless wiretaps, as though President Clinton's use of warrantless wiretaps constitutes a justification for President Bush's use of warrantless wiretaps.
If it were true, it would be a weak and silly argument. Thankfully, it's a lie, which spares Gonzales the embarrassment of making such a weak and silly argument. Now he has only to deal with the embarrassment of lying.
Presidents Clinton signed an executive order in 1995 authorizing the Attorney General to approve physical searches without a court order for a period of up to one year in order to acquire foreign intelligence information. The order, however, only authorizes such searches "if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section." "That section" is 50 U.S.C. 1802(a), where the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is catalogued within the U.S. Code. "The certifications" the Attorney General would have to make are that the targets of such searches are not "United States persons."
Matt Drudge alleges that President Carter authorized warrantless wiretaps in 1979 just like Bush did. Also not true. President Carter, like President Clinton, authorized warrantless wiretaps only "if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section." Again, "that section" was 50 U.S.C. 1802(a), and the certifications were that the wiretaps would not intercept any communications "to which a United States person is a party.�
No orders regarding President Bush's program have been made public, so we have no way of knowing what is and isn't permissible. Some reports have indicated that "United States persons" accidentally had their conversations intercepted. Bush claims that "a few" people are being bugged by the NSA; Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff has indicated it could be thousands of people. Whatever the number, neither Carter nor Clinton authorized the same warrantless wiretapping that Bush did, since they both mandated that warrantless searches must be conducted within the confines of FISA. Bush has made no such requirement, and indeed, none of his orders are public in the same way that Bush's and Carter's were.
Don't even think of asking about the State of the Union! If we were to tell you, that would help the terrorists.
The theme of President Bush's State of the Union address last night was, "Terrorism will just continue to happen, and I'm going to need to keep doing what I'm doing."
President Bush began by defending the War on Terr', suggesting that it has led to democratization in the Middle East. He also put his opponents on the defensive by labeling anyone who disagrees with the War on Terr' an "isolationis[t] and protectionis[t]."
He then defended his illegal, warrantless domestic surveillance program as necessary "to aggressively pursue the international communications of suspected al Qaeda operatives and affiliates to and from America." He justified his program by noting, "Previous Presidents have used the same constitutional authority I have," which is dubiously true, since the actions of the presidents who used this "constitutional authority" were questionably legal (and there is no such authority in the Constitution; Bush infers from his role as Commander-in-Chief that he has such authority). He also said, "Federal courts have approved the use of that authority." This is what Al Franken calls a weasel statement: a statement that is technically true but is designed to mislead. Federal courts have approved the use of that authority in the past, but they have later been overruled. The final word on the issue is that warrantless wiretapping is not allowed. Also, the statement may be designed to confuse viewers into thinking that a court approved his wiretaps. It didn't. The FISA Court didn't receive any applications for his warrantless surveillance program. The president broke the law; is someone going to enforce the law?
Turning to domestic issues, the president wants to make his tax cuts permanent (a bad idea), and yet he still plans to cut the deficit in half while still spending the same amount of money or more fighting the War on Terr'.
As I've said before, we are also engaged in a War on Math.
Following the failure of his Social Security plan, the president created a commission "to examine the full impact of baby boom retirements on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid." Okay, Congress, you didn't like my idea, so you come up with something.
Too-little, too-late, the president suggested we should look into alternative fuel sources. This on the same day that Exxon-Mobil reported the highest profits of any U.S. company in 2005. This is a far cry from his 2001 energy strategy, which involved continued reliance on fossil fuels and maybe, someday, a venture into examining the merits of alternative fuels, sometime in the future.
It was a standard-issue State of the Union address. Lots of policy suggestions, lots of self-promoting. "Bushie, you're doing a heck of a job."
But when Bush said the following, I nearly threw up:
I am pleased that members of Congress are working on earmark reform, because the federal budget has too many special interest projects. And we can tackle this problem together, if you pass the line-item veto.
Whaa? Whoosa--? Whaa? Line-item veto? That phrase again? In 1996, Congress gave Clinton the "line-item veto," the ability of a president to veto specific sections of a bill without vetoing the whole thing. The Supreme Court, however, took that away from him; they declared it unconstitutional. Does Bush now think that he has enough clout on the Supreme Court to be able to keep the line-item veto? It was a terrible idea under Clinton, and it's a terrible idea now. You think his "signing statements" are dubiously endowed by the weight of law? Watch what happens when he vetoes whole sections from bills. He won't be abiding by any torture restrictions. Is Bush really so brash as to think that he can get a line-item veto not only passed by Congress, but approved by the Supreme Court? (Curiously, Breyer, O'Connor, and Scalia were the three dissenters in that case -- quite a motley crew.)
This line-item veto thing is something to worry about. Legally, it's wrong, because it gives the president the power of a legislature. The Supreme Court has said as much. But if Bush packs the Supreme Court with enough people who want to see him have a lot of power (like certain brand-new justices, who helped invent the philosophy of the "unitary executive"), well, it's all over for the United States.
At a USA PATRIOT Act rally in Buffalo in April, President Bush said this:
Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.
This quote has been played at least five times a day on The Al Franken Show, but surprisingly, there are some people who haven't heard this quotation before. The point of the sound bite is that, in April 2005 when Bush made that statement, he was engaged in wiretapping without a court order. President Bush was completely, unabashedly lying to the American people. No spin is possible. No backtracking is possible. He said it, and it wasn't true.
One of Al Franken's guests today was Timothy Lynch of the Cato Institute. Though a convservative think-tank, the Cato Institute is old-school conservatism, meaning it wants the government to keep its big nose out of everyone's business, and it's very upset about the president's warrantless wiretapping program. Commenting on the president's attitude that we should trust him when it comes to deciding who to wiretap, Lynch said, "The Constitution is based on the idea that we don't trust anyone in power." Wow! What a guy! Later, he acknowledged that the government should be allowed to conduct certain activities in secret; however, "one branch doesn't decide for itself what those secrets will be." Lynch demands some sort of oversight and balance among the three branches of government in matters of secrecy. Remember that Congress wasn't even informed about the warrantless wiretapping. No one knew about it except the highest members of the executive branch.
This president -- and by president, I mean Dick Cheney -- has nothing but contempt for the legislature. Even as a senator from Wyoming, Cheney tried to dilute the power of the legislature. If there's anyone who wants to be a unitary executive, it's Cheney.
Congressional Republicans, in an attempt to deflect some of the fallout of the Jack Abramoff scandal, have decided that their collective talking points will be, "Oh yeah? Well, Democrats took money, too!" Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean has said that not a single Democrat received a dime of Abramoff money. What's the deal, here?
It all depends on how you define "money from Abramoff." Jack Abramoff is being indicted for -- and has pled guilty to -- offering legislators money or other things of value in exchange for political favors. That's bribery, and it's illegal. Abramoff personally bribed legislators to the tune of $127,000, according to Bloomberg News.
And who got this money? Apparently, money directly from Abramoff went only to Republicans.
Abramoff also gave money to other lobbying firms and it was these lobbying firms who gave a total of $1.4 million to over 200 senators and representatives, Democrats and Republicans. The issue, though, is one of legality: while it is morally reprehensible for congressmen to take campaign donations from anyone, it is also illegal to take personal favors or money in addition to campaign donations. This is the picayune detail: Democrats accepted campaign contributions from Abramoff clients and related firms; Republicans did the same, but they also accepted money and favors directly from Abramoff.
In the end, though, who cares? The story here is not who accepted money, but the fact that money was accepted at all! The election finance system is broken, and it's bad for Democrats to be accepting money from XYZ Corporation into their election coffers in exchange for favorable legislation toward XYZ Corporation. (The NRA and Big Tobacco, for example, give to both Democrats and Republicans.) The Howard Dean debate about whether or not Democrats got money is moot: the point is that this bribery on a massive scale was allowed to happen, and that is what we should be outraged about.
Recently, the president signed into law H.R. 2863, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act. Deep within the gargantuan omnibus spending bill is a section called Title X, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. This little piece of legislation does a good thing. It's the amendment that McCain wanted, the one that prevents any U.S. operative from using torture. Well, actually, it says:
No person in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense or under detention in a Department of Defense facility shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation.
But the government still has the problem of people trying to contest their status as enemy combatants. What is an administration involved in a not-war war to do about this? Well, fortunately, the Constitution allows Congress to determine what cases federal courts can hear (Art. III, § 2). And, with the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, they have exercised this power. Read and be dumbfounded:
(e) Judicial Review of Detention of Enemy Combatants-(1) IN GENERAL- Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:`(e) Except as provided in section 1005 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider--`(1) an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; or
`(2) any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention by the Department of Defense of an alien at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who--`(A) is currently in military custody; or
`(B) has been determined by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in accordance with the procedures set forth in section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant.'.
In the tradition of Orwellian names for Bush administration legislation, the "Detainee Treatment Act" does deal with detainee treatment, but it also assures that no foreign detainee can ever demand a writ of habeas corpus, meaning he will never be able to (1) contest his status or (2) be charged with a crime or (3) know why he has been detained. A foreign enemy combatant can only receive a review by a military tribunal. Many of the people in Guantanamo Bay are not terrorists, but illegal aliens or people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time and were rounded up with terrorists. Now, those people have no right to object to their incarceration or go to court to prove that they are not terrorists.
Last night, Caleefoahneea governator Arnold Schwarzenegger gave the State of the State address in which he was, actually, pretty conciliatory.
While the nation's only cybernetic governor has no problem killing innocent bystanders, he had a much more difficult problem last night: how to deal with the overwhelming defeat of his special election in November. Schwarzenegger actually made the defeat sound good, suggesting that he may himself have been too partisan and that the people's reaction to his issues indicated that, while Californians may tolerate a killer robot from the future, they won't tolerate a partisan killer robot from the future:
I've thought a lot about the last year and the mistakes I made and the lessons I've learned. What I feel good about is that I led from my heart.Now it's true that I was in too much of a hurry. I didn't hear the majority of Californians when they were telling me they didn't like the special election. I barreled ahead anyway when I should have listened.
I have absorbed my defeat and I have learned my lesson. And the people, who always have the last word, sent a clear message - cut the warfare, cool the rhetoric, find common ground and fix the problems together. So to my fellow Californians, I say, "Message received."
Wow! Who knew that Conan the Barbarian could be so diplomatic? He admitted that he made mistakes, and then said that he learned from those mistakes. He didn't try to blame Democrats for the failure of the special election; he didn't blame special interests; he didn't blame anyone but himself.
After initially breaking the ice by admitting his mistakes, Schwarzenegger proceeded to describe his agenda for California in the future (the near future, not the far-off future in which we're at war with the machines). He suggested that with California continuing to grow, it needs to make long-term investments in education and infastructure (which will be hard with Schwarzenegger himself cutting money for education) in order to keep up with that growth.
He announced a Strategic Growth Plan for accomodating California's growth. This plan includes:
And how does Ahnold plan to pay for all this? The "fiscal discipline" of the past two years must continue, he said. Budgets must still be cut. But Arnold wants the General Assembly to do the following:
Is Arnold changing his tune after the failure of his special ballot? Is he catering to what the voters want rather than trying to impose his desires upon them? His CPU must be "a neural net processor, a learning computer," because Arnold has learned from the failure of November. Unless this is all a bunch of happy, sappy crap calculated to make us feel better. But even the Democrats in the General Assembly were pleased to hear that Arnold was less willing to make unilateral decisions and more willing to work with his opponents. He's turning from a trustee, who does what he feels is right on behalf of the voters, to a delegate, who does what the voters want.
"Come on, Cohagen, you've got what you want, now give dese people infastructure improvements!"
And now for something completely different
CalTrans reported when it began building a second, earthquake-proof eastern span of the Bay Bridge that the span would cost about a billion dollars. Now, it's changing its tune, saying that the single tower will cost a billion dollars. The entire project is expected to be completed in 2012, at a cost of over $6 billion. Here, Read!
The New York Times' revelation last week that President George W. Bush signed an order in 2002 authorizing the NSA to conduct domestic surveillance without warrants was mind-blowing. But did the administration violate federal law?
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 outlines what the government's powers are and are not when it comes to conducting electronic surveillance operations. The USA PATRIOT Act made some changes to FISA, but the changes were, in my opinion, not very substantial. The USA PATRIOT Act brought FISA up-to-date with the times; for example, it re-defined "wire communication" to "cable" communications systems and packet-switched networks (i.e., the Internet). The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is known to history as 50 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.
Curiously, there should be no need to enact secret orders to spy on people. FISA has a provision for authorizing warrants for foreign intelligence surveillance: the foreign intelligence surveillance court. This is a special court composed of 11 U.S. District Court judges (3 of whom must live within 20 miles of Washington, D.C.) who have the authority to hear applications for electronic surveillance. If any one of these 11 judges rejects an application for foreign intelligence surveillance, then the decision gets reviewed by a panel of three other foreign intelligence surveillance court judges. If this panel rejects an application, then the decision can be appealed, under seal, to the U.S. Supreme Court. Since its inception in 1978, the foreign intelligence surveillance court has rejected only 4 applications for electronic surveillance, and those were all in 2003. (The court does, however, modify applications for various reasons.) The foreign intelligence surveillance court is, essentially, a rubber stamp.
And yet, the Bush administration felt that even this rubber-stamp authority was too restrictive for the activities it wanted to engage in. When an administration is upset that a secret order has become public knowledge, that's when we should be concerned. The administration didn't want the American people to know that the NSA was conducting surveillance on domestic targets, and that should be cause for concern. Once our government actively tries to hide things from us, we become more like all those oppressive dictatorships we claim to hate.
The National Security Agency (NSA) is probably the least-public of the three U.S. intelligence agencies, the other two being the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The agency was founded in 1952 by an executive order of President Truman. Its function is to monitor domestic communications, especially government communications, and collect and analyze foreign communications. It is especially concerned with cryptography. The NSA's charter prohibits it from conducting domestic surveillance. (For more information, watch the movie Sneakers.)
Did the president break the law? 50 U.S.C. 1802(a) allows the president, via the Attorney General, to "authorize electronic surveillance without a court order" if and only if the targets of such surveillance are exclusively "foreign powers." As defined in 50 U.S.C. 1801(a), a foreign power can be a foreign country, an agent of a foreign country, or "a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor." I went into this analysis believing that the president broke the law, but after reading this stuff, it's pretty nebulous. The definitions of "foreign power" have been so watered down that if the government can prove that it was conducting surveillance on domestic members of an international terrorist group, then its activities would be legal. This is not to say, of course, that Bush's activities are right -- I think they're wrong -- but whether or not they're within the boundaries of the law is a different issue. Fortunately, this information was revealed at precisely the time that the Senate is debating whether or not to renew particular elements of the USA PATRIOT Act. Currently, the debates are stalled and it doesn't look like the Act's provisions will be renewed before they sunset at the end of the year, since the Senate will soon take a Christmas recess.
After the revelations came to light last week, Bush was unapologetic and brazen as he declared that, yes, he had ordered such surveillance to be conducted, and such surveillance would continue. So, the president will continue to spy on Americans without warrants and without oversight. We just have to trust that he won't abuse his power. Man, what a relief!
We also learned last week that the FBI has been conducting surveillance of activist groups "in causes as diverse as the environment, animal cruelty and poverty relief". Forty years ago, activist groups were investigated for having even the mildest of communist slants. Now, activist groups are being investigated for having anti-war or pro-peace slants. Oh, and they're still being investigated for having communist slants. You know what they say: the more things change, the more every red-necked American betrayed his country by voting for a president based on his ability to keep the gays away.
But there's still hope. Just today, NYT reported that the NSA domestic spying program captured purely domestic communications, and that is 100% pure illegal. FISA was enacted precisely to prevent the domestic surveillance abuse that happened during the Vietnam War, when J. Edgar Hoover's FBI conducted surveillance on anti-war groups just for the hell of it. "Well, it's Thursday. Time to infiltrate the Black Panthers. Then we'll go to lunch."
And with Jack Abramoff and Tom DeLay being indicted and Ralph Reed and Bill "I can diagnose a patient from the Senate floor and then later lie through my teeth by saying that I did no such thing" Frist under investigation for insider trading, things are looking good for Americans who don't want to be involved in a pointless war and who care about their civil liberties. But, wait! That's not all the Republicans have done! Doug Bandow, a scholar at the Cato Institute, a conservative think-tank, resigned last Friday after it was revealed that he, too, took money from Abramoff in exchange for columns that were favorable to Abramoff clients. Ah, it feels good to be on the side of justice!
Guess what? This time it wasn't! The New York Times, which can't be trusted because it's at the forefront of the Liberal Media Conspiracy, reported today that the NSA has been spying on U.S. citizens for the last three years.
President Bush, who has been definitively caught engaging in sneaky, underhanded activities, signed an order in 2002 authorizing the National Security Agency to monitor "international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible 'dirty numbers' linked to Al Qaeda."
And now, the administration wants to renew the USA PATRIOT Act, asking us to trust that it won't abuse those powers. The USA PATRIOT Act is, for some reason, adored by conservatives because ... they want to spy on people? What happened to the Republican party as the party of small government? Unless it's the party of small government for only the Republicans. As for everyone else, their lives will be micro-managed and the intimate details of their personal conversations will be recorded in the name of the War on Terr'.
I feel ill. And so does the head of Richard Nixon, who engaged in similar actions when he was president.
Unless we torture. But we don't -- unless we do. And it turns out that we do. The Associated Press reports that a European investigator found "mounting indications" that the United States held War on Terr' detainees in European countries, but quickly moved them last month when it was revealed that the United States had secret prisons.
But those prisons didn't exist. Unless they did ... which, apparently, they did.
WASHINGTON -- In a move that startled both Republicans and Democrats in the nation's capital, President Bush became the first president in U.S. history to not pardon the White House turkeys.
Traditionally, the White House has been given a turkey and one alterate turkey to be killed for the White House Thanksgiving dinner. Each year, presidents "pardon" the turkeys, sparing them from being killed. This year, however, President Bush announced that he would not pardon "Marshmallow" and its alternate, "Yam."
"Killing these turkeys will send a message to turkeys everywhere: we will not bow down under pressure from animal rights groups. We will not cower in the face of challenges to our freedom. These turkeys are vicious killers, possibly carriers of the bird flu, and pardoning them would tell the animal kingdom that it is okay to infect us with diseases which threaten our American way of life," said Bush this morning on the South Lawn of the White House.
Bush also suggested that the turkeys may have links to al-Qaeda, but a senior White House official told SEDHE that the intelligence supporting that link was questionable, at best. "We heard that the turkey Marshmallow may have met with Mohammed Atta in Prague, but that information comes from a source we know to be uncredible."
Nevertheless, the White House has not mentioned that the informant's credibility was in question and chose to act as though the intelligence were sound.
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) criticized Bush's handling of the situation. "Every president before him has pardoned the White House turkey," he said. "I have introduced a bill into the Senate that would require the president to pardon every turkey from now on."
In response, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) called McCain a "coward" and suggested that years of torture in Vietnam had driven him crazy. "He also adopted a black baby," she said in a statement on the Senate floor that drew jeers from Democrats and some Republicans.
President Bush has said that he will veto any legislation that requires him to pardon the White House turkey. "We're in a war on turkeys. We need to be able to confront the enemy any way we can." Bush said that alternate turkey Yam would not be killed immediately; rather, he would be held at an undisclosed location, without being charged for a crime, and interrogated until he told CIA officials how to cure the bird flu.
With the administration running damage control in the wake of Bush's and Cheney's insane comments ("It's perfectly all right to question why we want to war, as long as you don't question why we went to war"), Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was sent out to take bullets on no fewer than four Sunday news shows: FOX News Sunday, Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, This Week, and Face the Nation.
What's most fascinating are the comments Rumsfeld made on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer. Blitzer tells Rumsfeld that the administration's push for war was made based on faulty intelligence. He cites an instance in which the administration claimed that there was a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda, only to have its source for that information discredited later. Rumsfeld's response:
There is no question that there are fabricators that operate in the intelligence world. And there's also no question you can find intelligence reports on every side of every issue.When you look at the reams of intelligence information that the United States develops from different agencies, they gather from other friendly foreign liaison services, you can find in any given week intelligence that conflicts with each other. The implication that there's something amazing about that is just ridiculous.
Finally! An administration official that actually answers a question instead of bringing up September 11, al-Qaeda, or "Saddam Hussein was a very bad man."
Rumsfeld's response to this question is, "There will always be bad intelligence." Fair enough. And it's the job of intelligence experts at the CIA to separate the "good" intelligence -- substantiated information based on credible sources -- from the "bad" intelligence -- unsubstantiated information that comes from uncredible sources (like the implication that Mohammed Atta met in Prague with Iraq officials -- that one comes from a source known to be uncredible).
And then, in a moment that I will remember forever, Rumsfeld said this:
It's clear the intelligence was wrong.
Whaaa? Whoosa-- ? Whaaa? Is this a Bush administration official telling the truth? Start the presses! Alert the newsmedia! Get Hearst on the phone! Prepare the teletype!
Yes, Rumsfeld admitted that the intelligence was wrong. So, what do we have here? On Veterans Day, Bush said that it was irresponsible to suggest that the administration manipulated intelligence, and besides, he said, Democrats got the same intelligence and they still voted for war. Bringing together Rumsfeld's statement that the intelligence was wrong, we can come to the following conclusions:
In the first case, the administration is malicious; in the second, the administration is incompetent. If we take Bush at his word -- I know, you'll have to suspend disbelief for a second -- then the administration's overarching reason for going to war was, "We were too dumb to be able to discern the bad intelligence from the good intelligence." They're pleading stupidity as a reason for sending 2,000 people to die! "Oops, our bad" is the administration's position on the war. "But, hey, we're there already and we can't leave now."
It's a sorry sign when the administration has to resort to pleading stupidity in order to save its own ass.
(By the way, there is a good deal of evidence to suggest that case number one -- the administration disseminated intelligence as fact even though it knew that said intelligence was false -- is actually what happened. Take, for example, Joseph Wilson's trip to Niger and his conclusion that documents showing that the Iraqis bought yellowcake uranium were obvious forgeries, a conclusion every other intelligence agency in the world came to. Bush is also lying when he says that every other intelligence agency in the world believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and was willing to use them.)
Thursday, Representative John Murtha (D-PA) called for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Friday, House Republicans said, "Okay, you want to withdraw troops? Let's withdraw troops" and presented a resolution for withdrawing troops. While the Democrats were brave enough to suggest an Iraq withdrawal, they completely -- how shall I put it? -- pussied out when it came to an actual resolution. An AFP story about the resolution observes, "Republicans put up their own version of the resolution, calling for 'the deployment of United States forces (to) be terminated immediately,' aiming to make the Democrats appear unpatriotic if they voted for the measure." The resolution, H.R. 571, was defeated 403 to 3, with spineless Democrats voting to defeat the resolution. Which House members aren't spineless? Cynthia McKinney of Georgia, José Serrano of New York, and Robert Wexler of Florida. Apparently, Democrats will talk all day long about doing things, but when it comes to actually doing things, they're afraid of appearing "unpatriotic."
Why are they so afraid? President Bush is on the defensive, or at least, he should be. He attacked his critics on Veterans Day and followed up earlier this week. He sent Cheney out to repeat the talking points that war critics are trying to "revise history." Any junior high school-level debater should be able to take these speeches down; Bush and Cheney make a lot of claims, but offer no evidence to support their assertions. In contrast, war critics offer a plethora of evidence indicating that the administration cherry-picked intelligence -- whether true or not -- in order to support its attempt to convince the world and the American people that we needed to go to war with Saddam Hussein right now!
Instead, the Democrats do nothing. If Bill Clinton's White House were in charge of the Democratic Party, we would be seeing a lot more criticisms of the war and we would be seeing the Democratic Party trying to "win the hearts and minds" of moderate Americans who are unsure of what to believe.
Instead, they send Howard Dean to Meet the Press with the nebulous promise that "sure, we have ideas, and our ideas are better than the Republicans' ideas, but we can't tell you what our ideas are. Just trust us on this one."
The strongest criticisms of the administration are coming from what might be considered the fringes of the Democratic Party -- blogs like Daily Kos, and Air America Radio. Put these people on Capitol Hill and you'll see the Republicans quaking in their boots, which are made from the skin of the poor.
But the Republicans have a coordinated media strategy, something Democrats don't have. The RNC sends out daily talking points, and Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh all obediently repeat the talking points like the syncophantic, despicable lap-dogs that they are. This means that, in the heartland of America (and I dare you to find a state in the midwest where you hear Rush on more stations than you hear Air America shows), voters hear day in and day out that Democrats are lying, and Republicans are just trying to spread freedom, and the Iraq War is going really swell, and by the way, if you keep voting for us, we'll take care of that whole gay marriage and abortion thing and we'll give the richest one percent of Americans cherry tax breaks because, hey, they work really hard and deserve it more than you do.
If the Democrats want to do anything about the administration, they have to be unafraid to challenge the administration where it counts.
Oh, and in other news, THOMAS, the Library of Congress's searchable database of legislation, has updated its look. The web page no longer looks like it was designed in 1995.
GYEONGJU, South Korea -- Barely a week after first going on the offensive by suggesting that Iraq War critics want to "rewrite history," President George W. Bush yesterday leveled his harshest criticism yet against war critics while on a multi-nation Asian tour.
"Now, I understand when the American people want to criticize the conduct of my war," Bush said, "the First Amendment gives them that right. But I want to let them know who else uses the First Amendment. Osama bin Laden uses the First Amendment. He uses freedom of speech to spread his message of violence and hate. He uses the First Amendment to recruit dangerous killers who want to murder women and children."
At a press gaggle later in the day, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan assuaged reporters' fears that the president somehow equated war critics with terrorists. "I want to be very clear on this point," said McClellan, "the president did not suggest that people who exercise their First Amendment rights to free speech are like Osama bin Laden. I think that if you go back and look at what the president said, you'll find that he said exactly the opposite of that."
King Features Syndicate columnist Helen Thomas, however, challenged McClellan. "I don't know why you would say that. The president very clearly equated people who utilize free speech with Osama bin Laden," she said.
"No, Helen, that's not what he said," replied McClellan. "I'm not going to stand up here and listen to you play the blame game. I'm not going to stand here and watch you play politics and take the president's comments out of context. The president was very clear on this point and I'm not going to watch you endorse the actions of dangerous killers."
Vice President Richard Cheney, appearing later that day in a press conference in Washington, D.C., defended the president's comments. "I don't know how any American who pretends to call himself patriotic can criticize the president's handling of the war, especially when we have such convincing intelligence that Osama bin Laden, the person responsible for the horrific, terrible events of September the eleventh, is such an ardent defender of free speech. I think it's reprehensible that any person who loves this country would be doing the same thing that terrorists do," he said.
Following Bush and Cheney's speeches, the Department of Justice released a new policy initiative aimed at cutting down on what Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales called "the problem of aiding terrorists by lowering troop morale at home." The policy paper recommended solving the problem by declaring critics of the war to be "unlawful comabatants" and placing them in secure military prisons where they would be held without a trial or other constitutional protections. "A strict reading of the Geneva Convention of 1949 reveals that war critics cannot be guaranteed the same protections as other citizens." Calls to the Department of Justice were not returned by press time.
"Finally, we're seeing a policy that makes sense," said FOX News host Bill O'Reilly on his radio show, The Radio Factor. "I'm glad that the liberal terrorist sympathizers are finally going to be dealt with in a fitting way. Their vile words have demoralized the troops and provided aid and comfort to the deranged killers that we are trying to fight around the world."
Lance Eddington, a Professor of Law at the Pakled University School of Law, said that the president's comments were wildly out of proportion. "The suggestion that war critics are like terrorists is very offensive and dangerous," said Eddington. "The First Amendment is one of our most sacred protections, and yet the president is suggesting that people who exercise this right are attempting to kill Americans. This is a dangerous precedent."
Argyle Schotenstein of the conservative Manhattan Institute for Policy Research disagrees. "The president's statements are not at all without precedent," he said. "In order to stave off war, James Buchanan suspended the writ of habeas corpus for anyone who suggested that the United States should go to war to deal with the issue of slavery. William McKinley routinely imprisoned critics of the Spanish-American War. And I won't even go into the issue of John Adams and the Sedition Act. This president is only exercising all the options available to him. We're involved in a global war on terror, and we can't afford to send our troops mixed messages, messages that only increasing the terrorists' resolve."
The White House has not yet indicated when it would implement the Justice Department's policy, or if the policy would apply to members of Congress or other government officials. Requests made to the White House for interviews or clarification were repeatedly and systematically denied.
Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, appeared on Meet the Press yesterday. Tim Russert says, "Do you believe that Democrats have a clear message, a vision for the future? Fifty-two percent of independent swing voters say no. One in four Democrats say you have no clear vision, no agenda, no clear message."
Sounds good. This is Howard Dean's big chance to prove that the Democrats do have a clear agenda.
Dean responds:
We have an alternative agenda. We made it very clear. We want a strong national security based on telling the truth to our people at home, our soldiers and our allies. We want jobs in America that'll stay in America, and we believe that renewable energy is one of the areas where we can do that. We want a health-care system that covers everybody, just like 36 other countries in the world. We want a strong public education system. And most of all, we want honesty back in government. I think that's a pretty good agenda.
Okay, you've got an agenda. Russert asks, "What do the Democrats stand for?"
Dean replies, "Tim, first of all, we don't control the House, the Senate or the White House. We have plenty of time to show Americans what our agenda is and we will long before the '06 elections."
Okay, Howard Dean. Fair enough. I mean, right now you don't control the Senate or the House or the White House. But, I mean, you're on national television and you could persuade all those swing voters that your ideas are better than the Republicans' ideas. So, come on, humor us. What do Democrats stand for?
Right now it's not our job to give out specifics. We have no control in the House. We have no control in the Senate. It's our job is to stop this administration, this corrupt and incompetent administration, from doing more damage to America. And that's what we're going to do. We're doing our best. Look at the trouble they're having putting together a budget. Why is that? Because there's still a few moderate Republicans left who don't think it's OK to cut school lunch programs, who don't think it's OK to do some of the appalling things that they're doing in their budget. I saw a show last night which showed a young African-American man in California at the UC of Davis who hoped to go to law school. The Republicans want to cut $14 billion out of higher education so this kid can't go to law school. We're going to do better than that, and together, America can do better than that.
You're killing me, Howard Dean. I mean, it's great to talk about what the Republicans are doing wrong. We've been talking about that for years. Seriously; I want to know what the Democrats are going to do to fix the country. I mean, I don't like George Bush or the Republicans. I was going to vote Democrat, anyway. But what about all those people on the fence? How are you going to persuade them by merely criticizing the Republicans? You need to make a positive argument! Tell me why you're better than the Republicans! If you guys want to get elected in 2006, it sure is your job to give out specifics.
Okay, Howard Dean, you get one last chance. Tim Russert, lead the way.
MR. RUSSERT: But is it enough for you to say to the country, "Trust us, the other guy's no good. We'll do better, but we're not going to tell you specifically how we're going to deal with Iraq."DR. DEAN: We will. When the time comes, we will do that.
MR. RUSSERT: When's the time going to come?
DR. DEAN: The time is fast-approaching. And I outlined the broad outlines of our agenda. We're going to have specific plans in all of these areas.
MR. RUSSERT: This year?
DR. DEAN: In 2006.
I give up. Howard Dean is as bad as any political pundit out there. This is why the Democrats can't get elected, even in the face of a corrupt and incompetent Republican party. Ralph Waldo Emerson once wrote that if you "build a better mousetrap, the world will beat a path to your door." Howard Dean and the DNC are still trying to figure out how to make cheese.
Time columnist Joe Klein, in last week's issue of the newsmagazine, is finally saying in the "mainstream" media what people on the lefter-leaning Air America radio station have been saying all along: there's something wrong with the Bush administration.
His column centers around The Permanent Campaign, a phrase coined by Jimmy Carter pollster Patrick H. Caddell to describe how the president should act as though he is constantly trying to be re-elected by constantly appealing to voters and what voters want. "Dick Morris even asked voters where Bill Clinton should go on vacation," writes Klein.
Writing a paper for President Carter in 1976, Caddell observed that "too many good people have been defeated because they tried to substitute substance for style." Klein's thesis is that the Bush administration has perhaps gone too far, substituting style for substance. It was supposed to be Bush's straight-talking, shoot-from-the-hip Texas attitude that endeared him to "average" voters. At the same time, though, Bush infuriated intellectuals who saw him for what he was: a very dim bulb being manipulated by others, a man who went to Yale and Harvard Business School not because he earned it, but because his father was a former Massachusetts senator, CIA director, and -- oh, yeah -- President of the United States. The secret to Bill Clinton's popularity was that he really was the son of middle-class parents. His step-father -- Clinton's biological father was killed in a car accident before Clinton was born -- was a car salesman. The family lived in Hope, Ark., not Kennebunkport, Maine. (Let it be known that whenever the right criticizes Ted Kennedy for being a "liberal elite," they must watch as their noses grow six sizes, for Bush is a scion of the "conservative elite.") Clinton became a Rhodes scholar and attended Yale Law School because he was extremely intelligent, not because his father got him in.
But beyond Bush's obvious stupidity, there is another side to the Bush administration: it is more P.R. than anything else. "Indeed, his Administration represents the final, squalid perfection of the Permanent Campaign: a White House where almost every move is tactical, a matter of momentary politics, even decisions that involve life and death and war," writes Klein. The Bush administration uses style -- in the form of vague generalities about "evil killers" and empty pleas that involve the word "freedom" -- to conceal the fact that it has no substance. Or, it uses style to conceal the fact that a particular program might be detrimental to the country. Take the Orwellian names given to Bush legislation: the "Healthy Forests" initiative would make forests "healthy" by allowing lumber companies to cut down more trees; the "Clear Skies" initiative would make skies clearer ... by increasing the acceptable levels of pollution that industries could produce. The "No Child Left Behind" act has left lots of children, mostly poor children from cash-strapped school districts, behind (including the schools of Hamilton, Oh., where Bush made a big show of signing the bill into law).
And whenever someone criticizes the administration, the Bush team is there to destroy that person. Klein refers to this as the White House Iraq Group, which "was created to market the war and smear the President's opponents." The phrase "market the war" is chilling: it suggests that the public had to be persuaded that the war with Iraq was a good idea. The Bush administration tried to suggest to the American people that war was a good idea by using a variety of techniques: first, Saddam was a killer (but so were dozens of other world dictators, including the rulers of Saudi Arabia); then, he violated U.N. resolution 1441 (but ninety U.N. resolutions are currently being violated); then, he wouldn't let weapons inspectors in (but Bush pulled them out before they had completed their job and then blamed Saddam for not letting them finish inspecting); then, Saddam was on the verge of developing nuclear weapons (but Saddam abandoned his nuclear program after the Persian Gulf War); then, Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction (but we have found none).
Yesterday, Veteran's Day, Bush showed that he was a "uniter, not a divider" by attacking the people who disagreed with him, suggesting that people who believed that the administration manipulated intelligence were trying to "rewrite history." But evidence shows that the Bush administration -- to use a John Kerry phrase -- "cherry-picked" intelligence that supported its case for war, regardless of the veracity of such intelligence. After the war began, the Bush administration, through a concerted campaign of media manipulation and smearing, tried to convince the United States that the war was somehow justifiable. "But worse, far worse, was the tendency of the White House -- particularly Karl Rove's message apparatus -- to see the war as part of the Permanent Campaign, as a political opportunity at first, and then, as the news turned bad, merely another issue to be massaged," says Klein.
Bush's massage strategy: personally attack critics, even Republicans, if they disagree with the administration. And if you can't come up with a good way to personally attack them, then make stuff up. Send talking points to Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Rush. ("Cindy Sheehan is a puppet of George Soros," for example.) Divide the country with social issues, and proclaim the whole time that you're a divider, not a uniter. Destroy anyone who gets in your way. But don't make it look like you're destroying. Promise that, as long as middle America votes for you, you'll keep the gays away.
Under the presidency of George W. Bush, this country has reached a new low. Lower than the scandals of Rutherford B. Hayes, Warren G. Harding, and Richard Nixon, combined. The American people are an audience trying to be sold a product, as though the Iraq War were Diet Cherry Coca-Cola. We're demographics to be won by an administration whose thought process is "shoot first, ask questions later." This war was not thought out. Bush's asinine landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln, in which he declared that "major combat operations are over," marked the beginning of "major combat operations." Invading the country took three months; for the last two years, we have attempted to retain control of a country that was not ours to take. The media spin machine has been in overdrive, attempting to conceal the fact that the invasion of Iraq was the first step in a neo-conservative effort to control whatever part of the world it liked. (Why not? After all, the suits declaring war would never actually have to fight, nor would their children. It's like a game of Battleship.)
We have a president who is running the country by style, not substance, as though appearing to know what you're doing is the same thing as actually knowing what you're doing. But this emphasis on style is not, as was the case of Jimmy Carter, designed to make voters like the president more. Bush's emphasis on style is designed to conceal the fact that the country is being operated by a neo-conservative intelligensia led by Dick Cheney, and anyone who thinks so is unpatriotic, treasonous, and deserves to be killed by terrorists. The emphasis on style is designed to sell to the American people policies which are, in fact, detrimental to most of the American people. This administration has done an unfathomable amount of damage to the country, at home and abroad. It has destabilized the world, putting otherwise peaceful nations (Jordan, anyone?) at risk.
Has all of this been undertaken for money? Raw power? The worst part of all this is that there is no clear motivation on the part of the administration. They appear to be reactionary, resulting in an absurd, uncoordinated policy of spin and lies with no logical end. Maybe they thrive on disorder and chaos. Maybe they like knowing that they have the power to kill recent high school graduates from middle America. Whatever their motivation, they are destroying this country, and no one seems to be noticing. They're too blinded by the sequins and neon lights of the Permanent Campaign.
In California, all four Arnold-backed ballot measures -- Props. 74 (teacher tenure), 75 (union speech), 76 (altering state spending procedures), and 77 (redistricting) -- failed. So did Prop. 73 (abortion notification), Prop. 78 (drug coverage without a discount from companies), Prop. 79 (drug coverage with mandatory discount from companies), and Prop. 80 (electricity re-regulation).
In Ohio, all four state constitutional amendments failed.
Texas, however, joins 18 other states in ratifying a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage; now, almost 40 percent of the country hates gays. That's promising.
And, in Pennsylvania, the school board that promoted intelligent design as an equally weighted scientific theory alongside natural selection, was tossed out by the voters. The school board is the subject of the current lawsuit Kitzmiller v. Dover, in which plaintiffs Kitzmiller, et al. challenge the teaching of intelligent design on the grounds that it violates the First Amendment. The new school board consists of members who are critical of intelligent design as a scientific theory.
And in Virginia and New Jersey, voters replaced Republican governors with Democratic ones. So, it seems like we won yesterday. California, Virginia, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania did well. Ohio and Texas did not.
Ah, entry number 400! And what a great entry it is! Oh, how I pine for the days of Mystery Science Press Conference 3000, when Matt and I would watch Ari Fleischer -- and then his successor, Scott McClellan -- distort the truth until it looked like a Picasso painting of the truth.
Today, Scott McClellan became hostile and sarcastic toward reporters who wanted to know one thing: if it is the Bush administration's policy that we don't torture people, then why is Dick Cheney asking for an exemption allowing CIA officials to engage in torture? At first, McClellan argued with 10,000-year-old White House correspondent Helen Thomas, the grandmotherly-looking lady who sits in the front row at press briefings. But be warned: Helen Thomas doesn't take crap from anyone, especially anyone as weasely as Scott McClellan:
Q I'd like you to clear up, once and for all, the ambiguity about torture. Can we get a straight answer? The President says we don't do torture, but Cheney --MR. McCLELLAN: That's about as straight as it can be.
Q Yes, but Cheney has gone to the Senate and asked for an exemption on --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, he has not. Are you claiming he's asked for an exemption on torture? No, that's --
Q He did not ask for that?
MR. McCLELLAN: -- that is inaccurate.
Q Are you denying everything that came from the Hill, in terms of torture?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, you're mischaracterizing things. And I'm not going to get into discussions we have --
Q Can you give me a straight answer for once?
MR. McCLELLAN: Let me give it to you, just like the President has. We do not torture. He does not condone torture and he would never --
Q I'm asking about exemptions.
MR. McCLELLAN: Let me respond. And he would never authorize the use of torture. We have an obligation to do all that we can to protect the American people. We are engaged --
Q That's not the answer I'm asking for --
MR. McCLELLAN: It is an answer -- because the American people want to know that we are doing all within our power to prevent terrorist attacks from happening. There are people in this world who want to spread a hateful ideology that is based on killing innocent men, women and children. We saw what they can do on September 11th --
Q He didn't ask for an exemption --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- and we are going to --
Q -- answer that one question. I'm asking, is the administration asking for an exemption?
MR. McCLELLAN: I am answering your question. The President has made it very clear that we are going to do --
Q You're not answering -- yes or no?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, you don't want the American people to hear what the facts are, Helen, and I'm going to tell them the facts.
Q -- the American people every day. I'm asking you, yes or no, did we ask for an exemption?
MR. McCLELLAN: And let me respond. You've had your opportunity to ask the question. Now I'm going to respond to it.
Q If you could answer in a straight way.
MR. McCLELLAN: And I'm going to answer it, just like the President -- I just did, and the President has answered it numerous times.
Q -- yes or no --
MR. McCLELLAN: Our most important responsibility is to protect the American people. We are engaged in a global war against Islamic radicals who are intent on spreading a hateful ideology, and intent on killing innocent men, women and children.
Q Did we ask for an exemption?
MR. McCLELLAN: We are going to do what is necessary to protect the American people.
Q Is that the answer?
MR. McCLELLAN: We are also going to do so in a way that adheres to our laws and to our values. We have made that very clear. The President directed everybody within this government that we do not engage in torture. We will not torture. He made that very clear.
Q Are you denying we asked for an exemption?
MR. McCLELLAN: Helen, we will continue to work with the Congress on the issue that you brought up. The way you characterize it, that we're asking for exemption from torture, is just flat-out false, because there are laws that are on the books that prohibit the use of torture. And we adhere to those laws.
Q We did ask for an exemption; is that right? I mean, be simple -- this is a very simple question.
MR. McCLELLAN: I just answered your question. The President answered it last week.
Q What are we asking for?
Q Would you characterize what we're asking for?
MR. McCLELLAN: We're asking to do what is necessary to protect the American people in a way that is consistent with our laws and our treaty obligations. And that's what we --
Q Why does the CIA need an exemption from the military?
MR. McCLELLAN: David, let's talk about people that you're talking about who have been brought to justice and captured. You're talking about people like Khalid Shaykh Muhammad; people like Abu Zubaydah.
Q I'm asking you --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, this is facts about what you're talking about.
Q Why does the CIA need an exemption from rules that would govern the conduct of our military in interrogation practices?
MR. McCLELLAN: There are already laws and rules that are on the books, and we follow those laws and rules. What we need to make sure is that we are able to carry out the war on terrorism as effectively as possible, not only --
Q What does that mean --
MR. McCLELLAN: What I'm telling you right now -- not only to protect Americans from an attack, but to prevent an attack from happening in the first place. And, you bet, when we capture terrorist leaders, we are going to seek to find out information that will protect -- that prevent attacks from happening in the first place. But we have an obligation to do so. Our military knows this; all people within the United States government know this. We have an obligation to do so in a way that is consistent with our laws and values.
Now, the people that you are bringing up -- you're talking about in the context, and I think it's important for the American people to know, are people like Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, Abu Zubaydah, Ramzi Binalshibh -- these are -- these are dangerous killers.
Q So they're all killers --
Q Did you ask for an exemption on torture? That's a simple question, yes or no.
MR. McCLELLAN: No. And we have not. That's what I told you at the beginning.
Q You want to reserve the ability to use tougher tactics with those individuals who you mentioned.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, obviously, you have a different view from the American people. I think the American people understand the importance of doing everything within our power and within our laws to protect the American people.
Q Scott, are you saying that Cheney did not ask --
Q What is it that you want the -- what is it that you want the CIA to be able to do that the U.S. Armed Forces are not allowed to do?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not going to get into talking about national security matters, Bill. I don't do that, because this involves --
Q This would be the exemption, in other words.
MR. McCLELLAN: This involves information that relates to doing all we can to protect the American people. And if you have a different view -- obviously, some of you on this room -- in this room have a different view, some of you on the front row have a different view.
Q We simply are asking a question.
Q What is the Vice President -- what is the Vice President asking for?
MR. McCLELLAN: It's spelled out in our statement of administration policy in terms of what our views are. That's very public information. In terms of our discussions with members of Congress --
Q -- no, it's not --
MR. McCLELLAN: In terms of our members -- like I said, there are already laws on the books that we have to adhere to and abide by, and we do. And we believe that those laws and those obligations address these issues.
Q So then why is the Vice President continuing to lobby on this issue? If you're very happy with the laws on the books, what needs change?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, you asked me -- you want to ask questions of the Vice President's office, feel free to do that. We've made our position very clear, and it's spelled out on our website for everybody to see.
Q We don't need a website, we need you from the podium.
MR. McCLELLAN: And what I just told you is what our view is.
Q But Scott, do you see the contradiction --
In this 1,300-word exchange, McClellan mentions September 11, "dangerous killers," and twice mentions a "hateful ideology." At no time does he address the inherent contradiction between the vice president's actions and the president's statement. Also, the version of the press conference that I have posted, which comes from the White House website, has been edited to make McClellan appear less hostile. His last sentence was, actually, "And what I just told you is what our view is. Weren't you listening?"
So, what is McCain lobbying for, anyway? Here is the text of McCain's amendment, in PDF format. It prohibits any person in the custody of the Defense Department from being subjected to "any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation." It also says that "[n]o individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment."
Okay, fair enough. But is Cheney lobbying for an exemption to this, or is Helen Thomas just a treasonous bastard? The Washington Post reported Oct. 25 that Cheney had drafted a proposal similar to McCain's, with the exception that "the measure barring inhumane treatment shall not apply to counterterrorism operations conducted abroad or to operations conducted by 'an element of the United States government' other than the Defense Department." So, yes: as predicted, Scott McClellan is lying. Cheney is asking for a CIA exemption to torture. And now they've been caught, and now Scott McClellan is becoming exasperated in attempting to do damage control; but the old Bush tactic of repeating talking points until they become true isn't going to work this time.
Why does the Bush administration, speaking through Cheney, opposed to this amendment? Because the administration was able to use legal weaseling to use torture in violation of the Geneva Convention. The language of this amendment is so clear that no legal maneuvering could get past it; therefore, the amendment has to be stopped, because the Bush administration wants to continue to engage in torture around the world.
And, finally, Andrew Sullivan made this most excellent of comments:
A man who avoided service in Vietnam is lecturing John McCain on the legitimacy of torturing military detainees. But notice he won't even make his argument before Senate aides, let alone the public. Why not? If he really believes that the U.S. has not condoned torture but wants to reserve it for exceptional cases, why not make his argument in the full light of day? You know: where democratically elected politicians operate.
I forgot about Ohio! If you're voting there, you had five statewide issues to vote on.
State Issue 1 would sell bonds "to finance, or assist in financing, public infrastructure capital improvements for local governments." Fair enough.
State Issue 2 would amend the Ohio Constitution to allow anyone to vote by mail thirty-five days before an election, for whatever reason. If you get a ballot mailed to you, but the county board of elections hasn't received it by election day, you can cast a provisional ballot, just in case.
State Issue 3 would amend the Ohio Constitution to impose limits on political contributions, to both candidates and Political Action Committees (PACs). It would, among other things:
State Issue 4 would amend the Ohio Constitution to alter the redistricting procedure in Ohio. Under the proposed procedure, a commission of five people -- composed of two sitting judges and three people appointed by the first two people or chosen by lot -- would redistribute state representatives. But this provision is scary: "the commission may consider whether to alter a plan to preserve communities of interest based on geography, economics, or race, so long as the reconfiguration does not result in a competitiveness number that is more than two points lower for a congressional plan and four points lower for a general assembly plan." The "competitiveness number" for a district attempts to keep the district roughly balanced between Republicans and Democrats. If you ask me, I think districts should be drawn based on geography alone.
State Issue 5 is a response to lots of controversy from the 2004 presidential election, in which Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell -- a staunch Republican -- may have deliberately caused voting irregularities (such as the delivery of too few election machines to certain districts or failure to count some ballots) in order to get Bush to win in Ohio. Issue 5 would amend the Ohio Constitution to eliminate the Secretary of State's control over elections and create a nine-member board (four appointed by the governor, four by members of the General Assembly who are not of the same party as the person being appointed, and one by unanimous vote of the justices of the Ohio Supreme Court). Issue 5 would also require the state to hire an administrative director to oversee state elections.
Currently, with two-thirds of the votes in, all four of the constitutional amendments were failing two to one, according to The New York Times.
Tomorrow marks the day when California voters will decide on eight ballot initiatives, Propositions 73-80. I've talked about them here, here, and here. And here.
To recap:
Vote no on Proposition 73. It's designed to make abortions harder to get, effectively making them illegal without making them illegal.
Vote no on Proposition 74. Proposition 74 makes it easier to fire teachers. So if an administrator doesn't like a teacher or wants to get rid of him or her, all it takes is two consecutive unsatisfactory evaluations, and the teacher is gone.
Vote no on Proposition 75. This is designed to silence public employees unions.
Vote no on Proposition 76. This gives the governor new and broader budgetary authority.
Vote no on Proposition 77. It takes redistricting control out of the hands of legislators, but a new dedistricting plan would go into effect before the voters could vote on it. Also, it uses census numbers from 2000, effectively ignoring the millions of people who have moved to California since then.
Vote no on Proposition 78. Why? Proposition 79 is better.
Vote yes on Proposition 79. This initiative not only provides more drug discounts to more people (because it allows discounts to be given through employers), but it also requires that drug companies provide the drugs at a discount to the state, saving the taxpayers money over Prop. 78.
Vote yes on Proposition 80. Clearly, the lesson we must take from the Enron scandal/California power outages of 2001-2002 is that electric utilities -- a public good -- must be regulated. Prop. 80 re-regulates electric utilities, repealing the 1998 initiative that de-regulated them in the first place.
In Panama today, President Bush fielded questions from reporters about whether or not the U.S. approves of torture:
"We do not torture," Bush declared in response to reports of secret CIA prisons overseas.Bush supported an effort spearheaded by Vice President Dick Cheney to block or modify a proposed Senate-passed ban on torture.
"We're working with Congress to make sure that as we go forward, we make it possible, more possible, to do our job," Bush said. "There's an enemy that lurks and plots and plans and wants to hurt America again. And so, you bet we will aggressively pursue them. But we will do so under the law."
But we do torture! First of all, Vice President Cheney tried as hard as his heart would allow to get a Senate amendment defeated. This amendment would make it illegal for U.S. officials to torture captives. When Cheney couldn't get the entire amendment defeated, he at least lobbied to have an exemption made for the CIA. If the United States doesn't torture people, then why must an exemption be made?
Second, the amendment enjoys overwhelming bipartisan support. In a recent test vote in the Senate, the amendment garnered 90 votes for and 9 votes against. Nevertheless, Bush has promised to veto legislation with such an amendment. This is why John McCain has vowed to insert this amendment into every piece of Senate legislation until the amendment becomes law. Why would President Bush veto legislation containing an amendment which enjoys such bipartisan support? He proclaimed himself to be "a uniter, not a divider." And yet, even though he maintains that the United States does not torture, he would veto a bill condemning torture.
Third, we have many memoranda showing that the Bush administration does not consider enemies captured in the War on Terr' to be prisoners of war as defined by the Geneva Convention, and therefore, they do not have the rights afforded prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention.
Oh, and the other ballot initiative I forgot to mention was a Denver initiative de-criminalizing marijuana. That measure passed by a 7 percentage-point victory. Now, adults in Denver over 21 years old are allowed to have up to an ounce of marijuana in their possession . . . sort of. Marijuana possession is still a state and federal offense, and Denver prosecutors can still prosecute people under state law, so the victory for pot is more a moral victory than anything else.
Which brings me to my topic of discussion: how would the government go about dealing with legalized marijuana? Marijuana advocates often compare marijuana to alcohol because alcohol is the only mind-altering substance that's legal to consume.
Alcohol, even though it can cause death in large enough doses, is legal to sell. Alcohol can become physically addictive and can cause a myriad of health problems, including cirrhosis of the liver, a condition in which the liver processes so much alcohol over such a long period of time that it becomes damaged and scarred. Tobacco cigarettes and cigars are also legal to sell, despite moutains of evidence that tobacco smoke causes lung cancer. Cigarettes contain over five hundred carcinogens, including formaldehyde (the stuff used to preserve dead tissue) and nicotine, which has been used for thousands of years as a pesticide. With these examples in mind, the argument that "marijuana is dangerous" is invalid; here are two examples of dangerous drugs that are legal to use. Marijuana is not physically addictive and has not been proven to cause any chronic diseases. There has never, ever in recorded history been a case of death from a marijuana overdose. To see examples of alcohol overdose, all you need to do is live in a college town and read the newspaper.
Reasonable restrictions are placed on alcohol and tobacco. First, the government regulates the purity of the substances so that when you have a drink, you know what you're getting. You know that beer is going to be about 5% alcohol and that shot of whiskey is going to be about 40% alcohol. The legalization of alcohol and tobacco may mean that the government believes that using these substances are okey-dokey. Or it could mean that the government takes no moral stance on the issue of alcohol and tobacco and instead leaves the decision up to you, the citizen. Either way, the government understands that you're making a decision to use alcohol or tobacco of your own free will, with full knowledge of the risks those actions entail. Ensuring that the products are uniform in their purity means that there are no risks involved that are not within your knowledge; that is, you know that the alcohol doesn't contain bleach or that the cigarettes don't contain cocaine or some other non-cigarette impurity. While alcohol and tobacco are both dangerous, it is not the government's duty to stop you from using them; rather, it is the government's duty to ensure that you are aware of all the risks involved and that there are no "surprise" risks. If you choose to engage in these actions, government ought to make them as safe as possible up to the point of the natural level of danger incurred by engaging in an action that is harmful to you. This is why the government mandates that food contain nutrition information on the box: so that you can determine, with the most data available to you, whether you want to consume that food. The government mandates purity of food so that the only risk you take when consuming the food is the content of the food itself, not some lethal extra-food additive.
Reasonable restrictions are also placed upon what you can and cannot do with these drugs in public. While you may have made the decision to harm yourself in spite of your knowledge of risk, there are other people who have chosen not to harm themselves, and in a public setting, your personal decision starts to erode other people's personal decisions. This is why we have laws banning smoking in public places: smoking is an activity that has the potential to harm others if done in the presence of others. The government is defending their decision not to smoke, and since smoking is a harmful activity, the government errs on the side of protecting the individual decisions of the people who have chosen not to engage in that harmful activity. While you may have a right to engage in a harmful activity as long as that decision affects only you, you do not have the right to force your decision upon others. This is why driving under the influence of alcohol is illegal: your decision to drive while drunk is a decision that affects others besides yourself, and it affects them in a profound way. After all, drunk driving is lethal, and it is unfair to subject others to the consequences of a personal decision of yours; it was not their decision to make for them to be killed by a drunk driver.
And so we come to marijuana. And, indeed, we come to all illegal drugs. Why is it the government's business what consenting adults do to themselves? The same case can be made for pornography or homosexuality or any other decision to which certain people object. "Drugs are bad." Very well, then, drugs are bad. But it is my decision to take those drugs. The government is not here to be my parents. Government is here to make sure that, whatever I choose to do, I'm free from what might be called dangers that are external to the dangers inherent in the activity. if I decide to drink, the government must make sure that the only danger involved is the danger posed by drinking alcohol. If I decide to smoke, the government must make sure that the only danger involved is the danger posed by my smoking. If I decide to eat chili cheese fries, the government must make sure that the only danger involved is the danger posed by eating chili cheese fries. The same goes for sex and drugs. (But curiously not for rock 'n' roll, as the government has yet to declare the Rolling Stones illegal because they pose dangers to your sense of taste outside the normal dangers incurred when listening to rock music.) Hence, condoms. Hence, needle exchange. Hence legalized (but regulated) marijuana.
Sure, the government can try to talk me out of an activity that is potentially harmful. I'll accept that as the government informing me of the dangers of the activity I'm about to undertake. "Surgeon General's Warning: Qutting Smoking Now Reduces Serious Risks to Your Health." Very well, Surgeon General. I'll take that into consideration . . . or not. But I appreciate the effort.
The reasons for keeping certain drugs illegal, for making pornography illegal, and for making homosexual sex illegal (until Lawrence v. Texas, anyway) are all the same. They're bad for you and we, the government, don't want you to do bad things for you. We know what's best for you. It's a very paternalistic attitude that should be offensive to adults. Perhaps the very definition of "liberty" is having the freedom to do something that is contradictory to your own self-interest. The definition of "authority" is "having the ability to make someone do something he doesn't want to do." In other words, authority means forcing someone to do something he doesn't want to do. Liberty means allowing someone to do something he shouldn't do. Again, liberty extends only as far as the individual, so while I may have the right to do something that's harmful to me, I most definitely do not have the right to do that thing to someone else, especially if that person has decided that he or she doesn't want to do that thing. There's an old saying about civil liberty which says that the rights of my fist end where your nose begins. That's very true; I'm the only person who should have to deal with the consequences of my decision. Other people shouldn't have to, and the government must protect their decisions, as well. This means that, in private, I can do whatever I want. In public, or any other situation in which others might be affected, the government is obliged to protect their decisions not to do something.
And if the government wants to tax the crap out of marijuana, good for it. Government can go right ahead. It can demand that people pay an economic price to offset the social cost of a dangerous activity, but it mustn't impose such a burden that it effectively uses the "power of the purse" to make a dangerous activity unreasonable instead of illegal. (Imposing high costs on abortion, for example, is one tactic that anti-abortion legislators use to make abortion de facto illegal by making it extremely difficult to obtain.)
And, finally, some words from the philosopher John Stuart Mill, from his essay "On Liberty":
The likings and dislikings of society, or of some powerful portion of it, are thus the main thing which has practically determined the rules laid down for general observance, under the penalties of law or opinion. And in general, those who have been in advance of society in thought and feeling, have left this condition of things unassailed in principle, however they may have come into conflict with it in some of its details. They have occupied themselves rather in inquiring what things society ought to like or dislike, than in questioning whether its likings or dislikings should be a law to individuals.[...]
There is, in fact, no recognized principle by which the propriety or impropriety of government interference is customarily tested. People decide according to their personal preferences. Some, whenever they see any good to be done, or evil to be remedied, would willingly instigate the government to undertake the business; while others prefer to bear almost any amount of social evil, rather than add one to the departments of human interests amenable to governmental control.
[...]
The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
There you have it. May I also induct John Stuart Mill as the first person to have the honor of being a SEDHE Hero of the Forever.
AURORA, Co. -- I've been so focused on California's eight propositions that I completely neglected Colorado's ballot initiatives. They're not nearly as interesting, though.
Yesterday, Colorado voters decided on two state-wide initiatives, Referendum C and Referendum D. Colorado has a weird law called the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) which requires taxpayers to approve any state fiscal measure that would affect their taxes in some way. Referendum C would increase state funds by $3.7 billion over the next five years by taking that money from taxpayers' state sales tax refunds (apparently, in Colorado, taxpayers get refunds of sales tax as well as income tax). Referendum D, which would only take effect if Referendum C were passed, allows the state to borrow $2.1 billion from state tax revenue.
But where would this money go? According to Colorado's 2005 State Ballot Information Booklet, the text of Referendum C says that this $3.7 billion will be used "to fund health care; to fund education, including any capital construction projects related thereto; to fund retirement plans for firefighters and police officers, so long as the General Assembly determines that such funding is ncessary; and to pay for strategic transportation projects included in the Department of Transportations's Strategic Transportation Project Investment Program."
Sounds great, right? I mean, who doesn't love firefighters? Not so fast, there, chief. It turns out that the General Assembly doesn't have to spend money on the stuff they said they would; the legislature can change the spending priorities at any time. For this reasons, Referendum C is not such a good idea, but it looks like the voters thought it was. With 95% of precincts reporting, 53% of voters supported Referendum C. Much like Proposition 77 in California, just one clause in a piece of legislation is enough for me to throw out the whole thing; in the case, the clause is that the legislature can change the spending priorities.
There was also a ballot initiative in Denver, and it was a terrible idea. The initiative in Denver would tie teacher salaries to student performance. As Levitt points out in Freakonomics, they tried this is in California, and instead of teachers and students getting better, they found a lot of teachers cheating. The incentive to cheat is too great when teacher salaries are tied to student performance. If you have a bad teacher with dumb students, it's easier for the bad teacher to cheat and change students' test answers rather than improve the students' performance.
"Colorado: Come for the Skiing, but Stay for the Conservatism."
The University of California at San Francisco, one of the nation's foremost medical colleges, published a brief [PDF] about the efficacy of parental notification laws in other states. This is, of course, completely related to the upcoming Proposition 73 vote.
The brief, from the Bixby Center for Reproductive Health Research & Policy at UCSF, suggests that parental notification laws are not effective in curbing abortions, which is what they are designed to do.
The first argument in favor of parental notification laws is that they will force families to communicate (although if it says in any constitution that families must communicate, I'm hard-pressed to find it). The UCSF study suggests that notification laws don't increase communication:
A comparison of adolescents visiting abortion clinics in states with (Minnesota) and without (Wisconsin) notification requirements demonstrates that adolescents involve their parents in their decision at similar rates (65.3% and 62.1%, respectively). There is no evidence that a government mandate will positively increase the frequency or quality of communication for adolescents and their families.
Notification laws are also designed to delay the abortion process, something that can make the abortion more dangerous.
Perhaps most compelling is the suggestion that, in the absence of convenient abortion, adolescents will just travel to a state that doesn't require parental notification:
In the 20 months following the implementation of Massachusetts’ parental consent law, half as many minors obtained an abortion as had done so prior to the law’s implementation. During this same time period, more than 1800 minors (88% of the decrease in abortions) traveled to 5 neighboring states to have an abortion.
Not only does parental consent not significantly influence abortion numbers, it causes teenagers to travel out-of-state to seek abortions and causes them to delay abortions to the point at which the abortions are physically dangerous.
California Proposition 77 would remove control of the redistricting process from the legislature and governor and place it in the hands of a panel of retired judges. The left-leaning blog Daily Kos has been looking for reasons to vote against 77, since it's supported by the Governator, but it can't find any. And besides, notes Chuck Todd, quoted in the Daily Kos entry,
Bottom line, California initiatives are like colds, they're very catchy. If this reform measure passes in California, every other state with an initiative/referendum process would likely follow suit. And there are far more gerrymandered states in favor of the GOP right now than the Democrats. Redrawing the districts in these states would lead to Congress being much more representative of the national mood.
But there's still something that worries me. One of the arguments against Prop. 77 says, "Redistricting plans made from Prop. 77 automatically go into effect WITH NO APPROVAL FROM THE VOTERS" (hysterical caps in original). Where is this in the text of the legislation? If it's there, it's worrisome. If it's not, then the opponents are lying.
Here's how the proposed process would work, as explicated from the text of Prop. 77 (which you too can read by clicking on "California Proposition 77," above):
So, is it a false statement to say that "[r]edistricting plans made from Prop. 77 automatically go into effect WITH NO APPROVAL FROM THE VOTERS"? Yes. That is 100% false. It is a complete and total lie. Prop. 77 requires that a redistricting proposal be approved by voters for it to go into effect.
Is it a false statement to to say that "PROP. 77 TAKES AWAY THE RIGHTS OF THE VOTERS to reject redistricting plans before they go into effect" (hysterical caps in original)? Yes. That is 100% false. It is a complete and total lie. Prop. 77 allows anyone to object to a plan approved by the Special Masters, but it does institute a window of 45 days for such an objection. Imposing such a limitation is not unheard of and not uncommon.
In summation, the opponents of Prop. 77 are out-and-out lying about what Prop. 77 does and does not do. (The same goes for opponents of Prop. 75, who suggest, in a radio advertisement, that almost any union would be restricted under that initiative. That suggestion is completely untrue; Prop. 75 would affect only public employee unions. While I oppose Prop. 75, I do not approve of its opponents making completely untrue statements about Prop. 75. if you're going to oppose something, oppose it with a reasoned argument, not lies and scare-tactics.)
Even though Prop. 77 is supported by the Governator, there's nothing wrong with it. There's no reason not to vote yes on Prop. 77.
As I was writing the last entry, I flipped over to Yahoo! News to search for that AP story about George Takei, and guess what headline greeted me? "Cheney Adviser Indicted in CIA Leak Case." Earlier this morning, Al Franken reported on The Al Franken Show that Vice-Presidential Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's office was being boxed up. He said he was serious and that his source was ABC News. He then said that there would be no indictment announcement until 2 PM EST (7 PM GMT).
Apparently, there are indictments now.
The Associated Press reports that Libby was indicted on five counts, including obstruction of justice, perjury, and making a false statement. The indictment says that Libby lied, under oath, about who told him that Valerie Plame was a covert agent with the CIA and when he received the information. Documents obtained by government prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald suggested that Libby learned about Plame's identity from Dick Cheney himself and that Cheney and Libby discussed Plame's identity, as well as ways in which they could exploit that identity, at least a month before Chicago Tribune columnist and SEDHE Villain of the Forever Robert Novak published a column in which he revealed Plame's identity.
And just within the last hour, Libby announced that he was resigning as Cheney's chief of staff.
President Bush's Supreme Court nominee, Harriet Miers, has withdrawn herself from nomination.
I can't tell you how good this makes me feel. Miers was in no way qualified to be a judge on the highest court in the land. She was barely qualified to be a judge on one of the nation's 13 second-highest courts.
Several factors helped to make Harriet Miers unlikeable by anyone. First, the hardcore neo-cons didn't like her. These people, which consist of half religious fanatics like James Dobson and half corporate executives, couldn't be sure how she would rule on the abortion issue if it were to come before her as a justice. After discovering than John Roberts wasn't as hard-right as they thought, the neo-cons wanted a nominee who they could be sure was 100% anti-abortion. And they wanted proof. Harriet Miers brought no proof of her opinions to the table, save apocryphal conversations with Dobson and Republican leaders in which she assured them that she was pro-life. But this wasn't good enough; the neo-cons want abortion illegalized now.
Second, the regular Republicans didn't like her because she was patently unqualified. Conservative columnist George Will wrote in Oct. 5's Washington Post, "Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that Miers's nomination resulted from the president's careful consultation with people capable of such judgments. If 100 such people had been asked to list 100 individuals who have given evidence of the reflectiveness and excellence requisite in a justice, Miers's name probably would not have appeared in any of the 10,000 places on those lists." Miers had no previous judicial experience and no experience working for the government. Her only governmental experience was that of White House Counsel, not a position in which she would have to deal with constitutional issues of national importance. (Contrast this with John Roberts' position as Deputy Solicitor General.) Miers spent twenty-some years as a private practice lawyer in Texas. In no way did she have the minimum qualifications to deal with constitutional issues of national importance.
Third, Democrats didn't like her because she was extremely close to the president. Since Bush became governor of Texas in 1994, Miers has been close to him. In 2001, he brought her to the White House in the position of White House Secretary. In 2005, when Alberto Gonzales became Attorney General, Miers became White House Counsel. Democrats were rightly concerned with whether or not she would be objective in dealing with issues of executive power. If there were any cases dealing with torture or prisoner abuse or the War on Terr', she would probably have to recuse herself, since she was in on the policymaking behind these issues. And, as we found out earlier this week, any and all work she did as White House Counsel would not be given to the Senate Judiciary Committee, since it would be under executive privilege protection. So, whatever little we knew about her already, we would know even less.
Now the search is on for another (female) Supreme Court nominee. This is some retirement for Sandra Day O'Connor; she won't get to move to Florida until at least January, and by then all the tourists will have snagged the good parking spaces.
In other news
President Bush un-suspended the Davis-Bacon Act yesterday. The Davis-Bacon Act requires contractors performing work for the federal government to pay their employees the prevailing wage in the area (not the "union wage," as critics of Davis-Bacon often claim). A Wall Street Journal piece sent to me by Ned reinforces the old conservative talking points about Davis-Bacon: it's unnecessary, it's a holdover from the 1930s, it's racist, it's only good for unions, etc. The article is very small, so here it is, reprinted in full, from Ned's email to me:
George W. Bush compares favorably with his father when it comes to his commitment to free-market economics. But the elder President Bush at least had the good policy judgment to suspend an expensive and cumbersome law called the Davis-Bacon Act to facilitate reconstruction after Hurricane Andrew in 1992 -- only to see President Clinton reinstate it as a pay-off to organized labor in one of his first acts in office.Now, less than two months after doing the same in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, this Bush White House has reversed itself on the issue. We're told yesterday's decision to reinstate Davis-Bacon in the affected Gulf states on November 8 came after a meeting last week between Chief of Staff Andrew Card and about 20 Republican Congressmen from union-heavy districts. The move can only increase the cost and slow the pace of reconstruction. And as an act of unprincipled political calculation it ranks right up there with the decision to impose tariffs on imported steel during Mr. Bush's first term.
Davis-Bacon is almost always cast as "worker-friendly" legislation that requires federally funded construction projects to pay the "prevailing" wage rate in a given area. But in reality the anti-competitive 1931 law is a relic of the Jim Crow era. New York Congressman Robert Bacon was upset about an Alabama contractor who had brought a largely black construction crew to build a federal hospital in his district. "Colored labor is being brought in to demoralize wage rates," complained the American Federation of Labor at the time. Many economists and minority leaders recognize that Davis-Bacon continues to be a cause of minority unemployment in the construction sector to this day. In addition to that ugly history, Davis-Bacon is known for creating mountains of paperwork and unnecessary compliance costs.
We know the White House is well aware of all these points, since it alluded to them when it suspended Davis-Bacon on September 8. So the sudden reversal now -- well before hurricane reconstruction is finished, and at a time when the administration should be using all means necessary to expedite it and lower the price tag -- is a special disappointment.
What about worker protection? Just as people loudly proclaim that we don't need affirmative action or feminism anymore -- ostensibly because racism and sexism have been eliminated -- so, too, do people proclaim that unions are obsolete. All they do is drive up the market-clearing wage, leading to a shortage of jobs, since firms will hire 5 employees at $10 an hour instead of 10 employees at $10 an hour. But the world is more than hard economics. Classical economics provides a model for looking at the world, but it is by no means a complete picture of the world. It fails to take into account the welfare of the workers; in this case, we have people from New Orleans trying to rebuild their lives, something they can't do when wages are ridiculously low. And in the latter case, wages are artificially ridiculously low, since firms can charge a very low price for labor, and since demand for labor after Hurricane Katrina is inelastic, workers will work at any price. Davis-Bacon equalizes the playing field, offsetting one counter to the market with another.
There are eight ballot measures being voted upon in the state of California. Come Nov. 8, if you live there, you'll need to make some tough decisions. Here's how I would vote on each of these propositions.
Proposition 73 requires a minor child to notify her parents before getting an abortion. The parents don't need to approve the abortion; they just need to know about it. This is dangerous because (1) parental notification laws are designed to make abortion more difficult to obtain; (2) this is an amendment to the state constitution, and (3) language in the measure refers to an embryo or fetus as an "unborn child." VOTE NO ON PROP. 73
Proposition 74 makes it easier to fire teachers. This is a Governator-backed ballot initiative focused on punishing teachers, who really don't like him. If Prop. 74 were passed, "permanent teachers who received two consecutive unsatisfactory performance evaluations" could be fired. These evaluations could come from anyone, including principals who don't like them or school board members who are trying to cut the budget by firing experienced teachers and hiring new, cheaper teachers. VOTE NO ON PROP. 74
Proposition 75 would mandate that public employees unions could not donate money to political candidates or organizations without the express, written consent of all their members. These organizations will never be able to get the express, written consent of all their members, so the ballot measure is designed to limit unions' freedom of speech. VOTE NO ON PROP. 75
Proposition 76 changes the state's budget process, most notably by giving the governor newer, broader authority to "unilaterally reduce state spending during certain fiscal situations." This is dangerous, especially for a governor who is a killer cyborg from the future and wants to cut social programs. VOTE NO ON PROP. 76
Proposition 77 changes the way the state draws congressional districts. As it is, the legislature draws new districts and the governor approves the changes. Under the system envisioned by Prop. 77, political districts would be drawn by retired judges (picked by the legislature) and the new districts would have to be approved by voters. This makes the redistricting process harder -- which is good -- and puts control in the hands of the voters. VOTE YES ON PROP. 77
Proposition 78 allows people who are too wealthy to qualify for Medicaid and too young to qualify for Medicare to receive discount prescription drugs. Proposition 79 is practically the same thing. Prop. 79 requires drug manufacturers to provide prescription drugs to the state at a discount, while Prop. 78 does not. On the flip side, the eligibility requirements for the program are explicitly listed in Prop. 78. Prop. 79 says that the State Department of Health Services will determine eligibility requirements. But Prop. 79 also establishes a drug-discount program to assist certain businesses, creates a panel to review drug prices, and makes it a civil violation for drug manufacturers to engage in profiteering from the sale of drugs. Prop. 79 does more for the people and the state than Prop. 78. VOTE NO ON PROP. 78; VOTE YES ON PROP. 79
Back in 1998, the California legislature voted to de-regulate the electric utilities industry. This, of course, was a disaster and led to rolling blackouts, high prices, and the Enron scandal. Proposition 80 repeals all of that de-regulation stuff, making the electric utilities once again regulated by the state. I think -- and someone correct me if I'm wrong -- that most states regulate electric utilities; Ohio certainly does, with PUCO (Public Utilities Commission of Ohio). VOTE YES ON PROP. 80
For more information, including the text of the legislation, legislative analyses, and arguments for and against each of these initiatives, visit the California Secretary of State's "Elections and Voter Information" page regarding these eight initiatives.
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) went on Meet the Press this past Sunday to disseminate the new Republican talking points: Democrats are "criminalizing politics" with their attempts to prosecute people for crimes. What?! Prosecute people for committing crimes! In what kind of backwards Arab society do that do that?!
Most startling, hypocritical, and stupid were Sen. Hutchison's comments regarding RoveLibbyCheneyNovakWilsonPlameCooperGate:
SEN. HUTCHISON: Tim, you know, I think we have to remember something here. An indictment of any kind is not a guilty verdict, and I do think we have in this country the right to go to court and have due process and be innocent until proven guilty. And secondly, I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn't indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars. So they go to something that trips someone up because they said something in the first grand jury and then maybe they found new information or they forgot something and they tried to correct that in a second grand jury.I think we should be very careful here, especially as we are dealing with something very public and people's lives in the public arena. I do not think we should prejudge. I think it is unfair to drag people through the newspapers week after week after week, and let's just see what the charges are. Let's tone down the rhetoric and let's make sure that if there are indictments that we don't prejudge.
MR. RUSSERT: But the fact is perjury or obstruction of justice is a very serious crime and Republicans certainly thought so when charges were placed against Bill Clinton before the United States Senate. Senator Hutchison.
SEN. HUTCHISON: Well, there were charges against Bill Clinton besides perjury and obstruction of justice. And I'm not saying that those are not crimes. They are. But I also think that we are seeing in the judicial process--and look at Martha Stewart, for instance, where they couldn't find a crime and they indict on something that she said about something that wasn't a crime. I think that it is important, of course, that we have a perjury and an obstruction of justice crime, but I also think we are seeing grand juries and U.S. attorneys and district attorneys that go for technicalities, sort of a gotcha mentality in this country. And I think we have to weigh both sides of this issue very carefully and not just jump to conclusions, because someone is in the public arena, that they are guilty without being able to put their case forward. I really object to that.
In case you're shocked by Sen. Hutchison's outrageous comments, let me explicate them for you. In the first paragraph, Hutchison calls perjury a "technicality" that is leveled against people when "they couldn't indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars." Does that sound like anyone we know? Let's see, here: two years of investigation, no solid evidence of a real crime being committed, so they indict on perjury. Seems to me like ... oh, geez, what was his name?
Oh, yes. Bill Clinton. That's right, kids. When Bill Clinton committed perjury, it was a "high crime" and "misdemeanor" enough to get him impeached. When Karl Rove is indicted for perjury, it's a "technicality" because they're just trying to get him. No, wait. It gets better. Bill Clinton lied about oral sex. Karl Rove lied about national security. If I were an evangelical Protestant, I would have to say ... yup, the oral sex is definitely more threatening to the nation than endangering national security. Come to think of it, I don't understand why they didn't execute Bill Clinton for having an illicit relationship outside the holy bonds of marriage. (They didn't execute Republican congressman Henry Hyde, either, but that's because they're hypocrites.)
But Sen. Hutchison says that Bill Clinton's case was different; he had other charges brought against him, charges that were substantive and not mere "technicalities" like perjury and obstruction of justice. The House of Representatives approved four articles of impeachment against Bill Clinton in 1998:
You know, Hutch, you're right. Bill Clinton's case is different because they added another "technicality" indictment to the already extant technicality indictments of perjury and obstruction of justice. So, it seems to me that what Hutch here is doing is trying to justify the Republicans' ridiculous persecution of Bill Clinton for perjury while at the same time suggesting that it was okay for Karl Rove to commit perjury. Even though Bill Clinton lied about sex and Karl Rove lied about endangering national security. Oh, and by the way, Clinton's impeachment wasn't political because the impeachment articles were approved completely along party lines. (Oh, damn, that statement supports the assertion that the impeachment was for political reasons!)
So, Hutch has a point. (Hang on a second, let me stratch that out. It doesn't look right.) Hutch has a point. Hutch is a moron. (Yes, that's better.)
And how is it that we see district attorneys and juries go after people based upon technicalities? Because people are so sleazy that the only way to go after them is a technicality. Al Capone, the man who ran Chicago's South Side gang in the 1920s, owned the city. He couldn't get a conviction in Chicago. He owned the judges. He owned the police. He owned the juries. So, what did the treasury department do? Convicted him for tax evasion. Yes, a technicality. Because Capone had covered his ass when it came to convicting him of real crimes.
Did Bill Clinton commit a "real" crime when he lied about sex? No. Sex was the hang-up of the Gingrich Republicans and Kenneth Starr. It was also the only tactic they had to "get" him. They had been trying to get Clinton for years with no success, and lying about sex, they thought, was the only way they could do something to him.
Did Karl Rove or I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby commit a "real" crime when they lied about who told them about Valerie Plame's identity? Yes. Revealing Valerie Plame's identity put her and anyone who worked for her front-company, Brewster-Jennings, in jeopardy. It also destroyed a source of intelligence and put her informants in danger. And, worst of all, some people in the administration thought they could get away with punishing Joe Wilson by leaking his wife's identity as a CIA operative.
Rove fought the law, and the law won. At least, I hope it will.
The charges facing Tom DeLay are so baseless and frivolous that a Texas court has issued a warrant for his arrest. Not only is Ronnie Earle a partisan witch-hunter, and not only are the two grand juries that indicted him partisan witch-hunters, but the judge who issued the warrant is also a partisan witch-hunter. Clearly, DeLay is 100% not guilty of the charges facing him, and clearly all of the twenty-plus people who believe that DeLay has committed a crime are being bribed by George Soros.
The warrant was issued after a detective with the Acme Detective Agency identified DeLay after conducting several interviews with people at visitors centers and museums around the country. Witnesses described the suspect as having "mahogany tresses" and that "he was wearing a Talking Heads T-shirt" and carried cave-climbing equipment. He also asked where he could get some huevos rancheros. After entering this information into an Acme CrimeNet computer, the suspect was identified as Tom DeLay and a warrant issued for his arrest. The detective then proceeded to Austin, Texas, where, instead of finding informants, the detective found a knife being thrown at his head and a flowerpot that nearly landed on him. At the third location he visited in Austin, the detective found DeLay and arrested him. The detective would have been promoted to Senior Inspector after successfully capturing DeLay, but he could not identify the first letter of the third word on the first line on page 672 of his Fodor's USA travel guide.
White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove and New York Times reporter Judith Miller went back to the grand jury this week. Appearing before a federal grand jury for the second time, Miller revealed the existence of another, undisclosed conversation with Vice President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. The conversation suggests that there may have been a concerted effort to disclose Plame's identity in an attempt to discredit her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson. Wilson, you'll recall, published an op-ed in The New York Times in 2003 in which he criticized the Bush administration's intelligence regarding the war in Iraq. A scant week later, Chicago Tribune columnist and SEHDE Villain of the Forever Robert Novak revealed very non-chalantly that Wilson's wife was a CIA agent, an act that was probably a violation of federal law.
And remember Bill Frist? The Senate majority leader's shares in HCA, the nation's largest private hospital corporation, which was founded by his father, were mysteriously sold in 2005 right before the company's stock value dropped by nine percent. While Frist maintains that the shares were in a blind trust so that there would not be any conflict of interest between Frist's stock holdings and legislation Frist may have voted for that could directly affect the price of that stock, onlookers were correctly skeptical, and Frist is being investigated for insider trading (the use of inside knowledge about a company's business and finances to make decisions about buying or selling the securities of that company). Now it appears as though Frist accumulated shares of HCA stock outisde of the blind trust. Frist was part of a partnership called Bowling Avenue Partners, which held shares of HCA stock outside the scope of Frist's Senate-approved blind trust. Frist's brother, Thomas, was in control of Bowling Avenue Partners. Frist was required to place his shares of HCA stock in a blind trust when he joined the Senate because of a possible conflict of interest. But why did he hold shares of HCA that were outside the blind trust? Answer: because he thought he could get away with it. Frist will be indicted for insider trading. Oh, yes.
And Tom DeLay's lawyer has put Texas prosecutor Ronnie Earle on the defensive, attempting to subpoena Earle for improperly seeking charges against DeLay. The judge in this case is on vacation, so no orders have been handed down. Aren't public officials ususally immune from prosecution like this?
Two new stories from today. The first is that President Bush named his pick to be Sandra Day O'Connor's successor. White House lawyer Harriet Miers is his woman. But Miers presents a problem. First, she has no judicial experience. She has never served as a judge at any level of government, and as a result, we have no idea what her past rulings would be. Then again, thirty years ago, Richard Nixon nominated a man who also had no judicial experience to be an associate justice. And that man's name was William Rehnquist. And now you know ... the rest of the story.
Story number two is that the charges against Tom DeLay are so baseless and frivolous that he has been indicted on another charge, this time for money laundering. The money laundering charge comes stems from the fact that DeLay's PAC, Texans for a Republican Majority, routed money through the RNC in Washington in order to get it from corporations to Republican candidates for the Texas legislature. It is illegal, under Texas law, for corporations or labor unions to donate money to candidates.
The New York Times reports that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) is investing the Bush administration for disseminating "covert propaganda."
From the article:
Lawyers from the accountability office, an independent nonpartisan arm of Congress, found that the administration systematically analyzed news articles to see if they carried the message, "The Bush administration/the G.O.P. is committed to education."The auditors declared: "We see no use for such information except for partisan political purposes. Engaging in a purely political activity such as this is not a proper use of appropriated funds."
The report also sharply criticized the Education Department for telling Ketchum Inc., a public relations company, to pay Mr. Williams for newspaper columns and television appearances praising Mr. Bush's education initiative, the No Child Left Behind Act.
Sadly, this is nothing new. In 2004, the GAO chastised the Bush administration for violating federal law by using taxpayer dollars to manufacture propaganda in support of its Medicare bill and designing the advertisements to look like TV news reports. Earlier this year, in May, the GAO gave a report to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation titled "Unattributed Prepackaged News Stories Violate Publicity or Propaganda Prohibition."
The talking points memo disseminated by the RNC on Monday will no doubt include a slander of the GAO, which it will call a partisan organization. It will use as evidence for this the fact that Ted Kennedy and Frank Lautenberg -- both Democrats -- called for the investigation.
Conspiracy theory? Think again. In March, an anonymous memo was discovered which listed political talking points regarding the Terri Schiavo case. This discovery confirmed the existence of what we had suspected all along: that Republican politicians receive a list of "talking points" and sound bites that they are to repeat when discussing a particular issue. This is why it seems like Republican pundits all say the same things in reaction to an issue or event: it's because they are all saying the same thing. They're all repeating the Republican talking points. This is why Michael Chertoff and Richard Meyer said that when they opened the newspapers after Hurricane Katrina, the newspapers said that "New Orleans dodged the bullet." They were both instructed by the talking points to say that (because no newspaper said that, except for the right-wing website WorldNetDaily). After they lied, Al Franken went through sound-clips of their statements in a hilarious segment called "Who Got the Memo?" There was something eerie about them repeating, almost verbatim, the same lie.
Now, I don't want to suggest that the Bush administration uses taxpayer dollars to disseminate propaganda in an attempt to get people to buy into its legislation. Nor do I want to suggest that the administration is the center of a highly sophisticated system of media manipulation advanced through the distribution of talking points memos to Republican politicians and pundits, making it appear as though commentators objectively favor the administration's policies when in fact they are told by the administration how to describe the administration's policies in a good light and its opponents in a bad light.
No, wait. I want to suggest both of those.
Yesterday, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) was indicted by a federal grand jury for conspiring to violate political fundraising laws. Texas laws prohibit corporations from donating money to political parties, but a political action committee (PAC) set up by DeLay and others acted as an entry point for corporate donations. Money was given to DeLay's PAC, then from DeLay's PAC to the RNC in Washington, and then back to individual candidates in Texas. Also indicted were John Colyandro, formerly the executive director of DeLay's PAC, and Jim Ellis, the head of DeLay's national political committee. Read the actual indictment. Go on, I dare you! You hate your country if you don't.
As with any scandal, there are two explanations. One is that DeLay actually committed a crime. The other is that the prosecutor is a crazy partisan Democrat who will stop at nothing to use the legal system to see to it that one of the most powerful Republicans in the United States gets convicted of a crime despite overwhelming evidence indicating that he's a really upstanding guy who didn't commit a crime, and furthermore, would never, ever even think of laundering money in the interests of getting Republicans elected to the Texas state legislature, and here's a picture of DeLay holding a kitten.
Guess which one DeLay and other Republicans are promoting?
Yes, that's right. As if guided by some mysterious talking points memorandum sent from the RNC higher-ups, Republican pundits simultaneously lambasted prosecutor Ronnie Earle and pulled the Crucible card by calling the investigation a "witch hunt." See, the only problem with that comparison is that the phrase "witch hunt" refers to an investigation without a basis. DeLay's investigation, on the other hand, has a basis: there is actual, tangible evidence indicating the existence of a money chain which goes from corporations to DeLay's PAC to the RNC and finally, to individual candidates. This is all in violation of the law, by the way. Nevertheless, DeLay called the indictment "one of the weakest, most baseless indictments in American history." That's compared to the actual Salem witch trials and Joe McCarthy's accusation of communists in the Army. And there's Emmett Till.
Some pundits also fail to acknowledge that it was a federal grand jury -- that is, twelve normal people from Texas -- who agreed that there was enough evidence incriminating DeLay to pursue charges against him. Or are these twelve people also engaged in a witch hunt?
Clearly, that's the only answer. Not only is Ronnie Earle engaged in a witch hunt, but he falsified evidence and bribed and brainwashed twelve citizens of Texas into believing the baseless claims that Tom DeLay -- a politician, for crying out loud! -- committed a crime.
Kevin Madden, DeLay's spokesperson, accurately summed up the issue: "This indictment is nothing more than prosecutorial retribution by a partisan Democrat. [...] We regret the people of Texas will once again have their taxpayer dollars wasted on Ronnie Earle's pursuit of headlines and political paybacks." Damn that Ronnie Earle's black heart! How dare he waste taxpayer money on one of the most baseless indictments in American history (next to all of those ones that are several orders of magnitude more baseless)!
DeLay was on Hannity & Colmes yesterday. There isn't a transcript yet, but you can bet your patriotism that Hannity and DeLay both agreed that the charges were baseless and somebody -- probably John Kerry -- bribed the judge and jury. Ooh, that Kerry! He really busts my buttons with his east coast liberalism and the kind of intellectual and political snobbery that can be equalled only by every other politician in Washington! Nevertheless, it's he who is the snob and Republicans who own shares of the largest for-profit hospital company in the country who are the voices of the common man!
Two days ago, Scott McClellan said this:
Q Scott, the President -- is the President's call for fuel conservation a temporary one? Or is he asking Americans to permanently change their behavior and their energy usage?MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there are steps that -- in the energy bill that we passed, to, as I said, expand conservation, and there are steps that -- or initiatives that the President has outlined that are important steps that we can take to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy. This has been a high priority for the President from day one, and he has spelled out a number of steps that we can take when it comes to addressing the root causes of high energy prices. We need to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy.
I'll highlight the important words:
[...] or initiatives that the President has outlined that are important steps that we can take to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy. This has been a high priority for the President from day one, and he has spelled out a number of steps that we can take when it comes to addressing the root causes of high energy prices.
Oh, really?
Rewind to May 7, 2001, when former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said this:
QUESTION: Does the president believe that, given the amount of energy Americans consume per capita, how much it exceeds any other citizen in any other country in the world, does the president believe we need to correct our lifestyles to address the energy problem?FLEISCHER: That's a big no. The president believes that's an American way of life, and that it should be the goal of policymakers to protect the American way of life. The American way of life is a blessed one. And we have a bounty of resources in this country. What we need to do is make certain that we're able to get those resources in an efficient way, in a way that also emphasizes protecting the environment and conservation into the hands of consumers so they can make the choices that they want to make as they live their lives day to day.
Did you notice the words "That's a big no" in response to the question "Does the president believe we need to correct our lifestyles to address the energy problem?" And ... wait, what's that? There's more?
QUESTION: So Americans should go on consuming as much/more energy than any other citizens in any other country of the world (inaudible) want?FLEISCHER: The president believes that the American people are very wise, and that, given the right incentives, they will know how -- they will make their own right determinations about how much they can conserve, just as the president announced last week that the federal government, as part of its consumership in California will reduce energy needs, for example, the Department of Defense facilities in California, by 10 percent.
He believes the American people, too, will make the right decisions about conservation. And the program he will announce shortly will also include a series of conservation items.
The president also believes that the American people's use of energy is a reflection of the strength of our economy, of the way of life that the American people have come to enjoy. And he wants to make certain that a national energy policy is comprehensive, that it includes conservation, includes a way of allowing the American people to continue to enjoy the way of life that has made the United States such a leading nation in the world.
As always, there is an explanation for this. On an LSAT, this is called a "resolve-the-paradox" question. So, let's do a practice question together.
Which of the following, if true, would explain the discrepancy between what Ari Fleischer said in 2001 and what Scott McClellan said two days ago?(A) Inflation caused the truth value of Ari Fleischer's 2001 comments to decrease relative to Scott McClellan's comments.
(B) A malfunctioning robot duplicant of Scott McClellan, rather than McClellan himself, made the statement two days ago.
(C) Saddam Hussein enjoys eating Doritos.
(D) Dick Cheney made comments similar to Ari Fleischer's in 2001.
(E) Scott McClellan is lying.
Let's use Process of Elimination to get to the best answer. Answer choice (A) appears to make sense: the more time that has passed since a statement, the less held to scrutiny is the truth of that statement. While that is a true principle of political punditry, it doesn't explain the paradox. Choice (B) is irrelevant to the current argument, even though it contains the factually correct implication that Scott McClellan is a robot. Choice (C) is similar to choice (B) in that it contains true facts that are beyond the scope of the argument. Choice (D) would be the appropriate answer if this were a question that asked, "Which of the following, if true, most weakens Scott McClellan's statement?" But, unfortunately, that's not what the question is asking. Therefore, we are left with choice (E), and it turns out that this is the correct answer: Scott McClellan lied two days ago when he said that energy conservation has been a high priority for the president since day one.
Suggestions for Further Reading
Thanks to The Daily Show with Jon Stewart for pointing out this discrepancy.
California's favorite killer cyborg from the future cum governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, will run for a second term, guaranteeing those of us in the comedy business with jokes for seven more years.
"I'm going to follow through with this here. I'm not in here for three years. We're going to finish the job. I'm in here for seven years," he told crowds. Then he said, "And after that, I'm going to stay for seven more years. And seven years after that!" Smoke began to pour from Arnold's ears, and aides whisked him away from the stage. In a statement made later today by Arnold's spokesman, Miles Bennett Dyson, the governor was said to be "just fine. Couldn't be better. There was a short in one of his quadritonic optical subprocessors . . . I mean, he had a cold. Oh boy, I hope no one heard that."
Analysts had long theorized that Arnold actually was a cyborg from the future who had been reprogrammed to terminate -- via the electoral process -- bad government. "Of course he's a robot," said Dr. Raymond R. Pinchbeck of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories. "I've been saying that for years. Ever since he made Jingle All the Way and his career didn't suffer, I said, 'Boy, he must be bulletproof.' Of course, I didn't mean it literally, but it turns out that, due to his metal endoskeleton, Arnold is bulletproof. But in theoretical physics terminology, he's gone totally bonkers."
But what could have caused Arnold's approval ratings to hit rock-bottom? Dr. Matilda M. Pyle of the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign believes she has an answer. "Part of the way into his term, Arnold's positronic matrix suffered a minor failure at this redundancy checkpoint," she said, pointing to a diagram of what she believes Arnold's positronic brain looks like. "This particular failure, though minor, caused a checksum error that made him do strange things like cut benefits for teachers and veto gay marriage legislation. In computer engineering terminology, he's gone totally bonkers."
While President Bush could order the Army to come in and destroy the robotic governor for the safety of Californians, an unnamed aide said that was unlikely. "Since when did Californians do anything for Bush? You know how he loves loyalty. More than logic, more than reason, more than fiscal responsibility and a nice Christmas ham, he loves loyalty. Californians weren't loyal, so they can get what's coming to them for being with the terrorists. And besides, Arnold supported him in his second presidential bid. Who rewards supporters by calling in the Army to blow them up? Not this president, that's who."
Recent revelations in Time magazine reveal that FEMA director Michael Brown may have padded his resume just a little bit:
Before joining FEMA, his only previous stint in emergency management, according to his bio posted on FEMA's website, was "serving as an assistant city manager with emergency services oversight." The White House press release from 2001 stated that Brown worked for the city of Edmond, Okla., from 1975 to 1978 "overseeing the emergency services division." In fact, according to Claudia Deakins, head of public relations for the city of Edmond, Brown was an "assistant to the city manager" from 1977 to 1980, not a manager himself, and had no authority over other employees. "The assistant is more like an intern," she told TIME. "Department heads did not report to him."[...]
Under the "honors and awards" section of his profile at FindLaw.com — which is information on the legal website provided by lawyers or their offices—he lists "Outstanding Political Science Professor, Central State University." However, Brown "wasn't a professor here, he was only a student here," says Charles Johnson, News Bureau Director in the University Relations office at the University of Central Oklahoma (formerly named Central State University). "He may have been an adjunct instructor," says Johnson, but that title is very different from that of "professor." Carl Reherman, a former political science professor at the University through the '70s and '80s, says that Brown "was not on the faculty."
[...]
Under the heading of "Professional Associations and Memberships" on FindLaw, Brown states that from 1983 to the present he has been director of the Oklahoma Christian Home, a nursing home in Edmond. But an administrator with the Home told TIME that Brown is "not a person that anyone here is familiar with." She says there was a board of directors until a couple of years ago, but she couldn't find anyone who recalled him being on it.
[...]
Brown's FindLaw profile lists a wide range of areas of legal practice, from estate planning to family law to sports. However, one former colleague does not remember Brown's work as sterling. Stephen Jones, a prominent Oklahoma lawyer who was lead defense attorney on the Timothy McVeigh case, was Brown's boss for two-and-a-half years in the early '80s. "He did mainly transactional work, not litigation," says Jones. "There was a feeling that he was not serious and somewhat shallow."
So, we have one of two explanations for these discrepancies. One, Michael Brown lied about his qualifications. Two, baby-aborting, activist-loving, tree-hugging, business-hating, terrorist-loving, gay-sex-having, anarchistic, communist Democrats have gone back in time, erased all records of Michael Brown ever having had any of these jobs, and wiped the memories of everyone he worked with. Perhaps this excerpt from a White House press conference this morning sheds some light on the situation:
Q: Can you confirm or deny rumors that members of the DNC, possibly even Howard Dean himself, have gone back in time to destroy Michael Brown's reputation?MR. McCLELLAN: That's a great question, Roy, and I'm glad you asked it. Yes, we have discovered that a prototype time machine has turned up missing from our prototypes department at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Guards who were on duty have told investigators that they don't remember anything, possibly because they were gassed. When they woke up, the time machine was gone.
Q: Will there be an investigation into this matter?
MR. McCLELLAN: Any investigation into the matter will be closed to the public, as it deals with top secret national security information, including the existence of a prototype time machine.
Q: Is it possible that Michael Brown merely lied on his resumes?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I don't think that's possible. The president doesn't hire people who lie. He has the utmost confidence in Mr. Brown and any investigation into the matter will focus on the degree to which Democrats have altered history in order to play the blame game, not whether or not Mr. Brown lied. No, Mr. Brown has personally assured me that he isn't lying.
I think this speaks for itself.
This was going to be a comment, but it's longer than I'd like it to be, so it's a whole post.
Ned writes:
"Also, Cindy Sheehan said that she herself would gladly have gone to war if it were for a noble cause; e.g., Afghanistan."Actually, Mark, Cindy Sheehan is against the war in Afghanistan as well. Here's the link to her discussion on Hardball with Chris Matthews: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8972147/
Also, I have never heard Karl Rove describe a person as unpatriotic. I have never hear Pres. Bush describe someone as unpatriotic. I have never heard Donald Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, McClellan, Fleischer...you get the point. Past or present staffers, I have not heard the word "unpatriotic" uttered once.
I think the real situation is that whenever someone questions anyone on the left, their knee-jerk reaction is to say "How dare you call me unpatriotic," when in fact the original statement was never made.
Ned's right. I thought that I had heard Cindy Sheehan mention that she was in favor of the war with Afghanistan, but her appearance on Hardball suggests otherwise. I happen to disagree with her on this point.
And, regarding Karl Rove, cf. his comments made June 22, 2005: "Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war." This is a complete revision of history that would make O'Brien proud. Does he honestly think our memories are so short? Everyone, post 9/11, was totally willing to do anything to find whoever was responsible for the attacks, including pass ridiculous legislation like the USA-PATRIOT Act. I remember politics post-9/11, and I was surprised at how genial and united everyone was. Rove was attempting to re-write the history of 9/11 to suit his own purposes; namely, the thesis that liberals are pacifists who would rather talk problems out, while conservatives are willing to take action. His suggestion, of course, is that liberals somehow like terrorists, whereas conservatives don't like them. Oh, and there's that whole Valerie Plame thing.
Speaking as a guest on The Randi Rhodes Show today, Cindy Sheehan said that a Republican PAC called Move America Forward is distributing press releases saying that she is funded by al Qaeda and white supremacists.
These are pretty harsh allegations, so I investigated them.
What has happened is that David Horowitz's Frontpage Magazine has taken comments she made on Nightline wildly out of context, suggesting that she is anti-Semitic. Horowitz is a loony who maintains that no matter what Israel does, it is always right, and no matter what the Palestinians do, they are always wrong. Horowitz weasles his way into college campuses through the benignly-named Students for Academic Freedom. Little do they know that "Academic Freedom" requires a radical pro-Israel policy (not that a pro-Israel policy is radical, but Horowitz's approach to a pro-Israel policy is radical).
Ben Johnson, a columnist at Frontpage Magazine, wrote an Aug. 18 column entitled "American Nazi Idol." The column makes the (fallacious) argument that, because David Duke wrote a column supporting Cindy Sheehan, it follows that Cindy Sheehan believes in what David Duke believes. But then there are these statements made by Sheehan in a letter to Nightline:
my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC [Project for a New American Century] Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel.
PNAC is a neo-con agenda. It was established in 1997 by such famous figures as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz as a neoconservative think tank. Their statement of principles, presented at their opening in 1997, gives you some indication as to what they think. It is no coincidence that the chief architects of the Iraq War were also the chief architects of an organization that believes in "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity." Oh, and most of these people worked for Reagan, too.
As for her comment that her "son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel," how does this comment make her a Nazi? Partially it's because Horowitz views any criticism of Jews as hostile and on par with Nazism. Why? Because it's an easy trope to use, not because the analogy holds true. There are many "mainstream" people in the United States who are not Nazis who believe that America gives too much support to Israel. In fact, the amount of support we give Israel is one of the reasons that Arab countries don't particularly like us. Her comments about Israel may be on the extreme left of opinion concerning Israel, and I may not particularly agree with them, but these statements do not make her a white supremacist.
But funding by white supremacists? I haven't found anything to back that up, yet. Randi Rhodes also reports that, in private, Bush called the anti-war protestors in Crawford "m-fers" (only he used the full word) and said, regarding his meeting again with Sheehan, she can "go to hell." This is merely speculation, though.
UPDATE: This article from Capitol Hill Blue describes Bush's frequent White House "tirades." It also confirms that he said, regarding meeting again with Cindy Sheehan, "I'm not meeting again with that goddamned bitch. She can go to hell as far as I'm concerned!" Also, he called war protestors "m-fing traitors" (expletive deleted). In the opinion of a prominent Washington psychiatrist, Bush's actions are "all too typical of an alcohol-abusing bully who is ruled by fear." Capitol Hill Blue is published by the Save America Foundation, "a not-for-profit, non-partisan educational foundation."
UPDATE: After doing some research on Capitol Hill Blue, I've concluded that it's probably not a credible website. It makes far too much mention of anonymous "aides" and "staffers," and besides, if this were true, the major newspapers would have jumped on it by now. So the Captiol Hill Blue article is probably nothing more than fiction. This online forum discusses the veracity of Capitol Hill Blue, which looks not very voracious. Or something like that.
Ned writes:
This is a bum deal. Every time someone criticizes Cindy Sheehan we are told, "she has a right to free speech." Then when they clarify that they are not challenging her right to dissent, but rather her authority as a geo-political analyst, Sheehan's ilk says, "How dare you question the mother of a dead solider." Which side is really trying to restrict speech here?
First of all, Cindy Sheehan is not purporting to be a geo-political analyst. She wants to know, "What noble cause did my son die for?" She, like many others around the country, wants to know what her son died for. Is it weapons of mass destruction? Nope, it can't be that, since we never found any WMDs. Was it because Saddam Hussein was in violation of U.N. resolution 1441? Nope, it can't be that, since ninety U.N. resolutions are currently being violated, and we're not invading the countries that are violating those. Was it because Saddam Hussein was linked with al-Qaeda? Nope, it can't be that, since the September 11 Commission determined that the two had no operating relationship, despite the Bush administration's attempts to sneakily suggest that there was (cf. All the President's Spin). Was it to liberate the Iraqi people? Nope, it can't be that, since the Iraqi people are worse-off now than they were under Saddam and instead of being threatened by a central state, they are being threatened by multiple terrorist groups in Iraq.
All of the reasons we had been given for going into Iraq have been refuted. We've discovered that people high up in the administration, like John Bolton, knowingly and deliberately mischaracterized intelligence so that they could bolster their case for war. We've discovered, through the Downing Street memos, that Bush was going to go to war as early as 2002. We've discovered that Bush ignored repeated warnings about al-Qaeda and forcibly silenced people who disagreed.
And now Cindy Sheehan's son is dead. And she does not think that her son died for a noble cause; she thinks the Iraq was is wrong and she wants to meet with the president. She is doing that most First Amendment of things: "petitioning [her] government for a redress of grievances."
My beef is not with people challenging her right to dissent. My beef is with people (1) attempting to smear her through ad hominem attacks and other kinds of attacks as those same people have done before with people who questioned the Bush administration. My beef is also with people (2) suggesting that she shouldn't question her government. The Bush administration has engaged in a systematic attacking (or smearing, or discrediting, or whatever) of any person -- that's any person, be he grieving mother, war veteran, or senator -- who becomes inconvenient for the administration or dares to question the administration. We're dealing with a very arrogant, patriarchal "father knows best" attitude about the world. "Don't question your president; he knows best." Conservative commentators even act surprised that someone would dare to criticize the president, as though we live in Communist China, where dissent is squelched by tank. Who is the president to think he is beyond reproach? And who are these commentators to think that he is beyond reproach? Of course his actions are being criticized; his actions must be criticized or we will have fallen into a situation where we blindly trust our leaders and don't question why they do things. There are some times when they do not have the most upstanding of reasons for doing things, and as citizens -- from where Bush's power comes, not the other way around -- we must demand accountability of the people in which we have invested power. These current leaders not only do not want to be held accountable, but they stonewall attempts at accountability, and they have a coordinated Republican Spin Machine to help them.
This Republican Spin Machine agrees ideologically with the war and buys into the things the Bush administration said to justify the war. Fair enough. But when it tries to go the extra step to say that dissent decreases troop morale and is treasonous (the latter not said suggested by Bill O'Reilly, who actually said that other people might regard her actions as treasonous), that enters the realm of the totalitarian. Suddenly there is an entire class of things that the citizens cannot say for fear that it might hinder "morale" or might be "treasonous." The word treason has been thrown around a lot lately, just as references to Nazis have been thrown about in the past month, and both sides would do well not to take treason lightly. Giving "aid and comfort to the enemy" does not mean criticizing our leaders and suggesting that their actions are wrong. To look at the true definition of treason, go and find Jose Padilla or John Walker Lindh, American citizens who actually went to fight with the enemy.
Who is un-American when he suggests that dissent is wrong? Not the dissenters. Again I resort to Thomas Jefferson, who said, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." In a democracy (or a democratic republic), the citizenry is responsible for keeping the leaders in check and assuring that they do not abuse their power. We have a record of power abuses, and we are entitled to some answers, and if that is "treason," then there's no reason to be fighting this war at all.
So, now (1) questioning the actions of your country (2) petitioning the government for a redress of grievances is "Stalinist":
To expiate the pain of losing her firstborn son in the Iraq war, Cindy Sheehan decided to cheer herself up by engaging in Stalinist agitprop outside President Bush's Crawford ranch. It's the strangest method of grieving I've seen since Paul Wellstone's funeral. Someone needs to teach these liberals how to mourn.
I like this one, too:
We're sorry about Ms. Sheehan's son, but the entire nation was attacked on 9/11. This isn't about her personal loss. America has been under relentless attack from Islamic terrorists for 20 years, culminating in a devastating attack on U.S. soil on 9/11.
Back that train up! Cindy Sheehan's son died in Iraq, and as far as I know -- although information may have changed -- Iraq didn't attack us on September 11. Afghanistan-based al-Qaeda attacked us. But, of course, somehow the words "Iraq" and "9/11" became mixed up to the point where 21 percent of the country believed that Iraq was directly involved with September 11. Or is Ann Coulter trying to perpetuate the myth that September 11 = Osama bin Laden = al Qaeda = terrorism = Saddam Hussein? Throw "Saudi Arabia" in there and the equation might start to make sense.
And, by the way, Coulter commits the "guilt by association" fallacy by lumping Cindy Sheehan in the same pot with Michael Moore, suggesting that her opinions are invalid and baseless only because his opinions are invalid and baseless.
The only method that the Spin Machine has discovered to discredit Cindy Sheehan is to suggest that she's not in control of her message, that somehow Michael Moore and George Soros are operating her like a puppet. Need we remind them that Cindy Sheehan started out in front of the ranch with her and her sister? She never asked anyone to come join her. She was there first. George Soros and MoveOn.org joined her because their messages are congruent. But the Spin Machine continues to try and discredit and smear dissenters. If anyone -- anyone -- gets it into his head that he knows better about what's good for the country than the President of the United States, or dares to question the sacred authority of the president, then he must be destroyed in the media. Here's Rush Limbaugh saying that Cindy Sheehan ... well, I don't even know what he's saying. That she made this all up?
I mean, Cindy Sheehan is just Bill Burkett. Her story is nothing more than forged documents. There's nothing about it that's real, including the mainstream media's glomming onto it. It's not real. It's nothing more than an attempt. It's the latest effort made by the coordinated left.
So is Rush's suggestion that Cindy Sheehan didn't lose a son in Iraq and that she's lying about it? If so, it's Rush that's incorrect, because we certainly have documented evidence that she did.
Why does the Spin Machine go to such great lengths to destroy reputations in order to prevent the American public from believing anyone who suggests that America's current policies are wrong? To suggest that dissent and the questioning of one's government is treasonous is, in itself, treasonous. Thomas Jefferson once wrote that "eternal vigilance" was the price of freedom, and yet the Bush Administration would like you to be eternally ignorant and just let them handle the situation, please. Surrender your vigilance and we'll protect you from the gays.
Wikipedia has an entry called "logical fallacy" which goes through most of the logical fallacies that one can commit. It's pretty good reading. Here are the ones that I find most often when I watch, read, or listen to anything:
Ad hominem - attacking a person rather than attacking a person's argument in order to suggest that, because the person is bad, that person's arguments are necessarily wrong (cf. Ann Coulter's referral to Ambassador Joe Wilson as "Clown" Wilson, or practically anything else Ann Coulter says).
Appeal to emotion - attempting to persuade people by appealing to their emotions rather than by constructing a reasonable argument (cf. Karl Rove spreading rumors that John McCain had adopted "a black baby").
Appeal to motive - suggesting that, since a person's motive for arguing is questionable, then it follows that their argument is questionable (cf. Dick Cheney suggesting that Richard Clarke was criticizing the administration because he was disgruntled and had a book to sell).
Appeal to tradition - attempting to persaude people that a course of action is correct only because "that's the way it's always been done" (cf. Suggestions that gay marriage is wrong because marriage has never been that way).
Argument from ignorance - suggesting that, because something is inexplicable or or because a person can't conceive of something, it must necessarily be false (cf. Creationists or Intelligent Design advocates who can't believe that natural selection must be responsible for human evolution, therefore natural selection must be wrong).
False dilemma - setting up a situation in which it is presumed that there are only two options, when in reality there are more than two options to choose from (cf. The O'Reilly Factor of Aug. 10, 2005, where O'Reilly asks Delores Kesterson, mother of a soldier killed in Iraq and supporter of Cindy Sheehan, "If you had to throw in with one person, President Bush or Michael Moore, if you had to make a decision on who I'm going to back here, who would it be?").
Guilt by association - suggesting that because A is related to B, then A and B are necessarily the same only because of their relationship (cf. Any conservative commentator who suggests that Cindy Sheehan is a "radical" because information about her appears on Michael Moore's website and because her P.R. is being funded by MoveOn.org).
Straw man - mischaracterizing an opponent's argument in such a way that a person claims that his opponent's opinion is A, which is easier to refute, when in fact his opponent's opinion is really B (cf. Suggesting that liberals hate America and refuting that opinion rather than refuting liberals' real opinion, which is that America's policies are wrong).
But there are plenty more logical fallacies out there. Please become familiar with them so that you can spot them in the wild.
The Republican Spin Machine, which consists largely of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and sometimes Ann Coulter, is kicking into gear over Cindy Sheehan. Sheehan's son Casey was killed in the double Black Hawk helicopter crash over Masul last year. After the crash, she met with President Bush and asked him why they went to war in the first place. Bush gave her the usual run-around about September 11 (which, you'll recall, did not involve Iraq) and freedom and so forth. Sheehan left her meeting with the president appalled by his attitude toward the Iraq War. Now, Sheehan is protesting the war at Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas. She had a dozen supporters when she started. There are currently over 200 people now protesting at the ranch.
On the Aug. 9, 2005 episode of The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly and his guest, syndicated Right Wing Mouthpiece Michelle Malkin, had nothing but wonderful things to say about Ms. Sheehan:
O'REILLY: Well, I have to say that she obviously does because she's the lead story on Michael Moore's Web site on an almost daily basis. And she knows -- I mean, Michael Moore isn't a subtle guy. Everybody knows where he stands.So I mean, I think Mrs. Sheehan bears some responsibility for this, and also for the responsibility of other American families who have lost sons and daughters in Iraq, who feel that this kind of behavior borders on treasonous.
So, here we have some things. First, any person appearing as a news item on Michael Moore's website, by association, believes all of the things that Michael Moore does. Appearing on Michael Moore's website makes one, metonymically, like Michael Moore. The Spin Machine is calling Sheehan's motives into question because of who she associates with -- or who they think she associates with. O'Reilly even used the word "handlers," suggesting that someone else is using Sheehan as a mouthpiece for a "radical" agenda. I'll call this "logical fallacy number one."
Second, "other American families [...] feel that this kind of behavior borders on treasonous." What's that? It's treasonous to go to Bush's ranch and demand that the war be stopped? Attempting to meet with a government official to ask that official to change his stance on an issue sounds a lot like, oh, I don't know, attempting "to petition the government for a redress of grievances." This phrase appears in the U.S. Constitution. As Mr. O'Reilly may or may not be aware, it is a right afforded to U.S. citizens. But there are some people out there -- legal experts, mostly, it seems -- who disagree with the obviously "activist" notion that Ms. Sheehan is exercising her constitutional rights. Or it could be that the Constitution itself is full of so many internal contradcitions that it must be thrown out in favor of a new system of government.
But, of course, this is not the first time that the Republican Spin Machine has circled the wagons around the Bush Administration or the Republican Party. Paul Hackett was a U.S. Marine who went to Iraq and came back disillusioned with the war. He joined the Democratic party and became involved with party politics. A seat in Ohio's Second Congressional District -- that's Cincinnati -- opened up two weeks ago when the previous holder of the seat was given a spot as a trade deputy or something like that. Hackett ran against Republican Jean Schmidt and lost, but only by about 3000 votes. The victory in what seemed to be one of the most Republican districts in the country was so slim that it scared Newt Gingrich into warning Republicans that the Democrats are gaining steam.
Hackett, though, who is a veteran of the Iraq War and who is critical of the Bush Administration, did not escape the wrath of the Republican Spin Machine. This time, the spin came from Rush Limbaugh. He had this to say of Paul Hackett's service to his country just this past week:
This Paul Hackett is a trial lawyer, folks [laughing]. He's a personal injury lawyer like John Edwards. And it appears that, you know, he goes to Iraq to pad the resumé, come back and run as a big supporter of the war, or at least finishing the project over there.
Goes to Iraq to pad the resume? This coming from a guy who didn't want to go to Vietnam, so he found a doctor who would say that he couldn't fight because of his anal cyst. When Limbaugh tells you he couldn't go to Vietnam because of "football knee," he's lying. In any case, Paul Hackett's service to the United States means nothing because he is a Democrat. And by the way, he obviously didn't care about the war; he was just trying to "pad the resume." Yes, folks, there's no easier way to make your resume look better than joining the Marines and going overseas to fight a war! I've been concerned lately about my resume. But, you know, I don't need to take classes to improve my credentials on my resume. There's a much easier way to do it than that. I'll just join the Marines because that's incredibly easy.
Fortunately, Hackett is a real straight-talking guy who doesn't let people like Limbaugh ruin his day. In discussing Limbaugh, Hackett referred to him as a "fat-assed pill-popper." I like him already. Why can't I live in Cincinnati? Oh, wait. Because it sucks.
This is what happened to former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill on Hannity and Colmes in January, 2004. He had a new book out called The Price of Loyalty in which he alleged that Bush had been planning to go to war with Iraq ever since he came into office. Here's what Hannity had to say about O'Neill:
But he was fired. He's obviously very bitter, very angry. So when people are angry and bitter, and they want to get back at people because he was embarrassed for having been fired, he may want to lash out in such a way.
So, Paul O'Neill's opinions can be chalked up to bitterness about being fired.
In 2000, rumors circulated in South Carolina that John McCain had adopted "a black baby." In reality, McCain's adopted daughter is from Bangladesh, but someone knew what buttons to push with South Carolina voters. Bush political strategist Karl Rove denied being behind the dirty tricks campaign, but reporters who investigated the issue concluded that Rove was responsible for spreading those rumors.
Former Georgia Senator and Vietnam veteran Max Cleland spent 2004 campaigning for John Kerry. Oh, and by the way, Cleland lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam after he picked up a live grenade. But that didn't stop Ann Coulter from saying, in a Feb. 11, 2004 column, "If Cleland had dropped a grenade on himself at Fort Dix rather than in Vietnam, he would never have been a U.S. Senator in the first place. Maybe he’d be the best pharmacist in Atlanta." Also, "He didn't 'give his limbs for his country,' or leave them 'on the battlefield. There was no bravery involved in dropping a grenade on himself with no enemy troops in sight."
Here is what actually happened to cause Max Cleland to lose three limbs, according to his commanding officer:
As they were getting off the helicopter, Max saw the grenade on the ground and he instinctively went for it. Soldiers in combat don't leave grenades lying around on the ground. Later, in the hospital, he said he thought it was his own but I doubt the concept of "ownership" went through his mind in the split seconds involved in reaching for the grenade. Nearly two decades later another soldier came forward and admitted it was actually his grenade. Does ownership of the grenade really matter? It does not.
The grenade was live and it exploded, causing him to lose two arms and a leg. Again, as with Paul Hackett and John Kerry, a person's service to the United States matters only if that person is (1) a Republican or (2) agrees with the Bush line.
In March, 2004, Vice President Dick Cheney personally went on Rush Limbaugh's show (and Rush claims that he's "just a talk show host") to smear former Bush counterterrorism expert Richard Clarke, who said before the 9/11 commission (and in a 2004 book, Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror) that the Bush Administration ignored repeated memoranda warning about al-Qaeda:
Q All right, let's get straight to what the news is all about now, before we branch out to things. Why did the administration keep Richard Clarke on the counterterrorism team when you all assumed office in January of 2001?THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I wasn't directly involved in that decision. He was moved out of the counterterrorism business over to the cyber security side of things, that is he was given a new assignment at some point here. I don't recall the exact time frame.
Q Cyber security, meaning Internet security?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes, worried about attacks on the computer systems and the sophisticated information technology systems we have these days that an adversary would use or try to the system against us.
Q Well, now that explains a lot, that answer right there explains -- (Laughter.)
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, he wasn't -- he wasn't in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff. And I saw part of his interview last night, and he wasn't --
Q He was demoted.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: It was as though he clearly missed a lot of what was going on. For example, just three weeks after the -- after we got here, there was communication, for example, with the President of Pakistan, laying out our concerns about Afghanistan and al Qaeda, and the importance of going after the Taliban and getting them to end their support for the al Qaeda. This was, say, within three weeks of our arrival here.
So I guess, the other thing I would say about Dick Clarke is that he was here throughout those eight years, going back to 1993, and the first attack on the World Trade Center; and '98, when the embassies were hit in East Africa; in 2000, when the USS Cole was hit. And the question that ought to be asked is, what were they doing in those days when he was in charge of counterterrorism efforts?
[. . .]
Q Well, I guess what I'm getting at --
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I've worked with a lot of them over the years. I suppose he may have a grudge to bear there since he probably wanted a more prominent position than she was prepared to give him.
As Paul Krugman noted in a Mar. 23, 2004 column, "What loop? Before 9/11, Mr. Clarke was the administration's top official on counterterrorism." It would be like Condoleezza Rice being "out of the loop" on foreign policy. When you're in charge of foreign policy, you are the loop! Of course, in the Bush Administration, a small, elite group of Bush acolytes does all the policymaking, so it's not surprising that they might shut out a voice that's saying something they don't want to hear.
And, of course, Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame. Here's what Coulter had to say about them:
The whole story was already nutty enough to be believed by every columnist at The New York Times. But then journalist Robert Novak revealed that Clown Wilson had been sent as an unpaid intern to Niger by his wife, a chair-warmer at the CIA who apparently wanted to get him out of the house. This in turn provoked our own Walter Mitty to accuse Karl Rove of outing his wife as an undercover "spy" in retaliation for his attacks on the Bush administration. (And P. Diddy told me Britney Spears is out to get me! I'm a spy too!)
Ann Coulter has also repeatedly said that "'Clown' Wilson was going around implying that he had been sent by the CIA and had reported to Dick Cheney's office." The Republican Spin Machine views this as evidence that he's a liar. In fact, Wilson has never claimed that he was sent anywhere by the vice president's office. He said that the Vice President was interested in his findings, but he has never said that Dick Cheney suggested sending him to Niger. In the July 13, 2005 Hannity & Colmes interview cited above, Coulter repeatedly refers to Joe Wilson as "Clown" Wilson.
Okay, so Ann Coulter might not be the mainstream of conservatism. Sean Hannity, on his June 24, 2005 WABC radio show, suggested that Valerie Plame wasn't an undercover operative, and not only that, but she wasn't even a very good not-an-undercover-operative. I have no quotation for this because I can't find a transcript of this show; it comes only from my memory, so take it as you will. All I know is that I heard Hannity talk about Plame this way as I was driving through the Sierra Nevada mountains, which works out to June 24. He also had a guest who was fervently agreeing with him. If anyone has a transcript of this show, it would be appreciated.
The reason the Republicans are winning the war of ideas in this country is that they have a large, coherent, strategically-operated network of syncophants who will repeat any lie, distortion, or smear in order to discredit someone, even if that person is actually right! The success of the Bush Administration is the goal of the Republican Spin Machine, and if that means discrediting administration officials who don't tow the line, grieving mothers, or war veterans, then so be it. As Karl Rove said of Valerie Plame after Joe Wilson published his New York Times op-ed in 2003, "She's fair game." That's the attitude we're dealing with, here.
One of the reasons the Republicans are winning so much these days is because they're more organized. The Republican Spin Machine, spearheaded by Karl Rove, is a powerful force that encompasses not only the White House, but all the conservative pundits out there. I'm convinced that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and Scarborough all get their marching orders every day from Rove's office. Whenever the administration comes under attack, all of these conservative commentators are there to sling mud at the attacker, decrying him or her as a liar, a shameless self-promoter, and probably a hater of America, as well.
Once it looked like Karl Rove might possibly be the leaky faucet in the White House plumbing, the Republican spin machine went into overdrive, lambasting both Valerie Plame and her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson. Plame, alleged Sean Hannity a few weeks ago on his radio show, wasn't really a "covert" agent, since everyone knew that she worked for the CIA. And besides that, she wasn't a very good agent, anyway. Her husband got his job investigating allegations of uranium sales in Niger only because of his connections to Plame, not because he was any good at his job. And by the way, he was a liar, since Niger tried a little bit to get some nuclear material from Niger. Sort of. In 1988, Iraq tried to establish commercial contacts with Niger for purchasing uranium, but Wilson regarded such a purchase as "highly unlikely."
In his 2003 State of the Union address, Bush said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." As it turns out, this information was based on forged documents, and what's more, both the British and American governments knew the documents were forged. The CIA advised Bush to remove this sentence from his speech, but he kept it in, anyway. This prompted Wilson to write his op-ed in The Washington Post in July of that year.
G. Gordon Liddy -- who is of course the authority on ethics (for the uninitiated, Liddy was one of the people in charge of Nixon's "dirty tricks" campaign and went to jail for his part in the Watergate break-in) -- had this to say about Plame on the July 12 Hannity & Colmes:
But I want to point out that people keep referring to Valerie Plame as a CIA operative. That is a term of art. It is by no means established that she's an operative. An operative is someone who works for the director of operations.My understanding is that she was in the agency at headquarters having to do with research and what have you on weapons of mass destruction. She was not an undercover operative operating out in the field, the kind of person that the statute seeks to protect.
Never mind, of course, the twenty years Plame had spent building up a network of informants. How many of them have been put in jeopardy because people know that she is a covert agent?
Back that train up!
Are we to believe that character assassinations and personal smears are to atone for what Karl Rove may have done? That being a liar or not a very good agent is on par with committing a federal crime?! I believe right now is the point at which conservative commentators have lost all connection to reality.
In deference to the law, of course, there is still a question as to whether or not any laws were broken. Was Plame really a "covert" agent? There is some question as to whether or not she was. The Intelligence Identity Protection Act of 1982, known to the ages as 50 U.S.C. 421, says the following:
Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Bob Novak was definitely "not authorized to receive classified information." Did Rove know that the information he disseminated "identifies such covert agent"? Most definitely. Was the United States "taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States"? That seems to be the question.
But Karl Rove (or someone within the administration) took it upon himself to endanger national security all in the name of "punishing" Joseph Wilson for writing an op-ed in The New York Times on July 6, 2003, in which he said, "I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat." On July 14, Novak wrote an editorial in The Chicago Sun-Times identifying Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as "an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction," information that was given him by "two senior administration officials."
The Republican machine is circling the wagons around Rove, trying to insulate him from attack and attempting to vilify the attackers. But the severity of Rove's crime, as compared with Plame and Wilson's poor character, makes the Republican attacks all the more trite. As Ed Schultz observed on his radio show a few days ago, Bush was quick to defend Attorney General Alberto Gonzales when conservatives attacked him for being too moderate a choice for the Supreme Court. Where is Bush now, when his mentor, Karl Rove, is in need? Rove is in big trouble, here, and the administration's official position is to keep quiet until something can be done. Back when there was no evidence linking Rove to this situation, Scott McClellan was more than happy to exonerate him; now that it looks like he might be involved, the administration has clammed up. Because it knows that Rove is guilty? Because they have gone on record as saying they would fire whoever leaked the information? Rove is the heart and soul of the new conservative revolution in America; if the administration were to fire him, it would suffer. If it didn't stand by its pledge to fire the leaker, it would take a hit in the accountability and credibility department.
Checkmate!
UPDATE: I found a great treatment of the whole affair at QandO, which advertises itself as a libertarian blog. It's a great treatment because it's actually objective. It notes that Joseph Wilson did exaggerate some of his assertions, but at the same time, it concludes that Joe Wilson lying or exaggerating is not nearly the same as Karl Rove exposing an undercover agent:
Well, there's wrong and there's wrong isn't there? I mean, granted Joe Wilson seems to have the same relationship with the truth that I have with the CHP officer that lives next door to me. I wave when I see him in the yard.But, really, why bring Valerie Plame into it? All Mr. Rove had to say was that the Vice President had nothing to do with Joe Wilson's Dark Journey, and the whole idea for Mr. Wilson to take a jaunt to Malaria Central came at the behest of the CIA. If Ms. Plame was a covert agent, there was no reason to mention her name.
You can call Joseph Wilson a liar all you want, but any lies he may have perpetrated aren't even in the universe of what Karl Rove may have done, and it's disingenuous at best to try and compare them.
I was watching Hannity and Colmes -- in fact, I'm watching it right now -- and one of their guests is Rep. Gary Miller (R-CA), one of the authors of the Citizenship Reform Act of 2005. Gary Miller and some other congressmen are very concerned that current U.S. citizenship laws allow children of illegal immigrants to become citizens. Title 8 of the United States Code governs who can and cannot become a citizen of the United States. Currently, any child born on United States soil automatically becomes a U.S. citizen. Miller and his friends, Hannity being one of them, is incensed about this. As such, Miller wants to amend Title 8 to read thus:
(d) For purposes of section 301(a), a person born in the United States shall be considered as 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States' if--(1) the child was born in wedlock in the United States to a parent either of whom is (A) a citizen or national of the United States, or (B) an alien who is lawfully admitted for permanent residence and maintains his or her residence (as defined in subsection (a)(33)) in the United States; or(2) the child was born out of wedlock in the United States to a mother who is (A) a citizen or national of the United States, or (B) an alien who is lawfully admitted for permanent residence and maintains her residence in the United States.
For purposes of this subsection, a child is considered to be 'born in wedlock' only if both parents are married to each other and parents are not considered to be married if such marriage is only a common law marriage.'.
Apparently, there are children of immigrants out there who are sponsoring their parents for citizenship! This cannot stand.
Interestingly, Miller noted that 120 other countries around the world have laws prohibiting people born on their soil from automatically becoming citizens. As quick as lightning, Colmes was on him for being a hypocrite. You see, conservatives don't like it when other countries' laws are used as support for our own laws (cf. Lawrence v. Texas), but apparently, as long as conservatives agree with the law in the first place, it's okay to use other countries' laws as support for our own! Hypocrite.
Gary Miller is, somehow, the U.S. Representative of the 42nd district, which includes Los Angeles county, Orange county, and and San Bernadino county. How did this guy get elected, again?
The bill, H.R. 698, is currently in the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims. Don't expect it to fly too well, since Bush has shown that he is fervently pro-immigration, and such a bill would alienate his Hispanic constituents.
Footnotes
* = title of this entry if written by Gary Miller and Sean Hannity
White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan had his ass handed to him by the White House Press Corps. It seems that they're finally realizing that they've been doing a terrible job of second-guessing the administration, and decided to take out three years of frustration yesterday at a White House press briefing.
There, they lambasted McClellan about reports that White House Deputy Press Secretary (and all-around sleazeball) Karl Rove may have been the person -- or one of the persons -- who told Bob Novak that Valerie Plame was an undercover CIA agent.
Here are some things that Scott McClellan told the Press Corps over the years. This statement is from an Oct. 10, 2003 press briefing:
Q Yes, Scott. Earlier this week you told us that neither Karl Rove, Elliott Abrams nor Lewis Libby disclosed any classified information with regard to the leak.I wonder if you could tell us more specifically whether any of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA.
MR. MCCLELLAN: Those individuals -- I talked -- I spoke with those individuals, as I've pointed out, and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this. And that's where it stands.
Q And none of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA.
MR. MCCLELLAN: They assured me that they were not involved in this.
Q Scott, to follow up?
MR. MCCLELLAN: Yeah, go ahead, Ed.
Q Not involved in what?
MR. MCCLELLAN: The leaking of classified information.
Q Did you undertake that on your own volition, or were you instructed to go to these --
MR. MCCLELLAN: I spoke to those individuals myself.
On Oct. 10, 2003, McClellan, after having spoken to those individuals himself, determined that none of those people leaked classified information.
Yesterday, he had some very different words for reporters:
Q Does the President stand by his pledge to fire anyone involved in the leak of a name of a CIA operative?MR. McCLELLAN: Terry, I appreciate your question. I think your question is being asked relating to some reports that are in reference to an ongoing criminal investigation. The criminal investigation that you reference is something that continues at this point. And as I've previously stated, while that investigation is ongoing, the White House is not going to comment on it. The President directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation, and as part of cooperating fully with the investigation, we made a decision that we weren't going to comment on it while it is ongoing.
Q Excuse me, but I wasn't actually talking about any investigation. But in June of 2004, the President said that he would fire anybody who was involved in this leak, to press of information. And I just want to know, is that still his position?
MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, but this question is coming up in the context of this ongoing investigation, and that's why I said that our policy continues to be that we're not going to get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation from this podium. The prosecutors overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference to us that one way to help the investigation is not to be commenting on it from this podium. And so that's why we are not going to get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation, or questions related to it.
Q Scott, if I could -- if I could point out, contradictory to that statement, on September 29th, 2003, while the investigation was ongoing, you clearly commented on it. You were the first one who said, if anybody from the White House was involved, they would be fired. And then on June 10th of 2004, at Sea Island Plantation, in the midst of this investigation is when the President made his comment that, yes, he would fire anybody from the White House who was involved. So why have you commented on this during the process of the investigation in the past, but now you've suddenly drawn a curtain around it under the statement of, "We're not going to comment on an ongoing investigation"?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, John, I appreciate the question. I know you want to get to the bottom of this. No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the President of the United States. And I think the way to be most helpful is to not get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation. That's something that the people overseeing the investigation have expressed a preference that we follow. And that's why we're continuing to follow that approach and that policy.
Now, I remember very well what was previously said. And at some point, I will be glad to talk about it, but not until after the investigation is complete.
Q So could I just ask, when did you change your mind to say that it was okay to comment during the course of an investigation before, but now it's not?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think maybe you missed what I was saying in reference to Terry's question at the beginning. There came a point when the investigation got underway when those overseeing the investigation asked that it would be their -- or said that it would be their preference that we not get into discussing it while it is ongoing. I think that's the way to be most helpful to help them advance the investigation and get to the bottom of it.
Q Scott, can I ask you this; did Karl Rove commit a crime?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, David, this is a question relating to an ongoing investigation, and you have my response related to the investigation. And I don't think you should read anything into it other than we're going to continue not to comment on it while it's ongoing.
Q Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003 when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliott Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this" -- do you stand by that statement?
MR. McCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation we're not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time, as well.
Q Scott, I mean, just -- I mean, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us after having commented with that level of detail and tell people watching this that somehow you decided not to talk. You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium, or not?
MR. McCLELLAN: And again, David, I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said, and I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation --
Q Why are you choosing when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate?
MR. McCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish --
Q No, you're not finishing -- you're not saying anything. You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke out about Joseph Wilson's wife. So don't you owe the American public a fuller explanation? Was he involved, or was he not? Because, contrary to what you told the American people, he did, indeed, talk about his wife, didn't he?
MR. McCLELLAN: David, there will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.
Q Do you think people will accept that, what you're saying today?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I've responded to the question.
Go ahead, Terry.
Q Well, you're in a bad spot here, Scott, because after the investigation began, after the criminal investigation was underway, you said -- October 10th, 2003, "I spoke with those individuals, Rove, Abrams and Libby, as I pointed out, those individuals assured me they were not involved in this." From that podium. That's after the criminal investigation began. Now that Rove has essentially been caught red-handed peddling this information, all of a sudden you have respect for the sanctity of the criminal investigation?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, that's not a correct characterization Terry, and I think you are well aware of that. We know each other very well, and it was after that period that the investigators had requested that we not get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation. And we want to be helpful so that they can get to the bottom of this, because no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the President of the United States. I am well aware of what was said previously. I remember well what was said previously. And at some point, I look forward to talking about it. But until the investigation is complete, I'm just not going to do that.
Q Do you recall when you were asked --
Q Wait, wait -- so you're now saying that after you cleared Rove and the others from that podium, then the prosecutors asked you not to speak anymore, and since then, you haven't?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, you're continuing to ask questions relating to an ongoing criminal investigation, and I'm just not going to respond any further.
Q When did they ask you to stop commenting on it, Scott? Can you peg down a date?
MR. McCLELLAN: Back at that time period.
Q Well, then the President commented on it nine months later. So was he not following the White House plan?
MR. McCLELLAN: John, I appreciate your questions. You can keep asking them, but you have my response.
Go ahead, Dave.
Q We are going to keep asking them. When did the President learn that Karl Rove had had a conversation with the President -- with a news reporter about the involvement of Joseph Wilson's wife and the decision to send --
MR. McCLELLAN: I've responded to the questions.
Q When did the President learn that Karl Rove had --
MR. McCLELLAN: I've responded to the questions, Dick.
Go ahead.
Q After the investigation is completed, will you then be consistent with your word and the President's word that anybody who was involved would be let go?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, after the investigation is complete, I will be glad to talk about it at that point.
Q And a follow-up. Can you walk us through why, given the fact that Rove's lawyer has spoken publicly about this, it is inconsistent with the investigation, that it compromises the investigation to talk about the involvement of Karl Rove, the Deputy Chief of Staff?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, those overseeing the investigation expressed a preference to us that we not get into commenting on the investigation while it's ongoing. And that was what they requested of the White House. And so I think in order to be helpful to that investigation, we are following their direction.
Q Scott, there's a difference between commenting on an investigation and taking an action --
MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Goyal.
Q Can I finish, please?
MR. McCLELLAN: You can come -- I'll come back to you in a minute. Go ahead, Goyal.
McClellan was actually flustered! The Press Corps actually kept pushing him until he finally stopped taking questions from people who wanted to talk about Karl Rove. Go, Press Corps!
Driving through the country is terribly lonely, which is why I have my good friend talk radio to listen to! Unfortunately, at any given time, Rush Limbaugh is on at least two stations in the same place, and there might be -- maybe -- one Air America station. Sometimes I just get fed up with listening to Rush and I want to listen to people who agree with me for a change. I couldn't find that today, so I put up with conservative talk radio.
Now that Sandra Day O'Connor has stepped down, there's a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court. So who will fill it? Conventional wisdom suggests that George W. Bush will nominate Alberto Gonzales, currently U.S. Attorney General, for the position. Gonzales is well qualified, having served on the Texas Supreme Court before. But he is disliked by both liberals and conservatives.
Conservatives -- especially neo-cons -- don't like him because he's too moderate. Gonzales is pro-choice and in favor of affirmative action, two positions that conservatives can't possibly agree on. Conservatives would rather have another Antonin Scalia on the court rather than an Alberto Gonzales. And who could blame them? Why put in a guy who actually objectively interprets the law when you could have a guy who lambasts his colleagues for bringing in extra-legal justifications for opinions while he does exactly the same thing that he berates his colleagues for? I'm speaking, of course, how Scalia despises using contemporary international values and other countries' court cases as support for U.S. Supreme Court opinions, while at the same time, the United States' Judeo-Christian (and Protestant Christian, at that) history and values are perfectly admissible as support for a court opinion. Conservatives want a conservatively activist justice, and if they tell you they don't, then they're lying. Conservatives can be just as activist as liberals, as witnessed by the Terri Schiavo incident, when all sorts of conservatives at every level of government tried to invent law that wasn't there, all for the sake of a glorified photo opportunity.
Liberals don't like Gonzales because he was one of the White House counsels who suggested that the U.S. didn't necessarily have to obey Geneva Convention guidelines about torture, since those who were captured were "enemy combatants" and not real soldiers. He actually referred to Geneva Convention prohibitions against torture as "quaint." Gonzales is a Bush yes-person. That's why he's in such a high office: Bush surrounded himself this second term with people who are loyal to him, people who will nod at whatever he says. Gonzales plays the Bush party-line, and that's somewhat frightening to liberals.
Is Gonzales a good choice? Of course! Gonzales will be a balancing force just as O'Connor was a balancing force. O'Connor was conservative, yes, but she was a moderate conservative. Packing another Scalia or Thomas on the court would be a terrible mistake, as it would skew the court's ideology to the right.
Bush appears to be leaning toward Gonzales, as he has suggested that people running ads denigrating Gonzales tone down their rhetoric. Bush likes Gonzales, and he doesn't want others to criticize him. My money's on Gonzales, and I think it will be money well-placed.
In a recent article on military recruiting in public schools, it was pointed out that a requirement of the NCLB act or the "Complicate an already complicated problem to the point of no return Act" is that schools receiving federal funding must make their students known and accessible to recruiters. Congratulations US military, you've now joined professional sports. Why is it that high schools and colleges have football and basketball teams? To promote unity and team whatever? No. Because the NBA and NFL are too cheap to set up proper developmental leagues. Why do many colleges not have baseball teams? Because MLB has already set up a minor league system where players may be drafted directly out of high school and get paid (albeit not very much) to develop. So for many high school athletes, football and basketball give them access to scholarships, and a way in to otherwise inaccessible universities. But what of those students not quite athletic enough, or smart enough to get other types of scholarships? Enter the US Army (Marines/Navy/everybody else). For a scant couple of years enlistment, you too can earn up to $40,000 for college! Doesn't that sound great. Of course there is some fine print (this is the army you may get to travel but most likely only to meet the opposing army and kill them but you dont care youre an army of one so join up and well send you to school or quite possibly that big war thats going on over there). But you're so excited by the possibility of getting money for college you completely ignore the fact that
But ignoring those facts, the army is a great way to get scholarships. And Ohio State spends so much money on their football stadium to promote "unity." Suuuuuuuuuuuure I'm well aware that the GI Bill brings an oppurtunity to people who otherwise might not be able to get such chances, but ... it's important to me to point out that dying is a distinct possibility.
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND PART DEUX
I apologize for shouting. Attention parents who lauded the NCLB Act. We in Congress have enacted a second amendment to this act. You see the teacher's unions weaseled their way into our pockets and so we've decided to tack on a second set of criteria. If your child is doing poorly in a class, the teacher will be disciplined. But from now on, so will you. If your child is failing math, clearly the teacher is not doing enough to reach your child. But this also shows that you have made your child difficult to reach. So instead of blaming the teacher and only the teacher (and of course we dare not blame the child) we'll blame you as well. If your child is failing one class, your property taxes will increase by one percent. 2 classes nets a 2 percent raise. And so on. This is to offset the extra time and effort expended by our schools to reach your child. If you would only spend a little more time with them, help them study, teach them to pay a little more attention in class. For you see, not all of our failing grades come from poor teaching. Your son/daughter happens to spend most of their time in class reading a magazine, listening to headphones, sleeping or playing a portable gaming system. Thusly we've decided to share the extra burden that they're placing on our schools with you. Our school budgets are tight enough as it is without your lump of clay hanging around. Oh sure, when they get to college you'll be fine, free ride for them in some sport or other, or else they'll drop out and go into porno, either way you'll be getting paid back the debt they accrue while failing basic english. Perhaps, and this is just a thought, instead of saying that all bad grades come from bad teaching you could quit using the school as a babysitter and do some goddamn parenting! We could drop sex education from our curriculum if you could promise to have a talk with your children that involves neither birds nor bees (unless of course you're freaky like that). Then you won't have to worry whether or not we're teaching abstinence only education (which works great, explaining why so many high school kids believe that oral is not a form of "real sex" and totally safe ... for sure). NCLB II is sure to turn a few heads. What about children with learning disabilities you may ask? Well I'm not here to mock anyone, but I'm sure your son or daughter will have no trouble paying attention at McDonald's/Hooters, where they'll have to work a few doubles to pay you back the bills they rack up while failing basic geography. A big part of No Child Left Behind claims that minority students often suffered the most in their schooling. Speaking on a grand scale, minority students are more likely to grow up in poverty than their white counterparts, and there parents are likely more concerned with getting food on the table than with their child's grade in math. Thusly the money collected will follow state welfare guidelines. If you're below the poverty level you will receive money to ease your burden allowing you to spend more time with your children. Yes, this is unfair. But screw you. You wanted accountability did you not? Then sell your damn SUV, get a car with some decent gas mileage (you Hummer/Rover fucks) hell, get a truck with decent gas mileage and save some damn money. Then you'll be able to work less, pay attention to your kids and .. you know, be a parent. You brought them here, they're your responsibility not ours. Do this and we won't cut out your goddamn eyes.
I've written about intelligent design several times before, and I will continue to write about it. As long as people consider intelligent design to be a valid scientific theory, I'll say that it isn't.
Because it's not.
Intelligent design forwards no hypothesis of its own. It merely calls into question natural selection, an existing hypothesis of how the evolutionary mechanism works. (Again, it is not evolution that is in question, here; it is the mechanism.)
Well, that's not entirely true. There are several theories advanced by intelligent designers, but they are not empirical. They use logic and reason to come to some sort of non-empirical, logic-based conclusion about the nature of evolution. But the point of intelligent design is not to come up with an alternative theory to natural selection; it's to publicly de-bunk natural selection. Intelligent design is very much a political front for conservative Christians who object to natural selection. Intelligent design never answers the obvious question "Who is the intelligent designer?" The de facto answer is that it is the Christian God, and everyone nudges and winks, since they all know this to be the case.
After hearing two weeks' worth of testimony calling Bush UN Ambassador nominee John Bolton's conduct into question, Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH), said, "I've heard enough today that I don't feel comfortable voting for Mr. Bolton." Voinovich has suddenly called Bolton's approval into question: with 10 Republicans on the Foreign Relations Committee and 8 Democrats, it seemed like it would be a 10-8 vote in favor of Bolton. Now, though, it could be a tie!
For breaking with party lines and voting the way a normal person should vote, George Voinovich is -- surprisingly (and despite all the bad he's done in the past) -- SEDHE's Hero of the Week!
[An op-ed written by one of my professors. I have corrected spelling mistakes which, for an English professor, probably shouldn't be there. --Mark.]
By Richard D. Erlich
American right-wingers make the same mistakes in complaining about liberal colleges and universities as they do in complaining about what Eric Alterman calls "the so-called liberal media." I'll start with media, since this piece appears in a news medium and readers can test my initial assertions without leaving your chairs.
First, the usual political right-wing analysis focuses on hard news and political news, which is clearly only a small portion of a newspaper or electronic "news" show. From a political point of view, the remaining media materials are like the graphite in an old atomic pile: a moderating influence, distractions from hard news. Changing the figure of speech -- but sticking with high-school physics -- most of a newspaper or news show just adds mass for a truly conservative (and often useful) inertia.
The entertainment section of the newspaper or programming most offends the Religious Right with its stress on sex and salaciousness. From the point of view of the Old Right, however -- the Right concerned with power and money -- the entertainment sections and show business generally are just fine: people who follow minutely the lives of Paris Hilton and Brad Pitt aren't out organizing unions or checking the voting records of their senators. From a seriously political point of view, the entertainment media are mostly distractions reinforcing the status quo.
Much of the remaining material is more actively conservative. Newspapers have business sections, not labor sections. Homemaking and style sections are aimed at women, reinforcing traditional roles. Those hundreds of thousands of advertisements and commercials -- and the real estate sections and automotive sections and electronics sections -- all carry the additional message: "Capitalism is good; consume, consume."
The doctrine, "If it bleeds, it leads," especially on television, actively functions to increase fears of street crime, when crime is handled, and distracts from issues that can be handled politically in stressing traffic accidents and "acts of God" such as floods and tornados.
When US media do show bleeding victims of war and other political violence, most of the victims shown are our people or our allies'; much less often do we see people killed, wounded, or maimed by US forces.
Second, the Right's stress on character often blinds them to the importance of context. In much right-wing theory -- e.g., President George W. Bush's, as he usually implies it -- good people do good things; bad people do bad things -- and liberal reporters twist news toward the liberal. Such concentration on character is fine for logic puzzles, where liars always lie and truth-tellers speak truth. The real world is more complicated, and real reporters operate in contexts, and with constraints, including constraints when they do report hard news.
Conventional analyses of political events, using familiar buzzwords, can be presented quickly and simply; unorthodox interpretations require more words. In a "sound-bite" media culture, you're not going to get much radical analysis; it takes too long to explain.
Editors assign stories to reporters, and publishers hire editors. What gets covered and what is considered news is mostly determined by the politics of editors and publishers, not by reporters.
Similar concerns apply to the right-wing analysis of American higher education.
Dedicated college students put in 50-60 hour weeks on their studies; that leaves about 108 hours per school week for sleep and other things even for dedicated students, and some 2/3 of college students don't put in anywhere near 40-hour workweeks. Most college students, during large parts of their waking time, are messing around with other college students in terms of a young-adult (sometimes old-child) sub-culture that participates enthusiastically in the larger American consumer culture.
What does liberalize students is what one of mine typified as the most important thing he learned in college: in his case learning, "Not everyone is Catholic." Real diversity among the student body is liberalizing, and, if social conservatives want to stop it, they should continue cutting subsidies and student aid and discouraging foreign students -- to make college again a place for rich Americans of the lighter shades of skin color, and genteel ideas about work.
Classes are not a crucial factor in most students' lives, and most classes are in fields in which political issues don't come up very directly, or, if they do, are handled in conservative ways. Most colleges have business schools; few have labor institutes. Many colleges have ROTC units; none teach techniques of armed insurrection, and there are few courses handling how to organize a protest march. And even in a radicalized English Department, teachers are going to have to spend much of their time on some pretty basic skills in reading and writing and can do our most radical work just introducing young Americans to logical thought. (Thinking skills, apparently, are not among the "basics" schools get back to.)
Insofar as character counts -- and it counts -- right-wingers underestimate professors' professionalism; more important, though, is underestimating the power of contextual constraints, and greatly overestimating the influence of school, period.
Surveys consistently indicate that most students are in college neither to change the world nor, primarily, to get an education. Most college students are in college for COLLEGE!: "The full collegiate experience," "fun and games," what Murray Sperber calls "Beer and Circus," along with getting a diploma and transcript good enough to get a decent job.
Even in those courses where liberal teachers may be teaching liberalism, most students will be learning-to give a generous meaning to the word learning-by the method of "cram and regurgitate," and we should take very seriously the image of regurgitation. To regurgitate information is different from chewing on an idea, deciding to swallow it, and then digesting it and assimilating it.
Example: My first semester teaching Rhetoric 101 at the University of Illinois (1966/67), all of my students were freshmen from either Illinois or New York State. A student chose for a definition exercise, "Treason," and began her essay, "In the United States, treason is" -- and proceeded to give her own, personal definition of treason. I gave a "Time Out" signal and told her she'd ruined her ethos, her credibility. "If you start out, 'In the United States treason is,' you've got to complete the sentence with the definition in the Constitution." Blank stares. "You can go on from there however you want, but treason is the one crime defined in the Constitution" (III.3.1). More blank stares. "Look," I said, "you're all from states that require you to pass an exam on the Constitution. You just passed the exam; you have to know this." Mutter from class (approximately): "We had the exam."
My position: They'd recently passed the exam; they had to have basic understanding of the Constitution. Their position: They had passed the exam, so why did I expect them to remember anything about the Constitution?
If your primary goal is to get a degree and decent transcript while having a good time in the last bit of freedom before moving on to the suckiness of US adulthood, "cram and regurgitate" makes excellent sense -- and that which is regurgitated is no longer with you.
Alternatively, consider a graffito in a bathroom stall in the business school building of Miami University: "The secret of success: Find out who Big Brother is; find out what Big Brother wants; do it." (Under that in another handwriting, "Marry Big Brother's daughter.")
Many students learn the precept, "Give authority figures what they want from you, to get what you want from them." Students will often give their occasional radical instructor radical views. When they get out into the business world, they'll give their bosses what those bosses demand.
If the politically inclined want a rule for what is crucial, try "Seize and hold the means of reinforcement," power over rewards and punishments. So long as the Right as a group controls so many of America's rewards and punishments, they will remain in control of America and don't have to fear that occasional radical teachers or liberal journalists will subvert the weak minds of innocent Americans. Most of us are occasionally illogical and often no more than semi-conscious, but most college grads try hard to figure out and serve our self-interest.
The joke in the late 1970s into the 1990s was that the deal in 1968 was that the Center and Right would get the Presidency, the Congress, the courts, the military, most business and industry, most of the media; and the Left would get the Berkeley English Department. The culture wars, the joke continued, was that now the Right wanted back the English departments.
The Right should relax. The media are largely theirs, and what isn't theirs is cultural, not directly political. And if the Powers That Be don't move deeply into student lives-a draft or significant interference with booze drinking-the campuses will remain, at most, a mild and long-range threat to their power.
Richard D. Erlich is a professor of English at Miami University (Oxford, OH), where he has worked since 1971.
Doug Ross called his criticism of my earlier post "Fisking." I had no idea what that meant, so I looked it up in Urban Dictionary. Apparently, it refers to taking apart an argument, paragraph by paragraph. I had been doing that for years in STF and had no idea that it had a name! (I guess it didn't have a name until recently.) Anyway, here are some things Ned had to say:
Cynical is an understatement. Yes, corporations will benefit from private accounts, and that does include CEOs. But so will average workers whose 401ks or IRAs hold these stocks, or John Doe who owns a mutual fund.
CEOs have much more money than "average workers" invested in stocks, either in other companies or their own companies. Stock options are very common for CEOs these days. An average CEO is 65,000 shares of company stock as part of his compensation package, reports Ron Kasznik of the Stanford Graduate School of Business. Furthermore, The Economist reports that 58% of the compensation of US CEOs in 2001 came in the form of stock options. Furthermore, only 1.7% of non-executive employees received stock options in 2001. (Source.) As for the "average worker," he probably doesn't own that much in stock. A New York University study showed that "the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans owned 33.6 percent of stock market wealth, while the poorest 80 percent owned less than 11 percent" in 2001. (Source.) Having stocks is all about quantity. The more stocks you have, the more money you make. If you have a few investments here and there, you're making chump change compared to people who own thousands and thousands of shares.
Come to think of it, more investment means these companies will have more capital. That translates into more jobs.
Only if these companies decide to transfer their increased revenue into hiring more workers. Giving corporations more money does not mean that they will hire more people. This same debate occurred in 2003 when Bush planned to lower the dividend tax from 38.1% to 15%. In response to a lower tax rate on dividends in 2003, a study found "an overall increase in dividend payments following enactment [of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003]." The study also found "that a firm’s dividend increases [were] positively correlated with the percentage of its shares held by individuals" (Source). I have not yet seen a study which purports that an increase in corporate revenue necessarily entails an increase in jobs.
Beyond that, what no one is mentioning is how this new reform is completely consistent with FDR's philosophy. The New Deal was one big experiement, and that includes Social Security. FDR once said "...this country needs bold, persistent experimentation. It is common sense to take a method and try it: If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something."
I'm certainly not a proponent of this. It's a terrible ideaa: "try something"? Even if it probably won't work? Even if it costs trillons of dollars, and economists agree that it won't solve the long-term problems with Social Security? Why not "try something" that will be guaranteed to work instead of trying the first idea that comes to mind? Shouldn't there be a commission created to look at the problems with Social Security and recommend solutions? There's a better idea. Social Security problems are not so dire that they will result in insolvency tomorrow. There's time enough to examine the problem and come up with a better solution.
And if you're cynical enough to believe that private accounts are sure-things for executives, then that means they are sure-things for every shareholder. You've just answered all the neighsayers who warn of Enron-style doom and gloom. Thank you for that.
They're sure things for executives because they have far more money invested in the system than the "average shareholder." It's not merely about having money; it's about how much money. Bush tax relief was supposed to be a great thing for John Q. Taxpayer, except that when you reduce individual income taxes for very wealthy people, they will tend to save their money rather than spend it. The Laffer hypothesis has been "rejected, including by a heavy majority of Republican economists," says Jeffrey Frankel of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. Theoretically, people who make a lot of money will inject more money into the economy when they get a tax break. In practice, that's not what happens. A three-percent tax cut for John Q. Taxpayer is much less in real dollar amounts than a three-percent tax cut for Warren Buffett. The amounts of the same percentage differ between small numbers and large numbers, and we are concerned with dollars, not percentages.
Ich bin ein Paul Krugmanner!
Writing an op-ed in The New York Times last Friday, Paul Krugman took Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan to task for his misguided support of George W. Bush's personalized Social Security system (please read about the system at Factcheck.org, in spite of what National Review may think of it).
I always thought Alan Greenspan was on our side. The Fed is a very independent body, usually immune to partisan politics. Yet, somehow, says Krugman, Greenspan "painted a dark (and seriously exaggerated) picture of the demographic problem, and said that what we need is a 'fully funded' system. He then conceded that Bush-style privatization would do nothing to improve the system's funding. [...] Mr. Greenspan went on to concede that the opponents of privatization are right to worry about the huge borrowing that Bush-style privatization would entail." And after all this, Greenspan still endorsed private retirement accounts! My old economics teacher, Mr. Allen, instilled in me a love for Greenspan and his objectivity. It has become increasingly apparent, however, that Greenspan is not as objective as Mr. Allen remembers him.
Okay, so the question is, why are we being told that the situation is so urgent that Social Security reform can't wait another second? In much the same way that we had to go to war with Iraq right now, we're being told that Social Security needs to be reformed right now. I'll buy that Social Security needs to be reformed, but does it have to be immediately? And if Greenspan is correct and Bush's privatization scheme won't do anything to solve Social Security's future insolvency problems, then why should we go along with the Bush plan?
To quote Hamlet, something is rotten in my refrigerator.
Or something like that.
First of all, private retirement accounts would only augment Social Security benefits, and only slightly at that. If everyone who could put money into private accounts did so, then the funds of the whole Social Security pool would decrease by that percentage, meaning that Social Security would be worse in the future for people without private investment accounts and slightly better for people with those accounts.
But let's pretend I don't care about other people. Screw them. They should have invested their money. But maybe I care about gigantic government budgets. It is estimated that $4.5 trillion will be required to finance the first twenty years of the privatization plan as funds are shifted around between the Social Security trust and private accounts. That's a lot of money to throw around for a project whose benefit is dubious at best. Let's be rational consumers, here: does marginal benefit equal marginal cost?
And then there's the timing. Why now? Why not last year? Wasn't it just as urgent then? Bush knows that this is his last four years (until they manage a constitutional amendment to give him four more years, leading us Where Many Dictatorships Have Gone Before), so he has to spend the "political capital" he made in the last election. Who stands to benefit the most from this privatization? The retiree who will get 4 or 5% more than he would without a private account? Where is his investment going? It's going into private corporations, of course. And as Americans buy stocks and mutual funds with their private investment dollars, the value of those stocks goes up. And the people who stand to gain the most from an increase in stock price are the people who have the most money invested in them: the executives of the corporations in question! So, under the Bush plan, Americans can only use their private investment money to purchase stocks in corporations A and B. The stock prices of corporations A and B go up as a result. The executives of corporations A and B see their portfolios increase in value tremendously thanks to an influx of the money from millions of Americans. And when Bush leaves office, where does he have a very cherry job waiting for him? Yes, that's right: corporations A and B are falling all over themselves to give him a position on their Boards of Directors, where he can earn millions of dollars to meet with a dozen other people in a posh conference room twice a month.
Cynical? Yes. It sounds like Bush is fabricating a crisis so as to fabricate a solution that benefits him and his friends at the end of the day.
And it's all for you.
The Los Angeles Times reports that "the Bush administration is fighting the former [Gulf War] prisoners of war in court, trying to prevent them from collecting nearly $1 billion from Iraq that a federal judge awarded them as compensation for their torture at the hands of Saddam Hussein's regime." Why? "Today's Iraqis are good guys, and they need the money." Want to know the definition of irony? Here it is:
Many of the pilots were tortured in the same Iraqi prison, Abu Ghraib, where American soldiers abused Iraqis 15 months ago. Those Iraqi victims, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has said, deserve compensation from the United States.But the American victims of Iraqi torturers are not entitled to similar payments from Iraq, the U.S. government says.
Deputy Sleazeball Scott McClellan had this to say about the case when asked about it in 2003: "No amount of money can truly compensate these brave men and women for the suffering that they went through at the hands of this very brutal regime and at the hands of Saddam Hussein."
With this action, the U.S. government is in violation of the Geneva Convention, which says that a state can never absolve another state of liability for the torture of POWs.
This past Wednesday, George W. Bush gave his State of the Union address to Congress. The president must report to Congress every year, and most presidents use this opportunity to disseminate their agendas for the next year. Bush's State of the Union was no different.
Domestic issues
Bush tackled domestic issues after reporting that "the state of our union is confident and strong." The first item on his agenda was a budget for the next year which "holds the growth of discretionary spending below inflation, makes tax relief permanent and stays on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009." But how does Bush expect to increase military spending while cutting the deficit in half? "My budget substantially reduces or eliminates more than 150 government programs that are not getting results or duplicate current efforts or do not fulfill essential priorities," he says. Ah, of course! Domestic programs will take a back-seat to the War on Terr' (that's not a typo; imagine saying "war on terror" with a Texas accent). No word yet on what government programs will be cut. Probably programs for poor people and minorities. And babies.
Bush then talked about job-training and giving money to community colleges. He also talked about "rewarding entrepreneurs" by "free[ing] small businesses from needless regulation." Bush likes to trump up the folktale of the "small businessman," but the truth is that multinational corporations are far more prevalent and make a lot more money in the United States than the "small businessman." Besides, it's hard to be a small businessman with Super Wal-Mart taking your customers and destroying your town. Bush will also "protect honest job creators from junk lawsuits," meaning that his administration will work to protect multinationl corporations from lawsuits, "junk" or not. Good for him.
He then talked about medical liability reform, which isn't a terribly big issue in reality, but one that his friends at insurance companies would love to see dealt with. They're paying out so much money, it's hard to make a profit!
Then Bush said this:
Nearly four years ago, I submitted a comprehensive energy strategy that encourages conservation, alternative sources, a modernized electricity grid and more production here at home, including safe, clean nuclear energy.My Clear Skies legislation will cut power-plant pollution and improve the health of our citizens.
And my budget provides strong funding for leading-edge technology, from hydrogen-fueled cars to clean coal to renewable sources such as ethanol.
Four years of debate is enough. I urge Congress to pass legislation that makes America more secure and less dependent on foreign energy.
Let's redact that. Four years ago, Bush submitted a comprehensive energy strategy that encouraged alternative sources a little bit, but ultimately concluded that we should continue using fossil fuels. His Clear Skies legislation lessened pollution requirements, taking them back to levels not seen since the 1970s, and allowed busineses from one state to buy and sell pollution credits, allowing a business in one state to consume the balance of unused pollution credits from a business in another state. "Clear Skies," like "Healthy Forests" and "No Child Left Behind," is an Orwellian-titled piece of legislation which actually does the opposite of what it says it does.
Bush wants to reform the tex system (not going to happen) and reduce restrictions on immigration (not a bad idea, actually).
But the centerpiece of his domestic agenda Wednesday night was Social Security reform. He painted a picture of a system barely clining to life:
Today, more than 45 million Americans receive Social Security benefits, and millions more are nearing retirement. And for them, the system is sound and fiscally strong.I have a message for every American who is 55 or older: Do not let anyone mislead you. For you, the Social Security system will not change in any way.
For younger workers, the Social Security system has serious problems that will grow worse with time.
Social Security was created decades ago, for a very different era. In those days, people did not live as long, benefits were much lower than they are today, and a half century ago, about 16 workers paid into the system for each person drawing benefits.
Our society has changed in ways the founders of Social Security could not have foreseen. In today's world, people are living longer and therefore drawing benefits longer. And those benefits are scheduled to rise dramatically over the next few decades.
And instead of 16 workers paying in for every beneficiary, right now it's only about three workers. And over the next few decades, that number will fall to just two workers per beneficiary.
With each passing year, fewer workers are paying ever-higher benefits to an ever-larger number of retirees.
So here is the result: Thirteen years from now, in 2018, Social Security will be paying out more than it takes in. And every year afterward will bring a new shortfall, bigger than the year before.
For example, in the year 2027, the government will somehow have to come up with an extra $200 billion to keep the system afloat. And by 2033, the annual shortfall would be more than $300 billion. By the year 2042, the entire system would be exhausted and bankrupt.
(AUDIENCE BOOS)
If steps are not taken to avert that outcome, the only solutions would be dramatically higher taxes, massive new borrowing or sudden and severe cuts in Social Security benefits or other government programs.
I've included "audience boos" because the audience actually booed! Last year, Democrats booed during the applause, but this is the first time I've ever since Bush -- or any president, for that matter -- booed while he was still talking! Democrats hate Bush's Social Security reforms, probably because, in the wake of their loss in November, they have to rally behind something, and opposition to Social Security reform is the best shot they have in lieu of developing an actual platform.
Factcheck.org reports that Bush's dystopic predictions are not entirely true. Factcheck reports that Bush's estimate, which comes from the Social Security Administration, is not as dire a prediction as the Congressional Budget Office's. CBO says that Social Security depletion won't occur until 2052 and "figures that the benefits cuts wouldn't be so severe, a reduction to 78% of promised benefits." Either way, the system wouldn't be "bankrupt" in the sense that a person can go bankrupt; Bush is using deceptive vocabulary. The system would still pay out benefits, but it would spend more than it takes in.
To read more about Bush's mischaracterization of Social Security reform, read the article entitled "Bush's State of the Union: Social Security 'Bankruptcy?'" at Factcheck.org.
After talking about Social Security, Bush renewed his pledge to opposte federal funding for embryonic stem cell research that does not utliize one of the few existing lines of stem cells. He talked about the spectre of "judicial activism" (meaning that contemporary culture is not a valid legal argument for re-interpreting past legal interpretations, but "tradition," "values," and "Western civilization" are perfectly acceptable arguments against altering a previous interpretation of a law to reflect changes in society since then. Brown v. Board of Education, by the way, was considered "activist" by Southern states that didn't want to integrate schools).
He also announced his support for a federal constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage. Thanks, George. It would be the first amendment that takes away rights from a group of people. Welcome to Germany, 1933.
Foreign policy
He then transitioned smoothly into a discussion of foreign policy, all of which constitutes the War on Terr'. He talked a lot about freedom (a word he uses so much that it's starting to lose its meaning; what about freedom for homosexuals? Nope, they're not real people. Next question, please).
Nevertheless, "The United States has no right, no desire and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else." I don't know how to explain this one as anything but a lie. If we are working for freedom, and the United States model is the best model for freedom, then we must necessarily impose our form of government on others.
Is Bush going to Iran? "Today, Iran remains the world's primary state sponsor of terror -- pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve. We are working with European allies to make clear to the Iranian regime that it must give up its uranium enrichment program and any plutonium reprocessing and end its support for terror." It still remains to be seen whether or not they're making nuclear weapons.
He ended his address with one of his trademark "Let me tell you about a guy I know, I guy like you and me" stories. The story was about a girl named Safia whose father was assassinated by Saddam. She finally got to vote in Iraq, and they flew her into Washington so she could be present as an example of what a good job Bush is doing.
The next four years will be difficult ones for people who believe in individual liberty, human rights, and don't believe in pre-emptive or opportunistic warfare. At least he can't get elected again. Unles they pass a constitutional amendment.
Elizabeth has been accosting me, accusing me of being a centrist. It's probably because I called myself a centrist, for lack of a better term.
So what do I believe?
First, I avoid labels like "Democrat," "Republican," or even "Socialist" or "Libertarian." I do not want to be pigeon-holed into a particular way of thinking, or giving others the impression that I am a "Democrat," which then presents them a whole buffet of assumptions about me that they can pick and choose.
"Centrists can decide the best political course of action based on the issue instead of the ideal to which they cling," writes Elizabeth. That's exactly right. When I make a decision, I don't make that decision based on whether or not I am a Democrat or a Republican, but based on how I personally feel about an issue. This results in my opinions being conservative in some cases (I am not opposed to allowing some people to invest part of their social security money) and liberal in others (we should legalize marijuana because it's no more harmful -- and even less so -- than alcohol, a legal drug). To say I am a "Democrat" would be a misnomer, because I often disagree with the Democrats. To say I am a Republican would be similarly wrong, because I often disagree with the Republicans (although in truth, I probably disagree with the Republicans more than the Democrats). The effect of my decisions is that I usually end up on the liberal side of the political spectrum, but this is not because I have a liberal ideology, but rather that my beliefs often lead me to the more liberal opinion about an issue.
Plato believed in a theory of transcendent ideals. A chair is a chair because it is a copy of the perfect form "chair" which exists in some supernatural, transcendent realm. Aristotle said that a chair is a chair because we call it a chair; everything that matches our conception of a chair is called a chair. In terms of politics, this means that Plato would say that first a political party exists and we then attempt to mimic the opinions of this party: "I am a Democrat and will follow Democrat beliefs." Aristotle would say the opposite, that our political beliefs exist first, and we then ascribe a name to them: "My beliefs make me a Democrat."
To the latter statement I have no objection. If you, as a person, have thought long and hard about your beliefs on individual issues, and you more often than not end up on the conservative end of things, you may safely say that you are a Republican. For this reason, I might call myself "liberal," since more often than not, my opinions end up on the liberal end of the political spectrum.
To the former statement, I have some question. "I am a Democrat; therefore, I should believe X." To adhere to an ideology is cause for concern, since adhering to an ideology denies that each person's beliefs vary. No one can adhere completely to the party-line.
Looks like Tom Ridge is on his way out of the Department of Homeland Security. Giuliani is going to get that job so hard; I can feel it!
We all knew it was coming. Secretary of State Colin Powell announced today that he will be resigning his post come George W. Bush's second term. In private, Powell had long been a critic of some of Bush's policies, but in public, it was he who frequently had to go out on damage control when the administration made an international blunder. It was Powell who delivered an address to the United Nations in early 2003 in which he promoted the president's war in Iraq.
Three other cabinet officials are planning to announce their resignations today: Agriculture Secretary Ann Venneman, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham and Education Secretary Rod Paige.
Expect former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani to get a cherry cabinet position. He's been Bush's lap-dog for the last three years, campaigning for him tirelessly and reminding us that it was Bush who led the nation on September 11. I watched Giuliani on CNN on election night and he claimed that what he really wanted was to keep going about his regular job "across the street" (he is now the head of a security consulting firm in New York City) and that he didn't want a cabinet position. Pardon my French, but bullshit! Giuliani's been pushing for Bush for three years; does he expect us to believe that he's been doing it out of the goodness of his heart? Of course not! His strict adherence to the Bush line will be rewarded with a cabinet-level position, most likely Secretary of Homeland Security (that position is a PR one, anyway, and such a public and well-known figure as Giuliani would do the job more effectively than the unknown Tom Ridge). Mark my words here: Giuliani will be given a cabinet-level position, most likely as Secretary of Homeland Security.
Attorney General John Ashcroft handed in his resignation yesterday, ending his four-year Reign of Terror and ensuring that he won't be coming back for Round Two. Ashcroft cited ill health as one of his reasons for leaving, but did not mention that he was unpopular and frequently the object of criticism toward the administration.
Here's what one of my friends wrote to tell me:
So why'd I vote for Bush? Well. I'll try to give you a good answer. First you should know this is the first election I voted in. I don't remember if I was able to vote in 2000, but I didn't vote either way. The main politcal reasons I voted for Bush are because of terrorism. I wanted to make sure he stayed in office. Most of my friends felt the same way. There were PLENTY of people I know that disagreed. I was truthfully worried. But, no matter what you think of him, what kind of mistakes you think he made, you *have* to agree he sticks to his word. I won't argue about the details, or any supposed mistakes huge, or miniscule. Politcally I will [concede] that Iraq was a mistake. There were no WMDs, no biological weapons, etc. But for the world, and the Middle East it will be better -- eventually. I wouldn't want to die in Iraq myself, but truth be told 1,000+ americans died so far. Truth be told, we NEVER hear how many Iraqi's soldiers or insurgents we've killed. A life is a life, but war is war, and we are winning with ease. Truth be told, I would go to Iraq and die if my country asked me want or otherwise. My country is the USA. People hate us for who we are. I love us, for who we are.Other reasons I voted for Bush must be related to the same reason I voted for the amendment [Ohio's amendment to ban same-sex marriage]. Call me conservative, or traditional, or an idiot :-) but I don't believe in marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. As an aside, have you seen the commericals on MTV with the two hotdogs cooking, or the [two] doughnuts next to each other that urged people to "think about it"? That just about made me physically ill.
I try not to be biased, or political. I became republican somehow. Sometimes that confuses me because I hate religion. But I more about working for what you want than having it handed to you. Tests show that I'm really a Libertarian. But when it comes time to vote, that's a waste of a vote. I do lean right, so that's the way I have to go.
I found this via Scott's AIM profile. I thought it was very witty, but he admitted that he had actually found it on Metafilter:
While you were re-electing a president:Senator-elect Jim DeMint: Thinks that unwed pregnant women and gays are unfit to be schoolteachers.
Senator-elect Tom Coburn: Wants the death penalty for abortion doctors.
Senator-elect John Thune: Mr. School Prayer Amendment.
Voters in 11 states voted to ban same-sex marriage. The lowest margin was 57%-43%. The highest (Mississippi) was 86%-14%. Kentucky's also bans civil unions. That one was 75%-25%.
The Senate will likely be split 55-45 in favor of Republicans, creeping closer to a filibuster-proof supermajority. Meanwhile, 89% of these guys are older than 65.
Enjoy your tax cut, America. You're going to need it.
I described neo-cons to Matt the other day as "the Zulu when you're playing Civilization III. Give me some wine ... or I'll kill you!" It's a funny statement with some truth, like my insistence that Ayn Rand hates babies and poor people. In seriousness, though, what the heck is a neo-con?
Irving Kristol, a self-described "'godfather' of all those neocons," offers an explanation of what neoconservatives believe.
Tax cuts
Neoconservatives, says Kristol, believe in tax cuts "in order to stimulate steady economic growth. [...] It is a basic assumption of neoconservatism that, as a consequence of the spread of affluence among all classes, a property-owning and tax-paying population will, in time, become less vulnerable to egalitarian illusions and demagogic appeals and more sensible about the fundamentals of economic reckoning." In other words, we're not going to have a socialist utopia, so suck it up and live with what you've got. Neoconservatives have no illusions about attempting to level any playing field; that's far too idealistic.
The role of the state
Like Libertarians, neocons aren't too keen about a large and bulbous state ... that is to say, a large welfare state. The growth of the state, says Kristol, is "natural, indeed inevitable." Neocons like strong government, but not intrusive government. This is where they depart from Libertarians, who would suggest that, at its maximum, the government should protect people from harming other people.
Culture
Neocons, unlike Libertarians, place a stake in what they call "culture." Whereas true Libertarians don't care a whit about what individuals do or say, neocons care a good deal. Neocons are traditionalists who are concerned with "the quality of education, the relations of church and state, the regulation of pornography, and the like, all of which they regard as proper candidates for the government's attention." An unintrusive government ... for other people.
Foreign policy
My comments about the Zulu come from this portion of the neocon belief system. Here's what Kristol has to say about foreign policy, because it's better than my paraphrasing:
First, patriotism is a natural and healthy sentiment and should be encouraged by both private and public institutions. [...] Second, world government is a terrible idea since it can lead to world tyranny. International institutions that point to an ultimate world government should be regarded with the deepest suspicion. Third, statesmen should, above all, have the ability to distinguish friends from enemies. This is not as easy as it sounds, as the history of the Cold War revealed. The number of intelligent men who could not count the Soviet Union as an enemy, even though this was its own self-definition, was absolutely astonishing.
Neocons are fiercely patriotic, and a world government is a thrat to that patriotism. The third item there, that statesmen should have the ability to distinguish friends from enemies, points to the sometimes simplistic nature of neocon arguments, best summed up in his September 20, 2001 speech when George W. Bush declared to the world, "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists." The creation of a strictly bipolar world makes knowing who your enemy is very easy: obviously, if he's not with you, he's necessarily against you. This worldview works well in kindergarten, perhaps, but definitely not multilateral policymaking.
The issue of "when do we attack our enemies?" is made quite clear: "[T]he United States will always feel obliged to defend, if possible, a democratic nation under attack from nondemocratic forces, external or internal. That is why it was in our national interest to come to the defense of France and Britain in World War II. That is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today, when its survival is threatened." Democracy under attack anywhere in the world automatically involves the United States, as the world's largest and most powerful democratic nation. No word from Donald Rumsfeld on when we'll be attacking China, or why we didn't attack them already.
In the end, neoconservatives are also ultra-conservatives. They are a new and more powerful breed of conservative, just like the genetically-enhanced vampires of Blade 2. Unlike the Libertarians, they are socially conservative as well as economically conservative. At the same time, though, they are willing to spend billions of dollars not only for the common defense, but also for the advancement of their social agenda. Neoconservatism will be the watch-word for the next four years, so get used to it until the Democratic party thinks up something that can take it down in 2008.
Dan Gilmor wrote earlier today about what a Bush win means for America:
The Republicans have an even stronger congressional majority. They have shown how gladly ruthless they can be in using their power. Bush and his allies have never believed in compromise. They have even less incentive to govern from the middle now, even though the nation remains bitterly divided.There's no secret about what's coming. We don't have that excuse this time.
Here comes more fiscal recklessness -- as we widen the chasm between the ultra-wealthy and everyone else, cementing a plutocracy into our national fiber, we'll pay our national bills on the Treasury Bill credit card for the next few years. Many economists expect a Brazil-like financial crisis to hit the U.S. before the end of the decade. If we muddle our way though the near term, we'll still have left our kids with the bill.
Here comes an expansion of the American empire abroad, a fueling of fear and loathing elsewhere on the globe. This is also unsustainable in the end. Empire breeds disrespect.
Our civil liberties will shrink drastically. This president and his top allies in Congress fully support just one amendment in the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment's right to bear arms. Say goodbye to abortion rights in most states. Roe v. Wade will fall after this president pushes three or four Scalia and Thomas legal clones onto the Supreme Court. Say hello, meanwhile, to a much more intrusive blending of church and state.
The environment? We'll be nostalgic for Ronald Reagan's time in office.
This is not sour grapes. This is reality.
Expect an increase in theocracy in the United States. Evangelical Christians turned out in great numbers to show support for Bush. Why? Because they both have the same agenda. They see nothing wrong with incorporating their own moral beliefs into the secular law of the United States. We see this manifested in the John Ashcroft Justice Department, Ohio's brand-new constitutional amendment (along with constitutional amendments in ten other states that outlaw homosexual marriage), the official government policy on stem cell research, and the official government policy on sex education. People who voted for Bush voted for him because of these social issues. They want to see their moral beliefs become the law of the land, and now they will, since Bush can pull out all the stops in the next four years.
Expect Bush to, as Gilmor says, expand the American empire abroad. The neo-conservatives in the Bush administration no longer have to justify their actions to anyone. They've got four years of a blank check to do whatever they want just by invoking the "T" word followed by the "S" word. Talks with North Korea? Invade 'em! Iran enriching uranium? It must be for nuclear weapons. Invade 'em! To hell with what the United Nations thinks -- if they disagree with us, they're "irrelevant." Until we need to repair the countries that we broke, in which case, we'll come to them begging for assistance.
America has become a more conservative country. The worst part is that it's not an overwhelming conservatism. It's only a 3% difference between Bush and Kerry in terms of the popular vote. The people of conservative philosophy out there outnumber the people of liberal philosophy by only a few million. If this country doesn't tear itself apart in the next four years, I'll be surprised.
And you, the people who read this blog that voted for Bush, why did you do it? I'm really serious: I want to know why you voted for Bush. Post your comments. Give me some insight. I demand well-reasoned defenses of your vote for Bush as opposed to Kerry. I want to understand why someone would vote for George Bush, given what the last four years have brought us. Or maybe I can't understand.
Using exit polling, CNN has been able to provide some data on just who's voting for whom. Some highlights:
The verdict is in: Ohio sucks! Ohio's Issue 1, an amendment to the Ohio constitution which would prohibit gays from getting married and prevent the state or any other state institution (like a public university or municipality) from conferring marriage-like rights on gay or unmarried couples:
Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.
Issue 1 passed by a frightening majority. CNN reports its passage at 3,242,160 (62%) to 2,010,876 (38%). Bob Novak was correct when he said on CNN last night, "America is a conservative country." We have been since 1994, when the mid-term elections caused a giant upset as Congressional seats switched sides, state governments were overthrown, and Newt Gingrich thought he had a mandate to set things on fire (remember the Contract With America?). Expect an exodus of intelligent people out of Ohio.
And of all the places in Ohio to find some decency -- Cincinnati? Yes, The Cincinnati Post reports that voters overwhelmingly chose to repeal Article XII, a provision of the Cincinnati city charter which explicitly allows discrimination based on sexual orientation.
And what of the election? As of this writing, Ohio has become the next Florida, with Bush in the lead there by 136,221 votes. The controversy in Ohio stems from the ingenious "provisional ballots" that have yet to be counted. (If a person in Ohio was denied the right to vote when he showed up at his polling place, he could fill out a provisional ballot which would be counted if further research showed that he did have the right to vote.) Ohio state law gives precincts eleven days to count provisional ballots, so we could be here for a while. Fortunately, the issue here is a matter of time and not legitimacy as in 2000. (And, thankfully, Nader was tossed off the ballot in Ohio.)
Nationwide, CNN reports that Bush has 58,301,702 votes to Kerry's 54,784,298 votes. Bush has 254 electoral votes, while Kerry has 252. Iowa, New Mexico, and Ohio are still up in the air. In Iowa, Bush has the lead by 15,625 votes; in New Mexico, Bush is ahead by 11,620 votes; and of course, in Ohio, Bush is ahead by 136,221 votes. Here's what could happen: if Bush wins Ohio, that will give him 274 electoral votes and the win. If Kerry wins Ohio, that will give him 272 electoral votes and the win. Ohio is key here, and it looks like it will be going to Bush.
FOXNews has a different projection. They have Bush at 269 votes and Kerry at 242 votes, having already called Ohio for Bush. If Kerry wins all the "too close to call" states, that will give him 27 electoral votes, and the score will be tied 269 to 269. In that instance, the House of Representatives will decide who the new president is once they reconvene in January. The House has a Republican majority, so Bush will win the election there (is there any doubt now that the electoral college is a bad idea?).
Any way you count it, only a miracle will give Kerry the win. In the meantime, Ohio is returning to the nineteenth century. Mark my words: Issue 1 will hurt Ohio businesses as young, hip, intelligent, and tech-enabled people decide to move somewhere more progressive, turning Ohio into more of a backwoods swamp.
Republicans in the Ohio have been priming for election day by preparing to contest voter eligibility in every county in the state. Under Ohio state law, an observer may contest the eligibility of a voter if he believes that voter to be ineligible to vote. The goal was for the Republican party to have observers in every county, ready to contest eligibility. It takes time to prove eligibility, which means longer wait times, which means longer lines. When people see longer lines, they get discouraged and leave. That's the Republican plan.
Hamilton County resident Marian Spencer and others filed suit against Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, attempting to get Blackwell to prohibit challengers at polling places. (Blackwell, as Secretary of State, would be the only person in a position to deliver such an order, since the Secretary of State is in charge of elections.) The case was decided on November 1 in the U.S. Court of the Southern District of Ohio. It is called Spencer v. Blackwell.
Spencer contends that the Republican party is attempting to surreptitiously disenfranchise African-American voters, since
of the 251 challengers listed in Plaintiffs' exhibit 3, two-thirds of them filed to be challengers in predominantly African-American precincts. The evidence presented at the hearing reflects that 14% of new voters in a majority white location will face a challenger listed in Plaintiffs' exhibit 3, but 97% of new voters in a majority African-American voting location will see such a challenger.
Whoa! That's quite a disparity! Republicans (and yes, they are Republicans, as represented by the Hamilton County Republican Party) are challenging African-American voters because most African-Americans vote Democrat.
Also at issue was the procedure for challenging a voter, as there is no uniform standard for who a challenger may challenge, except that "challengers may challenge only in good faith and may not blanket challenge or randomly challenge voters." In spite of this "good faith" instruction sent to all precincts by Secretary Blackwell, the District Court notes that "[t]here are no guidelines or directions regarding what constitutes a good faith challenge nor what quantum of delay is sufficient to exclude a challenger from the polls nor what behavior may be intimidating to voters."
Spencer argues that Ohio's law allowing voters to challenge other voters "places an undue burden on voters and impedes their right to vote." The court agreed that challengers -- who have never before entered polling places -- could present a problem through intimidation and backing up lines. (The statute allowing voters to challenge other voters is a little-known statute exploited just in this election.) It went on further to declare the statute unconstitutional, since it was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. The court issed an injuncion barring challengers from appearing at polling places. No doubt this will be appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, conveniently located right in Cincinnati!
Most interestingly, Scott informed me that Republicans in the state of Florida are not contesting registration in largely Hispanic precincts there, since Hispanics Cuban immigrants tend to vote Republican! I've gotten quite sick of Republican tricks to try and get people to not vote. What does this say about them? That's they're willing to resort to cheating and dirty tricks, circumventing the fair electoral process just to get their candidate elected? It also shows that they're scared, that they don't trust their candidate to garner the votes fairly, on his own, without any foul play. It's like Nixon all over again.
Living as close to Cincinnati as I do, I take a vested interest in what's happening in Porkopolis. Issue 3 is very interesting and it's sparked a lot of controversy during this election.
Back in 1993, Cincinnati City Council passed -- and ostensibly, the voters approved -- an amendment to the city charter known as Article XII. It reads thus:
The city of Cincinnati and its various boards and Commissions may not enact, adopt, enforce or administer any ordinance, regulation, rule or policy which provides that homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, status, conduct, or relationship constitutes, entitles, or otherwise provides a person with the basis to have any claim or minority or protected status, quota preference or other preferential treatment.
The rest of the charter prohibits discrimination against other minorities, but this amendment to the charter specifically removes that prohibition for one particular group: homosexuals. Why would Cincinnati do this? Well, why does Cincinnati do any of the things it does? People who live there tell me that this kind of stuff is typical of the bigotry and narrow-sightedness that exists there.
Now, the Chamber of Commerce and other groups have collected enough signatures to put this issue on the ballot: repeal Article XII or no? The Chamber of Commerce wants it gone because Article XII hurts business:
"We think it's bad for business in terms of lost business in the convention area. We think it's bad for business in limiting our ability to recruit talent and keep the best talent," said Michael Fischer, of the Greater Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce, "in particular in the young and creative class." (Source)
Man, you should see the commercials they've come out with. An anti-Issue 3 group has come out with advertisements insisting that repealing Article XII constitutes "special rights." These commercials feature a smarmy woman talking about how Issue 3 is about "special rights," and she concludes, "What part of 'no' don't they understand?" She needs to be punched in the mouth.
Opponents of Issue 3 insist that discrimination based on sexual orientation is a moral issue, not a legal one, and that equating the black civil rights movements of the 1960s with the current gay civil rights movements is incorrect. Here's what proponents of Article XII have to say:
Nothing in the present law prevents any member of the Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce from hiring anyone who is sexually deviant. Again, what the proposed Issue 3 would do, is to enable City Council to pass an Ordinance to deny basic freedoms to everyone else: The Freedom to not hire those whose personal conduct is deemed offensive or immoral; the Freedom to determine who will come on one's own property; the Freedom to practice Biblically based Western Religion.We are not suggesting reviving the stoning pits of the Old Testament. But one certainly has a right not to be forced to spend one's money to hire someone who flaunts an intention to act in a manner that for at least 3,000 years has been considered an abomination in Western theology. This is obvious to anyone not suffering from the most pathological and subjective form of "Tunnel Vision." (Source)
Yikes! And all of that capitalization is as it appears in the original! As I have explained before, using a religious argument in a secular state doesn't fly. "Tradition" and "morality" are not defenses to a legal argument about discrimination against homosexuals, as Lawrence v. Texas has proven.
But wait: Ohio gets worse! A statewide initiative called Issue 1 would add the following amendment to Ohio's constitution:
Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.
Okay, so it's an anti-gay marriage amendment. So what? Well, you'd better read carefully to fully understand what the implications of this amendment are. The particular language of this amendment would have the following effects: 1) common-law marriages would become illegal; and 2) state institutions (like Miami University, for example, or any state university) would be prohibited from extending marriage-like benefits to unmarried homosexual couples. Oh, and by the way, homosexual couples can't even get the benefit of a "civil union." They get nothing.
Is there any good reason for this amendment? Only if you're a Bible-thumper with a morbid fear of homosexuality. I can only guess that prohibiting state entities from extending benefits to unmarried couples is some sort of punishment upon homosexuals for being homosexuals ("How dare you even think of getting married! Perverts!"). While Miami University enacted domestic partner benefits in July of this year, the passage of Issue 1 would nullify those benefits.
How radical is Issue 1? Even the very Republican governor, Bob Taft (who would have supported a standard anti-gay marriage amendment), wants you to vote "no" on Issue 1. Miami University enacted domestic partner benefits after recognizing that it could lose potential employees without them. Ohio, which is trying desperately to become a new center of industry and technology, will only hurt itself if Issue 1 passes. Progressive-thinking people do not want to live in a state with laws like Issue 1. They will move somewhere else and Ohio will continue its slow economic decline. (If the equal rights argument doesn't sway you, maybe the economic one will.) And if Bob Taft says it's too radical ... well, maybe it's too radical.
If the election debacle of 2000 taught us one thing, it should have been that the electoral college is a ridiculous institution, an anachronism in a time when 97% of the population is literate and most of the population is middle-class. Originally instituted to insulate the electoral process from the groundlings, the electoral college ensures a few things: one, that only about a dozen states out of fifty will get attention from presidential candidates; two, that third parties are irrelevant; three, that a candidate can be in a situation where less than fifty-one percent of the country wants him elected and still be elected anyway; and four, that if no candidate receives fifty-one percent of the vote, the electoral process is taken away from the people and ushered into the halls of Congress.
Only twice in our country’s history have we been in a situation where the person with the most votes lost. In 1824, Andrew Jackson won the popular vote over John Quincy Adams, but he only received a plurality of the electoral votes. In the electoral college, a plurality is not enough. If no candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes, then the election is sent to the House of Representatives to decide. The House preferred Adams to Jackson and voted him into office. The second time the person with the most votes lost was in 1876. Samuel J. Tilden won the popular vote over Rutherford B. Hayes, but again, he did not receive a majority of the electoral votes. In that case, nineteen electoral votes in three Southern states and one vote in Oregon were in dispute due to voter fraud. After months of debate and dealings in smoke-filled rooms, Hayes was awarded the twenty electoral votes in exchange for a speedier reconstruction in the South and the withdrawal of federal troops from the statehouses in those three states, which were preventing Democratic governors from taking office.
Besides insulating the process from the uneducated masses, the electoral college was supposed to give some leverage to small states, which would otherwise be ostensibly ignored on the campaign trail: why campaign in New Hampshire when there were more votes in Virginia? The electoral college system made the small states matter, for a candidate could amass the electoral votes of many small states or a few large states. In 2004, the importance has shifted from small states and large states so-called red and blue states and "swing" states. "Red" states are those states which appear red on a national map, meaning that their electoral votes are likely to go to the Republican candidate. Most of the south and west states vote this way. "Blue" states vote Democrat. This is New England and the middle Atlantic states, California, Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, and Wisconsin. Every other state is a "swing" state, where no one can know for sure which way it will go. It is these swing states that candidates focus on the most: why waste my time in California when I know everyone will vote a particular way, when I can spend my time trying to get other, unattached states on my bandwagon?
I live in Ohio, so I have been bombarded with TV advertisements for both candidates (and against both candidates). In states like South Carolina, which is solidly Republican, or Washington, D.C., which is solidly Democrat, no one hears a peep.
Eliminating the electoral college would take care of that nasty tendency our system has of shutting out third parties. In every state, the candidate that wins a majority of the popular vote receives all of that state’s electoral votes. This means that a candidate’s goal is not getting a majority of the popular vote throughout the country, but getting a majority of the popular vote in a few key states. Under the electoral college, less than 51% of the people can vote for a candidate nationwide, but that candidate can still become the president. The effect of this system is to shut out third parties; they will never receive electoral votes. Indeed, one of the few times in history when a third-party candidate received electoral votes was in 1992 when Ross Perot’s Reform Party carried one or two states. In such a moderate country, an extremist party like Ralph Nader’s Green Party will never see the light of day, since he will never receive any electoral votes. In a close election, the electoral college discourages third parties, since they will necessarily draw some of the precious few electoral votes away from one of the candidates, making the margins all the more razor-thin.
Given the advances in technology since 1789, candidates can focus on multiple states at once at relatively low cost. Even the system of television syndication allows a candidate to easily have his advertisement placed on hundreds of networks around the country. The McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill had some unintended consequences that we are able to see only now. One of these consequences was the increased importance of individuals and PACs to get messages across. Campaigns have fundraising limits, but MoveOn.org and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth do not; therefore, they can do as good as job or better as official campaigns at getting messages out to voters. Never before have non-candidate entities had some much say in the outcome of an election.
The United States is ideologically and technologically ready to move to a system of direct election. When vote margins are as thin as they were in the election of 2000, they cannot be wiped away and approximated through the electoral college. A situation in which the will of the minority has the force of law is not a situation that should be expected of a democracy. The electoral college system, however, has that possibility built into it, allowing for a result that is antithetical to the meaning of "democracy."
I couldn't believe it, either, when I read a recent article from Reason magazine which proclaims that John Ashcroft was once the good guy when it came to civil liberties and John Kerry was the bad guy.
The year was ... sometime in the 1990s, and the U.S. government was attempting to pass a bill which would have required that the government be able to break any private encryption. "Then it was Sen. John Ashcroft (R-Mo.) who argued alongside the ACLU in favor of the individual’s right to encrypt messages and export encryption software," writes John Berlau from a dateline somewhere in a parallel universe. Is it really true? John Ashcroft, the man who brought us the USA-PATRIOT Act, the man who sued Oregon because he didn't want them to be able to have assisted suicide, the man who launched a War on Pornography, was once on the side of good? What's next: John Kerry on the side of evil?
Yes! Kerry was in favor of encryption control back in those days, along with John McCain. The two of them pushed for some mechanism whereby the government would have all the keys for all private encryption, or the keys would be put into a third-party "key escrow," obtainable only by court order.
Whoa!
Scott sent this to me earlier: a New York Times magazine article by Ron Suskind on George W. Bush and faith [registration required]. Suskind says what I think everyone knows by now: George Bush runs this country based on his particular personal religious beliefs. Here are some excellent snippets from the article:
"This is why he dispenses with people who confront him with inconvenient facts," [former Reagan domestic policy advisor Bruce] Bartlett went on to say. "He truly believes he's on a mission from God. Absolute faith like that overwhelms a need for analysis. The whole thing about faith is to believe things for which there is no empirical evidence." Bartlett paused, then said, "But you can't run the world on faith."
"I was in the Oval Office a few months after we swept into Baghdad," [Senator Joe Biden] began, "and I was telling the president of my many concerns" -- concerns about growing problems winning the peace, the explosive mix of Shiite and Sunni, the disbanding of the Iraqi Army and problems securing the oil fields. Bush, Biden recalled, just looked at him, unflappably sure that the United States was on the right course and that all was well. "'Mr. President,' I finally said, 'How can you be so sure when you know you don't know the facts?"
Biden said that Bush stood up and put his hand on the senator's shoulder. "My instincts," he said. "My instincts."
Biden paused and shook his head, recalling it all as the room grew quiet. "I said, 'Mr. President, your instincts aren't good enough!'"
And in the first presidential debate, many Americans heard the discursive John Kerry succinctly raise, for the first time, the issue of Bush's certainty -- the issue being, as Kerry put it, that "you can be certain and be wrong."
The disdainful smirks and grimaces that many viewers were surprised to see in the first presidential debate are familiar expressions to those in the administration or in Congress who have simply asked the president to explain his positions. Since 9/11, those requests have grown scarce; Bush's intolerance of doubters has, if anything, increased, and few dare to question him now. A writ of infallibility -- a premise beneath the powerful Bushian certainty that has, in many ways, moved mountains -- is not just for public consumption: it has guided the inner life of the White House.
The article is eleven screens long and it makes the point that George W. Bush operates the presidency as though it were a religion: through "instinct," "gut," and "faith." Faith is the belief in something despite empirical evidence to the contrary, or the absence of empirical evidence. Faith necessarily acts opposite reason, the latter being the use of empirical evidence to make a decision. These definitions are not designed to cast a pejorative light on faith; I believe that anyone -- religious or otherwise -- can agree that faith acts contrary to reason (and note I am not attempting to infuse the word "reason" with other words that have "reason" in them, like "reasonable," as though I were suggesting that reason is reasonable and faith is unreasonable. I am attempting to make positive statements, not normative ones).
Faith requires an unwavering, unquestioning belief in whatever it is you believe in. Since there is no empirical evidence to confirm or deny the existence of God, for example, believers in God must switch to a different epistemology in order to understand Him: faith. The very idea of questioning the truth of something is a tactic of reason, not faith. To question faith -- to subject it to the rigorous interrogation of reason -- will always result in a dead end, since faith and reason live on separate epistemological levels. One cannot be explained with the other.
Being the president -- indeed, being any secular leader -- requires the use of reason to come to conclusions about national policy. Kerry's point about the difference between being certain and being right is well taken. We know that Bush values certainty -- personal certainty -- more than he values being right. He has made many decisions over the last four years which outside observers might think defied reason. Take his policies on the environment, sex education, or stem-cell research. His sex education policy, support for abstinence-only education and only abstinence-only education, defies studies which show that such education is only as effective or less effective than other kinds of sex education which acknowledge that kids have sex and explain to them their options beyond not having it (A WHO study "concluded that abstinence-only programs are less effective than comprehensive classes that include abstinence and safe-sex practices such as contraception and condom use." Source). Bush's stem-cell research policy is founding in the belief that, whatever larger good may come from destroying a human embryo to harvest its stem cells, the destruction of that embryo is an absolute and unjustifiable evil. This belief is religious in nature; Bush feels that an embryo is endowed with a soul and as such it is evil to destroy that embryo, for whatever reason. The president's policies on science are so far removed from science that four thousand scientsts -- included forty-eight Nobel laureates -- signed a petition urging the administration to restore "scientific integrity" to the White House.
The job of the president does not involve personal morality. It involves an understanding of what is good for the nation (and by the way, what is good for the nation is not the same as what is good for the president!). Bush has proven over the course of four years that he operates the nation based on his 1) faith and 2) personal morality. As a president, he has failed in his use of reason because he places more importance on faith. Faith, however, has no place in a job where reason is required. The very unquestioning nature of faith makes it disturbing in a public policy arena, where opponents of the president's policies are demonized and branded disloyal. Faith is personal, and an attack on a decision reached through faith is a personal attack. Public policy is something that can and must be subjected to scrutiny, an impossible task when the policies have been reached through a non-empirical means, meaning that we cannot go back and look at the process and evidence by which the decision was reached. A policy based on faith puts all of its trust in one man -- the president -- to do the right thing. The evidence is "because I said so." That's a very good way to run a church, but it's no way to run a country.
In last night's debate -- which John Kerry won hands-down -- George W. Bush continued repeating the talking point that John Kerry was demoralizing our troops and our allies. Here's a tidbit from the first debate:
First of all, what my opponent wants you to forget is that he voted to authorize the use of force and now says it's the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place. I don't see how you can lead this country to succeed in Iraq if you say, "wrong war, wrong time, wrong place." What message does that send our troops? What message does that send to our allies? What message does that send the Iraqis?
Here's another one:
My opponent says help is on the way, but what kind of message does it say to our troops in harm's way, "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time"? Not a message a commander in chief gives, or this is a "great diversion."
And a third time:
My opponent says we didn't have any allies in this war. What's he say to Tony Blair? What's he say to Alexander Kwasniewski of Poland? You can't expect to build an alliance when you denigrate the contributions of those who are serving side by side with American troops in Iraq. Plus, he says the cornerstone of his plan to succeed in Iraq is to call upon nations to serve. So what's the message going to be: "Please join us in Iraq. We're a grand diversion. Join us for a war that is the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time"? I know how these people think. I deal with them all the time. I sit down with the world leaders frequently and talk to them on the phone frequently. They're not going to follow somebody who says, "This is the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time."
A fourth time:
Yes, I understand what it means to the commander in chief. And if I were to ever say, "This is the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place," the troops would wonder, "How can I follow this guy?" You cannot lead the war on terror if you keep changing positions on the war on terror and say things like, "Well, this is just a grand diversion." It's not a grand diversion. This is an essential that we get it right.
In the first debate, Bush referred to Kerry's "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" statement seven times. In the second debate (yesterday's debate), he referred to that statement six times.
Bush would like to have us believe that Kerry's words will demoralize the American people, American troops, and any allies that we might have. He says that our allies won't follow a person who says this is the "wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time." Bush's statement would be true -- if our allies didn't hold that opinion already. The United Nations, the body which we want to have come into Iraq and help with reconstruction, condemned the war. They already know that it's the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time. Kerry is not telling them anything new; their minds have not been changed. As for the troops, I suspect that after being in Iraq for over two years, they're wondering themselves whether or not this is the right war at the right place at the right time. Kerry is not demoralizing the troops; they've been demoralized already! Merely being in Iraq has done that to them. They don't need Kerry to tell them that they shouldn't be there.
Kerry's plan for getting the allies "back to the table" involves admitting that the war was a mistake and asking for the allies' help in cleaning it up. Is the world safer after the invasion of Iraq? I certainly don't remember people being beheaded on Al-Jazeera every week before we went in there. I suspect the invasion of Iraq has done that. Kerry understands that we cannot reconstruct Iraq alone, and so far, we have been engaged in the functional equivalent of going it alone. Certainly Bush can mouth platitudes about our "coalition of the willing," but when most of the cost -- both human and monetary -- is shouldered by the United States, there's no coalition. It's a coalition in name only, called such so as to please the American people and anyone else out there who can be fooled into believing that this was a multilateral effort.
This was a unilateral effort.
Also, let's talk about the phrase "flip-flop." The word means "to change one's mind," but the connotation of the words "flip" and "flop" bring to mind something like wet spaghetti, something that is not rigid. Something that is weak. The phrase "flip flop" does not merely suggest changing one's mind, but it implies weakness and changing one's mind flippantly for political gain. Rigidity has its merits, but so does flexibility. Bush errs on the side of too much rigidity. In the face of new information -- such as Donald Rumsfeld's admission that there were no weapons of mass destrution in Iraq -- Bush continues on the same course, whether he's wrong or not. The point is that he stays the course. Shakespeare talked about this in Troilus and Cressida, his play about love and war. The story is about the Trojan War, and Hector wants to let Helen go back to Greece, since it's costing too many lives fighting a war to keep her there. Troilus wants to keep her, since he thinks they should fight for the ideal of love. Hector says:
[...] Let Helen go.
Since the first sword was drawn about this question,
Every tithe-soul, 'mongst many thousand dimes,
Hath been as dear as Helen -- I mean, of ours.
If we have lost so many tenths of ours
To guard a thing not ours -- nor worth to us,
Had it our name, the value of one ten --
What merit's in that reason which denies
The yielding of her up? (2.2.16-24)
Troilus responds that the value of Helen is in the King's honor, for if the king were to give her back, it would be dishonorable. He then assails Hector for using "reason" to come to the conclusion that they should send Helen back to Greece:
[...] Manhood and honour
Should have hare [timid] hearts, would they but fat their thoughts
With this crammed reason. Reason and respect [deliberation]
Makes livers pale and lustihood deject. (2.2.46-49)
A man who is "manly" doesn't admit that he's wrong; he forges onward, even if he knows he's wrong, all for the sake of "honor." And anyway, who needs "deliberation" when you can fight a problem out? I bet this Iraq War business saw a resurgence in productions of Troilus and Cressida, since that's exactly what the play's about -- a war entered into for the wrong reasons that must now continue for the sake of continuing, lest the Trojans seem "dishonorable" (although we know that they're going to lose, anyway). I see Bush as doing the same thing: sticking to a plan not because it's the correct plan, but because it's the plan he's been on all along, and to deviate from that plan would make him (and America) appear weak.
To change one's mind in the face of new evidence is not "flip-flopping" at all. It is exactly what it sounds like: changing one's mind in the face of new evidence. The new evidence presented was not available when some person made up his mind about something earlier. If making a decision involves weighing all the evidence on hand and coming to a conclusion, then we must include any new evidence that shows up after the decision is made, for it could be that this evidence would have resulted in a reversal of the original opinion. I thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. I wasn't for going to war in Iraq, but I thought Saddam was hiding them from inspectors. Now, I'm even less for going to war than I was before after finding out that he never had WMDs; he wasn't hiding them from the inspectors at all. (Most likely, he wouldn't let the inspectors into certain places because he was afraid the inspectors might see the massive human rights violations that were going on.)
But there's something that I will hold Kerry to in absolute terms: last night, he was asked to look into the camera and, in no uncertain terms, pledge that he wouldn't raise taxes for people who make less than $200,000. He did make this pledge, and I'm holding him to it.
The debate last night was great for Kerry; though he and Bush repeated the same talking points from the first debate, Kerry came out looking forceful and confident. Bush looked angry and puny by contrast. I actually think Kerry might win.
John Kerry did. Definitely. He came off as articulate and well-informed. Bush, on the other hand, was flustered and angry. Kerry kept his cool. I have actually heard some people say that Kerry's cool worked against him because "real people" want to see a human being that gets angry and flustered. I don't know about that: when my leader is involved in delicate negotiations, I don't want him to fly off the handle. But maybe that's just me.
Admittedly, the debate was tilted in favor of Kerry to begin with. If Bush had had his way, the debate would put Kerry on the defensive, forcing him to answer questions about his record and his past. Jim Lehrer, however, correctly chose to put the current president in the hot seat. The debate's stated topic was international policy and homeland security. A senator has very little to do with this; foreign policy is the jurisdiction of the president. As such, the president was on the defensive, forced to justify his actions while Kerry attacked him. Nevertheless, Bush could have done a better job defending himself. He fell into the trap of repeating catchphrases without providing support for those phrases, as though they stood on their own without the need for evidence or explanation. He also indicated several times that Kerry was reducing troop morale by "sending mixed messages." If anything has reduced troop morale, it's being in Iraq in the first place! Kerry doesn't need to tell the troops that going into Iraq was a bad idea; they know it already!
For his part, Kerry succeeded in making a case that he wasn't a flip-flopper and beat it into the minds of viewers that President Bush lied about going into Iraq. He also finally dispelled the fallacy of our "Coalition of the willing," which consisted of the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Poland, and thirty-some other countries that are relatively unimportant. Bush tried to make Kerry out to be some sort of unfeeling monster who didn't care about the contributions of other countries, but in the end, he came off as trying to revive the dead: the "coalition of the willing" trope had been laid to rest. Kerry's major problem was that he talked about a plan for getting out of Iraq but never elaborated on that plan. He spoke in generalities, not specifics.
But he still won. The television debate forum has always been about which candidate looks better. Kerry was assertive, collected, and rational. Bush appeared confused, angry, and illogical. I can't wait for the second debate.
John Edwards is an alien! Recent evidence uncovered by the 1984 cult classic The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the Eighth Dimension confirms that John Edwards is from Planet Ten. He and his colleagues attempted to overthrow the rightful rulers of Planet Ten years ago, but failed and were sent to the Eighth Dimension for their crimes. Then, on October 31, 1938, they escaped and posed as scientists working for Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems. "John Edwards" was one of the aliases given by these aliens, the evil red Lectroids.
Tell your friends! Tell your family! Urge them not to vote for aliens!
Courtesy of the Chicago Tribune (registration required), here is the Official 2004 Presidential Debate Drinking Game!
The author of the original piece, David Martin, hopes that "you'll reach the end of the debate experiencing a warm, pleasant buzz. But if you're really lucky, you'll pass out by 10 o'clock and won't have to listen to the closing statements. Cheers!"
Who are these people? These "liberals," these "conservatives"? How can you spot them? What does these labels mean? Rush Limbaugh uses the word "liberal" as though it were an insult. George Will is a "conservative" columnist. Are John Kerry and John Edwards "the most liberal" members of the Senate? Is such a thing quantifiable? Why are there "Christian conservatives" but not "Christian liberals"?
It's all about labels. Ask any philosopher or linguist. Labels exist to define what is, but also what is not. In history, we call it the phenomenon of The Other: the thing that is antithetical to us, that represents the values which are the opposites of our values. What is the East? What is the West? Simply put, we are the West. What we are not is the East. Those labels really don't do a good job of positively identifying all those traits that are the West and all those traits that are the East. As Potter Stewart might say, "I know the West when I see it." We define things in terms of how they relate to us. If we consider ourselves the West, then those people with whom we do not identify must be the East. At first glance, this looks like a simple geographical issue: obviously the people in the western part of the world are the West and the people in the eastern part of the world are the East. Look again: whose east and whose west? The Earth is a sphere, which makes absolute definitions of east and west impossible to define. Relative definitions, on the other hand, are easy to come by. The West might be defined as that part of the world west of the Prime Meridian but east of the International Date Line. The placement of these lines is purely arbitrary. The Prime Meridian extends through England because, well, England invented the Prime Meridian.
Even if we accept this man-made definition of east and west as they relate to cartography, does that mean that France -- which is east of the Prime Meridian -- is the East? Of course not; France is the West. How can we tell? If we were to list the reasons why France is a member of what we call the West, the only geographical reason would be that it's west of Russia. France is in the West because it shares a common religion with the West (Christianity), a common language (French, derived from Latin, the language of the Western Roman Empire), a common system of government (democracy), and a common cultural heritage. France is a charter member of the West, having helped build it over the course of hundreds of years since the fall of the Roman Empire.
What about that Roman Empire? That has something to do with it, too. The West is, roughly, the Western Roman Empire. The emperor Constantine founded a second capital of the empire, Constantinople (now Istanbul, as They Might Be Giants can tell you). The gigantic empire was divided in half geographically, but it was also divided culturally. In Rome, the Christians were closer to what we would call Catholic and spoke Latin. In Constantinople (not Istanbul), the Christians were closer to Eastern Orthodox and spoke Greek (because the people in that part of the world still spoke Greek). The cultural heritages of the two halves of the empire -- and the lands controlled by them -- have been different for over a thousand years. "East" and "West" refer explicitly to rough geographical divisions, both modern and historical, but they implicitly refer to a whole host of cultural, linguistic, and religious differences.
Now back to liberals and conservatives. They're words that act as shortcuts (aliases for Mac users) to other meanings. To label someone as "liberal" is to immediately introduce a whole host of assumptions about that person's beliefs, conveniently located under the umbrella of "liberal." The same goes for conservatives.
The word "liberal" means many things: "marked by generosity," "lacking moral restraint," "not literal or strict," "not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms." In discussing people marked as liberals in the United States, we would probably say that they are not traditional. They are open to new ideas and not bound by tradition. "Conservative" means "tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions" or "marked by moderation or caution." A conservative in the United States adheres to tradition. We could say that liberals are open to change while conservatives are not. "Conservative" and "liberal" describe two separate philosophical systems, one component of which is politics.
The liberal philosophical system
The conservative philosophical system
Now an explanation, because I will be torn to pieces if I don't offer one. I added "agency" because I think that's an integral part of these philosophical systems. Conservatives and liberals have different views on who is responsible for things happening in the world. Conservatives, like existentialists, believe that everything can be reduced to choices. If you've got problems in your life, it's your own fault, because you made bad choices. Liberals, on the contrary, believe that you have no control over your actions. They are determined by your environment, by other people, and by your own genetic makeup. You have no control; you merely react to things that occur.
These descriptions would represent an ideal liberal or an ideal conservative. No human being could be like these ideals, but they are things that a conservative person or a liberal person strives for. Real people are a mixture of both, or of other systems, for these systems are not the only philosophical systems that exist.
These systems translate readily into the realm of politics. Democrats tend to be "liberal," while Republicans tend to be "conservative." Politics kind of messes up the reasoning behind things, because politics is about power. Is a liberal politician doing something because he feels his liberal philosophy will be best for the country, or is he doing something because he wants raw power? Sometimes it's hard to tell. Politicians -- allegedly -- do things for the good of the country. A conservative politician pushes for conservative policies because, in his opinion, those policies will be best for the country. Or is he pushing conservative policies because he feels they will give him more power? That's when these philosophical systems get intertwined with politics and it becomes hard to tell what "liberal" or "conservative" means. Some politicians that might be considered liberal favor conservative policies, and conservative politicians might favor liberal policies.
Conservatives are not bad people because they are conservative, nor are liberals evil because they are liberal. Neither one hates America. They represent opposing philosophical systems, nothing more. People from each side feel that theirs is the correct philosophy because ... well, because that's the way people are. When a person holds a belief, he naturally feels that his belief is correct. The problem occurs when these philosophies enter the realm of politics, when people are making decisions for America based not on an objective evaluation of the situation (i.e. "What is good for America?") but an ideological evaluation (i.e. "What do I think is good for America?"). This is where we run into the problem of conservative thinkers using their conservative ideology to make decisions and not their own minds. As Maslow would agree, a liberal person is not bad, but he can use that liberality to bad ends.
Politics today relies too much on ideology, and ideology is too inextricably linked to politics. Ideology is misused and confused with wisdom and is used to achieve power, not to make America better for everyone. A politician must think about serving his country, not improving his own station in life or the stations of his cronies. Conservatism is not the correct choice all the time; neither is liberalism the correct choice all the time. A politician much evaluate each situation as it occurs and not base every decision on a philosophy which, in the end, may not be good for all Americans.
I can handle vilifying so-called liberals. Sure, that's fine.
But now, they want to indoctrinate kids to hate people with a point of view that is different from their own. Help! Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed: A Small Lesson in Conservatism is available for $8.99 from WorldNetDaily. Good grief. Here's an excerpt from the website:
"Help! Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed! A Small Lesson in Conservatism" is a wonderful way to teach young children the valuable lessons of conservatism. In simple text, parents and children follow Tommy and Lou on their quest to earn money for a swing set their parents cannot afford. As their dream gets stuck in Liberaland, Tommy and Lou’s lemonade stand is hit with many obstacles.Liberals keep appearing from behind their lemon tree, taking half of their money in taxes, forbidding them to hang a picture of Jesus atop their stand, and making them give broccoli with each glass sold.
Law after law instituted by the press-hungry liberals finally results in the liberals taking over Tommy and Lou’s stand and offering sour lemonade at astronomical prices to the customers.
How about Help! Mom! There Are Straw Men Under My Bed! A Small Lesson in the Ridiculous Rhetoric Used By Conservatives? I think that title would be better and it would be more informative. Admittedly, though, I haven't read the book. But "forbidding them to hang a picture of Jesus atop their stand"? That's quite a blatant false statement (no one -- no one -- is suggesting that religious elements should be removed from a private sphere; that notion was invented by the kind of people who wrote this book). My big fear is that this book will politicize kids at any early age, an age when they aren't old enough to analyze political arguments or realize that they are being imbued with political propaganda.
Let's be reasonable, here. No one wants to vote for John Kerry. In terms of why people will vote for him, though, the reason is simply that 1) he's not George Bush, and 2) he has a chance of getting elected. John Kerry is a necessary evil. He's got a lot of problems. One of them is that no one knows who he is! Another is that he wavers (waffles?) on lots of issues.
Still, though, his proposed policies aren't as crazy as George Bush's. Kerry would not let his religion influence his political decisions. Here are some of the religious-based decisions that Bush has made: supporting a constitutional amendment preventing gay marriage; supporting abstinence-only education (despite studies which show it is no better at preventing pregnancy than contraceptive education); providing government funding only for those charities abroad which do not endorse abortion; John Ashcroft, a ridiculous Puritan who -- let's not forget -- tried to overturn a decision of the people of the state of Oregon because he disagreed with it, and is currently engaged in a war on pornography in the midst of a war on terror (let's weigh those out; which is more important? You're right; if we let people see boobies, the terrorists win).
In terms of economic policy, George Bush has turned a multibillion-dollar surplus into a multibillion-dollar deficit. In fact, his budget deficits are the largest since Reagan. He gave a tax cut to the wealthiest Americans under the guise that such an act would create more jobs, since more employers would be able to hire more employees with the extra disposable income they had (this is predicated on the illusion that giving people who make six figures an increase in their personal disposable income will translate into an increase in their company's disposable income). Alan Greenspan, the man that every president listens to, disagreed with Bush's tax cut. (It's a wonder Greenspan is still alive, since everyone in the administration who has disagreed with Bush has been immediately discredited as though this were Soviet Russia. Cf. Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neil.) Bush also lobbied for the elimination of the dividend tax. BerkshireHathaway CEO Warren Buffett, who would be one of the biggest beneficiaries of the elimination of the dividend tax, disagreed with Bush, since the only people who would benefit were -- again -- the super-wealthy. As Buffett has said before, the millions of dollars that he would get back would do more to stimulate the economy in the hands of middle-class people than himself. The talk about average Americans getting money back from the elimination of the dividend tax is false. Middle-class Americans would get a few hundred dollars back at most, while super-wealthy people with lots of money invested in stocks (Dick Cheney being one of them) would get millions back.
These are just some of the things that George Bush has done in his four years in office. To see some more, visit McSweeney's Daily Reason to Dispatch Bush.
I have high hopes that John Kerry will not do a lot of these things, and from what I know about his platform, those hopes are correct. Nevertheless, John Kerry will not save the world. He is not a great candidate. He is not a candidate for the idealistic. He is a pragmatic candidate. John Kerry is necessary to undo the last four years of policies that have been bad for America (but very good for wealthy Americans, incidentally). John Kerry is not a Franklin Roosevelt or an Abraham Lincoln. Let's be clear about this. At the DNC, praise was heaped on him and it was as though he were the Messiah. He is no Messiah. At best, he's a janitor that will sweep up the crap that has happened under Bush's authority.
This will be another close election. Neither candidate will have the mandate he wants. Ralph Nader will not win this election. If this were, say, four years ago, when it was a contest of ideals, then Ralph Nader would be a viable alternative. This is not about ideals anymore. This election is 100% about voting Bush out of office. John Kerry is the only candidate that can muster enough votes to accomplish that goal. Ralph Nader will only cut into Kerry's potential winnings. In fact, Republicans have been pushing to get him on the ballot in as many states as possible, hoping that people vote for him so that potential Kerry voters split between Kerry and Nader.
I will be voting for John Kerry, but not because I like John Kerry. I will vote for him because I dislike Bush. The fact of the matter is that Kerry is not the best candidate; he's the least bad candidate. Yes, it's a terrible reason, but this has been a terrible four years for America, and another Bush term only promises more terror in the future.
I'm sick of people saying that "Bush stole the election" or "the Supreme Court appointed Bush." There are several cases which resulted in George W. Bush winning Florida's 25 electoral votes. The first case is George W. Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, 531 U.S. 70 (2000), from December 8, 2000. The second is Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), from December 12, 2000.
On November 7, 2000, lots of people from across the country voted. Not as many as we'd like, but that's an issue for another day. In the state of Florida, George W. Bush received 2,909,135 votes, and Al Gore received 2,907,351 votes. The margin of victory for Bush was 1,784 votes, which was "equal to or less than one-half of one percent of the votes cast." As a result, Fla. Stat. §102.141(4) was triggered, which required a machine recount of all votes cast if such a scenario occurred. The machine recount of all the votes resulted in Bush still winning, but by a smaller margin. Florida's election law allows a candidate to contest the results of an election if "[r]eceipt of a number of illegal votes or rejection of a number of legal votes sufficient to change or place in doubt the result of the election." Gore contended that votes were incorrectly tabulated in four counties, and sought a manual hand recount in those counties. Ultimately, his case went to the Florida Supreme Court, which affirmed his contest in only one county, Miami-Dade County, where it had failed "to tabulate, by manual count, 9,000 ballots on which the machines had failed to detect a vote for President ('undervotes')." Given the closeness of the election, the Florida Supreme Court observed that "there can be no question that there are legal votes within the 9,000 uncounted votes sufficient to place the results of this election in doubt." Thus Gore's manual hand recount in Miami-Dade County was ordered by the Florida Supreme Court.
Also at issue was the date set for certification of votes. Florida state law requires votes to be certified within seven days of an election, but the recount process was not complete by then. The Florida Supreme Court ruled that the Florida Secretary of State "could exercise her discretion in deciding whether to include the late amended returns in the statewide certification." The Secretary of State then responded that any county could apply to submit late results by filing a written statement by 2 PM on November 15. Four counties submitted such applications, and the Secretary of State denied them all. Gore filed a motion in state court on November 16 "arguing that the Secretary had acted arbitrarily and in contempt of the court's earlier ruling." This was appealed up to the Florida Supreme Court, which issued a stay on certifyelection results certification until it said so. On November 21, the Florida Supreme Court issued its ruling, which, in part, "imposed a deadline of November 26 at 5 PM for a return of ballot counts." Bush appealed this ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in turn ruled on December 8 "that there is considerable uncertainty as to the precise grounds for the decision." The Florida Supreme Court, it said, misinterpreted the Florida State Constitution and may have violated the Due Process clause of the U.S. Constitution by changing the rules for the election after the election had taken place. Seeking a better answer, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Florida Supreme Court decision and remanded it for further proceedings. It didn't believe that altering the rules for the election after the election had occurred was quite fair.
Finally, on December 12, the U.S. Supreme Court settled the issue once and for all. The case presented the following questions: "[W]hether the Florida Supreme Court established new standards for resolving Presidential election contests, thereby violating Art. II, §1, cl. 2, of the United States Constitution and failing to comply with 3 U. S. C. §5, and whether the use of standardless manual recounts violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses." At issue was the standard for the manual recount. The U.S. Supreme Court (hereafter "Supreme Court" or "Court") found that there was no state standard for manual recounts (e.g. what kind of "chad" counts as a vote? These opinions differed from county to county):
The recount mechanisms implemented in response to the decisions of the Florida Supreme Court do not satisfy the minimum requirement for non-arbitrary treatment of voters necessary to secure the fundamental right. Florida's basic command for the count of legally cast votes is to consider the "intent of the voter." Gore v. Harris, 772 So. 2d, at 1262. This is unobjectionable as an abstract proposition and a starting principle. The problem inheres in the absence of specific standards to ensure its equal application. The formulation of uniform rules to determine intent based on these recurring circumstances is practicable and, we conclude, necessary.
The Supreme Court found that, since there was no statewide standard for manual recounts, and it is the sole responsibility of the state legislature to specify the method by which voters shall be tabulated, the manual recounts violated the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution. The Florida Supreme Court's opinion was reversed, and the case was remanded "for further proceedings."
So, did the Supreme Court "appoint" Bush? Did Bush "steal" the election? Regarding the first question, it's hard to say. Bush v. Gore was decided 5-4, with Justices Stevens, Souter, Breyer, and Ginsburg dissenting. Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, and Thomas were all nominated by Republican presidents, while Breyer and Ginsburg were nominated by Bill Clinton. This is not a case of justices playing the party line. Although, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas tend to be the most conservative members of the Court (speaking of ideology, not party affiliation), while Souter and Ginsburg tend to be the most liberal. "Conservative" in this case means sticking to the letter of the law, not speaking in abstracts or ideals. If the law doesn't say it, then it ain't legal. In contrast, "liberal" means appealing to a notion of Justice with a capital "J," ignoring what the law may say and instead focusing on what the spirit of the law is. The justices have different views on how the law should be interpreted, but these views in themselves cannot be seen as favor for one candidate or the other. Thus I fail to see how the Supreme Court "appointed" Bush, especially given that it reversed the Florida Supreme Court's opinion. It did not declare Bush the winner: that is the job of the Electoral College (although the argument is that, in dismissing the validity of the Florida Court's opinion, which favored Gore, the Court allowed Bush to win the popular vote in Florida, which gained him Florida's electoral votes, which won him the election).
Did Bush "steal" the election? No; how could he do that? He didn't bribe the justices, he didn't extort things from them. People who espouse this opinion of "stealing" don't back up their claim with an explanation of how he stole the election. Is it because he lost the nationwide popular vote but won the electoral votes? That's a flaw in the system, perhaps, but the fault cannot be uniquely attributed to Bush.
Ultimately, fault rests with the state of Florida for not establishing a uniform system of counting ballots. Secretary of State Katherine Harris, whose duty it is to oversee elections, is particularly responsible. Also, the outdated voting systems being used were also culpable in the Election 2000 fiasco, as the Court noted in its opinion. Bush himself, however, or the Supreme Court cannot be held responsible. The facts do not support assertions that the Supreme Court "appointed" him or that he "stole" the election.
All debate aside about who the next president will be, no matter who he is, he will have some obstacles to tackle in the next four years:
1. Focus the War on Terror
Declaring a war on "terror" is like declaring a war on "love" or "hate." It's an abstract concept, and our laws aren't written for abstract concepts. Heck, they're not even written for non-national entities. We couldn't declare war on al-Qaeda because they're civilians; but we can declare war on Afghanistan. If we're going to go after terrorists, we need to have a focus: what kind of terrorists? Should we get the help of other countries? How about governments of countries that harbor terrorists? We must convince other countries that we're not going to invade them and we need their cooperation.
Part of focusing the War on Terror involves stepping up international intelligence. That seems to be lacking as of late, with the NSA and CIA relying on outdated information. Let's get back to having a great international spy network.
2. Get other countries to like us again
Despite what Rush Limbaugh may think, we need the international community. Public opinion is very strong force, and some day in the near future we may find ourselves in need of the U.N. Unilateralism worked during the Cold War because no other countries had the guts to challenge us, for opposing the U.S. could be seen as endorsing the Soviet Union.
Our current foreign policy is the perfect policy for a world in which we are the only country. Or in a world in which force is the standard of governance. Neither of these is the case: we live on a planet with over five billion other people, and we make up the minority. Additionally, we left "might is right" in the seventeenth century where it belongs. The system of democracy -- to which the U.S. is a party -- relies on rule of law. We are also a party to the U.N., and are obliged to respect its decisions. Increasingly, though, whenever the U.N. does something that we don't like, we take decisive action or ignore it altogether. When Iraq refused to comply with weapons inspectors, everyone -- including the U.S. -- waved U.N. resolutions in Saddam Hussein's face. We, as well as other countries, acted as though the U.N. had force, and went along with other member nations in asking the U.N. to exercise that force. When the U.N. wouldn't give us help for an invasion of Iraq, we called it impotent and outdated -- we pretended that the U.N. didn't have any force and went along on our merry way. On the one hand, we used the U.N. as a tool when its goals were our goals. On the other hand, we dismissed it completely when its goals were contrary to our own.
Now, we need the world's help to fix the situation in Iraq. The world, predictably, isn't biting. We're crawling back to the U.N. on our hands and knees, begging for help. But we're not admitting that we did anything wrong. This is no way to run foreign policy, especially when the world's apathy can help us or hurt us.
3. Repeal tax cuts
Bush tax cuts went to the wealthiest Americans. These wealthiest Americans got rebates on income taxes, dividend taxes, and estate taxes. I used to be an ardent supporter of repealing the estate tax, until I learned some more about it. The president calls this "double taxation," but almost every type of income that a person can receive is taxed; why should the inheritance of an estate be any different? (In other words, every kind of income is doubly taxed.) And all this business about family farms going out of business is a load of hogwash. No family farm has ever gone out of business due to the estate tax. The estate tax is a tax on inheritance over $15 million: only the wealthiest Americans will ever have to pay it. Financial experts Alan Greenspan (chairman of the Federal Reserve Board) and Warren Buffet (CEO of Berkshire-Hathaway) both agree that repealing the estate tax is a ridiculous idea. It would rob the government of over $900 billion in revenue over the next ten years.
The tax situation is an either-or situation. Whether or not anyone gets tax cuts, the government still requires the same amount of money to operate every year. We can 1) streamline the government, eliminating waste (which everyone tries but no one succeeds at), or 2) arrange taxes in such a way that the people who can afford to pay a particular amount do pay a particular amount. There was no reason to lower taxes on the extremely wealthy as Bush did years ago -- and has continued to do, despite the existence of budget deficits and a huge increase in spending (decreases in revenues accounted for 41.88% of the deficit in 2004's $2.3 trillion budget). Dr. Greenspan was wholeheartedly against it. Yes, wealthier people should pay more in taxes than poorer people. Why? Because they can afford to. A low-income family that lives from paycheck to paycheck cannot afford to lose more money every year to taxes. While it's not the government's fault that the family doesn't make as much as Warren Buffet (he gets paid $1 billion every year), neither should the government tax them into poverty. If faced with two options which, any reasonable person would agree, are both evil -- unequal taxation which places extra tax burden on those who can afford it (and at the same time punishes people for being wealthy) or equal taxation which would tax those on low-end brackets into poverty -- we have chosen the latter, since we feel it is more morally upstanding to have Warren Buffet pay a few extra million dollars every year than to have poorer families pay more and become poorer (and by the way, the government generates more revenue by increasing Warren Buffet's taxes than it does by increasing the taxes of someone from a low tax bracket).
But this isn't to suggest that we shouldn't focus on streamlining the government. Last year's budget was the biggest ever, and both Democrats and Republicans are responsible (remember: it takes a legislature to pass laws). Hopefully, the next election will see an influx of new members to Congress, but that usually never happens.
4. Roll back environmental policy
Repeal changes to the Clean Air Act, repeal the Clear Skies Initiative and the Healthy Forests Initiative. The titles of these pieces of legislation, in true Orwellian fashion, mean exactly the opposite of their purpose. The Clear Skies legislation reduces air pollution limits and Healthy Forests increases the ability of logging companies to cut down trees without regulation. (It is little wonder that the EPA is staffed by industrial and logging lobbyists.)
5. Dump John Ashcroft and the USA-PATRIOT Act
Ashcroft is the single biggest threat to civil liberties since the House Un-American Activities Committee. Under his command, the Justice Department has given the government a terrific amount of new power for surveillance, thanks to the USA-PATRIOT Act. Let the provisions in there expire. The old adage, "If you're not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about" doesn't fly in a democracy. The next president must veto any second PATRIOT Act -- although this may not be so easy. Sneaky members of Congress are quietly inserting individual elements of the so-called PATRIOT II into unrelated bills that have to be passed. Without the line-item veto (which was unconstitutional, anyway), the president must pass the bill -- and the PATRIOT II provisions -- or veto the bill, which will most likely be a spending bill, which couldn't bear a veto.
Ashcroft is a religious zealot who thinks he's on a mission from God to make everyone in America think the same way he does about morality. Why is the government launching a war on pornography in the middle of a war on terror? Like Lyndon Johnson said, you can't have guns and butter at the same time. Let's prioritize, here: how many Americans have been killed because of shrapnel in a blow-up doll?
6. Leave the federal courts alone
There are four pieces of legislation in the House right now (and one in the Senate) that would dramatically increase the amount of oversight Congress has over the federal courts. One bill would restrict the kinds of cases the Supreme Court can hear. Another bill would allow Congress to override a decision of the Supreme Court. All of these bills are obviously reactions to what members of Congress see as rulings which they disfavor. Ah, but if they had the power to veto those rulings, they could selectively enforce Supreme Court rulings. I have the utmost faith that members of the Supreme Court write opinions based on what's good for the country: they don't have to get re-elected, they don't have to kiss asses. Congress is very different. We have no way of knowing whether a veto of an opinion is in the best interest of the country, the Congressman's personal opinion, the Congressman's constituents, or the corporations and special-interest groups that fund the Congressman's re-election campaign. Therefore, Congress should have nothing to do with the courts, other than its current mandate, which is to approve presidential appointments to federal courts. The next president must veto any bill that attempts to regulate the courts.
7. Give consumers their rights back
With the support of major content-providers, Congress is on the fast track to forbidding any use of electronic equipment not explicitly sanctioned by content-providers. You must use your Sony DVD player in only the way that Sony specifies. You must use your Digital TV in only the way that the MPAA specifies. Your computer and CD player can only used according to guidelines set forth by the member companies of the RIAA. Any other use is illegal. Orrin Hatch's INDUCE Act is on the fast track to this future.
8. Leave religion at home
President Bush likes to incorporate elements of his religion into his official actions as president: he supports a marriage amendment to the Constitution, for religious reasons. He supports abstinence-only education, based in the religious reasoning that premarital sex is morally reprehensible (statistical evidence, however, proves that abstinence-only education is ineffective).
Whether it's John Kerry, George Bush, Ralph Nader, or Lyndon LaRouche, the next president must follow these eight steps to get the country back on the right track.
While the Bush Administration attempts to remain as secretive as it can, refusing to divulge records, often on nebulous "national security" grounds (where there is little or no national security at stake), Governor Bob Holden took a step in the opposite direction on Monday by signing into law an expansion of a Missouri "sunshine law."
A "sunshine law," as its name suggests, provides government accountability by requiring records to be available to the public. "These laws are called sunshine laws because they reflect the American sentiment that opening up government records for public scrutiny -- or in other words, letting in the sunshine -- is a uniquely beneficial endeavor," said Holden.
Most notably (for me, anyway), "the new law makes clear that the University of Missouri's governing Board of Curators — which has lost costly legal fights over its closing of records — is subject to the law, like other public governmental bodies." At Miami University in scenic Oxford, Ohio, our Board of Trustees can be very secretive. Notes that Board members make must be left with the Board's staff secretary. The public is not allowed in on the Board's "executive session," and neither are the two student members of the Board. (Ohio state law requires that university boards of trustees have two student members, appointed by the Governor.)
Missouri's new sunshine law imposes stricter fines on government entities that withhold public information. Under the old law, the fine was $25 for withholding information. Since the fine was so small, "people who have been accused of violating the Sunshine Law have been able to stand behind the excuse that they were ignorant of the law" and pay the fine, said sponsoring Rep. Jack Goodman. No other violater of the law can use that kind of excuse.
The law also imposes a state-wide rate of ten cents per page for photocopying government documents. This prevents governments from inflating the price of copies as a deterrent to getting the documents in the first place.
The new law was drafted after a state auditor's report revealed in 2001 that the existing sunshine law was "inadequate." When requests for documents were submitted, "about 44 percent of the governmental entities surveyed either did not respond, responded untimely or improperly denied a request." The auditor's report is frightening for those of us who value an open government:
Three entities refused to provide the requested records unless the citizen explained why they want the information, which is not required by the Sunshine Law. One agency’s attorney offered this reason to deny: "It will be necessary for you to be more specific as to what you need and for what purpose before we can comply . . ."
This law is the best step in the right direction for government accountability, and both Governor Holden, the Missouri Senate, and the Missouri House (which passed the bill 121-18) should be given medals for their efforts to make government more open and less obscured. The Bush Administration could learn a lesson from Missouri (especially John Ashcroft, who comes from Missouri!).
The word "liberal" is tossed around at TownHall.com like a synonym for "Nazi," "Communist," or "murderer of small puppies." Ben Shaprio, writing about the "Worst commencement speakers of 2004," trumps up the argument that liberals are everywhere, indoctrinating our children and running down our puppies with steamrollers.
First of all, Shapiro uses fuzzy math to overstate the representation of conservative speakers at college commencements. "At the 50 highest-ranked undergraduate universities (according to U.S. News & World Report), liberals overwhelmingly dominate the list of graduation speakers. Of the 40 universities where commencement-speaker information was available, 29 speakers are politically partisan. Twenty-one of those 29 -- 72 percent -- are liberal," he says. Hang on, now. "72 percent" refers to the percentage of liberals out of partisan speakers, the partisan speakers themselves (29) only representing 72 percent of the total population of colleges for which commencement speakers is available (40). This percentage of liberals is actually 52.5%, not considering the other 10 major colleges for which no commencement speaker information is available. If there is a similar percentage of liberal speakers at the other 10 colleges, then the amount of liberals at all 50 universities could still be 52%. The breakdown of speakers looks like this: liberal, 52.5%; no affiliation, 27.5%; conservative, 20%.
Look at all these "liberal" speakers! Bill Clinton? Why the hell is he delivering a commencement address? What did he ever do for America? Madeline Albright! Lani Guinier! Shapiro refers to Guinier as "Clinton Justice Department nominee Lani Guinier." This qualification is obviously pejorative and means something only to people who agree with Shapiro. Guinier has done much more in her life than be a Clinton Justice Department nominee (that's like introducing Branford Marsalis as "former Tonight Show bandleader Branford Marsalis"). Shaprio remarks, "Strangely, prominent conservative/populist media people like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Tony Snow and Bill O'Reilly are not scheduled to speak anywhere." That's because those people have nothing important to say beyond their vitriolic partisan attacks! If Sean Hannity didn't condemn liberals in every speech, he'd have no job. The entire purpose for his being is to vilify liberals. It could be that colleges chose speakers that they felt were successful in life and could deliver an inspiring messages to students. What inspiring message could Rush Limbaugh give? "If you work hard, you too can devote your life to the hatred of an entire class of people based solely on who they vote for." Great parting words. I'm inspired.
Why did colleges choose conservative speakers like George Bush, Colin Powell, and Condoleeza Rice? Because these people have been successful; they have not spent their lives tearing other people down. College commencement speeches are supposed to be inspiring, not platforms for partisan politics. "But on campus, a day -- even graduation day -- without soapbox liberalism is a day without sunshine," writes Shapiro. I'll bet dollars to donuts he went to Google or LexisNexis to get this information, not having listened to a single one of these commencement speeches, liberal or conservative. He has no idea how politically charged these speeches are, and in his own demented mind, there are only two kinds of speech: conservative political speech and liberal political speech. There is no room for non-political speech, and there is no room for any viewpoints other than "conservative" or "liberal." (Looking up Shapiro's biography, I discovered that he's merely a senior at UCLA. I pity the poor guy, who will grow up with these crazy ideas about speech and politics, negating anything non-political, non-partisan, or beautiful that he might ever encounter in his life.)
Taking a stroll through THOMAS, the online database of U.S. legislation, I happened upon the following, which are currently in the House of Representatives (links are not provided because direct links to legislation on THOMAS expire after a certain period of time):
H.R. 3633, The Ronald Reagan Dime Act: "To provide for dime coins to bear the likeness of President Ronald Reagan, the Freedom President, in honor of his work in restoring American greatness and bringing freedom to captive nations around the world."
H.R. 3674, The Financial Customer Identification Verification Improvement Act: "To amend section 5318 to prohibit the use of identification issued by foreign governments, other than passports, for purposes of verifying the identity of a person who opens an account at a financial institution, and for other purposes."
H.R. 3717, The Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2004: "To increase the penalties for violations by television and radio broadcasters of the prohibitions against transmission of obscene, indecent, and profane material, and for other purposes." One of the punishments for an FCC licensee that broadcasts such material is requiring the licensee "to broadcast public service announcements that serve the educational and informational needs of children."
H.R. 3775: "To impose a ban on the importation of soybeans and soybean meal that are products of Argentina or Brazil." Free trade, indeed.
H.R. 3799, The Constitution Restoration Act of 2004: "To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism." I have written about this bill before, which would prohibit federal courts from ruling on matters pertaining to God in government. A Federal judge who does such a thing would be subject to impeachment and removal.
H.R. 3893, We the People Act: "To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes." This one's a doozy, beginning with its title. According to the bill, Congress finds that "Supreme Court and lower Federal court decisions striking down local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion have wrested from State and local governments issues reserved to the States and the People by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States." The bill would prohibit any Federal court from ruling upon the relationship of any unit of government to religion, the right to privacy ("including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction"), or gay marriage. A judge who violates these prohibitions would be subject to impeachment and removal.
H.R. 3920, Congressional Accountability for Judicial Activism Act of 2004: "To allow Congress to reverse the judgments of the United States Supreme Court." I have also written about this before. It allows Congress to override a Supreme Court decision that deals with an Act of Congress.
H.R. 4005: "To exempt certain animal identification information from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act."
H.R. 4118, American Justice for Americans Citizens Act: "To ensure that the courts interpret the Constitution in the manner that the Framers intended." Because we know what the Framers intended, especially given the social changes that have happened since then. Better do something about the Thirteenth Amendment: what are black people doing not being slaves?! According to this bill, Congress finds the following: "the Federal judiciary has increasingly disregarded the will of the American people, transforming constitutional principles that were originally designed by the people to be permanent into a set of evolving standards subject to change by judicial opinion, and thereby undermining the American people's right to establish a government according to written constitutional provisions ratified by their elected representatives in constitutional convention." The Act also insists that a straw-man, "transjudicialism" or "global law" is becoming prevalent in the Supreme Court. The evidence for this goes back to Lawrence v. Texas, 02-102 (2003). Conservatives have taken this wildly out of context, suggesting that the Supreme Court wants to base its legal decisions on international law. This is not the case. Justice Kennedy wrote that many other courts around the world have followed the European Convention on Human Rights and its assertion that laws proscribing consensual sexual conduct (who may have sex with whom) were illegal. He notes that the decision in the case Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) -- which denied the right of homosexuals to engage in sodomy -- emphasized the values that we share with a wider civilization. Kennedy observed that "wider civilization" (encompassing the whole of humanity) has since rejected Bowers's reasoning. Nowhere did he assert that we should be bound by the laws of other countries (although he has publicly said as much). Furthermore, a large portion of the decision rests on the fact that the Texas statute in question violated the Equal Protection clause. It defines "deviate sexual intercourse" as occuring when a person "engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex"; however, such activity is not illegal under the statute when the people involved are of opposite sexes. Kennedy cites a United States case, Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), in which "the Court struck down class-based legislation directed at homosexuals as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause." Justice O'Connor, concurring, wrote, "I am confident, however, that so long as the Equal Protection Clause requires a sodomy law to apply equally to the private consensual conduct of homosexuals and heterosexuals alike, such a law would not long stand in our democratic society." In other words, the prohibition of sodomy by the state of Texas was due to the fact that the state had a moral objection to homosexual sodomy. The compelling interest of the government in prohibiting an act must extend beyond its personal objections to that act, as noted in Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993). It should be noted that, of the nine justices, only one appears to believe in this "transjudicialism" (a word I heard for the first time in the legislation). Lawrence was not based on laws and decisions of other countries, but on our own laws.
H.R. 4168, Individual Tax Freedom Act of 2004: "To promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity for families by repealing the income tax, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States."
Most of these bills attempt to take over the Supreme Court by limiting what the Supreme Court can and cannot do. To some degree, Congress has power over the Supreme Court. In Article III, section 2, referenced by one of the bills, Congress has the authority to regulate the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction "with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." But it never gives Congress authority over the Court's decisions. The Supreme Court would render such a law unconstitutional. If Congress attempted to override that decision, certainly the Supreme Court would rule such a vote unconstitutional, as well. The only power Congress has over the Supreme Court is the power to confirm the president's appointees to the bench. With all this talk about what the Framers intended, the people drafting and sponsoring these bills would do well to remember that the intention of the Framers with regard to the judiciary is that it be independent of interference by the legislature. This is why federal judges are not elected and serve for life: they don't have to worry about re-election, and they don't have to worry about politics.
Whenever President Bush has a press conference, members of the media sitting in the little audience ask him questions, and he replies. If this were Reality, he would reply to the questions they ask. Instead, he gives responses that have nothing to do with the questions! Here's an example from Bush's April 13 press conference (transcript from Federal News Service):
QUESTION: Mr. President, thank you. You mentioned that 17 of the 26 NATO members providing some help on the ground in Iraq. But if you look at the numbers -- 135,000 U.S. troops, 10,000 or 12,000 British troops. Then the next largest, perhaps even the second-largest contingent of guns on the ground are private contractors, literally hired guns. Your critics, including your Democratic opponents, say that's proof to them your coalition is window dressing. How would you answer those critics? And can you assure the American people that, post-sovereignty, when the handover takes place, that there will be more burden-sharing by allies in terms of security forces?BUSH: Yes, John, my response is I don't think people ought to demean the contributions of our friends into Iraq. People are sacrificing their lives in Iraq from different countries. We ought to honor that, and we ought to welcome that.
I'm proud of the coalition that is there. These are people that have got leaders that have made the decision to put people in harm's way for the good of the world. And we appreciate that sacrifice in America, and we appreciate that commitment.
I think that one of the things you're seeing is more involvement by the United Nations, in terms of the political process. That's helpful. I'd like to get another U.N. Security Council resolution out that will help other nations to decide to participate.
One of the things I've found, John, is that, in calling around, particularly during this week -- I spoke to Prime Minister Berlusconi and President Kwasniewski -- there is a resolve by these leaders that is a heartening resolve. Tony Blair is the same way.
He understands, like I understand, that we cannot yield at this point in time, that we must remain steadfast and strong, that it's the intentions of the enemy to shake our will. That's what they want to do. They want us to leave. And we're not going to leave. We're going to do the job.
And a free Iraq is going to be a major blow for terrorism. It'll change the world. A free Iraq in the midst of the Middle East is vital to future peace and security.
Maybe I can best put it this way, why I feel so strongly about this historic moment. I was having dinner with Prime Minister Koizumi, and we were talking about North Korea, about how we can work together to deal with the threat. The North Korea leader is a threat.
And here are two friends, now, discussing what strategy to employ to prevent him from further developing and deploying a nuclear weapon.
And it dawned on me that, had we blown the peace in World War II, that perhaps this conversation would not have been taking place.
It also dawned on me then that when we get it right in Iraq, at some point in time an American president will be sitting down with a duly-elected Iraqi leader, talking about how to bring security to what has been a troubled part of the world.
The legacy that our troops are going to leave behind is a legacy of lasting importance, as far as I'm concerned. It's a legacy that really is based upon our deep belief that people want to be free and that free societies are peaceful societies.
Some of the debate really centers around the fact that people don't believe Iraq can be free; that if you're Muslim, or perhaps brown-skinned, you can't be self-governing or free. I'd strongly disagree with that.
I reject that. Because I believe that freedom is the deepest need of every human soul, and if given a chance, the Iraqi people will be not only self-governing, but a stable and free society.
Notice how he talked about a coalition and the Iraqi people, and how great the new Iraq is, but he never answered the question about window-dressing! Here's another doozy:
QUESTION: Mr. President, why are you and the vice president insisting on appearing together before the 9/11 Commission? And, Mr. President, who will we be handing the Iraqi government over to on June 30th?BUSH: We'll find that out soon. That's what Mr. Brahimi is doing. He's figuring out the nature of the entity we'll be handing sovereignty over.
And, secondly, because the 9/11 Commission wants to ask us questions, that's why we're meeting. And I look forward to meeting with them and answering their questions.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) I was asking why you're appearing together, rather than separately, which was their request.
BUSH: Because it's a good chance for both of us to answer questions that the 9/11 Commission is looking forward to asking us. And I'm looking forward to answering them.
Whoa! That's a very important question that that man just asked him, and unlike other reporters, he interrupted the president and asked him to answer the question that was asked. What does Bush do? He answers a different question, anyway! The question was not "Why are you going in front of the 9/11 commission?" The question was, "Why are you and the vice president appearing together even though the comission asked you to appear separately?" Of course Bush won't answer this question; he can't get up in front of a panel of people without Dick Cheney, his mouthpiece! Look at the trouble he's having answering questions from reporters; I can't imagine how badly he would fare under oath in front of a congressional commitee!
In a new pamphlet about why logging is good for the Sierra Nevada region, the U.S. Forest Service has grossly misrepresented forests before and after logging. (Link goes to a Sacramento Bee article on the pamphlet; an online version of the pamphlet is located here.) Why on Earth could this be? It is well known that the George W. Bush placed cabinet secretaries in an ironic way. Gale Norton, Secretary of the Interior, is in charge of the nation's lands. Before she had the job of administrating America's wilderness, she was the national chairwoman for Republican Environmental Advocates, a group funded in part by Ford and BP Amoco (opensecrets.org). The Undersecretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and Environment, the man in charge of the Forest Service, is Mark Rey, a former timber industry lobbyist. Environmental Media Services offers an interesting piece of news on an ongoing problem with the Bush Administration: openness:
A federal court yesterday criticized the US Department of Agriculture and the US Forest Service for their response to efforts by Defenders of Wildlife and the Endangered Species Coalition to find out how and why comprehensive nationwide forest rules, drafted by an independent Committee of Scientists, were junked soon after President Bush took office. The groups had filed a FOIA request for documents pertaining to the decision to scrap the regulations amid concerns that they were tossed out so that more industry-friendly regulations could be crafted by former timber industry lobbyist Mark Rey, appointed by President Bush to oversee the Forest Service as Undersecretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and Environment. Rey maintained there was not a single document in the Office of the Undersecretary pertaining to this major federal rulemaking process, a response the court deemed "inadequate" and which Defenders of Wildlife President Rodger Schlickeisen called "laughable." The Forest Service was also reprimanded for being so vague in its reasons for withholding nearly three quarters of the documents requested that neither plaintiffs nor the court could assess whether the withholdings were proper.
In the tradition of Orwellian titles for his programs, Bush's forestry program was entitled the "Healthy Forests Initiative" (like PATRIOT Act and No Child Left Behind Act; who wants to leave children behind? Obviously anyone opposed to that bill). The Olympian reported on the controversy surrounding the Healthy Forests initiative: "The final rules would leave intact some of the most controversial proposals from an earlier version released in November. Like that version, the final plan would give regional managers of the Forest Service more discretion to approve logging, drilling and mining operations without having to conduct environmental impact statements."
In an attempt to counteract the negative criticism of the USA PATRIOT Act, the Department of Justice has produced a web page decrying the "myths" of the PATRIOT Act perpetuated by the evil-doers down at the ACLU.
Most of the explanations for the PATRIOT Act center around the fact that the federal government already had tools like wiretaps and warrants to fight crime; but it didn't have these tools to fight terrorism! This begs the question, "Why not?" The answer (not given on this web page) is that the PATRIOT Act lowers the evidence requirement on the part of the state from "probable cause" (defined as "sufficient reason based upon known facts to believe a crime has been committed or that certain property is connected with a crime") to showing that evidence is "relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation." What does this mean? It means that the police or the FBI no longer have to demonstrate that they believe you are committing a crime; it's enough to suggest that you're committing a crime or might commit a crime. It also allows the government to conduct so-called sneak-and-peek searches, in which police or federal officials search a person's home without his knowledge or consent and then leave, having never notified him that such a search had been conducted.
It would be great if the PATRIOT Act were used just for terrorism. But it isn't. The PATRIOT Act extends the government's surveillance powers for all crimes and it redefines other crimes so that those crimes can also be considered "terrorism." The Electronic Frontier Foundation reports, "Government spying on suspected computer trespassers (not just terrorist suspects) requires no court order. Wiretaps are now allowed for any suspected violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, offering possibilities for Government spying on any computer user."
The Domestic Security Enhancement Act, often called "PATRIOT 2," increases the government's surveillance capabilities. DOJ has kept the bill under wraps, giving the American people all the more reason to question its content. "The drafting process was kept secret and rumors about the bill’s existence were denied," says People for the American Way; "equally alarming is the draft bill’s impact on First Amendment rights of association and expression by expanding an already-overbroad definition of terrorism to potentially include disfavored political groups engaging in civil disobedience."
Though DOJ's website claims that the PATRIOT Act was passed "by overwhelming bipartisan margins," many congressmen say that the bill was rammed through both houses of Congress so fast that some of them didn't even get a chance to read it. The ACLU reports:
The Senate version of the Patriot Act, which closely resembled the legislation requested by Attorney General John Ashcroft, was sent straight to the floor with no discussion, debate, or hearings. Many Senators complained that they had little chance to read it, much less analyze it, before having to vote. In the House, hearings were held, and a carefully constructed compromise bill emerged from the Judiciary Committee. But then, with no debate or consultation with rank-and-file members, the House leadership threw out the compromise bill and replaced it with legislation that mirrored the Senate version. Neither discussion nor amendments were permitted, and once again members barely had time to read the thick bill before they were forced to cast an up-or-down vote on it. The Bush Administration implied that members who voted against it would be blamed for any further attacks -- a powerful threat at a time when the nation was expecting a second attack to come any moment and when reports of new anthrax letters were appearing daily.
The bill that would become the PATRIOT Act, H.R. 3162, was introduced in the House on October 23. It was a combination of two previous bills, H.R. 2975 (introduced on Oct. 2) and S. 1510 (introduced in the Senate on Oct. 4). It was signed by the President on October 26. The legislation was proposed and signed in three weeks -- extremely quickly in Congressional time.
The provisions of the PATRIOT Act could be used against those whose opinions are unpopular (opinions of anti-war groups could be regarded as "aiding terrorism"). Given that the Bush Administration is not above calling people's private lives into question in the midst of a debate about public policy, it is certainly not above using the mechanisms of the law to silence those who criticize it.
On Tuesday, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle released a statement on "the abuse of government power."
He makes note of President Bush's low-down, dirty spin control in the Richard Clarke matter:
The retaliation from those around the President has been fierce. Mr. Clarke's personal motives have been questioned and his honesty challenged. He has even been accused, right here on the Senate floor, of perjury. Not one shred of proof was given, but that wasn't the point. The point was to have the perjury accusation on television and in the newspapers. The point was to damage Mr. Clarke in any way possible.
But, if you'll recall, that wasn't as low as the Bush Administration went. Remember this?
When Ambassador Joe Wilson told the truth about the Administration's misleading claims about Iraq, Niger, and uranium, the people around the President didn't respond with facts. Instead, they publicly disclosed that Ambassador Wilson's wife was a deep-cover CIA agent. In doing so, they undermined America's national security and put politics first. They also may well have put the lives of Ambassador Wilson's wife, and her sources, in danger.
Anyone who criticizes the Bush Administration gets the kind of personal attacking that reminds me of Nixon. The people that work for Bush, especially Karl Rove, are colossal slimeballs that resort to childish name-calling tactics. When that doesn't work, they resort to more sophisticated attempts to destroy credibility. It's nice to know that CREEP is still alive and well, albeit in another incarnation.
Once again, I reiterate that the Bush Administration has to go. Many thanks to Scott for providing this link.
Here's a good read for the Bush administration. CBS News reports that teenagers who pledge "abstinence only" have a statistically similar STD rate as opposed to teenagers who do it with frequency. And -- here's the kicker -- "The problem, the study found, is that those virginity 'pledgers' are much less likely to use condoms. " Could that be because they don't know their options? It's possible. But let's read further.
The end of the article provides some miscellaneous statistics about people who pledge abstinence versus those who don't: "59 percent of males who did not pledge abstinence used a condom during sex; only 40 percent of male pledgers used a condom. 28 percent of female non-pledgers were tested for STDs in the previous year, compared to 14 percent of female pledgers. 99 percent of non-pledgers and 88 percent of pledgers have sex before marriage."
In light of these findings, I think that we must abandon sex education in favor of the more effective abstinence-only method.
Last night, George W. Bush gave his third State of the Union address and promised unilateralism for another year. Shooting wry grins and smugness toward the left side of the aisle (which booed him once or twice), Bush said "Bring it on!" to any potential Democratic challenger. "You think you can touch me? You got nothin'!" He reminds me of Robert DeNiro's Al Capone from The Untouchables.
On health care, he used the "p-word"; on sex education, he used the "a-word." When it came to marriage, he used . . . well, he used several words. Some of them were "sanctity of marriage." You can imagine the rest.
Of course Bush is untouchable, and any Democratic candidate that thinks so is living in a dream world, possibly created by machines. Or not. The point here is that Bush delivered a spectacular "war on terror" which promises only to continue. He bagged Saddam Hussein, something his father couldn't do and Bill Clinton wasn't interested in doing. He's changed the dictatorial regimes of two countries and coerced Qadaffi, the scourge of the 1980s, into abandoning plans for weapons of mass destruction. In foreign policy, the "Bush Doctrine" of preemptive warfare will be written in the annals of history next to the "Reagan Doctrine" of intervening in countries where it was economically or politically expedient (but there was also socialism). Thanks to his foreign policy, Bush will surely be re-elected -- as long as a recession doesn't pop up between now and November. That was his father's death knell.
After addressing foreign policy, Bush turned his eyes to the long-neglected set of domestic issues, promising health care for everyone and lauding himself and Congressional Republicans for making prescription drugs more affordable to seniors and ensuring that no child is left behind (except the millions that will be). He also encouraged Congress to make tax cuts permanent and to phase out the estate tax (what Bush expertly titles the "death tax"). So, with tax cuts for everyone, how can we increase spending on social programs and wage a war on an abstract concept without falling victim to the most harsh of judges: math. Unless he declares a War on Math to make his numbers turn out right, Bush will fall victim to the "fuzzy math" that he himself articulated during the 2000 presidential election. Or, taking another cue from the Reagan School, he can deficit-spend even further. But wait! He also wants to balance the budget! Someone get this guy a calculator and some gin.
At the end of his speech, he affirmed the conservative Christian stance on abstinence education: more of it, and more money to it. This in spite of the evidence that abstinence-only education doesn't work (I wrote about it very angrily before the blog broke). Sure, telling kids not to have sex would mean that they wouldn't do it -- in a perfect world. Back in reality, where everyone else lives, kids do it and it's not the school's job to tell them to do it or not. This article in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune discusses the failure of the state's abstinence-only program. Also note that abstinence-only education is hopelessly intermingled with conservative Christian values.
But before he got to abstinence, Bush affirmed his support for a constitutional amendment to sanctify the marriage between a man and a woman. If it weren't for those gol-durn activist judges! What do they think they're doin', interpreting the Constitution in a way that Bush disagrees with?! We'll show 'em! We'll stall the judicial process for the next five years!
So, in closing, the State of the Union address merely affirmed my desire for a new president, since this one is hopelessly divisive and has his priorities all wrong.
Currently under investigation for illegally obtaining prescription painkillers, Republican demagogue Rush Limbaugh has the audacity to state to his national radio audience that the investigators have political motives for the investigation. "Limbaugh compared the search warrants for his medical records to the demands that Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean release political records from his years as Vermont governor," says the story from NewsMax.com. Rush also used the occasion to ponder the hypocrisy of why his doctors are being investigated, but Dean's political record is not being investigated. "'A lot of people think he should release his political records. ... Nobody's demanding he release them. There aren't any search warrants being issued for his political records," Limbaugh said from his South Florida studio. "I bet you what, if I had been treated by Dr. Dean, I bet you Democrats in certain parts of this country would be demanding his records'," Rush is quoted as saying in the NewsMax article. Funny thing is, the media are demanding Dean's records (once again, Rush is proven wrong). In a December 8 Newsweek article by Michael Isikoff (headlined "What's in Howard Dean's Secret Vermont Files?"), it is noted that people want Dean's political records, but they "are locked in a remote state warehouse -- the result of an aggressive legal strategy designed in part to protect Dean from political attacks." Even the supposed bastion of the phantasmic "liberal media," The New York Times, calls Dean out: "There is no good explanation for why Howard Dean's office sought to have nearly half of his gubernatorial records sealed away in Vermont," says an editorial written on December 5.
So, to summarize: Rush is comparing an investigation into his criminal activities to an investigation into someone's political activities. Then, he (incorrectly) states that Democrats aren't questioning Dean about his own past as governor of Vermont.
Apparently, Cal Thomas isn't the Rush Limbaugh I thought he was. While Rush blindly follows the Republican line anywhere it goes, Cal seems to have the ability to think for himself. Headlined "The Embarassing GOP," an editorial written today criticizes the Republican congress for engaging in too much unnecessary spending. "The Bush administration was supposed to hold the line on spending as a justification for the tax cuts. The president has criticized Washington for spending too much money, yet without a peep he signs legislation that increases the budget of the Department of Education and many other agencies," he says. Good job, Cal. Although, he complains about an excess of spending on social programs, like any good Republican should.
The Glenn Beck Show, which airs every weekday from 9-11 AM on my home station, WTAM 1100, brings us a jolly piece of news that's sure to illicit groans (full story from CNN.com). For the fifth time since 1995, the House of Representatives passed a proposal for a flag-burning amendment. Fortunately, the Senate has never passed such a resolution. To be ratified, an amendment must pass by a two-thirds vote in the House and Senate and pass 38 of the 50 state legislatures.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. Johnson (491 U.S. 397, 1989) that laws against flag burning violated the First Amendment. Justice Brennan, writing the opinion of the court, equated flag-burning with other flag-related expressive conduct: "attaching a peace sign to the flag, refusing to salute the flag, and displaying a red flag, we have held, all may find shelter under the First Amendment." The issue in Texas v. Johnson was whether or not setting the flag alight could cause an immediate breach of the peace, as the Texas court conceded that flag-burning had value as expressive speech. The Supreme Court did not see that at all: "No reasonable onlooker would have regarded Johnson's generalized expression of dissatisfaction with the policies of the Federal Government as a direct personal insult or an invitation to exchange fisticuffs," writes Brennan. Johnson was convicted of "desecration of a venerated object," a Texas state law. In reasoning that the law was constitutional, the state of Texas argued that the government had a compelling interest in preserving the sanctity of the flag as a symbol; however, the Supreme Court has "never before have held that the Government may ensure that a symbol be used to express only one view of that symbol or its referents."
For more information, see United States v. O'Brien (391 U.S. 367, 1968).