Christmas
For Dummies
Are you beginning to get the picture? Are you starting to understand better just why 15th century Europeans chased fundamentalist Christians off their continent centuries ago? Because they can they are never satisfied, never know when enough is enough, because it's NEVER enough. They have taken the art of being annoying to levels that make it impossible to just ignore them. They simply will NOT practice their faith quietly. They will NOT be ignored. Instead they keep getting up everyone else's nose until everyone else says, "enough!" Leave. Just leave!
Yeah, I know, that's not how today's Christians tell the story. They say they had to flee to the New World because they were being "oppressed." They always say that when people refuse to buy into what ever nonsense they happen to be peddling at the time. I'm sure 16th century Europeans had plenty of more interesting and profitable things to do back then than waste their time harassing a few thousand nut-fringe Christians.
Whether fundamentalist ("Puritan") Christians were indeed oppressed or tossed out of Europe for cause, I suspect they brought it upon themselves. And, the minute they landed in the New World, they've been working overtime to wear their welcome out here as well. h
(Moments in History: Did you know that the Puritans actually outlawed the celebration of Christmas for the first quarter century they spent in the New World? Yep. People started having too much fun, enjoying food, drink and engaging in general merriment. They put a stop to it. Meanwhile, back in Europe folks were finally amble to enjoy Christmas without having a people with big hats and small minds grousing about it.)
I only mention this because of the flap our modern Puritan-numbskull-nags are making over the word "Christmas" this year. They are not satisfied that we now have include their pretend friend, Jesus Christ, shoved down kid's brains in public schools, and his stony image planted in front of public buildings, but now they insist we put his name on all things Holiday Season.
I have nothing against Christmas, not the day or the word. The word is everywhere. "Christmas Sale!" and "Christmas present," and "Christmas Eve." I even like Christmas carols – at least until I burn out on them -- which is usually around noon Christmas day.
But fundamentalist Christians believe this season – all of it -- is the exclusive property of Christians – even though that belief is demonstrably untrue.
The last time I checked the IRS taxes Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, other non-Christians and atheists all at the same rate. That means all those non-Christians pay a portion of the First Family's overhead too. But the fundamentalists are now ragging on the Bush's for doing the right thing, using the generic, "Happy Holidays," on cards sent out to thousands of Americans, only some of whom are Christian.
"Outrageous!" they scream. Christmas begins with "Christ" and now the White House has banished Christ! They insist the White House use "Merry Christmas" in their annual cards. Makes one wonder though how Rev. Jerry Faldwell would react if his White House card next year was inscribed, "Happy Hanukkah!" George & Laura Bush." I don't think we have to wonder long.
Bush “claims to be a born-again, evangelical Christian. But he sure doesn’t act like one,” said Joseph Farah, editor of the conservative Web site WorldNetDaily.com. “I threw out my White House card as soon as I got it.” (Full Story)
You see fundamentalist Christians believe they own this holiday, and not just some of it, but all of it. Never mind that Hanukkah is also celebrated at this time by Jews, or that New Years is included as part of the "holiday season." Fundamentalist Christians insist Christ holds the exclusive copyright on the whole thing and, therefore, all of it – the sales, the tress and the cards – be Christly branded.
Let me stop here and say not all Christians are either obnoxious or uncaring. Millions are more than happy to share the season with other faiths and secularists. But fundamentalist Christians want it all. Puritans always do. They argue that this holiday is all Christian because it celebrates the birth of their savior. (How about Merry Birthday?" Just a thought.)
As a person who long ago ceased believing in fables, I don't buy the virgin birth business to begin with. The whole Christmas fable is suspect. I do believe Jesus was real and born roughly around what we now call the First Century AD. And that his mother was Mary. But that's where the facts stop and the fancy begins. From there I have to extrapolate. Mary must have gotten pregnant by someone other than husband Joe. What makes me suspect this? Because she concocted the most unbelievable "how I got pregnant" tale since the "I must have sat on a dirty toilet seat," excuse, that's why.
Okay, that was bit harsh. We must remember that poor young Mary lived in a culture where women had no rights whatsoever. And women caught (or even suspected) of doing anything remotely normal, were likely to get stoned to death. Who knows how Mary got pregnant. Local girls were routinely raped by occupying Roman soldiers, and rape was treated the same as adultery in those days. (And it remains that way to this day in large parts of the Middle East, India and Pakistan, which is why rape, while prevalent, is rarely reported.)
So Mary had a problem – a life and death problem. Since apparitions couldn't be tortured into spilling the beans, an amorous apparition was Mary's best chance of avoiding becoming the former Mrs. Joseph. So, she went for it, and the rest is history. I don't blame Mary. How was she to know her fib would get so out hand?
(Which is likely why Mary continues haunting pieces of toast and freeway underpasses. The poor girl is trying to apologize. Imagine her chagrin when the only people who show up are fundamentalist zombies. Poor thing.)
I hear it every time I write a rant like this: "Pizzo, leave the Christians alone." To which I reply -- happy too... just as soon as they just leave me, and non-Christians like me, alone.
They say, "If you don't believe in Jesus, you can go to hell," and continue insisting we all agree to things that affirm their beliefs, no matter how nonsensical those beliefs might be. Fundamentalist Christians say they just want to "return religion to the public square." Fine. Bring it on. But the public square isn't a lecture hall, it's a debating society. Back at ya. You say it's so, I say it ain't so. (And vocal disagreement isn't "oppression." no matter how many times you say it is.)
Until then the more annoying they get the more I will go out of my way to annoy them. Which is why I let loose on them today. Because once again they are, in our faces, this time about the word "Christmas." If you don't wish everyone a Merry Christmas on your Holiday cards you're a heathen, secular un-American who is "oppressing" Christians again.
To which I reply, bite me!
I'm used to having fundamentalist Christians rag on me, but I bet this is a whole new experience for George and Laura. Hopefully an instructive one too. Because there an important there. a lesson those Puritans of old learned too late. They pushed one time too many and the next thing the knew they were shivering around campfires in the American wilderness.
Unfortunately we are plum out of New World's where we can send our pack of annoying, demanding fundamentlaist dimwits. But hope may be just over the horizon. I read this morning that Virgin Air CEO, Richard Branson, will begin providing space flights for civilians in 2008 from a base in New Mexico. I immediately had a vision of a spaceship filled with born-again Christians singing, "Nearer my Lord to thee," as it blasted off on journey to their new planet.
Now, that would be a Merry Christmas.
Hypocrites for Christ
Many of the most annoying cells of born-again Christians belong to those new "mega churches," run by Elmer Gantry-like slicksters. These organizations have always struck me as being more businesses than churches – wholesale fleecing operations with their own 1-800 numbers where operators await 24/7 and accept all credit cards.
These mega-churches insist they are churches, and the IRS pretends to believe them. But, more and more, they look like and act like just any other business:
When Christmas Falls on Sunday, Megachurches Take the Day Off
Some of the nation's most prominent megachurches have decided not to hold worship services on the Sunday that coincides with Christmas Day, a move that is generating controversy among evangelical Christians at a time when many conservative groups are battling to "put the Christ back in Christmas." (Full Story)
See. Real Christian churches treat Christmas as the holiest day of the year. Mega churches treat it as a holiday, just like most other businesses. (Except of course for their 1-800 numbers. Christmas day or not, operators are waiting by phones to fleece their flock. It is, after all, the season for giving, and what business wants to miss profit center like that!)
Oh, almost forgot...
Happy Holidays
Monday, December 12, 2005
Friday, December 09, 2005
December 8, 2005
Squeezing The Grapes of Wrath
Just last month GOP compassionate conservatives, who have given nearly $2 trillion in tax cuts largely benefiting the rich, cut $50 billion from programs for the poor. This wasn't a "let them eat cake" move by the GOP, because they took the cake too and dutifully parsed it out to their friends.
Washington Post -- The House passed three separate tax cuts yesterday and plans to approve a fourth today, trimming the federal revenue by $94.5 billion over five years -- nearly double the budget savings that Republicans muscled through the House last month....GOP leaders portray the tax bills -- for the hurricane-ravaged Gulf Coast, affluent investors, U.S. troops serving in Iraq and taxpayers who otherwise would be hit by the alternative minimum tax -- as vital to keeping the economy rolling. (Full Story)
But wait, the math doesn't add up. They squeezed the poor as hard as they dared but could only get $50 billion out of them. Where'd the other $44.5 billion come from?
Well, they borrowed it from your kids, of course. (Screw the little bastards! They can't vote yet.) So Republicans borrowed again. They just shoved the national platinum card into the ATM (China) and took a $44.5 billion cash advance, then gave it to their already comfortable constituents. It's a win/win for the GOP. The poor, if they vote at all, vote Democrat. And the kids don't vote at all. But corporations vote with their checkbooks and the wealthy vote twice -- once with their checkbooks then their ballots. A win/win.
But I predict this will be the final squeezing of the grapes of wrath. At a certain point there's just no juice left, and we've reached that point.
(I know all this stuff is mind-numbingly boring, and I apologize for throwing it in your path during the Holidays like this. But this is going to have more impact on your everyday life for the next five years or so than anything else going on right now. But, if you stop reading, I understand.)
Economies and the natural ecology have a lot in common. They both rely on interlocking systems to run properly. And they both have at least some natural abilities to repair themselves when damaged. But, if abused too much, too many sub-systems can't hold up their ends of the bargain and go into some level of collapse. If we're lucky it's just a localized collapse. But if the damage is deep and widespread it can trigger a cascade of sub-system failures leading to a total systemic collapse. In the natural environment it's called "mass extinction." In the economy it's called a depression.
The GOP has abused our economic ecology in dramatic and, I fear, catastrophic ways. At the very least we will see localized collapse, but I fear worse.
But wait, you say, didn't we just hear that the economy is healthy and moving along at a brisk pace? How's that jive with predictions of doom and gloom?
Have you ever seen someone drive a work horse into the ground? It looks a lot the same. The driver whips and whips the poor beast, which in turn keeps pulling the wagon. If the horse slows, the driver whips him more, and the poor old horse again struggles on. Some bystanders warn the driver, "Hey, if you keep driving that horse so hard you're gonna kill him," The driver scoffs. "You keep saying that but, look, he keeps pulling the wagon." And the horse will keep bravely pulling that wagon, right up until the moment his legs go out from under him, and he crashes to ground, stone dead. You can never predict exactly when that moment will come, only that it will.
GOP conservatives have driven our economy in just that way, whipping up economic activity by giving away trillions of dollars in tax cut. Like spraying gasoline on smoldering embers these tax cuts have created flare ups of economic activity. But, in the process, they gutted the national treasury, weakening the horse that pulls our economic wagon, the US dollar. , which is now, though still bravely pulling the wagon, is nearing collapse.
Want proof. Just watch the gold bugs. Gold is to investors what fox holes are to soldiers. When you see investors closing out their stock and bond positions and moving to historically high positions in precious metals, particularly gold and silver, it's time to start digging your own fox hole.
New York – Gold has marched to its highest level in 24 years in response to a new wave of buying triggered by a growing acceptance of the metal's strong supply-demand fundamentals. The price surge also comes at a time when gold's traditional hedge status is increasingly being called on because of global currency and inflation risks. (Full Story)
Yep. When you gut the US Treasury by giving too much money back in tax cuts, you gut the value of the US dollar. Suddenly it takes more the green little buggers to convince foreigners to trade them for the stuff they have we want, like oil and cheap crap from China.
The price of gold is a mirror image of the value of the dollar. It's a leading indicator warning that the buck has sprung a serious leak. When that happens savvy investors start dragging their assets into gold-lined foxholes so they don't get washed away by the approaching tsunami.
Now it is true that the gold bugs are not always right. Sometimes they dive into their foxholes only to miss another sunny day at the beach. But when gold makes the kind of dramatic moves it's making now, they're usually right. The last time I saw a move like this it was back in 1979-80 when the deficits we ran up paying for the war in Vietnam came home to roost. Inflation soared as did interest rate. That in turn popped what had been a very hot housing bubble. And gold took off, eventually reaching $850 an ounce in April 1980.
Today we have much the same going on. The only difference is that the deficits this time are so enormous they are trigging trouble a lot sooner than the Vietnam era "guns and butter" policies. But like now, in late 70's we are also coming to the end of a six year housing price boom. Unlike 1979 this time the war that broke us is still on. And, despite all the recent blather about withdrawing, we will continue spending billions of dollars a month in Iraq for years to come. (We broke it, now we have to pay up to fix it.)
So, remember that "cascading collapse" I mentioned above? Well here's how one begins:
"According to World Gold Council figures, India — which accounts for 20 per cent of world demand — had the highest-ever quarterly demand in the second quarter of 2005, 42 per cent up from the year before in tonnage terms. China accounts for only 3 per cent of global demand, although jewelry demand there grew by 11 per cent in the second quarter of 2005. (Full Story)
These are the early signs of trouble. First, the demand for gold bullion is demonstrably up, way up. And that much gold is not going into bling, but vaults..
But it's the mention of China's growing interest in the metal that should send chills up the spine. Because for the last decade China has been salting all the money it's making selling us stuff into US Treasury bonds. In other words, China is America's lender. And since the US now lives almost entirely on credit, if China begins dumping those bonds to buy gold, we're in deep do-do.
There's also trouble looming right on US soil as well. The University of California just released a study warning that the housing bubble has begun deflating at a faster rate than earlier admitted. The study predicts that cooling will result in the loss of around 860,000 jobs, half a million of which will be lost in one of last well-paying blue collar profession in the US, construction.
Wait, there's more. The American consumer has come to think of their home equity as a piggy bank they dip into to maintain a middle class standard of living their new jobs can no longer support. That's about to change too, a change that could well spark a collapse in retail sector. With consumers buying less stuff, companies will cut back. We could see job losses in what few manufacturing jobs still remain in the US as well as major layoffs in the now critical service sector.
That's the scenario gold bugs are preparing for now. That's why gold has soared to it's highest value in a quarter century.
So, what can you do about it? If you are a working stiff, damn little I'm afraid. It's too late. We let supply-side sociopaths run barefoot through our treasury for too long. The damage they've inflicted on our fiscal ecology is too deep, too widespread. We can now only hope that whatever punishment the economy imposes on us will be restricted to certain sectors and will not trigger a systemic-wide collapse.
How long do we have? It's already begun. Once the obligatory holiday spending season ends you'll begin seeing the first bodies washing ashore.
Just last month GOP compassionate conservatives, who have given nearly $2 trillion in tax cuts largely benefiting the rich, cut $50 billion from programs for the poor. This wasn't a "let them eat cake" move by the GOP, because they took the cake too and dutifully parsed it out to their friends.
Washington Post -- The House passed three separate tax cuts yesterday and plans to approve a fourth today, trimming the federal revenue by $94.5 billion over five years -- nearly double the budget savings that Republicans muscled through the House last month....GOP leaders portray the tax bills -- for the hurricane-ravaged Gulf Coast, affluent investors, U.S. troops serving in Iraq and taxpayers who otherwise would be hit by the alternative minimum tax -- as vital to keeping the economy rolling. (Full Story)
But wait, the math doesn't add up. They squeezed the poor as hard as they dared but could only get $50 billion out of them. Where'd the other $44.5 billion come from?
Well, they borrowed it from your kids, of course. (Screw the little bastards! They can't vote yet.) So Republicans borrowed again. They just shoved the national platinum card into the ATM (China) and took a $44.5 billion cash advance, then gave it to their already comfortable constituents. It's a win/win for the GOP. The poor, if they vote at all, vote Democrat. And the kids don't vote at all. But corporations vote with their checkbooks and the wealthy vote twice -- once with their checkbooks then their ballots. A win/win.
But I predict this will be the final squeezing of the grapes of wrath. At a certain point there's just no juice left, and we've reached that point.
(I know all this stuff is mind-numbingly boring, and I apologize for throwing it in your path during the Holidays like this. But this is going to have more impact on your everyday life for the next five years or so than anything else going on right now. But, if you stop reading, I understand.)
Economies and the natural ecology have a lot in common. They both rely on interlocking systems to run properly. And they both have at least some natural abilities to repair themselves when damaged. But, if abused too much, too many sub-systems can't hold up their ends of the bargain and go into some level of collapse. If we're lucky it's just a localized collapse. But if the damage is deep and widespread it can trigger a cascade of sub-system failures leading to a total systemic collapse. In the natural environment it's called "mass extinction." In the economy it's called a depression.
The GOP has abused our economic ecology in dramatic and, I fear, catastrophic ways. At the very least we will see localized collapse, but I fear worse.
But wait, you say, didn't we just hear that the economy is healthy and moving along at a brisk pace? How's that jive with predictions of doom and gloom?
Have you ever seen someone drive a work horse into the ground? It looks a lot the same. The driver whips and whips the poor beast, which in turn keeps pulling the wagon. If the horse slows, the driver whips him more, and the poor old horse again struggles on. Some bystanders warn the driver, "Hey, if you keep driving that horse so hard you're gonna kill him," The driver scoffs. "You keep saying that but, look, he keeps pulling the wagon." And the horse will keep bravely pulling that wagon, right up until the moment his legs go out from under him, and he crashes to ground, stone dead. You can never predict exactly when that moment will come, only that it will.
GOP conservatives have driven our economy in just that way, whipping up economic activity by giving away trillions of dollars in tax cut. Like spraying gasoline on smoldering embers these tax cuts have created flare ups of economic activity. But, in the process, they gutted the national treasury, weakening the horse that pulls our economic wagon, the US dollar. , which is now, though still bravely pulling the wagon, is nearing collapse.
Want proof. Just watch the gold bugs. Gold is to investors what fox holes are to soldiers. When you see investors closing out their stock and bond positions and moving to historically high positions in precious metals, particularly gold and silver, it's time to start digging your own fox hole.
New York – Gold has marched to its highest level in 24 years in response to a new wave of buying triggered by a growing acceptance of the metal's strong supply-demand fundamentals. The price surge also comes at a time when gold's traditional hedge status is increasingly being called on because of global currency and inflation risks. (Full Story)
Yep. When you gut the US Treasury by giving too much money back in tax cuts, you gut the value of the US dollar. Suddenly it takes more the green little buggers to convince foreigners to trade them for the stuff they have we want, like oil and cheap crap from China.
The price of gold is a mirror image of the value of the dollar. It's a leading indicator warning that the buck has sprung a serious leak. When that happens savvy investors start dragging their assets into gold-lined foxholes so they don't get washed away by the approaching tsunami.
Now it is true that the gold bugs are not always right. Sometimes they dive into their foxholes only to miss another sunny day at the beach. But when gold makes the kind of dramatic moves it's making now, they're usually right. The last time I saw a move like this it was back in 1979-80 when the deficits we ran up paying for the war in Vietnam came home to roost. Inflation soared as did interest rate. That in turn popped what had been a very hot housing bubble. And gold took off, eventually reaching $850 an ounce in April 1980.
Today we have much the same going on. The only difference is that the deficits this time are so enormous they are trigging trouble a lot sooner than the Vietnam era "guns and butter" policies. But like now, in late 70's we are also coming to the end of a six year housing price boom. Unlike 1979 this time the war that broke us is still on. And, despite all the recent blather about withdrawing, we will continue spending billions of dollars a month in Iraq for years to come. (We broke it, now we have to pay up to fix it.)
So, remember that "cascading collapse" I mentioned above? Well here's how one begins:
"According to World Gold Council figures, India — which accounts for 20 per cent of world demand — had the highest-ever quarterly demand in the second quarter of 2005, 42 per cent up from the year before in tonnage terms. China accounts for only 3 per cent of global demand, although jewelry demand there grew by 11 per cent in the second quarter of 2005. (Full Story)
These are the early signs of trouble. First, the demand for gold bullion is demonstrably up, way up. And that much gold is not going into bling, but vaults..
But it's the mention of China's growing interest in the metal that should send chills up the spine. Because for the last decade China has been salting all the money it's making selling us stuff into US Treasury bonds. In other words, China is America's lender. And since the US now lives almost entirely on credit, if China begins dumping those bonds to buy gold, we're in deep do-do.
There's also trouble looming right on US soil as well. The University of California just released a study warning that the housing bubble has begun deflating at a faster rate than earlier admitted. The study predicts that cooling will result in the loss of around 860,000 jobs, half a million of which will be lost in one of last well-paying blue collar profession in the US, construction.
Wait, there's more. The American consumer has come to think of their home equity as a piggy bank they dip into to maintain a middle class standard of living their new jobs can no longer support. That's about to change too, a change that could well spark a collapse in retail sector. With consumers buying less stuff, companies will cut back. We could see job losses in what few manufacturing jobs still remain in the US as well as major layoffs in the now critical service sector.
That's the scenario gold bugs are preparing for now. That's why gold has soared to it's highest value in a quarter century.
So, what can you do about it? If you are a working stiff, damn little I'm afraid. It's too late. We let supply-side sociopaths run barefoot through our treasury for too long. The damage they've inflicted on our fiscal ecology is too deep, too widespread. We can now only hope that whatever punishment the economy imposes on us will be restricted to certain sectors and will not trigger a systemic-wide collapse.
How long do we have? It's already begun. Once the obligatory holiday spending season ends you'll begin seeing the first bodies washing ashore.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
December 6, 2005
Beware: The Cult of Hillary
No Republican bashing today. Why? Because it's not required. The Republican revolution is finally petering out, dying a death of a thousand self-inflicted cuts. I said several years ago that the best way to get rid of neo-conservatives is to give them everything they said they wanted. They got pretty much all of what they said they wanted – tax cuts for the rich, welfare cuts for the poor, less environmental restrictions on businesses, free trade, conservative courts, faith-based politics, faith-based education. It began in 1994 with Newt and will come to a grinding stop in November 2006.
That's the good news.
The bad news comes two years later, in November 2008. While Democrats will regain some of their lost power in '06, (with the growing possibility they will even regain at least one house of Congress,) the party is risking the big prize, the White House in '08.
That risk can be summed up in two words: Hillary Clinton. If Democrats give Hillary the nod in '08 they will lose the White House again -- and this time not by the narrowest of margins, but in a landslide. Why?
Because Hillary is "one of them." There come along from time to time unique personalities that, flawed as they are, attract followers like flies to dung. The likes of Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Rev. Moon, Tom DeLay, George W. Bush. People like them, follow them down the strangest of paths and trust them with their most precious possessions.
This leaves the rest of us watching in disbelief, scratching our heads wondering if maybe we're missing something. How can otherwise functioning, rational, law-abiding folk be attracted to such obvious liars, phonies and connivers? Because they are. It's always have been and it will always be so. It's truly one of life's great mysteries.
Hillary Clinton is precisely such a person. There's something about the woman that dazzles some people.
I first saw it three years ago while attending meetings with Democrat strategists in Washington. A cell phone would ring. "Mumble, mumble... okay." Click. "I have to go," the recipient would say, adding importantly, "I have to meet with Hillary." A knowing hush would fall over the room. Glances exchanged. Heads nodded. A call had come from on high. Power had touched all in the room. It was as if the image of the Virgin Mary had appeared on that fellow's toasted cheese sandwich.
I called it The Cult of Hillary. And I want to tell you, it's strong, organized and growing. They are hungry. Hungry for power. Hungry to put their leader in charge. They revere her, hang on her every thought, follow her every command. They are an army of Hillary Moonies and they have their eyes firmly planted on the prize.
Then there are those die-hard pro-Hillary voters. Somehow Hillary has convinced them she actually cares about the same things they care about. This is no small feat since all available documentary evidence points to a woman who cares only about what is selling at any point in time. When the sales climate changes, she changes right along with it.
And she lies. She lies just like the very politicians those same voters claim they despise.
"I am happy being a senator from New York and have no plans to run for President," she has told every reporter who asked. "I'm not running," she said at a breakfast with political reporters. When asked whether anything could convince her to change her mind, she shook her head and said firmly: "No."
(I can always tell when Hillary is fixin' to lie because she always precedes the untruth with a disarming, dismissive, phony laugh. Remember that.)
Despite all those video taped denials, Hillary really is running for President. (Did you ever doubt it?) The Hillary for President campaign kicked into higher gear in recent days. The little triangulator got about the business of putting a new coat of paint on, reinventing herself to reflect the very latest poll findings.
On the War in Iraq: Hillary voted for the damn thing, along with other weak-kneed Dems scared they'd look like sissies if they didn't. Then she spent the next three years trying to look at least as macho as George W. on the war. But now that polls show voters are fed up with the war, so she is too -- now.
But when you just spent three years defending your vote to go to war you have back out of that position carefully, slowly, an inch at time. No quick moves, she's too smart for that. Just a long, slow turn -- a giant leftward arch she hopes voters will not notice ends 180 degrees from where she began.
Did she begin this turn dramatically, bravely, like John Murtha? No way, Jose. Reporters would grill her, confront her with her earlier pro-war statements. That would screw up her stealth metamorphosis. So, Hillary began her transformation by sitting right down and writing herself a letter last week:
"I take responsibility for my vote, and I, along with a majority of Americans, expect the president and his administration to take responsibility for the false assurances, faulty evidence and mismanagement of the war," the New York senator said in a 1600-word letter to thousands of people who have written her about the war. (Full Story)
Hillary was brainwashed by the Bush administration? Was that it? Yep. And, damn it, she expects an apology! I guess I'd buy that had she written the same letter two years ago, when nearly everyone else accepted we'd been sold a bill of goods. But no, Hillary continued supporting the war until just recently. Why? Because Hillary wasn't finished establishing her tough-girl bones. More US troops had to die so Hillary could prove she's no limp-wrist liberal.
But, now the polls show that even pro-military Red State voters are beginning to lean away from the war. Hillary had to reposition, let the growing number of anti-war voters know she was with them. She needed to give them a big Hillary, "Me too!"
On Meaningless Patriotic Gestures: Triangulating ain't easy. A person can get herself all tangled up if not careful. A valueless trangulator must be fast on her feet. Backing away from supporting the war would get her some votes from the left, but could lose her an equal number of votes from moderate conservatives. Because it would associate her with the liberal anti-war Democrats. Hillary has done the electoral collage math and knows she needs moderate voters from Red States to win the White House. So she had to come up with a gimmick to lead moderates into believing she's no America-hating liberal. No siree Bob! So we got this:
WASHINGTON (AP) _ Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is supporting new legislation to criminalize desecration of the United States flag ...Clinton, D-N.Y., has agreed to co-sponsor a measure by Republican Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah, which has been written in hopes of surviving any constitutional challenge following a 2003 Supreme Court ruling on the subject....Her support of Bennett's bill follows her position in Congress last summer, when a constitutional ban on flag-burning was debated. Clinton said then she didn't support a constitutional ban, but did support federal legislation making it a crime to desecrate the flag. (Full Story)
Presto chango on flag burning. "You against burning the American flag." Hillary says, "Well, me too. Honest."
Hillary's explanation for this switcheroo is classic Clinton. Is she or isn't she for a law against burning US flags? Well, depends on what the meaning of "is" is. She has been against a constitutional amendment and still is. But now she is for a federal statute against flag burning. What's that all about? Triangulation, baby. Triangulation.
Let me help you solve this Hillary puzzle. It's really quite simple and obvious. (Too obvious.) A constitutional amendment can't be overturned by the Supreme Court. A statute passed by Congress can be. Hillary figures she can have it both ways. By backing a statute against flag burning she can convince moderate voters that she's a true blue flag waving jingo American. But she knows such a law to be so obviously unconstitutional even a conservative Supreme Court would overturn it.
Is this governing? Hardly. It's just more of the same cynical, strategic fakery and demagoguery that's gotten us into the various messes we're mired in now.
The above should be reasons enough for Democrats to say no to Hillary in '08. But add to all that the truckloads of negative PR baggage Hillary drags with her and you have the perfect formula for failure. (More than failure, a historic political drubbing.) As I said in an earlier column, if you thought the sleazy Swift Boaters disemboweled John Kerry just wait until their like-minded brethren get rolling on presidential candidate Hillary Clinton!
If, after thinking about all that, you're still dazzled by Hillary, try this on for size. Republicans may be corrupt but they are not stupid. They understand they let their far right wing push the envelope too far. They read polls too. They know voters are fed up with false trickled down economic promises, tax cuts for the already wealthy, mounting deficits, job losses and war. And be assured their candidates for president in 08 will reflect that. Hillary will not have the luxury of running against the likes of George W. Bush in '08.
So, you want Hillary? But Hillary vs. who?
How about this GOP ticket: McCain/Guliani.
Hillary would be finished the day that ticket were announced. Finished. First McCain's position on the war is, unlike Hillary's, at least believable -- If the nation is really at war, as the President claims, then act like it -- either double the number of US troops in Iraq or get out. And on the subject of torture he speaks with personal authority and is unconditionally against it.
Guliani's position on abortion and gay rights is as liberal as Hillary's but more reliable. Think about it. It's easy for Hillary to espouse choice and gay rights because those positions represent her party's positions. But Rudy risks losing Republican votes by holding firm on a woman's right to choose and gay rights.
So ask yourself, if the day comes when the chips are really down on a woman's right to choose, which of the two, Rudy or Hillary, do you think would stand firmly with women? I suspect it would be Rudy. Hillary would check the polls first and, if she found the winds blowing even slightly left to right that day, she'd sell women down the river in a New York minute. Believe it. Her finger is already testing the breezes on abortion rights:
Hillary is already "talking about finding “common ground” with abortion foes. Like Moses leading her party to the Promised Land, Hillary is treading a path to Red State America. She may be the darling of the liberal left, but she won in New York by appealing to upstate voters who are traditionally Republican." (Full Story)
I hope that between now and next year Democrats figure this out and start looking for two candidates progressives can enthusiastically embrace in 08. If such candidates don't exist within the confines of the old Democrat Party, then it's time for progressives to start looking for a new home.
And the best way for the party to signal that moment is to nominate Hillary for President.
No Republican bashing today. Why? Because it's not required. The Republican revolution is finally petering out, dying a death of a thousand self-inflicted cuts. I said several years ago that the best way to get rid of neo-conservatives is to give them everything they said they wanted. They got pretty much all of what they said they wanted – tax cuts for the rich, welfare cuts for the poor, less environmental restrictions on businesses, free trade, conservative courts, faith-based politics, faith-based education. It began in 1994 with Newt and will come to a grinding stop in November 2006.
That's the good news.
The bad news comes two years later, in November 2008. While Democrats will regain some of their lost power in '06, (with the growing possibility they will even regain at least one house of Congress,) the party is risking the big prize, the White House in '08.
That risk can be summed up in two words: Hillary Clinton. If Democrats give Hillary the nod in '08 they will lose the White House again -- and this time not by the narrowest of margins, but in a landslide. Why?
Because Hillary is "one of them." There come along from time to time unique personalities that, flawed as they are, attract followers like flies to dung. The likes of Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Rev. Moon, Tom DeLay, George W. Bush. People like them, follow them down the strangest of paths and trust them with their most precious possessions.
This leaves the rest of us watching in disbelief, scratching our heads wondering if maybe we're missing something. How can otherwise functioning, rational, law-abiding folk be attracted to such obvious liars, phonies and connivers? Because they are. It's always have been and it will always be so. It's truly one of life's great mysteries.
Hillary Clinton is precisely such a person. There's something about the woman that dazzles some people.
I first saw it three years ago while attending meetings with Democrat strategists in Washington. A cell phone would ring. "Mumble, mumble... okay." Click. "I have to go," the recipient would say, adding importantly, "I have to meet with Hillary." A knowing hush would fall over the room. Glances exchanged. Heads nodded. A call had come from on high. Power had touched all in the room. It was as if the image of the Virgin Mary had appeared on that fellow's toasted cheese sandwich.
I called it The Cult of Hillary. And I want to tell you, it's strong, organized and growing. They are hungry. Hungry for power. Hungry to put their leader in charge. They revere her, hang on her every thought, follow her every command. They are an army of Hillary Moonies and they have their eyes firmly planted on the prize.
Then there are those die-hard pro-Hillary voters. Somehow Hillary has convinced them she actually cares about the same things they care about. This is no small feat since all available documentary evidence points to a woman who cares only about what is selling at any point in time. When the sales climate changes, she changes right along with it.
And she lies. She lies just like the very politicians those same voters claim they despise.
"I am happy being a senator from New York and have no plans to run for President," she has told every reporter who asked. "I'm not running," she said at a breakfast with political reporters. When asked whether anything could convince her to change her mind, she shook her head and said firmly: "No."
(I can always tell when Hillary is fixin' to lie because she always precedes the untruth with a disarming, dismissive, phony laugh. Remember that.)
Despite all those video taped denials, Hillary really is running for President. (Did you ever doubt it?) The Hillary for President campaign kicked into higher gear in recent days. The little triangulator got about the business of putting a new coat of paint on, reinventing herself to reflect the very latest poll findings.
On the War in Iraq: Hillary voted for the damn thing, along with other weak-kneed Dems scared they'd look like sissies if they didn't. Then she spent the next three years trying to look at least as macho as George W. on the war. But now that polls show voters are fed up with the war, so she is too -- now.
But when you just spent three years defending your vote to go to war you have back out of that position carefully, slowly, an inch at time. No quick moves, she's too smart for that. Just a long, slow turn -- a giant leftward arch she hopes voters will not notice ends 180 degrees from where she began.
Did she begin this turn dramatically, bravely, like John Murtha? No way, Jose. Reporters would grill her, confront her with her earlier pro-war statements. That would screw up her stealth metamorphosis. So, Hillary began her transformation by sitting right down and writing herself a letter last week:
"I take responsibility for my vote, and I, along with a majority of Americans, expect the president and his administration to take responsibility for the false assurances, faulty evidence and mismanagement of the war," the New York senator said in a 1600-word letter to thousands of people who have written her about the war. (Full Story)
Hillary was brainwashed by the Bush administration? Was that it? Yep. And, damn it, she expects an apology! I guess I'd buy that had she written the same letter two years ago, when nearly everyone else accepted we'd been sold a bill of goods. But no, Hillary continued supporting the war until just recently. Why? Because Hillary wasn't finished establishing her tough-girl bones. More US troops had to die so Hillary could prove she's no limp-wrist liberal.
But, now the polls show that even pro-military Red State voters are beginning to lean away from the war. Hillary had to reposition, let the growing number of anti-war voters know she was with them. She needed to give them a big Hillary, "Me too!"
On Meaningless Patriotic Gestures: Triangulating ain't easy. A person can get herself all tangled up if not careful. A valueless trangulator must be fast on her feet. Backing away from supporting the war would get her some votes from the left, but could lose her an equal number of votes from moderate conservatives. Because it would associate her with the liberal anti-war Democrats. Hillary has done the electoral collage math and knows she needs moderate voters from Red States to win the White House. So she had to come up with a gimmick to lead moderates into believing she's no America-hating liberal. No siree Bob! So we got this:
WASHINGTON (AP) _ Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is supporting new legislation to criminalize desecration of the United States flag ...Clinton, D-N.Y., has agreed to co-sponsor a measure by Republican Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah, which has been written in hopes of surviving any constitutional challenge following a 2003 Supreme Court ruling on the subject....Her support of Bennett's bill follows her position in Congress last summer, when a constitutional ban on flag-burning was debated. Clinton said then she didn't support a constitutional ban, but did support federal legislation making it a crime to desecrate the flag. (Full Story)
Presto chango on flag burning. "You against burning the American flag." Hillary says, "Well, me too. Honest."
Hillary's explanation for this switcheroo is classic Clinton. Is she or isn't she for a law against burning US flags? Well, depends on what the meaning of "is" is. She has been against a constitutional amendment and still is. But now she is for a federal statute against flag burning. What's that all about? Triangulation, baby. Triangulation.
Let me help you solve this Hillary puzzle. It's really quite simple and obvious. (Too obvious.) A constitutional amendment can't be overturned by the Supreme Court. A statute passed by Congress can be. Hillary figures she can have it both ways. By backing a statute against flag burning she can convince moderate voters that she's a true blue flag waving jingo American. But she knows such a law to be so obviously unconstitutional even a conservative Supreme Court would overturn it.
Is this governing? Hardly. It's just more of the same cynical, strategic fakery and demagoguery that's gotten us into the various messes we're mired in now.
The above should be reasons enough for Democrats to say no to Hillary in '08. But add to all that the truckloads of negative PR baggage Hillary drags with her and you have the perfect formula for failure. (More than failure, a historic political drubbing.) As I said in an earlier column, if you thought the sleazy Swift Boaters disemboweled John Kerry just wait until their like-minded brethren get rolling on presidential candidate Hillary Clinton!
If, after thinking about all that, you're still dazzled by Hillary, try this on for size. Republicans may be corrupt but they are not stupid. They understand they let their far right wing push the envelope too far. They read polls too. They know voters are fed up with false trickled down economic promises, tax cuts for the already wealthy, mounting deficits, job losses and war. And be assured their candidates for president in 08 will reflect that. Hillary will not have the luxury of running against the likes of George W. Bush in '08.
So, you want Hillary? But Hillary vs. who?
How about this GOP ticket: McCain/Guliani.
Hillary would be finished the day that ticket were announced. Finished. First McCain's position on the war is, unlike Hillary's, at least believable -- If the nation is really at war, as the President claims, then act like it -- either double the number of US troops in Iraq or get out. And on the subject of torture he speaks with personal authority and is unconditionally against it.
Guliani's position on abortion and gay rights is as liberal as Hillary's but more reliable. Think about it. It's easy for Hillary to espouse choice and gay rights because those positions represent her party's positions. But Rudy risks losing Republican votes by holding firm on a woman's right to choose and gay rights.
So ask yourself, if the day comes when the chips are really down on a woman's right to choose, which of the two, Rudy or Hillary, do you think would stand firmly with women? I suspect it would be Rudy. Hillary would check the polls first and, if she found the winds blowing even slightly left to right that day, she'd sell women down the river in a New York minute. Believe it. Her finger is already testing the breezes on abortion rights:
Hillary is already "talking about finding “common ground” with abortion foes. Like Moses leading her party to the Promised Land, Hillary is treading a path to Red State America. She may be the darling of the liberal left, but she won in New York by appealing to upstate voters who are traditionally Republican." (Full Story)
I hope that between now and next year Democrats figure this out and start looking for two candidates progressives can enthusiastically embrace in 08. If such candidates don't exist within the confines of the old Democrat Party, then it's time for progressives to start looking for a new home.
And the best way for the party to signal that moment is to nominate Hillary for President.
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
December 5, 2005
Where's a Psychiatrist
When We Really Need One?
It's the proverbial 900 pound guerilla in the room. It's become so obvious. Yet no one dares say it.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is mad. No, I mean seriously ill. Mentally ill. Demonstrably so.
I can't say whether or not he was mad from the start, but I can tell you with some degree of certainty that he is now. And he's getting worse. Each succeeding news conference he looks, sounds and act more and more like the Harvey Korman character, Dr. Charles Montague, head of "The Place for the Very, Very Nervous," in the 1977 Mel Brooks flick, "High Anxiety."
Don's not yet quite at the Rainman stage -- yet, but if his slide towards madness continues at its current pace, he will arrive there, (shorts from K-mart and all,) before this administration's term in office ends.
Don got so nutty during his weekly news conference last week that Joint Chiefs head, General Pace, had to reel him in, not once, but twice. The first time was when Pace used the accepted term, "insurgents," to describe the indigenous fighters in Iraq.
Don interrupted, waving both hands over his head in an "abracadabra" fashion, to announce that over the weekend he had had an epiphany. We've been using the wrong term entirely to describe Iraqis killing our troops over there, he pronounced from on high. They are not "insurgents," they are "Enemies of the Legally Elected Iraqi Government," or EOLEIG's. (Guess we know now why Donald never made it as a corporate jingle writer.)
Now ask yourself, what kind of person, but a nut, would make such a pronouncement at a time when US kids are being blown up by the dozen each week. And to do so with such pompous grandiosity, on TV, and to cynical, hard-boiled reporters! Only a madman, a person so deeply "confused" in his own mind, he thinks his absurd ruling actually is contributing to a solution.
What on earth was he thinking? Actually, nothing new. Renaming fighters in Iraq has become a veritable nervous tick for Don. He's been re-branding the Iraqi fighters since the day we arrived there. Before the war even started he didn't even have term for them because, he assured us, there would be no opposition to a US attack on their country. But after Saddam was gone and US troops started dying at someone's hands, Don told the same TV cameras to pay them no attention because, he said then, they were just a handful of "Dead-Enders," (DE's.)
As conditions in Don's newly liberated Iraq deteriorated further he renamed them again. No longer Dead Enders, they were now "Foreign Terrorist Fighters." And better yet, he assured, they had been reduced to a rag-tag bunch that were "in their last throes."
So now that things are really bad, (in Iraq and in Don's head,) he decided it was time for another re-branding. How does Don plan on defeating the insurgency? By calling it something else, of course. There, the little bastards are gone now. Never mention their name again. Now, let's get about mopping up those EOLEIG's.
Once Rumsfeld was done revealing his renaming epiphany he gave the microphone back to a clearly embarrassed General Pace. The General was faced with the choice of joining his boss in looneyland, or using the now banned term, insurgents. Instead he said, "yeah, what he just said."
Mad as a hatter. Crazy is as crazy does. Does Don "do" as crazy as he speaks? One must assume so since he is in charge of the Department of Defense. As boss I figure he does pretty much what as he pleases. Worse, if he says such nutty things right on TV, can you even imagine the thoughts he shares with subordinates back in the privacy of his office at the Pentagon? Where "yeah, what he just said," becomes the day's marching orders.
The second time General Pace had to reel in his boss was when Pace was asked by reporters if US troops in Iraq were supposed to step in and stop Iraqi troops from abusing fellow Iraqis. Pace was in the process of saying the right thing, ("yes,") when Don-in-the-Box popped up again. "But I don't think you mean they have an obligation to physically stop it; it's to report it." he corrected the general.
Pace had no choice. "If they are physically present when inhumane treatment is taking place, sir, they have an obligation to try to stop it."
The look on Rumsfeld's face was the same look parents get from their teenagers when they tell them, "If your friends start drinking or using drugs you leave that party and come straight home!" You know the look -- the eyeballs roll up as their head jerks dismissively to the one side. At that point you know you just wasted a breath.
From that look it was clear that Rumsfeld believes that, while US troops had the right to invade Iraq, topple it's government, occupy it but has not business telling Iraqis not to beat, torture or kill their own folk. No our job... he says. (Administration vice-enabler, Dick Cheney, appears to agree.)
Don is, or has become, mad as a hatter. Worried? We have a certifiable loon in charge of the most powerful military on the face of the earth. Shouldn't someone do something about that? I mean if Bush insists on having a nut in this post, at least hire a harmless nut. The world is full of harmless nuts. He could find less nutty nuts downtown in any major city. Pick one with less dangerous notions than Don has. Like a nut who believes the answer is to pass a law requiring all Iraqi politicians carry a bunny rabbit in their pocket at all times. Or how about a nut who is certain that Britney Spears is the Virgin Mary reincarnate? That way the weekly Pentagon news conference would continue being ever so entertaining, but fewer people would get killed. (Oh, and by the way, even the most delusional street nuts don't believe simply renaming someone out to kill you makes them disappear. Now that's nuts – dangerous nuts. )
It's time for someone to tell Don Rumsfeld, "No more fruit cup for you!"
Still More Crazy Stuff
Did you catch the latest wrinkle in our Iraq strategy that materialized over the weekend? It seems the the Sunni's in Iraq wanna talk, and Pentagon planners see that as a big opportunity. I see it differently.
The Sunni insurgents (Dead Ender IOLEIG's) have indicated they are unhappy with all the al-Queda types fighting beside them and want the US to help them kill them off. And the Pentagon is seriously considering the offer. In fact, they are downright giddy at the opportunity.
Talk about a flat learning curve! Jesus H. Christ, don't these people ever learn?
You'd would think by now the Pentagon would have figured out that there's only one universally accepted law in the Middle East: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." All other laws are just window dressing.
We missed that important little fact back in the 80s when we supported Iraq during the Iraq/Iran war. Then we helped Iran finally win that war by spending US lives and money to topple Saddam. "Thank you ever so much," said the Shiite religious nuts in Iran, "we'll take over now." And so they are.
Now the Sunni's, (who watch CNN when not planting IEDs,) have gotten the message that US voters are tired of all this and want US troops home next year. Until now the Sunnis have been perfectly happy to have the homicidal al Zaquari and his pals killing US troops for them. But if the US is going to leave that means the Sunnis will have two problems on their hands, the Shiites and religious nut al Queda militias.
If the al Queda fighter could be wiped out by US troops with Sunni help, then the Sunnis would be able to turn their full attention to killing Shiites. But, if US troops leave and all hell breaks loose – as it will – the Sunnis worry their Shiite enemies will align themselves with the radical Islamic foreign fighters. The Sunnis, you see, are a fiercely secular lot, while the Shiites are Iranian-like Islamists. The last thing al Queda fighters would want to see come to pass is a secular Iraq.
Which is why they dialed the Pentagon and said, "Come on down! Let's make a deal. What say we help you catch and kill off these pesky foreign fighters?"
The idea of getting inside intel on al Queda operatives in Iraq from their former Sunnis allies has Pentagon brass salivating – again. Of course if the US takes the deal and succeeds helping the Sunnis kill off foreign fighters, that means their joint enemy will be no more. And guess what – mission accomplished -- for the Sunis - who will go right back to killing the very US soldiers who helped them kill off those foreign fighters. And, since Sunni fighters would have spent six months fighting alongside US troops, they will know how to kill our troops in even larger numbers. It's nothing personal. Just business as usual in that part of the world.
Just when you think US war planners can't possibly make more of hash of things in Iraq they discover new ways to do just that.
Which is another reason to end this deadly farce sooner rather than later.
When We Really Need One?
It's the proverbial 900 pound guerilla in the room. It's become so obvious. Yet no one dares say it.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is mad. No, I mean seriously ill. Mentally ill. Demonstrably so.
I can't say whether or not he was mad from the start, but I can tell you with some degree of certainty that he is now. And he's getting worse. Each succeeding news conference he looks, sounds and act more and more like the Harvey Korman character, Dr. Charles Montague, head of "The Place for the Very, Very Nervous," in the 1977 Mel Brooks flick, "High Anxiety."
Don's not yet quite at the Rainman stage -- yet, but if his slide towards madness continues at its current pace, he will arrive there, (shorts from K-mart and all,) before this administration's term in office ends.
Don got so nutty during his weekly news conference last week that Joint Chiefs head, General Pace, had to reel him in, not once, but twice. The first time was when Pace used the accepted term, "insurgents," to describe the indigenous fighters in Iraq.
Don interrupted, waving both hands over his head in an "abracadabra" fashion, to announce that over the weekend he had had an epiphany. We've been using the wrong term entirely to describe Iraqis killing our troops over there, he pronounced from on high. They are not "insurgents," they are "Enemies of the Legally Elected Iraqi Government," or EOLEIG's. (Guess we know now why Donald never made it as a corporate jingle writer.)
Now ask yourself, what kind of person, but a nut, would make such a pronouncement at a time when US kids are being blown up by the dozen each week. And to do so with such pompous grandiosity, on TV, and to cynical, hard-boiled reporters! Only a madman, a person so deeply "confused" in his own mind, he thinks his absurd ruling actually is contributing to a solution.
What on earth was he thinking? Actually, nothing new. Renaming fighters in Iraq has become a veritable nervous tick for Don. He's been re-branding the Iraqi fighters since the day we arrived there. Before the war even started he didn't even have term for them because, he assured us, there would be no opposition to a US attack on their country. But after Saddam was gone and US troops started dying at someone's hands, Don told the same TV cameras to pay them no attention because, he said then, they were just a handful of "Dead-Enders," (DE's.)
As conditions in Don's newly liberated Iraq deteriorated further he renamed them again. No longer Dead Enders, they were now "Foreign Terrorist Fighters." And better yet, he assured, they had been reduced to a rag-tag bunch that were "in their last throes."
So now that things are really bad, (in Iraq and in Don's head,) he decided it was time for another re-branding. How does Don plan on defeating the insurgency? By calling it something else, of course. There, the little bastards are gone now. Never mention their name again. Now, let's get about mopping up those EOLEIG's.
Once Rumsfeld was done revealing his renaming epiphany he gave the microphone back to a clearly embarrassed General Pace. The General was faced with the choice of joining his boss in looneyland, or using the now banned term, insurgents. Instead he said, "yeah, what he just said."
Mad as a hatter. Crazy is as crazy does. Does Don "do" as crazy as he speaks? One must assume so since he is in charge of the Department of Defense. As boss I figure he does pretty much what as he pleases. Worse, if he says such nutty things right on TV, can you even imagine the thoughts he shares with subordinates back in the privacy of his office at the Pentagon? Where "yeah, what he just said," becomes the day's marching orders.
The second time General Pace had to reel in his boss was when Pace was asked by reporters if US troops in Iraq were supposed to step in and stop Iraqi troops from abusing fellow Iraqis. Pace was in the process of saying the right thing, ("yes,") when Don-in-the-Box popped up again. "But I don't think you mean they have an obligation to physically stop it; it's to report it." he corrected the general.
Pace had no choice. "If they are physically present when inhumane treatment is taking place, sir, they have an obligation to try to stop it."
The look on Rumsfeld's face was the same look parents get from their teenagers when they tell them, "If your friends start drinking or using drugs you leave that party and come straight home!" You know the look -- the eyeballs roll up as their head jerks dismissively to the one side. At that point you know you just wasted a breath.
From that look it was clear that Rumsfeld believes that, while US troops had the right to invade Iraq, topple it's government, occupy it but has not business telling Iraqis not to beat, torture or kill their own folk. No our job... he says. (Administration vice-enabler, Dick Cheney, appears to agree.)
Don is, or has become, mad as a hatter. Worried? We have a certifiable loon in charge of the most powerful military on the face of the earth. Shouldn't someone do something about that? I mean if Bush insists on having a nut in this post, at least hire a harmless nut. The world is full of harmless nuts. He could find less nutty nuts downtown in any major city. Pick one with less dangerous notions than Don has. Like a nut who believes the answer is to pass a law requiring all Iraqi politicians carry a bunny rabbit in their pocket at all times. Or how about a nut who is certain that Britney Spears is the Virgin Mary reincarnate? That way the weekly Pentagon news conference would continue being ever so entertaining, but fewer people would get killed. (Oh, and by the way, even the most delusional street nuts don't believe simply renaming someone out to kill you makes them disappear. Now that's nuts – dangerous nuts. )
It's time for someone to tell Don Rumsfeld, "No more fruit cup for you!"
Still More Crazy Stuff
Did you catch the latest wrinkle in our Iraq strategy that materialized over the weekend? It seems the the Sunni's in Iraq wanna talk, and Pentagon planners see that as a big opportunity. I see it differently.
The Sunni insurgents (Dead Ender IOLEIG's) have indicated they are unhappy with all the al-Queda types fighting beside them and want the US to help them kill them off. And the Pentagon is seriously considering the offer. In fact, they are downright giddy at the opportunity.
Talk about a flat learning curve! Jesus H. Christ, don't these people ever learn?
You'd would think by now the Pentagon would have figured out that there's only one universally accepted law in the Middle East: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." All other laws are just window dressing.
We missed that important little fact back in the 80s when we supported Iraq during the Iraq/Iran war. Then we helped Iran finally win that war by spending US lives and money to topple Saddam. "Thank you ever so much," said the Shiite religious nuts in Iran, "we'll take over now." And so they are.
Now the Sunni's, (who watch CNN when not planting IEDs,) have gotten the message that US voters are tired of all this and want US troops home next year. Until now the Sunnis have been perfectly happy to have the homicidal al Zaquari and his pals killing US troops for them. But if the US is going to leave that means the Sunnis will have two problems on their hands, the Shiites and religious nut al Queda militias.
If the al Queda fighter could be wiped out by US troops with Sunni help, then the Sunnis would be able to turn their full attention to killing Shiites. But, if US troops leave and all hell breaks loose – as it will – the Sunnis worry their Shiite enemies will align themselves with the radical Islamic foreign fighters. The Sunnis, you see, are a fiercely secular lot, while the Shiites are Iranian-like Islamists. The last thing al Queda fighters would want to see come to pass is a secular Iraq.
Which is why they dialed the Pentagon and said, "Come on down! Let's make a deal. What say we help you catch and kill off these pesky foreign fighters?"
The idea of getting inside intel on al Queda operatives in Iraq from their former Sunnis allies has Pentagon brass salivating – again. Of course if the US takes the deal and succeeds helping the Sunnis kill off foreign fighters, that means their joint enemy will be no more. And guess what – mission accomplished -- for the Sunis - who will go right back to killing the very US soldiers who helped them kill off those foreign fighters. And, since Sunni fighters would have spent six months fighting alongside US troops, they will know how to kill our troops in even larger numbers. It's nothing personal. Just business as usual in that part of the world.
Just when you think US war planners can't possibly make more of hash of things in Iraq they discover new ways to do just that.
Which is another reason to end this deadly farce sooner rather than later.
Monday, December 05, 2005
December 4, 2005
America's Beer Hall Putsch
Rigging electronic voting machines isn't the only way to steal an election. There are far less risky ways of doing so. Just ask Tom DeLay and his GOP brethren in the Texas legislature.
Justice Staff Saw Texas Districting As Illegal
Voting Rights Finding On Map Pushed by DeLay Was Overruled
Washington, December 2, 2005 -- Justice Department lawyers concluded that the landmark Texas congressional redistricting plan spearheaded by Rep. Tom DeLay (R) violated the Voting Rights Act, according to a previously undisclosed memo obtained by The Washington Post. But senior officials overruled them and approved the plan. (Full Story)
This revelation may be the most solid proof yet that the GOP under Bush/Cheney is the most corrupt and anti-democratic administration and party in American history. That story alone would not lead one to such conclusion. But it fits all too neatly into what has become a pattern of hard-knuckle, thugish, take-no-prisoners tactics by right wing Republicans.
But this one, the Texas redistricting, will go down as America's legislative version of the 1924 Bürgerbräukeller, Beer House Putsch. While no blood was shed in this one, the results were too similar to simply brush them off as the crazy rant of a Bush hater.
Let's talk thugs.. in this case the political variety..
Wait.. stop. Is the term "thug" too strong for these guys? Let's stop right here and make sure we're on the right track. Here's an excerpt from a memo between two DeLay staffers bristling at the notion they were playing too rough:
"This whole thing about not kicking someone when he is down is BS -- Not only do you kick him -- you kick him until he passes out -- then beat him over the head with a baseball bat -- then roll him up in an old rug -- and throw him off a cliff into the pounding surf below!!!!!"
Adolf– and John Gotti -- would approved. Yeah, I know it was just talk. But do you talk that way?
Okay, glad we got that settled. So we are talking about thugs. Because you see, thugs like to play rough with their enemies, break a few legs, crack a few skulls. Anything less would be a sign of weakness inviting others to move in on their turf.
And, when things get really serious, thugs take their enemies "for a ride." Our thugs take them for rides on private jets to private dungeons in private places, where "batta-bing, batta-bang" can be carried out with the kind of privacy and deniability such behavior demands.
From time to time thugs need to coordinate with other thugs. Such get togethers represent thuggery's most dangerous and vulnerable moments. Who attended and what they discussed and decided must remain secret at all cost. Which is precisely why we still don't know who attended Dick Cheney's energy task force sit downs – and we likely never will.
Thugs are not all bad. They share. They take care of their friends. Sharing booty is central tenet of successful thuggery, because, after all, what goes around comes around. And oh how these thugs share! It's been bling, bling, bling for this administration's thugish friends; Halliburton, big pharma, big tobacco, big polluters, big energy. Five years of bling, bling, bling... The Mother of all blings.
Thugs are also liars – and not sometimes, but always. They really have no choice in the matter. If they start telling the truth they'll lose power – and might even end up behind bars. "Sure we stole that election, what's it to ya?" Nope. No can do. So they lie, lie and lie and, if caught, they lie about lying. The White House even has a full-time designated liar, Scott McClellan. (If Scotty is Catholic I suggest his parish priest start now building him his own confessional, with plumbing. He'll be in there for a while.)
When their lies result in material proof of wrong-doing, thugs simply create alternative realities. Losing becomes winning. Oppression protects freedom. Propaganda becomes news. Protest becomes irresponsible or unpatriotic. Killing people becomes saving them. Military occupation becomes peacekeeping. Fixed elections becomes a "mandate to govern."
Orwell would shake his head in disbelief. He underestimated thugs. Of course Orwell never met thugs like Tom DeLay, Dick Cheney or Karl Rove.
So yes, the evidence is clear now -- these thugs really did steal the 2004 election. And now we know one of the ways they pulled that off -- Tom DeLay's Texas redistricting putsch.
But DeLay's audacious election putsch would not have succeeded without help from high in the thug foodchain. Where? From the highest reaches of the nation's law enforcement agency, the Department of Justice. Which should not surprise us. Successful thugs always need a few key cops on their payroll. In this case it was thug-cop Attorney General John "Jesus Boy" Aschroft. He was the nation's top cop – and he was a crooked cop. Once the 2004 election fix bore fruit, Jesus Boy skipped town.
Ashcroft was replaced by reliable thug yes-man, Alberto Gonzalez. Before his promotion, our new top cop had been the boss' lawyer where he gave the nod to roughing up prisoners and mocked international laws against torture as "quaint anachronisms." His new job is covering up the corruption of his predecessor while obediently ignoring the misconduct of his still-active thug superiors. So, don't bother dialing 911 to report thuggery is afoot, because all you're gonna get is a "what's it to ya?"
Am I being too harsh? You think? Do I marginalize myself when I resort to this kind of over-heated hyperbole and tortured (no pun intended) analogies? Maybe. But some days the accumulated weight of evidence becomes just too much for to dispassionately intellectualize, mull, balance, soft-peddle or just ignore it all. I get angry. Then worried. Then depressed. Scared.
Disagree? Then you tell me, how else should I describe the actions and behavior of these guys other than as pure thuggery? Maybe you have a better description. I don't. Not that I haven't tried coming up with one for an administration that:
* Pay off their friends with billions of dollars from the public chest, while 46 million ordinary Americans can't even afford to go to a doctor,
* Hand out billions in fat no-bid contracts to friends, while cutting basic services to poor families,
* Who cook the nation's books to justify tax giveaways to friends, while refusing to enact a livable wage for working families,
* Who have violently killed untold thousands of people over the past four years, and just arrogantly warned they ain't anywhere near done.
So, if you think I've gone over the edge, so be it. I don't think so. I'm not only Sicilian, I also spent much of my reporting career chasing, interviewing and writing about mobsters and other assorted thugs. So, I do know a thug when I see one. How much more evidence, debt, death, corruption do you need to conclude that a pack of unmitigated, unabashed, unembarrassed and, at least so far unabated, gang of thugs have grabbed control of the American government? I don't need any more evidence.
And thugs don't belong in public office. They belong in jail.
You got a problem with that?
Rigging electronic voting machines isn't the only way to steal an election. There are far less risky ways of doing so. Just ask Tom DeLay and his GOP brethren in the Texas legislature.
Justice Staff Saw Texas Districting As Illegal
Voting Rights Finding On Map Pushed by DeLay Was Overruled
Washington, December 2, 2005 -- Justice Department lawyers concluded that the landmark Texas congressional redistricting plan spearheaded by Rep. Tom DeLay (R) violated the Voting Rights Act, according to a previously undisclosed memo obtained by The Washington Post. But senior officials overruled them and approved the plan. (Full Story)
This revelation may be the most solid proof yet that the GOP under Bush/Cheney is the most corrupt and anti-democratic administration and party in American history. That story alone would not lead one to such conclusion. But it fits all too neatly into what has become a pattern of hard-knuckle, thugish, take-no-prisoners tactics by right wing Republicans.
But this one, the Texas redistricting, will go down as America's legislative version of the 1924 Bürgerbräukeller, Beer House Putsch. While no blood was shed in this one, the results were too similar to simply brush them off as the crazy rant of a Bush hater.
Let's talk thugs.. in this case the political variety..
Wait.. stop. Is the term "thug" too strong for these guys? Let's stop right here and make sure we're on the right track. Here's an excerpt from a memo between two DeLay staffers bristling at the notion they were playing too rough:
"This whole thing about not kicking someone when he is down is BS -- Not only do you kick him -- you kick him until he passes out -- then beat him over the head with a baseball bat -- then roll him up in an old rug -- and throw him off a cliff into the pounding surf below!!!!!"
Adolf– and John Gotti -- would approved. Yeah, I know it was just talk. But do you talk that way?
Okay, glad we got that settled. So we are talking about thugs. Because you see, thugs like to play rough with their enemies, break a few legs, crack a few skulls. Anything less would be a sign of weakness inviting others to move in on their turf.
And, when things get really serious, thugs take their enemies "for a ride." Our thugs take them for rides on private jets to private dungeons in private places, where "batta-bing, batta-bang" can be carried out with the kind of privacy and deniability such behavior demands.
From time to time thugs need to coordinate with other thugs. Such get togethers represent thuggery's most dangerous and vulnerable moments. Who attended and what they discussed and decided must remain secret at all cost. Which is precisely why we still don't know who attended Dick Cheney's energy task force sit downs – and we likely never will.
Thugs are not all bad. They share. They take care of their friends. Sharing booty is central tenet of successful thuggery, because, after all, what goes around comes around. And oh how these thugs share! It's been bling, bling, bling for this administration's thugish friends; Halliburton, big pharma, big tobacco, big polluters, big energy. Five years of bling, bling, bling... The Mother of all blings.
Thugs are also liars – and not sometimes, but always. They really have no choice in the matter. If they start telling the truth they'll lose power – and might even end up behind bars. "Sure we stole that election, what's it to ya?" Nope. No can do. So they lie, lie and lie and, if caught, they lie about lying. The White House even has a full-time designated liar, Scott McClellan. (If Scotty is Catholic I suggest his parish priest start now building him his own confessional, with plumbing. He'll be in there for a while.)
When their lies result in material proof of wrong-doing, thugs simply create alternative realities. Losing becomes winning. Oppression protects freedom. Propaganda becomes news. Protest becomes irresponsible or unpatriotic. Killing people becomes saving them. Military occupation becomes peacekeeping. Fixed elections becomes a "mandate to govern."
Orwell would shake his head in disbelief. He underestimated thugs. Of course Orwell never met thugs like Tom DeLay, Dick Cheney or Karl Rove.
So yes, the evidence is clear now -- these thugs really did steal the 2004 election. And now we know one of the ways they pulled that off -- Tom DeLay's Texas redistricting putsch.
But DeLay's audacious election putsch would not have succeeded without help from high in the thug foodchain. Where? From the highest reaches of the nation's law enforcement agency, the Department of Justice. Which should not surprise us. Successful thugs always need a few key cops on their payroll. In this case it was thug-cop Attorney General John "Jesus Boy" Aschroft. He was the nation's top cop – and he was a crooked cop. Once the 2004 election fix bore fruit, Jesus Boy skipped town.
Ashcroft was replaced by reliable thug yes-man, Alberto Gonzalez. Before his promotion, our new top cop had been the boss' lawyer where he gave the nod to roughing up prisoners and mocked international laws against torture as "quaint anachronisms." His new job is covering up the corruption of his predecessor while obediently ignoring the misconduct of his still-active thug superiors. So, don't bother dialing 911 to report thuggery is afoot, because all you're gonna get is a "what's it to ya?"
Am I being too harsh? You think? Do I marginalize myself when I resort to this kind of over-heated hyperbole and tortured (no pun intended) analogies? Maybe. But some days the accumulated weight of evidence becomes just too much for to dispassionately intellectualize, mull, balance, soft-peddle or just ignore it all. I get angry. Then worried. Then depressed. Scared.
Disagree? Then you tell me, how else should I describe the actions and behavior of these guys other than as pure thuggery? Maybe you have a better description. I don't. Not that I haven't tried coming up with one for an administration that:
* Pay off their friends with billions of dollars from the public chest, while 46 million ordinary Americans can't even afford to go to a doctor,
* Hand out billions in fat no-bid contracts to friends, while cutting basic services to poor families,
* Who cook the nation's books to justify tax giveaways to friends, while refusing to enact a livable wage for working families,
* Who have violently killed untold thousands of people over the past four years, and just arrogantly warned they ain't anywhere near done.
So, if you think I've gone over the edge, so be it. I don't think so. I'm not only Sicilian, I also spent much of my reporting career chasing, interviewing and writing about mobsters and other assorted thugs. So, I do know a thug when I see one. How much more evidence, debt, death, corruption do you need to conclude that a pack of unmitigated, unabashed, unembarrassed and, at least so far unabated, gang of thugs have grabbed control of the American government? I don't need any more evidence.
And thugs don't belong in public office. They belong in jail.
You got a problem with that?
Friday, December 02, 2005
December 1, 2005
Victory Says He?
After President Bush outlined his plan yesterday, "Victory in Iraq," my erudite friend, Tony Seton, sent me an email containing this simple observation: "Dig more graves."
Here we go again. This guy has a flat learning curve. Just six months ago Bush was promising we were about to "turn the corner" because of upcoming interim elections to install an interim Iraqi government. That was his "plan for victory in Iraq," back then. I wrote at the time that that was exactly wrong. I warned that all an election would do is put the Shiites in charge and move the nation closer to civil war.
And so it came to pass.
I also wrote at the time that, regardless how long US troops stay, the day, no the hour, no the minute, the last US soldiers leaves, Iraqi will erupt into tribal war, fracturing into it's three historic and natural ethnic regions. That prediction remains to be tested. But already we see the sides gearing up for that day.
Americans forget that Iraq is not a nation that was created by folks who wanted to be together. The folks we lump together as "Iraqis" are in fact three different tribes. They were minding their own damn business in what we now call Iraq, until the British unilaterally decided to tidy up their region by drawing boundaries. That was nearly a century ago when it was the Brits who were at the height of their own imperial hubris. The three tribes were just another indigenous nuisance the Brits had long since learned to ignore. They had no say in the matter. When the Brits were done drawing borders, the Shiites, Sunni and Kurdish tribes discovered they had become one big unhappy family. Very unhappy.
What I'm about to say next is ever-so politically incorrect. But people are dying. This is no time to mealy-mouth the situation Bush has gotten us into. So, here goes.
The Iraqis... all three flavors of them ... are not nice people. They are products of a backward, religiously poisoned, misogynistic, brutal tribal culture.
Sorry, but someone had to just come right out and say it. They are a society with more "issues" to work between themselves than America has the time or money to solve. And if the real estate they occupy didn't have lakes of oil under it we'd have not shown a whit of interest in them. (Proof? North Korea.. all WMD'd up but no oil. So, who cares? )
Quite simply, we could not have picked a less likable or deserving group of folks to "save" from themselves than the Iraqis.
Oh, and by the way, they don't like us either.
Sure it can be argued that the way they are is not their fault, that they were abused by former leaders. Or that their minds have been poisoned by Mullahs who are themselves ignoramuses. True, all true. But none of that changes what we face over there now. And, in case you missed the point, what our troops face are three blood-thirsty warring tribes itching to kill anyone, man, woman or child, they catch wearing one of the other tribe's colors or anyone who tries to rob them of the pleasure of doing so.
Imagine if the Crips, Bloods and M13 controlled most of Los Angeles. Say hello to Baghdad today. And, it will still be that way when US troops leave, whenever that might be. Think they can change? Fine, you go ahead and try telling the Crips and Bloods they should learn to get along. Sell them on the benefits of democracy and the rule of law. (Sadie Safety says, "be sure to wear your bulletproof vest!") And if you should succeed, please let George know how you did it, will ya?
Frankly, I don't give damn what happens to the Iraqis. That's up to them. And it do mean it's up to them, not us. We can drag that jackass to the well from now until the sun burns out, but we can't force them to drink the waters of enlightenment, democracy or so-called Western values.
Go ahead, call me an ethnocentric, unfeeling, racist pig. But I'm am simply describing what's real as opposed to the politically correct mantras, like Bush's "Soft bigotry of low expectations." Hogwash. Democracy is not rocket science. It comes in all kinds of flavors the Iraqis could choose from, if they wanted it. They don't. What the three flavors of Iraqi want is power for their own tribe. And they are not interested in sharing.
Denying that may make you feel better about yourself as a person, but it won't change the reality our troops face over there. Sometimes you really do just have to call judge a group harshly. And, anyone who looks objectively at Iraqis will walk away shaking his/her head -- that is if they still have one.
Any cop will tell you that the most dangerous calls are to break up family fights. Well Iraq is three huge, armed to the teeth, dysfunctional families. They hate each other and they hate anyone who tries to break up their endless bloody squabbles. Which is precisely why nearly 2200 of our "cops" have died over there.
Sorry to be such a downer this morning. But George W. left me no choice with his speech yesterday. We are not going see "victory" in Iraq, as George defines it, because there is absolutely no set of circumstances in the real Iraq that would allow for such a victory. Period. All Bush did yesterday was to guarantee yet more US kids will be landing at Andrews AFB in the fully reclined, rather than upright, position – and not a single one of them will be even remotely related to the Bush clan. Of that you can be quite sure.
If you want to see what actual "victory" will actually look like once we leave Iraq, it's easy to do. Just get a 1970-era map of Europe. Put it alongside a recent map of the same region. Now find Yugoslavia on the old map. Next try to find it on the new map.
There you have, a window into the future. You now know what Iraq will look like after we leave. And yes, it will include mass graves as well. You betchya. The Sunnis and Shiites are itching to get on with that part and the Kurds will do their part by ethnically cleansing their fully independent Kurdistan of both Sunnis and Shiites.
Once the ethnic cleansing in post-US occupied Iraqi becomes horrific enough, the UN and/or NATO will step in.. The warring parties will be separated and new boundaries will be drawn. These pompous Europeans will claim, as they did when they carved up Yugoslavia, that the new boundaries separating the three tribes are not an endorsement of ethnic cleansing. But of course that's precisely what they will be. Reality -- what a bitch!
There is some good news though. This time the boundaries of the former Iraq will be set with the grudging approval of the three tribes. The nation's oil revenues will go into an escrow fund and dolled out in a per capita manner to the three tribal entities now pretending to be real countries -- like Kosovo and Bosnia.
After that a kind of peace will settle over the former Iraq. It will be shaky, iffy, and a day-by-day proposition for decades. Still it will be better than anything the three tribes have had since the British threw them together nearly a century ago.
There you are. That's what final "victory" in Iraq will look like when it finally arrives. The plan George W. Bush outlined yesterday will not change that, it will only delay it a few months or years.
But there was one item missing from Bush's 35-page plan yesterday. A strange omission since it was the only to-do item certain to be needed: "Dig more graves."
After President Bush outlined his plan yesterday, "Victory in Iraq," my erudite friend, Tony Seton, sent me an email containing this simple observation: "Dig more graves."
Here we go again. This guy has a flat learning curve. Just six months ago Bush was promising we were about to "turn the corner" because of upcoming interim elections to install an interim Iraqi government. That was his "plan for victory in Iraq," back then. I wrote at the time that that was exactly wrong. I warned that all an election would do is put the Shiites in charge and move the nation closer to civil war.
And so it came to pass.
I also wrote at the time that, regardless how long US troops stay, the day, no the hour, no the minute, the last US soldiers leaves, Iraqi will erupt into tribal war, fracturing into it's three historic and natural ethnic regions. That prediction remains to be tested. But already we see the sides gearing up for that day.
Americans forget that Iraq is not a nation that was created by folks who wanted to be together. The folks we lump together as "Iraqis" are in fact three different tribes. They were minding their own damn business in what we now call Iraq, until the British unilaterally decided to tidy up their region by drawing boundaries. That was nearly a century ago when it was the Brits who were at the height of their own imperial hubris. The three tribes were just another indigenous nuisance the Brits had long since learned to ignore. They had no say in the matter. When the Brits were done drawing borders, the Shiites, Sunni and Kurdish tribes discovered they had become one big unhappy family. Very unhappy.
What I'm about to say next is ever-so politically incorrect. But people are dying. This is no time to mealy-mouth the situation Bush has gotten us into. So, here goes.
The Iraqis... all three flavors of them ... are not nice people. They are products of a backward, religiously poisoned, misogynistic, brutal tribal culture.
Sorry, but someone had to just come right out and say it. They are a society with more "issues" to work between themselves than America has the time or money to solve. And if the real estate they occupy didn't have lakes of oil under it we'd have not shown a whit of interest in them. (Proof? North Korea.. all WMD'd up but no oil. So, who cares? )
Quite simply, we could not have picked a less likable or deserving group of folks to "save" from themselves than the Iraqis.
Oh, and by the way, they don't like us either.
Sure it can be argued that the way they are is not their fault, that they were abused by former leaders. Or that their minds have been poisoned by Mullahs who are themselves ignoramuses. True, all true. But none of that changes what we face over there now. And, in case you missed the point, what our troops face are three blood-thirsty warring tribes itching to kill anyone, man, woman or child, they catch wearing one of the other tribe's colors or anyone who tries to rob them of the pleasure of doing so.
Imagine if the Crips, Bloods and M13 controlled most of Los Angeles. Say hello to Baghdad today. And, it will still be that way when US troops leave, whenever that might be. Think they can change? Fine, you go ahead and try telling the Crips and Bloods they should learn to get along. Sell them on the benefits of democracy and the rule of law. (Sadie Safety says, "be sure to wear your bulletproof vest!") And if you should succeed, please let George know how you did it, will ya?
Frankly, I don't give damn what happens to the Iraqis. That's up to them. And it do mean it's up to them, not us. We can drag that jackass to the well from now until the sun burns out, but we can't force them to drink the waters of enlightenment, democracy or so-called Western values.
Go ahead, call me an ethnocentric, unfeeling, racist pig. But I'm am simply describing what's real as opposed to the politically correct mantras, like Bush's "Soft bigotry of low expectations." Hogwash. Democracy is not rocket science. It comes in all kinds of flavors the Iraqis could choose from, if they wanted it. They don't. What the three flavors of Iraqi want is power for their own tribe. And they are not interested in sharing.
Denying that may make you feel better about yourself as a person, but it won't change the reality our troops face over there. Sometimes you really do just have to call judge a group harshly. And, anyone who looks objectively at Iraqis will walk away shaking his/her head -- that is if they still have one.
Any cop will tell you that the most dangerous calls are to break up family fights. Well Iraq is three huge, armed to the teeth, dysfunctional families. They hate each other and they hate anyone who tries to break up their endless bloody squabbles. Which is precisely why nearly 2200 of our "cops" have died over there.
Sorry to be such a downer this morning. But George W. left me no choice with his speech yesterday. We are not going see "victory" in Iraq, as George defines it, because there is absolutely no set of circumstances in the real Iraq that would allow for such a victory. Period. All Bush did yesterday was to guarantee yet more US kids will be landing at Andrews AFB in the fully reclined, rather than upright, position – and not a single one of them will be even remotely related to the Bush clan. Of that you can be quite sure.
If you want to see what actual "victory" will actually look like once we leave Iraq, it's easy to do. Just get a 1970-era map of Europe. Put it alongside a recent map of the same region. Now find Yugoslavia on the old map. Next try to find it on the new map.
There you have, a window into the future. You now know what Iraq will look like after we leave. And yes, it will include mass graves as well. You betchya. The Sunnis and Shiites are itching to get on with that part and the Kurds will do their part by ethnically cleansing their fully independent Kurdistan of both Sunnis and Shiites.
Once the ethnic cleansing in post-US occupied Iraqi becomes horrific enough, the UN and/or NATO will step in.. The warring parties will be separated and new boundaries will be drawn. These pompous Europeans will claim, as they did when they carved up Yugoslavia, that the new boundaries separating the three tribes are not an endorsement of ethnic cleansing. But of course that's precisely what they will be. Reality -- what a bitch!
There is some good news though. This time the boundaries of the former Iraq will be set with the grudging approval of the three tribes. The nation's oil revenues will go into an escrow fund and dolled out in a per capita manner to the three tribal entities now pretending to be real countries -- like Kosovo and Bosnia.
After that a kind of peace will settle over the former Iraq. It will be shaky, iffy, and a day-by-day proposition for decades. Still it will be better than anything the three tribes have had since the British threw them together nearly a century ago.
There you are. That's what final "victory" in Iraq will look like when it finally arrives. The plan George W. Bush outlined yesterday will not change that, it will only delay it a few months or years.
But there was one item missing from Bush's 35-page plan yesterday. A strange omission since it was the only to-do item certain to be needed: "Dig more graves."
Thursday, December 01, 2005
November 31, 2005
Those Who Can't
Teach
Nothing fancy today folks, just a few stories that caught in my craw.
The Bush administration sees itself as the world's Pied Piper of Democracy. The only trouble is the lessons they preach are undermined daily by their own undemocratic actions.
For example, when they needed a place outside the reach of US democracy and justice where they could treat prisoners in ways illegal here, they chose the nascent democracies of Eastern Europe where "the rule of law" is still, to say the least, still a shaky concept.
WASHINGTON, Nov. 29 - The Bush administration, responding to European alarm over allegations of secret detention camps and the transport of terror suspects on European soil, insisted Tuesday that American actions complied with international law but promised to respond to formal inquiries from European nations. (More)
Hell, they even used some of the former Soviet Union's mothballed Gulag prison camps. Imagine this. What if after occupying Germany the Allies had spiffed up Auschwitz and used it to interrogate captured Germans? And, just to encouraged them to talk, fired up the furnaces -- you know, for effect? Whatya think? What message do you think the Germans would have gotten from that?
So what's the lesson the Bush folk have taught the world's emerging democracies about their true feelings on the rule of law? How else can it be interpreted than this: "The rule of law is fine as long as it doesn't get in the way of political policy goals. When it does get in the way, find ways around it. If caught, lie about it."
The US just missed an EU deadline for explaining all this. The Bush folk explain that they are "still investigating." Right, the US is still investigating the illegal prison camps we set up and ran, and O.J. is still looking for the real killer.
The real reason for the delay of course is another lesson in how this administration views the rule of law and how to live with the little inconveniences democracy imposes. They furiously re-hiding those prisoners and re-mothballing those old Gulag camps.
Believe me, by this time next month those old camps will look like no one's been there for twenty years. (Hey, props, central casting, we need more dust and cobwebs, and fast. Yo! Forensics, do you have anything that gets blood stains out of cement?)
Meanwhile Back in Iraq
Since most of the prisoners we salted way in those old Gulags were captured in Iraq, that lesson in democracy was not lost on the Iraqis. Now Shiite-dominated Iraqi police and Army have been accused of imprisoning Sunni captives in their own secret prisons and torturing them there. A few weeks ago one of these secret dungeons was uncovered just yards from the US-controlled Green Zone. And, like the above US secret prisons, an investigation was demanded, promised, and ... oops...
BAGHDAD -- Iraq Iraqi government officials failed Wednesday to deliver the promised results of an investigation into alleged torture at an Interior Ministry jail in Baghdad. U.S. and Iraqi forces discovered 173 malnourished Iraqi detainees when they went into the facility on Nov. 13. Some inmates showed signs of torture, U.S. and Iraqi officials said. A U.S. general was so concerned with what he found that he took immediate control of the jail but the military has released few details about it since. (More)
Professor Cheney
Now where would the Iraqis get the idea that torturing prisoners is one of the tenets of democracy? Let me see... Oh, that's right. The Vice President of the United States of America. That's where. He's a big fan of the dark art of information extraction. Now some former Bush administration officials have uttered what others had only secretly thought.... Why hasn't Cheney been indicted for war crimes?
BBC, London -- A senior aide to former US secretary of defense Colin Powell repeated his attacks against US Vice-President Dick Cheney, appearing to suggest he should face war crimes charges. Powell's former chief of staff Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson accused Cheney of ignoring a decision by President George W. Bush's on the treatment of prisoners held in the "war on terror". Asked in a BBC radio interview if Bush's right-hand man could be accused of war crimes, he replied: "It's an interesting question. Certainly, it's a domestic crime to advocate terror.
"And I would suspect, for whatever it's worth, it's an international crime as well." (More)
Pressing for A Free Press?
Here's another lesson in freedom and democracy the Bushites are teaching the Iraqis. Any real democracy is built up an informed citizenry. And the only way citizens can be informed – as opposed to indoctrinated – is by encouraging and protecting a free press. But, like the rule of law, press freedom can, from time to time, become a nuisance and inconvenience. What to do? This will be on the quiz so take not of the answer below: .)
WASHINGTON — As part of an information offensive in Iraq, the U.S. military is secretly paying Iraqi newspapers to publish stories written by American troops in an effort to burnish the image of the U.S. mission in Iraq. The articles, written by U.S. military "information operations" troops, are translated into Arabic and placed in Baghdad newspapers with the help of a defense contractor, according to U.S. military officials and documents obtained by the Los Angeles Times. Many of the articles are presented in the Iraqi press as unbiased news accounts written and reported by independent journalists. The stories trumpet the work of U.S. and Iraqi troops, denounce insurgents and tout U.S.-led efforts to rebuild the country. (More)
You didn't know the US government had a Ministry of Information, did you? Well, apparently we do. It seems that the Bushites have decided that what Iraq really needs now is a military version of FOX News -- unfair and unbalanced -- to show them the correct path.
It's just one more valuable lesson in democracy for the heathen Iraqis. When the news does not suit your needs, just dress your propaganda up as news, corrupt or threaten some editors, and go into the news business.
Armstrong Williams lives! -- apparently now in Iraq.
The real lesson in all this is to disregard what this administration says it's doing. That's just talking the talk. Instead, if you want to know what they are really up to, watch their feet
As for Wilkerson's suggestion that the Bushites be indicted by the Court in the Hague for war crimes.. now THAT would be a real lesson in the even-handed application of the rule of law, wouldn't it!
Teach
Nothing fancy today folks, just a few stories that caught in my craw.
The Bush administration sees itself as the world's Pied Piper of Democracy. The only trouble is the lessons they preach are undermined daily by their own undemocratic actions.
For example, when they needed a place outside the reach of US democracy and justice where they could treat prisoners in ways illegal here, they chose the nascent democracies of Eastern Europe where "the rule of law" is still, to say the least, still a shaky concept.
WASHINGTON, Nov. 29 - The Bush administration, responding to European alarm over allegations of secret detention camps and the transport of terror suspects on European soil, insisted Tuesday that American actions complied with international law but promised to respond to formal inquiries from European nations. (More)
Hell, they even used some of the former Soviet Union's mothballed Gulag prison camps. Imagine this. What if after occupying Germany the Allies had spiffed up Auschwitz and used it to interrogate captured Germans? And, just to encouraged them to talk, fired up the furnaces -- you know, for effect? Whatya think? What message do you think the Germans would have gotten from that?
So what's the lesson the Bush folk have taught the world's emerging democracies about their true feelings on the rule of law? How else can it be interpreted than this: "The rule of law is fine as long as it doesn't get in the way of political policy goals. When it does get in the way, find ways around it. If caught, lie about it."
The US just missed an EU deadline for explaining all this. The Bush folk explain that they are "still investigating." Right, the US is still investigating the illegal prison camps we set up and ran, and O.J. is still looking for the real killer.
The real reason for the delay of course is another lesson in how this administration views the rule of law and how to live with the little inconveniences democracy imposes. They furiously re-hiding those prisoners and re-mothballing those old Gulag camps.
Believe me, by this time next month those old camps will look like no one's been there for twenty years. (Hey, props, central casting, we need more dust and cobwebs, and fast. Yo! Forensics, do you have anything that gets blood stains out of cement?)
Meanwhile Back in Iraq
Since most of the prisoners we salted way in those old Gulags were captured in Iraq, that lesson in democracy was not lost on the Iraqis. Now Shiite-dominated Iraqi police and Army have been accused of imprisoning Sunni captives in their own secret prisons and torturing them there. A few weeks ago one of these secret dungeons was uncovered just yards from the US-controlled Green Zone. And, like the above US secret prisons, an investigation was demanded, promised, and ... oops...
BAGHDAD -- Iraq Iraqi government officials failed Wednesday to deliver the promised results of an investigation into alleged torture at an Interior Ministry jail in Baghdad. U.S. and Iraqi forces discovered 173 malnourished Iraqi detainees when they went into the facility on Nov. 13. Some inmates showed signs of torture, U.S. and Iraqi officials said. A U.S. general was so concerned with what he found that he took immediate control of the jail but the military has released few details about it since. (More)
Professor Cheney
Now where would the Iraqis get the idea that torturing prisoners is one of the tenets of democracy? Let me see... Oh, that's right. The Vice President of the United States of America. That's where. He's a big fan of the dark art of information extraction. Now some former Bush administration officials have uttered what others had only secretly thought.... Why hasn't Cheney been indicted for war crimes?
BBC, London -- A senior aide to former US secretary of defense Colin Powell repeated his attacks against US Vice-President Dick Cheney, appearing to suggest he should face war crimes charges. Powell's former chief of staff Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson accused Cheney of ignoring a decision by President George W. Bush's on the treatment of prisoners held in the "war on terror". Asked in a BBC radio interview if Bush's right-hand man could be accused of war crimes, he replied: "It's an interesting question. Certainly, it's a domestic crime to advocate terror.
"And I would suspect, for whatever it's worth, it's an international crime as well." (More)
Pressing for A Free Press?
Here's another lesson in freedom and democracy the Bushites are teaching the Iraqis. Any real democracy is built up an informed citizenry. And the only way citizens can be informed – as opposed to indoctrinated – is by encouraging and protecting a free press. But, like the rule of law, press freedom can, from time to time, become a nuisance and inconvenience. What to do? This will be on the quiz so take not of the answer below: .)
WASHINGTON — As part of an information offensive in Iraq, the U.S. military is secretly paying Iraqi newspapers to publish stories written by American troops in an effort to burnish the image of the U.S. mission in Iraq. The articles, written by U.S. military "information operations" troops, are translated into Arabic and placed in Baghdad newspapers with the help of a defense contractor, according to U.S. military officials and documents obtained by the Los Angeles Times. Many of the articles are presented in the Iraqi press as unbiased news accounts written and reported by independent journalists. The stories trumpet the work of U.S. and Iraqi troops, denounce insurgents and tout U.S.-led efforts to rebuild the country. (More)
You didn't know the US government had a Ministry of Information, did you? Well, apparently we do. It seems that the Bushites have decided that what Iraq really needs now is a military version of FOX News -- unfair and unbalanced -- to show them the correct path.
It's just one more valuable lesson in democracy for the heathen Iraqis. When the news does not suit your needs, just dress your propaganda up as news, corrupt or threaten some editors, and go into the news business.
Armstrong Williams lives! -- apparently now in Iraq.
The real lesson in all this is to disregard what this administration says it's doing. That's just talking the talk. Instead, if you want to know what they are really up to, watch their feet
As for Wilkerson's suggestion that the Bushites be indicted by the Court in the Hague for war crimes.. now THAT would be a real lesson in the even-handed application of the rule of law, wouldn't it!
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
November 29, 2005
GOP Culture of Corruption?
You Don't Know The Half of It!
The old saying goes that even a broken clock is right twice a day. So when Democrats accuse Republicans of fostering a culture of corruption it proves the old saying true. (That's once, the other time they've been right lately is in calling for an early withdrawal from Iraq.)
We saw further evidence of the GOP's culture of corruption yesterday when California Republican, Rep. Randy Cunningham, resigned from Congress after admitting to taking $2 million in bribes from a defense contractor.
But Randy is small fry, his take, chump change. Further up the GOP food chain the crimes and corruption are so enormous they would have left even Carl Sagan at loss for superlatives. (Billions upon billions upon billions...)
Only now is the general public starting to learn just how corruption swept through the GOP ranks after the party's rise to majority status in the 1990's. But it didn't happen all at once. And it didn't begin yesterday. It began over eleven years ago.
I stumbled across evidence of the GOP's spreading cancer of corruption back in early 2002 while picking through the still smoldering ashes of Enron. In fact, it maybe proven some day that Tom DeLay was a creation of Enron. But more on that later.
While prosecutors are only now beginning to peel back the layers of corruption involving the GOP's top gun, Tom DeLay and his gang, it was clear long ago, to any reporter willing to take the time to look, that these guys were up to no good.
(Read the full text of my March 2002 expose' here. It's very long but, as they say, the devil really is in the details. If you read it you will some names you learned only recently, like Jack Abramoff and Mike Scanlon. But the evidence these guys, and other Tom DeLay operatives, were scratching each other's backs was all there for the having.)
So, you may aks, why did it take so long to stop them? Why didn't someone blow the whistle sooner? As you learn just how much evidence was laying around out there for the media to pick up, you'll shake your head in disbelief. And I'm talking steaming hot hints too, like the mob hit involving Delay's former top aide, Scanlon and DeLay's chief money raiser, Abramoff. The media covered that story as though it was just another Miami vice crime story. Now we know differently. It was part of much bigger things.
It would be one thing if the media could argue that there was no way for them to know, because we now know that's not true. As with the lead up to the Iraq war, there was no shortage of weapons experts willing to explain to reporters why it was highly unlikely Iraq had anything even close to a functioning nuclear weapons program. Or that they could deliver chemical or biological weapons, assuming they even had them, beyond their own borders. But instead they parroted administration claims to the contrary.
The same goes for the DeLay gang. All it took was a few days and virtually no budget for me to plenty of clues that something big was afoot involving the GOP's rising star. No one could have read my list of particulars without concluding something very ugly was afoot within the DeLay operation.
Still nothing was done. Nothing was written. No one was investigated. Nothing, until American Indian tribes discovered the DeLay gang had stolen $80 million from them, and a Texas District Attorney indicted DeLay this year for campaign money laundering.
But the recent indictments of DeLay and Abramoff, and the charges Mike Scanlon pleaded guilty to last week, represent the mere tip of an iceberg of fraud, corruption and official malfeasance. If the mainstream media wants to redeem itself here are more rocks in DeLay's garden that require a thorough look under. (Each is detailed in that old 2002 report as quoted below.)
* Exactly what was DeLay's full relationship with Enron -- and visa versa? (Yes it's "old news," but it remains unreported old news. They question worth exploring is this: Was Tom DeLay Ernon's bastard child?)
"Enron hosted Tom Delay's PAC, ARMPAC's, first fundraiser. It was held in Enron's hometown of Houston, Texas and raised $280,000 for DeLay's new leadership PAC. Subsequent disclosures show that Enron and its executives gave early and often. Ken Lay contributed $50,000 to ARMPAC, Enron Vice Chairman, Joseph Sutton, contributed another $25,000. The full extent of Enron's financial support for DeLay's PAC may never be known since reporting such contributions became mandatory only in 2000."
* Just how many under-the-table cash streams did DeLay have flowing into his various stashes? For example:
"When Enron lobbyists asked how best to proceed, DeLay noted that Enron could begin by giving his Chief of Staff, Ed Buckham (who at that very moment was forming his own consulting company, the Alexander Strategy Group) and Karl Gallant, a consultant to DeLay's ARMPAC, the contract to manage the campaign....Gallant had recently worked on a propaganda campaign for the tobacco industry...Alexander Strategy Group put DeLay's wife, Christine on its payroll. She reportedly pocketed a net "salary" of $40,000. Christine DeLay is a retired schoolteacher. What she did for her salary is unclear. According to Alexander Strategy Group, she neither lobbied for the company nor did she show up for work there. Why then were they paying her? The company says Alexander Strategies wrote the checks to Christine DeLay as a "bookkeeping convenience" for ARMPAC.
* How much of Jack Abramoff's Indian gaming loot found it's way into DeLay-related campaigns, PACs or were used to fund overseas junkets for DeLay and other Republicans?
* Isn't it time for a complete audit of DeLay and Abramoff's relationships with sweatshop operators in the US protectorate in the Mariana Islands? You might begin by asking former Mariana lobbyist for Jack Abramoff, Patrick Pizzella. You'll find him over at the Dept of Labor where he now serves as assistant secretary of Labor. It was Pizzella's job to organize Abramoff's political junkets to the islands.
* Might it not be useful for us to know the full extent of Tom DeLay's dealings with the largest operator of Mariana sweatshops, Chinese national Willie Tan?
"The Marianas account has paid off handsomely for both DeLay and Abramoff, whose lobbying efforts resulted in more than $8 million in fees over the past five years, some of which inevitably ended up in DeLay's leadership PAC and as personal contributions from Abramoff over the years to DeLay's campaign war chests. DeLay was also able to distribute some of that money to those in Congress friendly to his cause - a fact Abramoff was quick to point out to his client: "Thanks to past trips the Commonwealth of Northern Marianas has many friends on the Appropriations Committees in Congress," Abramoff wrote to Hong Kong sweatshop mogul Willie Tan. The Tan-controlled newspaper, Saipan Tribune, responded with an article lauding Abramoff.
* What was Delay's relationship with Mariana conservative political strongman Bin Fidel?
When the Marianas put out a call for bids for a new $120 million power plant, a Japanese company was awarded the contract. Enron, attracted by the island's lack of environmental rules, wanted in and complained to DeLay that they had not been given a fair shot at the contract for the power plant.
DeLay responded by calling in some chits from his friends in the Mariana administration - in particular Ben Fital, a conservative politician whom DeLay's former aides, Ed Buckham and Mike Scanlon, helped get elected as the island's representative in Congress. Buckham's lobbying firm, Alexander Strategies Group's representation of Enron's interests in the Marianas also bagged him $50,000 in fees.
There were all kinds of political pushes from the top and the side and every way," Vincent Mesa, the island's former manger of the its power utilities, recalled later. "There were all kinds of political interference. They said, 'Just do it! Give Enron the contract."
Surprise, surprise, Enron won the re-bidding.... and the citizens of the Marianas are still paying the bill for their unfinished power plant.
Then there was this editorial in 2001 in the Willie Tan-owned Saipan Tribune:
"If [Abramoff's] past success in defending our interests is not enough reason to lock him into a long-term deal, the fact that George W. Bush is now the new President is yet another reason. [Abramoff] was able to defend us by educating powerful Members of Congress and arranging a trip to these islands by the most powerful member, Congressman Tom DeLay. Mr. Abramoff and his team have racked up win after win for these islands."
Considering all we know now about just how sleazy these two guys – DeLay and Abramoff – are, wouldn't it nice to also know the full extent of their with Ernon and their activities in the U.S. Controlled Mariana Islands?
Inquiring minds would like to know.
Better late than never, huh?
You Don't Know The Half of It!
The old saying goes that even a broken clock is right twice a day. So when Democrats accuse Republicans of fostering a culture of corruption it proves the old saying true. (That's once, the other time they've been right lately is in calling for an early withdrawal from Iraq.)
We saw further evidence of the GOP's culture of corruption yesterday when California Republican, Rep. Randy Cunningham, resigned from Congress after admitting to taking $2 million in bribes from a defense contractor.
But Randy is small fry, his take, chump change. Further up the GOP food chain the crimes and corruption are so enormous they would have left even Carl Sagan at loss for superlatives. (Billions upon billions upon billions...)
Only now is the general public starting to learn just how corruption swept through the GOP ranks after the party's rise to majority status in the 1990's. But it didn't happen all at once. And it didn't begin yesterday. It began over eleven years ago.
I stumbled across evidence of the GOP's spreading cancer of corruption back in early 2002 while picking through the still smoldering ashes of Enron. In fact, it maybe proven some day that Tom DeLay was a creation of Enron. But more on that later.
While prosecutors are only now beginning to peel back the layers of corruption involving the GOP's top gun, Tom DeLay and his gang, it was clear long ago, to any reporter willing to take the time to look, that these guys were up to no good.
(Read the full text of my March 2002 expose' here. It's very long but, as they say, the devil really is in the details. If you read it you will some names you learned only recently, like Jack Abramoff and Mike Scanlon. But the evidence these guys, and other Tom DeLay operatives, were scratching each other's backs was all there for the having.)
So, you may aks, why did it take so long to stop them? Why didn't someone blow the whistle sooner? As you learn just how much evidence was laying around out there for the media to pick up, you'll shake your head in disbelief. And I'm talking steaming hot hints too, like the mob hit involving Delay's former top aide, Scanlon and DeLay's chief money raiser, Abramoff. The media covered that story as though it was just another Miami vice crime story. Now we know differently. It was part of much bigger things.
It would be one thing if the media could argue that there was no way for them to know, because we now know that's not true. As with the lead up to the Iraq war, there was no shortage of weapons experts willing to explain to reporters why it was highly unlikely Iraq had anything even close to a functioning nuclear weapons program. Or that they could deliver chemical or biological weapons, assuming they even had them, beyond their own borders. But instead they parroted administration claims to the contrary.
The same goes for the DeLay gang. All it took was a few days and virtually no budget for me to plenty of clues that something big was afoot involving the GOP's rising star. No one could have read my list of particulars without concluding something very ugly was afoot within the DeLay operation.
Still nothing was done. Nothing was written. No one was investigated. Nothing, until American Indian tribes discovered the DeLay gang had stolen $80 million from them, and a Texas District Attorney indicted DeLay this year for campaign money laundering.
But the recent indictments of DeLay and Abramoff, and the charges Mike Scanlon pleaded guilty to last week, represent the mere tip of an iceberg of fraud, corruption and official malfeasance. If the mainstream media wants to redeem itself here are more rocks in DeLay's garden that require a thorough look under. (Each is detailed in that old 2002 report as quoted below.)
* Exactly what was DeLay's full relationship with Enron -- and visa versa? (Yes it's "old news," but it remains unreported old news. They question worth exploring is this: Was Tom DeLay Ernon's bastard child?)
"Enron hosted Tom Delay's PAC, ARMPAC's, first fundraiser. It was held in Enron's hometown of Houston, Texas and raised $280,000 for DeLay's new leadership PAC. Subsequent disclosures show that Enron and its executives gave early and often. Ken Lay contributed $50,000 to ARMPAC, Enron Vice Chairman, Joseph Sutton, contributed another $25,000. The full extent of Enron's financial support for DeLay's PAC may never be known since reporting such contributions became mandatory only in 2000."
* Just how many under-the-table cash streams did DeLay have flowing into his various stashes? For example:
"When Enron lobbyists asked how best to proceed, DeLay noted that Enron could begin by giving his Chief of Staff, Ed Buckham (who at that very moment was forming his own consulting company, the Alexander Strategy Group) and Karl Gallant, a consultant to DeLay's ARMPAC, the contract to manage the campaign....Gallant had recently worked on a propaganda campaign for the tobacco industry...Alexander Strategy Group put DeLay's wife, Christine on its payroll. She reportedly pocketed a net "salary" of $40,000. Christine DeLay is a retired schoolteacher. What she did for her salary is unclear. According to Alexander Strategy Group, she neither lobbied for the company nor did she show up for work there. Why then were they paying her? The company says Alexander Strategies wrote the checks to Christine DeLay as a "bookkeeping convenience" for ARMPAC.
* How much of Jack Abramoff's Indian gaming loot found it's way into DeLay-related campaigns, PACs or were used to fund overseas junkets for DeLay and other Republicans?
* Isn't it time for a complete audit of DeLay and Abramoff's relationships with sweatshop operators in the US protectorate in the Mariana Islands? You might begin by asking former Mariana lobbyist for Jack Abramoff, Patrick Pizzella. You'll find him over at the Dept of Labor where he now serves as assistant secretary of Labor. It was Pizzella's job to organize Abramoff's political junkets to the islands.
* Might it not be useful for us to know the full extent of Tom DeLay's dealings with the largest operator of Mariana sweatshops, Chinese national Willie Tan?
"The Marianas account has paid off handsomely for both DeLay and Abramoff, whose lobbying efforts resulted in more than $8 million in fees over the past five years, some of which inevitably ended up in DeLay's leadership PAC and as personal contributions from Abramoff over the years to DeLay's campaign war chests. DeLay was also able to distribute some of that money to those in Congress friendly to his cause - a fact Abramoff was quick to point out to his client: "Thanks to past trips the Commonwealth of Northern Marianas has many friends on the Appropriations Committees in Congress," Abramoff wrote to Hong Kong sweatshop mogul Willie Tan. The Tan-controlled newspaper, Saipan Tribune, responded with an article lauding Abramoff.
* What was Delay's relationship with Mariana conservative political strongman Bin Fidel?
When the Marianas put out a call for bids for a new $120 million power plant, a Japanese company was awarded the contract. Enron, attracted by the island's lack of environmental rules, wanted in and complained to DeLay that they had not been given a fair shot at the contract for the power plant.
DeLay responded by calling in some chits from his friends in the Mariana administration - in particular Ben Fital, a conservative politician whom DeLay's former aides, Ed Buckham and Mike Scanlon, helped get elected as the island's representative in Congress. Buckham's lobbying firm, Alexander Strategies Group's representation of Enron's interests in the Marianas also bagged him $50,000 in fees.
There were all kinds of political pushes from the top and the side and every way," Vincent Mesa, the island's former manger of the its power utilities, recalled later. "There were all kinds of political interference. They said, 'Just do it! Give Enron the contract."
Surprise, surprise, Enron won the re-bidding.... and the citizens of the Marianas are still paying the bill for their unfinished power plant.
Then there was this editorial in 2001 in the Willie Tan-owned Saipan Tribune:
"If [Abramoff's] past success in defending our interests is not enough reason to lock him into a long-term deal, the fact that George W. Bush is now the new President is yet another reason. [Abramoff] was able to defend us by educating powerful Members of Congress and arranging a trip to these islands by the most powerful member, Congressman Tom DeLay. Mr. Abramoff and his team have racked up win after win for these islands."
Considering all we know now about just how sleazy these two guys – DeLay and Abramoff – are, wouldn't it nice to also know the full extent of their with Ernon and their activities in the U.S. Controlled Mariana Islands?
Inquiring minds would like to know.
Better late than never, huh?
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
November 29, 2005
It's All in the Execution
Ideas are a dime a dozen. Success is the rare commodity. What separates successful ideas from unsuccessful ideas is execution. Bad ideas fail on their own. Good ideas, to fail, must be executed poorly.
Democratizing the Arab world is a good idea. Hundreds of millions of men and women – particularly women – are living in conditions not much different from their ancestors a thousand years ago. In most of the Middle East Arab women can be beaten, raped even murdered, not just with impunity, but under protection of Islamic law. Children go to schools that teach racial and religious hatred instead of the Three R's. And their self-appointed leaders keep it that way so they can treat their national treasuries like personal checking accounts.
So it's would be a good idea that Arab nations should be forced to get with the program and join the here and now. But what's the best way to take that idea from concept to success? How best to execute this idea?
One way would have been for the US and EU to use their considerable economic power to force change by refusing to trade with undemocratic nations in the region. Oil rich kingdoms, like Saudi Arabia, pose a special problem since we are dependent on their oil. But they in turn need the West. They need places outside their own corrupt and underdeveloped countries to hide and invest the enormous wealth they loot every year from their own people. They need western banks, investment houses, real estate, etc. Without access to these repositories their money is just so much paper.
It could work -- depending of course that the plan is well executed.
George W. Bush liked the democracy idea too. He would be Moses to the Arabs, leading them from slavery to freedom. He would give them Democracy.
Then he took this good idea and executed it about as badly as a good idea has ever been executed. Instead of democracy what George has brought the Middle East is more of the same... violence, torture, poverty, corruption. Oh, and intifada. He brought them intifada too – and not just to Iraq, but Afghanistan as well. But wait, there's more. This new intifada is now spreading to Jordan and Lebanon as well. Poorly executed, indeed.
Fools rush in where angles fear to tread and George rushed in, guns blaring. Damn fine idea, he figured. Folks there are gonna roll out the red carpet for the Bush cavalry. He was sure they wanted democracy. Who wouldn't? And that they'd know what to do with once he gave it to them.
George decided that the Iraqis and Afghans needed a example of democracy close to home. So he told Egypt they had to get with the program too. And, since we give Egypt about as much money every year as we give Israel, it was an offer Egypt could not refuse. President Mubarak tried to warn Bush that it was a bit soon to being giving Egyptians the right to vote for anyone they wanted. But Bush would not hear any of it. So, Egypt just had it's first democratic elections. How did they go?
CAIRO, Nov. 27 - The Muslim Brotherhood may be banned, but it has demonstrated in the latest parliamentary elections that it is by far the strongest Egyptian opposition group, trouncing the secular political opposition and weakening the governing party's power monopoly....The Brotherhood has been outlawed since the early 1950's, when some of its members tried to assassinate Prime Minister Gamal Abdel Nasser, who went on to become president." (Full Story)
Oops. The Muslim Brotherhood is listed as a terrorist organization by American intelligence. Nicely done, Mr. Bush. You just got the first terrorist group democratically elected to public office. Do you have a Plan B? I didn't think so.
Bush has also been executing his democracy idea in Afghanistan. So, how it going there?
KABUL, Afghanistan, Nov. 27 -- An onslaught of grisly and sophisticated attacks since parliamentary elections in September has left Afghan and international officials concerned that Taliban guerrillas are obtaining support from abroad to carry out strikes that increasingly mimic insurgent tactics in Iraq...The recent attacks -- including at least nine suicide bombings -- have shown unusual levels of coordination, technological knowledge and blood lust, according to officials...The attacks have been particularly noteworthy for their use of suicide bombers. Some have struck in waves, with one explosive-laden car following the next in an effort to maximize casualties. That sort of attack has been a hallmark of al Qaeda and a regular occurrence in Iraq. But in Afghanistan, suicide attacks of any kind have been relatively rare, despite a quarter-century of warfare. Attackers have also shown a growing appetite for strikes in cities, particularly Kabul. (Full Story)
D'oh! Not so good. That's too bad because Bush executed the first part of the Democracy to Afghanistan idea pretty well. The cruel and backward Taliban were removed from power and on the run. And he had virtually the entire band of al Queda members, including their leader, trapped and on the verge of extermination.
Then Bush's attention deficit disorder kicked in. He was distracted by a nearby shinny object -- Iraq -- and the whole Afghanistan idea went straight to hell. The Taliban survived and the viral al Queda movement escaped containment and spread. Today al Queda has opened franchises throughout the Middle East. Al Queda has now super-sized it's products.
Instead of a democratized Iraq and Afghanistan, Bush created a full-blown and expanding intifada. Democracy can compete with a lot of problems, but it cannot compete with chaos. Chaos will trump democracy every time. Democracies require certain conditions to function; adherence to the rule of law, orderly procedures and public confidence those procedures can and will run their course. Chaos assures they won't. (Look no further than the on-again, off-again trial of Saddam.)
Now what? Ask the Israelis. Ask them how it could be that, with all their military superiority, western know-how and their own democracy as a side-by-side comparison, they could not defeat the Palestinian intifadas? Lord knows they tried. They tried bombing, tear gassing, shooting, assassinating and imprisoning the intifadas to death. But none of it worked. Which is why they left Gaza and now know they will eventually have to leave most of the West Bank.. Because until they do, things just keep blowing up. Not only could the Israelis not defeat intifada but the chaos it fostered had begun to unravel Israel's own democracy.
Maybe George really wanted to democratize the Middle East. Or mabye all he wanted was the oil. Likely he wanted both. He got neither. Instead he created a burgeoning intifada. Instead of democracy he brought the long-suffering Arabs more suffering. Instead of candidates for public office, he brought them suicide bombers and assassins. Instead of the rule of law he invigorated the already well entrenched rule of brute force, tribal hatred and the endless cycle of an eye-for-an-eye violence.
Instead of bringing democracy to the long-suffering Arab street, he brought them intifada.
Ideas are a dime a dozen. Success is the rare commodity. What separates successful ideas from unsuccessful ideas is execution. Bad ideas fail on their own. Good ideas, to fail, must be executed poorly.
Democratizing the Arab world is a good idea. Hundreds of millions of men and women – particularly women – are living in conditions not much different from their ancestors a thousand years ago. In most of the Middle East Arab women can be beaten, raped even murdered, not just with impunity, but under protection of Islamic law. Children go to schools that teach racial and religious hatred instead of the Three R's. And their self-appointed leaders keep it that way so they can treat their national treasuries like personal checking accounts.
So it's would be a good idea that Arab nations should be forced to get with the program and join the here and now. But what's the best way to take that idea from concept to success? How best to execute this idea?
One way would have been for the US and EU to use their considerable economic power to force change by refusing to trade with undemocratic nations in the region. Oil rich kingdoms, like Saudi Arabia, pose a special problem since we are dependent on their oil. But they in turn need the West. They need places outside their own corrupt and underdeveloped countries to hide and invest the enormous wealth they loot every year from their own people. They need western banks, investment houses, real estate, etc. Without access to these repositories their money is just so much paper.
It could work -- depending of course that the plan is well executed.
George W. Bush liked the democracy idea too. He would be Moses to the Arabs, leading them from slavery to freedom. He would give them Democracy.
Then he took this good idea and executed it about as badly as a good idea has ever been executed. Instead of democracy what George has brought the Middle East is more of the same... violence, torture, poverty, corruption. Oh, and intifada. He brought them intifada too – and not just to Iraq, but Afghanistan as well. But wait, there's more. This new intifada is now spreading to Jordan and Lebanon as well. Poorly executed, indeed.
Fools rush in where angles fear to tread and George rushed in, guns blaring. Damn fine idea, he figured. Folks there are gonna roll out the red carpet for the Bush cavalry. He was sure they wanted democracy. Who wouldn't? And that they'd know what to do with once he gave it to them.
George decided that the Iraqis and Afghans needed a example of democracy close to home. So he told Egypt they had to get with the program too. And, since we give Egypt about as much money every year as we give Israel, it was an offer Egypt could not refuse. President Mubarak tried to warn Bush that it was a bit soon to being giving Egyptians the right to vote for anyone they wanted. But Bush would not hear any of it. So, Egypt just had it's first democratic elections. How did they go?
CAIRO, Nov. 27 - The Muslim Brotherhood may be banned, but it has demonstrated in the latest parliamentary elections that it is by far the strongest Egyptian opposition group, trouncing the secular political opposition and weakening the governing party's power monopoly....The Brotherhood has been outlawed since the early 1950's, when some of its members tried to assassinate Prime Minister Gamal Abdel Nasser, who went on to become president." (Full Story)
Oops. The Muslim Brotherhood is listed as a terrorist organization by American intelligence. Nicely done, Mr. Bush. You just got the first terrorist group democratically elected to public office. Do you have a Plan B? I didn't think so.
Bush has also been executing his democracy idea in Afghanistan. So, how it going there?
KABUL, Afghanistan, Nov. 27 -- An onslaught of grisly and sophisticated attacks since parliamentary elections in September has left Afghan and international officials concerned that Taliban guerrillas are obtaining support from abroad to carry out strikes that increasingly mimic insurgent tactics in Iraq...The recent attacks -- including at least nine suicide bombings -- have shown unusual levels of coordination, technological knowledge and blood lust, according to officials...The attacks have been particularly noteworthy for their use of suicide bombers. Some have struck in waves, with one explosive-laden car following the next in an effort to maximize casualties. That sort of attack has been a hallmark of al Qaeda and a regular occurrence in Iraq. But in Afghanistan, suicide attacks of any kind have been relatively rare, despite a quarter-century of warfare. Attackers have also shown a growing appetite for strikes in cities, particularly Kabul. (Full Story)
D'oh! Not so good. That's too bad because Bush executed the first part of the Democracy to Afghanistan idea pretty well. The cruel and backward Taliban were removed from power and on the run. And he had virtually the entire band of al Queda members, including their leader, trapped and on the verge of extermination.
Then Bush's attention deficit disorder kicked in. He was distracted by a nearby shinny object -- Iraq -- and the whole Afghanistan idea went straight to hell. The Taliban survived and the viral al Queda movement escaped containment and spread. Today al Queda has opened franchises throughout the Middle East. Al Queda has now super-sized it's products.
Instead of a democratized Iraq and Afghanistan, Bush created a full-blown and expanding intifada. Democracy can compete with a lot of problems, but it cannot compete with chaos. Chaos will trump democracy every time. Democracies require certain conditions to function; adherence to the rule of law, orderly procedures and public confidence those procedures can and will run their course. Chaos assures they won't. (Look no further than the on-again, off-again trial of Saddam.)
Now what? Ask the Israelis. Ask them how it could be that, with all their military superiority, western know-how and their own democracy as a side-by-side comparison, they could not defeat the Palestinian intifadas? Lord knows they tried. They tried bombing, tear gassing, shooting, assassinating and imprisoning the intifadas to death. But none of it worked. Which is why they left Gaza and now know they will eventually have to leave most of the West Bank.. Because until they do, things just keep blowing up. Not only could the Israelis not defeat intifada but the chaos it fostered had begun to unravel Israel's own democracy.
Maybe George really wanted to democratize the Middle East. Or mabye all he wanted was the oil. Likely he wanted both. He got neither. Instead he created a burgeoning intifada. Instead of democracy he brought the long-suffering Arabs more suffering. Instead of candidates for public office, he brought them suicide bombers and assassins. Instead of the rule of law he invigorated the already well entrenched rule of brute force, tribal hatred and the endless cycle of an eye-for-an-eye violence.
Instead of bringing democracy to the long-suffering Arab street, he brought them intifada.
Monday, November 28, 2005
November 28, 2005
Black Box Voting
Shame or Disgrace?
Am I missing something here? A growing number of readers tell me I am. They say I need to get on this right now because "they" are about to steal America's democracy.
"They" are a shadowy cabal of right-wing evil-doers and Diebold. They are conspiring to steal elections. They already have, these folks tell me. It is a devilishly simple scheme. Switch voters to electronic voting machines so there are no more re-countable paper ballots. Then program the machines so only their Manchurian candidates win.
This email is typical of the emails I am getting from readers (edited for length):
Steve,
I'm so glad that I'm not the only person nudging you. But, what you say about the brazenness of Diebold & Co. You soooo underestimate them. Go to Black Box Voting and read about what they are trying to set up as a 'test' for re-certifying with Black Box Voting. No way is it a fair fight. It is my measured opinion that this is indicative of a general fear that if anyone were to overlook the hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of lobbying dollars spent to ram these machines through, it would be like the unmasking of the Wizard of Oz.
Don't take things for granted. Trust me. I'm not a paranoid person. Just look. Investigate. Decide for yourself. Elected officials of all stripes have fallen under the spell of the big electronic voting machines and it's not because they are so highly rated or have a good track record. Why would that be?
Were you aware that this summer at California tax payers' expense there was a several days long seminar on voting and electronic voting machines for election officials and it was partially paid for by the electronic voting machine companies who were there to demonstrate (read "push") their product. Most people were unaware of this gross conflict of interest and misuse of public funds. All I'm trying to say is it's part of a total picture in which many individuals from both sides are at the lucrative trough. Did you know that Diebold hired a former DNC Chairman to head their fifty state campaign to get Diebold in every state. What the heck does that mean? Is it suicide or murder or both? I can't overstate this. The fact that the Dems have not seen the handwriting on the wall does not change the facts. It just reflects poorly on the Dems.
I wouldn't care if it weren't so important. I believe that this is the foundation of everything.
Best wishes,
Joan
Yes, it seems all so simple. Too simple. I don't believe it. Which of course does not matter. All that counts is that a growing number of entirely sane and reasonable voters believe it's true.
Having said I don't believe it, I don't mean to imply that they are above pulling something like that. We know these folks too well now to put anything past them. I just mean that the risk/benefit ratio is too heavily weighted to the risk side of the equation. The party caught fixing a major race would be out of power for a generation. Also, if I learned anything from a quarter century of unraveling real and alleged conspiracies it's that getting caught is always in the cards.
Then there are the conspiracy claims that actually panned out. Once inside these plots they were almost always more Keystone Cops than James Bond, chuck full of more hapless comedy than drama.
(I submit for you, Exhibit A, Iran/Contra. Remember that one. Reagan sending Robert McFarland off to Iran to present the Ayatollah a cake with a frosting key emblazoned on top as a symbol of, who hell knows what, and an autographed Christian bible.... oh and few dozen ground to air missiles. Ollie North furiously shredding evidence, his secretary getting caught trying to smuggle documents out in her knickers. Oh yes, what a well-oiled conspiracy that one was!)
Getting caught, as I say, is in the DNA of conspiracies. It takes too many humans to cook up and carry out any conspiracy worth the doing, and humans are born blabber mouths. (You know them by the name "unnamed sources.")
I remember when former Secretary of State, George Schultz, was leaving Washington at the end of the second Reagan term and a reporter asked him what the most important thing he had learned. "Yeah. I learned that anyone who thinks he can keep a secret in this town needs to have his head examined," he responded.
But again I say, what I believe, or don't believe, doesn't matter. What matters is how many people believe that electronic voting machines are modern day Trojan horses rigged by neo-cons to fix elections. The growing number of emails I get each day from people who believe just that indicates to me that we have more to worry about than the spread of bird flu. The virus of doubt may, in the end, be the greatest danger to America since the Civil War.
I'm a real computer nut. I have been since I bought my first on back in the stone age of personal computing 1979. If it has a silicon chip in it, I either own it or want to. Over the decades it's became one of those love/hate, can't-live-with-them, can't-live-without-them relationships. Anyone who has ever tried to figure out how an annoying application keeps loading, even after you've deleted it a dozen times, understands why electronic voting machines have sparked suspicion and controversy.
(Never mind that Diebold also makes and programs most bank ATM machines in the world as well. Bank ATM's contain a mother lode of super-sensitive private information. But that does not seem to bother those now accusing Diebold of rigging its voting machines. I suspect these same folks routinely shove their bank cards into Diebold ATMs every day without a worry that Diebold is sending the info off to Neocon Central.)
Anyway, I do take this concern seriously even though I doubt it's real. Because democracy is all about trust. If the trust disappears, democracy goes with it.
So, here's my bottom line on this subject.
No paper receipt.
No secure and credible post-election audit trail,
No electronic voting machines.
I don't care how they do it, just do it. Diebold only made matters worst when they claimed that producing paper receipts was not necessary and/or too hard to do.
Nonsense. Most of us own personal computers and most of those computers are connected to a cheap printer. So don't tell us that an electronic voting machines -- produced by the same company whose ATMs spit out paper receipts -- can't produce a hard copy receipt to voters. I don't want to hear it. It's not true.
Actually I'd want two printed receipts; one for the voter to keep and one the voter deposits in a locked and sealed box that before leaving the polling place. After the polls close those boxes would be locked in a vault maintained by bipartisan Federal or state election commissions and kept for a year in the event election results are challenged.
It can be done and it must be done. Because doubt and suspicion are on the rise. And without credible assurances votes caste are the same votes counted, no future elected officials, Republican or Democrat, will possess any mandate to govern.
Shame or Disgrace?
Am I missing something here? A growing number of readers tell me I am. They say I need to get on this right now because "they" are about to steal America's democracy.
"They" are a shadowy cabal of right-wing evil-doers and Diebold. They are conspiring to steal elections. They already have, these folks tell me. It is a devilishly simple scheme. Switch voters to electronic voting machines so there are no more re-countable paper ballots. Then program the machines so only their Manchurian candidates win.
This email is typical of the emails I am getting from readers (edited for length):
Steve,
I'm so glad that I'm not the only person nudging you. But, what you say about the brazenness of Diebold & Co. You soooo underestimate them. Go to Black Box Voting and read about what they are trying to set up as a 'test' for re-certifying with Black Box Voting. No way is it a fair fight. It is my measured opinion that this is indicative of a general fear that if anyone were to overlook the hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of lobbying dollars spent to ram these machines through, it would be like the unmasking of the Wizard of Oz.
Don't take things for granted. Trust me. I'm not a paranoid person. Just look. Investigate. Decide for yourself. Elected officials of all stripes have fallen under the spell of the big electronic voting machines and it's not because they are so highly rated or have a good track record. Why would that be?
Were you aware that this summer at California tax payers' expense there was a several days long seminar on voting and electronic voting machines for election officials and it was partially paid for by the electronic voting machine companies who were there to demonstrate (read "push") their product. Most people were unaware of this gross conflict of interest and misuse of public funds. All I'm trying to say is it's part of a total picture in which many individuals from both sides are at the lucrative trough. Did you know that Diebold hired a former DNC Chairman to head their fifty state campaign to get Diebold in every state. What the heck does that mean? Is it suicide or murder or both? I can't overstate this. The fact that the Dems have not seen the handwriting on the wall does not change the facts. It just reflects poorly on the Dems.
I wouldn't care if it weren't so important. I believe that this is the foundation of everything.
Best wishes,
Joan
Yes, it seems all so simple. Too simple. I don't believe it. Which of course does not matter. All that counts is that a growing number of entirely sane and reasonable voters believe it's true.
Having said I don't believe it, I don't mean to imply that they are above pulling something like that. We know these folks too well now to put anything past them. I just mean that the risk/benefit ratio is too heavily weighted to the risk side of the equation. The party caught fixing a major race would be out of power for a generation. Also, if I learned anything from a quarter century of unraveling real and alleged conspiracies it's that getting caught is always in the cards.
Then there are the conspiracy claims that actually panned out. Once inside these plots they were almost always more Keystone Cops than James Bond, chuck full of more hapless comedy than drama.
(I submit for you, Exhibit A, Iran/Contra. Remember that one. Reagan sending Robert McFarland off to Iran to present the Ayatollah a cake with a frosting key emblazoned on top as a symbol of, who hell knows what, and an autographed Christian bible.... oh and few dozen ground to air missiles. Ollie North furiously shredding evidence, his secretary getting caught trying to smuggle documents out in her knickers. Oh yes, what a well-oiled conspiracy that one was!)
Getting caught, as I say, is in the DNA of conspiracies. It takes too many humans to cook up and carry out any conspiracy worth the doing, and humans are born blabber mouths. (You know them by the name "unnamed sources.")
I remember when former Secretary of State, George Schultz, was leaving Washington at the end of the second Reagan term and a reporter asked him what the most important thing he had learned. "Yeah. I learned that anyone who thinks he can keep a secret in this town needs to have his head examined," he responded.
But again I say, what I believe, or don't believe, doesn't matter. What matters is how many people believe that electronic voting machines are modern day Trojan horses rigged by neo-cons to fix elections. The growing number of emails I get each day from people who believe just that indicates to me that we have more to worry about than the spread of bird flu. The virus of doubt may, in the end, be the greatest danger to America since the Civil War.
I'm a real computer nut. I have been since I bought my first on back in the stone age of personal computing 1979. If it has a silicon chip in it, I either own it or want to. Over the decades it's became one of those love/hate, can't-live-with-them, can't-live-without-them relationships. Anyone who has ever tried to figure out how an annoying application keeps loading, even after you've deleted it a dozen times, understands why electronic voting machines have sparked suspicion and controversy.
(Never mind that Diebold also makes and programs most bank ATM machines in the world as well. Bank ATM's contain a mother lode of super-sensitive private information. But that does not seem to bother those now accusing Diebold of rigging its voting machines. I suspect these same folks routinely shove their bank cards into Diebold ATMs every day without a worry that Diebold is sending the info off to Neocon Central.)
Anyway, I do take this concern seriously even though I doubt it's real. Because democracy is all about trust. If the trust disappears, democracy goes with it.
So, here's my bottom line on this subject.
No paper receipt.
No secure and credible post-election audit trail,
No electronic voting machines.
I don't care how they do it, just do it. Diebold only made matters worst when they claimed that producing paper receipts was not necessary and/or too hard to do.
Nonsense. Most of us own personal computers and most of those computers are connected to a cheap printer. So don't tell us that an electronic voting machines -- produced by the same company whose ATMs spit out paper receipts -- can't produce a hard copy receipt to voters. I don't want to hear it. It's not true.
Actually I'd want two printed receipts; one for the voter to keep and one the voter deposits in a locked and sealed box that before leaving the polling place. After the polls close those boxes would be locked in a vault maintained by bipartisan Federal or state election commissions and kept for a year in the event election results are challenged.
It can be done and it must be done. Because doubt and suspicion are on the rise. And without credible assurances votes caste are the same votes counted, no future elected officials, Republican or Democrat, will possess any mandate to govern.
Friday, November 25, 2005
November 23, 2005
News That Floats
It's Dime Dropping Season in DC
Something very important happened yesterday to a guy few have ever heard of, Michael Scanlon. Yesterday Mikey pleaded guilty to a series of corruption charges. He was smiling when he went into court and he was smiling when he left free on bail. (More)
Why was this man smiling? And why were prosecutors smiling right along with him? Because Scanlon is likely to send some very big fish to the slammer.
First who is Michael Scanlon – or maybe more accurately, who was he? First he served as former House Majority Leader, Tom DeLay's right hand man. When he left that job he went to work for Washington's most corrupt lobbyist, "Casino Jack" Abramoff, himself a DeLay confidant and co-conspirator.
Those two slimballs took young Mike on the ride of a lifetime. From making clerk money with DeLay, Scanlon was soon rolling in millions as he helped Abramoff rob American Indian tribes blind. Something like $80 million passed through Scanlon and Abramoff's hands before they got caught. In the process the two men even got themselves way too close to a Miami mob hit. (Read the whole story Here)
Now Scanlon has turned state witness against Abramoff and, sources say, at least six House members who took bribes from to vote the right way on Indian gaming issues.
But there's more, lots more.
The relationship DeLay and Abramoff yielded enormous benefits for both men over the years, but in ways that almost always smelled fishy. DeLay is already facing charges of campaign money laundering in Texas. Abramoff helped DeLay set up the leadership PAC involved in that scheme. Both men were also intimately involved with Enron which put up the seed money for another DeLay PAC. Abramoff and DeLay were both deeply involved in a series of smarmy deals and at least one rigged election in the American protectorate Mariana Islands – where Enron also bribed its way into a fat power plant contract with DeLay and Abramoff's help.
Mike Scanlon was there for all these capers. He knows a lot. And he's talking, and smiling. All of which makes me smile as well. I am declaring 2006 The Year of Smiles.
Catholic Church Downsizing
Rome, Italy – Yesterday the Catholic Church announced a major restructuring. The Vatican is ordering seminaries to bar candidates for the priesthood who "practice homosexuality," have "deeply rooted homosexual tendencies" or support "gay culture," according to a document published Tuesday by Adista, a Catholic news agency in Rome. (More)
Yesterday's announcement that the Church would lay off gay priests and stop hiring them could cripple the organization, particularly in the US where the priesthood is still reeling from a decade of end to end sex scandals.
Just who is going to run US Catholic churches under the new rules is the big question. We know now who can't:
Those who Need Not Apply for the Priesthood:
* Married men
* Women -- (married or otherwise.)
* Pedophiles – (Once a rich source of manpower, they cost the Church more in legal fees than they were worth.
* Gay men – (Have not cost the Church a dime in legal fees but are considered icky.)
* Men who aren't gay, but may have "tendencies" (i.e. Sing show tunes in the shower and own large collection of Streisand albums.)
* Men who are comfortable with gays, believe they are among God's children and should not be hassled about it.
Well, that certainly narrows the potential priesthood pool down. But down to what?
Who Can be Priests
* Be male (Exam required)
* Be single
* Practice celibacy
* Possess deeply rooted asexual tendencies
* Live only with other men
* Be willing to wear dresses and flowing robes on the job.
I don't know but it looks like the Catholic Church has painted itself into a very small human resource corner.
It's Dime Dropping Season in DC
Something very important happened yesterday to a guy few have ever heard of, Michael Scanlon. Yesterday Mikey pleaded guilty to a series of corruption charges. He was smiling when he went into court and he was smiling when he left free on bail. (More)
Why was this man smiling? And why were prosecutors smiling right along with him? Because Scanlon is likely to send some very big fish to the slammer.
First who is Michael Scanlon – or maybe more accurately, who was he? First he served as former House Majority Leader, Tom DeLay's right hand man. When he left that job he went to work for Washington's most corrupt lobbyist, "Casino Jack" Abramoff, himself a DeLay confidant and co-conspirator.
Those two slimballs took young Mike on the ride of a lifetime. From making clerk money with DeLay, Scanlon was soon rolling in millions as he helped Abramoff rob American Indian tribes blind. Something like $80 million passed through Scanlon and Abramoff's hands before they got caught. In the process the two men even got themselves way too close to a Miami mob hit. (Read the whole story Here)
Now Scanlon has turned state witness against Abramoff and, sources say, at least six House members who took bribes from to vote the right way on Indian gaming issues.
But there's more, lots more.
The relationship DeLay and Abramoff yielded enormous benefits for both men over the years, but in ways that almost always smelled fishy. DeLay is already facing charges of campaign money laundering in Texas. Abramoff helped DeLay set up the leadership PAC involved in that scheme. Both men were also intimately involved with Enron which put up the seed money for another DeLay PAC. Abramoff and DeLay were both deeply involved in a series of smarmy deals and at least one rigged election in the American protectorate Mariana Islands – where Enron also bribed its way into a fat power plant contract with DeLay and Abramoff's help.
Mike Scanlon was there for all these capers. He knows a lot. And he's talking, and smiling. All of which makes me smile as well. I am declaring 2006 The Year of Smiles.
Catholic Church Downsizing
Rome, Italy – Yesterday the Catholic Church announced a major restructuring. The Vatican is ordering seminaries to bar candidates for the priesthood who "practice homosexuality," have "deeply rooted homosexual tendencies" or support "gay culture," according to a document published Tuesday by Adista, a Catholic news agency in Rome. (More)
Yesterday's announcement that the Church would lay off gay priests and stop hiring them could cripple the organization, particularly in the US where the priesthood is still reeling from a decade of end to end sex scandals.
Just who is going to run US Catholic churches under the new rules is the big question. We know now who can't:
Those who Need Not Apply for the Priesthood:
* Married men
* Women -- (married or otherwise.)
* Pedophiles – (Once a rich source of manpower, they cost the Church more in legal fees than they were worth.
* Gay men – (Have not cost the Church a dime in legal fees but are considered icky.)
* Men who aren't gay, but may have "tendencies" (i.e. Sing show tunes in the shower and own large collection of Streisand albums.)
* Men who are comfortable with gays, believe they are among God's children and should not be hassled about it.
Well, that certainly narrows the potential priesthood pool down. But down to what?
Who Can be Priests
* Be male (Exam required)
* Be single
* Practice celibacy
* Possess deeply rooted asexual tendencies
* Live only with other men
* Be willing to wear dresses and flowing robes on the job.
I don't know but it looks like the Catholic Church has painted itself into a very small human resource corner.
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
Failed Presidency?
Is This a Failed Presidency Yet?
The first year nine months of the George W. Bush presidency foretold what was to come. If you recall, pre-911 George was the quintessential deer in the headlights. He had landed the biggest job in the world and had no idea what he was supposed to do next.
I was reminded of that look yesterday when I saw the photo of W. trying to escape reporter's questions in China. It was a telling moment. He ended a news conference with a perfunctory, presidential "Thank you." He strode from the podium, employing his most serious presidential stride. So far, so good. Then his act abruptly collapsed. He pulled the door handle, but the door was locked.
And there he was again, for the whole world to see, pre-911 George, lost, adrift and looking for help. Help had always arrived for George before. It arrived and saved him in the nick of time on Sept. 11, 2001. But that kind of help doesn't grow on trees, and now he's on his own again.
September 11 did for George W. Bush what cocaine does for losers; it makes them feel and act like winners. If you've known a cocaine user you know what I mean. They brim with energy and self-confidence. They listen to no one but their inner buzz. They are cocky, smug, obnoxious. Still, if they are able to focus that buzz, they can create an illusion they actually know of which they speak, that they are driven -- even a leader.
As long as the cocaine lasts the illusion can as well. But when it runs out, or stops working, the loser is all that's left. 9/11 has stopped working for George so Bush The Loser, is back.
Not that he was ever gone, which explains why virtually everything he has done since 911 has come to naught, or worse. Had 9/11 never happened W. would be long gone already, a one-term President, like his father before him.
Therefore the media needs to begin a conversation we would have had around the third year of Bush's first term: Is this a failed presidency? And if so, how failed?
Let's begin by taking the pulse of America's majority population: Working families. (More)
* Pre-tax incomes fell for middle-income families of every type,
* After taking into account changes in both pre-tax income and taxes, the finding remains that most middle-income families lost ground
* Family spending on higher insurance co-pays, deductibles, and premiums has escalated in recent years,
* Inflation-adjusted income of the median household was unchanged and remains $1,700, or 3.8%, below its most recent peak in 1999, according to yesterday's release by the U.S. Bureau of the Census.
* Finally, if this chart doesn't scare you, it should:
How about those Bush tax cuts and all the jobs they were going to create?
Yesterday General Motors announced it was cutting 30,000 jobs. This continues a trend we've seen throughout this presidency. One picture is worth a 1000 jobs:
How about Bush's free trade deals? How's that working out for us?
The trade deficit so far this year is running at a record annual rate of $706 billion, putting it on track to far surpass the old record of $617.6 billion set last year. We are selling less and buying more from aboard. Why? For one reason outsourcing has resulted in everything being manufactured abroad now. Way to go. How bad does the trade deficit have to get before the dollar collapses? Stay tuned, we are well on our way to an answer.
Those tax cuts that were going to stimulate the economy so much, Bush said, he would cut the budget deficit in half. How's that going? (More)
The National Debt continues to grow by $3.14 billion per day since September 30, 2005. The total national debt now stands at just a tad over $8 trillion, or $27,200 of debt for all US citizens – yes, including the kids. Much of that debt is held by the Chinese. And how does one talk to their banker? Very carefully. And be sure to begin every sentence with "please."
Bush inherited a government operating, not just in the black, but in surplus. How'd he build on that? (More)
First Bush went on a gifting spree, giving nearly $2 trillion of it away in tax give-aways to companies and the already wealthy. Then he went shopping with nation's platinum card. Surpluses quickly disappeared and were replaced by end to end budget deficits. We'll be adding another $320 billion to that this year. Hell, Bush ran up another $50 billion in debt in October alone. What's in your wallet?
(Note: Bush blames the deficits on the war. But during war countries raise taxes, not cut them. So either we are not in a real war – in which case Bush is not only a spend-thrift, but a liar, or we are in a real war and he's stupid. Take your pick)
Every year more and more Americans find they can no longer afford basic health insurance. Bush said he would fix that. How's that fix going? (More)
The only thing Bush has done to address this growing crisis is to cook a plan that lets large pharmaceutical firms and private insurers call the shots. He called it the Medicare Drug Benefit Program. But to get the drug companies onboard he had to agree to a provision that prohibits Medicare from negotiating lower drug prices. Not only that, but now that the plan has been implemented – as designed by this administration – no one can understand how it works. A retired accountant with an MBA called NPR and said even though he was member of Mensa he couldn't make heads or tails out of the Medicare Drug plans. Nevertheless, the program will add billions to the budget deficit. Clearly it's working for somebody, just not those it was supposed to help.
Bush sells himself as "strong on defense." So, how strong are our defenders? (More)
The war in Iraq, added to ongoing commitments to Afghanistan, is exhausting both our military machinery and manpower. (More) Military experts warn that the US could not now respond to another major military challenge. And, enlistment in our all-volunterr force, is declining just as demand for fresh troops increases.
That's quite a list of failures. Instead of just focusing on this administration's screw-up de jour, isn't it time to the mainstream media take an accounting of the messes this guy has created already? Do they add up yet to a failed presidency? Or do we have to wait until he does something really stupid... again?
The first year nine months of the George W. Bush presidency foretold what was to come. If you recall, pre-911 George was the quintessential deer in the headlights. He had landed the biggest job in the world and had no idea what he was supposed to do next.
I was reminded of that look yesterday when I saw the photo of W. trying to escape reporter's questions in China. It was a telling moment. He ended a news conference with a perfunctory, presidential "Thank you." He strode from the podium, employing his most serious presidential stride. So far, so good. Then his act abruptly collapsed. He pulled the door handle, but the door was locked.
And there he was again, for the whole world to see, pre-911 George, lost, adrift and looking for help. Help had always arrived for George before. It arrived and saved him in the nick of time on Sept. 11, 2001. But that kind of help doesn't grow on trees, and now he's on his own again.
September 11 did for George W. Bush what cocaine does for losers; it makes them feel and act like winners. If you've known a cocaine user you know what I mean. They brim with energy and self-confidence. They listen to no one but their inner buzz. They are cocky, smug, obnoxious. Still, if they are able to focus that buzz, they can create an illusion they actually know of which they speak, that they are driven -- even a leader.
As long as the cocaine lasts the illusion can as well. But when it runs out, or stops working, the loser is all that's left. 9/11 has stopped working for George so Bush The Loser, is back.
Not that he was ever gone, which explains why virtually everything he has done since 911 has come to naught, or worse. Had 9/11 never happened W. would be long gone already, a one-term President, like his father before him.
Therefore the media needs to begin a conversation we would have had around the third year of Bush's first term: Is this a failed presidency? And if so, how failed?
Let's begin by taking the pulse of America's majority population: Working families. (More)
* Pre-tax incomes fell for middle-income families of every type,
* After taking into account changes in both pre-tax income and taxes, the finding remains that most middle-income families lost ground
* Family spending on higher insurance co-pays, deductibles, and premiums has escalated in recent years,
* Inflation-adjusted income of the median household was unchanged and remains $1,700, or 3.8%, below its most recent peak in 1999, according to yesterday's release by the U.S. Bureau of the Census.
* Finally, if this chart doesn't scare you, it should:
How about those Bush tax cuts and all the jobs they were going to create?
Yesterday General Motors announced it was cutting 30,000 jobs. This continues a trend we've seen throughout this presidency. One picture is worth a 1000 jobs:
How about Bush's free trade deals? How's that working out for us?
The trade deficit so far this year is running at a record annual rate of $706 billion, putting it on track to far surpass the old record of $617.6 billion set last year. We are selling less and buying more from aboard. Why? For one reason outsourcing has resulted in everything being manufactured abroad now. Way to go. How bad does the trade deficit have to get before the dollar collapses? Stay tuned, we are well on our way to an answer.
Those tax cuts that were going to stimulate the economy so much, Bush said, he would cut the budget deficit in half. How's that going? (More)
The National Debt continues to grow by $3.14 billion per day since September 30, 2005. The total national debt now stands at just a tad over $8 trillion, or $27,200 of debt for all US citizens – yes, including the kids. Much of that debt is held by the Chinese. And how does one talk to their banker? Very carefully. And be sure to begin every sentence with "please."
Bush inherited a government operating, not just in the black, but in surplus. How'd he build on that? (More)
First Bush went on a gifting spree, giving nearly $2 trillion of it away in tax give-aways to companies and the already wealthy. Then he went shopping with nation's platinum card. Surpluses quickly disappeared and were replaced by end to end budget deficits. We'll be adding another $320 billion to that this year. Hell, Bush ran up another $50 billion in debt in October alone. What's in your wallet?
(Note: Bush blames the deficits on the war. But during war countries raise taxes, not cut them. So either we are not in a real war – in which case Bush is not only a spend-thrift, but a liar, or we are in a real war and he's stupid. Take your pick)
Every year more and more Americans find they can no longer afford basic health insurance. Bush said he would fix that. How's that fix going? (More)
The only thing Bush has done to address this growing crisis is to cook a plan that lets large pharmaceutical firms and private insurers call the shots. He called it the Medicare Drug Benefit Program. But to get the drug companies onboard he had to agree to a provision that prohibits Medicare from negotiating lower drug prices. Not only that, but now that the plan has been implemented – as designed by this administration – no one can understand how it works. A retired accountant with an MBA called NPR and said even though he was member of Mensa he couldn't make heads or tails out of the Medicare Drug plans. Nevertheless, the program will add billions to the budget deficit. Clearly it's working for somebody, just not those it was supposed to help.
Bush sells himself as "strong on defense." So, how strong are our defenders? (More)
The war in Iraq, added to ongoing commitments to Afghanistan, is exhausting both our military machinery and manpower. (More) Military experts warn that the US could not now respond to another major military challenge. And, enlistment in our all-volunterr force, is declining just as demand for fresh troops increases.
That's quite a list of failures. Instead of just focusing on this administration's screw-up de jour, isn't it time to the mainstream media take an accounting of the messes this guy has created already? Do they add up yet to a failed presidency? Or do we have to wait until he does something really stupid... again?
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Novermber 21, 2005
Don't Stop
Thinking About Tomorrow
Yes, I know, it's all getting very entertaining. These days I feel like a dog that finally caught the neighbor's elusive Tom cat. I want the moment to last forever. It took so long, he outwitted pursuit so many times, mocked my every attempt to corner him. Suddenly here he is, lame and vulnerable. I could spend the next three years just swatting the little bastard around.
But I, (and you,) must resist that temptation. As much as Bush deserves three years of swatting around, we have more important things to do. If we play our cards right, twelve months from now we will be able to trade our swatters in for baseball bats.
I am speaking of the 2006, mid-term elections next November. If Democrats can gain a majority in either the House or Senate, the two years that follow will be something to behold. As Democrats are elevated to chair key committees long overdue and long suppressed oversight hearings and investigations will begin. Subpoenas will fly. And investigations may at last reveal:
* Precisely who met with and advised VP Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force back in 2001?
* Who knew what when about Iraq's WMD -- and who lied about it.
* Who really cooked up and coordinated the CIA/Plame-leak?
* Just how many unethical/criminal activities were Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff involved in?
* Just what did Sen. Bill Frist know and when did he know it before he dumped his HCA stock -- and before that, when he voted on heath care bills that benefited HCA?
* Drag Ahmed Chalabi in, put this serial liar under oath and grill him on his pre-war relationship with this administration.
* Drag those energy company CEO's back before the Senate Energy committee and, this time put them under oath and ask them the same questions again.
The list of deeds begging for Congressional investigations goes on and on. Inquiring minds want to know and we've waited too long already for answers. Informed voters are the key ingredient of a true democracy. Misled voters and citizens purposely kept in the dark are the key ingredient of non-democracies. Do Republicans deserve to retain power in 08? Only full and open House and/or Senate investigations now can answer that question. And such investigations will only happen if Democrats win control in 06.
So, let's not become overly mesmerized watching the slow-motion train wreck of Bush Express. Because, unless we seize the moment and regain control of the House or Senate, we will deserve two more years of Republican control, insuring that the Bush administration gets to leave town in 2008 with it's misdeeds largely unexposed.
Here's the 2006 Mid-term Math
Current US Senate Lineup
55 Republicans
44 Democrats
1 Independent
< style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">If the Dems have 44 Senate seats and hold them all they need to pick up 7 repub seats to attain a 51-49 majority On a straight party line vote that would give them a majority (important in the Senate because the VP can break ties in his capacity as President of the Senate).
Seven seats may not seem like a lot, but remember, not all 100 Senators are not up for re-election. Only 33 Senators are up in 2006. Of those seats 17 are already held by Democrats and 15 by Republicans. Republican targets in 06 include Florida, Minnesota, and Nebraska; Democrats are focusing their attention on Missouri and Pennsylvania and Virginia. So, Republicans will be defending 15 Senate seats, 14 with incumbents; Democrats will be defending 18 seats, including four open seats.
If you go simply by the math, the GOP seems to hold an overwhelming advantage. Dems not only must retain their 17 incumbent seats, but knock off 11 of the Republican incumbents as well. In normal times such a feat would be considered next to impossible. But then, these are not normal times. More on that later.
Current House Lineup
232 Republicans
202 Democrats
1 Independent
Similarly, with a 232/202/1 split in the House the Dems need to hold their seats and pick up 15 or 16 repub seats to attain a majority.
The whole House is up for reelection, like a deck of cards about to be shuffled. And, not since 1994 have Democrats been in such a strong position to upset the balance of power in Congress.
And it's not just Democrats who thinks so, either. The GOP is having trouble finding strong candidates willing to run in 06. Rep. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia and North Dakota Gov. John Hoeven both opted out of races to challenge incumbent Democratic senators in 06. GOP up and comers smell trouble and don't want to end their political careers running for Congress in a year sure to be defined by an anti-corruption, anti-war backlash against Republicans.
Every poll taken over the last month or so points to an upset in the making in 06. If the 2006 Congressional election were held today, 53% of Americans say they would vote for the Democratic candidate and only 36% would vote Republican. (Newsweek/Princeton Survey Research Associates poll.)
(See all recent polls HERE)
Democrats are right where minority Republicans were back in 1994 when, just weeks before the November vote, they unveiled their so-called "Contract With America." That year Republicans saw a net gain of 52 seats in the House, and gained control. So, it can be done. It has been done.
The only question is will it be done? Will Democrats snatch victory from the jaws of defeat? Or, as they have done so many times before, snatch defeat from the jaws of pending victory?
We'll see. To find out we will have to wait to see how the internal battle within the Democrat party comes out. There are two schools of thought within the Party now battling it out over which strategy is best:
The Do Nothing Strategy
This is what the Hillary wing of the party is counseling. Their theory is that things are going their way without them having to do a thing. They believe the best strategy for Democrats is to just sit tight and let the Republicans self-destruct. Besides, putting forth specific proposals on hot-button issues only gives Republicans something to attack. Taking positions can both gain and lose votes. So why lose any votes when Democrats are getting them by default just sitting on their hands? Also, Hillary wants to be President in 08. That means crafting obscure, inoffensive positions that won't peel off moderate Republican voters. And, the last thing Hillary wants are reporters asking her whether she supports or opposes the activist positions of her party's progressives.
The Do Something Strategy
This is the Feingold Wing strategy. (It used to be the Dean Wing's strategy before he had to dumb down his positions to become DNC Chairman.) This progressive wing of the party believes, as Republicans did back in 1994, that Americans are hungry for change, but defined change. Working Americans – particularly those in Red States, were misled, lied to, snookered, suckered and robbed by Bush supply side neocons. Their sons and daughters are dying in a nation building exercise Bush promised he'd never try. And, while corporate America has thrived, working Americans have seen their middle class dreams whither. They were lied too. We were all lied to. So, in 06 and 08 voters will be in no mood to buy another pig in a poke. (Or as voters down in Louisiana like to say, "turn the fat hogs out and let the lean hogs in.) Voters want answers and they want solutions, They want to realistic proposals set forth. They want to know, if they put Democrats back in power precisely how they plan to:
1. End the war in Iraq
2. Fix the mess created by free-for-all trade policies,
3. Stem the outsourcing of high paying jobs,
4. Enact real pension reforms,
5. Fix America's broken health care systems,
6. Provide genuine homeland security
7. Secure our borders.
8. Balance the budget
9. Deal with climate change
10. Fix America's failing schools
11. Revitalize America's crumbling infrastructure
12. Make sure corporations and wealthy individuals pay their fair share of taxes.
So, if Democrats are smart they will come up with their own Contract With America – only this time let's call it a "Contract For America," instead.
While Democrats debate whether to do something or do nothing, we need to be talking to them. We need to tell Democrats that, if they tackle the hard issues that we'll stick with them. We won't leave them out there swinging in the wind when the GOP turns the dogs (and Swift boaters) loose on them. We need to assure them that not everything that needs doing is going to be easy or popular. Taxes will have to be raised. However we leave Iraq, we will not leave as victors. Pro-immigrant groups that support an open border with Mexico will oppose any kind of meaningful immigration enforcement. Teacher's unions will oppose merit pay and any attempts to measure their effectiveness. Corporations will threaten to leave the U.S. if one more cent is added to their tax burden.
That's why we need to engage with Democrats now. To let them know that, if they lack the backbone they can lean on ours. Begin by telling your Democrat representative or candidates to tell the Hillary Wing to either get with the program or get lost. Voters send representatives to Washington to do things, not just to sit there hoping the other team to forfeits the game. We want to know precisely why we should return them to power.
And this time we we want it in writing.
Thinking About Tomorrow
Yes, I know, it's all getting very entertaining. These days I feel like a dog that finally caught the neighbor's elusive Tom cat. I want the moment to last forever. It took so long, he outwitted pursuit so many times, mocked my every attempt to corner him. Suddenly here he is, lame and vulnerable. I could spend the next three years just swatting the little bastard around.
But I, (and you,) must resist that temptation. As much as Bush deserves three years of swatting around, we have more important things to do. If we play our cards right, twelve months from now we will be able to trade our swatters in for baseball bats.
I am speaking of the 2006, mid-term elections next November. If Democrats can gain a majority in either the House or Senate, the two years that follow will be something to behold. As Democrats are elevated to chair key committees long overdue and long suppressed oversight hearings and investigations will begin. Subpoenas will fly. And investigations may at last reveal:
* Precisely who met with and advised VP Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force back in 2001?
* Who knew what when about Iraq's WMD -- and who lied about it.
* Who really cooked up and coordinated the CIA/Plame-leak?
* Just how many unethical/criminal activities were Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff involved in?
* Just what did Sen. Bill Frist know and when did he know it before he dumped his HCA stock -- and before that, when he voted on heath care bills that benefited HCA?
* Drag Ahmed Chalabi in, put this serial liar under oath and grill him on his pre-war relationship with this administration.
* Drag those energy company CEO's back before the Senate Energy committee and, this time put them under oath and ask them the same questions again.
The list of deeds begging for Congressional investigations goes on and on. Inquiring minds want to know and we've waited too long already for answers. Informed voters are the key ingredient of a true democracy. Misled voters and citizens purposely kept in the dark are the key ingredient of non-democracies. Do Republicans deserve to retain power in 08? Only full and open House and/or Senate investigations now can answer that question. And such investigations will only happen if Democrats win control in 06.
So, let's not become overly mesmerized watching the slow-motion train wreck of Bush Express. Because, unless we seize the moment and regain control of the House or Senate, we will deserve two more years of Republican control, insuring that the Bush administration gets to leave town in 2008 with it's misdeeds largely unexposed.
Here's the 2006 Mid-term Math
Current US Senate Lineup
55 Republicans
44 Democrats
1 Independent
< style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">If the Dems have 44 Senate seats and hold them all they need to pick up 7 repub seats to attain a 51-49 majority On a straight party line vote that would give them a majority (important in the Senate because the VP can break ties in his capacity as President of the Senate).
Seven seats may not seem like a lot, but remember, not all 100 Senators are not up for re-election. Only 33 Senators are up in 2006. Of those seats 17 are already held by Democrats and 15 by Republicans. Republican targets in 06 include Florida, Minnesota, and Nebraska; Democrats are focusing their attention on Missouri and Pennsylvania and Virginia. So, Republicans will be defending 15 Senate seats, 14 with incumbents; Democrats will be defending 18 seats, including four open seats.
If you go simply by the math, the GOP seems to hold an overwhelming advantage. Dems not only must retain their 17 incumbent seats, but knock off 11 of the Republican incumbents as well. In normal times such a feat would be considered next to impossible. But then, these are not normal times. More on that later.
Current House Lineup
232 Republicans
202 Democrats
1 Independent
Similarly, with a 232/202/1 split in the House the Dems need to hold their seats and pick up 15 or 16 repub seats to attain a majority.
The whole House is up for reelection, like a deck of cards about to be shuffled. And, not since 1994 have Democrats been in such a strong position to upset the balance of power in Congress.
And it's not just Democrats who thinks so, either. The GOP is having trouble finding strong candidates willing to run in 06. Rep. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia and North Dakota Gov. John Hoeven both opted out of races to challenge incumbent Democratic senators in 06. GOP up and comers smell trouble and don't want to end their political careers running for Congress in a year sure to be defined by an anti-corruption, anti-war backlash against Republicans.
Every poll taken over the last month or so points to an upset in the making in 06. If the 2006 Congressional election were held today, 53% of Americans say they would vote for the Democratic candidate and only 36% would vote Republican. (Newsweek/Princeton Survey Research Associates poll.)
(See all recent polls HERE)
Democrats are right where minority Republicans were back in 1994 when, just weeks before the November vote, they unveiled their so-called "Contract With America." That year Republicans saw a net gain of 52 seats in the House, and gained control. So, it can be done. It has been done.
The only question is will it be done? Will Democrats snatch victory from the jaws of defeat? Or, as they have done so many times before, snatch defeat from the jaws of pending victory?
We'll see. To find out we will have to wait to see how the internal battle within the Democrat party comes out. There are two schools of thought within the Party now battling it out over which strategy is best:
The Do Nothing Strategy
This is what the Hillary wing of the party is counseling. Their theory is that things are going their way without them having to do a thing. They believe the best strategy for Democrats is to just sit tight and let the Republicans self-destruct. Besides, putting forth specific proposals on hot-button issues only gives Republicans something to attack. Taking positions can both gain and lose votes. So why lose any votes when Democrats are getting them by default just sitting on their hands? Also, Hillary wants to be President in 08. That means crafting obscure, inoffensive positions that won't peel off moderate Republican voters. And, the last thing Hillary wants are reporters asking her whether she supports or opposes the activist positions of her party's progressives.
The Do Something Strategy
This is the Feingold Wing strategy. (It used to be the Dean Wing's strategy before he had to dumb down his positions to become DNC Chairman.) This progressive wing of the party believes, as Republicans did back in 1994, that Americans are hungry for change, but defined change. Working Americans – particularly those in Red States, were misled, lied to, snookered, suckered and robbed by Bush supply side neocons. Their sons and daughters are dying in a nation building exercise Bush promised he'd never try. And, while corporate America has thrived, working Americans have seen their middle class dreams whither. They were lied too. We were all lied to. So, in 06 and 08 voters will be in no mood to buy another pig in a poke. (Or as voters down in Louisiana like to say, "turn the fat hogs out and let the lean hogs in.) Voters want answers and they want solutions, They want to realistic proposals set forth. They want to know, if they put Democrats back in power precisely how they plan to:
1. End the war in Iraq
2. Fix the mess created by free-for-all trade policies,
3. Stem the outsourcing of high paying jobs,
4. Enact real pension reforms,
5. Fix America's broken health care systems,
6. Provide genuine homeland security
7. Secure our borders.
8. Balance the budget
9. Deal with climate change
10. Fix America's failing schools
11. Revitalize America's crumbling infrastructure
12. Make sure corporations and wealthy individuals pay their fair share of taxes.
So, if Democrats are smart they will come up with their own Contract With America – only this time let's call it a "Contract For America," instead.
While Democrats debate whether to do something or do nothing, we need to be talking to them. We need to tell Democrats that, if they tackle the hard issues that we'll stick with them. We won't leave them out there swinging in the wind when the GOP turns the dogs (and Swift boaters) loose on them. We need to assure them that not everything that needs doing is going to be easy or popular. Taxes will have to be raised. However we leave Iraq, we will not leave as victors. Pro-immigrant groups that support an open border with Mexico will oppose any kind of meaningful immigration enforcement. Teacher's unions will oppose merit pay and any attempts to measure their effectiveness. Corporations will threaten to leave the U.S. if one more cent is added to their tax burden.
That's why we need to engage with Democrats now. To let them know that, if they lack the backbone they can lean on ours. Begin by telling your Democrat representative or candidates to tell the Hillary Wing to either get with the program or get lost. Voters send representatives to Washington to do things, not just to sit there hoping the other team to forfeits the game. We want to know precisely why we should return them to power.
And this time we we want it in writing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
