Immigrants at the Gate

Fresh back from a business trip, I checked my answering machine. There were two blank messages, the kind where you wish the person on the other end would at least breathe heavily so you can get something out of it. The third was from former Colorado Lieutenant Governor Dick Lamm and by default the Ueberfremdenfeindlicher Tom Tancredo, unfortunately the representative from my Congressional district. The Dick wanted me to support his efforts to deny state services to illegal immigrants.

First, the two of them being against illegal immigration is hypocritical. The McMansions out here housing most of Herr Tancredo's constituency were built primarily by day laborers, a pleasant aphorism for illegal immigrant workers. If those houses were built by American workers getting American wages and with American health care, they would be unaffordable by most of us normal wage earners. The groundskeepers, the cleaning ladies, the people maintaining those horrible communities without theme or architectural continuity aren't white Anglo-Saxons. They're dark and, if they speak English at all, it's with a horrible accent. I rather doubt the necessary background checks to determine these workers' status have been performed. I'm against illegal immigration, wink, wink. Here's your cash.

The plan to deny state services to illegal immigrants is, on the surface, a good one. It will do nothing to stem the flow across our southern borders, setting up another problem I'll get to later. Denying services will hurt the illegals, withholding drivers' licences, social support, even schools. Here's where I begin to have problems with the plan. Will medical services be withheld from the children of the illegals? Those who are here through no plan or action of their own will be denied the right to an education? Will they starve because mother and father can't receive aid? This would seem to be the Republican plan for ridding ourselves of undeniables. The ghosts of Hitler and Eichmann are laughing in hell as the Shining Light of Freedom once again sputters in the Republican wind. Will the next idea be a Guantanamo Bay for illegals?

Denying services to those already here is cruelty. Better would be a two-pronged attack by improving border control (but that costs money and the Republicans have broken the bank) and encouraging economic development to keep immigrants working at home (by perhaps paying a fair price for imported goods instead of the Bushit called globalization). Both of these aren't popular with Compassionate Conservatives (sic) because they cost us money. A third plan that would be effective is some form of guest worker identification, again, something that costs money. It's easier to the Compassionate Conservatives to withhold medical treatment and schooling from a child brought with her parents into this country illegally than to do something truely effective against illegal immigration.

Plus there's the element of criminality. Criminals, excuse me, contractors here will continue to pay for the cheap labor because no one has the money to go out and enforce draconian immigration proposals in the field. The criminals, er, contractors will just pay less because they can. Criminality will increase simply because people will become desperate. Immigration reform as proposed by Herr Tancredo and his lot has some appeal because it appears simple. In fact, it's a simplistic proposal to solve a complex problem, best suited for campaigning than actual implementation.

Mo Gitmo

Welcome to Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan, where 500 more "detainees" are being held without trial or charges or legal recourse.

We seem to be getting good at this. James Yonts, a Pentagon spokesman, said the military in Afghanistan is "committed to treating detainees humanely and providing the best possible living conditions and medical care in accordance with the principles of the Geneva Convention." I suppose that includes sleeping on foam mats on the floor and peeing in buckets due to the lack of latrines. The jail, never intended to be or funded to be one, is considered worse than Guantanamo.

The shining light of freedom and democracy sputters once again.

The U. S. Constitution, Article 1 Section 9: "The Privelige of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." George W. Bush: The Constitution is a meaningless piece of paper. This November, you decide. No wonder his own party is abandoning him.

Signing Statements and other Bushit

I picked up my copy of the Constitution or, as Bush puts it, a worthless piece of paper this afternoon. It's an interesting read, one I'd highly recommend for any supporter of the current Administration and Congress. It's shorter than a financial statement I have to read for a client visit on Monday although it uses a few words a bit too large to fit into our current President's vocabulary. Two words that do not make an appearance in the document are "signing statement."

What does appear is that all legislative power rests in the Congress. Bush, despite his six hundred signing statement objections to laws the Congress has passed, has no authority to make or to ignore law. Article one section seven describes Bush's only avenue to object to legislation, an avenue he's never travelled, the veto. So it appears the useless pieces of paper are his signing statements.

Of course, he's backing his signing statements up with Article II which defines the powers of the President. Reading Article II, I find no evidence for an allowance for signing statements or any of the principles of the Unitary Executive, the Bush doctrine that all the President really needs is a crown and his word to run the country. It does state that he shall take care that the laws are executed faithfully, in direct contradiction to Plamegate, the K-Street Corruption, Abu Ghraib and a litany of other violations that end within or very close to the inner circle of the Bush administration.

It's an interesting little read, our Constitution. Originalists would have you ignore it because it is not a concrete document and has very little to do with what the Originalists really want to attain. It's a beautiful, fluid little definition of a government unlike any the world had known before that time. Reading it critically will open your eyes to the abuses of Congress and the Administration in its name.

It is not, as Bush maintains, a worthless piece of paper. It's the definition of our nation.

South Dakota's Obvious Move

It was inevitable. With the confirmation of Alito to Bush's Reichsgericht, once known as the Supreme Court of the United States, some band of Republicans in a backwater state would attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade. The radical Christian Clerics Ayatollah Robertson and Grand Mullah Dobson must be cackling at their victory. Here's what happened: A bunch of rich men in business suits in whatever the capital of So. Dak. is decided it was time to close the State's only abortion clinic and stop the 800 baby killings and call it a bold stroke for God and country. Now these guys, when their daughters come up "in a family way" can afford to fly to France or Amsterdam or that den of iniquity Denver to, ahem, undergo a necessary medical treatment. The Republicans and Christian Ayatollahs didn't allow that luxury for little Betty Lou in the back country. The law passed by the South Dakota radical christians didn't allow exceptions to the ban for rape or incest.

That means Daddy's Little Girl gets to bear Daddy's Little Grandbaby. Daddy's Little Grandbaby can look forward to more that sitting on Granddaddy's lap but they don't care: They mandated another birth. Right to life is something completely different, whatever happens to the little slut and her bastard after they're born is social Darwinism at work, excuse me, just. They're cutting education, they're cutting food stamps, they're cutting energy assistance but by God the Republicans will see the baby born. Likewise a rape victim will not only have to bear the child of the rapist but will under South Dakota law have to defend from having her rapist have visitation rights or even custody of her rape child. You call that right to life? It's a mandate of birth and no more.

And yet it doesn't affect the majority of South Dakotans any more than it affects the majority of Coloradans. Perhaps we should do away with Roe v. Wade and allow backwaters like South Dakota to pass right to birth legislation. One noteworthy part of the measure is that it's not illegal for a woman to have an abortion, it's illegal for a doctor to perform one. So the, ahem, menstrually irregular Republican daughters who are no more likely to hold an aspirin between their knees than Farmer Brown's daughter can go to Calgary and have an, ahem, medically necessary procedure without fear of the law.

But God help the doctor who relieves Farmer Brown's daughter of Farmer Brown's child.

The law's greatest provision, paradoxically, is the omission of an exception for rape or incest because I don't think even the Court of the Radical Right can uphold an abortion statute without that exception. I may be wrong: Scalito and Roberts may be ideologues enough to uphold the statute despite its problems. I'd give it about a 50-50 chance of going down in flames. That's about fifty percent more chance of survival than the law deserves.

For the record, I am not in favor of abortion, rather contraception. But in no way do I possess the wisdom or the hubris to try to impose my moral code on anyone else, nor would I stand in the way of a woman's right to control her own reproduction. Abortion may or may not be wrong in any individual's belief system, but no Christian Ayatollah or Mullah has the right to prohibit it, particularly one who can never become pregnant. I believe humanity to be something a bit more than having human DNA. A ball of cells in a uterus is not human: It can't live on its own nor does it have the nervous system of a nematode. It has the potential to become a human but many don't, even those that have gone to term and grown to adulthood.

Economic Data a Wake-Up Call

Apparently, Republicans are so isolated from mainstream American life they can't see the obvious. Today, for the sixth straight time, the Federal Reserve reported that you, average Americans, are worse off than you were when a man who was investigated seven times and finally found guilty of lying about a blow job held the Presidency. For the six years of the Richenricher in Chief's incumbency, your real incomes have dropped while the benefactors of his economic strategy, the wealthy, have gotten richer.

It's no wonder the Greed Over Principles (GOP) crowd can't understand why the average American thinks the economy is worsening. Their constituencies, the rich and the rich-wannabes, the corporations and the K-Street bandits they created are getting richer. The free lunches are getting better, the campaign contributions, both above and below the table, more generous, the junkets to more out-of-the-way places where the Unwashed Masses, the Voters, can't see them having Lotto-winner fun on our time and at our expense, more frequent. Stocks, whose income is now taxed at a lower rate than a minimum-wage paying job, are on the increase, as are corporate profits. Bankrupcies are down thanks to a draconian program aimed at increasing the profits of the userers that more and more control personal finances. From the GOP perspective, things are good.

From our perspective, my pay raises haven't kept pace with inflation for two years now. I don't know about you, but gas, both natural and pumped into my car's tank, prices have really put a crimp in my buying power. A beginning teacher can't afford a home in Denver. Wage pressure is down, thanks to outsourcing our jobs and failure to create new ones. The sum total of this, Republicans, is that your sponsors are getting richer while your voters are getting poorer. The economic recovery is not benefiting us and that's why we perceive the economy as bad.

It's always a good economy if you're on the profitable side. We voters aren't.

US Ports and the Village Idiot Files

Before I get into the meat of this posting let me first say I could care less if a company from Dubai operates U. S. ports. The six ports in question are currently operated by a London-based company. The only disturbing fact about foreign operation of our ports that troubles me is that there is no American company willing or able to step up. As to security, tomorrow as today port security remains the responsibility of the Coast Guard. We now have two factions in Congress opposing the deal. Republicans want to make political hay based on Islamophobia and Democrats want a tough-on-terror photo op. Both are wrong. The company from Dubai has more interest in preventing terrorists from using our ports than the Londoners precisely due to Islamophobia. We would see an attack on a port operated by an Arab company as an inside job regardless of their precautions. Besides, the economic interests of the company don't lie with terrorists.

What disturbs me is that Crawford's expatriate village idiot didn't know anything about the deal his administration had brokered, not even its existence.

You could call it a case of lassiez-faire leadership taken to its ludicrous extreme. Neither Bush nor Treasury Secretary John Snow claimed knowledge of the deal until they read about it in the papers. Now I rather doubt that in the boardroom-tight environment of the current White House that some loose cannon just went off and the shot landed in Dubai. Dubai is an Arab country, even though it is an ally of ours. Two of the 9/11 hijackers were from there. Port security is a major political hot potato and security is Bush's claim to greatness. I simply refuse to believe that this Administration, with its continual emphasis on appearance over substance, failed to connect the dots and inform the Big Guys of their negotiations and their decisions vis-a-vis an Arab country operating major U. S. ports. I would readily believe that Bush and Snow are using feigned (or not) ignorance as political cover for a favor returned to one of the few remaining U. S. supporters in the Persian Gulf area, the United Arab Emirates.

Bush is defending the sale vigorously, even threatening to veto his first legislation since becoming Republican Yes-Man in Chief. Someone dropped the ball badly or Crawford's village idiot is hiding behind a claim of ignorance. Or more disturbing, the Administration has decided it can function without its titular head.

I have to admit it will be fun to watch the Shrub finally fall from grace among his own. The thing to remember as the Republicans finally form a circular firing squad is that the sale of the ports itself is immaterial. It's the reaction to the sale of the ports that is fun and it's the President's ignorance, feigned or real, that is the issue.

Bushit as Renewable Energy

The Shrub, complete with his entourage of fifteen SUV's, two bullet-proof limousines, two C-17's, a B-747 and a few Buckley AFB F-16's protecting the airspace, came to Denver to tout his energy policy. In short, about the only energy saved in the visit was the grounding of Denver's traffic helicopter fleet due to a temporary flight restriction.

In a remarkable display of synchronicity, yesterday the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden received $5 million that had been cut from the budget back to re-hire the 31 people who had been sacrificed to the President's monetary priorities. We all know how to see a person's real priorities: Follow the money. He put his money where his mouth is by cutting $28 million total from the laboratory's budget. For those who don't know or can't connect the dots, this is one of the premier laboratories where renewable energy is being researched. The $5 million prevent the loss of the 31 employees. The budget for the lab is still $23 million short.

At the lab, he displayed his ignorance, if not outright hostility, to science by stating that we weren't far from plug-in cars and that these could potentially drive to and from work and back without even starting the engine! It's a wonderful idea but what the Shrub apparently missed in one of his Science for Dummies, excuse me, Gentlemen at Princeton was that it takes the same amount of energy to get there whether it is from burning gasoline in an internal combustion engine, using solar energy gathered from the roof or burning coal five hundred miles away, sucking up transmission losses of up to 50%, dealing with inefficiencies in charging the batteries and crashing the electrical grid as everyone charges their car at night. This ignorance of the first law of thermodynamics, that energy can neither be created or destroyed, illustrates the Bush ignorance of all things more complex than invade, vote, gather money and cut taxes. Either Crawford truely is missing an idiot or Bush is playing to the Nascar crowd, those to whom science is something that preceeds fiction.

Bush's plan also touts ethanol, a good idea except for one problem: In terms of energy, it takes one and a quarter gallons of ethanol to produce a gallon. Distillation, distribution, farming the corn, all of these take energy, so much that the sum is greater than the energy produced. Production from waste may some day be more effective but it would also be problematic to me to burn corn while people starve. Doesn't matter to the right, though. And it's popular in the grain belt. It's politically a good idea so, since the Shrub drank his way through science class, it must be a good one. So I'll raise a glass of ethanol cut with water and aromatic chemicals to the thought that, in three years, we can send Crawford its idiot back.

Touting Healthcare: Give me a triple and supersize it.

I had to read this one twice. Bush is actually touting his health care reform package from the headquarters of Wendy's. Want fries with that? Want to supersize for just 49 cents? Actually it's fitting: Wendy's, home of three-fourth of a pound of greasy meat on a bun, has about as much to do with health as Bush's health care plan. Flexible spending accounts are a great idea, Shrub, if you have money left over after living a month to put into one, as most of us, thanks to your abyssmal stewardship of our economy, don't. Just as the Medicare benefit was a boon to pharmaceutical companies, this is a boon to big investment houses - the money has to go into something - and the wealthy with enough left over to self-insure. I don't know about you, but I don't fit that category. He also wants to rein in malpractice suits, approximately two percent of American healthcare costs. So, as with his budgetary priorities, he's trimming from the little end of the stick while touting tax cuts for the wealthy to increase the deficit farther.

Does he want China to foreclose on us some day?

p. s. I just read that Cheney is now claiming, in addition to being able to delay reporting of a shooting for 18 hours, the power to declassify information. Naturally, this is in conjunction with Plamegate. So now, is the fact that he declassified the information going to defend him and Scooter from the more serious crime of revealing an agent's identity? I really was surprised to learn the shooting victim's name wasn't Libby....

And someone make me believe that, as the photo in the Yahoo news article suggests, that Wendy's has a cadeuceus hanging on the wall all the time (that's that funny two-snake thingy, for you righties reading this).

Condi revealed we want to create another democracy in Iran. Thought they already had one, they just didn't vote the way we wanted. Oh, well, another Palestine. Just cut off the aid and deny it's a plot because it's all in the open. We foster democracy then attempt to destabilize it when it doesn't vote our way. Is this nation building? Even the Republicans can no longer buy the crap, the rantings of the village idiot made king are too unbelievable for even the Right to suspend their disbelief any longer. Besides, they have to get reelected. Crawford can feel secure in the knowledge that their idiot is coming home in three years.

And, given the new pictures from Abu Ghraib, can we deny that we, under Bush, have become a nation no better than our enemies? Just look at those pictures and tell me how we are living up to our words, how we can imagine ourselves as a nation as the world's shining light of freedom. I'd have expected these pictures when Saddam owned Abu Ghraib. To see them taken under our stewardship sickens me. This is not the work of a few sadistic privates. They had guidance for this. It's time to go after the leaders, not just the pawns. We deserve whatever backlash comes from the Middle Eastern world if for no other reason than to stop our holier-than-thou attitude.

And there's an Army recruiting commercial on the TV downstairs. I served long ago to serve my country. If I were faced with the same choice again, I would not serve what it has become.

A Frightening Thought

Frances Townsend: "I reject outright that President Bush was anything less than fully involved," referring of course to the White House's response to Hurricane Katrina.

Does that not frighten you? It would imply that either President Nero fiddled while New Orleans drowned or that it was really the best the Shrub could do, clear brush while New Orleans drowned. The former implies a complete indifference on Bush's part, the latter complete incompetence.

You make the call. Personnally, I think Crawford misses its idiot.

In a surprising turn of events, a Harvard study indicates Bush's educational policy benefits white, middle class students. The uniform standards proposed but never funded by the Edjumicator in Chief never happened, instead, school districts have negotiated exceptions. And since largely white, middle class school districts can afford better lawyers, guess who got the exceptions. Result: His constituents never fail. Forget the fact that half of our children never finish high school, that isn't important. Tax cuts are.

And the U. S. and Israel claim there's no plot to weaken Hamas, the Democratically elected ruling party of Palestine. As cleverly pointed out by NPR, there is no plot. A plot is secret. The plan is to cut off money to the democratically elected Palestinian government, forcing them to hold new elections. Using hope as a strategy, the Administration, ours, believes that Fatah will be forced by their short time out of power to reform and will take over the government. I rather believe the democratically elected government of Iran will step in and provide assistance, further destabilizing the region and further diminishing our standing among our oil providers. Israel will withhold the taxes they collect for the Palestinian Authority, we will withhold our aid and Hamas will harden its position. The party of choice, the one we hoped would win the election, will become less and less influential as the Palestinians are given another enemy to go along with Israel, us. And nothing, as we saw after 9/11, unifies a people more than a good enemy.

Hope is not a strategy. Ain't democracy wonderful, W?

Monday and the Spin Machine's in High Gear

Generally hunting without a license in Texas involves a pickup truck, a high candlepower spotlight and a deer, not the Vice President shooting his hunting mate while quail hunting. Yes, Tricky Dick II, the second Republican to have earned that moniker, was demonstrating his respect for the law of the land by hunting without a license when he shot a fellow hunter. In a failed attempt at damage control, the White House waited until the owner of the ranch the VP was illegally hunting on had given the story to a Corpus Christi paper and the editor published the story before offering its own version over 24 hours after the event. Scotty the Mouthpiece had to face a grilling today from reporters suddenly in possession of a spine as to why the White House delayed reporting the story. As usual when caught with their britches down, they were waiting until they had all the facts together.

Which is probably why New Orleans is still waiting. In one of the most tightly controlled events of synchronicity since the Police popularized the word, Michael Cherthoff announced reform of the Homeland Security department more or less at the same time a Republican-only congressional committee condemned the agency's response to Katrina in a very damning fashion. It seems there was so much ineptitude in the response that Bush may actually have been right, Brownie may have been doing a heck of a job but the rest of the agency was mucking it up so badly that it would have been impossible to notice. The Bushites still insist the President was informed, which probably explains why he was doing honest work, clearing brush, while predominantly Democratic New Orleans flooded. The White House is rejecting the findings of the exclusively Republican report. In a separate report, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office came to the same conclusions, which the White House also rejects. Apparently, neither agree with the White House's preconceived outcome.

The American Bar Association, known for its bleeding-heart liberal stance on many issues, informed the Espionaginator in Chief today that he either needed to have Congress make what he's doing legal (thereby implying that it is in fact illegal) or stop doing it (implying that he has violated a Federal law, generally considered a felony). They, like us, don't ask the President to stop spying on terrorists. No Democrat or Progressive or any way you choose to label us liberals has asked the President to stop spying on the enemies of this country. We simply want the law of the land to be the law of all, including you, King George. FISA exists because we've seen that, given power, it will be abused; therefore, we have oversight of programs as required by the Fourth Amendment to that "worthless piece of paper" (George W. Bush) called our Constitution. Give it up, George. Your warrantless (pun intended) spying program is illegal.

It's out that Abramoff had strong ties to the Shrub's administration through Rove. If that's a surprise to you, you've been living under a rock for some time. It'll be interesting to see how they spin this one. Along with his known links to Cheney and Ashcroft, that just about leaves only Condi out of this one. Stay tuned for more spin.

The U. N. released a report calling the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay inhumane and torture, no surprises there. The Administration is not going to address many of the claims in the report, indicating that they're probably true. In view of the many ineptitudes and criminal behaviors of this administration, it's amazing they have kept forty percent support, most likely because of the ineptitude of entrenched Democratic wise men. Perhaps we need a few Fools in charge of the party, men and women with strong, defensible points of view and the backbone to stand up for them. The Republicans have given so many openings it would be almost impossible not to lose Congress and, in two years, the White House. Unfortunately, it's almost impossible and Nixon had twenty-five percent support the day he resigned. The election is the Democrats' to lose but unless they get their scat conglomerated, they will.

A Tax that Must Be Cut

In the Bushit world of tax reductions, one needs to be cut, the Alternative Minimum Tax. Last year, this prime example of the law of unintended consequences caught 3.9 million Americans in its net. It was originally passed to keep wealthy Americans from paying absolutely no tax (were those different days or what?). Problem is, there was no inflation adjustment for the amount of income that triggers the tax. So the number of us having to pay that abomination will rise.

So here's the plan: Cut the AMT and offset it by eliminating Bush's tax cuts. We can't just eliminate the tax, there isn't enough income in the Federal coffers, largely due to Bush's short-sighted, rob from the poor and give to the rich economic plans so, Democrats, step up and support your constituents.

Did I say, Democrats, step up?

We're still doing our best to lose what should be a gimme election. We're not taking strong stands on anything, we're all over the board. Here's the problem: Studies have shown that, if you set up a booth in a supermarket and load it down with choices, you'll have about a three percent sales rate. If you cut the choices to seven, your rate goes into the thirties. This is not an either-or decision about who to vote for, it's a fully voluntary decision to buy, say, jam. We're all over the board, we're the booth with twenty-seven choices, something for everyone. We need to reduce our inventory to:

1. Defense. We're the stronger party. When America is seen as a good and progressive nation, there will be less incentive to attack it. We are strong and will remain so and pity the fool that does attack. We will support our friends and we will honor their opinions even when they disagree with ours.

2. Taxation. We're the fair party. We will not cut the taxes of the rich and drive the nation into bankrupcy on the backs of the poor. We will rescind the Shrub's tax reforms and we will use the money wisely, for example, to build a new, better New Orleans and to educate our children.

3. Social Programs. We will rescind that horrible bankrupcy law, we will fix the Medicare drug benefit and we will protect your social security. If it means those with the means to pay have to pay, so be it.

4. Integrity. We will dismantle K-Street and the Republican money-for-influence machine. We will agressively prosecute anyone caught dipping from that till and we will reform Congress, including ourselves, by standing for elimination of corporate money in elections, publicly funding all elections at a national level and eliminating gifts from lobbyists. We will not defend any of our own caught in a financial scandal and we will strip the congressional pension from anyone caught taking a bribe and peddling influence. To keep influence to a minimum, we will eliminate earmarks.

5. Priorities. Our priority is America. We will protect our environment. We will work toward energy independence. We will educate our workforce. We will support growth incentives for research and development. We will educate our children. We will support universal health care.

6. Responsibility. We will balance the budget. The programs we cut will be those that do not benefit individual Americans: There's no reason we pay ten times for defense what our next competitor does.

7. International relations. We will further our interests but we will do so with respect for others. We will not bully others into accepting our points of view, rather will build strong alliances and friendships based on trust of America, not fear of her.

I chose seven because seven seems to be the most effective number. Perhaps someone can come up with one or two more or leave one or two off. Bottom line is that we need a simplified, easy to understand statement of what we are for. It's easy to be against the current regime, they've proven themselves incompetent, corrupt and arrogant. It's harder to show people what you stand for, particularly in a party as fractured as ours. We must if we want to do more than just set on the back benches and watch our Republic erode under Republican rule.

Right to Birthers Strike in Indiana

Call it the Right to Birth, the belief that life starts at conception, you have to bear the baby to term and then you're on your own, the two of you. That's what's happening these days as social programs are cut and, in celebration of the appointment of right wingnut Alito to the supreme court, the Indiana legislature is obliging. Under their new law, women seeking an abortion would have to be told that life begins at conception.

Now here's the high-sounding scenario in its gritty reality: A frightened woman quite possibly torn between the thought of bearing a child she can never support financially or that was sired by the woman's own relative or rapist now has to listen to a sermon mandated by millionaire men in the Indiana legislature about how she's committing murder by killing the living thing in her belly. Never mind that a nematode has more nerve endings or brain tissue, never mind that we took away the option of over-the-counter morning after medication and she has no health insurance to see a doctor for a prescription. We are going to impose our morality play on the woman just because it's the Christian thing to do, never mind what religious belief she may hold. Then we'll forget all about helping our fellow man, about selling our riches and giving them to the poor, about charity and love. The slut got knocked up. She deserved it. Nothing will ever come of the little bastard but we don't care. We did the right thing by saving its life.

This is not right to life. Right to life would cherish all phases of existence. The woman might have state-funded day care so she can make a decent living for herself and the child. The child's chance at college and the doors it opens might be increased by funding more incentives for low-income students and by making our schools something better than the third-rate cesspools they've become. They might fund job training for the woman to help her make a better life, including better housing. They might have allowed morning-after contraception. Instead, they mandate a sermon at one of the most emotional moments of the woman's life then vote to cut any program that might have helped her raise the child. That is right to birth, not right to life. After you're born, you're on your own.

It's ironic that the party that favors keeping abortion legal and as unrestricted as possible is also the party of the right to life. We believe in helping those who need it and yes, using tax money to do so. We believe in education as the best way to prevent unwanted pregnancy and the best way to improve one's standing in life. We believe in helping single parents live, in day care, and in contraception to keep unwanted pregnancies from happening in the first place. We believe that a good portion of the negative psychological effects of abortion are imposed on a woman from outside, from useless sermons stating that "life begins at conception" and "fetuses can feel pain". To us, what happens after birth is much more important than what happens before. We liberals believe in a right to life.

Our opponents simply seek to mandate birth.

Stealth Social Security Reform

When the Democrats applauded Bush's statement that his social security reform initiative hadn't gone so well, perhaps they were a bit premature.

He buried social security reform in his budget proposal.

Here's what it will cost: $24 billion in fiscal year 2010, $57 billion in fiscal year 2011 and $630 billion for the five years after that, for a total of $712 billion (error due to rounding). This is to fund private accounts, the only thing he can think of when it comes to social security and a fairly certain way to gut the program Republicans find most offensive precisely because it benefits its constituents, the rich who don't pay social security anyway, the least.

We can only hope that Congress gets the message and gets serious about defeating the program. It was too much to think that Bush and the Republicans would actually start to think about finding a bipartisan solution to social security's coming crisis so all we can do is to mobilize to defeat the proposal. There are alternatives:

1. Eliminate the cap on wages. Yes, Victoria, social security is a social program. Those of us doing well pay for those of us who aren't doing so well. We already have private accounts called IRAs and 401ks and so forth. We don't need more of them. What we need is for the CEO making twenty million dollars a year to bankrupt his company to pay social security on the entire amount. Perhaps he'll have to give up a few rooms in his Aspen home but I think it serves the greater good.

2. Eliminate the benefit for those whose average lifetime earnings have exceeded a certain amount. Starting at about $75,000 in today's dollars, phase out social security. Anyone making $100,000 per year and who hasn't saved for retirement deserves to live on cat food. Anyone making $35,000 probably can't save for retirement at a rate that will keep them from living on cat food. I prefer helping the latter. Increase the amounts for inflation, sure, but phase it out. There's no reason Warren Buffett and Bill Gates should receive a social security check.

3. Invest some money in classes in financial management for every high school kid. That, and Civics, are the two classes our opponents fear and our children need to make good decisions about finance and about their leadership. They should know there's an alternative to Hoodin Rob Republicans (robbing the poor to finance the rich), that there's a Constitution and a Bill of Rights and what that means. They should also learn something our President hasn't: It isn't a meaningless piece of paper if for no other reason, it's parchment.

Lacking an SOTU Boost, Bush Plays the Terror Card

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

The Difference is Empathy

Talking with conservatives is a difficult business. They speak a different language from us because they think differently. The difference is empathy.

Start with domestic spying. It's okay according to my Conservative friends because it's happening to someone else. Indications are that vast numbers of phone calls are being intercepted and mined for key words but that doesn't matter, it's being done to terrorists. They'll hide behind national security but the argument that wins them is they think their phone isn't being tapped. Then it's okay.

On the issue of abortion, they also think it's nothing they're interested in. Killing a baby makes a great difference whether you're looking at it from the viewpoint of a rape victim who now has to bear her rapist's child because someone else made a moral decision for her or from the point of view of a suburban housewife with her SUV, three kids and her home alarm system. But that doesn't matter, it doesn't happen often, I'm in a stable relationship and it can't happen to me.

Stem cell research is another great one. It's easy, sitting in my chair without any sign of any disease stem cells could cure to say that research involving human embryos is wrong. I'll challenge any of the opponents who, one day, come down with Parkinson's disease or Alzheimer's or diabetes to refuse stem-cell based treatments that may one day be developed. My bet is their moral high ground becomes an untenable swamp very rapidly.

Tax relief is another great one. We need to cut taxes so the rich can make more jobs (and more money). Never mind that we have to cut programs for seniors, when I get old enough to need them, I'll have money. Never mind that 300,000 families will lose food stamp benefits - I don't need them and they should get better jobs. Student loans with higher interest? Not a problem, I got my degree years ago. Just give me my dividends tax-free, please. It'll do the economy good.

It could go on and on. The main point of current Conservative thinking equates to social Darwinism. We improve the nation by letting the weaker members fall by the wayside. Republican Washington, in their policies, in their spending plans, in their actions and words, display a complete lack of empathy and their conservative supporters equally so. They don't care what happens to the other guy, they don't share his pain, they got theirs and that's all that counts.

Transparency in Government in Republican Washington

Talk about the fox guarding the henhouse, the Republicans in the House today rewarded the Master of the Gerrymander and Abramoff-Buddy Tom Delay to oversee, are you ready for this, the subcommittee that oversees the Justice Department. Bush has offered the investigator of the Abramoff scandal a Federal Judgeship. The next investigator will be a Bush flunky.

That's transparency in Republican Washington. If you can't cover it up, bully your way out of it. If you can't bully your way out of it, bribe the judge. Seems transparent enough to me.

Domestic Spying is Illegal

Let me be clear about one thing: I'm not against the NSA listening in on Al Qaida's phone conversations. I'm against them listening in without a warrant for one reason: It's illegal.

After Nixon's abuses, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978. This act was to protect you and me from abuses of executive power vis-a-vis electronic surveillance. It established essentially a rubber-stamp court to give the appearance of judicial oversight of wiretapping or, in the case of the current scandal, data mining. To allow for "smoking gun" cases, agencies could intercept conversations for up to 72 hours and apply for a warrant retroactively.

Bottom line, there is no reason Bush couldn't have spied on whomever he'd like as long as he stayed within the bounds of the FISE act. Even his own party members are calling his legal argument "strained". I tend to think of it in Daddy's terms: If it takes more than two pages to explain it, it's probably illegal. Bush's Shyster in Chief Alberto Gonzales took forty-one pages to explain the legal rationale why the President can ignore Congress and do it his way.

Which, by the way, is the only rational reason for Bush violating the law by spying without a warrant: You told me I couldn't. Fratboy logic.

If you needed further proof of Bush's complicity, look at Rove's strong-arm tactics among Republicans: Anyone voting against the Obfuscator in Chief's illegal program will be ostracized by the White House in the upcoming election year. No fundraising events or Presidential appearances for you! Of course, given Bush's current poll ratings, being ostracized by the Shrubinator will probably be considered a favor; however, why resort to the strongarm tactics unless there's a reason to strongarm? Do I get a whiff of desperation in this? You don't strongarm if you believe your case is strong, you let the courts and the Congress do its job and exonerate you. Unless of course you believe that exoneration is not the likely outcome of the hearings.

Arlen Specter has already expressed his disbelief in the legality of the President's spying. Whether he can overcome party loyalty and Rove's unsubtle tactics and slap this president into irrelevancy for his last three years in office - I can't imagine the Republicans actually impeaching him for lying about something a bit more serious than a blow-job under the desk and I'd really hate to have President Cheney - remains to be seen. I rather doubt much will come of it, there are not enough Republican statesmen to make up for the corrupt mob called Congress but still, it will make good circus.

Which seems to be Washington's role these days.

Culture of Corruption: McCain Reforms?

There was an interesting editorial in the Rocky Mountain News today praising John Boehner, saying Boehner has never sponsored political pork for his constituents. Apparently supporting corporate constituents' bribes is okay with our Colorado red rag: A quick google of his name with the words "tobacco check" added gets you straight to a story I remember from 1995. The good Mr. Boehner, the man the Rocky thinks will be the great reformer, passed out checks from tobacco companies on the House floor just prior to a major vote on tobacco-related legislation. And this is the man our paper implies is an excellent choice because he voted against the McCain-Feingold campaign finance act. Apparently, according to the Rocky, there isn't enough special interest money in politics or it's going the wrong way. As for me, I rather doubt a man who'd blatantly attempt to help tobacco companies buy votes is the one to lead reform of the Congress.

Nor, apparently, is Mr. McCain. I had high hopes for the man. Apparently, Senator Obama wanted to work with Mr. McCain but had some differences in some points. Resorting to the primary Republican debate tactic, Mr. McCain proceeded to write Mr. Obama a letter that, in a very insulting tone, denounced Mr. Obama's differences as partisan politics. I mean, it's not as if they're members of different parties or anything and it's not as if everyone sees eye-to-eye on everything. As I read things, Mr. Obama just wanted to go a bit farther than Mr. McCain and outlaw all gifts and meals from lobbyists, increase the time before a former congressman can take a job as a lobbyist and require congressman to pay for their flights on corporate jets. These are not to me unreasonable measures. If you limit the number of quos the lobbyists can get for their quid, you limit corruption. It must have been that office of public integrity that brought out the Republican side in McCain. Apparently the Republicans lack that quality. In a culture of corruption, you don't bribe the minority. Your money works better when you spend it on the majority party and that's what rankles McCain. He's a Republican.

If I were reforming congress, I'd go farther. I have six suggestions for meaningful congressional reform. Screw the lobbyists, they'll always exist and they'll always find ways to buy votes. I want to reform congress by:

- Publically funding elections. The money treadmill of raising millions to get reelected is a major weakness of our political system. Congressmen are literally for sale to the highest bidder when it comes to campaign finance. So let's eliminate campaign finance and fund elections publically.

- End corporate contributions. Corporations are owned. Anything owned doesn't have rights; therefore, corporations have no first amendment privilege to political speech. Put their money to work growing business and creating shareholder value rather than attempting to buy advantage in Congress.

- End lobbyists' contributions in kind. That means donated office space, transportation, phone banks, anything that would be paid for normally.

- Allow individual contributions to political campaigns and causes under current limits. Include in the contributions the cost of a fundraiser above the costs of the event, that is, if you go to a $500 per plate fundraiser and the cost per person of the food and the hall are $200, you've made a $300 contribution that counts against your individual limit.

- End earmarks. If there's nothing to buy, the lobbyists won't try to buy it.

- Create an investigative office in Congress that is not tied to either party, i. e. not elected.

These reforms would pretty much reform Congress. That's not to say that some smart guy won't find a way around these rules but it would be a start. The biggest one is publically funding our campaigns. Only then will our Congress no longer be for sale.

Knowing the Enemy

Anonymous commented on yesterday's post: "I beleive that if we take the time to get to know ourselves we will in fact find out that we are slowly becoming terrorists ourselves." I couldn't agree with him or her more. There are only two differences between a suicide bombing in Israel that kills only innocents and a Hellfire missile attack in Pakistan that kills only innocents. The perpetrator of a Hellfire missile attack doesn't die in the blast and a Hellfire missile attack is carried out by a nation-state. Both attacks are carried out by an entity attempting to effect a change in another with the intent of damaging the enemy. So where's the moral difference?

Likewise, does it matter who kidnaps and tortures? There are stories of CIA renditions that would, if the perpetrator would change, sound perfectly normal coming from the enemy in the war on terror. Again, the only difference is that the kidnapper and torturer is the CIA, an instrument of U. S. national power. We have allowed our President to detain U. S. citizens indefinitely without access to an attorney in direct violation of our Constitution. The President has claimed the right to do pretty much anything he damned well pleases in violation of the separation of powers and of the fourth amendment to the Constitution. Arlen Specter has introduced language into the Patriot Act that, if passed, would limit demonstrations at all "events of national significance" regardless if the President or Vice President are in attendance in violation of the First Amendment. So don't wear your "no blood for oil" shirt to the Super Bowl....

The list goes on. On the home front, corruption has become the norm in Republican Washington. Corporate and political interests have discovered that the best way to get something into law is to bribe a congressman with campaign financing to stick an earmark into a bill. Tom Delay has gone even farther, actively laundering corporate money for use in Texas campaigns in violation of the state's campaign finance law. The new House Majority Leader, elected to reform the House, once handed out tobacco money checks on the House floor. Republican Washington is fighting against a ban on lobbyist-funded travel and no one will entertain the idea of publicly funded elections. The Bushit Budget gives more money to defense while taking it from the poor even as the Shrub pushes for tax cuts for the wealthy....

One could go on and on with the abuses, the third-world corruption and the terrorism inflicted on other nations by the U. S. The nation I served to defend has become a nation of bullies, of corrupt congressmen and of leaders with only their own narrow interests in mind. It is no longer a nation of fairness and justice, no longer a shining beacon for the rest of the world. We, with our tactics, our bullying, our corruption and our ignorance, are right down there in the mud with those we hope to defeat someday. Nonetheless, I love that nation and believe it can once again be what I would have fought to defend. We just seriously need some new leadership.

Unity in the Fight Against Terror

I love that euphemism, fight against terror. My mother once had to fight against terror - I was terrified of the monster under the bed after having seen some silly vampire movie. She fought against terror with the truth: There are no vampires. To attempt to fight physically against terror is a ridiculous premise: One can't wage a war against an emotional state.

Know your enemy, Sun Tsu writes, and know yourself and you will never be defeated. Our problem to start is that we don't know our enemy. It is not terror: Terror is an emotional state and not an enemy. The enemy are not cowards. It takes greater courage to fly an aircraft into a building than to release a bomb from an F-16 ten miles from an unsuspecting target. I don't seek to praise terrorists, the actual enemy, but if we're to fight them we need to know them and the picture we have of them does not fit the actuality.

As to knowing ourselves, I don't believe we are accurate in that respect either. Rumsfeld encourages unity in the war against terrorism even as the Coalition of the Duped unravels. We lose faith in a prevaricating president and a misnamed Defense Department (if the Defense Department exists to defend us, why do we need a Department of Homeland Security?). Our occupied allies in Iraq are now openly calling their war a civil war and it will continue to worsen with us in the middle. We do not know ourselves, either.

How do we intend to prevail? Stay the course is not a strategy either, Mr. President. Nor is hope. The insurgents can wait longer than we can and the terrorists aren't under a time schedule. Know your enemy, Mr. Bush. They can outwait us.

The Quest for Power in the Endless War

Today the Pentagon as much as acknowledged that the War on Terror will never end. Which begs the question, how much of your civil rights are you willing to give up for how long and how much power are you willing to give the President indefinitely.

If, as suggested, the War on Terror will never end, the Wartime Presidency is now the default Presidency. This is a tactic that has been used by a lawfully, democratically elected government in the not-too-distant past, it should be noted, a conservative government. Adolph Hitler, legally and democratically elected leader of Germany, began an endless series of wars for the simple reason of consolidating his power, of declaring pacifists and desenters enemies of the State and establishing the authority to do anything he wanted inside his own borders. He didn't have terrorists so the internal enemies became Jews, the "them" in the "us vs. them" struggle. Once the wars started, it became politic to know what was going on inside the country, hence the rise of the Geheime Staatspolizei, or Gestapo, an organization with one assignment: Spy on its own people. The country was at war, so liberties must be taken, nicht wahr?

Once the state of perpetual war starts, civil liberties are the inevitable first casualty.

Our leaders have declared a state of perpetual war. By calling it a war on terror, they've defined no enemy, no objective other than homeland security, no victory condition. There is no government with which to sign a peace treaty. There is no exit from this war. I won't go as far as to suggest that Bush will attempt to remain in power once his second term is up but the lure of wartime powers will be seductive for whoever follows him. Further, the Patriot Act, if, God forbid, extended or made permanent, may well have Senator Arlen Specter's assault on the First Amendment, a provision inserted into the Patriot Act up for renewal that would restrict demonstrators at all "events of national significance," regardless if the President of Vice President were in attendance. That means the Super Bowl could have no protestors. In the name of a perpetual war, another freedom lost? Not yet and I'm sure Sen. Specter's idea would not stand up to a First Amendment challenge....

But they confirmed Alito.

Today Rummy compared Iran to Nazi Germany. I find it ironisch that Herr Rumsfeld, War Department chief for a regime that has declared perpetual war and claimed the leadership rights of a wartime leader, would make that comparison. It would fit his own leadership with its assault on its citizens' rights in the name of defense of the homeland much better.

It's No Big Deal

Thanks to the Prince of Rummyworld for the title of tonight's entry. Today Rummy acknowledged that the Department of Defense is spying on protesters at military bases, using the tired old saw of its necessity for national security. He also verified that the DOD is keeping a database of these people. Now the dangerous Shakers and PETA activists can quake in their boots and we can all feel safer because it's necessary for our security to be enshrined in a database in the Pentagon for disagreeing with the Republican chickenhawks. Makes me feel safer. Does that mean that if I ride my bicycle around Buckley Air Force Base wearing a "No Blood for Oil" shirt, I'll make the database? I've already asked the NRA to put me on its enemies list and informed the Shrub that I'm against him. I get to make another database and we have another domestic spying program. But don't fear, according to Rummy, it's no big deal.

Likewise, it seems that someone at the White House did the math on the Obfuscator in Chief's bombastic savings of less than two percent of our energy, the amount imported from the Middle East. Today some mouthpiece told us it was all in jest, that it was just an example. We'll keep supporting the repressive regime in Jeddah by buying their oil, it was just an illustration of the savings the New Energy Economy (read, the Awl Bidness) will bring us. After all, it takes a gallon and a quarter of ethanol to produce a gallon of ethanol so the extra energy has to come from somewhere. Maybe that's the two percent we import from the Middle East. It's the Shrub's energy program and yes, Rummy, it's no big deal.

A big deal is the budget request for Iraq and Afghanistan, $120 billion. That brings the total cost of a war that was supposed to pay for itself to just under a half trillion dollars. Again, though, it's no big deal. After all, we deposed a stable government that had no ties to terrorists and no weapons of mass destruction and replaced it with a civil war. No big deal, though, as long as whoever remains in power continues to pump the reason for the war, oil. Had we invaded occupied Tibet, I wouldn't have made the claim but we didn't invade Tibet. Wal-Mart would have objected and the Chinese would have fought back.

And now we have a few thousands of missing e-mails from the White House's servers. Coincidentally, they're from the time that got Scooter Libby indicted, not that they might just cover Cheney and Bush's asses. Eighteen minutes of silence, anyone? No big deal, it's just a few thousand e-mails.

Your civil liberties, no big deal. Sam Alito, no big deal. Domestic espionage, tax cuts for the rich and benefit cuts for the poor, energy policies and environmental policies controlled by polluters and wasters, no big deal. Our reputation abroad, torture, corruption in Congress, no big deal. It's never a big deal any more. Just a lot of bad little ones.

More Bushit from the Master

Last night, to thunderous applause of those we elect to represent us, the Obfuscator in Chief made an announcement that sounded like he was going to repent his oily past and do something good for the U. S. With great aplomb, he announced he was going to cut imports of middle eastern oil by 75%!!!!!! If our elected representatives are so easily fooled, I think we need to start getting them from a different source.

Republican Washington is great with numbers. They can make an 80-20 split in the distribution of bribes to congressmen into a bipartisan problem, they can make twenty percent of Iraqis who favor our continued occupation of their country into millions. Bush did the same with energy policy last night by proposing, in actuality, nothing. Here's the math.

We get about half of our oil from abroad. Of that half, five percent comes from the Middle East. Yes, five percent. We get the majority of our imported oil from Mexico, Venezuela and Canada. Five percent of fifty percent is two and a half percent. Now take seventy-five percent of that, the amount of our imports from troubled areas of the globe we import and you get a net reduction of our oil consumption under the President's Bombastic New Plan!!!! of less than two percent. The Shrub has proposed an ambitious goal!!!! that we can reach by replacing incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescents. Or by drilling in ANWAR which, strangely enough, should provide about two percent of our energy needs at the same time the President proposes to reach his lofty goal!!!!.

This is the pattern of Republican Washington. The best lies are very nearly true and the Republican lies as epitomized by the Shrub are very nearly perfect. The only thing left out of the bombastic announcement last night was the fact that we get a very small portion of our oil from the Middle East, a majority of that from Saudi Arabia, at least nominally our ally. So, again, Bush continues his policy of misleading and misdirecting, his oil buddies don't suffer at all under such nonsense as carbon emission reduction or conservation and the reason-to-believers have another thing to point to their president and say, look what he's doing.

Nixon had a twenty-five percent approval rating when he left office. The Shrub is only fifteen points higher. Could it be that more of us are starting to see through the bushit?