National Debt and Katrina

Today, a group of House Republicans put forth a noble plan to cut "wasteful" government spending to blunt the effect of Katrina (and possibly Rita) of the budget. These noble men (and women?) immediately offered to let the President's tax cuts expire, and to give back the money that had been allocated to their districts in the massive pork-laden highway bill . . .

I'm sorry, I can't do this with a straight face.

Of course they didn't offer to sacrifice anything that they support. They nobly offered to cut medicaid , the National Endowments for the arts and humanities, foriegn aid, and to delay the perscription drug benefit for seniors for a year. It's nice to know that in times of crisis, this country can run a costly war, give tax cuts to the rich, and spend $225 billion on largely unneccesary pork-barrel projects, while heroically offering to screw the poor out of health care, cut funding to arts organizations, keep seniors from affordable perscriptions, and piss off the rest of the world by cutting aid. Believe me, if this had been prompted by anything other than a natural disaster, FEMA would have gotten the axe too.

The truth is, these morons will introduce bills for all of these cuts, and precious few will be enacted, even though they'll lick their chops at the chance to eliminate all these social programs. Everyone knows that we'll just end up borrowing the money.

I think it's time to put all of this in perspective. Let's think of the US government as if it were an average American--the Joe Smith of Middle America. Joe makes only $23,000.00/yr, but for the last few years, he has decided to give $2,000 of his salary out as gifts to his rich friends--you know, beacuse he likes them. This is ok, because he somehow managed to convince the bank to lend him $800,000.00 over the years, so he can afford to be generous. He's starting to run into problems, though. His interest payments for this year will be $3,300.00, leaving him with only $17,700 to spend on everything else, right? Not so. Joe decides that he must live in the lifestyle to which he has become accustomed, so he needs to go deeper in debt. He borrows an additional $3,400. Smart move for any American, right? He probably should invest the money, or spend it fixing up his home, but what fun would that be! He buys a flashy new car, expensive suits, and a brand new entertainment center. He gives more money to his rich friends--so that they can fix up other people's houses. Everything is just wonderful.

Oh, no. Joe's car is in an accident, and it will cost at least $2,000 to fix it. It's too bad that he didn't spend $32 a few years ago to replace the part that eventually broke, but didn't think it was worth it. Now he needs a whole new engine, and he's already spent all the money. Does he ask his rich friends for the gifts back? Does he consider not giving them gifts next year? Does he sell his new purchases to get the money?

No, Joe promises to scrimp and save, mostly by refusing to pay bills. He then decides to borrow and additional $2,000 to fix the car, and doesn't get rid of anything. In the end, after threatening to not pay his bills, he pays them anyway. Next year, he plans to borrow an additional $4,000 on top of his salary, while giving even more to his rich friends. In ten years, he will owe $110,000.oo to the bank! He'll just keep piling on the debt until the bank refuses to give him more. Good plan, Joe!

Multiply the numbers in the story above by a million, and replace "Joe" with "George W." and you have a pretty good idea of the fix we're in this year:

Revenues from taxes = $2.143 Trillion
Spending = $2.483 Trillion
Deficit = -$340 Billion
Interest due on debt= -$335 Billion

TOTAL NATIONAL DEBT -$7.9 Trillion

This year, before Katrina, we were planning to spend about $340 billion more than we take in in taxes, or about 16% of the total budget. This is the deficit. Where will we get this money? We will borrow it from foreign governments and other sources. We've already borrowed $7.9 trillion. Half of which, we borrowed since Bush has been in office.

That's great, isn't it, we can just keep borrowing the money right? It's good for the economy to have this extra money floating around, right? Well, the drawback for the country is the same as for you if you have a lot of credit card debt, the minimum payments keep going up. You eventually are spending so much on the interest, that it eliminates any advantage you gained by borrowing the money in the first place. We're actually paying interest this year that is roughly equilavent to the amount we're borrowing. Any loan shark would love that racket.

The obvious conclusion is that we're passing the point of diminshing returns on our borrowed money. If we didn't have such an enormous national debt, we could almost balance the budget and maintain current spending levels. But, alas, we have to spend 15% of our budget just on interest and we have to borrow that much each year to cover it--putting us deeper in debt and increasing our interest payments, which means we'll have to borrow more, which means that our interest payments go up . . . you get the idea. There's also the danger, that if we get too deep in debt, they won't lend to us any more if it looks like we won't be able to pay ever pay it back.

On top of that, we now have a $200 billion hurricane dropped in our laps.

Well, what can we do to fix the situation?

Well, we could raise taxes back to pre-Bush levels, but that really wouldn't help, right? Wrong. In fact, we could have paid for nearly the entire reconstruction of New Orleans with the revenue lost to Bush's tax cuts JUST THIS YEAR.

REVENUE LOST TO TAX CUTS (2005) = -$191 Billion

Still, we'd rather eliminate health care for the poor and funding for the arts, right?

I know what you're thinking. Tax cuts are Bush's baby. He can't cut those, besides, Bush didn't create this problem, did he? He inherited the debt from previous presidents, including Clinton, right? Yes, but the original deficit spender who got us into this mess was Reagan. Clinton inherited a huge and growing national debt, but by the end of his second term, he finally got the deficit eliminated, and stabilized the national debt. He even managed a $31 billion surplus.

NATIONAL DEBT on 1/1/2000 $4.5 Trillion.
DEFICIT on 1/1/2000 NONE! $31 Billion SURPLUS!

So what has Bush done in the last 5 years? Well, he's nearly doubled the national debt, by running deficits of between $100 billion and $300 billion every year. These deficits are created by a combination of increased spending and nearly a trillion dollars in tax cuts, of which, nearly half went to people who make more than $250,000/yr.

BUSH has borrowed, to date, $3.4 Trillion (for a total of $7.9 Trillion)
TAX CUTS SINCE 2001: $894 Billion
TAX CUTS FOR THE TOP 5% (over $250,000/yr income): $361.8 Billion

So, what can we do about Katrina? The tax cuts, which are actually set to expire, are the low-hanging fruit here. If Congress does nothing, and lets them expire, that'll save us $191 billion this year--Problem solved--and that leaves us in the fine position of overspending by the original, reasonable total of $340 billion. Phew. We're still headed for financial ruin, but at least we can pay for the hurricane.

Tickets for Rat City Rollergirls finals on sale now!

Tickets for the finals are on sale now. It's your last chance to see the Rollergirls this season, and it's gonna be a war in the finals--With Darth Skater and Burnett Down facing off for all the marbles. As you can see from this advertisement on the Rat City Rollergirls' site:

Roller Derby Semis

Best. Bout. Ever.

Tonight, the Roller Girls faced off in their first playoff games. As I predicted, the DLF v. Sockit Wenches matchup was intense, and the Throttle Rockets v. Grave Danger was a bit of a snoozer. The new venue (Hangar 27 @ Sandpoint) was outstanding. It is a HUGE hangar, at least twice the size of the last one, and the larger space and more distant walls definitely improve the audio. The best new feautre is the beer garden seating!

The first bout was low scoring, violent and tense. The DLF came out short-handed, with a number of injuries and a conspicuously absent Kim Reaper (where are you Kim?). Lorna Boom was apparently recovering from a serious car accident, and was supposed to see limited duty, but she was out there in most jams, filling in for the fallen. From the beginning, the Sockit Wenches had more energy, more drive, and better strategy. Surprisingly enough, it was not Miss Fortune, the Sockit Wenches' heart and soul, but Pia Mess who gave the DLF fits. With most of their good jammers injured or absent, the DLF turned to Burnett Down (pictured above--courtesy of joygantic) to jam for them every other jam. She did a remarkable job after a shaky start, but at the half, it was within 2 points. Everyone wondered if DLF had enough in the tank to win. To make matters worse, DLF had more players go down in the second half--Momma Cherry left with an injury along with Punchin' Judy. Both would return, but DLF played all night long as the skating wounded.

It was tied @ 36 all with 3:00 to go, when the DLF pulled off a number of smart moves. They may have been tired, but they executed some strategic coups and strong individual efforts. First, underrated jammer Hideous Braxley skated through the pack, became lead jammer, and scored 4 quick points. She wisely called off the jam before the Sockit Wenches could score any points. Then, Burnett Down faced off against Sockit Wenches ace jammer Miss Fortune, and absolutely leveled her at the start of the jam. I haven't seen a hit like that since Lawerence Talyor knocked out Joe Montana. With the lead secured, DLF went on defense, inserting Diva State and Kitty Kamikase at blocker. Getting past these two tall, powerful ladies is nearly impossible, and with Pia Mess and Miss Fortune on the bench exhausted, it fell to poor Juliet Bravo to try and salvage the game. She could not get past the wall. Hideous Braxely scored a few extra points, while Juliet went down hard, injuring her elbow, and trying valiantly to skate the last few seconds in a losing cause. I have to wonder why Pia Mess was not out there for the last jam. With 1:15 left in your season, why not have your best jammer out there?

In the end, Burnett Down, who had jammed for the DLF nearly half of the jams, still seemed like a bundle of energy--Juliet Bravo, on the other hand, sat on the ground, holding her elbow, comforted by her teammates. The Sockit Wenches almost pulled off the massive upset, but they fell just short 45-36 (it was closer than it sounds). The MVP of the world has to go to Burnett Down. She carried her team, and seemed to get stonger as the match went on. When she JACKED Miss Fortune (and you really had to see it to believe it) , she not only stopped the Sockit Wenches' momentum, she took the heart out of them. This is the second or third time this season that the DLF needed Burnett Down to come up with a great jam to put them comfortably ahead. She can singlehandedly change the game like no one else. She's not the biggest, or the fastest rollergirl out there (although she'd be in the top 5 in both categories), but she's a big game player with an attitude a mile wide. Go DLF!

DLF will face the Throttle Rockets in the finals. TR got there with their usual combination of strength and speed. Darth Skater and Valtron 3000 were their usual dominant selves, but, surprisingly, most of the points were scored by Astroglide. Femme Fatale did play for Grave Danger, but she is shaping up as the Barry Sanders of the Roller Derby world, a great player who's incredibly fun to watch on a mediocre team. Also, inexplicably, they used her at pivot for most of the game, not jammer. She is a good pivot, but she's too small to have much effect on the taller, stronger girls who try to pass her. She laid a great hit on Darth Skater at one point, and pretty much bounced off. It would have been closer if they had used her as jammer as often as the DLF did with Burnett Down, but I think the outcome would have been the same.

The finals will be epic. The DLF beat the Throttle Rockets pretty soundly in their last meeting, but you can throw that result out the window. If the DLF doesn't have Kim Reaper back , they may not have the offense to win. The Throttle Rockets have a strong cast of interchangable jammers who can all score, and they're bigger and stronger than the Sockit Wenches, so they should match up better with the DLF. The matchup that I most want to see, of course, is Darth Skater v. Burnett Down. They're both outstanding, but Darth's fast, tough, and low to the ground, while Burnett's tall, unhittable, and cagey. The Throttle Rockets apparently wanted to see this too, when the Sockit Wenches tied the DLF late, the Throttle Rockets stood up and chanted "D-L-F." I guess your season isn't complete until you've beaten the best. Now they'll get a chance.

The finals will be CRAZY! Mark your calendars now. October 15th.

No one is conservative . . .when they hold the purse strings.

I've noticed that there've been some "conservative" rumblings coming from some in the Republican party who are a bit miffed over the "blank check" that Bush seems to be giving to rebuilding the gulf coast after Katrina. Tom Coburn, the "can't we all just get along" gay-bashing senator from Oklahoma (see Crooks and Liars for a wonderful summation), called for "sacrifices" to be made in the federal government by way of spending cuts--Not, of course, by raising taxes (or even cancelling the planned tax cuts for the wealthy).

Just guess which programs Mr. Coburn would like to cut. He didn't give a list, but he sure as hell isn't going to start railing against corporate welfare, pork barrel projects, and defense spending. Which brings up a point that I've touched on before, but which seems so obvious in the face of Katrina:

There are no liberals or conservatives.

Not really. The traditional definitions of these terms in American politics have gone all topsy-turvy since (at least) Reagan decided that "liberal" was a dirty word. My understanding of what the terms used to mean is:

A conservative: In favor of a small federal government, supports states rights, a strong military, law and order, a free market economy, and private-sector solutions for problems. Strong examples: Barry Goldwater, Dwight Eisenhower.

A liberal: believes that the government should intervene to provide for the health and welfare of its citizens. Since states do not provide uniform solutions to all citizens, the federal goverment should usurp this authority. Strong believers in civil rights at the expense of law and order. Strong examples: FDR, Lyndon Johnson.

What we have are two parties who both love to spend money, but which have different priorities. They are both bastardized versions of their natural tendancies. This owes, mostly, to the strong influence that corporate interests play in politics. They've morphed into the party that wants to give corporations handouts and kinda help the poor (Democrats), and the party that REALLY wants to give corporations handouts and help the rich.

The current Congress has embraced these conservative values, without embracing the central tenant of a small, weak, federal government. Coburn, who voted for the largest, pork laden highway bill in Congressional history, is complaining, not about the spending per se, but who will benefit from the money. It's okay to spend money if it's to benefit the wealthy, but not okay to give a "handout."

How did we get here? Well, it's been a long time coming. I think the place to start is the Great Depression, when America, like the rest of the world, was a mess. Unemployment was through the roof, banks closed in droves, and people were getting restless. FDR had a desperate plan to keep the country from rebelling and turning "red." Through the "New Deal" he would raise taxes on people's already meager incomes dramatically--through the income tax (I think the rate was 90% on wealthy!) and a new program called "Social Security." How do you sell the biggest tax increase of all time to people who are miserably poor? Use that revenue to give them jobs! With the new taxes, the government is flush with money, The WPA and programs like it managed to take this money from those who had it, and give jobs to those who had nothing. Social Security was a particularly brilliant gambit, because FDR could collect a lot of money in the short term while defering the payments to later generations (hence the current crisis).

The economy recovered, and the government continued spending on a massive scale through WWII--this time, on the war effort. At the end of the war, a united country embarked on some remarkable (and expensive) projects that helped America flourish. We built a first-class transportaion system by constructing interstate highways, we educated our populace by paying the college tuition of millions of returning soldiers through the GI bill. We rebuilt Europe and Japan through the Marshall Plan. We spent freely and got tremendous returns on our investments.

Civil rights battles in the 50s and 60s led to legislation that was undoubtably "liberal." President Johnson was able to declare "war" on poverty and expand FDRs New Deal. The government would now help the poor, giving them money in the form of "welfare" and medical care through "medicaid." The federal government grew and grew under the rule of the Democrats towards Johnson's "Great Society."

Nixon expanded, not the size, but the power of the federal government. He expanded federal police powers, started the "War on Drugs" which itself demonstrates what happens when two conservative principles--small government and law and order--come into conflict. He took steps to improve relations with foreign governments, including mortal enemies of the US--the USSR and China. But, his biggest contribution to the current political climate was, of course Watergate. This is where the extreme, public, and hate-filled differences between the two parties started. There would have to be payback for Watergate, and later payback for the payback, and so on.

Through the Carter administration (I'm skipping Ford), the country focused on enegry conservation, and creating jobs (to be fair--mostly becasue of the crises in each area). While the courts issued startling new rulings on individual rights, and the right to privacy. It was the height of what Reagan would later call "The Welfare State." High taxes, out of control spending, and expansive social programs, the supreme court reduced police powers, and expanded a woman's right to choose. This, coupled with a sagging economy, made a segment of the population angry. Maybe things were so bad, not becasue of OPEC, foriegn car manufacturers, or hostages in Iran. Maybe they were bad because of these expanded social programs and civil liberties . . .

When Reagan came to office, he played on this theme, and started a "conservative" revolution tied tightly to partiotism, a strong defense, and christian values. He managed to gather votes from people who were fed up with the disappointment over Nixon, the economic malaise in the Carter administration, and the failed war in Vietnam. He made it "fun" to be an American again, while cautioning that we had lost our way. He, like FDR, stimulated the economy and created jobs by vast increases in government spending, especially on defense. Unlike FDR, however, he cut taxes, rather than raise them. He talked the talk of a "conservative" eliminating many 'pesky' social programs and talking about smaller government, while all while running record budget deficits. Reagan provided the Republicans with a blueprint for long-term success:

1. Focus on American's patriotism. Give voters strong symbols of leadership, and the sense (which was sorely lacking at the time) that America is the best nation on earth.
2. Cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes. Nobody likes paying taxes. Don't worry about paying for the cuts, run a defecit. You can run in an election saying "I'm going to cut your taxes and that guy won't." You'll be popular.
3. Build up the "enemy." The Soviet Union was, of course, an actual threat. But Reagan made them into the "evil empire."
4. Focus on the theme of self-reliance as a way to curtail social programs and give tax breaks to the wealthy. Teach Americans to "pull themselves up by their own bootstraps." Invoke frontier themes.
5. Court the Christian vote. Reagan, while not a big church-goer, was able to convince Christian Americans that Republicans, not Democrats, had their best interests at heart. His alliances with the Moral Majority and his strong opposition to abortion cemented a voting block that had historically largely gone to the Democrats. The Democrats lost the South, and politics was changed forever.
6. Under the guise of a "free market" economy, you can give tremendous amounts of money to corporate interests. Corportate lobbyists, who had begun to grow in power since the mid 1970s now had a President who would deliver their agenda.

As corporate interests grew in power, the deficit kept growing, and spending continued unabated on defense. Reagan was not able to roll back the New Deal and Great Society reforms of FDR and LBJ, but he laid the groundwork, and he got Republicans thinking that there would be plenty of money for their priorities--mostly giving away money to corporations--if the very expensive social programs would go away.

Reagan also had his share of scandals that made the "Watergate payback" urge even greater. Iran-Contra was arguably the greatest breach of public trust in history, as Reagan (yes, he knew) covertly sold missles to Iran (IRAN, PEOPLE!) to finance the Contras in Nicaragua--against the express wishes of Congress. This scandal exacerbated the tension between the two parties, and set the precident (that I think we'll see for the foreseeable future) of the "second term scandal" for all modern Presidents. Bush may avoid it with a strong majority in the House and Senate, but let's just say that since Watergate, we've had a lot of job security for "Independent Counsels."

GHW Bush continued the tax cutting/deficit expanding habits of his predecessor, but he actually paid for Reagan's policies in the form of a recession in 1991 that sank his Presidency. Also, like his son later, he failed to respond promptly and compassionately to a hurricane (Andrew). Still and all, he would have won re-election, except for one tiny problem--Ross Perot, whose Texas millionaire swagger co-opted Reagan's "self-reliance" theme and won 19% of the vote. Still, Clinton was a clever choice by the Democrats. He was a southern Christian who knew how to quote the bible when necessary. He also managed to steal the patriotism card from the Republicans and focused on the good times ahead (remember "Don't stop thinkin about tomorrow" and "It's the ecomony stupid!"). The Republicans had lost their long-fought-for stranglehold on the presidency and were determined to get it back.

To make matters worse, when Clinton was in office, he embarked on a social program that even FDR and LBJ never tried--national health care. The insurance and pharmaceutical industries went on the offensive and derailed the plan. Meanwhile, the Republicans distilled Reagan's lessons above into a "Contract with America " that promised to cut "wasteful" federal spending, i.e. social programs like Social Security. This led to an unprecendented "Republican Revolution" and doomed Clinton's social agenda forever. Clinton ultimately outmanuvered the Republican Congress during the "Government Shutdown" and the New Deal programs were left intact. Clinton moved to the center, maintaining, but not expanding social programs, while establishing better ties with corporate interests. He was forced to curtail Welfare, but he managed to cut spending and the deficit dramatically and preside over a period of economic growth unmatched since WWII. The Republicans would not rest, though. They hunted Clinton throughout his presidency, determined to provide a suitable scandal as payback for Watergate and Iran-Contra. They did, of course, but ultimately failed to remove Clinton from office, because the public, while fascinated by the scandal, really didn't think it was that bad. On the day of his impeachment trial, Clinton had a 60% approval rating. Maybe it is the economy, stupid.

The Bush-Gore election was a snoozer. The common theme was that "It doesn't matter who wins." Prosperity had made the electorate disinterested, and Clinton's move to the center had made it difficult to see the differences between the two parties. It was clear the the priority of both parties had become corporate interests--Ralph Nader based his campaign on this. No one could see that Clinton had only managed to hold the line against the Republican cause to eliminate social programs. He was actually a liberal who played a reluctant moderate out of necessity. Al Gore ran a miserable campaign, and refused to use his greatest asset, Clinton, because of the lingering scandal. Meanwhile, the Republicans crafted a candidate based on all of the Reagan principles listed above, a frontier-themed, tax cutting cowboy who was a born-again Christian. The only wrinkle was that this guy was playing a "moderate" a "compassionate conservative." Clinton had stolen so many themes from the Republican playbook that they had to co-opt one from the Democrats. And they still lost (well, not officially)--Let's just say that the election had low voter turnout and was very, very close.

For a year, America really didn't care who the president was. Bush pushed his dramatic tax cuts through Congress and stood next to Ted Kennedy and introduced "No child left behind." The Bush gameplan was clear--his majority in the senate was small (then, later, non-existent) and he wasn't particularly popular. So, he would push the corporate-giveaway, tax cuts for the rich angle quietly while hiding behind "compassion." Remember when Bush sent every American taxpayer $300? A great PR stunt to show people what "tax cuts" mean. And a great way to make unequal tax cuts seem fair. Bush was headed for a lackluster presidency and few small gains for Republicans in the tax codes . . .

Then it all changed. 9/11. The whole country stood behind Bush, transforming a weak and unpopular President into "leader" with a mandate. Suddenly, the "enemy" that was missing from Reagan's formula above showed itself. Modest goals for the Bush administration were replaced with lofty goals. After a pre-functory war in Afghanistan (you sort of have to go after the acutal enemy), Bush unveiled the Republican wet dream, modelled on Reagan:

• Focus on American's patriotism. The Patriot Act stripped freedoms from Americans that had been won in the court battles of the 1970s. Long held rules of war like the Geneva Convention were "quaint." Torture was acceptable, all in the name of Patriotism. Any dissent in the Democrats, or in the media was treason.
• Cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes. Do you have to finance a major war and reconstruction effort? No need to raise taxes. Just run deficits! In fact, make the tax cuts "permanent."
• Build up the "enemy." Axis of evil anyone? Ever notice that Afghanistan and Al Qaeda are never mentioned? There are "no good targets" in Afghanistan, but Iraq holds considerable wealth for US corporate interests . . . Also, the creation of Department of Homeland Security (which Bush initially opposed) provides an opportunity to spend wildly on the defense industry while curtailing spending on FEMA and other vital "big government" programs.
• Focus on the theme of self-reliance as a way to curtail social programs. Social Security needs to be "reformed." Headstart might need to be cancelled. We're going to create an "ownership society." While we're at it, let's make it harder to declare bankruptcy and to sue corporations.
• Court the Christian vote. Need I say more?
• Under the guise of a "free market" economy, you can give tremendous amounts of money to corporate interests. Bush presided over the largest giveaways to corporations ever and the rolling back of almost all environmental regulations.

Today, we see the partisan headhunting by the left swinging into high gear (as a payback for Clinton), and the stakes have been raised dramatically by Iraq and Katrina. So what we are left with is not a useful liberal/conservative distinction, but two parties that hate each other with different goals:

Republican: Destroy the New Deal and the Great Society, reward corporate donors and other interests. Dismantle the Federal "safety net" and consolidate power in the executive.

Democrat: ???--No seriously, what is their goal, except weak attempts to stop this? For the Democrats, having achieved all of their desires in the 1970s, they struggle to find a theme. Hopefully Katrina will help them to focus on poverty, jobs, and health care--Bush has handed them their mandate back, by rolling back all of their gains. And hopefully distance from 9/11 and a disasterous Iraq war will focus the Dems on rebuilding America's reputation and restoring personal liberties. John
Kerry weakly stood behind these issues, the Democrats need to stand forcefully behind them.

For the Republicans, the chickens may finally be coming home to roost. They have now played the "strong leader," 9/11, and WMD cards to death, and after Katrina blew the first two away, they're left with a President with strong majorities in Congress, but a 40% approval rating. Who knows what the political future holds? I am certain that Bush will continue to push his legislative agenda as if nothing had happened, but will Republicans in Congress who are facing re-election stay in lock-step with him? I think that they'll wait a few months to give more tax cuts to the rich, and I think that Social Security reform is on life support, but if they keep their majorities in 2006, it will be business as usual.

I actually don't know of any liberals or conservatives in either party. If Hillary is the candidate, she is much more likely to run as a moderate--like her husband in his last term, than an FDR style liberal. Still, I think the liberals would support her, or anyone, after Bush. The Republicans have the tough task of holding together a coalition of Christian wingnuts, wealthy people, and true conservatives in the face of an increasingly disasterous second term for Bush. If Bush's luck continues to fade, the next Republican candidate might look more like Gerald Ford after Watergate than Bush Sr. after Reagan. I can only hope. I can say with certainty that the days of civility between the two parties are over and that the corporate giveaways and Watergate paybacks will continue, leaving liberals like me and true conservatives longing for politician we can believe in.

--Tinfoil out

A break from politics . . . for Roller Derby!

So the Rat City Roller Girls have their semi-final bout on Saturday. I have grown very attached to the sport, and it will be sad (and exciting) to see the second to last game of the season. I am afraid that my favorite team, the Derby Liberation Front, has a tough bout ahead, having to face the Sockit Wenches, who, despite a 1-5 record, have really come on of late, losing to the DLF by only 1 POINT two bouts ago, and keeping it interesting until the last jam vs. the other dominant team, the Throttle Rockets, last bout.

It will be a hell of a match-up. The DLF has a squad of Amazons led by Burnett Down and Deva State, along with speedster Kim Reaper--But they face a speedy, scrappy Sockit Wenches team, led by the last two monthly MVP's Miss Fortune and Pia Mess . Miss Fortune, especially, is not afraid to take a hit.

In the other match, I think the Throttle Rockets will easily handle Grave Danger . Especially if GD's Femme Fatale skips the bout again. She might be the fastest woman out there when she plays, but, as you can tell by the team picture, GD lacks size. The Throttle Rockets can lay a heavy hit on you, with the lightning fast bowling-ball that is Darth Skater and tall, fast Valtron 3000. The only question marks are whether the TR will have their two injured jammers back, Interplanet Janet and Hurricane Lilly. Even if they don't (it has been 2 months) they've got plenty of depth at jammer with Astroglide and Dirty Little Secret filling in nicely at the last bout.

If you're in the Seattle area, you can still get tickets. Not to be missed.

--Tinfoil Out

9/11 Conspiracies

For the last few weeks while Brad has been in Crawford with Cindy Sheehan. BradBlog has been guest-blogged by Winter Patriot and others who have a decidedly wing-nuttier view than Brad does. One of their recent obsessions is the 9/11 "conspiracy" that the CIA and the military carried out the 9/11 attacks to whip up a war in the Middle East.

Hogwash.

The truth is bad enough:

1. That the Bush administration didn't focus enough on Al-Quaeda as a threat in the Summer of 2001.
2. That they used 9/11 as a springboard to attack Iraq even though there was no connection.
3. And they have repeatedly resisted any effort to investigate the government's response to 9/11.

If you can stand rambling, spurious logic, please read the most recent posting about 9/11. I can summarize all of it for you, though:

1. In each case, there is an "obvious" detail that the MSM didn't notice/highlight/investigate (Even though the explanation is actually quite reasonable).
2. Since they didn't notice/highlight/investigate it, there must have been a cover-up.
3. The wing-nut answer that they supply is the ONLY possible interpretation.

Example:

1. There was not much visible wreckage from plane that crashed into the Pentagon
2. Since the wreckage was missing from photographs, it must have been something else that hit the Pentagon.
3. The only possible answer is a missle/drone/small plane packed with explosives.

The only problem is that HUNDREDS of people saw the passenger jet hit the building. Also, as Popular Mechanics pointed out in their very good series of articles debunking 9/11 conspiracies that there was a lot of debris from the plane, but, as you would expect from an object moving at 200+ MPH, and which struck the building low to the ground, most of the debris was thrown into the building. There are holes in the building as far in as the "C" ring (third from the outside).

Occam's Razor requires that when you have countless reports from eyewitnesses of a plane hitting a building that's probably what happened. The Bush administration is greedy, incompetent, opportunistic, and stubborn, but all of these conspiracy theories rely on him being some sort of evil genius.

Since the conspiracy wingnuts like to ask loaded rhetorical questions, I've got a few of my own:

• If Bush was so clever in planning 9/11 to get us into a war with Iraq, why not set up scenario with Iraqi commandos hijacking the plane? It would have saved them that little detour through Afghanistan, which has not exactly yielded huge financial gains for the US (or even Halliburton).
• Why kill 3,000+ Americans and destroy the financial center of the country? We've been drawn into wars before over far less. Yes, the Gulf of Tonkin Incident that escalated our role in Vietnam was most likely based on a lie, but that involved a bunch of US ships pretending to be shot at, and then returning fire. A downed fighter jet in the Iraqi no-fly zone or missle launched at Israel might have been enough. Destroying lower Manhattan and the Pentagon seems like an excessive and piss-poor way to manufacture a war in Iraq.

Would Bush: authorize torture, invade a country for oil, suppress dissidents, cover up mistakes? Sure. He has. Is he clever enough to set in motion all the events from 9/11 to the Iraq War? I don't think so.

I think that, to a certain extent, we need conspiracies to help us deal with tremendous tragedies and acts of violence. It's the same impulse that causes us to invent mythologies and religions. It stems from the hope that someone or something is in charge of the world--sometimes benevolent (God, country, parents), and sometimes evil (conspiracies, devils, criminals). Usually there's a degree of truth in these conspiracies. Bush is a bad leader, he lies, and does underhanded things all the time ergo, if you don't like him and really need the world to make sense, it's pretty easy to make the leap that he is an evil genius (rather than an callous, indifferent idiot).

The "proof" for these accusations takes on a life of it's own. The Kennedy assasination is the most obvious example, culminating in the wild fantasy that is Oliver Stone's JFK. This fascinating site debunks all of the claims in that film and takes the mystery out of the wild accusations that have become "fact" to JFK conspiracy nuts. A few choice examples:

• FBI sharpshooters WERE able to repeat Oswald's feat of getting off three shots from the book depository (one actually did it in 4.5 sec vs. Oswald's 9 sec)
• The force of a bullet that enters the back of the head from a high-powered rifle will, in fact often send the head "back and to the left."
• The "magic bullet" is actually quite reasonable when you consider that Kennedy's seat in the back of the car was raised up higher that Gov. Connelly's in front of him. The bullet made no weird turns in the air, but actually behaved very predictably based on the positions of the two men.
• The "shooter" on the grassy knoll, sometimes called "Badgeman" that appears as a blur in Abraham Zapruder's famous film has been identified as an African American couple who were drinking cokes an watching the president go by from the wall. Witnesses saw them drop a coke bottle when the heard the shots, and they, like everyone else, ran like hell. Most of the "mysterious" people in Dealy Plaza have been identified and interviewed, all with innocent stories.

Note the similarity between the Kennedy "evidence" and the alleged 9/11 conspiracy. They're all about a mysteriously overlooked detail that only has one possible "fantastic" explanation. I guess, for me, I'm outraged enough about what is actually happening, and I don't need to pile on a CIA financed 9/11 before I want Bush impeached and in jail for war crimes. Most times the simplest explanation is the right one.

-Tin Foil Out.

Cindy Sheehan provides a much needed laugh

With all of the horrible news coming out of New Orleans, I really need a good laugh. It came from an unlikely source, Cindy Sheehan. In her blog on the Huffington Post, she was talking about touring through Texas on her way back from Crawford and meeting with politicians. She apparently even asked Tom Delay to meet with her. Her exchange with his aide is hillarious:

. . . Tom Delay's aide said he probably won't meet with me because I don't "comport" myself properly. I told him that we don't think Tom Delay "comports" himself properly and I could probably get a meeting if Casey had a feeding tube in him instead of being dead for his boss's support of a horrible war. His aide said he didn't know what I was referring to…when are these people going to stop thinking I am stupid?

Priceless. This woman has no fear.

TinFoil Out

Save New Orleans

I love New Orleans. My wife and I have strong memories of visiting in the first few months of our relationship, and, later, sharing a wonderful 2001 New Year's Eve with some of our closest friends. I am currently:

• Sad beyond words to see that city "destroyed." That's the only term I can think of for it. It will be uninhabitable for months or years. There are even statements by short sighted Republicans that it may not be worth rebuliding. It is one of the only American cities that should unquestionably be rebuilt, regardless of the cost or difficulty. It is a city that has the history, art, and culture that so many US cities lack. We must rebuild it.
  
• I'm also ashamed of the leaders of my country--I know that this is not a surprising sentiment coming from me, but, trust me, this is no philosophical difference or policy quibble. The largest natural disaster that we have ever experienced in this country, and our President and Congress were on vacation, and when they finally got off of their asses, they responded painfully slowly. In 2005, in the richest country in the world, people are dying of starvation and dehydration (the irony!) in the streets of New Orleans, surrounded by dead bodies and human waste while they wait for aid and transportation out of the city.
  
• Don't believe them when they said they didn't know how bad it would be. Two days before the storm made landfall, they were predicting a direct hit on New Orleans, by a storm that was category 5. TV, radio, and print media were all doing stories about the "bowl" that New Orleans was sitting in, and how this storm could flood it completely. This was a surprise to no one--our government was simply unprepared and did not move quickly enough.
  
• Where's the aid? There should be a caravan of buses a hundred miles long going into that city (I know that there is only one reliable route into the city, but why isn't it jammed with relief traffic?). If our government can't mobilize these forces after THREE DAYS have already passed, maybe citizens should take the initiative. Every bus, truck, RV, or van in the American south should be filled with food and get to New Orleans. Feed the people and get them the hell out of there.
  
• I don't want to here another goddamn report about looters. I don't want to hear our President say that there will be "zero" tolerance for them. I couldn't care less if Wal-mart is down a few (or even a few thousand) TVs at the end of this. People are stealing becasue they have nothing, and because the US government is not doing enough to help them. Let's also be clear about the guns and violence among the looters--They are desperate, and they wouldn't be holding guns and shooting at rescuers if they weren't. Get them fed, treated medically, and the hell out of New Orleans, and they won't shoot you or steal TVs. Mr. Bush, the looting is the fault of the authorities--not the looters. HELP THEM!
  
• For some reason, known only to him, Bush is not accepting assistance from other countries. Jamaica, Canada, and UN have all offered, but Bush refuses. What the hell is his problem?!?!?! PEOPLE ARE DYING. RIGHT NOW. You're on the clock Mr. President take every offer of help that you receive--every death in the streets of New Orleans in the aftermath of this disaster is on your head.
  

This is an appalling situation. America should be able to do better than this.

Rick Santorum Sums It Up

I just listened to the audio of Brian Lehrer's recent interview with Rick Santorum. You can find it here at WNYC's site. I was shocked, because I actually developed a small (very small) glimmer of respect for Santorum. He perfectly and mostly calmly described the post-Reagan, religious right conservative movement, and how it weaves together completely contradictary ideas about personal freedom and support for big business into a semi-coherent-sounding position. I'm appalled by the sentiments he expresses, but the reason that I have a modicum of respect for him after listening to him is that I have come to the conclusion that:

1. Santorum actually BELEIVES the crap he says. I have frequently accused Bush and most conservatives in congress (and on Fox News) of using religion and patriotism to fool the American people into selling themselves out to the wealthy. Maybe Santorum, as a "young Republican" graduate has had too much of the cool-aid, but I am conviced that he actually thinks that his view will bring about a better America. He's wrong (more on that below), but at least he's genuine.
   
2. He is willing to talk about it. It's refreshing to hear a conservative who actually wants to defend his positions without avoiding questions, yelling and screaming, or trying to end the conversation. Santorum was mostly respectful of Brian Lehrer (and Lehrer was too). I have been getting sick of all Bush's "fake" town meetings (Santorum apparently has real ones), carefully scripted press conferences and all of the hyper, nastly, screaming matches by the talking heads. This was a conversation for a change. Very refreshing.

Now, on to the substance of what he said:

Listen for yourself, but I'll sum up Santorum's position:

• We've ruined the American nuclear family in this country, through a proliferation of messages from Hollywood, radical feminists, government (mostly the courts), and the Liberal elite (mostly Hillary in his mind) that encourage people to think that they can do whatever they want. To quote Neo in the Matrix--"The problem is choice."
  
• We've created government programs like Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, etc., that teach people that when they do whatever they want, the government will take care of them, even if they do nothing to help themselves.
  
• The point of all laws, and social institutions like marriage is that one man should work and one woman should raise the children in a stable environment so that society can continue and be "healthy."
  
• One reason this can't happen is that families can't subsist on a single income. This is not, as you might be thinking, because of the piss-poor economy, historically low minimum wage, out-sourcing of manufacturing jobs, etc., but rather, because our federal taxes are too high. It's not the fault of big business either. When Lehrer points out som of the reasons above, Santorum says:

What you're suggesting is that the government needs to come in, because they're created a higher burden of taxation (on the American family), and now we have to force business to do what the government won't do,which is to give breaks to the American family.

Putting aside the fact that Santorum's Republican Congress just passed a budget yesterday that has them spending like drunken sailors, you can see why, on paper this is a good argument to convince people to support the Bush tax cuts (if they were actually progressive.) Basically, he's saying, here's the 25% percent of your salary that you used to spend on Federal taxes--now you can afford to leave the wife at home and raise the kids. I think Santorum's figure is high--we pay around 17% and we don't even get any child credits--but I agree, it sounds great, right?

If he really meant it, maybe. It's a very Libertarian idea, and completely antithetical to strong defense, tax breaks and subsidies for big corportations, and regressive tax cuts for the wealthy that the Republicans are currently enacting.

It's just bullshit. Santorum is proposing a solution that no one is offering. If he wants to introduce a bill that eliminates all corporate subsidies and tax breaks, and uses the savings to eliminate all federal taxes for poor and middle class Americans, I'm all for it. If he did this, it would probably be wise, though, to raise income taxes for the wealthy and raise capital gains and inheritance taxes to make up any shortfall. By Rick's argument, our country is in peril because people can't afford to leave one parent home to raise the kids. The wealthy do not have this problem, so taxes that affect them most should be raised. If we don't increase taxes on the wealthy, our infrastructure will collapse--no highway money, no defense spending, no Social Security. So, great, we have a plan: No taxes for the poor and middle class--Sounds great Rick! When do I get my tax break?

Then there's the "choice" problem. I actually attended a "Favorite Professor" luncheon at the University of Washington, sponsored by (I found out once I got there) the Campus Crusade for Christ. The speaker used exactly this argument. While never mentioning abortion, homosexuality, or feminism, he talked about how kids these days have too many options to do things that will distract them from getting married, having kids, and serving God. He also said that Hollywood and Liberal (with a capital L) educators (i.e. me), were clouding their path with giving them too many choices of lifestyles, careers, and beliefs. He thanked us, and we each got a free copy of C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity (I was happy--great book).

Santorum has the guts to actually name these choice-mongers--as abstract straw-man stereotypical characters--and says that radical feminists shamed women into the workplace, the liberal elite created the welfare state, etc. But just what is the fundamental problem with these choice-o-holics?

Here is the quote that Santorum read on Lehrer's show from the 1992 Supreme Court Decision of Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Lehrer made him repeat it twice, and affirm that this was "the problem" with American society (Santorum obliged). See what you think. The Supreme Court said:

Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of the meaning of the universe, and the existance of human life.

Rick Santorum call this "mantra of the Left" the problem with American society . . . I thought that it was the basis for American society! The Constitution is pretty clearly based on the concept of "liberty." I remember a passage in the Constitution that is buried in Article . . . O that's right. It's the FIRST LINE:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty . . .

And later, there are a few amendments in the Bill of Rights, that establish freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and all kinds of other nasty things that Santorum doesn't agree with. Is it not an important part of liberty that I can choose my own beliefs? Should the government make choices for me based on a Christian religious or moral principle?

What Constitution is he reading? Hint, he spells it B-I-B-L-E.

Ewww! The sad part, is that this proves conclusively that Santorum DOES UNDERSTAND what the left is saying. Damn it, we do think that we should be able to think for ourselves, and not have the moral codes of a few imposed on us. He disagrees with this, and would like to socially engineer our society by mandating by law that all families look and act like his family. Is this imposing his moral views on others? "No" he says! It the opposite:

You don't think that people running around, doing whatever they want, is imposing a moral view on me?

Um, what? No.

When you listen to Santorum, a distinct type of American society comes through: No legal abortion, no gay marriage, no childless couples even, no civil liberties, censored films and music, prayer in schools, federal money for churches, Christian principles that govern congressional and judicial decisions. This is how--Brave New World style--Santorum would like to engineer the perfect American society. Sound like a utopia to you? Actually, it's even worse than Brave New World--at least the people there had sex and drugs.

Like I said, give him credit--he's honest about what he wants, and not shy about talking about it. This is why he is going to lose his next election, and NEVER be President. Most people would find his ideas repulsive. Especially, I would think, the true conservatives in the Republican party who want the government to stay small and stay out of their lives.

The most telling exchange in the interview, which sums up the shaky logic in his dumb positions, is his reaction to his now famous "man-on-dog"quote. For those who missed it, here was Santorum's reaction to the Supreme Court overturning Texas's sodomy laws:

If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, the right to polygamy, the right to incest, you have the right to adultery, you have the right to anything . . .

Santorum takes pains to "correct" the way that the quote was reported. Everyone said that he was equating consensual gay sex (the subject of the case) with the "illegal" activities above--but he wants to clarify that his true intention, which is actually MUCH MUCH worse.

How you say?

You may have noticed "adultery" on his list. Why? That's not illegal is it? Well, Rick believes that the court should have used the "original" standard for legal sexual activity, which is marriage (I wonder where he got that precedent?). By saying that any "consensual" sex in your home is legal, he thinks that the court is saying that anything goes.

Raise your hands if you think that you should go to jail for having consensual sex in your home with someone to whom you aren't married?

Thought so.

This, I think, sums it all up. According to Santorum, we are beseiged by people who are ruining our country by "doing whatever they want:" having sex, not having children, expressing free ideas, and making "popular culture" that is causing the destruction of our children. To fix this, Santorum would like to redefine freedom, without the word "choice."

The right's view of freedom, what I would say is a traditional freedom [. . .] as our founders understood it, which is a freedom with responsibility to something beyond yourself. A freedom to do, not what you want to do, not simply "choice," but the freedom to do what you ought to do . . .

I can't quite fathom how laws restricting me from consensual sex gives me the "freedom to do what I ought to do." If I obeyed them, I would be doing what Rick thinks I ought to do and would have no freedom at all. In fact, the word "freedom" doesn't even apply here.

The punch line of this exchange comes when Santorum is asked about the long-time aide on his staff that was just "outed" as a gay man. Santorum says that he's known about it "for quite a while," but that he doesn't discuss it with him, or try to disuade him because:

(Drumroll)

"His personal life is his personal life."

In other words, he can run around and do whatever he wants, and it's not Santorum's business.

He's really good at blaming the liberal elite, radical feminists, gay activists, and hollywood--and restricting the rights of every American, but when it comes down to someone he knows and works with, the guy's tolerant. This is totally consistant with crap like Rush Limbaugh railing against drug users while popping hundreds of vicodin a day, or Jeb Bush saying that it was a "private, family matter" when his daughter Noelle, was caught with drugs--while he advocated for jail time for non-violent drug offenders. It's easy for these guys to stir up hate for people when they are abstract concepts, but when they are friends, co-workers, and children they let them off the hook. It's really easy to say that "those people" are ruining your society--Jews, blacks, feminists, liberals, etc.--but it's a lot harder to look someone in the face and condemn them. That's the next step towards fascism, and I hope we never take it.

I wish all of these wingnuts would be so honest about their positions. What Santorum wants is not American. What he wants is a Christian state, where "choice" is removed, and laws force you to follow their moral codes. Do you want this? If not, please vote.

--tinfoil out

Told ya so! . . . Bush uses religion for political gain.

What did I just say? It was confirmed today by David Kuo, former Special Assistant to President George W. Bush and Deputy Director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, that Bush never seriously cared about his "faith based initiatives." As Kuo--a longtime Republican and former staffer of William Bennet and John Ashcroft-- says:

Capitol Hill gridlock could have been smashed by minimal West Wing effort. No administration since LBJ's has had a more successful legislative track record than this one. From tax cuts to Medicare, the White House gets what the White House really wants. It never really wanted the "poor people stuff."

To be fair, he blames both Democrats and Republicans for the failure of the programs:

At the end of the day, both parties played to stereotype -- Republicans were indifferent to the poor and the Democrats were allergic to faith.

He describes how Bush's major funding for faith-based initiatives was diverted at the last minute:

In June 2001, the promised tax incentives for charitable giving were stripped at the last minute from the $1.6 trillion tax cut legislation to make room for the estate-tax repeal that overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy.

Wake up people. If you aren't rich, Bush doesn't care about you--No matter how "hard" you pray.

--Tinfoil out

What is Bush exactly?

He's not a Republican--at least not the kind I grew up with. He's not fiscally conservative. He's not for smaller government or reduced spending (just saying it doesn't make it true). If you had to classify him, I'd say he is the first President in recent memory to be completely owned by corporations. I'm not talking about Manchurian Candidate-style conspiracies here. It's considerably more simple and obvious than that. He has spent his whole life with the richest people in the world. His father was President, and heir to large old-money North-East fortune. You don't hear it as much anymore, but when he was elected(?) in 2000, a lot of people called him the first "CEO President"--Which is largely correct. He has an MBA from Harvard Business School, and has served as CEO of Spectrum 7 and later the Director of Harken Energy. (Both companies lost money during Bush's tenure, and he was investigated by the SEC for insider trading for selling off a large portion of his Harken stock to buy a share of the Texas Rangers).

Much has been made of Bush's religious beliefs and "moral values," but, at the risk of stating the obvious, I'd say that his religious beliefs are often used for calcuated positions, whereas his pro-wealth and business ideals have actually formed the core of his political philosophy.

Really, what has he done for his religious base? A lot less than they thought he would. He threw some money their way with "faith based initiatives," never got them the school vouchers that they wanted, he has cooled on an amendment banning gay marriage, and he still has yet to appoint a conversative Supreme Court justice (He undoubtedly will in the next 4 years, but it remains to be seen if he can really make strides towards overturning Roe v. Wade). The religious posturing seems to be calculated to get people to the polls.

On every policy issue, he has consistently given the wealthy and the powerful everything that they want and more. It could be that he really does not understand poorer Americans--he has never been poor, and had never really even met any poor people before become in President. As reported by Ron Suskind in the New York Times Magazine in October, Bush admits this to evangelical pastor Jim Wallis:

''I've never lived around poor people,'' Wallis remembers Bush saying. ''I don't know what they think. I really don't know what they think. I'm a white Republican guy who doesn't get it. How do I get it?'' Wallis recalls replying, ''You need to listen to the poor and those who live and work with poor people.''

He doesn't understand the needs of the poor (or even middle class). He has lived his life in an isolated, unbelievably weathly world akin to growing up in the British royal family, and as a consequence, all of his policies seem to be driven by fixing the "problems" of his wealthy elite clique. All politics is personal they say.

To understand GWB, you must understand the rules he lives by:

1. The wealthy in America are entitled to keep all of their wealth--This translates into:

• lower income taxes for the wealthy
• lower capital gains taxes (the poor rarely have gains to tax)
• the elimination of inheritance taxes

2. Corportations are entitled to maximize their profits without government regulation:

• Repealing (or just not enforcing) "pesky" environmental legislation. Even his own former EPA director says so.
• Supporting companies to outsource labor overseas.
• Encouraging America to "go shopping" to show our patriotism immediately after 9/11
• Creating a Medicare benefit that gives billions to pharmaceutical companies, preventing any kind of price controls on perscription drugs, and trying to prevent cheaper drugs from coming in from Canada.
• "Reforming" Social Security by diverting trillions of dollars into the stock market.
• Giving businesses one of the biggest tax cuts in history.
• No bid contracts for Halliburton and other "friendly" companies in Iraq.
• Encouraging deregulation of power companies, leading to debacles like Enron.
• Opening up the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve for oil drilling.

These rules can explain virtually every policy decision he has ever made (including, I think, the war in Iraq).

The funny thing is that while Bush's policies have certainly led to large payouts for certain wealthy people and corporations, he has presided over a disastrous economy, with a lengthy recession and lower than expected economic growth which is likely to continue. In general, corporations fared better during Clinton's tenure. I don't think that the President--any President, can control the economy absoultely, but I think that it's getting harder to believe that the Bush tax cuts were an effective stimulus to the economy, as Dr. Walter Williams of the University of Washington's Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs says:

Efficient stimuli would have been concentrated on putting funds in the hands of those who would spend it rapidly. Shapiro and Friedman have noted that Bush spurned the most efficient means, such as extending unemployment insurance benefits that generate 73 cents per dollar of lost revenue. Instead, he unwisely opted for a dividend tax reductions that only generated 9 cents, and hence far greater budget deficits.

I'm not an economist, but it seems that the corporate interests that support Bush are rather short-sighted. Government handouts and de-regulation might be effective ways to boost the bottom line in the short term, but isn't a robust, growing economy the best way to be profitable in the long term?

I find it funny when Bush is portrayed as a bumbling, religious, "man of the people." He grew up as wealthy and priviledged as anyone in America, but somehow, it's not the Yale and Harvard education and millions of dollars in family assets that people focus on--it's his supposed piety and values. Wake up and smell the oil here people, George Bush is much more interested in helping "his people," the wealth and powerful of America, that he is in doing "God's work." He dosen't understand the needs of middle class America, or, especially, the needs of poor Americans. He gets Americans to vote against their own economic interests with calls to partiotism and religion--calls that are disingenuous at best.

Think before you vote in 2006. To take a page out of the Reagan playbook, ask yourself "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" Unless you're a CEO--probably not.

--Tin Foil Out

Thong Statute Update

It seems that the Virginia State Senate shared my opinion on the no-underwear-above-the-belt law passed this week in the Virginia House of Representatives. They UNANIMOUSLY defeated the bill yesterday, with many State Senators calling the bill a "distraction" and an "embarrassment" to Virginia. I'm pleased that sanity was restored. I have to wonder, however, if it would have passed without the overwhelming worldwide ridicule it received.

Ah well, a victory is a victory. No fashion police in Virginia--for now.

-TinFoil Out

The Thong Statute

In another news story for the "America is going completely nuts" file. The BBC reported today that the Virginia House of Representatives passed a bill, by the unbelievably large margin of 60-34, that creates $50 fine on anyone who exposes his or her underpants above his or her pants in a—quote -- “lewd or indecent manner.”

. . . I'll let that sink in for a minute.

. . . Ok

So apparently, this is a reaction to low-rider jeans on girls, and the baggy, worn-almost-at-the-knees hip hop jeans for boys.

DEMOCRAT!!!!! Algie T. Howell proposed the bill , saying:

To vote for this bill would be a vote for character, to uplift your community and to do something good not only for the state of Virginia, but for this entire country.

The only redeeming moment of the debate seems to have come from Rep. Howell's fellow Democrat Lionell Spruill who reacted thusly (according to the BBC story) :

He asked fellow politicians to remember their own former fashion faux pas, including Afro haircuts, platform shoes and shiny polyester "shell suits".

He also, correctly I think, pointed out that this bill will unfairly target African-Americans.

Let's hope that the VA state senate is able to prevent this laughing-stock of a state-dress-code bill to be passed into law, but in case they don't, I have a few questions about the bill:

1. If a woman wears low cut jeans without any underwear, is that a violation under the law?
2. Conversely, if a man who is exposing baggy boxer shorts above the top of his baggy jeans were to drop his pants as police approached, would he be assessed the fine? (It's technically not "underwear" at that point.)
3. If one can prove that the underwear one was wearing was meant to be displayed as outerwear (the Tommy Hilfiger/Madonna defense), and that it was displayed that way on several billboards around Virginia, does it no longer qualify as "underwear?"
4. What if you had 2 pair of underwear on--which one would be considered "underwear" under the statue?
5. At say--Virginia Beach--would a bikini be a violation of the law? Would it become a violation only after it was covered up by low-rise jeans? Would the "that's not underwear, it's a swimsuit defense (which I believe I saw on an episode of Three's Company once) be valid?
6. Are we going to see Jay-Z fined by authorities every time he performs in Virginia?
7. Since the fine is predicated on the exposure of underwear in a "lewd and indecent manner," does the fine only apply to attractive people? Are the overweight plumbers of the world safe from these fines? Not hot?--no fine?
8. Is this law enforcable? Are the police honestly going to approach an attractive women in low-rise jeans and say, "I'm going to have to fine you $50 for exposing your underwear--and can I have your phone number?" Don't they have criminals to catch?

If you'd like to write to Representative Howell and tell him to stop wasting Virginia tax payers' money with this crap, his email is Del_AHowell@house.state.va.us You might want to remind him that Virginia already has "indecent exposure" laws that are not based on the arbitrary position of one's underwear in relation to one's pants.

--Tin Foil Out

"Nutsack" unleashed

A quick note today. I found a really interesting media/pop-culture item today on Jeff Jarvis's Blog.

The FCC has decided that 36 complaints about indecent language on television were not, in fact indecent. Feel free to say "dick, ass, penis, vaginal, nutsack, three-way, hell, damn, breast, nipples, can, pissed, crap, bastard, and bitch" the next time you are on television. In fact, try to work them all into one sentence. (There may be prizes for anyone who does this successfully)

My favorite passage is a ruling on Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me.

In another scene from this film, a male and a female character are in bed together, but no sexual or excretory organs or activities are depicted or discussed.

There is almost a tone of sadness in this statement . . .

Hey, things are loosening up again @ the FCC (they also recently ruled that the F-bomb was ok as long as it is in Saving Private Ryan.

Maybe we'll get some more breasts at the Super Bowl this year after all!

Tin Foil Out

An open letter to evangelical Christians

If you are a “moral values” voter and you’re reading this post (as unlikely as that may seem), I have a few things to straighten out for you. You know those two issues that filled you with the holy spirit and sent you to the voting booth in November? The two evils that Bush was ordained by God to eliminate?

[dramatic music]

Abortion and Gay Marriage.

Well, I’ve got news for you. Your guy isn’t very likely to do much to outlaw either. First, his interest has waned considerably on these issues since November (funny that), and he knows (and always has known) that the chances are slim to none that he’d even be able to do much anyway.

You been 'hoodwinked and bamboozled' (as Malcom X would say). You were willing to endorse tax cuts for the rich, the gutting of your Social Security system, a $10 trillion bill for your children to pay, and an immoral and unjust war for issues that this president (or any president) has very little chance of affecting.

Abortion Rights

Hoping to pack the Supreme Court with Roe-v-Wade haters? Don't hold your breath. The current tally on the abortion issue in the court is 6-3. You have Justices Renquist, Thomas, and Scalia firmly opposed to abortion rights, and you have O’Connor, Stevens, Ginsberg, Souter, and Breyer firmly in favor. Justice Kennedy is a bit of a wild card. He has voted several times to uphold the “right to privacy” that Roe v. Wade is based on, but has shown some willingness to place limits on abortion (although he is unlikely to vote to overturn it).

Bush is most likely to be able to make only one appointment to the court—to replace Justice Renquist who is quite ill, and he has an outside shot of replacing O’Connor and Stevens. Renquist’s replacement does nothing to affect the likelihood of overturning Roe v. Wade, and the justice that is confirmed may be less likely to make a decisive move (Renquist has said that Roe was a “mistake” many times). Even though I am certain that Bush will at least try to nominate someone who is hostile to Roe, it’s unlikely that that nominee will make it through the Senate (as Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) famously said shortly after the election).

Even if Bush somehow gets a conservative anti-choice justice though the Senate, Supreme court justices have a funny way of thinking for themselves once they are appointed for life to the highest court. Keep in mind that 7 of the 9 current justices are Republican appointees.

So what happens if O’Connor and Stevens retire and Bush somehow manages to get the court packed with enough conservatives to be a threat to Roe v. Wade?

He will still have an uphill climb—Roe v. Wade has been the law of the land for 32 years (today is the anniversary, in fact) and the Supreme Court has historically been reluctant to completely reverse its own decisions. There is a principle that justices have applied in cases concerning Roe v. Wade called “stare decisis” (latin for “to stand by that which is decided”), which means that justices will need overwhelming evidence of a need to overturn the decision, even if they would not have voted for Roe in 1973. For you football fans out there, think of it as the NFL’s replay rule. You need to see something on the replay that definitively contradicts the ruling on the field to reverse a call.

Ok. Now let's assume that all of these unlikely events occur. Bush gets two more conservative justices on the bench, and Roe is overturned 5-4. Abortion is illegal in America, right?

Wrong.

Overturning Roe v. Wade puts abortion rights back in the hands of the individual states (where it was pre-1973). True, several states will outlaw abortion (some even have laws on their books waiting for the court to act), but many will not. Safe, legal abortions will likely remain available via a short car ride to a sympathetic state (or a long car ride if you live in the South).

In my opinion, the only thing that overturning Roe v. Wade will really do is confirm for the rest of the world that we have taken another large step towards theocracy. A quick look at world abortion laws shows that we'd suddenly have more in common with Latin America, the Middle East, Africa, and Southeast Asia than with our traditional European allies. With a few exceptions (heavily Catholic Ireland and Poland) the members of the European Union have moved further and further towards more freedom and choice for women. Thanks to Bush, we're already moving ideologically closer to the developing world.

In a recent poll in the New York Times 43% of Americans expected most forms of abortion to be illegal throughout the United States by the time Bush leaves office. I have to believe that this group is made up of both evangelical Christians and discouraged pro-choice advocates. The truth is, however that there is practially zero chance of criminalizing abortion in all fifty states in the next four years, and there is very little chance that there will be any change to the current law.

I had a co-worker who was an evangelical Christian. He was, however, committed to voting for candidates that he thought would work for better health care, reducing poverty, and other Christian values. He urged his fellow Christians to avoid being "one issue voters" and vote for candidates who would encourage social justice. I urge you to do the same.

In addition to the question of abortion's legality, there is the real question of how to reduce the need for abortion. Despite what the pro-life movement would have you believe, there is no such thing as a politician who is pro-abortion. It's tragic that we live in a world with hard choices that must be made about the quality of life for a mother and an unborn child. I think that every most reasonable people would prefer to live in a world where abortions are not necessary. We do not, however, live in such a world. Abortions will be performed in this country. They were
performed before 1973 (mostly illegally), at a rate of anywhere between 200,000 and 1.2 million a year before Roe v. Wade. If you are serious about reducing the number of abortions, vote for politicians that will fight the root causes that force women to make this choice: Poverty, lack of education (about sex and in general), hopelessness, and, yes, the lack of "family values."

The solution does not lie in limiting a woman's right to choose, but in presenting her with more viable choices for keeping her baby or avoiding pregnancy in the first place. Don't confuse criminalizing a problem with stopping it.

Gay Marriage

Here's the other "wedge issue" that drove evangelicals to the polls in vast numbers. This is, and has always been a purely political manuver by the Bush team. They had no intention of going ahead with a Constitutional amendment to ban Gay marriage. Bush made this clear this week, when he backed off his "committment" to the amendment. Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post summed it up best, I think. An excerpt:

There is no reason to press for the amendment, Bush told two Post reporters on Air Force One, because so many senators are convinced that the Defense of Marriage Act -- which says states that outlaw same-sex unions do not have to recognize such marriages conducted outside their borders -- is sufficient. "Senators have made it clear that so long as DOMA is deemed constitutional, nothing will happen. I'd take their admonition seriously . . . Until that changes, nothing will happen in the Senate."

Are we supposed to believe that this information was unavailable before Election Day? Or that Bush was simply exploiting passions on this hot-button issue without really intending to follow through? If I was an evangelical Christian who felt strongly about this issue, I'd be plenty mad. And liberals can be forgiven for concluding that Bush was just interesting in demonizing them on the issue.

Funny how he can pick up more seats in the House and Senate, and then announce, after the election that he suddenly realized that he couldn't get the amendment through. Come on, Bush LIED to you, evangelical moral values voter. He wanted you to come to the polls and put him in office, and he would say anything to get you there. Anyone who had taken a government class knew from the beginning that the odds of 2/3 of each house of Congress and 3/4 of state legislatures voting for this bigotted amendment were a million to one. Count the blue states, people!

Not only was it unlikely to pass, but wildly unneccesary, as John Edwards pointed out in the VP debate:

I want to make sure people understand that the president is proposing a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage that is completely unnecessary. Under the law of this country for the last 200 years, no state has been required to recognize another state's marriage. Let me just be simple about this. My state of North Carolina would not be required to recognize a marriage from Massachusetts, which you just asked about. There is absolutely no purpose in the law and in reality for this amendment. It's nothing but a political tool. And it's being used in an effort to divide this country on an issue that we should not be dividing America on.

Hmm. Seems like he was right all along.

Please, please, please think about these things before you vote next time. The President, and the Republican party know the political realities here. They know that they don't have a snowball's chance in hell of criminalizing abortion nationwide, or banning gay marriage through a Constitutional amendment. But they rely on the fact that you don't know the facts. Don't let them use your fear, religious views, and homophobia to make you vote against your interests. If you are poor or middle class in this country, you have no excuse for voting for someone who wants to give handouts to corporations and the richest one percent--the "moral" issues that the Republicans embrace will have no effect on you.

To paraphrase John Stewart:

People who live in red states are very worried about terrorism and gay marriage when they don't have any of either. Here in New York, we have both, and we voted overwhelmingly for John Kerry.

Tinfoil out

Tin Foil Hat back on for a second term

Loyal readers (or "reader" as the case many be). I have taken a bit of a hiatus in the last week to contemplate a second term for Mr. Bush. I will be posting twice today about the fears that I have for the next four years, and the things in which I take comfort.

Stay tuned!

" . . . a Confession, a Regret, Something"

"Regrets . . . I've had a few. But then again, too few to mention. "

--Frank Sinatra, "My Way" (written by Paul Anka)

""I don't know if you'd call it a regret, but it certainly is a lesson that a president must be mindful of, that the words that you sometimes say. … I speak plainly sometimes, but you've got to be mindful of the consequences of the words. So put that down. I don't know if you'd call that a confession, a regret, something."

--George W. Bush (written by ???)

The president has had a startling revelation. Only four years after assuming the position of "leader of the free world," (*shudder*) he has discovered that his words have consequences. Perhaps in another four years, he'll say that starting pre-emptive wars on shoddy evidence might have been a mistake that turned world opinion against us.

Sheesh.

This most recent, stunning, sort-of-apology came as the long awaited follow-up to a question that a reporter asked him in an April press conference:

"After 9/11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have you learned from it?

At the time, the President responded with the witty and reassuring:

I wish you would have given me this written question ahead of time, so I could plan for it. (Laughter.) John, I'm sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could have done it better this way, or that way. You know, I just -- I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with an answer, but it hadn't yet [. . .] I hope I -- I don't want to sound like I've made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't -- you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one.

Asked again in the October presidential debates (he has now, it seems, had 6 months to prepare for the follow up question). He replied:

Now, you asked what mistakes. I made some mistakes in appointing people, but I'm not going to name them. I don't want to hurt their feelings on national TV.(LAUGHTER) But history will look back, and I'm fully prepared to accept any mistakes that history judges to my administration, because the president makes the decisions, the president has to take the responsibility.

The only mistakes HE'S made are in appointing others--way to take responsibility George.

So now, finally, almost 10 months after he was asked to discuss even one mistake he's made post-9/11, we get two examples:

He regrets saying about Iraqi insurgents: "Bring 'em on."

'Bring 'em on' is the classic example, when I was really trying to rally the troops and make it clear to them that I fully understood, you know, what a great job they were doing. And those words had an unintended consequence. It kind of, some interpreted it to be defiance in the face of danger. That certainly wasn't the case."

Actually, I think that people were offended by this for two reasons (1) American troops were the people to whom "'em" would be brought. When "'em" were brought, they brought with 'em things like improvised explosive devices, mortors, RPGs. To date, 'em have killed more than 1,400 American soldiers. (2) We have a US president who says things like "Bring 'em on."

He regrets saying that Osama Bin Laden was "Wanted Dead or Alive."

One first wonders if Bush regrets this statement becasue, now, more than three years later, Mr. Bin Laden is still "wanted" and is most assuredly alive. Again, the most distressing thing about this statement was that the leader of the free world (*shudder*) sounds like Steve McQueen when he should be emulating, say FDR or JFK.

Recalling that remark, Bush told the reporters: "I can remember getting back to the White House, and Laura [Bush] said, 'Why did you do that for?' I said, 'Well, it was just an expression that came out. I didn't rehearse it.'

It's nice, I suppose that Bush is finally making half-hearted apologies (?) for the things he says. Maybe now, he'll make some for the things he DOES. If he can't think of any, then he'll be happy to know that the kind folks at the Center for American Progress, have provided him with 100
more to jog his memory. Sadly, I don't think that this is an exhaustive list either.

Tin Foil Out.

Constitution-Schmonstitution

First of all, let me say that I am not one of those people who buys into the "slippery slope" theory. You know what I mean--those who say that we are headed for a police state because we have to wear seatbelts and motorcycle helmets, or those who say that we are headed for anarchy because of woman's right to choose and gay marriage.

I do, however have some strong reservations about where this country is headed under the rule of the Republican party. I was sad to learn, for instance, that Congress recently passed a "doomsday plan," that allows for Congressmen who survive a terrorist attack or natural disaster to run the legislature without a quorum. This seems to violate Article 1, section 5 of the Constitution, and some critics have said, rightly, that this law, provides a broad definition of "catastrophic circumstances" that would allow a small number of legislators to pass laws or declare war in the event that a majority of congressmen could not make it to the capitol. If this law were in place on 9/11/2001, it could be interpreted to mean that once the planes hit the World Trade Center, any congressmen who were in town at the time (even if there were only 2 or 3 of them), could go to the Capitol and start enacting binding legislation.

This alone, while troubling, is not the worst thing that has happened to the Constitution in the last few years. It seems that since the 1960s and 70s, we have been drifiting towards more andmore governmental control of our private lives.

Let me make a historical case:

Pre-9/11 assaults on personal liberty. After a period in the 50s, 60s, and 70s when a number of court cases defined civil liberties--giving much more freedom to individuals and restricting the power of the government to intrude on people's private lives. For instance:

1. Roe v. Wade--Gave women the right to terminate a pregnancy. Also defined the "right to privacy."
2. Miranda v. Arizona--Defined rights for citizens accused of a crime limited police powers to question and search a suspect.
3. Draper v. U.S. --Defined "probable cause" and restricted indescriminate searches of suspects.

This move to limit police powers and expand personal liberty defined the term "free county" to me as a young American citizen. I came to see the United States as a place where freedom was encouraged by the goverment, and checks and balances on police powers kept that freedom from being stolen from us.

At these same time, however, there was a strong undercurrent in the government that was attempting to limit personal liberty. First, the expansive "War on Drugs," declared by Richard Nixon in brought a series of laws and court decisions that, in my view, violate the Constitution and greatly expanded the power of the Federal government. Alexander Shulgin, a former DEA chemist and pro-drug activist, noted in a lecture to students at Berkley University that the 1978 Psychotropic Substances Act, took away a number of civil liberties from suspected drug offenders, including the right to due process.

If you are reentering the country from abroad and the stub of a marijuana joint is found in your coat pocket, the immigration authorities can seize your passport. If I, as a person with sufficient authority, discover that you have a $23,000 savings account in the local Wells Fargo Bank, and I think the money came from drug transactions, I can and will seize this money. I no longer haveto file a criminal charge or even a criminal complaint, and I certainly don't have to wait until you are convicted of an unlawful act in a court of law. I merely have to state that, in my opinion, there is a preponderance of evidence that you have been naughty.

In other words, if you are suspected of a drug offense, you can have your property seized by the goverment, before the trial, and it will not be returned to you, even if you are found innocent of the charges. In fact, the government does not even have to charge you with a crime.

This statue has been upheld countless times in US courts despite (in my opinion) its clear violation of the the Constitution's fifth amendment:

No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I'm not sure how it could be more clear than that.

The War on Drugs has also led us to ignore the ban of the use of the military in civilian law enforcement as stated in the Posse Comitatus statute. We routinely use the military (AWACs surveillance planes, troops and helicopters in Columbia, etc.) to detect drug shipments and bring drug offenders to justice.


9/11. Once police powers were broadly defined for drug offenses, it became easy, via the USA PATRIOT Act to apply the same anti-constitutional logic to suspected "terrorists." The Patriot Act allowed for increased surveillence of US Citizens , and fewer restrictions on detaining US citizens and seizing their assets. USA PATRIOT II, which will soon come before Congress, will expand these powers even more, letting the government hold US citizens indefinitely without a trial, and defining "terrorism" so broadly that civil disobedience could be construed as terrorism.


Also, since 9/11 the Bush administration has attempted to say that torture is permissable when interrogating terrorism suspects and that US citizens can be held indefinitely as "ememy combatants." Thankfully, public outcry and the cooler heads of some judges have reversed some of these abuses. Like I said, I don't believe in the "slippery slope" theory, but let's hope that 9/11 wasn't our Reichstag Fire.

Whether it's drugs, terrorism, or fictional weapons of mass destruction, Republicans have used national crises to chip away at civil rights and justify military or police action. This is nothing new, of course. Abraham Lincoln suspended the right of habeas corpus during the Civil War, FDR approved placing Japanese Americans into internment camps during WWII, but never has it been done so deliberately, with so little provocation. Not to diminish the tragedy of 9/11, but the "War on Terror" (at least with Al Queda) is not even close in scale with the conflicts of the Civil War and World War 2. Yet our liberties continue to be stripped away.

I was in Seattle for the anti-WTO demonstrations in 1999. I watched as people who were lawfully protesting the event were subjected to tear gas, pepper spray, and mass arrests. I saw the creation of an illegal "no protest zone." In that moment, it becme pretty clear to me that Constitutional protections do not protect us from abuse. We may be able to go to court AFTER the abuses have happened, and seek damages, but at the moment of protest, the government can do pretty much anything. The Constitution only protects us if our leaders respect and use it, otherwise, they can create laws that violate our most fundamental liberties.

We have an administration that seeks to curtail civil liberties at every turn. The only thing that we can do is be diligent and yell and scream like crazy when they try to take away our rights.

-Tin Foil Out

Democratic Senators to Challenge Ohio's Electors

It will be interesting to see how big a splash this makes. Several sources (including the Brad Blog) are reporting that at least six Senators have joined John Conyers' challenge of Ohio Electoral college votes:

Senator Barbara Boxer will stand to challenge, and will be supported by at least the following Democratic Senators: Hilary Clinton (NY), Harry Ried (NV), Barack Obama (IL), Dick Durbin (IL) and Christopher Dodd (CT). [from The Brad Blog]

Notably absent is Sen. John Kerry (boo!).

So, as I discussed in a previous post, this seems to be largely a symbolic gesture--since the outcome is decided by a simple majority of both houses of Congress (and this majority is, indeed, made up of simpletons). But, if it generates enough press, it might at the very least tarnish Bush's "mandate," and in the best case scenario, might create enough public outcry to get rid of partisan election officials and paperless electronic voting machines.There have been reports (that I'm not taking too seriously) about Republicans being concerned that absences by members of the House and Senate today, might:

1. Prevent a quorum. Delaying the certification of election results until there are enough Congressman there to vote, or
2. Actually give the Democrats a majority of votes in Senate--enough to disqualify Ohio's electors

Even in the "in your wildest dreams" scenario, all that could happen is that Ohio's electors are not counted, and then, I believe, the election goes to the House of Representatives (Bush wins no matter how this plays out).

Kind fun, though. No? It's the first sign of life from the Democrats (except Kerry--boo!) since the election.