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.

Happy Holidays

Hi all. I've taken a bit of a break, but I resolve that after the new year, I'll be back to daily postings. We've had a revolving door of family and houseguests for the holidays and the it has left the tinfoil crew a bit tired. Some final thoughts from 2004 to leave you with:

• Coverage of the Tom Feeney (R-Florida) vote rigging scandal is starting to heat up on the Brad Blog.

• Keith Olbermann and others are reporting that Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan) will challenge the Ohio electors, and is looking for a senator to join him. It seems to be a largely symbolic gesture, since the challenge is decided by a majority vote in each house of Congress. It makes me wonder . . . if Kerry had won Ohio (and the election), could Republicans have used a challenge to invalidate the vote, and put Bush in office? It seems to me that we should have a better system than letting the majority party decide if there was fraud. I guess there's the Supreme Court, but we all know how that turned out in 2000.

• Lastly, the Tsumani is a terrible thing. Revolting. It has remined me that for all of our technology, we are really just (relatively) hairless monkeys that can't do squat if nature decides to put the smack down. As of this posting, Olbermann is projecting that the death toll could rise to nearly half a million once authorities get into inaccessible, currently unexplored regions to assess the damage. Half a million people in a matter of hours . . . That might be the deadliest day in human history. Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings together were responsible for 110,000 deaths. The firebombing of Dresden, over several days, killed upwards of 200,000.

Folks, be good to each other. We're all we've got.

Tinfoil out

American Academy of Achievement

In talking about the Reagan years in a previous post, I became nostalgic for one of the few times in my life that actually touched world events . . . I attended the 1989 American Academy of Achievement conference in San Francisco in the summer of my senior year in high school. I went as a Junior Achievement representative, and was billed in the "yearbook" that they distributed as the "Ambassador of Free Enterprise." I know, I know. . . I was 18, what do you want?

Anyway, the American Academy of Achievement is the coolest thing in the Universe (imho), because they hook up "promising" high school students with the movers and shakers of our times--in 1989, I got to personally chat with Jim Henson, George Lucas, Tom Selleck, Oprah, Tom Clancy (asshole), Tom Brokaw (nice, but too well tanned), and Diane Sawyer, who was amazing.

At the conference, I met Lawrence E. Walsh, independent prosecutor of the Iran-Contra hearings. He sat behind me at a speech by Tom Selleck in the dining room of Alcatraz . We were told it was the first "civilian" meal there since it had been re-occupied by the federal government after Native Americans asserted their rights to the land. I asked him what I thought was a simple question, based on the news coverage I had been watching: "Do you think that President Reagan knew about the money being transferred from the Iranians to the Contras?"

He said: "Yes, son, he probably did."

Wow!

The funniest moment of the conference for me was at the final awards ceremony where each celebrity in attendence got a "golden plate award." Steve Wynn (owner of the Mirage casino in Las Vegas) was giving his acceptance speech and was clearly, um, how to put it delicately . . . smashed. He mumbled something like, "You kids, are great. Great kids . . ." for about 10 minutes, and turned to his right to return to his seat.

Which would have been fine, except that the podium was at the end of a raised platform (sort of like a model's runway), so when he turned to his right, he stepped out into empty space and fell about 6 feet to the floor.

The audience gasped. Luckily for Wynn, the nearest celebrity on the dias was none other than Colin Powell who lept down to help Wynn, dusted him off, and helped him get back to his seat.

My friend Elisa, who is--to this day--one of the smartest people I've ever met, leaned over to me and said, "See how the military industrial complex supports the capitalists?"

Tin Foil Out

Disbelief Fatigue

"I've lost all capacity for disbelief. I'm not sure that I could even rise to a little gentle skepticism"

--Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead

I'm going to venture a guess. If you're reading this (I realize that this is a big "if"), then you probably are suffering from, at least, a mild case of what I'm going to call "disbelief fatigue." This is a condition that arises from being liberal in America through 4 years of the Bush administration, and living through thousands of dishonest, scandalous, and even criminal abuses of power by the Bush team, fighting hard to get him out of office, and . . .

. . . watching him get re-elected.

It's getting harder and harder (for me) to get passionately excited about recent Bush-related scandals, because:

• Bush has already been accused of lying to the country and the united nations, torturing prisoners, violating constitutional protections, and rigging the last election.
• Rather than resigning in disgrace, he's talking about a mandate.

I swear, any one of these scandals would have been the end of Clinton (after all of the hunting, can you believe a blow job brought him down?). The press called Reagan the "Teflon President" because no scandal would stick to him, what does that make Bush II, the "frictionless surface president?"

I still think that Bush is headed for a reckoning in the next four years, but I can't imagine the scandal it will take to bring him down. Then again, given the short attention span and sensationalism of TV news, it would probably need to be a sex scandal.

That said, I would like to enlist someone (male, preferably) to go to Washington D.C. and have elicit sex with W, take pictures, and walk over the Washington Post and turn them in. I know it's a difficult (and yucky) mission, but it would really help America. Come to think of it, give Cheaney a little love too. Oh, then you'd have to get Dennis Hastert . . . oh forget it.

Too many Republicans in the line of succession.

Sigh.

Tin Foil Out

My Favorite Bush Associate

I know you'll find this unbelievable, but there is one resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave that I like and respect. You can find a short video here about his attempts to join the Bush Cabinet.

It's too bad he didn't get appointed. He would have done infinitely better than, say, Rumsfeld. He might be a good candidate for the open Homeland Security post. He's qualified.

Tin Foil Out

Intelligent Design

Looks like the Scopes Monkey Trial didn't settle it. The ACLU has brought a lawsuit against a Pennsylvania school district that is requiring teachers to tell students that "intelligent design" is a viable alternative to the theory of evolution. Basically, this theory asserts that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by an intelligent being (read: God).

I'm not opposed to people believing in God. I'm not opposed to people believing in creationism (if you want to be stupid, who am I to stop you?). I am opposed to holding a science class for kids that teaches them that the theory of natural selection and evolution, which has been accepted as mainstream science for more than a hundred years, is flawed, has been disproved, and that an alternative has been found.

That's just not true.

Next thing you know, they'll be lobbying to tell students that "thee" and "thou" are legitimate modern English alternatives to "you" because they are in the King James Bible.

Folks, theres a place for this crap, and it's called private school.

Also, I have always had numerous problems with creationism, stemming from my own experience. I was born with a blood disorder called "hereditary spherocytosis." Basically, a certain percentage of my blood cells are strangely shaped (like spheres, not doughnuts as in "normal" people). My spleen decided that these oddly shaped blood cells were invading bodies and started destroying them. Eventually, this led to severe anemia, and they had to remove my spleen to keep it from killing me.

"Intelligent design," my ass! One of my organs was trying to kill me. This is the way I was "designed." God didn't even have an extended warranty. Luckily, science saved me.

Another thing that I've never been able to grasp is that scientific fact is rarely irreconsilable with religious ideas--this is true for "intelligent design" and modern evolutionary theory. I can't believe that people who supposedly have such faith in God, can believe that He (or She) couldn't have started the ball rolling with a good "big bang" and watched the huge chain of events unfold in wonderfully random ways to produce the disorganized mess of world we have now. Maybe "God's plan" was to set in motion a process that could have (and did) bring forth human life. Still sounds pretty impressive to me. I guess that doesn't jibe with the whole Adam and Eve, clay, ribs, and snake stories, though.

Let's keep religion out of public schools.

Tin Foil Out

Unemployed Kerry Staffer

Just a quick post today to introduce the riveting reading that is:

http://www.unemployedkerrystaffer.blogs.com/

A blog by . . . well . . . an unemployed Kerry staffer. Having recently been unemployed, and obsessed with getting Kerry into the White House, I can relate to the guy.

Tin Foil Out

Armageddon Conspiracy?

Ok, I realize that I'm actually going to have to put a tin foil hat on if I keep writing stories like this one, but . . .

I think that the Republicans are TRYING to destroy the world. To this point, I had assumed that they were incompetent (in my less generous moments), or at least that they were so beholden to corporations, oil companies, and defense contractors that they were ruining the planet as a tragic of side effect of the pursuit of money and power. Now, I'm not so sure.

Let me 'splain:

Ecomonic Armageddon

In a previous post, I talked about the mammoth deficits that Bush was running up, and the precarious position in which it puts Social Security. I blamed Bush for being incompetent. Now I am beginning to suspect that he might have a touch of evil genius in him.

I think that Bush is trying to bankrupt the federal government, so that we will have no choice but to eliminate "big-goverment" entitlements like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The tax cuts and deficit spending may be calculated to force us to abandon these programs.

I know what you're saying, and, for the record, the sources of information for this post are not my dog and the voices in my head. They are as follows:

In his address to the nation about the government shutdown in 1995, Bill Clinton was pretty explicit in saying that he thought that Gingrich and his cronies were intentionally trying to undermine social programs:

. . . the Republicans are following a very explicit strategy announced last April by Speaker Gingrich, to use the threat of a government shutdown to force America to accept their cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, to accept their cuts in education and technology and the environment.

Backing that up, NY Times columnist and Princeton Professor Paul Krugman wrote this in 2003:

It's no secret that right-wing ideologues want to abolish programs Americans take for granted. But not long ago, to suggest that the Bush administration's policies might actually be driven by those ideologues — that the administration was deliberately setting the country up for a fiscal crisis in which popular social programs could be sharply cut — was to be accused of spouting conspiracy theories.

He cites an editiorial in the not-exactly-liberal-at-all Financial Times, stating:

Proposing to slash federal spending, particularly on social programs, is a tricky electoral proposition, but a fiscal crisis offers the tantalizing prospect of forcing such cuts through the back door.

Even REPUBLICANS think that Bush is intentionally bankrupting the government to get rid of entitlements. Peter G. Peterson, Nixon's Commerce secretary, wrote in a 2003 article:

For some Republicans, all this tax-cutting talk is a mere tactic. I know several brilliant and partisan Republicans who admit to me, in private, that much of what they say about taxes is of course not really true. But, they say, it's the only way to reduce government spending: chop revenue and trust that the Democrats, like Solomon, will agree to cut spending rather than punish our children by smothering them with debt.

This clever apologia would be more believable if Republicans — in all matters other than cutting the aggregate tax burden — were to speak loudly and act decisively in favor of deficit reductions. But it's hard to find the small-government argument persuasive when, on the spending front, the Republican leaders do nothing to reform entitlements, allow debt-service costs to rise along with the debt and urge greater spending on defense -- and when these three functions make up over four-fifths of all federal outlays.

Makes an evil kind of sense I guess. If you were married and your spouse went out one day and bought a very expensive car against your wishes, and you were saving for, say, a new dinette set, you could get him/her to get rid of it by spending all of your savings and running up huge amounts of debt. Your spouse wouldn't be able to make the payments, and the car would be repossessed. Once you managed to get rid of the car, you could pay off the debt and make sure that the remainder of both of your salaries went into an account that you controlled, so you could spend it on your dinette set (If you could avoid absolute financial ruin and a divorce).

An aggressive plan to be sure. Horribly tough on your credit rating (not to mention your marriage), but, if you played it right, you might just get what you want. That's the kind of a game of economic "chicken" that Bush is engaged in: ruining the US's finiancial standing in the world to get rid of some New Deal and Great Society programs that neo-conservatives find distasteful.

ACTUAL Armageddon

Alright. I'm writing this section while wearing my tinfoil hat. It has also been recently reported that Bush and Co. might not just be planning an "Economic Armageddon"--They might be actively working to create a REAL one.

Stay with me . . .

My partner-in-blog, SJ, brought some disturbing facts to my attention in her comments to this post:

It seems that some sects of evangelical Christians are firmly convinced that the end of the world is coming soon, and that this is the last generation of humans before the "rapture," when God will call the faithful to heaven, punish the "evil doers" and pretty much end the world. This story is told in the hugely popular Left Behind books, which have sold an astonishing 56 million copies (Please do not read this as an endorsement). SJ, noted that this idea has entered the mainstream, and many commentators (including Bill Moyers) are concerned that Republicans, and the evangelicals that elect them, are destroying the environment because, if the rapture is coming, why bother to preserve the earth for future generations?

*Shudder*

I'll add to that. If the rapture is coming, why not make it come a bit faster (waiting for Armageddon sucks) by starting unnecessary wars with Muslims, letting the Palestinians get clobbered by Israel, calling everyone we don't like "the Axis of Evil" and turning a blind eye as they acquire nuclear weapons. Everyone knows that there are "signs" in the book of revelation that indicate that the end is near. Why not create them? The ultimate self-fulfilling prophecy.

Before you call the men in white coats with the butterfly nets to come get me, I'm not the only one who thinks these things.

I urge you to read the Moyers lecture, he puts it pretty succinctly, and you should also read a great article that Moyers references by Glenn Scherer of Grist, that gives a basic history of the evangelical apocalyptic movement.

Friends, the end is nigh . . . If we can't stop these lunatics from ruining the world. I say, if they want to have their apocalypse, they should have the decency to have it somewhere where it won't bother us. I hear Mr. Bush is keen on Mars. That would be a great place to hold a rapture.

Tinfoil out

Error Rates in the 2004 Election Results

News Flash:

Not only are the politicians screwed-up-cheaters, but the voting methods we use make determining a clear winner in close races impossible.

My good friend Dr. Philip Howard of the University of Washington and his colleagues at www.campaignaudit.org have produced a study that examines the margins of victories in the Presidental, Senatorial, and Gubenatorial races in the 2004 election, and compares them to the known "error rates" of various voting technologies. The surprising conclusion is that, since all voting technologies "lose" a certain number of votes (some more than others, between 1%-2%) , several close races can never be decided with certainty, since the margin of victory was within the error rate. The authors of the study conclude that:

There are, however several states where the margin of technology error was
higher than the margin of victory for a presidential candidate (Iowa, New Mexico, New Hampshire), the margin of victory for a gubernatorial candidate (Washington), or the margin of victory for a Senate candidate (Florida, Kentucky, South Dakota).

This is a non-partisan study, but only one of the "questionible" races put a Democrat in office (Kerry, narrowly, in New Hampshire). No comment on that, except to say that Mr. Bush seems to pull out all of the close ones . . . Hmm.

It boggles the mind, that in 2004, we can't count votes accurately, and we don't seem to care. The question that I'm left with after reading this study is: Fraud aside, what can we do to make vote counts more accurate? Is there a magical system that everyone should use? Should we, at the very least, mandate the systems with the smallest error rates: optical scan (1.2%) and Datavote punch cards (1.0%) ? More hanging chads anyone?

Tin Foil Out

More on Tax cuts and flip flopping

George Bush cracks me up (the same way that the iceberg cracked up the Titanic).

He made a huge campaign issue out of Kerry's alleged "flip-flops," and of course, he never changes his mind (except on the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and the 9/11 Commission--which he opposed and then took credit for). Bush has proven to be a resolute (read: bullheaded) leader on one issue: Tax cuts. Regardless of the economic circumstances or world events, we apparently still needed a $1.9 trillion dollar tax cut.

Tax Cuts to "Give Back" the Surplus
When he was running for President in 2000, Bush told us in his first debate with Al Gore, that we needed the tax cuts, because the country had been so prosperous in at the end of the 1990s that we should give some of the money back to the people (Sigh, remember prosperity?) CNN reported Bush's comments:

"I want to send one-quarter of the federal budget surplus back to the people who pay the bills," he said. " Of the surplus, which some government accounting entities have predicted could amount to more than $4 trillion over the next decade, Bush said of the $25 trillion the government takes in the course of the next 10 years -- including the surplus -- "surely, we can afford to give back 5 percent of what comes into the treasury."

First, imagine what kind of shape we'd be in with a $4 Trillion dollar surplus, instead of a $500 Billion dollar deficit every year (Sigh). Then note that Bush's main motivation for the Tax cuts lies in the fact that the goverment has a large surplus and should give part of it back.

Tax Cuts to "Stimulate the Economy"
Shortly after his innauguration, with the "Bush recession" beginning, and the prospect of large surplusses dwindling, Bush insisted that we needed those same tax cuts to stave off the recession. Again, reported by CNN, Bush said:

"For several months, our economic growth has been in doubt and now it may be in danger," the president said. "A warning light is flashing on the dashboard of the economy, and we can't just drive on."

CNN's Ian Christopher McCaleb goes on to comment that: "The plan closely mirrors the cuts that Bush made the centerpiece of his presidential campaign, including reducing income-tax rates, easing the marriage penalty, phasing out the estate tax and boosting tax breaks for charitable contributions. "

So, let me get this straight--we need the tax cuts when times are good, AND we need the tax cuts when times are bad. They are "magic" tax cuts, apparently, that work for whatever economic state the country's is in.

Tax Cuts for the Post 9/11 Economy
After 9/11, Bush couldn't possibly advocate for these same tax cuts, in the face of an expensive war (or two) and a devestating economic downturn. Could he? You bet he could:

In his 2002 State of the Union, Bush prouldly trumpets the budget increases he's proposed while at the same time, lobbying for those SAME tax cuts:

" Our men and women in uniform deserve the best weapons, the best equipment and the best training and they also deserve another pay raise. My budget includes the largest increase in defense spending in two decades, because while the price of freedom and security is high, it is never too high. Whatever it costs to defend our country, we will pay. "

The next priority of my budget is to do everything possible to protect our citizens and strengthen our nation against the ongoing threat of another attack.

Time and distance from the events of September the 11th will not make us safer unless we act on its lessons. America is no longer protected by vast oceans. We are protected from attack only by vigorous action abroad and increased vigilance at home.

My budget nearly doubles funding for a sustained strategy of homeland security, focused on four key areas: bioterrorism; emergency response; airport and border security; and improved intelligence. "

After making such proud statements about his budget increases, he makes a call for making the tax cuts permanent:

Good jobs depend on sound tax policy. Last year, some in this hall thought my tax relief plan was too small, some thought it was too big. But when those checks arrived in the mail, most Americans thought tax relief was just about right. Congress listened to the people and responded by reducing tax rates, doubling the child credit and ending the death tax. For the sake of long-term growth, and to help Americans plan for the future, let's make these tax cuts permanent.

To sum up: These "magic" tax cuts are good for America during prosperous times, recessions, and times of war. The work equally well when you have a surplus, and when you are increasing the budget by record amounts.

The good news is--well, there really isn't any. Bush's bullheaded insistance on the SAME TAX CUTS, regardless of circumstances has left the United States in serious trouble--Running budget deficts of 35%-40% each year of his presidency, and leaving us $7.5 trillion in the hole. 9/11 and the economic problems and extra spending associated with it simply exaserbated the problem, and Bush made no adjustment to his already short sighted policy.

Way to not flip-flop George!

Sigh.

Tin Foil Out

Howard Kurtz is back

Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post has been taking a break for the past two weeks from his Media Notes Extra online column. Thankfully, he's back writing again. It's an excellent "behind the scenes" media blog that summarizes and comments on most of the punditry on the issues of the day.