Thoughts - FINALLY!!! Someone states the obvious.

The following is an excerpt from Dan Froomkin's May 24th column on the Washington Post's website. Finally, someone states the obvious. The following quote by Mr. Viguerie states the theme of this entire blog:

"On Sunday, Richard A. Viguerie, one of the architects of the conservative movement, published an opinion piece in The Washington Post decrying Bush's betrayal of the conservative base and calling for conservatives to stop giving money to the Republican National Committee.

"Viguerie followed up his article with a Live Online discussion , in which he wrote: 'It is not entirely true that Bush has betrayed everyone. The 1% of his voter support that came from big business corporate America - he's been truthful to them. They have gotten the legislation, the appointments; I can't think of any issue that they have strongly supported where Bush has opposed them.'"

HALLELUAH! PRAISE BE TO REASON AND LOGIC!!!
BUT WAIT! There's more... MORE?!

From Mr. Viguerie's column in the Washington Post on May 23rd:

"As long as Democrats controlled Congress or the White House, Republicans could tell conservatives they deserved support because of what they would do, someday. Now we know what they do when they have control. Their agenda comes from Big Business, not from grass-roots conservatives."

Now, plenty of liberal types have been saying this sort of thing for a while now, but this observation, that W. panders to big bidness almost exclusively, has never been stated in the mainstream media, nor has it ever been uttered in mixed circles (read: non-liberal sources).

Even though I totally disagree with Mr. Viguerie's assessment of where the country should be heading, he hit the nail on the head on where the country has been heading for the last 5 1/2 years.

Finally, whew...

Thoughts - Immigration, Shmimmigration

So you want to protect the border? You want to stop illegal immigration? Huh? Tough guy! Well guess what? I have a solution for that too.

From the lesson learned from Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto's success combating the Shining Path, legalize the illegal activities that push normal people into breaking the law!

"Legalize illegal immigration? What tha..."

It's true. Instead of all this worker visa baloney, make it simple. Close the freakin' border with a big ass wall or fence or lasers, or whatever, and allow 500,000 south of the border folks apply for and get granted entry based on our own criteria.

Right now we allow about 5,000 people to immigrate legally. If people could pay a fee and apply we could screen them for diseases, ties to terror, ticklish spots, etc., and use the fee to maintain the border, process the people, and buy those fancy green pants the border patrol wears.

Right now about 700,000 estimated folks march across the open border. Legalize, screen, and have them pay to come in. We are not going to stop them. The sweet, sweet honey of hard work for minimum wage labor is just too damn tempting. We need them and they need us. Don't stop it, legalize it.

Hernando in Peru, showed the poor people there that they were capitalists, not communists. He convinced the government to legalize the squatting and vending, and the like, and guess what? Communist rebel group, the Shining Path, went kaput. No shit. Heard of them in the last 7 or 10 years? Kaput!

The big difference here is allowing for economic immigration, rather than our normal policy of allowing only political immigration. We have the largest 1st world and 3rd world border in the world. We need to think outside the box a little.

Legalize it. I'm not kidding.

News and Readings - FINALLY! Some others have noticed it too.

Our President's entire political policy playbook revolves around one axiom: money, money, who's got the money? The current, current scandal for this White House is their support for a United Arab Emirates company taking control of several ports. There is bipartisan blowback from the Congress and a flurry of reflections from various elements in the media. Finally, people are noticing the reality of our current government.

Let's be perfectly clear here, I do not believe for one second that the President's position on this Arab company is about protecting some idea of "free-markets", as some columnists have complained. Truth be told, this President wouldn't know a capitalist from a tree-hugging hippie. Imagine if a capitalist looked at our current market policies and saw deliberate attempts to keep relevant information from both parties in a transaction, as in pesticide use, carbon monoxide in meats, or the health effects of plastics, etc. Imagine if a capitalist reviewed the trade policy with China. One nation is allowed to break every trade policy/law/agreement ever written while the other party sticks to theirs and ignores the oversight, the capitalist would be horrified. Or, if a capitalist looked at our financial markets, with its "lassez-faire", or hands off, economic approach to market management on the policy side, but the vast and bloated "corporate welfare" programs on the market side, they would be aghast. There is a concept of equity in capitalism, not oversight and one-sidedness.

This system we're in, this system that the President promotes, is not capitalism, it isn't free market, it isn't promoting freedom or democracy. What it is, is finding ways to promote the specific interests of specific businesses. That is called, "special interest." It is, by definition, the bane of capitalism and it will be the downfall of our nation unless it is curtailed.

I've written extensively on this with citations and examples throughout this blog. See "President, MBA" or "Courts are the last pillar of Democracy to fall" or "The One Fact" for more detailed descriptions of our nation's true endeavors.

P.S. If you believe that this issue of the Arab company owning ports is steeped in racism, then I say that it is a little naive to think that a company can be responsible for the beliefs and actions of every single employee. Bringing an element that may act as a conduit for terrorist elements is something that should be done with forethought. We should be sure that security can not be compromised by any employees of a company with ties like this one has to a country like UAE. Let's be a little realistic here. We're not talking internment camps, we're talking about double checking the impact a whole set of new employees will have over our inter-continental shipping operations.

If other countries like China and Russia have bought these types of ports without consideration to oversight then that should be addressed too. Chinese and Russian black markets deal in horrible businesses like trade in people, both illegal immigration and slavery. Perhaps this UAE element is just a part of a larger need for oversight.

Thoughts - It's not the cartoon - stupid!

Is someone going to try and tell me that the Danish cartooners were the first Westerners to draw a likeness of the Prophet Mohammed?

The whole riot/aftermath/freak out session we've been living through is clearly born from a deeper frustration. The cartoon was the catalyst. Just the way a cartoon uses hyperbole and irony to make a point, these cartoons themselves have become an ironic straw that broke the camel's back. Our mistake is focusing on the last straw and ignoring the bales of hay that were there before.

Now I'm not saying that this is a conscious effort to use the cartoons as some spark. It is simply an issue that connects Muslims around the world and gives them a righteous cause to rally around.

We need to figure out what they're generally pissed about or this whole violent reaction is going to be WAY worse when something very serious comes along.

Are they frustrated because of our closeness with Israel? Are they confused because their extreme right wing has been telling them that we're going to destroy them and we go and occupy and remake 2 Muslim countries? Are they frustrated with our heavy-handed approach to our problems in the Muslim world? Are they frustrated that our foreign policy seems to be more about our economic best interests, rather than some idealistic notions of democracy and freedom? Or what? What else?

If we don't find out we're going to put off a deeper and more emotional reaction when the next issue comes up. I predict it won't be on the funny pages.

Action! - Write your representatives!

There's a lot of talk out there about "impeachment" or "investigations" regarding our current administration. Well, what about these "WAR POWERS" the president has? Now, I know our President is really not supposed to be like a king, but is it OK if he's like some superpowered warrior?

Remember, we don't investigate this President and you need an investigation before you can convene an impeachment. What a can of worms we'd be opening if we investigated this Administration. We would have to investigate:

- Taxpayer dollars for propaganda
- Rendition
- Torture
- Pre-war intelligence
- Taxpayer dollars for religious causes
- Energy policy influences
- Plame/CIA leak
- Domestic Surveillance

Here are eight suspect activities. I'll bet many readers can think of a couple more.

Since investigating any of this seems to be impossible while the Republicans control both houses of Congress, maybe we should push to have Bush's war powers rescinded? He's pretty clearly using them in very controversial ways.

If the members of Congress investigate one of the issues listed above they may be forced to impeach, a pretty major step. If they censure the President, or clip his wings some other way, then they'll really be sending him a message. But, if they end his war powers, which are certainly not meant to be indefinite, and can be easily backed up with quotes straight from the Constitution, then they're just saying that we don't buy the "long war" or "war on terror" connection with the occupation of Iraq, anymore. And, maybe, they'd be sending a message that he's abused his powers. It's not impeachment, but more like having a few toys taken out of his sandbox.

There need to be some smaller victories against Bush before the numerous investigations could begin, anyway. This would show the American people that reasonable members of Congress believe that the President has been wrong on some issues. That is a major step. Congress was Bush's rubber stamp until the 90-9 vote in the Senate against the White House's view on torture. That was just a couple of months ago.

With the election cycle about to start getting heated up Republicans are going to have their support for Bush tested. Already, in the Wall Street Journal 2 days ago, there was a story (subscription required so I won't link) about a challenge to Republican moderate Christopher Shays, of CT. His opponent is anti-war and is going to run on the idea that Shays supported the President too much. If politicians are going to have to prove their distance from Bush to win their races then Democrats need to offer them the chance to vote on issues that Bush will hate. Dems only need about 14 votes in the House and 5 votes in the Senate to swing.

As for the obvious response that goes something like, "How can you ask to keep the tools of war from our commander-in-chief during a crucial time? Are you a traitor!?" Well, the war in Iraq has no ties to terrorists. You can say all you want that Iraq and Al-Qaeda were linked, but there is no proof and waging a war without proof is bad. We have now proven that Saddam was not a threat to us in any sense of the word. In fact, I still haven't heard what UN sanctions he was in violation of, since we have proven that he was disarmed. The war was a war of choice. The President chose to go to war and then retains special powers after engaging the war. That's called double-dipping or self-serving or having your cake and eating it too or something like that. He can't start a war no other leader would have started and then lean on the powers of war for excusing his reaching for more power. It's like he's trying to exploit some power grab multiplier some hedgetrading program came up with. Why have we allowed this to go on this long? Are we asleep?

How about if you think of a moderate Republican and write them to RESCIND THE WAR POWERS granted to POTUS? It is a little more fun than it sounds!

www.house.gov
www.senate.gov

News and Readings - Bush goes green?

Everyone is talking about the President's "might as well face it you're addicted to oil" comments from the State of the Union the other day. It's not surprising that he'd make his accomplishments in alternative energies sound greater than they are, nor is it remarkable that he doesn't really mean the things he says about getting away from "Mid East" oil. What's significant is that his people are distancing him from those comments THE VERY NEXT DAY!

Now, I'm no paid journalist, but when comments like his get so much attention, why doesn't the backpedalling get the same?

From Dan Froomkin's column (who?) on the Washington Post online:

Kevin G. Hall writes for Knight Ridder Newspapers: "One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn't mean it literally.

"What the president meant, they said in a conference call with reporters, was that alternative fuels could displace an amount of oil imports equivalent to most of what America is expected to import from the Middle East in 2025. . . .

"Asked why the president used the words 'the Middle East' when he didn't really mean them, one administration official said Bush wanted to dramatize the issue in a way that 'every American sitting out there listening to the speech understands.' The official spoke only on condition of anonymity because he feared that his remarks might get him in trouble."

H. Josef Hebert writes for the Associated Press that Bodman and Hubbard "struggled Wednesday in an attempt to explain what Bush had meant by 'replacing' Middle East oil. . . .

"On Wednesday, Hubbard and Bodman acknowledged that Persian Gulf oil may, in fact, not be replaced at all, even if overall oil imports were to drop because of the increased availability of alternative motor fuels."

Bush's penchant for contradicting policies and statements continues to DAZZLE!

Thoughts - For Bush, as much as he hates to admit it, Polls Matter

President Bush's State of the Union speech was, for him a good one, but for his opponents it was even better.

Bush is in a pickle. With his approval ratings hovering around 40% he finds himself in a situation where he NEEDS to be closer to 50% by summer or his presidency may not finish its term. If Bush hits the major campaign season with sub 40% approval he won't be asked to campaign by fellow Republicans. With political landmines looming like an indictment of Rove, the Enron trial, a tougher and more critical media, his dance card just may be empty.

Come summer, if Republicans are shunning Bush's help, Democrats could push for any of the several investigations that loom over Bush's presidency. If incumbent Republicans are going to be pressured to prove how far away from the President they are in order to win their elections (especially in key blue state races) then the Dems might get the very few swing votes they need to investigate any of the following: taxpayer dollars to pay for propaganda; the intelligence failures leading to the war; the Plame/CIA agent outing; domestic surveillance; torture accountability - how high does it really go?; and/or could the government have done more to prevent 9-11 OR done more since to implement 9-11 panel suggestions. Did I miss some? Several of these issues could lead to the "I" word (impeachment, best if whispered).

If any of these investigations start BEFORE the elections in November the potential for one of the houses of Congress to fall increases dramatically. If one house of congress falls this president's last 2 years will be known as the investigation years. They'll make the Whitewater/Lewinsky investigation look like a commercial, a distraction, compared to the investigations into attacks on the Constitution on which this administration has perpetrated.

The President can say that he doesn't watch the polls, but if he doesn't, the Dems could get a few swing votes and roll him right back to Crawford.

Thoughts - I wish Bush would have one. State of the Union 2006

"But our enemies and our friends can be certain: The United States will not retreat from the world, and we will never surrender to evil." GWB - SoTU, 2006

WHEW! Boy, am I glad we got that cleared up! Word on the street is that evil is in town for the Superbowl and that a certain someone might just be signing over our surrender to him while he's here. But Bush cleared that right up. There will be NO retreat from the world (our spaceships just won't fit all the Rocky Mountains, duh) and we will not surrender to evil.

The State of the Union is nonsense! I mean strong!

(P.S. Bush got a standing ovation for the above quote. Which state is going to talk secession first?)

Thoughts - I have one! Campaign Finance Reform

I actually have a solution to our problems. An idea regarding campaign financing that would be easy to implement and might actually work.

"Yeah, right.", you say. Hear me out.

How about, now open your mind just a little, how about if every campaign contribution were anonymous? If you want to contribute you put a check in the mail with the person or party on the "memo" line and simply write on the envelope, Campaigns, State Capital, State. The checks go to a central clearing house that compiles and distributes the money at no cost to the candidate. The money gets distributed weekly to the candidate with no record of from whom the money came.

The candidate, nor his staff, can ever touch a check. The people can tell the candidate they donated but the candidate will never know for sure and therefore can not know that the money is for some specific position. Each candidate will hear, "Oh, we donated SOOOO much money to you, we're SUCH big supporters." But the candidate will simply not know the truth, thus making it hard for them to vigorously advocate on an issue due solely to money.

This type of system would be seasonal and therefore not terribly expensive to run. Existing employees from the state treasury could be assigned to the work during campaign season. We could even limit campaign season. It would be FAR less expensive than proposals to publicly fund campaigns AND if it works, we could eliminate public matching dollars AND, eventually, we could eliminate limits on personal contributions. Think about it.

This simple system could actually lead to less regulations and less problems. It will certainly lead to less "quid pro quo" type behavior since the candidate can never be sure from where his money comes!

People and lobbyists will be forced to donate to candidates due to their convictions and policy statements rather than because they've worked out a deal based on a financial transaction.

P.S. Of course, a big part of the recent scandals with DeLay, Abramoff, etc. came from payments to entities other than campaign funds, like personal charities or PACs. In some cases the candidate's family members are paid employees of the entity. These could simply have efficiency requirements, such as a 20% administration fee maximum. So, 80 cents of every single dollar must be doled out to the charitble or poltical cause for which the organization was created. The politician's family members could still get a paycheck but they'd better have some semblance of efficiency.

News and Readings - Diebold: the story that just won't get going

We have known that the Diebold voting system has very serious problems. Yet the media doesn't touch the story and most people have no idea what the problems seem to be. I live in a state that uses the Diebold system in every polling place and nobody knows who Diebold is nor why they might want to. These articles I've linked are over 2 years old.

Democracy is soon going to be read as "them-all-crazy".

It all started on a dark, stormy night...on Salon.com, as far as I know.

"I got a call from one of our more brilliant computer programmers -- he's got quite a few advanced degrees -- and he called me on a weekend and he said, "I want you to go to your computer." And he walked me through it just like a support tech does -- open this panel, click this, do this, do that. And as I'm doing this it was appalling how easy it was. Once you know the steps, a 10-year-old can rig an election. In fact it's so easy that one of our activists, Jim March in California, put together a "rig-a-vote" CD. He's been going around showing it to elections officials, and now this CD has been making its way to Congress members."

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/09/23/bev_harris/

You'll probably have to watch a commerical to view the whole article.

Also click on this link for the ORIGINAL, origanal story (apparently).