Political Games - Where the fuck’s the reset button?

The Free Market is bullshit. It doesn’t exist. Just more evidence for this is a recent decision by Circuit City to fire more experienced and thus higher paid workers and then have them reapply for their old jobs at a reduced wage. It’s the Free Market in action! As echidne notes, however, this is total fucking bullshit:

Circuit City could have made similar savings by first firing its CEO, Philip J. Schooner, who earned around 2.17 million dollars last year and then letting him reapply at the “market” rate for CEOs.

Does anyone honestly believe that a CEO’s job and the Board and all the super-wealthy directors of the company are subject to the Free Market? Are their wages? Fuck no. There are millions upon millions of white collar workers in this country, but how many CEOs? This implies high supply, low demand. This should drive down wages, according to neoclassical economic theory on labor markets. Does it? No. Are we surprised? Not really.

Share This

Not that we didn’t already know that, but here’s more proof. Apparently Rove thinks that my freshman Representative Joe Sestak is “vulnerable” to a challenge in 2008. For those who don’t know, Sestak defeated an incumbent 57-43 this past November. I don’t know who Rove has in mind or what numbers he’s looking at (probably that fuzzy math), but here’s what I say.

Bring it on.

[List is here; read the entry, too, to find out what the White House thinks is an appropriate use of GSA funding.]

Share This

You hear a lot of happy talk from those who either support Bush’s “new” strategy in Iraq or are afraid of being labeled “anti-war” (as if that’s bad thing) about how we need to “give it a chance” to see if it “succeeds” before calling for the troops to come home. This is utter horseshit. Let’s assume, as many who support the surge [all, what, 15% of America?] have argued, that this is our “last shot” and we’ll know “within a year” or so if it’s working. What exactly is “success”? Presumably, success is a great reduction in violence, a lessening of ethno-religious hostility, and other political benchmarks. Let’s say, for the sake of the argument, that “success” as here defined is achieved by December 31st. Then what? If their mission has succeeded, the next logical step would be to… draw down troop strength, as the Democrats in Congress have suggested. If these conditions are not met, if our “last shot” has failed, then what should we do? Continue following a 4+ year strategy that has failed? No! We change course, and the public decided by their votes in November to draw-down our troops. If the condition has improved, if our mission is successful, then we can leave and declare victory. If it fails, we admit that our military cannot fix this problem and remove them to both get them out of harm’s way and so their presence cannot further exacerbate the situation.

That is the beauty of the Iraq Supplemental Funding Bill that just passed the Senate days after a similar bill passed the House. According to the bill, the troops need to start drawing down by March 08 [or so; it depends on the bill and a variety of other issues] because they will either have been successful in their mission and can come home, or it will have been long past clear to anyone with a functioning brain that we will have failed. Naturally, almost all the Republicans voted against it (including the “moderate” Specter) and Bush has threatened to veto it. Because it will “send the wrong message” and prevent us from winning or something. These people are children. 662 days to go, folks. It’s gonna be a wild ride.

Share This

And it’s about fucking time. This is wonderful news. It might be tough to pass, but I think it can be done. At the very, very least, we have to try. So contact your Congresscritters and either thank them for supporting equal rights or ask them why the hell they aren’t supporting equal rights.

Let’s really make this the land of the free!

Share This

He’s been back in the news, so the idiots, the liars, and the misinformed have been making their “Al Gore invented the internet!!!1!” jokes again, and it’s finally pissed me off enough that I want to beat this lie to death with a lead pipe. Al Gore, in fact, has been recognized for the work he did in “taking the initiative to create the internet”. Here is a quote from a book written in 1996 on the subject:

During the second half of the 1980s, the joys of ’surfing the net,’ began to excite the interest of people beyond the professional computer-using communities […] However, the existing computer networks were largely in government, higher education and business. They were not a free good and were not open to hobbyists or private firms that did not have access to a host computer. To fill this gap, a number of firms such as CompuServe, Prodigy, GEnie, and America Online sprang up to provide low cost network access […] While these networks gave access to Internet for e-mail (typically on a pay-per-message basis), they did not give the ordinary citizen access to the full range of the Internet, or to the glories of gopherspace or the World Wide Web. In a country whose Constitution enshrines freedom of information, most of its citizens were effectively locked out of the library of the future. The Internet was no longer a technical issue, but a political one. The problem of giving ordinary Americans network access had exercised Senator Al Gore since the late 1970s. In 1990 he was the author of the High Performance Computing Act, which proposed the creation of a high-speed fiber optic network that would produce enormous leverage for the information economy of the twenty-first century.

I’ve got more. A lot more. I don’t want to bore you all with this on the front page, so if you want my continued outraged rantings on the subject, just follow me.

Read the rest of this entry »

Share This

Keeping tabs on this story since it’s so important, Glenn had an update himself that I’ll be drawing from and then adding my own commentary. I know it seems like I’m beating a dead horse here, but this really is critical and the media coverage on it is truly telling.

First, if you couldn’t stomach watching the video, there’s a transcript over here. It’s not as revolting without being able to hear their infantile giggling, but you can get the idea. Just insert *giggle* at random intervals.

Second, as Steve Benen [who did the transcript] notes, these aren’t just some insignificant, silly fringe pundits (or worse, the dreaded anonymous commenter!!!!). These are some of the most powerful influential “journalists”. Chris Matthews of course has his own show on MSNBC and pretty much shows up at every special they do [such as Election Night coverage]. Norah O’Donnell also works for MSNBC as its chief D.C. correspondent. Richard Stengel is the editor of Time magazine [note: it was Jay Carney of Time who initially dismissed those silly lefty concerns about the attorneys]. Gloria Borger is one of the major political correspondents for CBS News and has her own column at U.S. News and World Report. Lastly, Pat Healy is a reporter for the New York Times. These guys are heavyweights in the media sphere, and they are completely dismissing a major scandal at the Department of Justice as “small bore politics” by the Democrats.

Which brings us to the biggest point here. The main thesis of these “serious” pundits was that the American people oppose investigations and that it would be bad politics for them to do so. First, that’s a LIE:

14. Do you think Congress should — or should not — investigate the involvement of White House officials in this matter?

Yes, should - 72%; No, should not - 21%

15. If Congress investigates these dismissals, in your view, should President Bush and his aides — [ROTATED: invoke “executive privilege” to protect the White House decision making process (or should they) drop the claim of executive privilege and answer all questions being investigated]?

Invoke executive privilege - 26%; Answer all questions - 68%

16. In this matter, do you think Congress should or should not issue subpoenas to force White House officials to testify under oath about this matter?

Yes, should - 68%; No, should not - 24%

Second, even if the American people were generally opposed to Congress investigating the Executive’s actions here, it would be the right thing to do. To NOT do so would be an abandonment of their Constitutional duty. Glenn says it better than I do:

The reason Democrats ought to compel Rove to testify under oath is not because it will benefit Democrats politically. The reason that’s necessary is because there are (as Cox herself has ably argued) extremely serious accusations of wrongdoing here that go to the heart of how our government functions, and Rove clearly played a role in those events. Moreover, the administration in this very case has demonstrated a propensity to lie about what occurred. And the administration is generally untrustworthy. After all, just last month, Dick Cheney’s top aide was convicted of four felony counts of perjury, false statements, and obstruction of justice.

Under the circumstances, and given the stakes of this scandal, it would be a total abdication of the duty of Congressional oversight not to compel Rove’s testimony in a public forum and under rules where it is more difficult for him to lie. And that’s true regardless of whether it’s politically beneficial.

That’s exactly right. It doesn’t matter if it endangered our majority to do this, or if it would endanger it if [ok, WHEN], sometime down the road, Congress is faced with the necessity of investigate serious Democratic wrongdoing. They must do so, and they must be thorough and vicious. Our democracy demands no less.

Share This

As you know, I’ve written about the fired attorney scandal that’s been brewing for the past few months and seems to finally be coming to a head. It’s entirely possible there’s an innocent explanation for all this, but the current evidence definitely suggests otherwise. Naturally, Congress wants more information and is trying to get the major players to testify so we can figure out what the fuck is going on. So you’d think this would get more play in the national press, right? Hah! In a sane world, maybe. The scandal was initially brushed off by Time magazine [I’ll find the link later] and all of the reporting was done by TPMMuckraker. And now…. ugh. Just watch below the fold.

Read the rest of this entry »

Share This

Not exactly shocking news, but it’s yet another opportunity for us to say, “We told you so”.

For at least a year before the 2004 Republican National Convention, teams of undercover New York City police officers traveled to cities across the country, Canada and Europe to conduct covert observations of people who planned to protest at the convention, according to police records and interviews. From Albuquerque to Montreal, San Francisco to Miami, undercover New York police officers attended meetings of political groups, posing as sympathizers or fellow activists, the records show.

They made friends, shared meals, swapped e-mail messages and then filed daily reports with the department’s Intelligence Division. Other investigators mined Internet sites and chat rooms.

SNIP

But potential troublemakers were hardly the only ones to end up in the files. In hundreds of reports stamped “N.Y.P.D. Secret,” the Intelligence Division chronicled the views and plans of people who had no apparent intention of breaking the law, the records show.

These included members of street theater companies, church groups and antiwar organizations, as well as environmentalists and people opposed to the death penalty, globalization and other government policies. Three New York City elected officials were cited in the reports.

Share This

In non-political news, I’m currently working on building the site for my dorm for next year. Right now I’m using some webspace generously donated by Mike and it can be found at Stanford Hall. Feel free to stop by and leave some comments on site design and what not. I’d really appreciate all the help and pointers anyone has to offer. Thanks!

Powered by ScribeFire.

Share This

Besides what I was discussing here, it seems that Abu Gonzales is a big liar. Which isn’t a surprise, after all, since Bush and his Administration has been changing their stories since this scandal broke. It looks like things are finally catching up to them now as the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to issue subpoenas for Rove, Miers, and others. All the Democrats and one Republican voted in favor, and the remaining Republicans voted “no” except for collosal wanker Arlen Specter who didn’t even vote at all. What a tool. They won’t actually be issued until after the week-long recess.

So now the ball is in the White House’s court. They can either respond to the subpoenas… or play a game of chicken with Congress. I think they’ll choose to defy Congress, which means Congress needs to act. What could they do? They could reissue the subpoenas. Take their case public, urge citizens to write their congresspersons and the President in support of them obeying the law. I think this would be a good idea. Have a vote in Congress [a “sense of the Senate/House” type thing] in favor of the subpoenaed members of Bush’s Administration to testify. Get the public behind you. Then, if they still show contempt of Congress, start your ultimate oversight abilities: impeachment proceedings. Not against Bush… start with lesser officials. Deputy Secretaries, the aides themselves, Abu Gonzales… start with the small fish and work your way up. This is pretty much the smartest move. Not only is it not drastic action, it will force the Administration to make several decisions, with each wrong decision [aka defying Congress] upping the ante. Hopefully it won’t come to the top [if we can reign in the Executive, there’s no need for presidential impeachment proceedings], but we can still have some accountability and oversight.

If they continue this, however… well, impeachment proceedings would be on solid precedent.

Article 3
In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, contrary to his oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June 24, 1974, and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas. The subpoenaed papers and things were deemed necessary by the Committee in order to resolve by direct evidence fundamental, factual questions relating to Presidential direction, knowledge or approval of actions demonstrated by other evidence to be substantial grounds for impeachment of the President. In refusing to produce these papers and things Richard M. Nixon, substituting his judgment as to what materials were necessary for the inquiry, interposed the powers of the Presidency against the the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, thereby assuming to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives.

In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

Adopted 21-17 by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives.

Share This

And here they are! Not done tweaking yet, particularly the header image [should be fixed shortly-ish], but all-in-all I like it. What do you guys think?

Share This

Strange that this is the scandal that’s bringing them down… not lying us into the war in the first place, or outing a CIA agent, or botching the Katrina response, or the poor treatment of wounded veterans, or wiretapping us without warrants, or the new FBI scandal, or any of the other dozens of issues… no, it’s this one. 
I do admit that it has all the hallmarks of the Bush Administration… cronyism, manipulating the federal government for political purposes, law-breaking, secret Patriot Act provisions vesting power in the executive branch… the perfect storm, if you will.  Oh, and stonewalling the investigation and refusing to allow testifying under oath.  Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy is threatening subpoenas if they aren’t under oath, saying anything less is “Nothing”.  In the meantime, Tony Snow perfectly summarizes the White House’s understanding of checks and balances: “The executive branch is under no compulsion to testify to Congress, because Congress in fact doesn’t have oversight ability.”  Right… Congress is really more of an advisory committee… and the Constitution is more like guidelines, really.

So what to do?  Leahy will clearly issue congressional subpoenas if the aids don’t testify.  But what happens if the White House refuses to comply?  The courts won’t get involved; they usually remind Congress that they have a remedy and for this inter-branch dispute and the courts won’t act just because Congress is too chickenshit to use it.  That remedy, of course, is impeachment.  Article 3 of Nixon’s impeachment that passed the House Judiciary Committee clearly made the point that failure to comply with congressional subpoenas is an impeachable offense.  Whether or not we should start with Bush [I vote not: go after the underlings first] is irrelevant.  We need to find out the truth, and if they won’t offer it willingly we will force them to tell it under the penalty of the law.  Hopefully the Bush Administration relents or Mr. 30% could find himself in a real pickle… or choking on a really large pretzel.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Share This

So like I said, I’m going to be blogging more. Really. Honest. I promise.

At the moment, I’m also messing with the site template, including an expanded blogroll. If you want me to add you, just ask and I will. I intend to eventually have all the sites I read added, along with requests.

That’s all for now.

Share This

Another year gone, thousands more dead, billions more wasted, and for what?

For what?

Powered by ScribeFire.

Share This

Really. I mean it this time.

Ok, so a quick round up of what might possibly be the most important story right now. If you haven’t been following this, don’t worry; it’s only one of the latest scandals coming out of the Bush White House. Surprise. You’ll have to find more detailed background elsewhere; basically, Gonzalez fired 7 or 8 or 9 U.S. Attorneys since the 06 elections [which in and of itself is unprecedented], several of whom had been working public corruption cases. Then, using an unknown proviso in the Patriot Act slipped in by a Specter staffer during House-Senate discrepancy committee, replaced them without requiring the Senate’s approval. Oh, and a couple of the replacements suggested were Bush campaign workers/donors. With me so far? Ok, it gets better.

One of the fired claims to have been contacted (at his house!) by Sen. Pete Domenici [R-NM] and Rep. Heather Wilson [R-Big Surprise] just before the 06 elections to ask about a corruption investigation into a state Democrat and pressured him to hurry things up. Wilson barely won reelection in one of the closer races this fall. Another of the attorneys also claims that the chief of staff for another congressperson, Rep. Doc Hastings [R-WA] contacted him as well before the 06 elections to ask something similar. The attorney terminated the conversation before the questions got too pushy, but was unnerved by the whole event.

During Tuesday’s congressional hearing, two of the attorneys confirmed a newspaper report that the Attorney General’s chief of staff threatened one or more of the attorneys that the gloves would come off and more, personal information would come out about them if they continued to stir controversy. The DoJ denies this. Yeah, cause we know this Administration would never do that. Just ask Joe Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame OH MY GOD what have I said?? [/Colbert]

The attorney from NM also recounted a conversation with the DoJ official who made the calls firing them [he resigned a few days ago, btw. Spending more time with his family or something] in which he asked why he was being fired. The official’s reply: “I don’t know and I don’t want to know. All I know is that this came from on high.”

So yeah. This could be one of the biggest scandals of this Administration, and that’s saying something. There are calls for Gonzales to resign, for Bush to fire him, or for Congress to impeach him. I obviously think it’s well-deserved at this point. This whole thing is insane.

Share This