I'm Just Sayin' Is All...

We're overdue a sex scandal, folks. Enough of the CIA leak case, the Duke Cunningham bribery scandal, and CIA secret prisons. We need Gary Hart, Bill Clinton, Gary Condit, even Strom Thurmond (ewwww....)

Our Troops Must Stay

Our Troops Must Stay
America can't abandon 27 million Iraqis to 10,000 terrorists.
by Senator Joe Lieberman
The Wall Street Journal
November 29, 2005

...These are new ideas that are working and changing the reality on the ground, which is undoubtedly why the Iraqi people are optimistic about their future--and why the American people should be, too....

I'm posting this because it seams only one side of the debate gets any airtime. I also happen to agree with the Senator.

14 Defining Characteristics of Fascism

Courtesy of J. Fox, this is one of the most amazing things I've seen/heard in quite some time... thoughts?

OK, this might be going a little far...

but it sure is funny!

Apparently corruption is a pre-requisite to membership!

And the GOP hits just keep on comin'.

CIA Prisons in Europe (Follow Up)

Just a follow up to our discussion a few weeks ago about the fall-out in Europe caused by allegations of secret CIA prisons in some EU member nations. According the Washington Post, the EU is taking this very seriously and has recently "formally raised the issue" with the White House and State Department. The Council of Europe is conducting investigations into the presence of these camps in Europe, as well as additional allegations concerning the CIA's illegal use of European airports/illegal fly-overs of European countries. The EU is threatening a suspension of voting rights for any nation found to be complicit in the operation of these camps.

For its part, the US has said it "needs more time" to formulate a response to these allegations. Whether that means it is conducting its own investigation, developing a suitable cover story, and/or crapping in its short pants remains to be seen.

What struck me the most, however, was the justification given by the EU for the threatened suspension of voting rights:

"Frattini said suspending EU voting rights would be justified under the EU treaty, which stipulates that the bloc is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, and that a persistent breach of these principles can be punished...Clandestine detention centers would violate the European Convention on Human Rights."

Not to beat a dead horse, but how are these different than our own basic, democratic principles? Some may argue that a government has to do some dirty things in order to preserve the security and freedom of its people. But, at what cost? Seems like a case of cutting off the nose to spite the face. We claim we're fighting terrorism and making the world safe for democracy and freedom. But, in the process, we're becoming that which we would condemn. I don't think that's worth any price. Even in the murky world of intelligence gathering, basic morality must still be preserved. There are certain things that are right or wrong, regardless of context.

And here's just another thought: what kind/quality of information can you really get through torture? It seems to me that information given under duress would be highly unreliable. A person being tortured would probably just say whatever he thought his captors wanted to hear to make it stop. To me, torture seems like an attempt to cut corners or, in other words, to avoid the hard work of gathering ground level intelligence, analyzing leads and tips, etc.

Time for Withdrawal?

I have always been one to worry about a premature withdrawal from Iraq. While I have strong negative feelings about how and why the Bush Administration took us to war, I feel that we have to remain long enough to ensure that a power vacuum isn't created that would be filled by another dictatorial leader or an absence of all power, leading to an Afghanistan-style non-state (or quasi-state) that provides an open training ground for terrorists. Thus, Congressman Murtha's (D-Pa) recent call for a timetable for troop withdrawals left me torn. Murtha is a hawk and a big military supporter in Congress, who was a decorated Marine veteran of Vietnam. He has always supported the President on Iraq. But that has changed. If Murtha is calling for withdrawal, might there be some merit to it? I was especially interested in his idea that by not providing a timetable, we give the Iraqis no incentive to "do for themselves". Why do the fighting and dying if someone else will do it for you?

Now, the Bush Administration responded by attacking Murtha, even going so far as to have their surrogates call him a coward. That's right, they called a decorated Marine who received a Purple Heart in Vietnam a coward. One surrogate did it on the floor of the House of Representatives. I was, and am, disgusted by how low the Bush Administration and its surrogate attack dogs will sink to attack a political opponent. (Of course, responding the resulting outrage, the Vice President quickly gave a speech in which he praised Murtha's service and bravery, stated that there is always room for debate on the critical issues of our time - and then savaged all the Admin's opponents as trying to rewrite history).

That aside, my worries about a premature withdrawal and the potential nightmares it could bring about persisted to a point where I was forced to admit to myself that I still disagreed with Congressman Murtha and many within the Democratic Party. However, today a story came out in the Washington Post stating that Iraqi leaders themselves have joined forces and called for a withdrawal timetable.

If the Iraqis themselves, Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds, all want a withdrawal by the end of next year, isn't it something we should strongly consider? They obviously think they will be ready and this is the elected government now. If the very people who will "be at the mercy" of insurgent forces and the potential resulting chaos or dictatorial/terrorist takeover, think they will be ready to proceed and withstand those forces on their own, shouldn't we work towards the withdrawal they are requesting?

I think so.

Universal Basic Income

This was a discussion topic in my Philosophy of Work class recently. The idea--as advanced in the article "A Basic Income for All"--is to provide all citizens with a Universal Basic Income that would guarantee a basic level of subsistence. All individuals would be eligible, regardless of income bracket and/or work status. Here's the essential argument in favor:

Productivity, wealth, and national incomes have advanced sufficiently far to support an adequate UBI. And if enacted, a basic income would serve as a powerful instrument of social justice: it would promote real freedom for all by providing the material resources that people need to pursue their aims. At the same time, it would help to solve the policy dilemmas of poverty and unemployment, and serve ideals associated with both the feminist and green movements."

The author, Philippe van Parijs, acknowledges that such a policy may be difficult to implement straight away so he has proposed that it be implemented in stages. He also contrasts the UBI with other social entitlement programs, such as a Negative Income Tax. He finds the UBI, however, to be superior in terms of counteracting the effects of poverty, providing for a basic subsistence level, and eliminating the "unemployment trap" created by social welfare programs.

As a strong proponent of social welfare, I have a hard time finding fault with this proposal. The way I see it, providing everyone with the means to sustain an adequate existence--and regain a measure of human dignity--is perhaps the greatest gift a government could give to its people. Paying for it might be a problem, but as van Parijs contends, a UBI may make other existing welfare programs unnecessary. A UBI may also result in far fewer health and development problems, further reducing the need for social and health services--money which could also be diverted back to a UBI fund.

As it stands, van Parijs' proposal provides this income to all citizens regardless of income, which means that the wealthy would also receive a subsidy. This was a point of contention for many in my class. But, it was also pointed out, this money would be recouped through a graduated income tax structure, similar to what we already have in place.

So, I put it to you: is such a plan feasible for this country? Would it actually help alleviate the social problems it purports to address? Is it too "socialist" for democracy-loving Americans to stomach?

[Note: Philippe van Parijs is an economist from the Catholic University of Louvain.]

A Liberal Crisis?

Schmoliticians, I'm having a bit of a crisis of conviction. Specifically, my liberal tax-and-spend conviction. Yeah, I know. Shit's gotten pretty serious here at Chez Schmolitics when Sean is torn up about conservatism and liberalism.

You see, travelers and wanderers, I'm struggling with special income taxes passed by California -- 1% on individuals earning more than $1,000,000 as I understand it -- that have been levied in order to provide additional/new social services to mentally-ill citizens who aren't otherwise receiving assistance. My quandry (if I can call it that) doesn't revolve around whether the "state" should be able to levy taxes, or determine what tax revenues are to spent on. Those things I don't fight. I'm struggling with the state being able to enumerate/identify a specific population segment to be taxed (you know they're mainly white, and men) and a specific population segment to benefit (the mentally ill, who are likely to be poor, black, and men).

And, before this become misconstrued, it has nothing to do with holding a grudge against the mentally ill, nothing to do with race. It has nothing to do with feeling unduly protective of rich people -- they seem to do pretty well for themselves without any help from me. In fact, we could replace the tax payers and the tax revenue beneficiaries in this equation and arrive at my same general discomfort.

So what's the problem? For those of you that understand these things in a way that I, as a poor unfrozen caveman lawyer, will never understand... does this tax violate the spirit of the law -- if not the letter of the law -- insofar as it violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment? Aren't rich people being unduly and unfairly singled out for taxation?

Now, as a liberal and a pragmatist, I don't take much exception with the underlying public policy motivation -- especially since I know the bulk of these individuals will find a way around paying this tax, and I know how underserved the mentally ill are. As a political observer, however, it makes me a bit squeamish in a way I've not previously experienced.

Any thoughts, Team Schmolitics? Is my liberalism at risk?

"Point of Parliamentary Procedure"

I would like to nominate Pete for "Blogger of the Month."

First, for his many (many) interesting and insightful posts. And, second, for coining the term, "provocablog."

For a man who works so much, he has definitely gone 'above and beyond' to draw attention to and share his views on many (many) important issues of the day.

Cheers to you, Pete. Good on ya, mate!

Should one be jailed for denying an historical fact?

It can happen in Austria. Certainly, denying historical facts in a manner designed to promoted racial and ethnic hatred can be dangerous, but does the danger rise to the level that such thought or speech should be policed under the law? Is it akin to crying "Fire!" in a crowded theater and therefore should it be unprotected under the First Amendment?

Is there no end to the evil??

No wonder Sen. Stevens (R-AK), the chairman of the committee, refused to swear-in the big oil executives. He must have known that the testimony his committee was about to hear would be full of lies. It explains why there was literally an argument, with Stevens putting his chair-foot down against swearing-in, at the outset of this hearing.

Now we know they were lies. Have they no shame? Do Republican members of Congress have no shame?

Damned if you...

The Washington Post, and in particular reporter Dana Priest, are under attack from both liberals and conservatives regarding its story on secret CIA prisons published earlier this month. Conservatives say the story constitutes a major breach of national security--calling it irresponsible reporting and claiming that it will put the lives of Americans and their allies at risk. Some conservative pundits also claim that the information was leaked to the Post as part of a Democratic plot to discredit the Bush administration. Liberals decry the fact that the Post withheld the names of the countries involved, with some going so far as to call the Post complicit in torture for not revealing all of the facts in the story. For its part, the Post says it decided to go ahead with the story after "balancing legitimate national security concerns with informing our readers about important things that were being done in their name by the government" (quote from Leonard Downie, Executive Editor of the Post.)

Personally, I applaud the Post for having the brazos to publish the story. As Leonard Downie says, I think it is important for us as Americans to know what our government is doing in our name. To me, transparency in government is the key to a healthy and successful democracy. Whatever the motivation for the leak is irrelevant. I do feel, though, that the Post should have gone one step further and published the names of the countries involved. This needs to see the light of day. Torture in any form is wrong. There is never a justification for it, even in wartime and even in counter-terrorism operations. We are not terrorists. We believe in basic and universal human rights and civil liberties. (Does this sound familier to anyone: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"?) Regardless of what these prisoners have done and what information they may possess, it is a far more dangerous thing to stoop to their level and become like them than any benefit that could be derived from torturing them from information. And, for me, that's the scariest thing about this story.

Good luck with that!

According to an article in today's New York Times, the administration is planning on restoring the President's credibility with America, which according to recent polls in the sh**ter. This is due, in part, with the public's realization that the justification the President and his cronies used for the war in Iraq was false. Stephen Hadley, the national security advisor said yesterday, "I point out that some of the critics today believed themselves in 2002 that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. They stated that belief, and they voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq because they believed Saddam Hussein posed a dangerous threat to the American people. For those critics to ignore their own past statements, exposes the hollowness of their current attacks."
I find this amusing because it was this administration that provided the faulty intelligence that led the "critics" he is referring to above to support the decision to invade Iraq. But, they never let the truth get in the way of good spin.

They got a war on drugs so the police can bother me

I've been watching Season One of "The Wire", HBO's gritty police drama, and it has got me thinking. And thus got me fuming. If you care to read some inventive recently spewed forth from my raving mouth, here you go. My opinion on the "War on Drugs" and related topics.

Robertson's opened his mouth again...

True to my theory that the louder and more publicly a person proclaims how religious they are, the more of an a**hole they are likely to be, we have Exhibit A: Pat Robertson. Now he's telling a PA town not to run crying to God if a natural disaster hits them, because they rejected God by voting a school board out of office for trying to introduce intelligent design to their schools. Apparently calling for violent, unnatural deaths for foreigners isn't enough, he's hoping for Americans now.

Amen?

Eat, Sleep, Work, Consume, Die.

This is our conscience calling... technology is slowly killing us all.

Or is it?

VA: Democratic Stronghold!

The people have spoken in the Great Commonwealth, and have shouted from the treetops "We love Democrats!"

OK, so that MIGHT not be what yesterday's vote represents, but its a start! Aimee, you take over from here...

Minutemen in Herndon

Saw this in the Post the other day and was wondering what other Schmoliticians thought about this issue. Apparently a chapter of the Minuteman Project (a private group most famous for its patrols of the US/Mexico border and dedicated to haulting illegal immigration into this country) has sprung up in Herndon, VA where they have recently begun photographing and tracking day-laborers and the companies that hire them. They plan to turn over the information they gather to the IRS in an attempt to discourage companies from hiring day-laborers. Their ultimate goal is to move these folks out of Herndon. (This is presupposing, of course, that the day-laborers are all undocumented persons.) This issue is already a hot-button topic in Herndon where the city council recently voted to use taxpayer money to build a central gathering site for workers and employers in the hopes of creating a more formal process for the hiring of day laborers that would protect both workers and employers. Some have argued that such policies only encourage people to come here illegally. However, I would argue that irregardless of whether people have come to this country legally or illegally, they are here now and we have to deal with them. They are also still human beings, entitled to the same dignity and rights as any other person. Their immigration status does nothing to change that fact.

Here's a question for you, though. Why not create an "open border" policy and let whoever wants to come here, come here? Register them, give them a social security number, and get them started paying taxes and contributing to the economy. I understand there are security implications to consider but I'm sure it could be handled. Then, we wouldn't need to worry about undocumented persons serving as a drain on social services, etc. They'd be paying back into the system just like everyone else. What say you?

GOP: desperate for any investigation that isn't focused on THEM...

Apparently the GOP decided it had to start at least ONE investigation about somebody other than themselves before the '06 campaign season rolls around.

Hmmmm...worse leak...outing an active CIA agent with a Middle East assignment during a war in the Middle East, or revealing the existence of potentially illegal covert prisons?

Here's another question: if, as the Bush Admin has announced through the papers in the last few days, torture is banned across the board, why do we need secret CIA prisons in Europe? Reminds me of "A Few Good Men": Colonel, if you specifically forbid anyone to touch Santiago, and the men always obey your orders, why was Santiago being transferred off the base?

The best thing President Bush could come up with...

In yesterday's last-minute, desperation stop in VA to try to buoy the flagging candidacy of Jerry Kilgore, this was the best President Bush could dredge up to say about Kilgore:

"The thing I like about this fellow is he grew up on a farm," Bush said in a brief stop on his return from a South American trade mission. "He doesn't have a lot of fancy airs."

Go to the polls VA people and vote for progressive policies and TRUE financial responsibility! Vote Democratic! Out with the policies of personal repression and tax-cut & spend Conservatives!

From the Mind of Mark Slouka

Schmoliticians, so well-connected, well-informed, and opinionated. What do you think of this essay? Compelling? Incendiary? Ho-hum? Relevant?

Did Bush Admin create its own "faulty intelligence"?

Very interesting! Could the fake Africa/Niger docs re: Iraq trying to buy uranium on the black market that the Bush Admin cited in their case for war actually come FROM the Bush Admin?

They've admitted to mistakenly believing the false intelligence, but did they actually CREATE the intelligence they eventually "fell prey" to? This story raises the possibility that a former NSC underling, now the actual National Security Advisor, passed the forgeries to a foreign intelligence chief in order to have them passed back to the CIA/State Dept for use as "proof" of Iraq's dangerous nature.

And since that former underling and current NSC chief, Stephen Hadley, is previously from Fox's law firm, HOW MUCH DID FOX KNOW??

Holy Crap!

Secret CIA prisons in Eastern European countries??

Oh deer!

Bentonville, Arkansas must be a special place. Perhaps Wal-Mart was of ammunition, or maybe that’s just how they roll down there, but I don’t think even Clay has killed a deer at home with his bare hands.

It reminds me a little of another Man v. Beast story where that uncle pulled a bull shark out of the water while it was attacking his nephew.

More than a Mile High!

Well, I guess we know where Chavy is going to try to get a teaching position after he gets his Ph.D.

Methodist Church Defrocks Lesbian Pastor

I read of this courtesy of Google News.

Wasn't there a similar case with the Boy Scouts a few years back? A gay scoutmaster (go figure) or something? As I recall, the courts ruled that the Boy Scouts could discriminate, since they were a private institution. I assume the same logic would apply here: the Methodist Church may decide who may or may not be a pastor based on whatever criteria they choose, since they are a private organisation.

This just seems wrong to me. Private companies are bloody well not allowed to discriminate on sex, colour, or creed. Why are religious institutions or the Boy Scouts?

Finally, would the fact that the Methodist Church has undoubtably taken federal money thanks to Our Fearless Leader's faith-based initiatives change anything? It would seem to me that if the Feddy Gov is handing money around, it should be allowed to set a few guidelines.

IANAL, so if someone could explain the legal precedent for this, I would appreciate it. One must understand something vile in order to change it, I suppose.