Have Another Donut, You Fat Pig!

On Glen Beck's daily spewing of nonsense today he was attacking a government program that purchases food for food banks and soup kitchens. His initial argument was that the government was overspending for these products (which seems reasonable enough), but of course this poor excuse for a human being couldn't leave it at that. Responding to a comment by the by the Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack that the program, "provides assistance to people who otherwise do not have access to food", Beck said, " Wow! I didn't know in America that we had people that didn't have access to food". I have no idea how someone can be so insulated that they wouldn't know that there are hundreds of thousands of people in this country who go to bed hungry every night. Does he think the homeless are just sitting on a pile of money? Does he think those people begging for money on the street are just doing that to kill time? People like him should be forced to live on the street and he can see just how much "access" he has to food. Perhaps it might help that fat tub of lard to lose some weight.

He has a book out now called "Common Sense". It reminds of a Saturday Night Live sketch in which there was a game show called "Common Knowledge". The answers to all the questions were not the right answers, but the one's that most people believed to be true. That is exactly what he is selling. He is selling lies to people who are too lazy to actually find the truth. It's a shame that "reporting" has reached these depths.

The Lion in Winter

The health care debate has reached a crossroad. The Republicans and the insurance industry are staging a full frontal assault on the reform bills now working their ways through the House and the Senate. They have decided that the President is vulnerable on this issue and have gone so far as to proclaim that this issue will be his Waterloo. The President to his credit has finally jumped into the fight with both guns blazing. His statements, which used to be very conciliatory toward the opposition, have become more pointed and emphatic. His staff is no longer talking about a bipartisan bill, they are now talking about the reality of having Democrats push this through on their own.

The President has to make the point that health care reform is not a policy question, it is a moral imperative. The health and well being of the citizens of this country is not something to bartered with or toyed with because of political differences. Republicans offer no alternative to the current proposal. Michael Steele went so far as to say that he doesn't even know what's in the bill. It is very clear that Obama's opponents don't have any strategy to fix the health care crisis, they only want to block anything that comes out of this administration.

The conservative Democrats have a different agenda. They are trying to placate the constituents in their right leaning states and districts. Their single issue is cost. They have to be sure that any program does not add to the bloated deficit. I do not believe that they are actually opposed to health care reform. Of course if they do not get on board at the end of the day, their opposition, regardless of how principled it is, will sink our only chance to give Americans a proper health care system. I have to believe that if push comes to shove, they will vote with the majority. If not to approve the bill then at least to end a republican attempt at a filibuster.

We, as a people, should have a right to decent health care. I have stated before that each elected official should be willing to do the right thing even though it may be a losing issue in their next election. We vote people into office not only to do our bidding, but also to do what is best. The people don't always know what is in their best interest. Just look at California. The fact that everything is up for a vote has led them to a budget crisis of biblical proportions. They need more revenue, but refuse to vote for any tax increases. "The People" want everything for nothing. "The People" cannot always be trusted to make the right decision. Our elected officials are not supposed to be as shortsighted as "The People". If their only concern is getting re-elected, then the needs of the people take a backseat to that goal.

It is a given that there are many in both houses of Congress who do not care if the majority of citizens of this country have adequate health care. They have been bought and paid for by the health insurance industry. That however should not stop the majority from doing what they know is right. I understand that no one wants to have to go to their constituents and tell them that health care reform is going to cost them money, but as with most of the great moral crusades of the last century, cost is not the important factor. We will of course save money if we are a healthier nation, but that is too forward looking for most in this country to understand. Sometimes “We the People” have to dragged kicking and screaming into doing the right thing. I can only hope that we have enough representatives who comprehend how significant this issue is and how monumental a difference it will make in the lives of all our citizens.

President Kennedy spoke of civil rights as a moral crisis. He tragically didn’t live long enough to see the eventual passage of the Civil Rights Bill. Critics at the time attacked the bill as government interference in private enterprise. They argued that the government has no place in dictating the actions of the private sector. They argued that we needed less government, not more. Time has proved these arguments wrong. His brother Ted Kennedy has made universal health care his life’s work. He has pushed for universal coverage since the early seventies. He has spoken about the fact that he and his family have always received the highest level of care. However, unlike some of his more callous fellow members of Congress (Senator Grassley had the nerve to offer this bit of advice as to how to get the same level of coverage that he enjoys, “get a government job”), he has always said that he wants all Americans to have access to that same level of care. As Kennedy battles brain cancer, he is doing all he can to lend his support to this most important of issues. It is his life’s work, it is his legacy. It is the moral imperative of our time. Let us hope that we are up to the challenge and I believe that time will treat the opponents of health care as well as it has treated the opponents of the Civil Rights Bill.

The Most Dangerous Person in America

Sarah Palin announced her resignation as Governor of Alaska in a rambling and unfocused press conference last Friday. In fact, she made Mark Sanford seem like the epitome of coherence. Those on the left were quick to proclaim that this was the death knell for Mrs. Palin as a serious candidate for President in 2012. Those on the Right were quick to point out that she is now free from the burden of running a state and can now make even more appearances where she can spread her message.

If we were living in "normal" times, those hopeful thinkers on the left may indeed be right, but we are not living in normal times. The Republican party has been reduced to its core elements. Social conservatives now dominate the base of the party and those are the very people who find Sarah Palin irresistible. We must also remember that over 58 million people voted for her in the last election. I understand that she was not at the top of the ticket, but she was only a heartbeat away from the top job which would have been held by a 73 year old, 2 time cancer survivor.

Sarah Palin is the most ill-prepared person proposed for national office that I have ever seen. She has no understanding of the Constitution (illustrated by her constant misstatement of what the 1st Amendment means), she couldn't explain what Conservatism is if you spotted her Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan and she is dead set against learning what she doesn't know. That last point is what makes her so dangerous. Anybody with the lack of understanding of national and international issues that she has demonstrated and with the family issues that were forced to be played out on a national stage, would have declined the offer to join the McCain ticket. However her personal ambition outweighs any family obligation or reasonable action.

Despite all her shortcomings, the base of Republican party has anointed her as the savior of the party. Republican pundits have even compared her to Richard Nixon. Nixon uttered the famous, "You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore", after losing to Pat Brown in the California Governor's race. Nixon, of course, returned 6 years later to become a two term President. However comparing Richard Nixon to Sarah Palin is like comparing an Indy race car to a scooter. At the time that Richard Nixon made his famous concession, he had been a 2 term Congressman, a Senator, a two term Vice President and had lost a closely contested and controversial election for President. For all his shortcomings, I don't think that there is anyone who would question his intelligence or his skill as a politician and statesman. Sarah Palin, a first term Governor of Alaska, was as recently as 4 years ago, voted mayor of a town with approximately 600 votes. The comparison is ridiculous on its face and becomes even more ridiculous when you compare the two. She has also been compared to the great communicator himself, Ronald Reagan. Of course Reagan had become politically aware as part of the Conservative movement. He was schooled by the likes of Barry Goldwater himself and cut his teeth as Governor of California. Ronald Reagan's intellect will never be confused with Richard Nixon's, however he knew what he stood for.

Sarah Palin doesn't know what she stands for. Her speeches contain no details, no policies, no directions for how she intends to "make America a better place for all Americans". She simply spews talking points and applause lines. Her ego is so large that she would probably never allow someone around her who doesn't agree with everything she says, or at least they wouldn't be around her for long. I have nightmares about this woman being in charge of our international policy. Can you imagine this woman as our representative around the world? Can you imagine her having a serious discussion with the leaders of the rest of the world? George Bush at least had the awareness to understand that he needed smart people around him. They were evil for the most part, but they were undoubtedly very intelligent. I don't think Bush ever had a problem with not being the smartest guy in the room.

Sarah Palin, almost unbelievably, thinks that she is the smartest person in any room that she's in. She would surround herself with people who would be unwilling or unable to disagree with her on any topic. It would be an absolute disaster. I honestly don't understand how anyone could hope for this to come to pass. There are smart people on the right, who for unknown reasons support Sarah Palin. It could be desperation, it could be... actually there is no other reason. It has to be desperation. I hope that in the years before the next Presidential election, the Republicans come up with an alternative. I fear, however, that wishful thinking will not be enough to get rid of the spectre that is Sarah Palin. She will be with us for the foreseeable future. Unless there's a scandal out there that we don't know about. That might be more wishful thinking I'm afraid.

The $60 Billion Solution

I feel like I have written this article before (as has my co-contributor), and yet I can't help but return to the health care debate. Howard Dean was on TV recently and he said that if health care reform does not include a public option, then it would be basically worthless. As I watch our President say that there is no line in the sand in the health care debate, I again wonder aloud what exactly the goal of this administration is on this topic.

The arguments against a public option have basically been boiled down to two positions that are inconsistent with each other and are yet voiced simultaneously. The first position, which is favored by the insurance providers and their lackeys in Congress, is that, they (the insurance companies) would be driven out of business by a government option. The claim is that so many people would chose the public option (because it would be cheaper, better and less cumbersome) that the insurance providers would not be able to stay in business. The President called this point into question yesterday when he said:

" The notion that all these insurance companies who say they’re giving consumers the best possible deal, if they can’t compete against a public plan as one option, with consumers making the decision what’s the best deal, that defies logic..."

The Insurance companies and the members of Congress that they own, will continue to claim that the government option would drive them out of business without stating the real reason why that is the case. As has been stated here before, the companies are in the business of making money. They are not in the business of providing Americans with the best health care possible, therefore it only makes sense that they would not be able to compete with a system that makes the actual health of Americans the top priority. A significant portion of the resources of the insurance companies goes to trying to find ways to deny claims of the people that they currently insure. How could they possibly compete against a competitor who doesn't spend a large portion of their income on trying to screw their own customers? Republicans are constantly arguing for a free marketplace. Why would they now be afraid of a little competition? If, as the insurance companies and the many well compensated spokespeople in Congress claim, we do in fact have the best health care in the world, then having a public option would provide very little competition indeed. Why on earth would people give up their current coverage if they felt like it was the best plan available?

The second claim is that the public option would lead to American getting less medical care than they are now receiving. "We don't want to be like Canada" becomes the clarion call of this particular group of sycophants. So this argument claims (in total opposition to the other one) that under a public plan, the health of Americans would actually suffer. They talk about health care being rationed and long waits for transplants and lack of money for new equipment and fewer doctors being available and government bureaucrats making your health decisions. All of this presupposes that our current options are fantastic and that we are thrilled about insurance company paper pushers making our health care decisions. My question is, which is it? Is the public option going to be so great that it breaks the backs of the insurance providers or is it going be the beginning of the end? I guess it's too much to ask the opponents of the plan for a consistent message.

And if all else fails, they point to the money. How on earth can we pay for this? $1.6 trillion!!!! Inconceivable! Pointing to the money is of course the easiest way to take attention away from the human cost of not getting real health care reform done in the near future. No one talks about the 50 million who are uninsured. No one talks about the tens of thousands who die each needlessly because they could not afford to seek medical attention. No one talks about the millions who are saddled with crippling debt for medical procedures even though they were "covered" by private insurance. No one talks about the fact that our some of our major industries are now big health providers who also happen to manufacture something. No one talks about the fact that in ten years the only growth industries left in the this country will be tied to health care and the insurance companies. No, they don't want to talk about that. Let's just talk about the cost. That will scare Americans into demanding that nothing gets done. I have a simple plan for this. Like the Iraq war (which is going to cost upwards of $2 trillion), let's just claim the same opening figure that the Bush administration did for that endeavor. The cost for complete health care reform that will cover every American is $60 billion.

Dreams Die Hard

This may very well be the last post I do here because I am about to be so disgusted with this president that I may just swear off making any comments at all. From the Vice President to the Secretary of Health to the President himself, the Obama administration officials are all showing signs of giving up a public healthcare option in order to get some semblance of "bipartisanship". This administration is going to be willing to throw the uninsured and under-insured in this country under the bus in order to get a couple of Republican votes (which may or may not actually happen. I doubt that there would be any votes in the House unless the bill was absolutely worthless). The President is willing to protect the profits of the insurance companies, the pharmaceutical companies and the doctors in this country at the expense of the American people.

There was hope when Obama was elected, but in my mind that has quickly crumbled into the most disappointing presidency in my lifetime. I realize that Obama is the better of the options from the last election, but that does not make his actions any easier to stomach. I wrote an article in January which outlined what I thought were the most pressing issues for this president to address. To date, not one of them has been addressed to my satisfaction. There is still no plan for an exit in Afghanistan, education reform has not even been whispered about, healthcare reform is going to amount to nothing and the Constitution continues to be battered by the policies of this administration. This administration has also decided that they are not only fond of the anti-gay, Defense of Marriage statute, they are in fact it's biggest supporters. The lack of support shown to the gay and lesbian community by this administration has been stunning. You would think that there are Republicans running this country.

I no longer believe that Obama was only pretending to oppose gay marriage in order to get elected. I no longer believe that he wants healthcare for every American. I no longer believe that he wants to end the Constitutional abuses that took place under the last administration. I no longer believe that he wants to bring anyone to justice for the torture policy of the previous administration. I no longer believe that he wants to do anything that is even within sniffing distance of radical. He has become Bill Clinton without ever losing a fight. At least Bill had his losses before he decided to throw in the towel. At least Bill tried to get healthcare coverage for every American. At least he tried to stop the dismissal of gay military personnel. At least he tried. I no longer believe that Obama is even going to try. He's just going to try to get along. He doesn't want to piss off too many people so that he can get re-elected in 2012 and then he can go about making lots of money on the lecture circuit. He will leave behind the legacy of being the first African American president (which is no small feat), but I was hoping for so much more.

Those "Change we can believe in" posters are just painful to look at now.

The King of all he Surveys

The Mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, at a public press conference yesterday, chastised a reporter for asking about the rationale for the overturning of the term limits law by the City Council. The mayor made comments about the begins signs of a turnaround in the economy. The ailing economy was one of the major reasons sited by members of the City Council and the supporters of the overturning of the law on term limits as to why the mayor and the City Council should be allowed to serve beyond their two term limit.

The reporter asked a perfectly legitimate question about whether the rebounding economy took away one of the reasons for the extending of term limits. The Mayor reacted angrily and said that the voters will speak to that on November 3rd and called the reporter a "disgrace". I actually think that Mike Bloomberg has been a very good mayor for the city of New York. There is something appealing about a man who has so much money that he cannot be bought by special interests and isn't beholden to the dogma of either national party. However, the downside of having a mayor who is basically above the fray means that he sometimes feels that he is above being questioned as well.

Mike Bloomberg was all for term limits when he ran for Mayor. Rudy Guliani had floated the idea that he be allowed to stay on to shepherd the city through six additional months in the aftermath of the 9/11 tragedy. Bloomberg was the first to quote the famous line about the cemeteries being filled with "indispensable" people. Of course he used exactly the same argument that Guliani did, by claiming that he was the only person qualified to lead the city through these difficult economic times. His master stroke was including the City Council in his plans.

He could have made his desire for another term known in more than enough time for it to be put on the ballot, but he knew the easiest path would be to skip the voters all together. The voters of this city had twice voted for term limits, but that did not matter to the mayor. By including the City Council in his plan, he allowed those already in office to basically vote to allow themselves to remain in office. The ridiculous argument floated by a lot of the City Council members was that if almost half of them were forced out due to term limits then the city would suffer because it would take the new members a few years to figure out what they were doing. This argument does not acknowledge the fact that in four years we will be faced with an entirely new City Council. If the argument was that experience matters, then in four years we will face a city council that will be 100% new. There will be no seasoned council men or women to mentor the new members. That does not seem to matter to the people currently on the Council and Bloomberg knew it wouldn't.

So the mayor stands poised to win a third term in November (along with large chuck of the City Council), which he will no doubt do with an overwhelming majority of the votes. There is simply no candidate who can stand up to the onslaught from a multi-billionaire mayor. And as King Michael oversees the land, he finds it an annoyance to answer questions that do not fit into his view of the world. King Michael is indifferent to the will of the people unless their will coincides with his desires. King Michael rules at his leisure and we his humble servants are fortunate to be able to bask in the glow of his magnificence. That reporter should count himself lucky that the words out of the king's mouth were "you're a disgrace" and not "off with his head".

Running Scared

Yesterday, the Senate handed President Obama a resounding defeat. They voted 90-6 against the funding for the closing of Gitmo. This astounding vote can only be described as an absolute victory for the Right wing fear machine. Since Obama announced that he was going to close Gitmo, the voices on the right have been screaming that this will certainly make us less safe. Republican representatives have been using every available pulpit to assert that they are not willing to take these dangerous detainees in their state prisons.

It seems almost laughable to hear the Right talk about these detainees as if they were master criminals from fiction. It would seem that we have everybody from the Joker to Lex Luther and they are just waiting for the opportunity to be on American soil so that they can reap havoc on the citizens of this country. The fact that we already have convicted terrorists in our prisons does not seem to matter to the Right. Those guys are apparently just the B team. The people we have in Gitmo are the real criminal masterminds. Never mind the fact that no one has ever escaped from a supermax prison, to hear the Right tell it, those super fortified detention centers are no match for the brilliant and devious minds of the detainees at Gitmo.

Before yesterdays vote, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California gave an impassioned speech in which she explained that the supermax detention centers in her state were more than capable of handling these detainees. She also said that she hoped that her fellow Senators had not been swayed by any words to the contrary. Of course she then went out and voted against the funding herself. Amazingly, this was not the most egregious action in the Senate yesterday. That prize would have to go to Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader. After having voted against the funding, he gave a press conference in which he stated that he didn't want these people released onto American streets. He was reminded by a reporter that the President wasn't talking about releasing anyone, but just transferring them. He responded that you can't put them in prison unless you release them??!?!?!?!?! I have no idea what he could have possibly meant, but when the leader of the Democrats in the Senate is spewing ridiculous right wing talking points, you know that something has gone terribly wrong.

Maybe I don't understand. Perhaps our federal prisons are as easy to get out of as jury duty. Who knows? I somehow find that hard to believe though. As stated before, we already have terrorists in our prisons. They have not managed to escape and unless we are bringing the inmates from Arkham asylum, I don't think that we'll have a mass escape any time soon. The Republicans love to play the politics of fear and this time it seems to have ensnared most of the Senate. I thought that the Democratic Senators were smarter than that, but then I tend to give people too much credit.

UPDATE: Here are the six brave souls who voted for the measure: Durbin (D-IL)Harkin (D-IA)Leahy (D-VT)Levin (D-MI)Reed (D-RI)Whitehouse (D-RI). They deserve our thanks.

Healthcare on life support

I just wanted to add my two cents to the healthcare article that SJ wrote. He always says it better than I do, but here are my thoughts. As we go to sleep tonight there are at least 48 million Americans without healthcare. I have only one question to ask to the 250 million Americans who are fortunate enough to have healthcare. Is that okay with you? Our current healthcare system was basically set up under the Nixon administration with the promise of providing quality healthcare to all Americans. Yet how can it be that more than twenty five years after the Nixon administration opened the gates for HMO's to decide the level of medical care we should receive, that there are more Americans without healthcare than ever.

There is a simple answer to that question. Medical coverage is now a matter of dollar and cents. The medical insurance companies are in the business of making money. Their bottom line is that they only make money if they take in more than they pay out. That means that they would like your insurance premiums to be more than the medical care that you are provided with for that year. Judging by immense profits that the medical insurance companies have been amassing over the last two decades, they have been doing a very good job at making sure the ledger balances in their favor.

When the former Fed chairman, Alan Greenspan was in front of a Congressional committee trying to explain what went wrong with Wall St., he said "I thought they would do the right thing". What he meant was that he thought that the people whose only job was to make as much money as they possibly could, would also take it upon themselves to police their own greed. That was akin to letting wolves loose in a hen house and expecting them to make sure that they left enough chickens alive so that everyone would have omelets the next morning. The health of Americans is now a "for-profit" enterprise. The insurance companies "do the right thing" by making sure that their profits are as big as possible. After all, they have stock holders to answer to. The health and well being of their policy holders is not their primary concern. They have thousands of people hard at work right now, trying to find a way to deny needed medical procedures for their policy holders. The system is now set up so that less medical help you get, the more money they get.

The "for-profit" system is what those fortunate enough to have coverage have to endure. The almost 50 million without health insurance have a different set of problems. While having insurance is not a guarantee that you won't end up tens of thousands of dollars in debt because of uncovered "experimental" treatments, or denied claims, or non pre-approved emergencies, but at least you usually get treated at the hospital. Try to show up at a hospital without medical coverage and see how you get treated. Hospitals have been known to try and ship people to other hospitals for emergency care because they don't have medical coverage. They have been known to put sick people in cabs and drop them off in the middle of the city because they don't have medical coverage. There is no such thing as preventative medicine for those without health insurance. A simple infection can turn deadly without proper treatment, but under the current system, those without coverage are almost destined for the more serious situation.

At the end of the day, the question has to be, what kind of country do we want to be? Do we want to be a country where we let children and the elderly die because of the lack of affordable medical care? Do we want to be a country where possible life saving treatments are denied because they hurt the bottom line? Our healthcare system is broken. The insurance companies, along with the American Medical Association and the Pharmaceutical companies seem hell bent and milking every penny possible from the pockets of the American workers. The lobbyists for the "Triangle of Terror" (that's my trademark, by the way), spend tens of millions of dollars every year to make sure that our representatives in Washington keep the gravy train rolling. I have always believed that we as a people are better than our current healthcare system would reflect. We are generous when people are in need. We spring to the aid of neighbors during time of crisis. We help strangers half way around the world that we will never meet. I simply cannot believe that the majority of Americans are happy with a system that holds human life as cheaply as our healthcare system does.

Is Universal healthcare possible in America? The answer is obviously yes. The American people cannot be afraid to do what's right. The opponents of healthcare reform will say that the government will now be deciding whether you get to have surgery. They will say that you will have to wait much longer for life saving treatments such as transplants. They will say that we are not socialist and that providing healthcare to everyone is a socialist idea. They will try and convince the majority of Americans that they currently get treated like they wealthy do and that reform will lead to them being treated like the poor are. If Americans were to closely examine the current system they would realize that they are already being treated like the poor. Healthcare reform is absolutely necessary for us to move forward as a world leader in this new century. The health of our citizens should not be one of those things that gets worse as time goes on, but somehow it is. We rank behind every developed nation in western hemisphere in life expectancy. We rate no better than in the thirties in overall infant mortality rates. We can do better and we must do better. There is a better way, we just have to demand it.

The Hail Mary Play

Dick Cheney has been touting the fact that President Obama has made the country less safe since about one month into his term. The former Vice President has made it clear that he thinks that the use of torture (that is plain English for the code words "enhanced interrogation techniques") is essential to the safety and well being of the citizens of this country. He has gone so far as to basically admit that he and former President Bush were not only aware of the torture program, but in fact green lighted the policy.

There are some who would say that his current media blitz is just Cheney's attempt to protect his legacy. There are others who would say that he is genuinely concerned about what he perceives to be a serious flaw in our national security. Cheney would probably say that he loves his country so much that he is willing to state his case regardless of the repercussions. However, I suspect that the real reason that notoriously press shy Cheney has suddenly made himself more available than a prostitute at Hunts Point is much more diabolical.

I believe that Dick Cheney goes to bed at night praying for another terrorist attack on the United States. He really see that as the only way that he will be fully vindicated. His mantra of "we kept America safe" can only fully appreciated if we are attacked again. Of course he conveniently washes over the fact that the worst terrorist attack in our history took place on his watch. In his mind, that fact is secondary to the "kept us safe" lie. He in fact repeats it so much that in his mind it's true. The 9/11 attacks weren't his fault. The fault for those attacks lays solely in the laps of the Clinton administration. In his mind the Bush administration started on 9/12/01. The discarding of the Bill of Rights, the subsequent breaking of international law, leading the country into an unwarranted war and the lies and deceptions that followed are all part of the "correct" way to run the country.

He prays that this country will suffer a devastating attack so that he will be able to say, "I told you so". He wants the country to recognize him as the ultimate patriot. He wants the American people to agree with him and say that our rights need to be sublimated in order to protect us from extremists. He wants the country to live in fear. He prays that future events will somehow vindicate him and the Bush administration in the eyes of history. He does not care what the cost in human lives may be. He does not care what the cost to the rule of law may be. He does not care what the cost to our reputation may be. He only cares about himself. There can be no other answer to someone whose current mission appears to be to undermine the current administration.

Words like treason and unpatriotic were thrown around whenever someone had the audacity to question the motives and actions of the Bush administration. It is almost comical to watch the other side of that equation. The far Right likes to wrap itself in the flag while attacking the current administration at every turn and throwing around words like secession and revolution. Dick Cheney is just the leading example of the most hypocritical element in our society. Political dissent is a critical part of our republic. It is necessary for the best ideas to come to the fore. However, Dick Cheney is not only expressing an opposing view (a view that in truth supports continued illegal activity), I believe that he is hoping that actual harm befall our nation. His legacy can only be rehabilitated by such an action and he knows it.

Muddy the Waters

The former Vice President has been on a damage control tour of talk shows to try and press his case for the use of torture against terrorist suspects. The Republicans and their talking heads have taken the tact of trying to accuse Nancy Pelosi of lying about knowing about the torture policy. Dick Cheney has even gone so far as to point the finger at former President Bush as having known about and approved of the torture policy. Dick Cheney's main point however is still that torture was an effective tool in preventing attacks on the United States.

The point as to whether torture was effective or not has become a main point of contention on both sides. I have stated in the past and will reiterate the point that the effectiveness of torture is not important. People being tortured will admit to almost anything. Dick Cheney and the Republicans have been successful in altering the national debate. Dick Cheney has admitted and we have documentation to prove that the Bush administration did in fact carry out a policy of torture. We have more than enough legal history to prove that the techniques approved and used by the Bush administration are indeed torture. If we accept that fact, then the conversation should not be about who knew what when, but who approved and initiated the program.

I have no doubt that Democrats like Jay Rockefeller and Nancy Pelosi might have indeed been briefed on the techniques that were used. That is wholly beside the point. Even if they knew about the torture, they were in no position to do anything about it. The CIA briefings were classified and anyone in those meetings was bound, by law, not to talk about them. The less than esteemed former speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, said that since Democrats have been in charge since 2007 they should have made Waterboarding illegal if they thought that it was so bad. Of course he forgets the point that waterboarding was illegal and continues to be illegal. There is no need to make any new laws to make it so.

The question of torture is a matter of law. There is no grey area. Claiming that some Democrats may have known about the practices does not make the use of those practices any less illegal. We are supposed to be a nation of laws. If our leaders can decide to enforce only the laws that are convenient, then our system of government is not only corrupt, but invalid. Torture is illegal. The people who initiated a program of torture need to answer for their actions. That is it. Our nation's laws and international laws and treaties were violated in the name of the citizens of this country. It is the citizens themselves who should be demanding that the people who approved and initiated this illegal program of torture should be brought to justice. It is the people who have to adhere to the rule of law who should be outraged that their good name has been sullied by those in government. It is the people who have to rise up and shout that no one is above the law.

You'll Get Nothing and Like It!

In lieu of the recent controversy surrounding the Bush administration's torture policy, I wanted to review the Bill of Rights and see what rights remained unabridged in light of the policies of the previous administration (and in some cases continued by the current one). Let's take them one by one.

1st Amendment - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. While the Bush administration did not establish a religion, they did base some of their policies on the desires of the religious right. Freedom of the press is a different matter. They not only planted stories and talking points on one cable news network, but they also instituted a program of electronic surveillance of members of the press who were particularly critical of the administration. I'm going to say that the first amendment did survive fairly intact though. So the People are up 1-0.

2nd Amendment - A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Without a doubt this amendment came through unscathed. There are more assault weapons in the hands of Americans than ever before. The poor deer don't stand a chance. People 2-0.

3rd Amendment - No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. The People are on a roll. This one also remains in place. Although I can't imagine a time when this would be needed. Regardless, the People are on a roll 3-0.

4th Amendment - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Here is where it all starts to go wrong. The Bush administration (and for that matter the Obama administration) have decided that they can indeed gather any information they feel necessary without obtaining a warrant. The at first illegal wiretapping program that is now somehow been deemed legal by Congress, flies in the face of the 4th Amendment. The wiretapping now assumes that the all electronic data gathered by the government is "reasonable" and therefore not subject to the 4th Amendment. It's amazing how easily government action becomes reasonable when the rights of Americans are in peril. The People lose their first one 3-1.

5th Amendment - No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. The now infamous "enemy combatant" label laid waste to this amendment. The President now has the power to hold any person, he deems a threat to the security of the United States, indefinitely and without trial or representation. Any individual can now be denied of at least liberty and property without due process. The Obama administration has gotten rid of the enemy combatant label, but has maintained the right to use the power when necessary. The People take one in the nuts, 3-2.

6th Amendment - In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. This right goes hand in hand with the last one. The right to a speedy and public trial have been replaced by the right to held indefinitely without charge. The government gets around this one, by never charging the individuals with anything "criminal". While that allows them to avoid the letter of the law, it certainly violates the spirit of the law. After a strong start the People now stand in a dead heat 3-3.

7th Amendment - In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. It looks like this one is still intact! The People rule! 4-3.

8th Amendment - Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. And just like that, the winning streak comes to an end at one. Torture without a doubt would fit the definition of cruel and unusual punishment. Although the fact that it was used over 180 times in one month on one individual means that it certainly wasn't unusual to at least one person. Deadlocked again 4-4.

9th Amendment - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. I would like to know exactly what rights are retained by the people at this point. We can be made to disappear by our government, we can be tortured by our government, we can be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant and these are just the rights that are enumerated in this document. I not even sure I can think of what "others" we actually retain. This goes against the People. 4-5.

10th Amendment - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. I have the same thoughts about this one as the 9th Amendment. The Federal Government has at this point gathered so much power in the name of the People, that they have left little outside of their control. The states do retain control over their own elections and their day to day operations, so even though I have my doubts, I'm going to give this one to the People. That leaves the final score at 5-5.

The Obama administration has ended the use of torture, but I'm not sure that holding an individual indefinitely without charge or legal counsel does not also rise to the level of cruel and unusual punishment. The 8th Amendment may or may not still be in tact depending upon your definition of the terms. One of my greatest hopes for the Obama administration was that they would reverse the course of the previous administration with regards to the Bill of Rights. It appears that although some steps have been taken (e.g., ending torture), we still have a long way to go to restore the rights that were supposedly guaranteed to us over 200 years ago.

Outrageous Fortune

The outrage from the Right over President Obama's actions at the recent meeting of American nations is just another example of the ridiculous nature of political debate. The manufactured outrage over President Obama accepting a book from Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez and his attendance at a speech by the Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, proves once again that the Republicans have no interest in a grown up debate about the direction of the country. Republican Presidents have a history of meeting with opposition leaders. Nixon met with Mao and Brezhnev when he was President. Regan most famously met with Gorbachev during his two terms. There was no outrage from the Right then. Nixon even presented Brezhnev with a car, even though the USSR had recently invaded one of their eastern European satellites.

I wonder where that outrage was when the President decided that our rule of law did not apply to him. Where was the outrage over the continued abuse of prisoners and the wanton destruction of our Constitutional freedoms. The right was entirely silent while George W. Bush willingly broke the laws of the land. They are also surprising quiet as our current President seeks to pardon those activities. The Right is more than willing to harp about a handshake, but ignoring previous illegal activity apparently meets with their approval.

There can now be no doubt that our government initiated and maintained an illegal torture program along with an illegal electronic wiretapping program. Those are unequivocally impeachable offenses. Those on the right were not outraged by these activities but are up in arms over the fact that President has released the Justice Department memos outlining the torture program. They don't care that prisoners were tortured in the name of all Americans, they only care that now everyone knows it. They didn't even bat an eye when the Vice President proudly proclaimed that we had indeed tortured prisoners.

The same Republicans who were willing to submit this country to the most expensive trial in history in order to try and embarrass a Democratic President, are now unwilling to hold one of their own liable for the highest of crimes. The impeachment trial of President Clinton was was based on what should have been a private matter. The acts that President Clinton committed, while being immoral, did not affect society as a whole and certainly had no impact on the Constitution. George W. Bush not only thumbed his nose at the rule of law in this country, but at the rights of every citizen. For those illegal activities, the Right would have us forgive and forget. Our current President seems to be of the same mind. Perhaps he is trying to curry some political favor with the Republicans in order to get some bipartisan support for his policies. If that is the reason, he should know better. Both the recent and historical actions of the Republicans have shown that this will try at every turn to foil the actions of this President.

Are Your Parents Home?

It has taken less than three months of the Obama administration for the language of Washington D.C. to deteriorate to the level of a grade school fight. Barack Obama came into office with the promise of a new Washington. One in which both sides were heard and could "disagree without being disagreeable" as the new president so eloquently stated. This dream of a bipartisan nirvana lasted until for about a week. Once Congress proposed the new budget and every single Republican in the House voted against it, the proverbial gloves were off.

It seems that the only response either side has is to accuse the other of the wanton destruction of our republic. Claims and counter claims are made with each side responding with shock and awe at either the audacity or stupidity of the other sides proposals. The Republicans say that the Obama administration is in the process of destroying not only the Constitution, but our way of life. The Democrats say that the Republicans are hypocrites and liars and that their only concern is the well being of corporate America and the wealthy. They both react with feigned sadness at the ignorance of their opponents. They both claim to have the only answer for security and long term well being of the country.

This week the Governor of Texas decided to make some thinly veiled threats about his state seceding from the union if policies of the current administration continued. The Democrats responded with their usual mix of sadness and shock that anyone could even suggest such a thing without addressing the underlying issues that caused the Governor to make those statements. His statements came at the now famous "Tea Party" events of April 15. While the protests may lack a central theme, there is clearly a portion of the country that feels our current economic direction is wrong. Unfortunately, ridiculing dissent does not make it go away.

The era of understanding that our new President proposed only two and half months ago has devolved into name calling and saber rattling. As I have stated before, in order to have an effective government, we need ideas from both sides of the aisle. Name calling and manufactured outrage will not make our policies any better. It is time for both sides to grow up.

The King Lives

Yesterday, the Obama Justice Department asked a judge to dismiss a case that was initially brought against the Bush administration for their warrantless wiretapping program. The Justice Department said that if the claim were to move forward it would risk disclosure of classified or sensitive material. Basically they state that regardless of the actual merits of the case, the mere risk of the release of government records should be enough to dismiss the claim. That is only the first of their reasons for asking for this dismissal.

The other grounds for dismissal is that, according to the Obama Justice Department, no lawsuit should be allowed to be brought against the government for wiretapping unless they somehow publicly release information that they have gathered, irrespective of whether the means of gathering that information was legal or not. It seems that the Obama Justice Department is not only seeking to immunize the Bush administration from any claims of wrongdoing based on their warrantless wiretapping program, they are also seeking to expand the right of the government to the point that they can invade the privacy of its citizens at will.

The Obama Justice Department is claiming the right of sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity is a concept based on old English law that basically states that the king or state is immune from having civil or legal claims brought against it. There are indeed valid reasons for making this claim, since the courts would literally be filled with people bringing frivolous suits if the government were not immune in most instances. However, when the government blatantly disregards one of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, I believe they forfeit their right to use this defense. I wrote an article about the Imperial Bush presidency back in May of '08. The Bush administration wielded power as if we lived in a monarchy. They clearly overstepped their constitutional boundaries and did so without regret. I honestly thought all that changed on January 20th of this year. I had no fantasies of President Obama changing the world overnight. I certainly did not believe that the economy would all of sudden reverse course and go from bust to boom. However I did believe that the Constitution would once again take it's rightful place. I did believe that our government would stop treating it's citizens like criminals. I did believe that we would free to live our lives without the constant threat of government surveillance. I guess I was wrong.

As I have stated before, my main desire for this administration was that we would ave an Executive branch that acts in accordance with and respects the Constitution. I ask again, where the hell is the man who said the choice between safety and our ideals is a false one? I will reprint the fourth amendment of the Bill of Rights here and ask the question; Does this opinion by the Justice Department, in any way, belong in a country that in theory is governed by this document?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Fear Itself

Michael Steele recently stated that the government has never created a job. This is typical of the Republican response to this Obama administration stimulus package. The Republicans have repeatedly referred to the stimulus package as a "spending" package. The Republicans have also seen fit to equate the stimulus package with FDR's new deal. The link, according to them, is that FDR's spending bills extended the depression and they make the argument that Obama's plan will do the same.

There are a couple of a fallacies in the Republican argument. First of all, the New Deal did not extend the Depression. FDR came in to office with an unemployment rate at well over 20%. While the rate fluctuated for the next ten years, it did generally go down and never again reached the levels of the previous administration. In fact unemployment had decreased to the low double digit range before the start of WWII. The second fallacy in the argument involves job creation. The Republicans credit WWII with ending the Depression. It was true that the war did stimulate spending and get everyone working, but the majority of those new jobs were government funded. Basically, if the government had hired millions of men to join the armed services and precipitated a massive military build up, even without the war, the results would have been the exactly the same.

So while the Republicans bash the current administration for spending money to try and stimulate the economy, they point to the biggest governmental spending program in history as the real cure for the Depression. While the Republicans are doing their best to try and minimize the role of FDR in ending the depression, or at least lessening the effects of the depression, they have unsuspectingly contradicted their own argument. As history has shown us, sometimes the government has to spend money in order to get the economy moving in a positive direction.

Walk and Chew Gum

I have heard a lot of talk lately about President Obama taking on too many problems at once. The economy is the major issue that the country is facing at this point. Candidate Obama made it clear that the President has to be able to tackle multiple issues at once during the campaign. While John McCain was "suspending" his campaign to "rush" back to Washington to work on the bailout package, Obama said, that as President, you have to be able to handle multiple crises at once.

It seems that some people are unable to make the logical link between our economic health and the spiraling cost of healthcare. One of the biggest problems that businesses face is paying for healthcare. From the big three automakers to the small business owner, paying for health insurance for workers can represent the difference between survival and bankruptcy. That doesn't even account for the almost 50 million Americans who do not have healthcare coverage.

If we do not improve our education system, the cost to society will only increases in the long run. The fact that only 50% of African-American students graduate high school represents a massive systemic failure. The cost increases when we allow a generation after generation of young adults to enter adulthood ill-prepared to compete for jobs or to care properly for themselves and inevitably, their children. The cycle of poverty can only be broken if the government takes steps to intervene in the process. Education isn't the only answer to the problem, but it is an important factor in breaking the cycle.

The longer we wait, the worse the problem gets. If now is not the time to address these problems, then when is the time? George Bush spoke on many occasions of the record breaking number of months of growth that took place during his administration. If that were the case, then why wasn't some of that money used for education? Why weren't some of those dollars used for healthcare? According to the Vice President, 9/11 was the reason for that. We were forced to go to war and so our priorities had to change. I don't believe that they would have taken any real steps in those areas, but my point is that even during "good" economic times we have never taken any real steps to address these issues.

The President is trying to make good on the promises he made during his campaign. It is very clear that our current economic crisis is his top priority. However, there are many other pressing issues that also need his attention. We are engaged in two wars, the Middle East conflicts continues to demand our attention, two nuclear nations (Pakistan and North Korea) are potential powder kegs, the drug wars in Mexico are now spilling over our borders, etc., etc., etc. The truth is that the President faces a myriad of problems. It is not only shortsighted but illogical for people to expect him to only handle one thing at a time. The President has explained his reasoning for wanting to change the healthcare system and improve education. They are tied to the long term growth and viability of our nation. Asking the President of the United States to be myopic in his approach is simply moronic.

Surprise, Surprise

The surprising answer to yesterday's mystery is none other than everyone's favorite conservative mouthpiece Pat Buchanan. I guess it just goes to show you that even a broken clock is right twice a day. I'm reprinting a piece that I wrote last year after Pat Buchanan had written an article entitlted "Wake Up, Whitey". I think the post pretty much speaks for itself. We can enjoy the brief moments of clarity from folks like Buchanan, but let's not forget who he is.

Barack Obama's speech on race has allowed much more honest commentary from the press. There have been a string of articles either praising or criticizing the speech, but at least there has been a dialogue about the subject. It has allowed a lot of pundits to weigh in with their thoughts about the issues of race in the country, which is definitely a good thing. I believe that Pat Buchanan wrote the definitive article about the subject yesterday and I just wanted to add my comments to highlight that fact. Here are some of the salient passages:

"White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to"
Pat Buchanan does speak for "White America". He has run for President twice and come within 50,000,000 votes or so of becoming Commander-in-Chief. If that doesn't qualify you to represent the entire White population of America, I don't know what does.

"First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known. Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American."
I couldn't agree more. The Africans who signed up for that pleasure cruise across the ocean (during which many died) to have a better life here in America, I'm sure would be very grateful to learn that their offspring have done so well. I know that there is nothing I would like more than to be violently kidnapped and separated from my family and friends and taken half way around the world (if I was fortunate enough to survive the trip) and be forced into slavery so that in 300 years my descendants would be viewed as almost equal by the racial majority. Where do I sign up? I'm pretty sure that I've got some friends who want in this deal as well.

"Second, no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the ’60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream."

Damn, Pat. You're right again. Black people are downright ungrateful. Although all the programs that you mention (welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs) have given a lot more money to Whites than Blacks (and those are government programs funded by tax dollars, meaning that people of every race contributed to them, but let's not argue over details), we should be grateful to have been included when the government was giving out those freebies. There is nothing that people love more than being allowed to subsist below the poverty level.

"Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in discrimination against white folks — with affirmative action, contract set-asides and quotas — to advance black applicants over white applicants."
You know what Pat? You are right on point again. Blacks should have been happy with separate but equal (damn that liberal Supreme Court). I mean forcing people to actually integrate is downright disgusting. I know that there were lots of schools in the South that couldn't wait to let Black people in. In fact they used have huge welcoming committees for them (usually a lot of soldiers and people holding signs and yelling). White America was waiting with open arms to embrace it's long abused brothers. If only the Government hadn't interfered so much, the country would be much better off today. Don't you think? I know Pat and I do.

"Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals all over America have donated time and money to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks. We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude?"
Not enough gratitude, that's the problem with this country today. If we could all just be a little more thankful, then all of our problems would disappear. I'm not talking about the people who actually received help, I'm talking about all the Black people in America. There should be a national "Thank a White Person" day. That way all Black people would be able to properly thank the Whites for all the hard work they have done on their behalf. Oh, let's just make it a month. I'm thinking February. I hear there's nothing going on that month anyway.

"Let him go to Altoona and Johnstown, and ask the white kids in Catholic schools how many were visited lately by Ivy League recruiters handing out scholarships for “deserving” white kids."
Yeah, shouldn't the Ivy league schools be trying harder to get more White kids into their schools?

"As for racism, its ugliest manifestation is in interracial crime, and especially interracial crimes of violence. Is Barack Obama aware that while white criminals choose black victims 3 percent of the time, black criminals choose white victims 45 percent of the time?"
Another example of how lazy Blacks are. Instead of trying to find a rich Black person, Black criminals just pick the most convenient target around.

Pat and I are in total agreement. I can't wait for his next article to show us all the light once again. I'll end my article with this:
To all Black people, it is time to be more grateful to your benefactors. And to all White people I can only apologize for the delay. But I promise that if you just have a little patience, your gratitude is on its way. So don't be surprised if one day a black man, woman or child comes up to you and says thank you. "For what", you'll say. "For just being you", will be the answer. "For just being you".

Mystery Man

On Harball today, Chris Matthews was reviewing the love fest between John King and Dick Cheney this past Sunday. Matthews showed a clip of Cheney defending the war in Iraq by saying that we have met our goals there. By "our goals" he was referring to setting up an independent Democratic society. He clearly has a faulty memory because running around setting up Democracies was never our stated goal. I remember the talk of WMD's and ties to 9/11 and potential acquisition of nuclear technology (remember the famed yellow cake memo), but creating a "democratically governed Iraq" was not mentioned. John King never once called him on that fact on Sunday, but as the previous post by SJ pointed out, "journalists" no longer seem willing to speak the truth to power.

I am getting away from my main point, Matthews had a couple of people on to comment on the interview and he asked them about the answer that Cheney had given regarding Iraq. I will now quote in full the responses of one of the pundits:

"What the Vice President overlooked was the price of this war. 4,000 dead Americans, 30,000 wounded, 100,000 dead Iraqis, 100,000 widows and kids without fathers, 4 million refugees, the Christian community cut to pieces over there with half of them driven into Syria. It's been a horribly costly thing. Those people would have been better off if we'd left them alone. I do not believe that we have the right to attack a country that has not threatened us, want war with us or attack us in order to deprive it of weapons it does not have"

This same pundit continued later:

"He (Saddam Hussein) was deterred. He was in a box by 2001. He was no threat to the United States of America. If he were a threat why didn't the Jordanians and Turks and the others want us to invade? Nobody over there wanted this war."

Fairly coherent arguments against the war and against the statements of the Vice President, I would say. It's not that we haven't said it before, but it's always nice to hear it from someone else. So who is the mystery man? You'll just have to wait until tomorrow. And no peaking.

Bacon Brothers

I have a couple of things to discuss briefly tonight. I'm going to resort to the Colbert Report format of a "Wag of the Finger". My first WOTF is to Governor Sanford of South Carolina. He has stated that he will take the stimulus money that should be targeted for education and instead spend it on debt reduction. His justification is that the state should be fiscally responsible and not spend money (even federal money) that it does not have. The funny thing is that I don't remember him turning down any other federal money while the Bush administration ran up the largest deficits in US history. Did he turn down the money that went to defense contractors because the US government was running at a deficit? Of course not. But now that a Democratic president is offering his state money for education (which according to the governor is clearly not as important as paying off the state debt), he has all of a sudden decided to pray at the altar of fiscal responsibility. Governor Sanford is clearly trying to position himself for a run at the presidency in 2012 and he is trying to step over the bodies of the almost 8,000 teachers who would have to be fired if the stimulus money is not used. As I stated in a previous post, I expect the state legislature to over rule the Governor. However this stance is on its face so ridiculous that I think along with over ruling the Governor, the state legislature should also look into starting impeachment hearings. If purposefully denying your citizens of critical services such as education does not rise to the level of high crime or misdemeanor, then I don't know what does.

My second WOTF goes to the Obama justice department. Today they have done away with the "enemy combatant" label. Basically, by applying that label to individuals, President Bush was allowed to indefinitely detain any individual without charges. His justification being that those detained individuals posed an imminent threat to the health and welfare of America. Of course they never had to charge those people with anything, the president and the president alone had the power to apply that label. You would think that getting rid of that label would mean that those so designated individuals would now have to be charged with something and would have their day in court. Of course you'd be wrong. Those former "enemy combatants" are now just indefinite detainees. The still have not been charged, there is currently no plan to charge them, they still have no court dates, they still have no rights. One of the "enemy combatants" is a US citizen. One of them has a green card. My main desire for this presidency was that we would have an Executive branch that acts in accordance with and respects the Constitution. Where the hell is the man who said the choice between safety and our ideals is a false one? When our government stoops to the level of a Central American dictatorship (and I know that may seem harsh, but what do you call it when the government can basically make any of it's citizens disappear), we are all in danger. I for one expected more from this administration. I take that back, I expect more. I expect them to reverse this decision in the coming days, weeks or months. I expect them to do more than just try to put lipstick on a pig, because as the president told us during the campaign, it's still a pig.

Same As The Old Boss

The Republican response to all proposals by the Obama administration has certainly been consistent. As espoused by Bobby Jindal in his response to the President's speech last week and echoed by every speaker at the CPAC conference, the answer to our problems is not increased government aid but less government, more tax cuts and greater individual responsibility. This is the formula that led us to our current situation, but while some Republicans have accepted some responsibility for the current mess, they claim that it was the fault of the Bush administration for not adhering to these conservative principles.

The Republican leadership has railed against the administration for it's "out of control spending". They have called the President every thing from a socialist to a radical communist. They have accused him of trying to setup a "European style government" here in America. I'm frankly amazed that they haven't called him to task for his choice in dog. What the Republicans have failed to do however, is to tell the public what their vision of America is. They have talked about a tax cut only stimulus and smaller government and the lack of faith in the federal government to solve people's problem, but they have not told the American people what that would look like. Bobby Jindal used the example of the federal response to Katrina to illustrate the ineffectiveness of federal government in dealing with local problems. He did not, of course, tell the American people what the alternative would have been.

The states currently face massive shortfalls in their budgets and money provided by the stimulus package is the only way for them to maintain critical services. Some Republican governors have said that they will refuse the stimulus money because they believe that it is wasteful and does not effectively address the economic crisis. The stimulus package provides for the governors to be over ruled by their state legislatures in regards to accepting the money. I have no doubt that those states will end up accepting the money because economic reality will always win out over political ideology.

So what would America look like if the Republican version of the stimulus were enacted? We can look to a state like Louisiana for an example. When Bobby Jindal took over, the public schools were ranked 21st in the nation, this year they are ranked 35th. Fiscal conservatism is a fine ideal, but what is the cost in human terms? New York City has a $700 million shortfall for education funding for the upcoming fiscal year. Without the money from the stimulus, the city would be unable to pay for thousands of teachers. To republicans, that wouldn't be much of a problem. They would simply say that economic reality is that those in public school would simply have to do with less. The stimulus also provides for extended unemployment benefits. The Republican alternative would have no relief for those whose benefits have expired. The stimulus package provides money for health care. What would republicans say to those states who do not have the money to provide health care to the elderly? They would say that is the cost of fiscal responsibility.

The reality is that without help from the federal government, the states would have to cut back so severely on public services that the effects would be felt by almost every citizen. Services like garbage pick up would have to be cut back. Policemen and firemen would have to be laid off. The services provided by social workers, teachers, transit workers, health care providers and others would have to be dramatically scaled back. That is the reality of the republican alternative. It is the same reality that we have lived with for the past 30 years. The rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer. Newt Gingrich's big proposal to combat the economic crisis is to eliminate the capital gains tax!!#!?? How does that help middle and lower class Americans through this crisis? The answer is it doesn't, of course, but then when in the last 30 years have the republicans cared about that.

The reason that the Republicans refuse to illustrate their vision of what America would look like under their leadership is because they know that the American people would never buy it. So instead of laying out a viable alternative, they attack the President and his policies. Spending! they scream. Socialism! they bellow. Communism! they chant. But at the end of the day, they have no new answers to the problems that were created over the past 30 years. As our economy contracts to levels not seen in over a decade, the republican response is more of the same. The rich will eventually help the poor if we make them rich enough. That mantra however, does not feed or educate our children. It does not get medicine to the elderly. It does not keep former working families out of soon to be disappearing shelters.

The republicans pray for the failure of the presidents policies so that they can be returned to power. They realize the consequences if Obama fails, but they don't care. Power is their ultimate goal. The power to say who the government can help and who gets left behind. That is the reason for their opposition to the current administration. It is not about the amount of money being spent, but about where it is targeted.