Depressed

As the Nation sinks deeper and deeper into the Bush Depression and the professed "small government" conservative ideologues of the administration throw around more and more billions of dollars of "bailouts," the priorities of a corrupt and wretched economic system are brought into sharp focus. The capitalist system has but one master, money. Decisions are taken such that the only consideration is that those with money can make more money. If that means that others would suffer so that "Capital" can profit, then so be it, money knows no ethics but money. There are essentially no rules. While a giant edifice of "lawfulness" has been erected around the system, at it's core it is the essence of lawlessness, take from others so that I may profit. How else to see the massive frauds that are routinely perpetrated on the powerless by the powerful. How else to see a world where 5% have accumulated most of the wealth, while 4 billion people toil in misery day in and day out. As long as the interests of money are served, then essentially any means can be justified.

That people are fed; children clothed, sheltered and educated; the sick cared for, then it is only a secondary outcome, as these basic human rights barely enter into the calculations of how money will seek more money. Indeed, such is the situation in our Nation today that the seeking of money will effectively determine if the sick are cared for. A more profoundly anti-human principle can scarcely be envisioned, yet our economic masters preach that it is the only way, as if the right of Capital to seek ever more profit were a natural law, akin to gravity or electrodynamics.

The worship of money is clearly seen in the recent response to the implosion of the Wall Street investment banks and the more recent, impending bankruptcy of the US automobile industry. The Wall Street financiers were provided with upwards of 700 billion dollars of bailout funds, and nary a single bank executive was required to appear before Congress to account for their catastrophic mismanagement, corruption and malfeasance, or explain how the public's largesse would not end up in the same rat-hole as the rest of their capital. No, the bailout was passed in a near-frenzy of media-induced panic, and subsequently, it seems not to have had any of its professed effects, the economic crisis only deepening, and banks remaining largely unwilling to lend. It did, however, manage to burden future generations with an even larger mountain of debt, and to transfer a huge sum of public funds to private hands, one of the few things that the Bush administration has been any good at. Maddeningly, perhaps as much as 1.6 billion of the funds went to the CEOs of bailed out institutions, in the form of bonuses and other compensation!

Consider next the treatment of the leaders of the US automobile industry. They were seeking a mere 30 billion dollars or so, a sum twenty times less than the titans of finance were bequeathed, but the Big Three auto CEOs were required to testify at congressional hearings, during which they were chastised and skewered for their abysmal management of their companies. It didn't help matters that they flew into Washington in the lap of luxury aboard their corporate jets. It would seem that no level of failure is sufficient to abrogate certain executive privileges. Indeed, in order to sway the Republican side of the aisle, the execs were required to submit a plan that would demonstrate how they planned to return to profitability. Moreover, this was apparently also an opportune time for Republicans to blame unionized American auto workers, and insist that they grant wage and benefits concessions which would put them on a par with their non-unionized brethren toiling for foreign automakers on American soil. Particularly repulsive was the sight of southern Senators, such as Kentucky's insipid Mitch McConnell, carrying water for foreign corporations like Toyota and Honda that employ non-unionized workers in their states. Here we had US politicians, with flags pinned to their lapels, insisting on reduced wages and benefits for American workers in the interests of foreign-owned companies. McConnell's "Grinchiness" did not escape the ire of many labor organizations, including the California Nurses Association. Indeed, it might be argued that the tax breaks and cheaper labor offered by southern states like Alabama and Kentucky to attract foreign manufacturers has been part of the demise of the US auto industry. Ah, but that's the "beauty" of the free market, the only thing that matters is the bottom line. Presumably, corporate bag-men like McConnell will not be satisfied until all American workers are toiling at subsistence wages, purely in the interests of Big Money.

A deeper irony is that the "success" of the financial industry represents the victory of the "paper" economy over the "nuts and bolts", manufacturing economy. It used to be that American wealth was founded on the manufacture of durable goods, but with the globalization of capital, manufacturing has been steadily "out-sourced" to regions with relatively low wages and lax labor laws. The factories of China and the maquiladoras of Mexico come to mind. This left finance and service industries as the remaining growth areas, but these industries are not truly generators of new wealth, they just tried to tap into existing wealth, or worse, financed the perpetuation of America's consumption economy on a mountain of debt. That debt is now burying us all, and as the bills come due, we are witnessing a steady contraction in US economic output.

Another irony is that none of this is new. We have seen the inherent instability in the capitalist system now for more than a century. The struggles of working people have managed to dull the sharp blade of capitalist downturns, winning many battles that acted to civilize the workplace, among these the 8 hour day and the 5 day work-week, and to erect a meaningful, if shaky, safety net in the form of government assistance programs and controls on capital. How quickly we forget though, and given the opportunity and their enormous financial power and the political influence it can buy, economic elites have been quick to attempt to redress the gains of working people and once again put everyone at the service of capital.

Although times are hard, a window of opportunity can be opened with the education of more people to the true realities of an unregulated capitalist system. With a new President about to take office, a President willing to listen to the needs of working people, we have a chance to try and address the fundamental problems with our present economic system. We should insist that economic decisions be based on real human values, and not simply the desire to maximize profits at all costs.

History!!

What a night. What a night! The major networks have called the Presidential race for Barack Obama, and it looks like he will comfortably surpass the 270 Electoral College votes needed to claim the presidency. In fact, McCain is now conceding as I write this.

An African American, a black man has been elected President of the United States!! When one considers the long history of slavery, hate, oppression and bigotry that black Americans have suffered, I am almost driven to tears by the thought. It is at least the beginning of the end of an eight year long nightmare. Tonight I am very proud to be an American. It is a night that all peace-loving Americans should celebrate. It is a hopeful sign that the forces of hate and intolerance are being slowly, but steadily driven back. There's an enormous amount of work to do from here, but tonight is a night for celebration!!

Spreadin' it Around

So the end now is finally in sight. There really can be no acceptable reason for such an endless Presidential campaign season. In case you missed it, a little more than 2 weeks ago Canada held national elections, approximately six weeks after Prime Minister Steven Harper called for the new vote. Imagine that, a campaign in six weeks, what a concept. Almost no time to sling the mud, just enough to lay out a program and let the voters decide. And in Canada you have more than two choices, and even the "minority" parties will have seats in parliament, and a real voice in the affairs of government, not so in the USA, where our politics has essentially been reduced to a vote for Dweedle Dum or Dweedle Dumber.

Moreover, after almost a years worth of campaigning recent polling suggests that perhaps as many as 7% of Americans are still undecided with regard to the Presidential race. Undecided?? How can anyone still be undecided about this race? My question to the undecided is along the lines of, what are you waiting to hear? What is it that would push you off the fence? Will it be the last 30 second distortion of a campaign ad that you hear before going to the polls? Will it be a last minute "gaffe" from one of the candidates? A coin flip?? In my opinion, anyone still "undecided" at this point should probably do the rest of us a big favor and not bother voting, since it would seem likely that their vote in the end is likely to turn on some ridiculous bit of minutiae or spin.

With such a long campaign there is that much more time for those so inclined to truly sink into the depths. The McCain campaign has arguably set a new standard for debasing a campaign; trotting out all the most despicable aspects of human nature in its last ditch effort to win at all costs. After this campaign, McCain should never again be allowed to even whisper the terms honorable or maverick in reference to himself.

What would appear to be their last hope has been to try and label Obama a socialistic "spreader of the wealth." This charge is so ridiculous, so devoid of substance, so pathetic, that it has had virtually no effect on the race, but it does serve to highlight the nature of Republican campaigning these days. Having literally "wrecked America," this crowd has no substantive issues to run on, so their tactics are reduced to name calling. The logic is this, Obama must be defeated at all cost, therefore, he is a socialist. No evidence is required for a Party driven by dogma and ideology. So, what is the ostensible "evidence" that Obama is a closet Marxist? Apparently it is his tax plan, that proposes to raise the tax rate on those incomes above about $250,000 by, wait for it, a Leninistic 2-4%, while modestly cutting taxes for the remainder of the citizenry. So, Obama's plan cuts taxes for upwards of 90-95% of Americans, and marginally raises rates on the top 5% of the income distribution, this "proves" without a doubt that obviously he must be a commie. The new higher rate is essentially the same as that pre-Dubya, under that obvious Marxist Bill Clinton. Based on these charges it becomes crystal clear just who McCain and Co. think are "real Americans," that would be those in that top 5% of incomes, a very small fraction of the total population, but clearly part of the Republican base!

Even more astonishing is the irony of McCain, and Republicans generally, charging Obama and Democrats with being "spreaders" of the wealth, when Republicans have engineered arguably the largest transfer of wealth in the nation's history, but this transfer has been from the bottom up rather than the top down. From the Bush tax cuts for the rich, to no-bid contracts, to corporate welfare and tax loopholes the rich have essentially robbed everyone else to the tune of many hundreds of billions of dollars. Then, we can consider the work of Governor Palin in her home state of Alaska, which each year cuts a check for several thousand dollars to every resident derived predominantly from tax revenues on oil companies operating in the State. In her own words Sarah Palin described this little socialistic redistribution thus, "we're set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs." Share collectively in the wealth eh, so we see that none other than right-wing ideologue Sarah Palin herself is at heart a socialist too, how wonderful. Based on this we know exactly where to put all these Republican charges of "socialism" against Obama, in the toilet where they belong.

Of course much of good governance is about collectively using resources for the benefit of the nation and society as a whole. All modern democracies have long since reached this conclusion, as it is grounded in fundamentally basic human values, but apparently not yet the politically Neanderthal Republican Party and its right-wing, Cro-Magnon apologists. Consider just one example, the Social Security program, all workers pay into it in order to guarantee at least a minimum level of retirement support and other benefits for the population, and Americans seem to think this is just fine, Social Security being one of the most well-liked government programs ever enacted. Just imagine if George Bush had gotten his way and succeeded in privatizing the Social Security system, and tying the retirement incomes of millions of Americans to the whims of financiers and the stock market. Can you say mega-disaster? I knew you could.

I live in Maryland, a state that will very likely go heavily for Obama over McCain. Nevertheless, I am often bemused and perplexed by the numbers of McCain/Palin lawn signs that I see. So, I will close this pre-election post with my satirical take on the standard McCain lawn sign. As they say, vote early, and vote often (if the past eight years have challenged your funny bone, that was a joke). In case you haven't guessed, I will be voting for Barack Obama, I hope many others will be doing the same.

Cratering Party

In his now famous snubbing of David Letterman, John McCain excused his own absence by stating that he needed to rush to Washington in order to rescue the "cratering" US economy, and thus wouldn't have the time to appear on Letterman's Late Show. In its current colloquial use the term cratering refers to a spectacular failure, and while it is an apt description of the current state of the US economy, it also perfectly describes the state of the Republican Party and its last eight years of catastrophic governance.

Now with the curtain drawing down, and what passes for an election entering its final and most ugly stage, we get to see the real nature of this Party, as well as its corporate and media apologists, as they try desperately to cling to power. So, now we are treated to the scenes of Sarah Palin and John McCain attempting to label Barack Obama a "terrorist" for the most tenuous association imaginable with one-time Weather Underground Organization (WUO) leader William Ayers. The "logic" at work here, such as it is, would appear to be at the same level as the mental machinations of Mrs. Palin who tried to argue that since she could see Russia from her state of Alaska, then she was an expert on that country with all the experience of a seasoned foreign policy wonk. For the mind that could concoct that tortured argument, it is not much of a stretch to something like, if Obama once saw the "terrorist" Ayers, then he must be a "terrorist" too!

Let's recap some of the pertinent facts surrounding this pathetic, McCarthyite attempt at guilt by association. First, Obama was an eight year old boy at the time of Ayer's involvement with the Weathermen! For most reasonable people, that should completely end the argument. Obama had precisely NOTHING to do with Ayers' alleged terrorist activities within the Weathermen. Second, the characterization of the Weathermen as terrorists is itself problematic. While the organization did engage in violence, it made a point of targeting property and not people. In general, warnings were issued well in advance of WUO bombings, and Ayers himself has stated that they were very serious about limiting injuries to civilians. Moreover, there is no evidence that any of Ayers' actions resulted in injury or loss of life, and indeed, no such charges were ever brought against him. This is not typically the behavior of truly terrorist organizations.

Now, some will no doubt argue that the violence itself, the bombings and rioting, are evidence enough of "terrorist" behavior, and no doubt this argument will find sympathetic ears with some readers, however, this conclusion ignores the fact that the relatively small-scale violence perpetrated by the WUO was a response to the truly massive violence being perpetrated by the US military in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, the scale of which completely dwarfs anything the WUO could have brought about. Moreover, the violent actions carried out by the WUO were an attempt, though perhaps ill-conceived and naive, to try and stop the much greater crimes being perpetrated in Southeast Asia by the American government with its imperial war in Vietnam. While Ayers has over the years expressed regrets with regard to some of the WUO's violent tactics, he has consistently refused to accept the terrorist charge, "The reason we weren't terrorists is because we did not commit random acts of terror against people. Terrorism was what was being practiced in the countryside of Vietnam by the United States," he has said. Of course, in their attempts to smear Obama by association with Ayers, Republicans completely ignore all of this important contextual information. Moreover, McCain himself has had past associations with such criminals (some might say terrorists) as the infamous G. Gordon Liddy, he of the Watergate break-in and burglary. Indeed, it was none other than "journalist" David Letterman who actually questioned McCain regarding his associations with Liddy.

Since his radical days Ayers has been a productive member of society, working as a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, College of Education. He has done much to help improve the plight of public education in Chicago, and in 1997 Chicago awarded him its Citizen of the Year award for his education work in the city. In many ways he has worked to redeem himself from his violent past. Ironically, this is a theme that Republicans love to trot out when it suits their needs but are loath to accept in political enemies. Take McCain for example, we are meant to believe that he has "learned his lessons," and has fully redeemed himself from his past transgressions with regard to his associations with Charles Keating and the Savings and Loan scandal. Forget for the moment that McCain apparently learned nothing from the scandal, except to be more careful not to get caught in the future, as his penchant for deregulation remained unabated. Similarly, the out of wedlock pregnancy of Sarah Palin's daughter is spun as a story of redemption and lessons learned, but Republicans would never think of extending such forgiveness to the pregnant daughters of inner-city black Americans, for example. The double standards are stark indeed.

While McCain and Palin have recently tried to make the Ayers affair the center-piece of their campaign, polling around the third debate indicates that most Americans can see through the lies and distortion, and in fact, it appears likely that it is now hurting McCain more than helping him. With Ayers fading away the McCain campaign needs to find other "issues" with which to attempt to smear Obama. The latest, and perhaps most desperate (and laughable) attempt by the McCain campaign and its surrogates is to simply label Obama and anyone who might consider voting for him as anti-American socialists and Marxists (see the nice visuals at Bad American). Indeed, CNN's daft and insipid Glenn Beck was kind enough to remind us that, "The problem with all of these guys is they're all Marxists -- they're all Marxists. They'll all spread the wealth." Here, "they" presumably refers to Obama and anyone with the temerity to consider voting for him. Predictably, Beck presented not a shred of evidence to back up this ludicrous charge, but that's the great thing about being an insta-pundit, evidence is never required, and for loopy right-wingers it's much easier to just start making stuff up. I wonder if Beck has ever considered that the Bush administration, with it's tax cuts for the rich and free-wheeling, deregulatory mania, has been spreading the wealth like crazy, but in this case it has been the wealth of the lower and middle classes being transferred to a tiny fraction of the population at the top of the income pyramid. The most recent instance of such spreading being the $850 billion Wall Street bailout boondoggle! One suspects that this attempt to smear Obama as a Marxist will be about as successful as the Ayers ploy, meaning not very.

And now today we have been treated with the spectacle of Minnesota Republican Representative Michelle Bachmann's statements that Barack Obama and his wife Michelle are "anti-American," and "couldn't be trusted in the White House." Remarkably, Bachman went so far as to resurrect the spirit of Joseph McCarthy with her call for news media outlets to investigate other members of Congress to, and I quote, "find out if they are pro-America or anti-America." This is the most despicable form of demagoguery imaginable, but it is a tactic that this Republican party has turned to again and again. In similar fashion, just the other day Sarah Palin expressed her delight at visiting "pro-American" regions of the country. The unstated implication being that, in her view, some parts of the country are "un-American." Apparently, that would apply to St. Louis, MO, which today hosted a rally for Barack Obama which was attended by upwards of 100,000 people!

As is so often the case such Republican rhetoric simply stands the truth on its head. For eight years now our Nation has been governed by a political party that has put its own interests ahead of those of our country and its people. That is essentially the definition of treason, and the Republican Party is so charged. Any dissenting opinions to its reckless, incompetent, criminal and destructive course have been labeled unpatriotic. Those who dared oppose the self-annointed "true and only Americans" were dismissed as traitors. And now, with the end of their miserable rule in sight, their only recourse is the same tired demagogic attempt to slander opponents as un-American. There are only two words to describe this Party, pathetic and despicable, and in a little more than two weeks I will have one thing left to say, good riddance!

The Great Shakedown

It's been remarkably refreshing to see the power struggle unfolding in the Congress this week over the attempt to pass bailout legislation for the Wall Street robber-barons. Faced with a tidal wave of righteous indignation from voters in their districts enough principled Democrats, and two thirds of the Republican House caucus--who arguably were largely voting for the preservation of their own seats--spectacularly voted down on Monday the Paulson-Bush $700 billion dollar Wall Street bailout boondoggle. Since last week the Capitol Hill switchboard and internet servers were being relentlessly hammered by irate Americans vowing to throw under the bus any Representative with the inclination to vote for this massive giveaway to the rich. For once the Congress actually expressed the will of the majority. What is it they call that, democracy?

It's been equally remarkable to watch the extent to which President Bush has been completely emasculated politically. One could not imagine a duck more lame than Bush the mallard. And what of other senior administration types, like Cheney and Rice? Completely invisible. No, it appears that King Henry Paulson is in charge these days. While the irrelevance of Dubya is fascinating, he should not feel alone, because almost equally impotent have been the Democratic Congressional leadership. There was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi trying to play the dutiful, mainstream, bipartisan pragmatist, and pass what was essentially the administration's bill. Why the Democrats would try to enact this weak, discredited, corrupt administration's proposal is almost beyond comprehension. Particularly in the face of strong condemnations of the plan from many mainstream economists. There was never any attempt by the House leadership to have hearings or a substantive debate on the many alternative proposals that had been presented in the independent media. Instead, Finance Committee chair Barney Frank obfuscated Paulson's three page fascist power grab with a smokescreen of almost meaningless, toothless conditions, and then argued they had put strong oversight and executive pay restrictions in the bill. Americans were not convinced, and neither were a significant fraction of Pelosi's own caucus.

But, with the bill defeated in the House it was predictable that the Wall Street apologists would look to the Senate, a veritable House of millionaires, for smoother sailing. And so, Wednesday evening, after a series of hysterical, sky-is-falling speeches predicting the coming of Armageddon, and, get this, the adding of $150 billion in additional provisions, mostly various tax breaks, because, go figure, the original bill was too fiscally conservative! the Senate dutifully passed the bill by a 74-25 margin. Also instrumental in passage of the bill has been the pathetic reporting in the mainstream media concerning opposition to the bailout. The overriding media narrative has been that any opponent of the bill must be either crazy, or un-patriotic, or both! There has been very little accurate reporting of the many alternatives to the Paulson give-away plan, and that, most interestingly, a consensus has emerged among many American economists that this bailout bill will not address the fundamental problems in the financial system. Particularly sad and frustrating was the sight of a fear-mongering Barack Obama, sounding very much like George W. Bush, scaring Americans into thinking that failure to pass THIS rancid bill would result in their financial and economic ruin, and usher in a long, painful and deep recession. Note to Obama, we are already in the midst of what will likely be a long and painful recession, and gifting irresponsible Wall Street financiers with $700 billion borrowed dollars is not likely to change that fact one iota. At a time when strong leadership is desperately needed; at a time when the Presidential front runner should be decisive, and side with the American people, all we get from Obama is the cautionary, equivocating, weakness all to evident in the Democratic Party. Make no mistake, John McCain has arguably been even worse, but the behavior of both candidates simply emphasizes that the two major parties have simply suffocated the democratic process in our country. Americans should persist in their opposition to this criminal shakedown of their childrens' futures and insist on Congressional action that actually addresses the root causes of the problem; principally the foreclosure crisis; and does so by making those responsible foot the bill.

The Bailout Express

Why does the Congressional Democratic leadership appear so hell-bent on getting a Wall Street bailout bill passed? Word from Capitol Hill today is that the framework of a deal is close to being agreed upon, but that some contentious aspects still need to be hammered out. However, opposition to any bailout of Wall Street with taxpayer funds apparently runs deep, on both sides of the political spectrum. Indeed, Republicans appear to be scared shitless to vote yes on such a massive transfer of government funds. I don't think it is hard to see why. They already face the daunting task of getting re-elected in the midst of a massive economic meltdown, and add to that the eight years of disaster under Dubya, and you can see that this would likely be the last nail in the coffin for many a Republican congressman. They would prefer not to have to go back to their districts to face an angry constituency, and explain how this Republican administration just cooked up the "mother of all waffles," to the tune of $700 billion dollars,

“We do not support government bailouts of private institutions. Government interference in the markets exacerbates problems in the marketplace and causes the free market to take longer to correct itself.”

-- 2008 Republican Platform

That pretty much sums up the state of the Republican Party, don't you think? Thanks to Craig Markwardt for forwarding that gem. Still, we are left with the question of why the Democratic leadership seems to want to take ownership of this noxious bill. A number of leading economists have recently questioned the need, indeed the usefulness, of the scheme outlined by Paulson. The ultimate albatross around the neck of our economy is debt, so it is not at all clear that borrowing nearly a trillion dollars to throw at the perpetrators of the debacle will be of any lasting value. More likely, it may simply speed up the flight from the dollar in the long run, more like gasoline on a fire rather than water.

Nevertheless, in the face of all of this opposition, the Democratic leadership still appears to be more concerned with the wishes of the administration and the so-called wizards of Wall Street than the average American. For one thing, Democrats should simply consider the source of this massive request. When was the last time Bush and Co. were right about anything? But for some reason, even with historic levels of dissatisfaction with Bush and the Republican party, there would appear to be nothing the Democrats in Congress would deny the Mediocrity in Chief.

While the times clearly call for strong leadership, all we continue to get from Pelosi and Reid is caution and unwarranted bipartisanship. Indeed, it has become the hallmark of this pair that the appearance of so called bipartisanship seems to be their raison d'etre. No matter what horrendous legislation they are passing, as long as they can appear "bipartisan", they seem to think that the American people will sit back and applaud. This is a calculation Democrats have been making now for a long time, and what success has it brought them? Very little. They still appear weak and unprincipled, and too willing to act in the interests of big money rather than their supposed base of support among working Americans. Before passing perhaps the biggest public bailout of corporate interests, the Democratic leadership needs to go before the people and clearly explain how and why this bailout will work, how it will be done, how it will be overseen, and how it will be paid for. If these issues are not clearly addressed in a rush to pass something, then the Democrats will also, rightly, face the ire of many outraged voters in November.

A Financial Patriot Act

Twice in the George W. Bush era a catastrophe has had its epicenter on Wall Street. We know all about the first, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. The second, the financial "storm" engulfing our corrupt banking and financial system, will now play itself out over the weeks and months to come. Already it has claimed hundreds of billions of dollars of the public trust, and the end may be nowhere in sight. The circumstances surrounding these two events, ironically, have much in common.

With it's head in the sand, ignoring ample warnings suggesting that strikes inside the US were likely being organized--recall the title of that Presidential Daily Briefing, "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US"--the Bush administration sleep-walked while the 9/11 attacks were being prepared and executed. The political results of that negligence we know all too well, expanded government powers; legislation gravely treading upon Constitutional liberties; a disastrous change in US foreign policy; torture, extraordinary rendition and Guantanamo Bay (to name but a few). Bad legislation was pushed through Congress and equally bad policies were foisted on an America kept fearful and ignorant by administration propaganda and deception. In a state of fear Congress rushed through the Orwellian-named "Patriot Act," provisions of which any true patriot would find unconscionable. Let us recap this sad tale. Those who were negligent, and by their negligence at least partially responsible, were left ultimately unaccountable, moreover, they were left in power, unchecked and with free reign to manage the aftermath of 9/11, to the disastrous ends we all now must live with.

Now, the American people, seemingly without a memory, are allowing a replay of this scenario to unfold, perhaps to equally disastrous ends. After eight years of corruption, deregulation, dismantling of any oversight and enforcement regime, and cheer-leading for corporate greed and excess, the same administration that napped while terrorists plotted, has been comatose while a largely foreseeable financial meltdown that may ultimately match or exceed the Great Depression, has been allowed to happen. And now, with the crisis at its apparent zenith, with fear and the professed need to act at near fever pitch, drastic solutions are being discussed by the administration and the Democrat-controlled Congress. Indeed, the first details of Treasury Secretary Paulson's proposed bail-out legislation has been made public this weekend, and from the looks of it has every indication of being a financial version of the Patriot Act. The remarkably terse text of the bill, essentially grants Paulson and the administration, a rolling $700 Billion slush fund with which to buy up the bad mortgage-related debts of ANY financial institution based in the US. How's that for broadly defined? Although it might seem that the $700 Billion is a cap, the text indicates that this is the amount that can be outstanding AT ANY GIVEN TIME. Thus, the total sum which American taxpayers could be on the hook for could be significantly more, say, several Trillion dollars! Now that's some serious coin! However, the most sinister and outrageous clause in the text is the following;

"Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."

Yes, you might want to read that again. Decisions made by the Secretary regarding this Act would be NON-REVIEWABLE, by ANY agency, court or entity. This would be Congressionally mandated and approved fascism, nothing less. It would grant virtually unlimited financial power to the agents of the President without any accountability! Moreover, it would grant this authority to those who, Nero-like sat back, watched and indeed, precipitated the crisis with their disregard of their regulatory functions and pro-Wall Street legislation. But it would do even more than that, it would privatize the ill-gotten profits of these corporate criminals, while socializing all of the risk, on the backs of our kids, perhaps for decades to come. This is beyond outrageous. As Glenn Greenwald and others have pointed out, this should arguably be something of a "pitch-fork" moment, something that might actually get people out into the streets protesting, that is, if protests were still allowed. This must not be allowed to happen. Every thinking, responsible American needs to get on the phone and contact their representatives in Congress to oppose this monstrous draft bill.

While it may be true that some form of Government-sponsored bail-out is needed to stabilize the economy, all Americans should insist that it meet several conditions;

1. It must not reward the perpetrators of this catastrophe. That is, the Wall Street fat-cats who gambled with the public's money, lost, and now wish to be repaid!
   
2. It must be largely financed by those who sought to profit and brought about the conditions that precipitated the crisis. It must not be financed on the backs of the middle class and lower income Americans. This point has recently been emphasized by Independent Senator Bernie Sanders. Taxes should be raised on corporations and the wealthy, at a minimum.
   
3. Any deal must be conditional on major changes to the current administration. At a minimum, those economic "stewards," the Treasury Secretary (Paulson) and Federal Reserve Chairman (Bernanke) who were so demonstrably wrong must resign. However, a more reasonable requirement for Democratic approval of some bail-out would be resignation of the President and Vice President.
4. It must be accompanied by a return to close regulation and policing of the banking and finance industries, indeed, of all corporations. There can be no return to "business as usual." A new commitment to a corporate culture that benefits society must be enforced.
   
5. Those responsible for the debacle must not be allowed to manage the aftermath, and must be held accountable for their negligence and malfeasance.
   

If the Democratic controlled Congress cannot insist on these conditions, then it will have shown itself to be in the thrall of the same corporate pay-masters that run the Republican Party. If that is the case then voters should vote the whole sorry lot out of office.

Socialized Capitalism

The last few days have seen some rather astonishing developments coming out of the Treasury Department of the Bush administration, what with the collapse and bail-out of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the 500 point implosion of the stock market on Monday, followed by the death or sale of several big-name Wall Street financial institutions including; Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, and now most recently, the insurance giant AIG. But not to worry, we can all rest easy knowing that none other than that economic genius John McCain has decreed that our economy has "sound fundamentals." I'm so glad, just imagine what unsound fundamentals might look like!

We are truly fortunate, as over the last few weeks we have been witness to the perfection of a new kind of political economy. This new form of governance can only accurately be called "Socialized Capitalism." And who have been the authors of this new kind of socialism for the rich? You guessed it, none other than the self-styled free-market, Capitalist, Republican administration of George W. Bush! Here's how it works. Powerful corporate and wealthy interests essentially take over the functions of government. This was easy, as the die was cast when the Republicans came back to power with the 2000 "election" of Bush. These elite, wealthy special interests are essentially the constituency of the Republican party (though the Democratic Party does not escape all blame here either). With the reigns of power in hand, or at least in the hands of their surrogates, corporations can then re-write regulatory law and weaken the oversight and enforcement functions of the government. In the context of the financial sector, this gave banks and investment firms carte blanche to freewheel and make a killing, selling "derivatives" and bundled, mortgage-backed securities, while overexposing themselves to substantial debts from an ocean of bad loans in the process. Then, when the bill finally comes due and the pyramid scheme collapses, that same corporate-run government that initially rigged the game, allowing and enabling the plunder, provides billions and billions of tax-payer dollars to bail out those poor ailing corporations. It's a perfect confidence racket, and every tax-paying citizen is a chump with the word "sucker" written right across their forehead. Not just you, your young children will be saddled with this debt for years to come. These hucksters have mortgaged our kids futures to enrich their already rich constituents. Almost enough to make one boiling mad, eh?

And all this is brought to you by that very same Republican Party that loves to talk about free markets, small government, personal responsibility and the wonders of unfettered Capitalism, the same Republican Party that becomes apoplectic when anyone even breathes the words liberal, socialism or, god forbid, welfare. Of course all this Republican talk of free markets etc. is a steaming pile of guano, and maybe after being fleeced for eight years by Bush and Co. enough Republican-voting "suckers" out there will finally get the message? Republicans love big government, especially the kind that is doling out huge sums of cash to their constituents. They love free markets for the other guy, but hate them if it means they would have to compete fairly. And personal responsibility? Republicans are NEVER responsible, that's also for the other guy. In fact, when you're a Republican it's always the other guys fault. Make no mistake, this Republican administration is practicing rampant socialism for all its corporate constituents. Forget about welfare queens, Bush, McCain, and all their Republican supporters are the welfare kings, the kings of corporate welfare. We let them stay in power at our own peril.

Mendacious Maverick

It's pretty obvious that national political conventions have become little more than highly staged media events, designed to, in the words of George W. Bush, "catapult the propaganda." While this is now largely true of both major political parties, the recently concluded Republican convention has clearly broken new ground in terms of outright deception, Orwellian abuse of language and the overall debasement of our political culture. Indeed, it was as if, protected by some kind of force field, the Excel Center in Minneapolis became a kind of twilight zone, with no memory, impervious to history and fact, a virtual tabula rasa on which the Republicans could hope to re-write the failed legacy of eight years of disastrous rule. Nowhere was this more evident than in the remarks from John McCain on accepting the presidential nomination of his traitorous Party.

Since it would take an epic tome to document all the dissembling and deception evident in McCain's speech, let's just hit some of the major themes and highlights and see how they hold up to some reality-based thinking. Perhaps the most astounding claims from McCain revolve around the notion that the Republican ticket represents the agent of change in the upcoming election. McCain's first change pedigree, he would have us believe, is his choice of a virtually unknown, largely inexperienced, right-wing, neophyte governor, none other than Alaskan governor Sarah Palin. As McCain boasted, "I'm very proud to have introduced our next vice president to the country. But I can't wait until I introduce her to Washington. And let me offer an advance warning to the old, big-spending, do-nothing, me-first, country-second Washington crowd: Change is coming." But wait, who exactly are those old, big-spending, country-second Washington hacks? If you're thinking they are exactly the same Party that was nominating McCain, then you'd be right, and McCain was and has been a major player in this me-first crowd for the past eight years. McCain would have you believe that he and his Party, the authors of eight years of perfidy, are the ones to "clean up the mess" in Washington. If you are willing to swallow that pile of bull, then I know a bridge for sale, cheap. The only truth here in McCain's statement is that there really is a mess in Washington, but he (and his Party) is the mess! The contradictions in McCain's message were succinctly highlighted by The Nation's John Nichols, who pointed out, "Even as he (McCain) was pledging to 'change the way government does almost everything,' the senator from Arizona announced his commitment to much, much more of the same."

McCain's next big theme was of course "defense" (actually, offense might be a more apt description). McCain boasted about his supposed key part in authoring and implementing the so-called "surge" in Iraq, and further boasted that, "Thanks to the leadership of a brilliant general, David Petraeus, and the brave men and women he has the honor to command, that strategy succeeded and rescued us from a defeat that would have demoralized our military, risked a wider war and threatened the security of all Americans." The notion that "the surge" rescued us from a defeat in Iraq is fanciful, as Tom Engelhardt has pointed out. It is an indication of the depths to which the Republican Party has sunk for its present leader to brand an unnecessary, immoral, illegal and devastating war, that has killed hundreds of thousands of people and laid waste to an entire country, a success, indeed, it is an obscene characterization. Also, McCain is apparently unaware that many in our military are already demoralized by this war, as this short video from the Guardian's Sean Smith demonstrates, and that it is the Iraq war itself, and American military adventurism, that threatens wider war and the security of Americans. By any measure; moral, economic, political, the Iraq war has been nothing less than catastrophic. To suggest continuing it to some undefined, unattainable "victory" is nothing less than insanity.

McCain, however, doesn't see fit to stop with Iraq, he further brandishes the saber at both Russia and, of course, Iran, a favorite Republican "whipping boy." But McCain really starts to lose it when he attempts to tongue-lash Russia for its "invasion" of Georgia and, in his words, "reassembling the Russian Empire." He then further castigates Moscow, arguing that, "we can't turn a blind eye to aggression and international lawlessness that threatens the peace and stability of the world and the security of the American people." The irony here is rich indeed, as McCain has been a cheer-leader for just such aggression and lawlessness with the US invasion and occupation of Iraq. However, one of the benefits of being a Republican is that it comes with an immunity to irony. If McCain had any legitimate security bonafides he might also consider the effect of unnecessary NATO expansionism in intimidating Russia toward a more belligerent posture with respect to its neighbors. Further, insisting on an unnecessary and dangerously destabilizing (and arguably useless) missile defense system in Eastern Europe, is also needlessly isolating Russia. McCain also contradicts his own CIA in perpetuating the favorite Bush administration canard that Iran is dangerously close to developing a nuclear weapon.
Clearly McCain doesn't know half as much about real national security issues as he likes to claim. As his own fellow traveler Pat Buchanan put it, if elected, "McCain will make Cheney look like Ghandi." Trust me, we can do without that.

Jack-Booted Thugs

We live in a Police State. While many would likely consider such a statement hyperbolic, how else to describe the despicable abuse of police power evidenced in Minnesota last night and this morning by the jack-booted thugs of the St. Paul police department and Ramsey County Sheriff's Office. Overnight and this morning a number of sweeping "raids" were carried out in which heavily armed police, including SWAT teams, invaded homes and detained and intimidated citizens doing nothing other than assembling peaceably in their homes and pursuing their First Amendment rights and political freedoms. The houses raided were targeted because they contained, in the words of the police, suspected protesters and "anarchists." One group targeted, I-Witness, has made a name for itself by simply documenting the behavior of police at large public gatherings and protests, such as the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York. Indeed, the group was instrumental in documenting NYPD police misconduct and their work resulted in the release and acquittal of upwards of 400 people wrongfully arrested at the convention. Another group facing harassment, the "RNC Welcoming Committee," was apparently planning some protests for the upcoming convention, but since when has a public protest become a crime!? According to Bruce Nestor of the Minnesota chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, none of those detained, harassed or questioned had committed any violent actions or crimes, they were simply targeted for "suspected" behavior, guilty, apparently, of thought crimes, at least in the minds of the fascist police in St. Paul. See Glenn Greenwald's blog for additional discussion of these raids.

Make no mistake, such raids and police tactics are illegal and are meant to intimidate people from expressing their political views and aims. More to the point, such raids are nothing less than state-sponsored terrorism. How else to describe the pointing of loaded weapons at innocent citizens? What right do the police have to abuse their power, to burst in on peaceful citizens, brandish weapons and arrest and detain people? Indeed, to place law-abiding and peaceful citizens at risk of death and serious injury. Such behavior is anathema to a democratic nation, indeed, it is nothing less than that expected of such totalitarian regimes as Nazi Germany, and must not be tolerated in a free society. Those who conceived, organized, approved and executed these raids must be brought to account, including the judges who would sign such frivolous warrants, and the contemptible cops who would carry them out.

If our democracy was functioning as envisioned we might hope that the Justice Department could step in to investigate such abuses of police power and provide a means to redress the grievances, but can one hopefully expect such a response from the Justice Department of Bush consigliere Michael Mukasey? Not likely, indeed, it is exactly this kind of Surveillance State that George Bush has created and glorified with his warrant-less spy program and never-ending "war on terror." In fact, as one might have guessed, it now actually appears that the FBI was also involved in the raids. Surprise, surprise!

Unfortunately, there seem to still be lots of Americans with their heads in the sand muttering something like, "you're talking crazy Tod, that could never happen here, I don't have anything to worry about, I'm a law abiding citizen." We can only hope enough of these people get their heads out of the sand before it is too late. Increasingly I feel, however, that it is already too late.

Income Inequality and the "Skills Gap," Who Knew?

I'll confess right at the outset to being no fan of David Brooks. He's the kind of "conservative" that has done plenty to help bring about the economic conditions we currently have to live with, but will then go and tell us it's all our fault for not bringing up our kids in the proper educational environment. In a recent Op-Ed in the New York Times, Brooks makes just this case, that a principal cause of the massive gulf between the haves and have-nots in the US is a "skills gap" resulting from the woeful state of education in the country. He partly bases his arguments on a new book from Claudia Goldin and Lawrence Katz, “The Race Between Education and Technology.” While few would argue about the importance of education in enabling a productive economy and just society, it's clear that rather than explore the responsibility of three decades of conservative, quasi- laissez-faire policies on the current economy and income distribution, Brooks would much rather lay the blame at the masses who have not raised their kids, in his words, "...bathed in an atmosphere that promotes human capital development ..." Man, I'm glad my mother didn't raise me that way!

We could tear down Brooks' straw-man easily enough, but let's just make a few observations. First, wages have been stagnant or declining across the class/income board for more than 20 years now. That is, even the well-educated have been sliding down the ladder, although they are of course relatively more economically secure than their unskilled brethren. Meanwhile, studies show that Americans are among the most productive workers on the planet, and yet few of the productivity gains over these last 20 years have been put back into pay-checks. Now why is that? Where did all that money go? Somehow the corporate classes keep getting richer and richer. These facts do not point fundamentally to an education problem, rather, a much more accurate diagnosis would be class warfare!

Of course we need to better educate our children, but what Brooks and his ilk fail to explore is WHY we are not able to adequately educate all our citizens. Predictably, Brooks tries to dismiss some big issues, such as globalization, outsourcing and predatory capitalism, stating that, "the populists are going to have to grapple with the Goldin, Katz and Heckman research, which powerfully buttresses the arguments of those who emphasize human capital policies. It’s not globalization or immigration or computers per se that widen inequality. It’s the skills gap."

It's hard to know where to begin with such statements. It's as if all the economic choices, decisions and policies put in place by Republican administrations, beginning with Reagan (with significant Democratic assistance, or at least acquiescence I might add), that have been the fuel on the fire of income inequality for almost 30 years now never happened! Nope, it was the "skills gap," who knew? Although education is certainly a piece in the puzzle, I would argue that conservative economic policies, essentially placing all corporate interests over those of workers, including the resulting widening income inequality, are the primary causes of any "skills gap," not the other way around.

But for me, the biggest "whopper" in Brooks' whole piece is his overarching premise, stated in the first two sentences, I quote, "Why did the United States become the leading economic power of the 20th century? The best short answer is that a ferocious belief that people have the power to transform their own lives gave Americans an unparalleled commitment to education, hard work and economic freedom."

This is just so much conservative drivel. Just like every other major industrial power, the US grew by protecting it's markets, having a strong state-sponsored sector, and maintaining unfettered access to resources basically around the globe (and a productive citizenry). The nonsense that Brooks is peddling here is this pernicious myth of American exceptionalism. This is the same myth that enables a mediocrity like George W. Bush to talk about bringing democracy to Iraq (or insert currently relevant country), and our political class will basically cheer-lead. I have yet to go to another country and find people not committed to education, hard work and economic freedom. These values are evident in most every culture I have ever encountered, therefore they cannot be the PRIMARY reasons for the United States economic success.

Much can be learned about the state of our politics and society that this kind of mumbo-jumbo is placed on the Op-Ed page of one our most influential newspapers, rather than in a landfill, where it belongs.

Police State

It's one of the unchallengeable myths of political and major media discourse, that the United States is among the most democratic of societies. Politicians and pundits alike heap praise on American democracy and consistently tout our brand as without peer around the world. Such thinking is virtually axiomatic in the mainstream consensus, however, the weakness of American democracy can be seen in many areas, not least of which is the degree to which public dissent or protest have been marginalized, especially in the past decade.

An important aspect of such marginalization is the use of local, state and federal authorities to harass and intimidate anyone with the temerity to challenge authority or present an alternative to the ossified status quo. Particularly egregious is the targeting of those working for and promoting peace. This goes so far as to lead to the Orwellian labeling of pacifists as potential "terrorists."

If one thought that such activity ended with the exposure of COINTELPRO in the '70s then one would be wrong. The most recent revelations, based on documents obtained via an ACLU sponsored Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) suit, reveal that in 2005 and 2006 the Maryland State Police (and the Department of Homeland Security), were infiltrating and spying on a number of Maryland peace groups and the anti-death penalty group Campaign to End the Death Penalty. These groups were simply exercising their constitutionally guaranteed rights, and, indeed, many of the group members were and are avowed pacifists, including long-time Baltimore-based peace activist Max Obuszewski. Another person caught up in the surveilance was progressive sports writer Dave Zirin, a member of Campaign to End the Death Penalty. Read Zirin's eloquent and defiant response to this official lawlessness here.

These documents show that Maryland State Police agents had covertly infiltrated numerous meetings of these groups, and had created extensive, classified dossiers on many of their members. One result of this surveilance is that several individuals from the groups, including Obuszewski, were entered into law enforcement databases whose ostensible purpose is to track drug offenders and terrorists. The suspected "crimes" that Mr. Obuszewski was allegedly included in the database for included terrorism. When non-violent opposition to war becomes "terrorism," then everyone should feel a chill run up their spine.

The surveillance of these groups was persistent. Even after agents spent days at meetings at which nothing more "threatening" than carrying clipboards down the street or participating in tablings at farmers markets, they still recommended the spying continue. Is this what trained police agents take for criminal activity? I would hate to see whom untrained agents would implicate in alleged criminality! Can there be any legitimate excuse for such surveillance? Obviously the police must know that such activity is lawful, not threatening and indeed is protected by constitutional rights, yet they do it anyway, which begs the question why? Former Maryland State police superintendent Tim Hutchins attempted to defend the practice by arguing, “you do what you think is best to protect the general populace of the state.” But this is laughable, any simple investigation of these groups, not requiring covert infiltration and surveillance, would have been sufficient to determine that they were engaged in completely lawful activity. So whom are the Maryland State Police really protecting? It seems clear that the police in these cases are acting largely to support the interests of those in power, and not simply to uphold the law. This is an outrageous abuse of authority and one which should not be tolerated in a truly democratic society.

Democratic Surrender Monkeys

Unconditional surrender! That is the only accurate phrase to describe Friday's passage by the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives of the so-called FISA Amendments Act of 2008. This bill, the bastard child of House majority leader Steny Hoyer (Md) and Senate intelligence committee chair Jay Rockefeller (WVa) gives the Bush administration everything it wanted on the domestic spying front, and more! As Glenn Greenwald has pointed out, the bill gives to the administration what it could not have even hoped to obtain from a Republican-led House. It greatly expands the powers of the government to spy on Americans, and in its most odious sections grants sweeping immunity to telecom companies and their Bush administration allies for breaking the existing FISA law. It retroactively excuses, and attempts to put a stamp of approval on half a decades worth of administration law breaking. It does this by placing a so-called "requirement" on the administration that makes a mockery of the rule of law and the Constitutional separation of powers. Essentially, the bill requires that existing law suits be dismissed if the telecom companies simply show that they were directed by the President or his agents to carry out the spying, and/or that the administration "certified" that it was legal! Talk about handing the fox the keys to the chicken coop. This legislation grants to serial lawbreakers the power to decide legality, and reinforces the theory perpetuated by this administration that if the President says it is legal, it is! A more dangerous, and un-Constitutional precedent can hardly be envisioned.

Moreover, the bill provides for broad secrecy surrounding the dismissal of lawsuits, the government simply having to invoke the magical phrase, "national security," to shield the details of the law breaking from the eyes of the public. The section of the bill granting this sweeping immunity is entitled, "Protection of Persons Assisting the Government." Orwell himself would have struggled to come up with that one, but it was apparently duck-soup for the Democratic enablers of Bush administration lawbreaking.

Let's try and get our heads around the magnitude of this capitulation. It's not that easy, so stay with me. The Democratic-controlled House just handed this stunning victory to perhaps the weakest sitting President in history; a President that can barely maintain 25% approval ratings; a President whose Party is also now widely, and justifiably reviled and rightly fearful that they will be thrown from office in large numbers come November; a President and Party that have treated the Democrats with utter disdain and contempt for almost 8 years, who have called them "traitors" and most recently referred to their presumptive presidential nominee as an "appeaser" like those who appeased the Nazis. It is this President and Party that the Democratic leadership, over the opposition of more than half of their caucus, including many committee chairmen, handed such a victory! Politics is wondrous strange indeed.

What could be the mental calculus at work in the minds of such "leaders?" Indeed it is hard to fathom how the majority Party in the House could rend itself asunder so and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. One is forced to conclude that there are basically two reasons for such a wholesale capitulation. First, the current Democratic leadership is largely beholden to the same Corporate interests as the Republican Party. Put simply, the big telecoms fill many Democratic coffers with cold hard cash. And if anything is clear from the status quo in Washington it is that money talks. So, it's simply too easy for them to grant immunity and not upset the apple cart, or perhaps the gravy train is a more accurate phrase in this case. Consider the signal this sends to many Americans, that Corporate money is much more important to the Democratic Party leadership than the Constitutional freedoms of their own constituents. This is a craven and cowardly calculation if ever there was one. Second, it seems that the senior Democratic leadership are still so fearful; so cowardly and fearful. They somehow believe that surrendering the rule of law will make them look "tough on terrorism." In fact, what is plain for all to see is that it simply makes them look weak, craven and without principles or honor. That is, it makes them look just like Republicans!

The reality here is far different from the "tough on terrorism" pretext being offered by the capitulators. Passage of this legislation will not do anything to increase security against terrorism. The existing FISA law was and still is entirely adequate to enable the government to obtain the necessary intelligence to protect the Nation. Moreover, this administration's actions in the so called "war on terrorism" have not made us safer. Far from it, their reckless foreign policy has only bred more fanaticism abroad, and they have neglected common sense strategies to strengthen our domestic security posture. Even in the face of mountains of current polling data suggesting that American's attitudes are sharply opposed to the direction that this administration and its Republican Party rubber stamp have steered the country, the fossilized and inept Democratic leadership still believe that in order to win elections they must look more and more like Republicans. Since it is now absolutely clear that they will never learn this lesson, perhaps because they ultimately share most of the same priorities as the Republicans, the final remedy must be to vote the whole pathetic lot of them out of office. If you are interested in helping in this regard, check out the campaign being organized by Act Blue.

Supreme Ideologues

With another 5 - 4 decision the Supreme Court has recently upheld basic provisions of the Constitution while simultaneously sending a stinging rebuke to the Bush administration's "enemy combatant" detainee policy. The Court was reviewing a challenge to the Military Commissions Act which had stripped habeus corpus rights from detainees in the wake of the Court's previous decision on detainee policies in Hamdan vs Rumsfeld. This was the third ruling over a six year span in which the Court has made clear that the administration's manufactured legal "system" surrounding detentions at the Guantanamo Bay gulag is un-Constitutional (read illegal). However, after each previous rebuke the Administration was able to work with it's Republican allies in Congress to pass legislation defying the Court's decision. Shamefully, the infamous Military Commissions Act that this most recent decision strikes down was passed with significant Democratic support as well.

Justice Kennedy, who has recently become the "centrist" swing vote on the Court, joined with the more liberal Justices; Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens and Breyer in arguing that, “The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times,” and asserting that the Court is the final arbiter of what the law is, not a self-styled unitary executive commander in chief. In many ways this decision was rather straightforward. The most relevant section of the Constitution, the so-called "Suspension Clause" (Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2), states, "The Privilege of the Writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." The great writ is a cornerstone of English law, and came about as a response to the arbitrary power of English kings to exert the right to hold anyone for as long as they liked without ever having to explain to anyone why. Indeed, the drafters of the Constitution, having recently experienced the excessive and unjust powers of a king, in this case George III, felt strongly enough to enshrine the right to habeas corpus directly into the wording of the document. The clause is quite clear, the only exigencies that might abrogate it being invasion or rebellion, neither of which situation exists today by any reasonable interpretation of those words.

One might then reasonably ask how the Court could be so divided on this apparently basic issue? It essentially comes down to the idea that one either believes in the rule of law, or the rule of men. The four Justice minority in this case; Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas, have left no doubt where they stand on this notion. They have consistently supported the "theory" that Mr. Bush as commander in chief is essentially the law, and can do as he pleases. They voted as a block in all the previous detainee cases, except for the Hamdan case for which Roberts had to recuse himself, since he had previously ruled against the habeas petition while sitting on the US Court of Appeals for the DC circuit. So, there can be little doubt what his decision would have been had he participated. This gang of four has consistently shown where their loyalties lie, not with the Constitution, but with a political party and it's extreme rightwing, neofascist ideology that is in thrall to power, whether it be executive, governmental (as in their own power on the Court), or the private power of corporations.

In his dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Roberts claimed that the Bush administration's detainee policy represented, “the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants.” That these ostensible "protections" violate the supreme law of the land apparently carries no weight with Roberts. Moreover, the "procedures" put in place by the administration allow Bush to, by fiat, declare anyone an "enemy combatant" without a meaningful, independent judicial review. This is hardly the due process envisioned by the drafters of the Constitution when they added the Suspension Clause. And to think that we must suffer this Chief Justice for perhaps decades to come. While in his confirmation hearings Roberts pledged reasonableness and objectivity, his decisions on the Court since then suggests the exact opposite.

Of the other dissenting opinions that of Antonin Scalia was, not surprisingly, the most outrageous. Scalia argued that the decision, “warps our Constitution” and, went as far as to suggest that it will place American lives at risk, “The game of bait-and-switch that today’s opinion plays upon the Nation’s Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed,” he argued. Of course, the only thing warped and twisted here is Scalia's logic. That a decision which restores an important right guaranteed by the Constitution represents a "warping" of it strains credulity. And isn't it ironic that Scalia, who helped halt the 2000 Florida recount that ensconced Bush in the White House, should then argue that this decision will cost more American lives, when his 2000 decision helped to set in motion the disastrous Bush presidency, that has cost many thousands of American soldiers their lives, not to mention hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. We can be thankful that there are still at least five Justices with some commitment to the Constitution and the rule of law, and it should be absolutely clear that the country can no longer tolerate the appointment of political idealogues to the Court. The stakes are far too high for that.

Dirty Laundry

Propaganda, from the White House? Really!? Now who would have thought that possible? Scott McClellan, one time White House press secretary, is the latest in a long string of Bush administration insiders to publicize in book form the dysfunction at the heart of the Bush inner circle. McClellan is scathing in his criticism of Bush and his top aides, in particular Condoleeza Rice, in spinning the country to war with Iraq. He also takes aim at a sycophantic and "too deferential" Washington press corps that was too quick to swallow all the bull being shoveled. While McClellan deserves some plaudits for finally coming clean, or at least beginning that process, he appears to be far too uncritical of his own complicity in propagandizing the American people. After all, for years he was the point man, the go-to-guy, the "Maytag Man" in the Bush spin team. Who can forget the seemingly endless press briefings from the White House, with McClellan standing there sweating like a bridegroom, torturing the English language in order to get his talking points spinned just right. I for one couldn't stand to listen to him for more than five minutes at a clip, so impenetrable was the dissembling.

While media coverage of McClellan's mea culpa (such as it is) has been rather significant, most of the attention has been of the tit-for-tat aspect, that is, the story has been about the "sensational" aspects of an insider coming out of the White House and criticizing the administration. Predictably, however, there has been very little additional discussion of the actual substance of McClellan's charges. This is perhaps not too surprising since a major focus of the criticism has been the media itself, so, major news outlets are not particularly keen on focusing a spotlight on their own substantial shortcomings.

However, the biggest aspect of the story that has been "missed" is that we knew all this stuff already! Essentially all of McClellan's charges have for years now been the focus of significant reporting from independent media outlets (like Democracy Now!) and the liberal blogosphere. In fact Karl Rove had the temerity to proclaim that McClellan now sounded like a "left wing blogger." Actually, that would be about right, since many such bloggers had long been documenting the propaganda campaign leading up to the war and beyond. However, if that's not "main stream" enough for you, then just consider that only a few weeks ago the "Paper of Record," published extensive reporting on the Pentagon and administration's use of retired Generals in an extensive propaganda campaign to support the Iraq war. Such propagandizing of the people by their government is of course illegal, but since when did the law ever trouble this crowd. But, you may not have been aware of that either, since this story has also been declared largely untouchable by the major outlets, for the same reason just mentioned above.

So, rather than entertaining right-wing talking heads to "debate" whether McClellan is right or not, or, in the case of Fox News, just arguing how he is wrong, the major media could simply do a little real reporting, like actually reading a newspaper, and they would find ample evidence to conclusively establish that the bulk of McClellan's charges are true. Oh, but that's right, the big media don't actually do any real reporting anymore, they just ask vacuous questions of equally vacuous pundits. Indeed, in a rare moment of candor on the Today show, three of the biggest (read, most overpaid) TV anchors recently absolved themselves of any blame as "enablers" of the Iraq war. See the post by Glenn Greenwald for a link to this rather astounding video and some insightful commentary on the complete abdication of journalistic integrity by these so-called media "heavy hitters."

Let Us Not Forget

It's hypocrisy time. Just as surely as the Sun rises and sets we can be sure that as Memorial Day approaches their will be a steady stream of political double-speak from our leaders claiming to support the troops and "honoring" their service. We can also be sure that the most egregious transgressions will come from the highest offices in the land.

Since Mr. Bush is urging all Americans to mark a moment of remembrance on Monday to honor fallen veterans, let's also take a moment to reflect on the recent past and vow to remember the following the next time this administration speaks about honoring the troops.

Let us not forget that almost 5 years ago Mr. Bush orchestrated an illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq that has now claimed the lives of 4,080 US soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

Let us not forget that this was the most heinous kind of war, a war of choice. A kind of war outlawed by the UN charter.

Let us not forget that the administration's twin pillars in the argument for war; alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and alleged Iraqi ties to the 9/11 attacks were both fabrications, unsupported by any solid evidence.

Let us not forget the "smoking gun in the shape of a mushroom cloud."

Let us not forget "shock and awe," "mission accomplished," "we don't do body counts," and "bring 'em on."

Let us not forget that Mr. Bush never did complete his service commitment after being accepted in a "champagne unit" of the Texas Air National Guard. This enabled him to avoid the draft and likely service in Vietnam.

Let us not forget that Mr. Cheney had "other priorities," as he obtained five deferments from the draft, thus also avoiding service in Vietnam. Indeed, the number of right-wing chickenhawks is quite astonishing, particularly in that they seem to be more than willing to sacrifice other peoples kids. And for all your Memorial day gift giving, consider the deck of chickenhawk playing cards.

Let us not forget that after one disastrous war, Mr. Bush seems dead set on starting another one before he leaves office.

And, come November, let us not forget the Republican Party that has been in lock-step with this criminal administration every step of the way.

A Tale of Two Clergy

Unless you've been hiding out in a cave recently you are no doubt aware of Barack Obama's "Reverend problem." Over the past few weeks selective clips and statements from past sermons given by Obama's former pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright have been used against him in a textbook example of guilt by association of which Joe McCarthy himself would be proud.

Wright has been accused of "anti-American" statements, and having "destructive and divisive" notions regarding race relations in America. Obama himself has felt the need to strongly condemn Wright's statements and distance himself from his one-time pastor. However, almost all of the "buzz" around this "issue" has been the result of selective sound bites and excerpts of small portions of the Reverend's statements and sermons. Media talking-heads and pundits on Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, etc. have thrown lots of mud, but they invariably fail to place the excerpted bits from Wright's speeches in the context of his entire statements, nor of the more than 200 year long--and ongoing--history of injustice suffered by blacks in the United States. It is as if the terms slavery, Jim-Crow, separate-but-equal, and red-lining never existed. This kind of historical amnesia in corporate media coverage is now so pervasive, that it is no wonder Americans can consume so much media and still learn so little.

Initially Wright did not feel the need to "go public" to try and defend himself and his church, but in the past week he has given several public interviews (one to Bill Moyers), and speeches (before the National Press Club) in an attempt to get his side of the story out. Not surprisingly, these appearances have also been "sound-bited" and excerpted, and have been seized upon by the same corporate media as "proof" of Wright's wickedness. This has also prompted Obama's strongest yet denunciation of the Reverend and his statements. So, if you've heard the approved "sound-bites" and have swallowed the standard media narrative that Wright is a certifiable "wacko," then I'm also willing to bet good money that you did not listen to any of his full statements. If not, I urge you to do so. Let's consider his recent remarks before the National Press Club (NPC). These have also been excerpted at Democracy Now, which actually presents extended parts of his address and a debate featuring perspectives from black community representatives, not the corporate punditocracy.

In his address to the NPC Wright essentially gave some historical background on black religious traditions in the United States and explained, focusing on his own church, the underpinnings and goals of his faith. While I do not personally ascribe to the religious and theological analysis of the human condition, there was not much to find objectionable in these remarks, indeed, one can argue that the black religious traditions of liberation and reconciliation--with ALL people, regardless of race--are a remarkable, and hopeful response born of a situation of bitter oppression, such as slavery. One need only contrast this with the response of some white Christian denominations in apartheid South Africa, that rather than oppose oppression, constructed theologies consistent with white supremacy and apartheid.

So, if what the Reverend actually said, could not be found particularly objectionable, then what is the source of the venom directed at him, and by association, Obama? As Wright pointed out in his remarks, the notion of reconciliation requires that the wrongs of the oppressor are acknowledged, that amends are made, and that subsequent actions demonstrate a reversal of the oppressive behavior. That is, that race relations are not simply a one way street. This I think is largely the "sin" the Reverend is being accused of, that he has the temerity to point out that while injustice persists, true reconciliation cannot occur. That, and the fact that racial injustice still persists, there can be little denying that.

After delivering his remarks, Wright answered questions, and here is where I think some of his statements and actions perhaps partly undid the positive remarks he had just made. He was a bit defensive and accusatory with his tone in responding to some of the questions, but one might also be willing to excuse such a tone given the nature of the attacks he had been subjected to over the preceeding weeks. At times Wright did seem to be enjoying the attention, and perhaps also having a chance at last to respond openly to critics this may not be to surprising. But he also simply seemed to be trying to make light of a difficult situation, and have some fun, as he tried to make the occasional joke, not always successfully! Essentially all of the questions were of the "gotcha" variety, and were largely based on assumptions and myths that are essentially unchallengeable in the mainstream media. A glaring example of this is the notion that Wright ostensibly believes that America was "responsible" for the terrorist attacks on 9/11. This has become a true "third rail" in American politics, anyone even remotely hinting at this is automatically labelled "un-American," and beyond the pale. However, this attitude completely suffocates any serious attempt to look at the question of why the United States was attacked. Obviously the situation is much more complex than, "they hate our freedoms," as Bush so simplistically put it. The point that Wright, and others, have tried to make is not that the terrorists were justified in attacking, but that the way that US foreign policy impacts other Nations and peoples is important and entirely relevant. Put very simply, if you punch someone in the nose, then it is quite possible that their response may be to punch back. Such comments meet with fierce media resistance because they challenge one of the fundamental myths propagated by US elites; that the US always acts on the world stage with the noblest of goals. Anyone still under the spell of this myth can begin by reading William Blum's, "Killing Hope" , or Chalmers Johnson's, "Blow-back," for example.

Wright has also been criticized for statements suggesting that AIDS was somehow the result of some government "plot" to harm blacks. This is indeed an unfortunate statement. To my knowledge there is no credible evidence to support it, and it does suggest a kind of paranoia with regard to government treatment of minorities. However, here again some context would have been most illuminating. Many Americans are probably unaware that there is in fact a documented, rather sordid history of medical experimentation on Black Americans, the most infamous example of which is known as the "Tuskegee Experiment". To summarize, from 1932 to 1972 the US Public Health Service (PHS) followed the progression of syphilis in about 400 black men. These men were mostly poor sharecroppers, they never gave informed consent, and were never told they had syphilis. By 1947, with the introduction of penicillin, all men still remaining in the study could have been successfully treated, yet it was not until 1972 that a PHS employee went public with information to force an end to the study. Hundreds of black men died unneccessarily, and wives and children were also infected. For other examples, see the book, "Medical Apartheid," by Harriet Washington. Given the context of this historical record we could perhaps be more forgiving with regard to Wright's unfortunate comments on AIDS.

My title suggests a second clergyman, but while most Americans now know the name Jeremiah Wright, it's very likely that many fewer know that John McCain has his own "Reverend problem," or, rather, that if the media treated McCain as they have treated Obama he WOULD have a "Reverend problem." The ecclesiastical albatross that should be hanging around John McCain's neck is the fundamentalist, evangelical Pastor John Hagee. McCain actively sought, and received the endorsement of Hagee for his White House bid. Hagee is head of the evangelical Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas, and sits at the hub of a fundamentalist media empire. He is an equal opportunity offender, having denigrated Catholics with statements suggesting that Catholicism has spawned, "a theology of hate." During an interview on NPR's "Fresh Air," Hagee claimed that Muslims have a "scriptural mandate to kill Christians and Jews," and later in the same interview claimed that Hurricane Katrina was punishment wrought by God on the sinful city of New Orleans. He holds views that most Americans should rightly regard as deeply offensive, and is perhaps most succinctly described as a spewer of hate. Yet, unlike Obama with regard to Wright, McCain actively sought the endorsement of his Reverend, so as to solidify his standing amongst the key fundamentalist Republican voting bloc. Even more troubling, McCain did a complete flip-flop in seeking Hagee's imprimatur, as in a different political environment he once termed such evangelical demagogues as "agents of intolerance."

While McCain has gotten a little heat from the media for his association with Hagee, it has been nothing like the scrutiny afforded Wright and Obama. McCain has recently gone as far as admitting that seeking Hagee's endorsement was probably a mistake, but nevertheless still being grateful to have it (go figure). How's that for mental gymnastics! Wright and Obama could never get away with such equivocating. The double standard here is indeed stark, and is difficult to understand in other than racial terms. In the end, John McCain is white, and so is "his" Reverend, and that seems to make all the difference.

Crazy Talk

Obliterate! That's some pretty tough talk. That was the term used by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton when asked to describe what her response as President would be if Iran were to attack Israel with nuclear weapons! Before discussing this further, let's get some hard facts on the table.

1) Iran does not now possess nuclear weapons, nor is it likely to in the near future.

2) Iranian officials have stated that they are not pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

3) The US intelligence community has essentially corroborated this Iranian claim, stating in a recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that Iran had suspended any nuclear program.

4) On the other hand, there is a nuclear power in the Middle East, Israel. Israel is one of only four states not to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). It obtained nuclear technology with significant assistance from France, and carried out its weapons program with substantial deception. Israel's official position is that, "it will not be the first state to introduce nuclear weapons to the Middle East." As it is an "open secret" that it already has, this is rather a deceitful position to maintain.

What does it say about the state of our media that candidates are even asked such a question? How could Iran, not possessing nuclear weapons, attack Israel with them? Even more astonishingly, if Iran had nuclear weapons why would it even consider attacking Israel with them? Such questioning reveals a remarkable double standard. I would go as far as to call it racism, plain and simple. It impugns the Iranians with sinister motives and aims that we would never even think of applying to ourselves or our allies. We of course like to think that we would NEVER strike first with nuclear weapons, but we are more than willing to attribute such behavior to the Iranians (and they don't even have the weapons!). This kind of thinking betrays a belief in the questioner that the Iranians are fundamentally different and "other" than us, put crudely, that they are not human. Only then would it become possible to envisage obliterating them.

And what of Clinton's response to such questioning? Are these the qualities that we want in a President, that he/she would be willing to completely wipe out another country, to almost brag about it? Actually, I would want such a person as far away from the "nuclear button" as possible. More troubling perhaps is that Clinton apparently feels that this is the kind of talk that we, the electorate, want to hear, that our Presidents will be vicious thugs on the world stage. What constituency does she feel she is appealing to with such remarks? Is she appealing to Democratic or Republican voters with such statements? In recent TV ads she has argued that the President must be "ready for anything", and that she, "has what it takes" in this regard. Is her response to the Iran question supposed to prove this to some voters? For me anyway it's done the exact opposite. This is exactly the same kind of fear mongering the Bush administration has perfected, and used to shred the Constitution and our civil liberties. No thank you, I've had more than my fill of such crazy talk.

The Meaning of Success

The war in Iraq recently entered its sixth year, and the long nightmare of the Iraqi people continues with no end in sight. After five years of carnage; hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead; 4,000 US troops killed; a vast fortune spent; what has been achieved? Events surrounding the 5th anniversary shed some illuminating light on the present state of American democracy. Consider the establishment media. The present consensus narrative, endlessly reinforced by recent Bush administration media opportunities that receive front page and/or prime time coverage on the TV news networks (Fox, CNN, CBS, etc.), is that the troop "surge" is working. Cheney recently made a "stealth" visit to Iraq, and proclaimed that the war, though not without its difficulties, has been a "... successful endeavor." Bush too claimed "success" in a recent speech to Defense Department personnel at the Pentagon. If what we are witnessing in Iraq is success, then one shudders to think what failure would look like! For a less hyperbolic look at what "success" in Iraq looks like, see the sobering report by Dahr Jamail.

Of course the "success" in Iraq would not have been possible without the willing service provided by the American corporate press. Nor would it be possible for those responsible for this catastrophe to continue to claim, five years on, that "victory" is within sight if we simply "stay the course." American media's service to the State with regard to the Iraq war would make former Pravda officials green with envy. Particularly shameful in recent days was the major media coverage--or rather, the almost complete lack of it--surrounding the Winter Soldier hearings held from March 13 - 16 at the National Labor College in Silver Spring, MD. Over four days soldiers who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan gave testimony of their experiences, providing first hand, moving accounts of what American's taxes are paying for in Iraq. This was easily the most important news story concerning the Iraq war in recent months. Here we had those carrying out Bush administration policy giving first hand accounts of what they saw and did. Those actors making the history were providing direct testimony. What better way to "support the troops" than to listen to and tell their stories? The event was covered in great depth by various independent media outlets like Democracy Now and Pacifica radio, but was scarcely mentioned in the corporate press. I did not hear all the testimony myself, but was able to listen to significant portions of it. I would urge everyone to at least watch some of the testimony, which can be found at Iraq Veterans Against the War.

Just as the corporate press missed the story in the lead up to the invasion, they also missed this one. Whereas in depth reporting of the Winter Soldier hearings could have gone a long way toward showing Americans the real costs of this war, and perhaps finally forcing an end to the horrors, the so-called free press still can't seem to get it right, and remain simply a propaganda conduit for the powerful.

One of the most pernicious myths surrounding our corporate media is that they are completely free and unbiased, that they serve the people and are not beholden to the powerful. This is repeated so often that is has become virtually axiomatic, indeed, one is immediately labeled a loon to even suggest the opposite. Occasionally, however, the truth slips out. Read the summary by Glenn Greenwald of an interview that serial anchor Tucker Carlson did with Gerri Peev, the British reporter who revealed Obama aid Samantha Power's referral to Hillary Clinton as a "monster." This little exchange shows precisely the presumed relationship of the press to the powerful in contemporary America, one of subservience. It is only that dynamic that enables utter failure to be called success.