by Rich Miles
Today is Feb. 1, 2007.
Within the last week, we've discovered that:
- The US may have botched the training of Iraqi police recruits by outsourcing the job to unqualified private contractors - and then failing to follow up to see if the contractors were even TRYING to do the job.
- Our troops, who are fighting Bush's War, many of whom don't even know why, are underequipped even to the point of not having enough ammunition.
- Our government sold spare parts for fighter aircraft to people who then resold them to Iran, the country that Bush is now fully erect to attack.
and
- The nominee for the Director of National Intelligence has a $2 Million a Year Conflict of Interest
And that's just within the last WEEK.
So a question, actually two questions, that I've asked over and over for the past 4 years or more comes up once again: Are these people screwing up on purpose? And if so, WHY?
I mean, what other explanation can there be? The law of averages would seem to dictate that they'd get SOMETHING right occasionally.
But no - I cannot think of one single thing - not ONE, not even a hospital being built or a schoolhouse being painted - that this administration and this Defense Dept . and this State Dept. and this Justice Dept.(oh, don't get me started on the Justice Dept.!) has not utterly and totally
screwed up.
The above examples in the links are pretty much prima facie - not open to much interpretation. But one has to admit it's true that "screwing up" is a moving target - or "in the eye of the beholder" as my dear ol' grandpa used to say. (It's true - he really did, he said "screwing up is in the eye of the beholder")
So let us, in the interest of fairness, allow that some will not think presidential signing statements are "screwing up", despite their apparent extraconstitutionality and their clear intent to place the president above the law; or that the Justice Dept. removing career federal prosecutors, many of them right in the middle of major cases against drug smugglers, terror suspects, and corrupt politicians, and replacing them with political appointees of questionable competence but unquestioned, unquestioning Republican loyalty is not, on any sort of objective scale, "screwing up."
Perhaps some will say we're too harsh to call it "screwing up" when our country's chief law enforcement officer says that the Constitution does not guarantee the 800-year-old legal principle of habeas corpus, or when Bush signs an executive order 'that gives the White House much greater control over the rules and policy statements that the government develops to protect public health, safety, the environment, civil rights and privacy.'
And perhaps there will even be some who think it's not screwing up for the government to interfere in the ability of scientists to tell the world about global warming and other scientific matters.
But as some folks are saying about Bush's War, if this isn't screwing up, what is? Can the world, quite literally, survive any worse screwing up than this entire administration and everything they do?
So - way down the page, back to the second of the two questions: since it seems unquestionable that they're doing it on purpose, why?
Sadly, frighteningly, there is an answer to that question: Christianists on the March
"...A period of instability will permit them to push through their radical agenda, one that will be sold to a frightened American public as a return to security and law and order, as well as moral purity and prosperity."
In other words, they need chaos to thrive. Who better to give it to them than George W. Bush and his humanity-challenged thugs?
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Let's talk about the death penalty
Bluegrass Report: Death Penalty
Well! Here's a perfect can o' worms to jump into...
Note the dichotomy of the two views expressed in this story: that it COSTS the state a lot to sentence someone to the death penalty (true, and known for a long time), and that the death penalty is "inconsistent with evolving standards of decency", which has always been true, nothing "evolving" about the indecency of it, but overlooked when convenient.
So which is more important to us here in the early 21st century, at a point in history where this issue has been debated to...you'll pardon the expression...death?
Is the cost-effectiveness of life imprisonment without parole more advantageous to the state than the decency issue?
I submit that the cost issue is also a time issue - that the costs to the state of multiple appeals is not only higher in real dollars, but is incurred in a shorter time span than the cost of maintaining a prisoner for life, and thus the average life-without-parole costs can be amortized over a longer time period.
That's really what this argument will come down to eventually, in fact to a certain degree already has: a cost-benefit analysis, and public decency, while spoken of often, will ultimately have little or nothing to do with it.
I remember a sci-fi story some years ago - don't remember the title and would appreciate help from anyone who does remember it - in which the main premise was that the death penalty could be imposed for nearly any infraction, even jaywalking, because the executed person's organs could then be harvested to improve or save the lives of the "law-abiding" citizens - thus, there was a societal benefit attached to every execution. And thus there were an awful LOT of executions.
We're not quite that far gone yet, it was fiction after all - but this story says a little more than I'm comfortable with about how much we may be headed there.
These things are never quite as simple as they appear, are they?
Well! Here's a perfect can o' worms to jump into...
Note the dichotomy of the two views expressed in this story: that it COSTS the state a lot to sentence someone to the death penalty (true, and known for a long time), and that the death penalty is "inconsistent with evolving standards of decency", which has always been true, nothing "evolving" about the indecency of it, but overlooked when convenient.
So which is more important to us here in the early 21st century, at a point in history where this issue has been debated to...you'll pardon the expression...death?
Is the cost-effectiveness of life imprisonment without parole more advantageous to the state than the decency issue?
I submit that the cost issue is also a time issue - that the costs to the state of multiple appeals is not only higher in real dollars, but is incurred in a shorter time span than the cost of maintaining a prisoner for life, and thus the average life-without-parole costs can be amortized over a longer time period.
That's really what this argument will come down to eventually, in fact to a certain degree already has: a cost-benefit analysis, and public decency, while spoken of often, will ultimately have little or nothing to do with it.
I remember a sci-fi story some years ago - don't remember the title and would appreciate help from anyone who does remember it - in which the main premise was that the death penalty could be imposed for nearly any infraction, even jaywalking, because the executed person's organs could then be harvested to improve or save the lives of the "law-abiding" citizens - thus, there was a societal benefit attached to every execution. And thus there were an awful LOT of executions.
We're not quite that far gone yet, it was fiction after all - but this story says a little more than I'm comfortable with about how much we may be headed there.
These things are never quite as simple as they appear, are they?
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Martial Law - First Step to President for Life
Those of you who hang on every word I write (all one of you) will remember a little thing I wrote back in late June called He's Not Leaving, which was published on Buzzflash.
I got a lot of good feedback on the piece, which I confess surprised me a little, since even I thought it was a bit farther outside the box than I was usually comfortable with. If you have any interest in reading some of that feedback, here is the article as it appeared on this blog:
However, subsequent events and legislation only made me believe what I said in that column even more. And the following article all but cements it - Bush is planning to stay on in the White House beyond January 20, 2009.
Here's one of quite a few ways he's going to do it:
It’s amazing what you can find if you turn over a few rocks in the anti-terrorism legislation Congress approved during the election season.
Take, for example, the
Signed by President Bush on Oct. 17, the law (PL 109-364) has a provocative provision called “Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies.”
The thrust of it seems to be about giving the federal government a far stronger hand in coordinating responses to Katrina-like disasters.
But on closer inspection, its language also alters the two-centuries-old Insurrection Act, which Congress passed in 1807 to limit the president’s power to deploy troops within the United States.
That law has long allowed the president to mobilize troops only “to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.”
But the amended law takes the cuffs off.
Specifically, the new language adds “natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident” to the list of conditions permitting the President to take over local authority — particularly “if domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order.”
Since the administration broadened what constitutes “conspiracy” in its definition of enemy combatants — anyone who “has purposely and materially supported hostilities against the United States,” in the language of the Military Commissions Act (PL 109-366) — critics say it’s a formula for executive branch mischief.
Yet despite such a radical turn, the new law garnered little dissent, or even attention, on the Hill.
One of the few to complain, Sen.
It “subverts solid, longstanding posse comitatus statutes that limit the military’s involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law,” he said in remarks submitted to the Congressional Record on Sept. 29.
“The changes to the Insurrection Act will allow the President to use the military, including the National Guard, to carry out law enforcement activities without the consent of a governor,” he said.
Moreover, he said, it breaks a long, fundamental tradition of federal restraint.
“Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy.”
And he criticized the way it was rammed through Congress.
It “was just slipped in the defense bill as a rider with little study,” he fumed. “Other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals.”
No matter: Safely tucked into the $526 billion defense bill, it easily crossed the goal line on the last day of September.
Silence
The language doesn’t just brush aside a liberal Democrat slated to take over the Judiciary Committee come January. It also runs over the backs of the governors, 22 of whom are Republicans.
The governors had waved red flags about the measure on Aug. 1, sending letters of protest from their Washington office to the Republican chairs and ranking Democrats on the House and Senate Armed Services committees.
No response. So they petitioned the party heads on the Hill — Sens.
“This provision was drafted without consultation or input from governors,” said the Aug. 6 letter signed by every member of the National Governors Association, “and represents an unprecedented shift in authority from governors . . .to the federal government.”
“We urge you,” they said, “to drop provisions that would usurp governors’ authority over the National Guard during emergencies from the conference agreement on the National Defense Authorization Act.”
Again, no response from the leadership, said David Quam, the National Governors Association’s director of federal relations.
On Aug. 31, the governors sent another letter to the congressional party leaders, as well as to Defense Secretary
The bill “could encroach on our constitutional authority to protect the citizens of our states,” they protested, complaining again about how the provision had been dumped on a midnight express.
“Any issue that affects the mission of the Guard in the states must be addressed in consultation and coordination with governors,” they demanded.
“The role of the Guard in the states and to the nation as a whole is too important to have major policy decisions made without full debate and input from governors throughout the policy process.”
More silence.
“We did not know until the bill was printed where we stood,” Quam said.
That’s partly the governors’ own fault, said a Republican Senate aide.
“My understanding is that they sent form letters to offices,” she said. “If they really want a piece of legislation considered they should have called offices and pushed the matter. No office can handle the amount of form letters that come in each day.”
Quam disputed that.
“The letter was only the beginning of the conversation,” he said. “The NGA and the governors’ offices reached out across the Hill.”
Blogosphere
Looking back at the government’s chaotic response to Katrina, it’s not altogether surprising that the provision drew so little opposition in Congress and attention from the mainstream media.
And of course, it was wrapped in a monster defense bill related to the emergency in Iraq.
But the blogosphere, of course, was all over it.
A close analysis of the bill by Frank Morales, a 58-year-old Episcopal priest in New York who occasionally writes for left-wing publications, spurred a score of liberal and conservative libertarian Web sites to take a look at it.
But a search of The Washington Post and New York Times archives, using the terms “Insurrection Act,” “martial law” and “Congress,” came up empty.
That’s not to say the papers don’t care: There’s just too much going on in the global war on terror to keep up with, much less write about such a seemingly insignificant provision. The martial law section of the Defense Appropriation Act, for example, takes up just a few paragraphs in the 591-page document.
What else is in there? More intriguing stuff, it looks like — and I’m working my way through it.
Monday, December 04, 2006
Comments are still here, but the post is gone
I've left the comments that were posted on the SJR agenda, because I wouldn't want to be accused of censorship, now would I? The agenda itself was just clutter, and didn't say anything important anyway.
I also don't want to remove the evidence the person left of genuine mental illness.
I want to point out that ALL of the comments that aren't clearly identified as being from me - the ones signed "Logically Negative" - were written by the same person. Even the supposedly "sensible" one signed "Stop Bashing..." was written by the same moron who wrote the insane rants.
I didn't know that when I replied to "Stop Bashing" but I do now. Jonathan.
Rich Miles
I also don't want to remove the evidence the person left of genuine mental illness.
I want to point out that ALL of the comments that aren't clearly identified as being from me - the ones signed "Logically Negative" - were written by the same person. Even the supposedly "sensible" one signed "Stop Bashing..." was written by the same moron who wrote the insane rants.
I didn't know that when I replied to "Stop Bashing" but I do now. Jonathan.
Rich Miles
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Gas Prices are Down! Let's All Vote Republican!
Gee, gas prices sure have gone down a lot lately...from around $3.00 a gallon about a month ago, the cheapest prices in my area are $2.14/gal, a reduction of 29% in about a month. At this rate, gas will be free by election day.
In case you wonder why, our president has actually told us that HE knows why, and that the national press should "watch it carefully". I don't remember the last time a president of the United States telegraphed his intent and his knowledge of what is going to happen in the future so clearly.
The following link is to Dan Froomkin's blog at the Washington Post Online. The quotes below the link are selections from that blog. The quote was given in the same interview with conservative columnists in which Bush referred to the Third Awakening".
Check well down the page for the relevant exchange:
Dan Froomkin's WaPo Blog for 9/14
Gas Watch
Does Bush have some insider information about gas prices, which appear to be conveniently dropping just in time for the mid-term election?
Fred Barnes writes in the Weekly Standard: "Bush said the price of gasoline, which has been falling rapidly, is one of the 'interesting indicators' that the press should watch carefully. 'Just giving you a heads up,' he added."
Just for your added interest, the same blog contained the following excerpt:
Believe It or Not
Evan Thomas of Newsweek actually believes that Bush has read more than 60 books in the last year -- then marvels at how little he knows about history.
In case you wonder why, our president has actually told us that HE knows why, and that the national press should "watch it carefully". I don't remember the last time a president of the United States telegraphed his intent and his knowledge of what is going to happen in the future so clearly.
The following link is to Dan Froomkin's blog at the Washington Post Online. The quotes below the link are selections from that blog. The quote was given in the same interview with conservative columnists in which Bush referred to the Third Awakening".
Check well down the page for the relevant exchange:
Dan Froomkin's WaPo Blog for 9/14
Gas Watch
Does Bush have some insider information about gas prices, which appear to be conveniently dropping just in time for the mid-term election?
Fred Barnes writes in the Weekly Standard: "Bush said the price of gasoline, which has been falling rapidly, is one of the 'interesting indicators' that the press should watch carefully. 'Just giving you a heads up,' he added."
Just for your added interest, the same blog contained the following excerpt:
Believe It or Not
Evan Thomas of Newsweek actually believes that Bush has read more than 60 books in the last year -- then marvels at how little he knows about history.
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Monday, July 03, 2006
Have I hit a nerve?
by Rich Miles
Note the by-line. I'm going to change all of them when I have time. It was a dumb pen name anyway. I was just too chicken to put a name out there, but I think it's time to come out from behind it.
So my last post, "He's Not Leaving" was published on Buzzflash, and while I expected a bit of response, and that some of the responders would call me a nutcase, what I didn't expect was 23 emailed responses, ALL of them agreeing with at least the plausibility of my argument: Bush is going to attempt to stay in office beyond January 2009.
Now, 23 replies is not a lot - better-known bloggers get that many comments or replies in a morning, and guys like Kos probably gets that many in 5 minutes. But considering that nobody knows who the hell I am, I consider that figure to be a clear indicator that I've said something that needs to be said, and something that other people have thought or said before me.
Here is a sample of what some of my respondents said (last names removed to protect anonymity, and all samples unedited):
=====================================================================================
Hey!
Just read your article at Buzzflash. The same thought occured to me quite awhile back. I am not so sure that anyone, even some Republicans, especially the libertarian wing, would be likely to sit still for an amendment to the consttitution just to keep Junior in the White House.
But I do see the possibility of a national emergency: Declaration of martial law, suspension of the constitution and no voting in Novemeber, 2008. Hell, it could be anything. "Al Qaeda attacks" in New York and L.A. with whatever. The Avian Flu, for that matter would be just as good or bad. Either one of these scenarios could be arranged much easier that people think.
Talk about tinfoil hat time, all they would have to do is make sure Hillary is elected and everything will go away, just like Iran/Contra went away when Bill Clinton was elected.
The Bushites are going to try to steal the elections again this year. Can it be done on a state-by state basis? Just ask Max Clelland in Georgia. This is where they did their trial run.
Dot
Georgia
====================================================================================
Mr Rich,
Thank you for putting "flesh" on what I expressed to my family and friends just before "Rove's War" began.
We are in deep "shit" in our country.
Elections are a farce, this administration controls the vote count for all 50 states. This administration controls with fear, I have fear, fear that we are unable to rid our country of this tyranny.
Bring back paper ballots,
David H
=====================================================================================
Hey Rich:
Just read your article concerning Bush staying on for a third term. Well, you're not the only one thinking of such a fiasco. I myself, who am marginally politically astute, have considered such a scenario myself. It's looking like the beginning of the end in oh so many ways. Good article.
Best, Karl G
=====================================================================================
Say it isn't so. You sure have spelled it out for them. Don't give these bastards any ideas. It is too painful.
Flowkay
=====================================================================================
I loved your article for Buzzflash. I have been saying the same thing since 2000 when he was first selected by the SC to be pResident.
I have also been saying that not only was 9/11 an inside job, but that if dumbya need another one to stay in power it would happen.
I want to do all I can to circulate your article, if you don't mind. I want to e-mail it, print it, post it, and spread it around in its entirety with full credit to you. Please let me know if this is OK.
Keep up the good work.
=====================================================================================
Good morning, Rich
Your article scared the hell out of me because it doesn't sound the
least bit far-fetched.
Don't I wish the Jesus that these neo-Cons swear to love so much returns
to Earth to chomp on their asses as well as more so-called "private
parts."
Sincerely
Lisa N, in the Greater Boston area
=====================================================================================
Dear Mr. Miles:
Kudos for your subject essay which expresses many of the very same thoughts I've fearfully entertained, and not for a minute do I doubt the possibility of such an atrocious outcome.
To play on an old cliche', "when you snooze, you lose" has never before been in such evidence during my rather extended lifetime as our citizens of today obviously are snoozing away our freedom.
Thank you for having the honesty and courage to offer such food for thought, and may there be a massive awakening before all is lost to the forces of lust for power and insatiable greed.
Yours very truly,
Jacquelyn W - TN
=====================================================================================
Dear Rich-
You know, I think you got it right. My SO has been muttering about this very thing for 6 yrs, and at first I said, nah, that's just.....then in the utter dark of all these nights, I realized, how the fuck COULD they leave? And if you'll 1/steal the presidency, 2/plan/be complicit in an attack on US soil just so you can be King of the Mtn, and 3/all that other shit they keep doing/not doing in order to just majorly fuck us all up, then what's a 3rd term, eh?
About to click over to your reg site, whatever that may be. Probably pretty good. I'm from Kaintuck myself, down ca Bowling Green. Migrated up to the NYC area long ago. Sorry your governor is such a jerk....we're about to get rid of our moron and possibly get a rather cool one--Spitzer. Works for me!
Thanks for the Buzzflash letter....
Sally L
=====================================================================================
Dear Sir,
I have been trying to tell all of my friends about the very real possibility of what you said in your article, but they all laugh and try to tell me that I'm a nutcase. I am going to make a copy of your article and show it to as many friends and people that I know, if you don't mind.
I believe that GW and friends are fascists and will stop at nothing to retain power and screw over the american people.
Thanks for your article.
Signed,
Paul B
=====================================================================================
Like you, I do not believe that the Bush gang will leave willingly. First they claimed the unconstitutional prerogative of something called the “unitary president” which you know places them above the law. They have also floated the idea of a thing called the “continuity presidency” which essentially allows POTUS to remain in office during a national emergency. The notion comes from the legal mind of Alberto Gonzales. On the bright side, the Supreme Court just slapped George’s wrist, but he will blow them off just like he has the Congress. In fact, Congress is so subservient it will probably help him do it. History may note that the 1st American Republic ended on December 9, 2000, the date the Supreme Court issued its injunction stopping the Florida recount in preparation for handing the presidency to Bush. Every disaster than has befallen since was fomented by that decision.
They’ve already taken control of the country. The only issue is how to take it back and what the 2nd American Republic will look like.
TikalMujer
===================================================================
So - not a representative national sample perhaps, but do you think maybe, just maybe, this is a thought that someone had before me?
RM
Note the by-line. I'm going to change all of them when I have time. It was a dumb pen name anyway. I was just too chicken to put a name out there, but I think it's time to come out from behind it.
So my last post, "He's Not Leaving" was published on Buzzflash, and while I expected a bit of response, and that some of the responders would call me a nutcase, what I didn't expect was 23 emailed responses, ALL of them agreeing with at least the plausibility of my argument: Bush is going to attempt to stay in office beyond January 2009.
Now, 23 replies is not a lot - better-known bloggers get that many comments or replies in a morning, and guys like Kos probably gets that many in 5 minutes. But considering that nobody knows who the hell I am, I consider that figure to be a clear indicator that I've said something that needs to be said, and something that other people have thought or said before me.
Here is a sample of what some of my respondents said (last names removed to protect anonymity, and all samples unedited):
=====================================================================================
Hey!
Just read your article at Buzzflash. The same thought occured to me quite awhile back. I am not so sure that anyone, even some Republicans, especially the libertarian wing, would be likely to sit still for an amendment to the consttitution just to keep Junior in the White House.
But I do see the possibility of a national emergency: Declaration of martial law, suspension of the constitution and no voting in Novemeber, 2008. Hell, it could be anything. "Al Qaeda attacks" in New York and L.A. with whatever. The Avian Flu, for that matter would be just as good or bad. Either one of these scenarios could be arranged much easier that people think.
Talk about tinfoil hat time, all they would have to do is make sure Hillary is elected and everything will go away, just like Iran/Contra went away when Bill Clinton was elected.
The Bushites are going to try to steal the elections again this year. Can it be done on a state-by state basis? Just ask Max Clelland in Georgia. This is where they did their trial run.
Dot
Georgia
====================================================================================
Mr Rich,
Thank you for putting "flesh" on what I expressed to my family and friends just before "Rove's War" began.
We are in deep "shit" in our country.
Elections are a farce, this administration controls the vote count for all 50 states. This administration controls with fear, I have fear, fear that we are unable to rid our country of this tyranny.
Bring back paper ballots,
David H
=====================================================================================
Hey Rich:
Just read your article concerning Bush staying on for a third term. Well, you're not the only one thinking of such a fiasco. I myself, who am marginally politically astute, have considered such a scenario myself. It's looking like the beginning of the end in oh so many ways. Good article.
Best, Karl G
=====================================================================================
Say it isn't so. You sure have spelled it out for them. Don't give these bastards any ideas. It is too painful.
Flowkay
=====================================================================================
I loved your article for Buzzflash. I have been saying the same thing since 2000 when he was first selected by the SC to be pResident.
I have also been saying that not only was 9/11 an inside job, but that if dumbya need another one to stay in power it would happen.
I want to do all I can to circulate your article, if you don't mind. I want to e-mail it, print it, post it, and spread it around in its entirety with full credit to you. Please let me know if this is OK.
Keep up the good work.
=====================================================================================
Good morning, Rich
Your article scared the hell out of me because it doesn't sound the
least bit far-fetched.
Don't I wish the Jesus that these neo-Cons swear to love so much returns
to Earth to chomp on their asses as well as more so-called "private
parts."
Sincerely
Lisa N, in the Greater Boston area
=====================================================================================
Dear Mr. Miles:
Kudos for your subject essay which expresses many of the very same thoughts I've fearfully entertained, and not for a minute do I doubt the possibility of such an atrocious outcome.
To play on an old cliche', "when you snooze, you lose" has never before been in such evidence during my rather extended lifetime as our citizens of today obviously are snoozing away our freedom.
Thank you for having the honesty and courage to offer such food for thought, and may there be a massive awakening before all is lost to the forces of lust for power and insatiable greed.
Yours very truly,
Jacquelyn W - TN
=====================================================================================
Dear Rich-
You know, I think you got it right. My SO has been muttering about this very thing for 6 yrs, and at first I said, nah, that's just.....then in the utter dark of all these nights, I realized, how the fuck COULD they leave? And if you'll 1/steal the presidency, 2/plan/be complicit in an attack on US soil just so you can be King of the Mtn, and 3/all that other shit they keep doing/not doing in order to just majorly fuck us all up, then what's a 3rd term, eh?
About to click over to your reg site, whatever that may be. Probably pretty good. I'm from Kaintuck myself, down ca Bowling Green. Migrated up to the NYC area long ago. Sorry your governor is such a jerk....we're about to get rid of our moron and possibly get a rather cool one--Spitzer. Works for me!
Thanks for the Buzzflash letter....
Sally L
=====================================================================================
Dear Sir,
I have been trying to tell all of my friends about the very real possibility of what you said in your article, but they all laugh and try to tell me that I'm a nutcase. I am going to make a copy of your article and show it to as many friends and people that I know, if you don't mind.
I believe that GW and friends are fascists and will stop at nothing to retain power and screw over the american people.
Thanks for your article.
Signed,
Paul B
=====================================================================================
Like you, I do not believe that the Bush gang will leave willingly. First they claimed the unconstitutional prerogative of something called the “unitary president” which you know places them above the law. They have also floated the idea of a thing called the “continuity presidency” which essentially allows POTUS to remain in office during a national emergency. The notion comes from the legal mind of Alberto Gonzales. On the bright side, the Supreme Court just slapped George’s wrist, but he will blow them off just like he has the Congress. In fact, Congress is so subservient it will probably help him do it. History may note that the 1st American Republic ended on December 9, 2000, the date the Supreme Court issued its injunction stopping the Florida recount in preparation for handing the presidency to Bush. Every disaster than has befallen since was fomented by that decision.
They’ve already taken control of the country. The only issue is how to take it back and what the 2nd American Republic will look like.
TikalMujer
===================================================================
So - not a representative national sample perhaps, but do you think maybe, just maybe, this is a thought that someone had before me?
RM
Friday, June 30, 2006
He's not leaving
Author's note: This piece was published on Buzzflash as He's Not Leaving on June 30, 2006
by Rich Miles
This idea has been rattling around in my brain for a while now, but as we approach November's elections, it starts to look less and less insane, as much as we might wish it to be. In fact, an editorial on Buzzflash recently called Darkness at Noon for Democracy has made it look a little more likely, rather than less. Here's my prognostication:
Bush is not going to relinquish the office of the presidency on January 20, 2009.
No, seriously - don't write off the idea quite yet. Think about what it would take for him to stay on beyond his constitutionally-mandated term of office:
Method One: A Third Term
1) There would have to be a constitutional amendment to repeal the 22nd amendment limiting presidents to two terms - difficult, but not impossible. We did it with the 21st amendment, which repealed Prohibition. From congressional passage to state ratifications to law of the land was a scant 9 months. Of course, that involved booze, which is much more important to most people than who is in the White House - but still, it can happen.
2) Then, there would have to be a major turnaround in Bush's popularity that would allow him to be elected to a third term by another 50.7% margin or so (never mind the arguments about how he was not really elected to the first term - that's for another rant.)
3) And all of this would have to happen between November 2006 (no way in Hell it even gets mentioned before the midterms) and July 2008, to allow at least the appearance of freely selecting Bush as the nominee again, and a convention, and a small semblance of a campaign.
In other words, in political terms all this would have to happen at the speed of light - again, not impossible, but really really difficult on so many levels, not least of them that more and more people genuinely hate the sumbitch, making it harder for him to steal another election. Or there's...
Method Two: Martial Law
1) Along about, oh I don't know, September or October of 2008, there will be another 9/11-style attack on American soil, or perhaps a genuine act of war against us by another recognizable state - North Korea perhaps, though there are numerous other candidates. As in 2001, we will retreat into fear and give away the constitutional farm, as long as Bush will promise not to let the boogeymen get us
2) As a result of this event, Bush will suspend the Constitution, dissolve Congress, declare martial law, suspend the '08 elections, reassert himself as Commander in Chief, and claim that he does not have to give up the presidency because, hey, the Constitution is what says he has to, and that's suspended. He'll do all this in the name of "national security", and we'll let him get away with it for at least a little while because despite our national penchant for bloodlust and sabre-rattling, we are at heart a bunch of pussies who will, in times of national crisis, follow anything that moves, as long as it promises not to hurt us.
Freedom of the press? Gone. Freedom of assembly? Pffft. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness? Out the effin' window. Suspending the Constitution also conveniently makes him unimpeachable, a not-inconsiderable side benefit
3) And so, America will be plunged into a level of crisis nationally and internationally that will make the Civil War look like a church picnic.
Now look - never mind how unlikely all this is. Never mind how unlikely it would be to be successful if things did go down this way. Even as I write this, I know how conspiracy-freakish it sounds. But can you say with certainty that what I describe here CAN'T happen? Can you look back at the past five-plus years, at all the laws that have been broken or simply ignored by this administration, and say no way? I can't.
At the very least, I'd like to believe that some combination of the armed forces and American patriots would thwart such a clearly criminal enterprise at the top of our government.
But do we really want the military to bail our sorry asses out in this way? They already know they have the manpower and the weapons to take over the government, but do we want to ask them to do so? How do you get that genie back in the bottle?
But consider the consequences for Bush, Cheney, et al. if they leave office quietly, like every other president has done: if a Democrat is elected (more and more likely), every single document, everything the Bushies have done, is going to see the light of day. Classified documents - suddenly available to the public. False justifications for war - clearly on the table. Circumventions of the law - no longer deniable or spinnable. And criminal charges? Not out of the question, even after they've left government. And most of this can happen even if the next president is a Republican - what better way to seal the deal on your re-election than to show you're more honest than the last guy, even if it's a member of your own party you have to hang out to dry?
No, they can't leave in January of '09. (See my post titled Time To Set a Precedent - 2/27/06 for more reasons why.) This stuff is not going away just because they leave office, and they know it. Even a country-club prison is still a prison.
And if you think I'm the only person this idea has ever occurred to, that I'm just a loose cannon of a conspiracy nut and this kind of thing can't happen in America - and if you don't think that the other people who are thinking about this topic are in the White House and environs - then I have some land in Florida I'd like to sell you. That is, if Gov. Bush doesn't already own it.
by Rich Miles
This idea has been rattling around in my brain for a while now, but as we approach November's elections, it starts to look less and less insane, as much as we might wish it to be. In fact, an editorial on Buzzflash recently called Darkness at Noon for Democracy has made it look a little more likely, rather than less. Here's my prognostication:
Bush is not going to relinquish the office of the presidency on January 20, 2009.
No, seriously - don't write off the idea quite yet. Think about what it would take for him to stay on beyond his constitutionally-mandated term of office:
Method One: A Third Term
1) There would have to be a constitutional amendment to repeal the 22nd amendment limiting presidents to two terms - difficult, but not impossible. We did it with the 21st amendment, which repealed Prohibition. From congressional passage to state ratifications to law of the land was a scant 9 months. Of course, that involved booze, which is much more important to most people than who is in the White House - but still, it can happen.
2) Then, there would have to be a major turnaround in Bush's popularity that would allow him to be elected to a third term by another 50.7% margin or so (never mind the arguments about how he was not really elected to the first term - that's for another rant.)
3) And all of this would have to happen between November 2006 (no way in Hell it even gets mentioned before the midterms) and July 2008, to allow at least the appearance of freely selecting Bush as the nominee again, and a convention, and a small semblance of a campaign.
In other words, in political terms all this would have to happen at the speed of light - again, not impossible, but really really difficult on so many levels, not least of them that more and more people genuinely hate the sumbitch, making it harder for him to steal another election. Or there's...
Method Two: Martial Law
1) Along about, oh I don't know, September or October of 2008, there will be another 9/11-style attack on American soil, or perhaps a genuine act of war against us by another recognizable state - North Korea perhaps, though there are numerous other candidates. As in 2001, we will retreat into fear and give away the constitutional farm, as long as Bush will promise not to let the boogeymen get us
2) As a result of this event, Bush will suspend the Constitution, dissolve Congress, declare martial law, suspend the '08 elections, reassert himself as Commander in Chief, and claim that he does not have to give up the presidency because, hey, the Constitution is what says he has to, and that's suspended. He'll do all this in the name of "national security", and we'll let him get away with it for at least a little while because despite our national penchant for bloodlust and sabre-rattling, we are at heart a bunch of pussies who will, in times of national crisis, follow anything that moves, as long as it promises not to hurt us.
Freedom of the press? Gone. Freedom of assembly? Pffft. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness? Out the effin' window. Suspending the Constitution also conveniently makes him unimpeachable, a not-inconsiderable side benefit
3) And so, America will be plunged into a level of crisis nationally and internationally that will make the Civil War look like a church picnic.
Now look - never mind how unlikely all this is. Never mind how unlikely it would be to be successful if things did go down this way. Even as I write this, I know how conspiracy-freakish it sounds. But can you say with certainty that what I describe here CAN'T happen? Can you look back at the past five-plus years, at all the laws that have been broken or simply ignored by this administration, and say no way? I can't.
At the very least, I'd like to believe that some combination of the armed forces and American patriots would thwart such a clearly criminal enterprise at the top of our government.
But do we really want the military to bail our sorry asses out in this way? They already know they have the manpower and the weapons to take over the government, but do we want to ask them to do so? How do you get that genie back in the bottle?
But consider the consequences for Bush, Cheney, et al. if they leave office quietly, like every other president has done: if a Democrat is elected (more and more likely), every single document, everything the Bushies have done, is going to see the light of day. Classified documents - suddenly available to the public. False justifications for war - clearly on the table. Circumventions of the law - no longer deniable or spinnable. And criminal charges? Not out of the question, even after they've left government. And most of this can happen even if the next president is a Republican - what better way to seal the deal on your re-election than to show you're more honest than the last guy, even if it's a member of your own party you have to hang out to dry?
No, they can't leave in January of '09. (See my post titled Time To Set a Precedent - 2/27/06 for more reasons why.) This stuff is not going away just because they leave office, and they know it. Even a country-club prison is still a prison.
And if you think I'm the only person this idea has ever occurred to, that I'm just a loose cannon of a conspiracy nut and this kind of thing can't happen in America - and if you don't think that the other people who are thinking about this topic are in the White House and environs - then I have some land in Florida I'd like to sell you. That is, if Gov. Bush doesn't already own it.
Friday, May 19, 2006
STOP IT! JUST STOP IT!
by Rich Miles
Attn: Radical Right-wing Republicans who still support Bush: Don't you know you are destroying America? Seriously, it's not the liberals who are killing America. It's you - and you have to stop soon, before it's too late!
Can you possibly have your heads so far up George Bush's backside that you can't see how badly he, and by your complicity you, are destroying everything - everything - that distinguishes America from the rest of the world? Can you possibly be so filled with fear and hatred that you can't look past today's ration of same to see how your hero, George W. Bush, is trying to turn America, Land of the Free and Home of the Brave, into a fascist police state controlled by the worst men ever to hold power? Can you say 'kakistocracy'? Do you have any idea what it means?
I know I'm not the first person to say these things, and I sincerely hope I will not be the last. But the latest madness issuing from your 'Beloved Leader' just makes me want to puke. Even more than the last bunch of pandering to the alleged 'base', the anti-gay hate rhetoric that would write discrimination against a class of Americans into the U.S. Constitution, made me want to puke. It's a helluva way to lose weight.
Can you really not see that the whole immigration issue is nothing more than an appeal to the worst, most xenophobic, hate-filled instincts of red-state America? Can you really imagine that building a wall across the Mexican border, at HUGE cost, is really going to solve the problem of illegal immigration? Can you not see that, if Bush federalizes the National Guard, again at HUGE cost in both dollars and manpower, he has in effect hired his own private army, who will then be entirely under his command? Do you understand what the Posse Comitatus Act even means?
Sure, it's necessary to control immigration, no matter where the emigres come from. But that's not what's at work here. What is at work here is nothing less than the demonization of an ethnic group for the political gain of a majority party that is in danger of losing majority status. The actions now being taken or considered are NOT going to do anything to correct the problem - but it WILL get a lot of Mexican immigrants legal or otherwise, and more to the point Mexican-AMERICANS, U.S. citizens, beat up or worse.
The Senate passes - not just reports out of committee, but PASSES - a law making English the "national language" - and you applaud this as a needed action to save the Republic. Fuck the Meskins, if they don't want to learn the language let them go back to Mex-land where they came from!
You don't even NOTICE all the things the Republican-controlled Congress and the Bush administration they kowtow to have done to take money out of your pocket, to hurt YOU, to consolidate control over all of us, not just the lefties you so despise. You think your one-party government is going to do everything you want them to do, and liberals can just go fuck themselves if they don't like it.
Do you not understand that Bush is NOT INFALLIBLE? Is it that hard for you to let go of your worship of him, even if continuing means serving your children up to him on an olive-drab platter? Does it not even cause you to raise an eyebrow when the president of the United States says that God speaks directly to him? Are you really that unreality-based?
Something like 63% of you say, as some polls have shown, that you're willing to give up a little personal freedom and privacy, as long as Daddy W will keep you safe from the bad old Osama and friends. And you haven't read enough history to even KNOW that Benjamin Franklin warned us against this very phenomenon more than 230 years ago:
"Those who would surrender essential liberty for a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin
Ben Franklin's Thirteen Virtues
It's not just a clever little phrase from some old leftie. It's our future. And you - those who think it's OK for the government to spy on us because you have nothing to hide (and believe me - everyone has SOMEthing to hide) are the ones who are making America into a collection of gulags, and an international pariah.
Have you traveled outside of America lately? To Europe perhaps, or Africa or Asia?
Of course not, sorry I asked. They don't have NASCAR in those countries, and the animals you would hunt in those other places are not squirrels and rabbits and deer, they are big and scary, and actually require some skill to bring down. So you've probably never been there, and thus you don't know:
We are HATED around the world. Yes, we've always had some enemies, but we've also, historically, had lots of friends the world over. But no more.
My wife is Scottish, so I go to Scotland once a year to visit the Auld Folk. One of the friendliest countries in the world to Americans - until last year, 2005. Last year, the people I had met in prior years, and the strangers I liked to talk to in pubs, had a sort of suspicious air about them. They were willing to forgive us for electing a madman once - but when we did it a second time (and I still don't acknowledge we did) , they had to wonder if they'd placed too much faith in good ol' American know-how. And that hurt me, because it made a country I had loved feel not quite so much like a second home.
So stop it, OK? Stop letting a total sociopath who cares NOTHING for you, who considers you and us merely tools to achieve his goals, run our country into the grave. Stop thinking he's on your side. Stop believing he can give you anything you want, or keep you safe, or make the nasty old liberals go away, because he can't. All he can do, and he's done that remarkably well, is to make the rich richer, and the rest of us poorer, and America despised around the world.
If you can't think of any other reason, can you at least consider: what if the power you're giving Bush now, one day devolves into the hands of Hillary Clinton? Will that scare you enough to rein him in?
Attn: Radical Right-wing Republicans who still support Bush: Don't you know you are destroying America? Seriously, it's not the liberals who are killing America. It's you - and you have to stop soon, before it's too late!
Can you possibly have your heads so far up George Bush's backside that you can't see how badly he, and by your complicity you, are destroying everything - everything - that distinguishes America from the rest of the world? Can you possibly be so filled with fear and hatred that you can't look past today's ration of same to see how your hero, George W. Bush, is trying to turn America, Land of the Free and Home of the Brave, into a fascist police state controlled by the worst men ever to hold power? Can you say 'kakistocracy'? Do you have any idea what it means?
I know I'm not the first person to say these things, and I sincerely hope I will not be the last. But the latest madness issuing from your 'Beloved Leader' just makes me want to puke. Even more than the last bunch of pandering to the alleged 'base', the anti-gay hate rhetoric that would write discrimination against a class of Americans into the U.S. Constitution, made me want to puke. It's a helluva way to lose weight.
Can you really not see that the whole immigration issue is nothing more than an appeal to the worst, most xenophobic, hate-filled instincts of red-state America? Can you really imagine that building a wall across the Mexican border, at HUGE cost, is really going to solve the problem of illegal immigration? Can you not see that, if Bush federalizes the National Guard, again at HUGE cost in both dollars and manpower, he has in effect hired his own private army, who will then be entirely under his command? Do you understand what the Posse Comitatus Act even means?
Sure, it's necessary to control immigration, no matter where the emigres come from. But that's not what's at work here. What is at work here is nothing less than the demonization of an ethnic group for the political gain of a majority party that is in danger of losing majority status. The actions now being taken or considered are NOT going to do anything to correct the problem - but it WILL get a lot of Mexican immigrants legal or otherwise, and more to the point Mexican-AMERICANS, U.S. citizens, beat up or worse.
The Senate passes - not just reports out of committee, but PASSES - a law making English the "national language" - and you applaud this as a needed action to save the Republic. Fuck the Meskins, if they don't want to learn the language let them go back to Mex-land where they came from!
You don't even NOTICE all the things the Republican-controlled Congress and the Bush administration they kowtow to have done to take money out of your pocket, to hurt YOU, to consolidate control over all of us, not just the lefties you so despise. You think your one-party government is going to do everything you want them to do, and liberals can just go fuck themselves if they don't like it.
Do you not understand that Bush is NOT INFALLIBLE? Is it that hard for you to let go of your worship of him, even if continuing means serving your children up to him on an olive-drab platter? Does it not even cause you to raise an eyebrow when the president of the United States says that God speaks directly to him? Are you really that unreality-based?
Something like 63% of you say, as some polls have shown, that you're willing to give up a little personal freedom and privacy, as long as Daddy W will keep you safe from the bad old Osama and friends. And you haven't read enough history to even KNOW that Benjamin Franklin warned us against this very phenomenon more than 230 years ago:
"Those who would surrender essential liberty for a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin
Ben Franklin's Thirteen Virtues
It's not just a clever little phrase from some old leftie. It's our future. And you - those who think it's OK for the government to spy on us because you have nothing to hide (and believe me - everyone has SOMEthing to hide) are the ones who are making America into a collection of gulags, and an international pariah.
Have you traveled outside of America lately? To Europe perhaps, or Africa or Asia?
Of course not, sorry I asked. They don't have NASCAR in those countries, and the animals you would hunt in those other places are not squirrels and rabbits and deer, they are big and scary, and actually require some skill to bring down. So you've probably never been there, and thus you don't know:
We are HATED around the world. Yes, we've always had some enemies, but we've also, historically, had lots of friends the world over. But no more.
My wife is Scottish, so I go to Scotland once a year to visit the Auld Folk. One of the friendliest countries in the world to Americans - until last year, 2005. Last year, the people I had met in prior years, and the strangers I liked to talk to in pubs, had a sort of suspicious air about them. They were willing to forgive us for electing a madman once - but when we did it a second time (and I still don't acknowledge we did) , they had to wonder if they'd placed too much faith in good ol' American know-how. And that hurt me, because it made a country I had loved feel not quite so much like a second home.
So stop it, OK? Stop letting a total sociopath who cares NOTHING for you, who considers you and us merely tools to achieve his goals, run our country into the grave. Stop thinking he's on your side. Stop believing he can give you anything you want, or keep you safe, or make the nasty old liberals go away, because he can't. All he can do, and he's done that remarkably well, is to make the rich richer, and the rest of us poorer, and America despised around the world.
If you can't think of any other reason, can you at least consider: what if the power you're giving Bush now, one day devolves into the hands of Hillary Clinton? Will that scare you enough to rein him in?
Thursday, May 18, 2006
Divider Not a Uniter
by Rich Miles
Ever see the movie "Matewan"? It's a fictionalized account of a real incident in the coal fields of 1920's West Virginia, showing the beginnings of coal miner unionization efforts. Stars Chris Cooper ("American Beauty", among others) and Mary McDonnell ("Dances With Wolves", again among others.) I recommend it to your attention.
The reason I mention it now is that I saw it again the other day, and Cooper has a really great speech along about the middle of the picture, when the white miners are highly resistant to the idea of letting black miners, who were originally brought in as scabs to break the union, join them in their organizing efforts. I'll paraphrase a bit, but here is approximately what he says:
"They got you all fighting each other - white against colored, native against foreigners, holler against holler. That's what they want you to do - that plays right into the Company's hands, if they can keep you fighting each other, you don't think so much about fighting them."
As I say, that's a close approximation, but it resonated with me, because it's exactly the strategy our government is using today to keep us from thinking so much about fighting them.
Pres. Bush's speech on immigration Monday night was pretty much a useless mishmash of half-formed and inconsistent ideas, self-evident observations, and unfunded commitments of our National Guard. But more than that, it was practically an invitation to the white majority in this country to tap into their deepest racist fears about, as Bill O'Really? put it, the "browning of America".
Bush (and O'Really) have been really good at pitting us against each other for as long as he's been in office. Democrat against Republican, Right against Left; pro-Iraq war vs. anti-war; pro-choice vs. anti-choice, pro-gay marriage vs. anti, radical Christians against leftie liberals, and on and on.
And for Bush, the net result of this has been that he is still in office, and not in a federal prison somewhere.
Because if we - the American people - were ever to put aside the ancillary points of disagreement that keep us at each other's throats and just agree to disagree, and live our lives according to our own values, and allow others to do the same, it would give us the time and the leisure to take a closer look at how our government is screwing us in so many ways.
And that sort of scrutiny just can't be permitted by this president - and the very fact that it's starting to happen anyway, despite Bush's best efforts to distract us and set us against each other, scares the living hell out of him. That's why I wrote the post He's not leaving back on May 2 - because he's going to keep trying to scare the hell out of US so he can cook up some really good reason not to let go of power in January of 2009, so he can continue to stay out of prison.
We're the ones with the power ultimately. Bush is trying his damnedest to keep that simple fact from us, as he does so many others.
Ever see the movie "Matewan"? It's a fictionalized account of a real incident in the coal fields of 1920's West Virginia, showing the beginnings of coal miner unionization efforts. Stars Chris Cooper ("American Beauty", among others) and Mary McDonnell ("Dances With Wolves", again among others.) I recommend it to your attention.
The reason I mention it now is that I saw it again the other day, and Cooper has a really great speech along about the middle of the picture, when the white miners are highly resistant to the idea of letting black miners, who were originally brought in as scabs to break the union, join them in their organizing efforts. I'll paraphrase a bit, but here is approximately what he says:
"They got you all fighting each other - white against colored, native against foreigners, holler against holler. That's what they want you to do - that plays right into the Company's hands, if they can keep you fighting each other, you don't think so much about fighting them."
As I say, that's a close approximation, but it resonated with me, because it's exactly the strategy our government is using today to keep us from thinking so much about fighting them.
Pres. Bush's speech on immigration Monday night was pretty much a useless mishmash of half-formed and inconsistent ideas, self-evident observations, and unfunded commitments of our National Guard. But more than that, it was practically an invitation to the white majority in this country to tap into their deepest racist fears about, as Bill O'Really? put it, the "browning of America".
Bush (and O'Really) have been really good at pitting us against each other for as long as he's been in office. Democrat against Republican, Right against Left; pro-Iraq war vs. anti-war; pro-choice vs. anti-choice, pro-gay marriage vs. anti, radical Christians against leftie liberals, and on and on.
And for Bush, the net result of this has been that he is still in office, and not in a federal prison somewhere.
Because if we - the American people - were ever to put aside the ancillary points of disagreement that keep us at each other's throats and just agree to disagree, and live our lives according to our own values, and allow others to do the same, it would give us the time and the leisure to take a closer look at how our government is screwing us in so many ways.
And that sort of scrutiny just can't be permitted by this president - and the very fact that it's starting to happen anyway, despite Bush's best efforts to distract us and set us against each other, scares the living hell out of him. That's why I wrote the post He's not leaving back on May 2 - because he's going to keep trying to scare the hell out of US so he can cook up some really good reason not to let go of power in January of 2009, so he can continue to stay out of prison.
We're the ones with the power ultimately. Bush is trying his damnedest to keep that simple fact from us, as he does so many others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Anyway, sorry for lifting FDR's famous line for the title of this post, but it seems the only appropriate way to start this.
George W. Bush has used his first presidential veto in 5 1/2 YEARS to veto the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, HR 810.
As if there were any doubt before, now it's official. The president of the United States is a religious fanatic who has no shame in pandering to the other religious fanatics in his "base" (Arabic translation: Al Qaeda - and I'm not kidding, trolls, that's really what it means.) He has not the first whit of concern for the American people at large, only those who can move his political (not leadership, POLITICAL) agenda forward.
Yahoo News reports that Bush has stamped his little feet and threatened a veto 141 times before this, and this is the one that is important enough for him NOT to flip-flop on? The one that makes America look like an ignorant, Luddite backwater full of snake-handling knuckle-draggers? Good job, George. Good job!
If this doesn't ensure a Democratic landslide in November and again in 08, then there is no hope for the Dem party, and they deserve what they get. Or don't get, as the case may be.
And if this veto is not overridden, then Congress might as well draft legislation to make Bush King for Life, because if they don't beat him into submission on this one, they'll never have any power or oversight again. Not that they have very much of it now.
Q: Islamic religious fanatic - Christian religious fanatic. What's the difference?
Anyone want to try that one on?