"To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing,
if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"
-- Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803

Politics

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Remember when Republicans had credibility when it came to spending?

The Democrats definitely think that earmarks are a good issue. They were frightened enough that 62 of them jumped ship on this vote, defying their own leaders. It’s a good enough issue that Obey thought to call the Republicans’ bluff in the first place, and call it he did. The Republican leaders have completely ceded the high ground on the issue. It’s a shame, since Boehner at least seemed ready to fight this fight. That Republicans would not welcome an earmark-free bill is yet another sign that they are hopelessly in the grip of New Deal politics:

Why would earmarks have been a good issue? Because voters don’t respond to numbers — whether spending is at or below the President’s request, or $10 billion more or $20 billion less, that doesn’t get anyone’s attention. But everyone responds when they find out that their money is going to a hippie museum. That’s why the Senate could be shamed into stripping it out of a spending bill this fall.

Voters can see that earmarks are bad because they are wasteful, but they are bad for other reasons as well. They grease the skids for really bad bills, they increase spending, they encourage corruption and bribery, and they are completely unnecessary to doing the nation’s business. This capitulation on earmarks represents a major political victory for Democrats.

I understand that many Republican congresscritters are outdoorsmen. I hope so, because they’ll need to learn how to survive in the wildnerness for the foreseeable future.

Oh, now he says so.

WASHINGTON (Map, News) - Former D.C. Police Chief Charles Ramsey is shifting his position on Washington’s 31-year ban on handgun ownership as the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments on the issue.

Ramsey says there needs to be reasonable control over guns, but he says handgun registration can provide that control.

The former chief, who is set to take over Philadelphia’s police department in January, says the nation is not going to ban handguns and he’s taking a realistic approach to the issue. He says any weapons ban should cover assault weapons and more dangerous guns.

Well, I’m sure he’ll bring the same fantastic results to Philly that he did to D.C.

A devastating post from Balko on the Cory Maye case. Read the whole thing. Yet more casualties in our insane War on Drugs.

Monday, December 10, 2007

Three nice decision by SCOTUS today:

Speaking of crack sentences, today the U.S. Supreme Court, which two years ago declared the federal sentencing guidelines merely advisory, ruled by a 7-to-2 vote that judges are free to give defendants lower sentences than indicated by the guidelines because they disagree with the differential treatment of crack vs. cocaine powder. The decision does not apply to the mandatory minimum sentences set by statute, but it should result in shorter sentences for some crack offenders and smaller disparities in punishment between people caught with crack and people caught with cocaine powder.

Two other decisions issued today also will help ameliorate drug sentences. In one, the same seven-justice majority (with Alito and Thomas in the minority) said sentences that depart from the guidelines should be judged by “a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Applying this standard, the Court said a judge acted within his authority when he gave an entrepreneur who went straight after selling MDMA in college probation rather than the sentence of two and a half to three years recommended by the guidelines. In the third case, the Court unanimously held that receiving a gun in exchange for drugs does not amount to “using” a firearm in the course of a drug offense (which triggers a mandatory minimum sentence), although it had earlier held that receiving drugs in exchange for a gun does.

I strongly believe that prison should be reserved for the violent—those who represent a direct physical threat to the safety of the public. Tossing non-violent crack-smokers in prison with rapists and muggers is no way to deal with our drug problem.

Merry Christmas from the Oregon voters who support the state operating within its means!

Oregon has it constitutionally mandated that if the state’s collected tax income exceeds the estimates by 2%, they have to give it back. This year, Oregon has the largest kicker refund in state history.

The largest tax refund windfall in Oregon history will start showing up in mailboxes over the next two weeks.

Kicker checks are in the final stages of printing in Salem, and a Department of Revenue spokesperson said they must be in the mail by December 15.

This year’s kicker pool is $1.1 billion, split over 1.7 million Oregon taxpayers. By law, when state revenues exceed 2% of projections over a two year period, the rest is refunded to taxpayers. It’s the only law of its kind in the nation.

Hardin says most taxpayers will receive at least $200.

“The median is the number we like to use, and that’s $297,” she said. “Half will be more than that, half will be less.” Hardin says the average kicker check will be around $600.

And people are once again screeching about the “rich” getting richer over the kicker and bemoaning the $0 that somebody will get for not paying any taxes in the first place. What is it with some people and their failure to grasp the simple rules of mathematics? Anything multiplied by 0 is 0. There is no way to give a kicker to someone who paid $0 in taxes. The math doesn’t work so stop blaming the “rich”, m’kay?

Me? Well, I made out real good. My wife and I received our check for $1857 on Saturday. We were surprised. We hadn’t done any kicker calculations and I figured we would get a few hundred above average. Anyway, this is going to cover our Christmas expenses. I’m going to puff up that request for a gift card that I pulled off the giving tree.

Cha ching!

Sunday, December 09, 2007

The evil gay homosexual America-hater (boo hiss) pretty much nails Krauthammer in his defense of Bush’s torture policies.  You should read the whole thing, though most of you won’t.  Here’s the salient section.

The defenders of torture are always saying that it can be used “judiciously” and in extremely limited circumstances, that it can be controlled within the executive branch; that it need not metastasize into a broader policy, and need not trickle down to others. But from all the facts we now know, this executive decision to rescind the Geneva Conventions began with cases that were already beneath the “ticking time bomb” scenario, and within months spread like wildfire across every theater of combat, including every major branch of the armed services, leading to scores of deaths in interrogation, almost casual if brutal torture of (often innocent) suspects in Afghanistan and Iraq, secret torture sites in Eastern Europe, God knows what in outsourced torture in the grim redoubts of Uzbek, Syrian, Jordanian and Egyptian police states, and, of course, the excrescence of Abu Ghraib, which Bush had the gall to say he had nothing to do with.

So when you look at what torture has done already to the United States, we see that every bad scenario that those of us who oppose torture feared has actually come about. And we have no independent evidence that it has solved anything, or saved any lives, except the self-serving statements of those who authorized it. And the truth is: we will probably never know. If they are cynical and brazen enough to destroy incriminating tapes, they are cynical and brazen enough to destroy any evidence within the executive branch that could prove that their torture policy has failed. If this isn’t a form of tyranny, annexed to torture, what is? And if the executive branch can simply get away with it, and have serious commentators defend the president’s trashing of the Constitution as necessary to fulfill his oath of office, we really have left the rule of law behind in the ditch.

And you wonder why the Divine Right of Kings has nothing to do with this.  It has everything to do with this, because the end of the Divine Right of Kings was the beginning of the concept of the rule of law, versus the rule of monarchy.  Or, in this case, the whim of the executive branch.  The rule of law is what keeps us free, not a “strong leader” who “gets the job done” and “kills terrists"and “saves Amurka.”

Seriously, if we aren’t going to expect the president or our other elected officials to follow the Constitution, then we ought to just burn the fucking thing and be done with it.  Bring on the police state, and all the “safety” that it guarantees.

The Agitator has the goods on three dumbass bills passed by our dumbass Congress:

One bill tells colleges and universities too cut out illegal downloading by their students or risk losing all federal funding, including student loans.

We’ve covered this before. Our Congress has never been one to shy away from brutally punishing the innocent when they go after the guilty. That’ll teach poor student to go to college with downloaders!

Another broadly-written bill would expand asset forfeiture laws (because they’ve worked so well in other contexts) to include copyright violations. Scary passage summarized by CNET:

Any computer or network hardware used to “facilitate” a copyright crime could be seized by the Justice Department and auctioned off.

Which means if I download an MP3 at work, the Feds could seize every computer in the building. Nice to see that the Democratic Congress is no longer the sock puppet of big industry, isn’t it?

Finally, the House overwhelmingly passed an expansive new bill requiring ISPs to keep meticulous records aimed at nabbing people who transmit illegal images over their networks, which would include not just kiddie porn, but some forms of consenting-adults obscenity. The bill’s sponsor says he didn’t mean to include home wi-fi networks, but the bill doesn’t explicitly exempt them. And let’s face it, if a bill is at all ambiguous, you can bet there’s a U.S. attorney out there ready to interpret it as broadly as possible. The Democratic leadership pushed the bill to the floor for a rushed vote, with no debate. Which makes you wonder what they were worried about.

They were worried that someone somewhere in Congress might know something ... anything! ... about the internets.

I’m not, despite my blog personality here, generally a negative person. But it’s crap like this that makes me despair of the political system. The only reason for our Congress to acquiesce to these three obscenities is either ignorance or laziness. They’re just letting lobbyists and lawyers write the bills and passing without even reading them. This was the same lovely process that got us the Patriot Act.

I don’t care which party you vote for in the next election as long as you vote against the incumbent. Republican or Democrat. Liberal or conservative. Let’s keep tossing them out on their ear until we get someone slightly more qualified to run this country than my cat.

I just got back from the store by my place. I ran into approximately three poeple that couldn’t speak English, and the cashier didn’t initiate speaking English either. Illegal immigration needs to stop.

Update by Lee: The same thing happens to me all the time.  :)

Saturday, December 08, 2007

Look, folks, I want to put this on the front page, in the open, so everyone can read it and be clear about it.  I do NOT think Bush is some kind of iron-fanged Satanic evil earth-destroying force.  I do not think he’s going to destroy America, nor the Constitution.  I have never said, nor even implied, anything so asinine.

What I have said, and will make so explicitly clear now, is that Bush is the current president.  When Clinton was president I complained about the things Clinton did.  I complained about his policies.  I did not like him as a president.  I did not vote for him.  I was extremely critical of him during his tenure, and have maintained that criticism.

The reason I mention Bush so much is in the exact same context.  Bush is the president.  It is the Bush administration who have been responsible for everything that has transpired the last seven years.  Who, in the name of sweet merciful fuck, am I supposed to complain about?  I posted a link to a timeline of the Constituonal attacks/abuses/adaptations/changes that have taken place during his presidency.  Is he, for some reason, supposed to be above criticism because he’s a Republican?  Am I supposed to keep quite because Bush is (or at least claims to be) a conservative?  Is criticizing our leaders now supposed to be off-limits until there’s a Democrat in the White House?

Bush has done many, many things which I disagree with.  He’s done a few things I thought were on track—tax cuts, dealing with Saddam Hussein, policy towards North Korea, etc.—and then ruined those successes with a series of blunders, goofs, lapses in judgment, and flat-out unconscionable actions.  Again, am I supposed to keep quiet about this?  Why should I?  Part of the job of being president is taking the heat for the decisions you make.  Christ almighty, I supervise six people here, and I am completely responsible for their performance.  If my team doesn’t do well, I’m the one who gets my nuts in a sling over it. 

Bush is the president of the United States of America.  Shouldn’t he be held, at a very minimum, to the same standard that I am?  Or if my employees fuck up and my boss chews my ass out, can I just chalk it up to “Lee Derangement Syndrome” and ignore it?

Remember, I used to be a staunch supporter of the president.  After 9/11, when Bush’s approval ratings were in the 90% range, you could have found no more passionate advocate of Bush’s policies than me.  I was right there on board with him.  When the initial accusations against him came to light I too chalked it up to the typical knee-jerk liberal reaction to anything a Republican or conservative does.  But as time went on, and more and more evidence came to light, I changed my mind.  I’m intellectually honest enough to admit I was completely wrong about him.  I’ve been saying that since about 2003, so it’s not like this is some kind of thing I just pulled out of my ass last Tuesday.

Here’s the difference between Bush and Clinton.  Clinton did things I disagreed with, where as Bush does things I oppose.  Clinton was a liar, an absolute master at it.  Bush is a liar, and not even a very good one.  My opposition to Clinton was primarily political in nature, whereas my opposition to Bush supersedes parties or ideology or anything else.  I don’t care who you are, what party you are in, or what ideology you subscribe to, if you try and pull the stunts Bush has pulled I am going to fight you tooth and nail.  It’s got nothing to do with Bush “hatred” or any nonsense like that.

I’ll put it like this:  if Bush came out tomorrow and started doing things I agreed with, I’d go back to being his supporter and advocate.  I think he’s generally on the right track with Iran (so far, at least), and I think his steadfastness with North Korea will pay off in the long run.  But the list of Bush policies and actions I disagree with are as long as my right arm, whereas the areas of agreement are as tiny as a midget’s dick.  (And this doesn’t even mention the grossly incompetent manner in which he has undertaken some of the policies I initially agreed with, such as the Iraq War.) So, again, who or what am I supposed to talk about if not Bush?

He wanted this job.  He sought this office, and he should be prepared to take the good with the bad.  An those of you who are all too willing to accuse me of “Bush Derangement Syndrome” might want to go to the doctor and get yourself tested for “Bush Apologist Syndrome.”

Friday, December 07, 2007

One of the pillars of western civilization, the Magna Carta, is up for sale.

In the year 1215, a group of English barons handed King John a document written on parchment. Put your royal seal on this, they said. John did, and forever changed the relationship between the monarchy and those it governed.

The document was the Magna Carta, a declaration of human rights that would set some of the guiding principles for democracy as it is known today.

While that original edict was initially ignored and John died the next year, its key ideas were included in other variations over the next few decades, most notably the right of Habeas Corpus, which protects citizens against unlawful imprisonment. More than 800 years later, about 17 copies survive, and one of those, signed by King Edward I in 1297, will go up for sale Dec. 18 at Sotheby’s.

It’s a shame that the US Constitution isn’t for sale as well.  That way, supporters of Bush’s domestic espionage, warrantless wiretapping, and torture policies could all pool their money, buy both documents, and have a party where they drink Pabst Blue Ribbon and piss all over both of them at the same time.

“Habeas Corpus?  Fuck that shit!  One, I don’t parlay-voo no fuckin’ French, and two, I don’t know what it means, so it can’t be all that important.  Besides, there’s about 11 or 12 billion terrists who wanna destroy Amurka, and we gotta torture ‘em all Jack Bauer style to find out where their nucular bombs is hidden.  You know, for safety.  And if you ain’t got nuthin’ to hide, then you ain’t got nuthin’ to fear from the gummint, ‘cause this is Amurka, land of the brave and home of the free or something like that.  Grow a brain, morans!  U-S-A!  U-S-A!  “

Think about this for a minute, folks.  This document was written EIGHT FUCKING CENTURIES ago, and the Bush administration is now working to undermine its central pillars.  And so many of you, including a lawyer who comments on this blog, are perfectly okay with this. 

Look, if you’re so hot to live in a country where the government can imprison you for any reason it likes, may I recommend North Korea?  Trust me, there’s no crime, and no terrist attacks either.  It’s a paradise of safety and security.

Update: Allow me to phrase this differently.  Think about everything that has happened in the last 800 years.  Hell, think about the last 200 years.  Contemplate the number of threats that western civilization has faced during that time.  It was only a few hundred years ago that invading and conquering land just for the hell of it was considered perfectly acceptable.  So was genocide.  But western civilization, based largely and primarily on legal and philosophical precepts like habeas corpus, has abandoned these ancient, barbaric practices.

So, you tell me.  Compared to the threats that we’ve faced the last 800 years, are a few camel jockeys who hijack planes really worth abandoning eight centuries of history?  Or are we going to have to lose these rights, realize our error, and then spend another 800 years trying to get them back?

Terrorism is something to be rightly concerned about.  But abandoning habeas corpus is far, far, far more of a threat than any plane or bomb or weapon.

Update 2: Allow me to make another point, since I am anticipating the inevitable list of horrible things western civilization has done in the last 800 years.  This is, of course, entirely accurate.  But the point you have to keep in mind is that the document existed in the first place.  Whether or not it was always enforced is another issue, it was still there. 

What ended slavery in the United States?  The Civil War, obviously, but primarily it was the US Constitution.  This document states the rights of man, not the rights of white men, even though it the rights were granted exclusively to the patriarchy in the early days.  Since then the slaves have been freed, women have gotten the right to vote, and the civil rights movement has soldiered forth.  And the only argument to be made was, “I am being denied the rights granted me by the Constitution.” They didn’t have to persuade someone based on any other merit, just that their rights were violated.  A black man could say, as MLK did, “It says all men are created equal.  Are we not also men?  Therefore, we too are created equal.” If it had said “white men” he’d have a much harder argument.  This is why Frederick Douglass came to regard the US Constitution as the greatest anti-slavery document in history.  (See more here.) Thus the Magna Carta, while obviously imperfect in both practice and execution, laid the seed for everything that we see today.

Mock me if you will, hurl around your bullshit accusations of BDS, but I happen to think 800 years of western civilization are worth defending,.

Meet the latest in a long line of folks who were doin’ a heckuva job:

WASHINGTON — The embattled State Department Inspector General, who has been accused of impeding a Justice Department investigation of Blackwater Worldwide, announced his resignation Friday to colleagues.

Howard Krongard revealed his departure to coworkers at the department on Friday, said Gonzalo Gallegos, a department spokesman.

Gallegos offered no other details, including when Krongard’s departure takes effect.

“We thank him for his service,” Gallegos said.

Blackwater Worldwide — a private contractor that protects U.S. diplomats in Iraq — is alleged to have smuggled weapons into the country. In November, Krongard was forced to recuse himself from any inquiries into Blackwater after it was disclosed that his brother had joined the company’s advisory board.

Incompetence and cronyism to the end. At least this administration is consistent.

Well, the President has gotten an agreement freeze interest rates on subprime loans. The best take I’ve seen so far is from Reason, which argues that his is basically agreeing to financial fraud and Cato which argues that the government is distorting the market ... again! (Cato also argues that anti-sprawl measures are responsible for parts of the housing bubble. Living in a state whose last planned community was the Alamo, I’m inclined to agree.)

I’m obviously not an economist. But I get bad vibes left right and center on this deal.

See, one way or another, the housing market is going to crash. Maybe this deal will spread the pain out over a longer period of time—or at least delay it until oil prices drop (ha ha). But I suspect it will simply keep people trapped in their upside-down mortgages and just delay the crash, possibly making it worse. What smells on this is that the subprime freeze expires well after Bush leaves office and just in time for the 2010 election. That’s sound suspiciously like making the inevitable someone else’s problem. In that sense, it’s perfectly in keeping with our policies on the budget, Medicare, Social Security, global warming and Paris Hilton.

In a way, I’m reminded of the inflation of the late 70’s. Everyone knew how to fix it—the Fed needed to tighten the money supply. But no one was willing to do it because of the massive recession that would immediately hit (the hangover, as Heinlein called it).

Reagan did it. The economy crashed. By 1983, he was in the 30’s in approval rating. And by 1984, we had fast economic growth and tons of jobs without inflation (and a landslide election victory). I suspect a similar price is going to be paid with subprimes. Our “ownership society” is going to crash at some point, causing a recession and a housing slump. But it needs to happen to clear out the stupid loans and to punish the banks stupid enough to lend money to people they shouldn’t. Our economy will recover, as long we don’t elect too many Democrats. But the recession will be nasty and CBS will have plenty of People Like Us stories about people losing homes they shouldn’t have bought in the first place. Everyone knows this is what’s going to happen. And everyone wants to put it off until after the next election.

This depressing thing is that the Democrats are screaming that this isn’t enough. It won’t help people who can’t afford their current teaser rates. Actually, I suspect what they really want is for the government to buy everybody a house.

Left wing talk show host indicted on federal child pornography charges.

Bernie Ward, a popular liberal San Francisco radio talk show host and former Catholic priest, has been indicted on federal child pornography charges, authorities said today.

Ward, 56, surrendered to federal authorities earlier today but the specifics of the allegations against him are under seal, officials said.

Ward hosts a nightly news talk program on KGO 810 AM as well as GodTalk on Sundays. He had been a priest with the Society of the Precious Blood order.

The radio station’s Web site said that he was indicted on two counts of child pornography using the Internet.

Ward’s attorney said today that the charges are based on incidents that occurred more than four years ago and were part of research for a book.

Ah yes, the Pete Townsend defense. I’m inclined to calls these guys “fringe culprits”. It’s like if kiddie porn was a black hole and if you fly too close, you could get sucked down into it. Pete Townsend was cleared and warned. His defense was probably legit and I seem to recall that he produced materials to back up his claims. Does Ward have the same materials he can present? I don’t know guys. A former Catholic priest? What the hell? I would really like to know why so many people in the clergy have problems like this. What’s the relationship?

Anyway, because he’s been such a critic of the right and especially Bush, some people are already claiming that the prosecution of this case is an attempt by the Bush administration to silence him. Nevermind that he apparently viewed, saved and distributed multiple images. Imagine yourself in that situation if you can. If you were honestly doing research for your book, would you think it was appropriate to send out these pictures let alone possess them? Who in a position like Bernie Ward doesn’t know this. Pete Townsend is a musician writing a book. Musicians are often dumbasses and have long track records of exercising poor judgment. Bernie Ward was a priest and has been a journalist and talk show host for decades. My God man! Get a clue!

As far as blaming Bush goes, that’s a tough one. The federal prosecutor could easily dismiss this case in my opinion. From what I’ve read, it seems like a very slim margin here. Of course, there may be more we don’t know. There’s a seal on the case. Is it beyond the realm of possibility that someone is making sure this case in particular is prosecuted? Tell me what you think.

Thursday, December 06, 2007

It sounds like an idea whose time has come.

As a wide array of independent groups ramp up their efforts for and against presidential candidates taking part in the Iowa caucuses, a band of self-described free-speech advocates is seeking to make it easier for citizens to fund such political endeavors using large donations.

The new organization, SpeechNow.org, is asking the Federal Election Commission for permission to accept donations of more than $5,000 a person, which is the current limit for federal political action committees. The group says it wants to use the funds to take out political advertising in support of candidates who favor less campaign finance regulation and in opposition to those who favor tighter fund-raising rules.

“Everyone agrees that individuals can spend as much as they want to influence elections. Why can’t two of us get together and pool our resources?” the president of SpeechNow.org, David Keating, said. “It doesn’t make sense for the FEC to say, ‘No.’ But it’s not clear they’ll say, ‘Yes.’”

Is this the beginning of the end of McCain-Feingold? One can only hope.

Wednesday, December 05, 2007

She was for free trade before she was against it.

Mrs. Clinton said she believed that theories underpinning free trade might no longer hold true in the era of globalisation. She has called previously for the US to take “time out” on new trade agreements.

“I agree with Paul Samuelson, the very famous economist, who has recently spoken and written about how comparative advantage, as it is classically understood, may not be descriptive of the 21st century economy in which we find ourselves,” Mrs. Clinton said. She faces a tough contest with Barack Obama, her closest rival for the Democratic nomination, in the first caucus in Iowa a month from now.

“I want to have a more comprehensive and thoughtful trade policy in the 21st century. There is nothing protectionist about this. It is a responsible course. The alternative is simply to pick up where President Bush left off and that is not an option.”

The problem with Her Highness’s position is that, aside from the fact that she’s wrong about Samuelson’s views, it’s as out of date as her plans for big government health care are. We live in a global economy that is becoming regionalized, like the world’s defense and political alliances. If you want real protectionism you would have to do it in cooperation with Mexico, Canada and South America against Europe and China. And considering that Bush picked up where her hubby left off, I’d consider continuing down his path when it comes to trade a compliment.