Ooh, Could It Be... Calling Someone To Account!?!?

In DC, there's a new sheriff in charge, and it seems like it may have consequences:

The House Judiciary Committee chairman subpoenaed former White House adviser Karl Rove on Monday to testify about the Bush administration's firing of U.S. attorneys and prosecution of a former Democratic governor.

As you may recall, Rove hid behind Dubya's coattails the last time he was subpoenaed, but that shit ain't gonna cut it this time.

We may yet get to see this in real life:

For My Good Phriend konagod

(h/t to Scrutiny Hooligans)

We The Corporations

We are sooo lucky to have Preznit Idiot McDumbshit in office. Well, lucky if "we" are rich or a corporation, that is. I found this chart, over at Dr. Zaius' place, that brilliantly spells out just how "lucky" we are.

Here's a message to the Democrats:

Don't be stupid! Stop the idiotic infighting! Instead of slashing at each other, talk about where this nation needs to be! The future of the nation depends, I fear, on a Democratic presidency over the next few years. We (the People) will not have a future left if the NeoCon Republican Corporatocracy stays in power.

Also, consider carefully your attachment to the Corporatocracy. We may be simple citizens, but it was simple citizens who defeated the greatest empire in the world 230 (or so) years ago. It can happen again. And a $300 bribe ain't gonna stop it.

Also, to the Democratic congresscritters... grow a fucking spine!

The Pros and Cons of Hillary Clinton

Or, "Why Hillary is the 'Candidate Presumptive' and why I don't want to vote for her".

Countries that currently or until recently had female heads of state include: Ireland, New Zealand, Latvia, Finland, The Philippines, Bangladesh, Mozambique, Germany, Liberia, Chile, Jamaica, and Switzerland.

[NOTE: Since this article was written, a long list of nations have elected female heads of state, including Costa Rica (where I now live).  See here for more info.]

Nations with past female heads of state: India, Israel, Iceland, The Philippines, and the United Kingdom. And that's not including the multitude of Queens who have ruled nations since time immemorial.

Why is the United States missing from these lists? It is a self-evident fact that women are just as capable of leading a country as men. And yet, in the US, there is still a 'question' as to whether we are 'ready' for a woman President. A significant percentage of Americans say they would not vote for a woman for President - period. What a load of crap.

Of course, a significant percentage also say that they wouldn't vote for a black candidate, or a Mormon, or a Jew - in fact, anyone who isn't a (rich) white dude. Is there a study out there that shows a Venn Diagram of these groups? I wonder if the union of them would encompass the entire sample....

Back on subject, I have had hopes for a woman President for over twenty years - ever since Walter Mondale chose Geraldine Ferraro as his running mate in the 1984 election. In my idealistic youth, I assumed that since the barrier had been broken, that gender would no longer be a barrier to a "viable" candidacy.

Did I mention that I was idealistic?

*Sigh*

The Mondale/Ferraro ticket got its ass kicked by the Reagan/Bush mudslinging re-election juggernaut, and the Rich White Man breathed a collective sigh of relief, in part because the Democrat loss "proved" that a woman couldn't be elected to high office.

By the way, at the same time the American electorate was putting women candidates "in their place", Margaret "Iron Lady" Thatcher was Prime Minister in the UK.

As the years passed, no woman came forward to lay claim to either of the major party nominations. All the while, women were ruling nations all around the world. But we here in America weren't "ready" for a woman President.

I got scared leading up to the filing period for the 2000 Presidential election, because there was a lot of talk (at least here in her home state of North Carolina) that Elizabeth Dole would run. For the first woman President to be 99 and 44/100ths concentrated evil would just be wrong.

Which is the perfect segue to Hillary Clinton.

There is actually a good chance that she will be the next President of the United States - an office that's been vacant for the last six and a half years. Oops, it's the occupant of that office that's vacant, not the office itself. My bad.

[NOTE: The paragraph above obliquely refers, of course, to the Most Execrable George W. Bush]

Must. Stay. On. Topic.


The first Madame President. About damn time, right? Hells yes! Senator Clinton has a commanding lead in the polls (and we know they can't be wrong - *cough* 2004 exit polls *cough*), and the MSM have already made their pronouncement.

But why, oh why does it have to be a woman who is just more of the same old same old? Beholden to corporate interests, tacking along with the prevailing winds, maintain the status quo (up with bidness, screw The People), don't upset the apple cart of profit, profit, profit!

Shit!

I want to vote for a woman for President! It is so far beyond time that it's. just. sad! I just don't want my first vote for a female Presidential candidate to be for someone with whose policies I disagree.

As it stands now, the North Carolina primary will be held on 5 February 2008. This means that (unlike in recent years) the nomination will still be technically open... even though Clinton has all but been handed the sceptre and crown of the Democratic Party. So my vote - at least in the primary - has a "voice". I will not be voting for Clinton in the primary.

If, however, lightning doesn't strike and she does end up with the nomination, I will end up doing what I have too often had to do in the general election - hold my nose and cast my vote for the lesser of two evils.

*Sigh................*

Unhappy Anniversary

Watch these videos and dare to say this is a Christian nation, led by "compassionate" people.



From Brave New Foundation:

Tomorrow marks the two year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, and still there are tens of thousands of families without homes. 30,000 families are scattered across the country in FEMA apartments, 13,000 are in trailers, and hardly any of the 77,000 rental units destroyed in New Orleans have been rebuilt.

[...]

There is something very specific you can do to help. Sign the petition urging the Senate to pass the Gulf Coast Recovery Bill of 2007 (S1668). The bill is expected to come to a vote after Labor Day. Its passage will be an important step toward rebuilding the infrastructure in the Gulf Coast region.

That it is even necessary to have this bill in the first place is a national disgrace.

From Campaign for America's Future:



It makes me hope that there is a God, and a Hell, so that every member of the government (from [the faux] POTUS down to dog-catcher), who promised to help the people of NOLA and the Gulf Coast and then turned their back, will spend eternity in that "lake of fire". Or better yet, waist deep in a mixture of sea water, sewage, and oil (like the poor of New Orleans in the days after Katrina hit). And include contractors and developers who have used this as an opportunity to make a fast buck - make them stand on their heads.

UPDATE: I found this at Jess Wundrun's place.

Lamp Induced Wanderings

There was a time, not so long ago, when all a person had for light at night was a few candles, a lamp if he were lucky, and the light from the fire on the hearth. Back in those days, people rose early and retired to bed not long after the sun set in the west - not because they had worked hard all day on the farm, which they most assuredly did - but rather because there is not much one can do in the semi-darkness of lamplight (and most of those things take place in bed anyway - wink, wink, nudge, nudge, know what I mean?).

These words which you are reading have been transcribed from paper and were written - late at night - by lamplight. For over three hours now I have been sitting in the semi-darkness our ancestors experienced every night of their lives. A storm blew through these hills - a primeval force of wind, rain and lightning - and the electricity that we all take for granted vanished in a flash. [Transcribing note: I understand that thousands of folk in the Chicago area are currently without power due to a similar storm]

As I sit in the lamplight, I stare at the darkened screen of my monitor and - as often happens when the unexpected occurs - I am forced to see things in a different... well, light.

The light, in fact, of a hurricane lamp, which I keep at hand for just such occasions. When one lives out in the boonies, one has a recurring experience of being without power. Especially during a time of drought, when trees are weakened and the wind is more likely to topple one onto a power line.


Darrell King (Rev. Isaiah Sims), Wes Martin (Dan'l Boone) and Mark Woodard (Dr. Geoffrey Stuart) in Horn in the West


Some years ago I lived in Boone, NC and for several summers was a cast member of the outdoor drama Horn in the West. Horn tells the fictionalized story of the first European settlers (meaning, in actuality, invaders) in the mountains along what is now the North Carolina - Tennessee border, and how they joined the cause of Liberty against the tyranny and oppression of the British Crown - in the person of George III.

I wonder, do many people in America today ever think about how solitary the existence of these mountain folk was? And not just the people living in these ancient mountains, but the vast majority of the people on the continent?

Today, we think nothing of getting in our cars and driving to the next town for business (or pleasure). We travel at 65 (or more) miles per hour on the Interstate highways. For example, I have dear friends who live a little more than 40 miles from the Secret Lair (aka '73 Winnebago), and I try to visit them as often as I am able (and have the bucks for gas to get there and back). It takes about 45 minutes to get from here to there.

Back "in the day" it would have been a full day's travel - or more. And yet our forebears, despite the extreme isolation under which most lived, banded together and fought for freedom.

The settlers living in the High Country and the easternmost Cumberland plateau were relatively untouched by the war raging in the flatlands to the east until the British major Patrick Ferguson issued a statement that said, in part, "Therefore, if you do not desist in your opposition to the British arms, I will march my men over the mountains, hang your leaders, and lay waste to your country with fire and sword." Under the leadership of Col. John Sevier, they formed the Overmountain Men(wiki link, but it's accurate), marched across the mountains and were instrumental in the defeat of the British at the battle of King's Mountain ( a bit west of Charlotte).

Today, by contrast, we sit at our computers, log on to “friendly” blogs, and bitch and gripe about the oppressions and repressions of our current government - in the person of our very own George III.

The spirits of the Overmountain Men, and all others who have fought (and died) for the cause of Liberty, are angry at us for our relative complacency. What will it take for us to get off our McAsses and do something?

Don't Forget to Pack Your Placards!

The latest Hermit video from Davis Fleetwood.

Constitutional Convention in the 21st Century

So I have decided to further develop my previous post, as I honestly believe that something must be done to correct the "ship of state" as it continues to wander off the course that the Founding Fathers intended. Freedom is being attacked from both outside and inside the country, and, while I don't have children of my own, I fear for the next generation (this, despite claims by the Christianists that agnostics have no morals).

An aside on "Christianists": why do they ignore or deny the words of Christ? As regular readers know, I do not ascribe to any religion and, as an agnostic, believe that one cannot know whether 'god' exists. I do, however, have a working knowledge of the teachings of JC - having been raised in the home of a Methodist minister, how could it be otherwise - and, to a lesser extent, knowledge of the teachings of non Judeo-Christian belief systems. As I have said before, one can believe the message without worshiping the messenger or subscribing to a set of religious rules. The Christianists (and all fundamental extremists) just don't get this....

Anyway, that is a topic for another post. I'm here today to expand on the possible topics for a new Constitutional Convention. First, let me restate the ideas that I put forth in the previous post:

• Re-establish the limitations on the Executive Branch (meaning, destroy the idea of a unitary executive).
• Reform and, hopefully, eliminate the Electoral College (vote totals are no longer carried via horse courier to Washington).
• Codify term limits (a total of three for Representatives and two for Senators, thereby eliminating the "professional politician"). Jefferson, Adams, and other Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, not careerists.
• Re-establish pre-existing Constitutional guarantees that have been usurped by the Current Occupant and his malAdministration.
• Alter the term of office of the President to no longer than four years and establish the concept of "no confidence" votes.
• Ban all private (personal and corporate) donations to political campaigns. One person, one vote - no extra clout for being wealthy.
• Require that media outlets provide free, equal, and limited time to all candidates during the campaign cycle.
• Reform the party system to eliminate the built in safeguards against the formation of viable additional parties. Democracy is not binary!
• Shorten the length of the election cycle. No candidate may express an intention to run for office more than one year before the election date, and may not file for office more than six months before the primary; primaries are to be held no more than two months before the general election.

Taking them one (or so) at a time, we have:

Re-establish the limitations on the Executive Branch (meaning, destroy the idea of a unitary executive).

This nation was created out of a rebellion against the excesses of a king. 231 years ago, the majority of the colonies in North America rebelled against their oppressive ruler, King George III of Great Britain. In their Declaration of Independence, they compiled a long list of grievances to explain this action.

Today, we, the inheritors of that rebellion, suffer under the oppression of another George III. First, there was George Washington, then George H. W. Bush, and now George W. Bush. It is time to once again take up the banner of rebellion.

Just as in the first American Revolution, this rebellion must be initiated by those most effected by the excesses of the "monarch". The most wide reaching effect of the current morally bankrupt malAdministration is the attempt to establish a "unitary executive". This is an unconstitutional idea nurtured by
Dick Cheney ever since his old boss Richard Nixon overstepped the bounds and was cut off at the knees (politically speaking).

I can't say that I know Cheney's mind on this matter, but I believe he wishes to establish this precedent in order to further increase the profit margin of his cronies - and himself. And without the interference of those pesky little Congresscritters, the executive branch can award no-bid contracts and create signing statements to further fill the overflowing coffers of Halliburton, Exxon/Mobile, etc., etc..

How is this any different from a king granting charters or bestowing nobility (with the concomitant overlordship of the serfs in the Duchy) to his preferred pals?

Hand in hand with this goes the following proposal:

Re-establish pre-existing Constitutional guarantees that have been usurped by the Current Occupant and his malAdministration.

Most of the desecration of the Constitution that has occurred during the reign of the new George III is directly related to the attempt to establish the doctrine of the unitary executive. Even the implementation of the "Patriot" Act (and has ever there been a more oxymoronic name?) by the compliant - and cowed - 107th Congress was a bowing to the wishes of the Executive Branch (and Cheney).

Nearly every single thing that has followed that questionable decision (and the list is way too long and depressing for me to go into) has been a slap in the face of, if not a downright illegal attempt to subvert, the Constitution - up to, and including, the recent syncophantic update of the FISA laws. If these corruptions of the Constitution are not rectified, it will mean the end of the nation that Washington, Jefferson, Adams, et. al established 231 years ago - even though the name, United States of America, will live on.

Reform and, hopefully, eliminate the Electoral College (vote totals are no longer carried via horse courier to Washington).

This one is, I believe, a no-brainer - especially in light of the Great 2000 Election Month Debacle. For those of you who may have forgotten, more people voted for Al Gore than for Dumbya. The Constitution, as it stands, grants the "several states" the ability to allocate electoral votes as they wish, and 48 of the 50 have gone with a "winner take all" system. This has had the effect of disenfranchising a huge minority of voters in those states.

As a personal example, my (blue) vote for President has never really counted - simply because I live in a red state. And it wouldn't count even if 49.999% of the population of North Carolina voted for the Democrat - the Republican candidate would still get all fifteen electoral votes.

There are those who criticize this idea because it would mean that the mega blocks of California (which, pet peeve, is not the "largest state" - that would be Alaska - but rather the most populous one) and New York electoral votes would no longer be cast for the Democrat. Tough shit, I say. If the majority of the country votes for a specific candidate, that candidate wins!

The reformation/elimination of the Electoral College also ties into this proposal:

Reform the party system to eliminate the built in safeguards against the formation of viable additional parties. Democracy is not binary!

As I said in this post, the two-party paradigm has got to go. The George Washington farewell address linked in that post is very informative with respect to the desire of the man who some people view as the Founding Father of the country.
If anyone objects to this idea, simply point them to Washington's own words.
The "money" quote from Washington's speech is:

However combinations or associations of the above description [of the rise of political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

An objection I foresee to the implementation of these two alterations to the political process would be that no candidate would ever receive a majority of votes in a Presidential election. My response is: So what? In today's political landscape, less than half of the potential voters even bother to go to the polls, so the President is elected by a portion of a portion of the population of the United States.

What would be more accurately representative of the desires of the nation as a whole would be a Parliamentary setup, such as Great Britain, Ireland, Israel, and India, etc. have. We could either go with the option of coalitions (as those nations do) in order to choose the next head of state, or simply say that a plurality "wins" the election. Personally, I would prefer the former to the latter.

Codify term limits (a total of three for Representatives and two for Senators, thereby eliminating the "professional politician"). Jefferson, Adams, and other Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, not careerists.

This idea would do as much, I believe, towards eliminating the corrupt nature of politics as any other one thing that could be done. By implementing draconian term limits, we would tend to get candidates that have the interests of the people as a whole - rather than the promotion of ideology or corporate profits, which is what we have today. In other words, we would have a Congress made up of servants of the country rather than servants of personal power or industry.

An obvious objection to this idea would come from people who have long serving Representatives or Senators. Again, a personal anecdote. You may remember Jesse Helms, who was a Senator from North Carolina for... well, it seemed like forever, but was "only" 30 years - and he's probably no longer a Senator only because he suffers from debilitating disease and chose not to run in 2002. During an argument with a dear friend of mine, who was a Helms supporter, I asked how said friend could continue to vote for a man who represented an ideology that was anathema to the friend's personal beliefs. The friend responded by saying, "Helms has influence that benefits the state."

Basically, my friend was willing to see other friends vilified and "othered" in exchange for pork barrel benefits. To quote the Bible, "For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? (Matthew 16:26)"

Alter the term of office of the President to no longer than four years and establish the concept of "no confidence" votes.

In the comment thread to my earlier post, sbgypsy said (I believe in response to this topic):

I agree with everything except term limits set in stone. If we'd had them then, FDR would never have been able to give us what he did. I think that recall ability - grassroots recall ability - would be sufficient, without term limits.

I suppose I didn't make myself clear in the statement (or else I'm misinterpreting her comment). I am not proposing limiting the President to one term, but saying that the length of each single term be redefined as no longer than four years. The inability of the current Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings against Dumbya is all the argument I need in favor of the concept of "no confidence" and, as she said, recall.

If, on the other hand, her comment is referring to term limits on congresscritters, I still stick with my belief that we need citizen legislators rather than professional politicians. As I said in a comment thread somewhere out there on the Interwebs, there is a plethora of good people in this country who would put the needs of the many over the wants of the few.

(If sbgypsy should return and wish to further discuss this, I would be more than happy to do so - as the (fictional representation of) Stephen Hopkins - Rhode Island delegate to the Second Continental Congress - said "I've never seen, heard, nor smelled an idea that was so dangerous it couldn't be talked about" [from the movie 1776])

Ban all private (personal and corporate) donations to political campaigns. One person, one vote - no extra clout for being wealthy.
Require that media outlets provide free, equal, and limited time to all candidates during the campaign cycle.
Shorten the length of the election cycle. No candidate may express an intention to run for office more than one year before the election date, and may not file for office more than six months before the primary; primaries are to be held no more than two months before the general election.

These three ideas all go hand in hand to reform the election process. Also from the previous post's comment thread, Lynn said:

I dont think in a general way, looking over your list, that extreme regulation is the answer to all. I dont think for example that restricting the length of time that people can campaign makes sense. Seems like it would, but a shorter campaign time benefits the rich and hurts people who need to work a long time to raise money and gain notoriety. Your idea hurts the poor and the obscure.

I disagree with that, because if all private money were banned from the system and only a set amount of government funds (from that box you may or may not check on your tax forms) were equally distributed among each of the candidates (both presidential and congressional - although I would give the presidential campaigns a much larger share, due to the national aspects of the campaign), and equal access to media provided - remember, the public owns the airwaves, after all - then the playing field would be leveled, not tilted toward the rich.

I think we're all already tired of the 2008 Presidential Campaign, and the election is still fifteen months away. Frankly, I'm surprised that someone hasn't already declared to be a candidate for the 2012 election. Or the 2016. That may sound ridiculous, but it's where things are heading. The way things are now, a five year old could declare her intentions to run for President in 2040 and begin campaigning. Imagine the name recognition she'd have by the time the election rolled around!


Keep in mind that all of this (with the exception of the reader comments quoted) is merely the ideas in the head of this old dog. What I would hope to see is a discussion among people - a trading of ideas and playing off each other's thoughts - in the hopes of actually doing something to change the corrupt and unfair system that we have now, rather than just bitching and moaning about it.

I now open myself to comments and criticisms from my adoring public (both of you).


ETA 12 August 2009: Since I originally posted this, I switched to a different commenting system. The original comments on this post are located here.

In Which We Gather To Correct the Wrongs

Over at Shakesville (currently in "hurricane" mode at Shakespeare's Sister), there's an open thread on what to do now that a large chunk of the Democrats in Congress have dropped to their knees and unzipped Dumbya's fly.

My initial comment was to call for a new Constitutional Convention, and I was asked, " Fair enough, but what ideas do we bring to the convention?" These were the first few things that came to me:

1. Re-establish the limitations on the Executive Branch (meaning, destroy the idea of a unitary executive).
2. Reform and, hopefully, eliminate the Electoral College (vote totals are no longer carried via horse courier to Washington).
3. Codify term limits (a total of three for Representatives and two for Senators, thereby eliminating the "professional politician"). Jefferson, Adams, and other Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, not careerists.
4. Re-establish pre-existing Constitutional guarantees that have been usurped by the Current Occupant and his malAdministration.
5. Alter the term of office of the President to no longer than four years and establish the concept of "no confidence" votes.
6. Ban all private (personal and corporate) donations to political campaigns. One person, one vote - no extra clout for being wealthy.
7. Require that media outlets provide free, equal, and limited time to all candidates during the campaign cycle.
8. Reform the party system to eliminate the built in safeguards against the formation of viable additional parties. Democracy is not binary!
9. Shorten the length of the election cycle. No candidate may express an intention to run for office more than one year before the election date, and may not file for office more than six months before the primary; primaries are to be held no more than two months before the general election.

Anybody got any topics to add?

Criticisms or expansions on the ones I've come up with?

Suggestions as to how we can actually make this happen?

The System is Broke, Long Live the System!

The other day, a neighbor asked me (in what is a major breech of Southern Decorum), "Are you a Republican or a Democrat?" Said neighbor was confused because he couldn't pin me down. Several years ago, when I was writing opinion pieces for the Rapid River magazine, the editor would share with me letters he received in response to some of my articles, wherein, on occasion, the writers would thank him for including, in his "liberal" mag, a "conservative" viewpoint.

Now, I don't believe that any of you who read my little blog would ever confuse me with a "Republican" or "conservative". Therefore, you most likely think that I am a "Democrat". And, technically speaking, you would be correct - on the advice of my father when I turned eighteen: "If you register as Independent, you will receive literature from fringe groups, and in the primaries your only option will be to vote using the "Republican" ballot (North Carolina law)" - anyway, I followed his advice.

This is a decision that I have often regretted, such as today, when things like this happen. It is also a decision that I have resolved to correct the next time I find myself in the county seat (which is in the opposite direction from where I travel for work and to visit local friends - and I'm not burning two gallons of fossil fuels just to change my voter registration).

Problem is, only the "Democratic" and "Republican" Parties are certified in North Carolina, which means that other parties - such as Green, Constitution, Libertarian, etc - have to submit petitions containing just under 70,000 certified signatures just to be included in the general election ballot. Then, assuming that a "third" party can get the proper number of certified signatures, they further have to garner 10% of the vote in the subsequent election - else they have to go through the whole petition process again.

At first glance, this may appear to be an attempt, by the North Carolina government, to be in accord with George Washington's admonition, in his farewell address(and if you've never read the whole thing, do so), against the formation of political parties:

No alliance, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced.... The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government....

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

[emphasis mine]

Unfortunately, the system that is in place, and not just in North Carolina, is one that seeks to maintain the supremacy of the two party dynamic. In the comments on a recent post at JONESTOWN, I said, in part: "What this country needs is a truly representational Congress. Enough of this two-party bullshit! The political spectrum is. not. binary."

I am not a "Republican". I am not, despite my official voter registration, a "Democrat". In fact, I don't know that any of the "parties" truly represent my beliefs. They are all, as Washington said, antithetical to the unity of the people. Political parties are a symptom of the, as my good friend TheCunningRunt has so eloquently put it, "Othering" which I so detest.

The time has come, my friends, to put aside the contrived labels of "party" and - here I delve into dangerous territory - "race" and even "nation". I am a human, and a resident of the Planet Earth. The fourth daughter of a Nepalese goatherd is my sister, and (as much as it may pain me) George W. Bush is my brother. Okay, I threw up in my mouth a little at that - but it is true.

We all share this Pale Blue Dot, and it is vitally important, for our continued existence, that we begin to act that way.

UPDATE: As I was adding the links above, I found that fairlane has a new post up at JONESTOWN along these same lines, which is - in my opinion - more to the point.

The Tree of Liberty is Dying

When George W. Bush was installed as Occupant of the Oval Office in 2001, I began to have bad feelings about the state of the Republic. Beginning with Dick Cheney's "Energy Task Force" meetings and backing down from the Kyoto Protocol, the administration placed the health of business interests above that of the people. As I wrote, in the Rapid River Literary Magazine, at the time:

This is not at all surprising, considering that he views himself as Chief Executive Officer of the United States. I find that odd as well, since the ballot I used listed candidates for President of the United States of America, not CEO of USA, Inc.. This is also not surprising, when viewed alongside his other administration appointments and decisions. The Administration Energy policy was developed by the oil industry. Cabinet members whose sphere of influence is the environment have deep and long ties to the same sector of business.
The Administration's statement's concerning power shortages in the West spoke only of building more power plants, not of responsible energy use. I find it unconscionable and incredibly stupid that the withdrawal from the Kyoto Accord was made, "because it would be harmful to American business interests." Is the definition of America business or people? How can you Americans allow this man to baldfacedly lie?!
Yes, the agreement would be detrimental to business - BECAUSE BUSINESS CARES NOT A WHIT FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, OR CONTINUED LIFE ON EARTH, BUT ONLY ABOUT PROFIT!!!! Is the president (and I refuse to show respect by capitalizing the title) answerable to the People or not?
As far as I am concerned, this is an impeachable offense -a total disregard for the citizens of this country, and a complete kowtow to the gods of industry. Teddy Roosevelt must be spinning furiously in his grave (if you don't know what I'm referring to here, look up his anti-business stance in a history book). The Supreme Court elected president has insisted on denying a large (and growing) body of evidence concerning the effect that pollution is having on the world. The United States is the number one polluter of the environment on the entire planet, and his response is to build more power plants! What the Hell?!?!?

(I offer the above extended quote to show that I am not a "Johnny-come-lately" to the cause of impeachment)

Since that time, we have seen

• tax cuts for the richest,
• gross legislative overreactions to the al-Qaeda attacks of 11 Sept 2001, under the guise of the "Patriot Act",
• a justified invasion of Afghanistan that morphed into an unjustified and immoral invasion of Iraq,
  
• more tax cuts for the upper income brackets,
  
• domestic spying (in the form of warrentless wiretaps),
• extra-constitutional imprisonment of "enemy combatants" at Guantanamo,
• federal subsidies to Big Oil - at a time when they were reaping record profits,
• more tax cuts for the wealthy,
• passing control of Medicaid drug coverage to Big Pharma,
• a reprehensible lack of response to the inundation of New Orleans and the rest of the Gulf Coast (except for the wealthy who have beach houses there) during and after Hurricane Katrina,
• attempts to privatize Social Security,
• and the annulment of habeas corpus.
• oh, yeah, more tax cuts for those who needed them the least,
• and many more....
  

Well, the hits on the America-that-used-to-be are coming fast and furious now.

In early May, the White House released the National Continuation Policy. On 3 July, the Current Occupant commuted the sentence of "Scooter" Libby, in an act that may well have been illegal - as Libby was convicted of perjuring himself in an effort to protect the Executive Branch, (putatively) headed by non other than the Current Occupant.

On Tuesday, the White House released "Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq", that allows the Executive Branch to " ’starve out’ a person by completely freezing their assets, without trial, without the need to present evidence, and without appeal."

And just yesterday, two more attacks on Freedom in America.

First, a letter from the Pentagon to Hillary Clinton was leaked, that claims she "reinforces enemy propaganda" by suggesting that the Pentagon start plans for withdrawal from Iraq. This letter is enough evidence for Senator Clinton's assets to be seized under the aforementioned Executive Order - as well as anyone who has supported her.

Next, the administration claimed that "that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege."

This whole - totally unconstitutional - "Unitary Executive" business is totally out of control. Comparisons to fascism and
the Roman Empire are no longer exaggerated. If anything, they are not strong enough.

The Congress, and the Judicial Branch, must exert their constitutionally mandated powers of checks and balances and end these anti-democracy and un-American behaviors of the Bush malAdministration.

If the other two branches of "our" government don't rise to the occasion, it will be left to "we the people" to take matters into our own hands and put into practice what Thomas Jefferson said two centuries ago.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

UPDATE: Cheney takes over - temporarily (yeah, right)....

More on Impeachment

If you haven't yet, I would recommend that each of you watch the latest episode of Bill Moyers' Journal.

Bill Moyers gets perspective on the role of impeachment in American political life from Constitutional scholar Bruce Fein, who wrote the first article of impeachment against President Bill Clinton, and THE NATION's John Nichols, author of THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT.

"The founding fathers expected an executive who tried to overreach and expected the executive would be hampered and curtailed by the legislative branch... They [Congress] have basically renounced — walked away from their responsibility to oversee and check." — Bruce Fein

"On January 20th, 2009, if George Bush and Dick Cheney are not appropriately held to account this Administration will hand off a toolbox with more powers than any President has ever had, more powers than the founders could have imagined. And that box may be handed to Hillary Clinton or it may be handed to Mitt Romney or Barack Obama or someone else. But whoever gets it, one of the things we know about power is that people don't give away the tools." — John Nichols

Both the video and a transcript of the discussion are available at the above link.

Related: My earlier post on The Case for Impeachment.

UPDATE: DCup has an excellent elaboration.

.

The Case For Impeachment

A few days ago, I posted an email received from the Give 'Em Hell Harry website, that asked me (and all who received the email) to express our anger at the commutation of the sentence of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby by contacting the White House. My online response was to post a flippant statement, to wit:

Dear Senator Reid,

I'll make a deal with you. You press for impeachment with no whining about political costs, and I'll gladly sign on to your toothless complaint campaign.

Disgustedly yours,

*****

Dr. Zaius disagreed with my theory (his post is not pro or con re: impeachment, but a well developed critique of those who declaim that the current Congress is "do nothing" - if you haven't read it, do so now!), and rightly so, as it was not really a theory - rather, it was an incomplete throwaway statement made because, well, mainly, I wanted to post the email to which I (apparently) objected.

It was not so much that I objected to the email and the sentiments it expressed. It was, instead, that I know deep down that even if every single citizen of the US were to complain to the WH about the commutation, it would make no difference.

Many others on the left have written on this - generally concluding that the commutation was in aid of protecting the Administration from the possibility that Libby would roll over and "spill the beans" on the machinations that led to the outing of a covert CIA agent, in order to marginalize former ambassador Joe Wilson's debunking of one of the key reasons we were given for invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein.

Those on the right who have written on this have, for the most part, claimed that either Libby was unfairly prosecuted (and somehow in a partisan manner - even though the prosecutor and judges were all Republican appointees) - or that the sentence, for the correctly adjudicated perjury, was excessive.

I'm not going to get in to that discussion. If you have somehow missed it, just google "Libby commutation" (as of this writing, that search returns ~ 1,600,000 hits). What I want to talk about (finally, he's getting to his point!) is the growing desire on the part of the American public to impeach Cheney and Bush.

From what I have seen, there are basically three camps on this. One, "Get the bastards out of office!" Two, "I wish we could get the bastards out of office, but it ain't gonna happen, so why waste the time and money?" And, three, "This is nothing but partisan political theater!"

"Get the bastards out of office!"

The people gathered around this campfire view the entire Bush Administration as a collection of hubris laden criminals who cheated their way into office (and re-election) and have willfully ignored and trampled upon the Constitution in their desire to further enrich themselves and their fellow businesspeople. From the secretive Energy Task Force - composed (as far as we have been able to determine) entirely of oil and other energy executives and operatives - all the way through dismissal of the Kyoto Protocol, tax cuts for the extremely wealthy, the attacks of 11 Sept 2001, the Patriot Act, the buildup to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, running roughshod over the Republican controlled Congress, the ever-changing reasons for and goals of our involvement in Iraq (although the oil revenue goals have not changed a bit), etc., etc., etc.; this camp of Constitutional idealists sees nothing but avarice and deceit in the current Executive Branch (and whatever the Constitutional location du jour is of the Office of the Vice President).

In the minds of those clamoring for "impeachment über alle", nothing is more important than holding BushCo to task.

"I wish we could get the bastards out of office, but it ain't gonna happen, so why waste the time and money?"

The drum circle that surrounds this bonfire agrees with, for the most part, everything that the GtBOoO camp says, but looks at the makeup of the Congress (specifically the Senate) and has concluded that the impeachment process will never come to fruition - no matter how much evidence may be forthcoming.

And it also seems that that their greatest fear is a backlash from the voters come 2008 if impeachment fails.

"This is nothing but partisan political theater!"

Those that crowd around this sputtering, smoking fire built of green wood are the ones who put Party before State, and who will never agree, even should God him/herself appear before them and say otherwise, that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." They sit on their piles of money, assault rifles in hand, and stare in abject fear at the other two camps in the distance - knowing that, if those two should somehow join forces, their influence would be virtually wiped out. This camp excels in productions of the same political theater which they claim, loudly, on Fox News and other willing media pawns, that the "other side" is trying to initiate. They know that their only hope of survival is to inflame the politically naive and susceptible and to continue to convince those same people that those who have ever done all they could to "keep the masses in their place" are actually champions of those same masses.


So, the question you are probably asking is, in which camp does Phydeaux wish to pitch his tent?

In the comment thread at the linked Dr. Z post, I said (in part):

I do feel that to allow the Current Occupant to end his term of office and retire to his Paraguayan Safe Zone without answering for his disdain of the principles of American Democracy would do irreparable harm to the nation - and the memories of all who have fought (and even died) in support of those principles throughout our history.

to which, the good Doctor responded:

And I think that it is safe to say that the majority of us feel the same. My question is, is it logical or even sane to push for impeachment at this time? What would use for evidence, for example? What evidence of a crime do we have that Bush can't slime his way out of? Especially with Cheney or Roberts as the judge? And a 50% vote, because we have one man down. I ask you, how do we go about this logically? Perhaps you have an answer that I can't see, but at present I have not heard anything that sounds reasonable as of yet.

I will take this opportunity to respond to those questions.


"[I]s it logical or even sane to push for impeachment at this time?"

At the risk of being labeled an "emotional liberal", it is my belief that we may have reached a point where it is necessary to risk emotion (and even sanity) in order to protect the Constitution and the continued existence of Freedom that all who came before us in the history of the United States worked so hard to establish and maintain.

Remember the holiday we celebrated just last week? Was it logical or even sane for the Continental Congress (and the people of the Colonies) to declare themselves in rebellion against the most powerful Empire on the planet? The men in that chamber in Philadelphia pledged "to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." Can we, who have received the benefits of their actions, do any less?



"What would [we] use for evidence, for example? What evidence of a crime do we have that Bush can't slime his way out of? Especially with Cheney or Roberts as the judge?"

As I am neither a lawyer nor privilege to inside information, I cannot answer the first. However, it is incumbent upon the Congress - as a Constitutional mandate - to oversee the Executive Branch (and Cheney). In other words, it is their duty to pursue this matter, no matter what the outcome or consequences are. A debate on Articles of Impeachment would bring out the evidence (even though the matter will inevitably have to go through the courts), whatever that may be. If the evidence proves to be insufficient, then the Articles will be voted down. Only then would the matter go to the Senate.

As to the last of this group of questions - if the case were to make it to the Senate, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (Roberts) would preside. Cheney would have no role. And, as far as your fears regarding Chief Justice Roberts being the presiding judge are concerned - I have to believe that this would be an instance (even if there were no other) that he would have to rule only in his intended role - as a non-partisan adjudicator. To do otherwise would be to blatantly deny the role of not only himself, but the entire Supreme Court, as the final arbiters of law in the US.

Should he choose that route, however, I believe that it would signal the beginnings of a new American Revolution - because it would show that the entire system of government has been operating as a sham.


I have no idea what the outcome of any impeachment proceedings would be, but I would state again that I believe that it is in the best interests of the nation for the Congress to take up the matter.

And if, at the end of the day, the Senate fails to convict (assuming that sufficient evidence is brought forth) on the basis of partisanship - it is my fervent desire that the Democrats, Greens, Libertarians, and all other parties and engaged citizens will take every opportunity to point out that Justice and the Constitution were subverted by the Republican Party.


To conclude, I would like to say that I hold Dr. Zaius in high regard and that I hope that my words will be taken in the spirit in which they are sent - merely as answers to his questions, not as criticisms of his statements.

Also, as part of my pledge to PortlyDyke, I will be sending my Senators and Congressman an edited and likely expanded copy of this post. I urge each of you to take PD's pledge and do the same (in your own words, of course - but feel free to quote me, if you must).

Nikola Tesla Redux

Over 100 years later, scientists at MIT have caught up with Nicola Tesla and developed a system of wireless electricity. I poke fun, but this is tres cool!

Money quote:

Realizing their recent theoretical prediction, they were able to light a 60W light bulb from a power source seven feet (more than two meters) away; there was no physical connection between the source and the appliance. The MIT team refers to its concept as "WiTricity" (as in wireless electricity). The work will be reported in the June 7 issue of Science Express, the advance online publication of the journal Science..

Funny quote:

"It was probably the sixth time that month that I was awakened by my cell phone beeping to let me know that I had forgotten to charge it. It occurred to me that it would be so great if the thing took care of its own charging." [Prof. Marin Soljacic, leader of the team]

This has enormous potential. I foresee coils built into the ceilings of homes and offices, powered by solar panels and other renewable sources - or even receiver coils that capture wireless electricity transmitted from distant generation centers, that in turn power lights and computers and all manner of things!

No more power lines cluttering up the scenery!!!!

.

Happy "Mission Accomplished" Day

from Ava Lowery, a teenage peace activist from Alabama at peacetakescourage.com . A teenager, not even old enough to vote yet, is more involved in trying to correct the wrongs in this nation than millions of her elders. Take a look at her site, especially some of the crap she has had to put up with.

The Return of the Moyers

Bill Moyers, a respected and distinguished journalist, who once served as White House press secretary in the LBJ administration, and 'retired' form the PBS program NOW, returns to PBS this week with his reincarnated Bill Moyers Journal. The show will premeire with a special episode on Wednesday, called "Buying the War" and will continue on Fridays.

Every responsible citizen should tune in.

For a taste of Bill Moyers, click here.

Gotcha!!

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." - Article II, Section 4, US Constitution


"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." - Article III, Section 3, US Constitution

The Current Occupant, in a speech Friday (20 April 2007) at East Lansing High School in Michigan, used, as a visual aid to show how well the purge - I mean, surge - is going in Baghdad, a map which showed the placement of US troops, complete with major streets and landmarks (for reference, I suppose). Video footage of the speech, including the map, are available (a short bit was shown on Friday on Countdown [link via C&L]).

How hard will it be for anyone so interested to overlay that map with a Google Map image to gain co-ordinates for the bases shown? How difficult will it be to then aim mortars (or rockets) at those co-ordinates?

If any attacks occur at these locations, can it not be argued that George W. Bush gave aid to the enemy by showing the map?

Start the proceedings, Speaker Pelosi. Surely at least two people who were either at the speech, or have seen the footage, will be willing to testify to that effect.

No To Taxation Without Representation

On Thursday, the US House of Representatives voted to pass the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act (HR 1905), 241-177. The bill will now go to the Senate, where it is expected to meet up with further objections (and probably more obstructions). If, if it passes in the Senate, the Current Occupant has said he will veto it.

Of course he has. For the few of you out there who don't already know, DC is 90% Democratic. The chances of a Republican being elected in DC are about equal to the chances of the CO addressing the nation tomorrow and saying that he has decided to withdraw the majority of US troops from Iraq, that he has accepted Dick Cheney's resignation, and that he will step down effective immediately - and hand the keys to the White House to Nancy Pelosi.

The state of politics in this nation is such that Republicans are willing to deny full representation (meaning a vote in the House) to approximately 550,000 Americans. I seem to recall reading about an event in our history where cries of "No Taxation Without Representation!" played a major role.

How dare they claim any similarity with the Founders.

For more, see the WaPo article.

Slavery Bad!!

N.C. Senate Apologizes for Slavery

Well, praise be, and glory hallelujah. North Carolina finally seems to be ready to put the Civil War behind it.

The North Carolina Senate apologized Thursday for the Legislature's role in promoting slavery and Jim Crow laws that denied basic human rights to the state's black citizens.

As a native and life long resident of the "Old North State", I must say that it's about bloody time. I can only hope that the people of North Carolina, the average Joe's and Jane's, are in accord with the state legislature. Based on the attitude of the folk I grew up around, however, I have my doubts. Not to mention the still present racism, disrespect and denigration.

I grew up in one of the more backward areas of the state. My family moved there (in the early 1970‘s), from the next county over, when I was eight years old. My first day in my new school, I was stunned to find that I could barely understand my classmates’ speech. Turned out they were speaking a remnant of Elizabethan English, as their families had lived in the tucks and folds of the eastern escarpment of the Appalachian Mountains, and, until very recently, had little or no contact with the outside world.

There was another aspect of my new classroom that took a couple of days to sink in. All of my classmates were white. I (innocently) asked my teacher why this was so, and she replied “We don’t have any niggers here.” I’ll never forget hearing that. At my previous school, two of my best friends were black, and I honestly don’t remember anyone using the ‘n’ word [and by the way, I apologize for using it in the above quote - but it is a direct quote].

Being a child, it didn’t take long for me to adapt to the language of my new classmates, and, before long, had developed new friendships. One of my new friends was a budding artist and liked to draw pictures of warships. They were always flying the Confederate ‘Stars and Bars’.

I had, for various reasons, the option of attending three of the four high schools in the county. However, two of those were all white (so much so that if a black family tried to send their children to one of them, they soon had a cross burning in their front yard), and that played a large role in my choice to attend the third, integrated, high school.

I was a band geek and book nerd in high school, but to the best of my recollection, ‘race’ relations were, for the most part, pretty good there. I have heard, however, from friends that were unable or unwilling to escape the area, that several years after we graduated, the school became very racially polarized.

I am a descendant of one of the families most responsible for the existence of slavery in the United States, as an ancestor of mine spoke up in the Second Continental Congress - and led southern states to not vote for independence unless wording banning slavery were removed from the Declaration. Therefore, I have always felt a personal shame regarding slavery and ethnic inequality. So these beginning steps by the North Carolina Legislature to right this historical wrong help lessen the burden on my ‘soul’, and hopefully will help to bring all of us together into a more peaceful rational and equal existence.